Area 51 Mailing List Digest v096.n027
8 Dec 1996


Index

01 - Ken MacGray <mayor@tiac.n - Welcome To Area 52! 02 - Dean Phillip Kanipe <dpk@ - Stanton Friedman on Lazar, Hillenkoetter [UFO Update] 03 - Dean Phillip Kanipe <dpk@ - Lazar Saucer Ascii Graphic [UFO UpDates] 04 - Dean Phillip Kanipe <dpk@ - 12/6/96 VCR Alert [UFO Nonsense] 05 - campbell@ufomind.com (Gle - Obtaining Satellite Imagery: Books & Addresses 06 - campbell@ufomind.com (Gle - Groom Lake Land and Airspace Prior to 1958 07 - dan <modzik@reno.quik.com - yermo sighting 08 - tmdavis@earthlink.net (Th - re: The Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) 09 - Dean Phillip Kanipe <dpk@ - UFO UpDate: U.S. Air Space Force? (fwd) 10 - Dean Phillip Kanipe <dpk@ - Earliest References to Area 51 [UFO UpDates] 11 - wils131@ibm.net - Local Newspaper Information 12 - campbell@ufomind.com (Gle - Randle/Friedman continue MJ-12/Area 51 Debate [UFO UpDates]
[ Archive Index | Mailing List Information ]

Message #1

From: Ken MacGray <mayor@tiac.net> Subject: Welcome To Area 52! Date: Wed, 4 Dec 96 20:57:15 -0500 TV Guide has launched Area 52, a section of their website devoted to sci-fi programming. Why Area 52? Did someone goof on the numbering scheme? Did they cave in under pressure from *them* to not use the name of our favorite secret base in the context of a commercial entity? Whatever the reason, Area 52 can now be found at: <
http://www.iguide.com/tv/area52/> ________________________________________________ Ken MacGray/Administrator - Virtual Village BBS 508-368-4222 mayor@tiac.net - http://www.tiac.net/users/mayor Area 51 Images/Lore/News: http://www.tiac.net/users/mayor/a51/

Message #2

From: Dean Phillip Kanipe <dpk@acpub.duke.edu> Subject: Stanton Friedman on Lazar, Hillenkoetter [UFO Update] Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:09:14 -0800 From: fsphys@brunswickmicro.nb.ca Date: Thu, 05 Dec 96 02:33:35 -0400 Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Dr. Bob Lazar, los Alamos National Laboratory To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Re Bob Lazar: May I repeat, Bob has no degrees from anywhere (Not even a BS no less a PhD) but did take some classes at Pierce Jr. College in the San Fernando Valley at the same time he was supposedly working on his MS in Physics at MIT on the East Coast. Some commute. If one can get in to MIT( Bob could not have with his high school record) one doesn't go to Pierce..MIT and Cal Tech have never heard of him. He worked for a subcontractor at Los Alamos NOT FOR THE LAB. He finished in the bottom third of his high school class and took only one science class and even graduated in August and is not in the yearbook. The professor he named from Cal Tech never taught there.. only at Pierce. He is clearly a liar of the first order and his supporters sometimes even outdo him. etc ad nauseum Stan Friedman ============================================================ From: fsphys@brunswickmicro.nb.ca Date: Thu, 05 Dec 96 01:47:23 -0400 Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: MJ-12 and Area 51 To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Kevin re PT, Hillenkoetter, wrong rank. I asked for a report from PT because to the best of my knowledge he never did one. He made oral comments. Your asking for a memo signed by Hillenkoetter with the wrong rank certainly sounds like a suggestion that the Briefing is signed by him with the wrong rank. It is of course, not signed by him and the rank isn't wrong. In the context of a memo about a group of 12, half of whom were civilians, generic ranks were perfectly appropriate and applied to all the military personnel. This point of view has been taken by General Exon, Colonel Jesse Marcel Jr., Commander Thomas Deuley.. I gather you feel I haven't been sharing much data about Roswell.. perhaps you haven't been looking or have been too busy, and that would explain the absence of reference in "The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell" to 29 of the 30 papers I had published about Roswell and/or MJ-12 in a list of, as I recall, over 200 references. Your being too busy might also explain why the Showtime Movie, Roswell, makes it seem as though the Roswell Story came out because an angry old man. Jesse Sr., wanted to vindicate himself .. rather then the truth that a serious scientist, me, was referred to him by an old ham radio buddy of his, a TV station manager at that. I will try to share more in the future to move us towards our goal. Stan Friedman _______________________________________________ UFO UpDates - Toronto - updates@globalserve.net Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-932-0031 An E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related Phenomena

Message #3

From: Dean Phillip Kanipe <dpk@acpub.duke.edu> Subject: Lazar Saucer Ascii Graphic [UFO UpDates] Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:48:01 -0800 This came across UFO updates. Hmmmmm..... dpk ____________________________________________ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 21:00:51 -0600 (CST) From: "M@C" <0212104@ACAD.NWMISSOURI.EDU> To: updates@globalserve.NET Subject: Lazar graphic REVERSE-ENGINEERED ALIEN SPACECRAFT as reported by physicist Robert Lazar after his brief employment with "S-4," an enigmatic facility located within Area 51, the United States Government's classified research/aerospace testing complex (known as "Dreamland" to aviation and UFO enthusiasts). The data below is taken, in part, from Timothy Good's "Alien Contact: Top- Secret UFO Files Revealed." (c.) 1996, Mac Tonnies Figure 1.0: THE "SPORT MODEL" 1. __________||__________ /## ##### || ##### #\ /### ##### || ##### ##\ _-------------||-------------_ _---^ || ^---_ __-^ || 3. ^-__ 8. __--^ || ^--__ __--^ ____ /==\ ____ ^--___ _--^ | | ( ) 4. 5. | | ^--_ | | /( )\ | | ----------------------------------------------++++++--------------------- ^--__ || || || __--^ ^-__ [==] [==] [==] __-^ ^-_ [==] 7. [==] [==] _-^ ^-__ [==] [==] [==] __-^ ^-_ _-^ ^-----------------------------------------^ OCCUPANCY: 3 Extraterrestrial Biological Entities (EBEs) [Modification necessary for human passengers (?)] ORIGIN: Reticulum-4 (fourth planet in the binary system Zeta Reticuli) PROPULSION: Artificial gravity amplification Non-linear travel --LABELS-- 1. Waveguide terminator (assists in craft orientation) 2. Navigation ports. Provide spatial data to computers during flight. Although resembling "windows," these black fixtures are not accessed by the crew. 3. Waveguide 4. Antimatter reactor, small ball-shaped unit located in the center of the craft's floor. Uses "machined triangles" of Element 115 (stable) to initiate reactions (100% conversion of mass into energy). 5. Manhole-like opening that allows access to lower level of the spacecraft. Also denotes level of disc's main level, where three silver flight chairs are mounted to the floor. 6. Exit/entrance to spacecraft. 7. "Gravity amplifiers." Mounted to ceiling and able to shift positions, these act as spacetime "lenses," drawing a determined point in space to the craft. This process explains "physics-defying" UFO reports wherein the craft appears to take 90 degree turns. In such instances, the observer is merely seeing the relativistic warping of spacetime, not the disc's literal flight path (if the term "flight" remains valid at all). Figure 1.1: GRAVITY AMPLIFICATION FORMATIONS as employed by the "Sport Model." | | | / | \ "Delta" "Omicron" "Delta" formation is used in long-distance travel, such as crossing interstellar space. "Omicron" mode is used in atmospheric travel. Figure 1.2: CRAFT ORIENTATION in "Delta" and "Omicron" modes. Delta: | * b -|- t (point | (craft) in space) Omicron: t= "top" (waveguide terminator) t b= "bottom" (amplifiers) -----|----- (craft) b _________x_________ (surface of planet) To an observor standing at point "X," the craft hovering overhead would be rendered "invisible" by artificial warping of spacetime. 8. Surface of craft. When viewed from within, arch-shaped segments can be rendered "transparent" (whether this is a true optic phenomenon or the result of high-resolution imaging is unknown). Unintelligible symbols were allegedly observed on "transparent" surface when hull was energized during test run. _______________________________________________ UFO UpDates - Toronto - updates@globalserve.net Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-932-0031 An E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related Phenomena

Message #4

From: Dean Phillip Kanipe <dpk@acpub.duke.edu> Subject: 12/6/96 VCR Alert [UFO Nonsense] Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 00:43:19 -0500 (EST) Tomorrow/today (Friday 6th) TNT is going to air "Overlord of the UFO" on their Monstervision show. The tentative time is 1:00 am Eastern, but that depends on how late the game runs. West Coast shouldn't be affected. Check local listings to be sure. For those who have never seen it, "Overlord" is a riot and a half. It aspires to be high documentary, but the end result is unparalleled farce. Weird interviews are separated by surreal narrative segments offering bizarre conspiracy theories and not-so-special effects that are Ed Woodesque. This thing was produced sometime in the early to mid 70s, from the look of it. It is a wild amalgamation of all the farther-out UFO theories up to that time. The apex of "Overlord" for myself, though, is an interview with a younger Stanton Friedman. It becomes evident that, like the lava-lamp, Stan hasn't changed much in 20 years. He has the same hair he has today, the same beard, and the same over-usage of the phrase "Cosmic Watergate." My search of the Internet Movie Database provides no info on the film. Hopefully, Monstervision host Joe Bob Briggs will provide important production data, as well as hillarious commentary after each commercial break. If you see no other UFO documentary in your life, you have to see this one. It is a national treasure. Dean Kanipe

Message #5

From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Subject: Obtaining Satellite Imagery: Books & Addresses Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 16:30:09 -0800 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 96 11:06 +0100 From: mkw-detective@t-online.de (MK-Wirtschaftsdienst GmbH) Subject: Satellite pictures (USA) To: campbell@ufomind.com I found two interesting books in my archive: Harold Hough, "A practical guide to photographic intelligence" 1990, (my issue) Loompanics Unlimited, PO Box 1197, Port Townsend, WA 98368 ISBN 1-55950-053-0, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 90-063309 Covers aspects of photographing far away buildings and interpreting of the pictures, estimating heights of buildings and also "photographing military targets" !!! Harold Hough, "Satellite Surveillance" 1991 (my issue) also published by Loompanics as above ISBN 1-55950-077-8, Libray of congress catalog card number: 91-076488 Covers: how satellites work, uses for Satellite imagery, military and intelligence applications, personal access to satellite technology, etc. "Satellite Surveillance will show you where to buy satellite images, how to enhance and interpret them, and how to hide from "the eye in the sky". This is an essential reference for anyone concerned with the uses and abuses of satellite technology". (end of book text) Addresses out of that book (may need an update!): SPOT Image Corporation Sells imagery from the french SPOT satellite. (703) 620-2200 1897 Preston White Dr. Reston, VA 22091-4368 EOSAT sells imagery from LANDSAT. (800) 344-9933 4300 Forbes Blvd. Lanham, MD 20706 Central Trading Systems The US representative for Soviet satellite imagery (817) 731-9102 5724 Cedar Creek Rd. Fort Worth, TX 76109 EROS They sell aerial photographs, some radar images, and photographs from US manned space missions. (605) 594-6151 Geological Survey Customer Service EROS Data Center Sioux Falls, SD 57198 Book also lists the adress of the JPL, but states "currently there isn't any way to order the information" and Defense Mapping agency, Washington, for military units that need satellite imagery. The german sherlock

Message #6

From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Subject: Groom Lake Land and Airspace Prior to 1958 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 00:26:34 -0800 James R Graham asks... >2. When is the earliest record of construction going on at Area 51? I know >that the base itself was completed in July of '55, but what about any >other earlier construction? In "Dragon Lady," the history of the U-2, Chris Pocock's says on Page 14: "[Tony LeVier's] first job was to find a secret site for the flight tests--even with the security constraints operating on all new military aircraft at this time, Johnson had been told by the government that neither Palmdale or Edwards AFB would do. Off went LeVier with Dorsey Kammerer, Johnson's favourite mechanic, in the Lockheed flight test department's V-tail Beech Bonanza for an airborne survey of possible sites in the surrounding desert. The security was ridiculously tight--the pair had to tell everyone at Burbank that they were off on a hunting trip to Mexico, and dress accordingly! Only when they were out of sight of the factory could they turn the plane around and head north to search the most likely areas. After two weeks of photographing and mapping, the pair came up with three possible sites, and Johnson eventually chose the top one on their list. Over thirty years later, it remains America's most secret test site, off limits to all but a select few, who work on the stealth fighter and other 'black' projects. Like Edwards, it is a dry lake bed in rolling desert terrain. Unlike Edwards, it is miles from any town, and could only be sensibly reached from Burbank by air. "However, the handy thing about Groom Lake, Nevada was that the main Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) nuclear test site was only a few miles away over the mountains. In consequence, a massive area around here had already been cleared and fenced off, with restricted airspace overhead. There were few people about anyway - Las Vegas was the nearest town and it was some hundred miles to the southeast. LeVier flew Johnson and Bissell up to see for themselves; the next time he saw the site a few months later, the tarmac runway was down, two hangars were up and there were accommodation trailers all over the place. Bissell had drafted in a large team of construction crews from the AEC, who had worked round the clock to get the secret base ready. It became known as 'The Ranch'." The time frame was apparently early 1955, since the U-2 was still on the drawing board in 1954 and the first flight test at Groom was August 1955. The "base" was just a few buildings and some temporary trailers. However, I seriously doubt Pocock's assertion that the area was already "fenced off" with "restricted airspace" above. Keep in mind this is a vast, lonely, empty area -- especially in those days. Only rough dirt roads reached out here, and only a few stubborn miners were likely to brave the hardships to set foot here. If we did find evidence that the airspace was restricted and the land fenced, that would be big news -- the smoking gun you need to show that something big was going on here prior to 1955. When airspace was granted to the AEC test site (in Executive Order 10218, Mar 2, 1951 (16 FR 1983)) only the airspace above the test site itself was restricted, NOT including the land we now know as Area 51. If the airspace above Groom Lake was restricted, you would have to see a SECOND order restricting it, which would have been very interesting. As far as I can tell so far, there was absolutely nothing here--including no fence and no restricted airspace--prior to the selection of the site for the U-2 program. >When was the Groom Mine area purchased by the US Gov't? The Groom Mine was NEVER purchased by the U.S. Government. It is still in private hands -- an island surrounded by the Nellis Range and directly overlooking Area 51. The mine is in the south end of the Groom Range, at a high elevation. It has a better-than-Freedom-Ridge view of the base at about 10 miles away. I once talked to one of the owners. The mine is owned by several families. There is no mining there now, and apparently the owners haven't been there in years. They are supposed to give a certain amount of notice before they go there -- a few days -- then the Air Force is supposed to let them pass through Nellis Range land to get there. In theory, you could buy or lease the land and build a hotel. In practice, of course, the Air Force would find a way to head it off. It might only prompt the AF to finally settle with the owners and buy the land. >I remember reading somewhere that the family from which the land was >purchased spoke of construction going on very soon after the military >acquired it. Has anyone else heard this? If so, any details? Again, no land was ever purchased. Area 51, as well as the Test Site and the Nellis Range, is withdrawn public land. Private land is very rare in rural Nevada and it occurs only where there has been farming, long term mining or a preexisting settlement. The main preoccupation of the families that worked the mine in the 1950s was the terrible cancers they suffered as a result of the above ground nuclear testing. I suspect that they had little interest in the base at the time, which was only a few nondescript hangers. I've seen no evidence of anything at Groom Lake prior to the mid-1950s. The mystery to me is under what authority the land was used prior to June 25, 1958, when the 6x10 mile Area 51 land was formerly granted to the AEC (in Public Land order 1662, found in the Federal Register). I have put the land order on the web at:
http://www.ufomind.com/area51/events/range_renewal/plo_1662.html What is telling about this land order is that it does not revoke any previous land order or executive order (as happened in PLO 805 creating the Test Site). This suggests that Nellis Air Force base did not control the land and that in fact it was PUBLIC LAND prior to 1958. Under what authority did the military occupy Groom Lake in the three years previous? Maybe they got a local land use permit or some high-level exemption order -- or maybe nothing at all. It was just a "camp" at the time; the land was economically useless, and there was no one out here to complain. (Recall that in 1984, the military occupied the Groom Range without a land order. They took the land first and only then applied for it, which could have been the way they had always worked.) With or without the land, the only thing that protected the Groom Lake project was secrecy, and perhaps that's why it took until 1958 to grant the land order. Any earlier action would have been a flag to the Soviets that said, "There's something interesting here!" The military might have "camped" at Groom Lake, but it isn't going to build long fences or store dead aliens there without formal control over the land. In the absence of a land order, all the land in the area was open to everyone. I think you could have walked up and through and all around it in 1955, except that when you got near the hangars themselves you'd be rudely treated. The chances of you being here would have been slim, however, as the land was virtually inaccessible to casual visitors. I assume that the designation "Area 51" did not happen until the land was granted to the AEC in 1958. Then they would have given it a number according to whatever screwy numbering system they had at the time. (I still haven't made any sense of the Test Site numbering system. I think someone said, "Let's give 50's numbers to outlying areas.") I think that in this transaction, the AEC was merely a front for the Air Force or CIA and that it never had a legitimate interest in Area 51. Regarding the appearance of "Area 51 S-4" in the 1954 "MJ-12 manual" in Friedman's book, this proves to me that the document is fake. (It is amusing to find Stanton defending "S-4," which is primarily a Lazar term.) But it is an interesting fake, probably made for Stanton's benefit, and I wonder what its purpose is. Glenn +------ U F O M I N D -------+ | Glenn Campbell campbell@ufomind.com | | AREA 51 RESEARCH CENTER - Las Vegas & Rachel, Nevada | | UFOs - Gov't Secrets - Philosophy - Psychology | | http://www.ufomind.com Box 448, Rachel, NV 89001 | +------------------------------------------------------+

Message #7

From: dan <modzik@reno.quik.com> Subject: yermo sighting Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 09:14:01 -0800 I WAS OUT IN THE CALICOHILLS 3 MILES FROM YERMO ON MY MOTORBIKE ABOUT 11 AT NIGHT WHEN I STOPPED TO TAKE A BREAK.ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS BLUE GREEN LIGHT FROM ABOVE ME ABOUT 100 YARDS STARTED PROBING THE AREA AROUND ME. IT FLASHED ON ME FOR A SECOND. I COULD SEE WHAT LOOKED LIKE A BIG BLACK BOX WITH THIS LIGHT UNDER IT. THERE WAS NO SOUND AT ALL I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE YOU COULD HEAR A DOG BARK FOR MILES. I TOOK CHASE ON MY BIKE BUT IT DISSAPEARED IN 2 TO 3 SECONDS.(this happend in 1971in the summer)

Message #8

From: tmdavis@earthlink.net (Theran Davis) Subject: re: The Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:25:14 -0600 Hope this isn't too off topic...but somebody else did bring it up.... >The UTTR sits on 1.8 MILLION acres of land and contains Dugway, the home >of the Army's chemical and biological weapons testing. I guess that would >be the logical site for any nasty extraterrestrial bugs found in a comet's >tail. The UTTR actually consists of three basic parts. One is the Hill AFB bombing & gunnery range (sometimes referred to as Eagle Range) which sits on the west Utah desert north of I-80 and west of the Great Salt Lake. This is just a typical USAF bombing range. So is the Wendover Bombing Range, which lies directly south of the Hill range on the other side of I-80. However, the Wendover range was used by the crew of the Enola Gay to practice dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima (They operated out of the now-deactivated-but-still-used- as-a-civilian-airport Wendover Army Air Field. Yes, this is the very same airfield that served as the setting for "Area 51" in the movie "Independence Day". No kidding. But I digress....) U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground used to be a hotbed of chemcial and biological development and testing for the military, but has suffered the effects of military downsizing in a big way. Not nearly as much goes on there now as used to, and the military and civilian staff is now down to around 25% of what it used to be, and shrinking every day. However, various activities are still conducted there, including testing of defenses against chemical and biological weapons (the actual development of chemical & biological weapons was outlawed by international treaty years ago, Iraq not withstanding), high explosive testing, testing of smoke and other tactical obscurants, and a variety of other things. There is a high-security chemical lab on the base, as well as a BioSafety Level 3 biological facility and some radar testing sites. There is also a cosmic-ray detector on the base operated by the University of Utah, and various target grids for bombing and cruise-missile test flights. Also, Michael Army Air Field, the primary airstrip on Dugway (and pretty darn long at 13.000 feet plus) is an emergency divert field for training flight from Hill AFB, and has been proposed to be one of the landing sites for the X-33 tests launched from Edwards AFB. BTW....those of you who will run and take a look at your Utah maps...ignore something called the "Desert Range Experimental Station" in southwestern Utah...this has nothing to do with the military. It is a research station run by the U.S. Forest Service. tmdavis@earthlink.net

Message #9

From: Dean Phillip Kanipe <dpk@acpub.duke.edu> Subject: UFO UpDate: U.S. Air Space Force? (fwd) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:26:13 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 07:37:43 -0500 From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> To: updates@globalserve.net Subject: UFO UpDate: U.S. Air Space Force? Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 21:57:57 -0500 (EST) To: updates@globalserve.net From: werd@interlog.com (Drew Williamson) Subject: U. S. Space Force? SOURCE: The Toronto Star - p.A23 DATE: Thursday, December 5, 1996 U.S. AIR FORCE MAY BE GOING SCI-FI Plan has robot attack planes, killer laser beams BY RICHARD SISK SPECIAL TO THE STAR WASHINGTON-The U.S. Air Force could morph into the Space and Air Force under a strategic plan to win the next centuries wars. The sci-fi-like Space and Air Force would feature robot at tack planes, killer laser beams and sophisticated weapons systems expected to be able to hit any target anywhere on Earth. It also could win the perennial fight with the other armed services for shrinking defence dollars. The flight service is on a path of change "from an air force in to an air and space force on an evolutionary path to a space and air force," Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall said. Widnall's comments came as she outlined the plan called "Global Engagement: A Vision for the 21st Century Air Force." Global Engagement foresees new generations of robot-operated unmanned air vehicles for surveillance and pinpoint strikes at enemy forces, together with orbiting spy satellites for weapons guidance and communication, and airborne lasers to zap incoming ballistic missiles. The new technology would "offer an alternative to the kind of military operation that pits large numbers of young Americans against an adversary in brute, force-on-force conflicts," the air force plan said. Defence analysts viewed that statement as a warm-up shot at the army, navy and marines in preparation for next year's battle for long-range budgets in the Quadrennial Defence Review by U.S. Congress. "All the services are positioning themselves to try to walk away from that review with me biggest share of the money," said industry consultant Loren Thompson. The other services will weigh in shortly with their own plans, as "everybody scrambles to in sure that they come up with a mission justification for their weapons," said retired army Col. Dan Smith at the Centre for Defence Information. "The service rivalries are more intense now because, supposedly, me defence budgets are going to be cut," Smith said. The current budget range is $250 billion to $270 billion (U.S.), he said. Widnall called the dominance of space envisioned under Global Engagement as revolutionary for warfare "as the invention of gunpowder or the Manhattan Project," which produced the first atomic bomb. The goal is "to build the ability to detect, track and eventually target anything on the surface of the Earth," she said. The air force has given a $1.1 billion contract to a joint venture of Lockheed Martin, Boeing and the TRW Corp. to develop an attack laser aircraft The plane would be a modified Boeing 747 with a particle laser gun mounted in the nose to destroy enemy ballistic missiles with high-energy beams of light at ranges up to 480 kilo metres. If the project is successful, the air force would buy seven more of the laser aircraft after the year 2003 at a cost of another $6 billion. But Thompson pointed to the enormous technical problems that must be overcome in building a laser more powerful than any now in existence. NEW YORK DAILY NEWS _______________________________________________ UFO UpDates - Toronto - updates@globalserve.net Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-932-0031 An E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related Phenomena

Message #10

From: Dean Phillip Kanipe <dpk@acpub.duke.edu> Subject: Earliest References to Area 51 [UFO UpDates] Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 08:54:47 -0800 Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 14:47:19 -0800 From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com> To: updates@globalserve.net Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: MJ-12 and Area 51 > The following proves that we should read ALL the email before we make > responses to it. I asked Stan if he could provide any documentation that the > term Area 51 existed prior to 1960. He didn't answer the question, but others > have. Kevin, The document you posted refers not to "Area 51", but to the years 1951-1955. The document is but the first of a series of documents covering measurements during 51-55. Hopefully, the following two missives from folks that have actually read the document will clarify the misunderstanding. If not, the document is publically available from DOE. The following is from Peter Merlin, Area 51 historian, regarding the document that you allege refers to "Area 51" prior to 1954: ----- >From Pete Merlin: I am aware of the document. I have read it. Friends of mine have wasted large sums of money on copies of it. The "51 -55" in the title refers to the years 1951 - 1955. The document contains no mention at all of Area 51, or even Watertown, because the base did not exist when it was written. The earliest refernce I have yet seen that uses the term "Area 51" is an issue of the N.T.S. Bulletin (Vol.IV No.2) dated 15 January 1960. On page 1, there is a list of "changes in Area 51 telephone numbers." I suspect now that Area 51 was designated as such when the land was withdrawn from public use in 1958. The parcel of land that was withdrawn, is the exact same parcel that is designated Area 51 on Nevada Test Site maps from the 1960s and 1970s. The most recent usage of the term seems to date to about 1978. When AF Secretary Sheila Widnall says that the site "has no name per se," she is playing a game of semantics. Although it is no longer refered to as Area 51, it is now referred to by the name of the operating unit, Det. 3. That term is used in reference to the unit, and to the site itself. Pete ----- And From Dwight Thibodeaux: Ed, The document and its DOE index are a bit misleading. It really is a series of documented surveys in the Groom Lake & Mine area from 1951-1955. The index only lists the first document in the series. There is no mention of Area 51. The first DOE document that mentions it that is in the OpenNet database is dated 01/01/60. -------------------------- Hopefully, you will advice James Graham of the above, should he not already be aware of his misinterpretation of the title. 1960 still remains as the first known use of the term "Area 51", which makes the MJ-12 SOM bogus as the rest of the MJ-12 documents. > > Included below is one of the documents returned whose date is 1/1/52 > > and references tests done 7 months prior in Area51-55. This clearly > > shows that the term, Area 51, was in use prior to 1960. And the > > mention of Groom Mine shows us that this is indeed the same Area51 as > > we are discussing today. Hope this info helps in resolving the > > validity of the MJ12 documents. > > Sincerely, > > james > > (SEE DOCUMENT BELOW) > > James R. Graham > > Senior Assoc. Scientist > > Genetics Institute > > jgraham@genetics.com > > jrg@world.std.com > > V:617.503.7031 > > BIOTIC RESOURCES OF THE FALLOUT AREA ( 06/52 > > ) FAUNA PHOTOGRAPHS NTS ENVIRONS, > > RADIOACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS, GROOM MINE > > AREA 51-55 > > Title: > > BIOTIC RESOURCES OF THE FALLOUT AREA ( 06/52 ) FAUNA > > PHOTOGRAPHS NTS ENVIRONS, RADIOACTIVITY > > MEASUREMENTS, GROOM MINE AREA 51-55 > > Author: > > HELD, E.; LEE, J.; LINDBERG, R.G. > > Originating Organization: > > UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES > > Location of Document: > > DOE/NV Coordination and Information Center, P.O. BOX 98521, > > City: LAS VEGAS, State: NV, Zip: 89193-8521, Phone: > > (702)295-0731, Fax: (702)295-0877, EMail: cic@nv.doe.gov > > Document Type: > > Miscellaneous > > Document Date: > > 01/01/1953 > > Declassification Status: > > Unknown > > Document Pages: > > 0111 > > Accession Number: > > NV0006885 > > Opennet Entry Date: > > 08/26/1994 > > KDR comment: Of course this does not establish any sort of "secret" > > government facility there, but it does suggest that the use of the term Area > > 51 in a document dated 1954 is appropriate. Sorry, Kevin. No banana this time. Area 51 is not used in any context within the document(s) itself. The title reference is to the years 51-55 and the above is the first in a series of such documents discusssing the Groom Mine Area for the years 1951-1955. If there is doubt on anyone's mind, go purchase the documents. Ed Stewart -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Stewart - egs@netcom.com - | So Man, who here seems principal alone, "There is | Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown. Something Going On!" ,>'?'<, | Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal, -Salvador Freixedo- ( O O ) | 'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole. ------------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man------ _______________________________________________ UFO UpDates - Toronto - updates@globalserve.net Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-932-0031 An E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related Phenomena

Message #11

From: wils131@ibm.net Subject: Local Newspaper Information Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 08:42:08 -0800 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="GLEN" The following articles were printed in the Victor Valley "Daily Press" 12-7-95. The Daily Press is a daily newspaper serving a tri-city community of about 200K population, and is located about 90 miles east of Los Angles. Article #1: "Close Encounters in the High Desert". Photos and testimony of recent UFO sightings. Interesting military comments from various bases. Mention of wedge shaped object, glowing orange, seen taking off from area 51. Article #2: "True Believers: Looking for Clues". This fellow has seen a lot of flying saucers. Article #3: "Comet Conspiracies". Hale-Bopp comet spawing conspiracy theories. Plus some side-bars with other stuff. Anyone wanting one of these newspapers e-mail me. I bought 15 of them. Five dollars should almost cover my expenses for send one. rgds James

Message #12

From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Subject: Randle/Friedman continue MJ-12/Area 51 Debate [UFO UpDates] Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 09:41:51 -0800 [A thread of 7 messages from the UFO UpDates list, via dpk@acpub.duke.edu. The Players: Stanton Friedman, Kevin Randle, Dennis Stacy.] [Note the way I have put together this mini-digest: superfluous headers and footers removed, long quotes from previous messages are reduced to minimum if already sent to our list, broken lines fixed, a bar of ='s between messages. Others "sifters" are encouraged to do the same. Above all, make sure your subject line is as descriptive as possible. Also, remember that "AREA 51:" will be added automatically to the subject line, so don't put it in yourself. -- GC] ======================================================================== From: KRandle993@aol.com Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 12:44:59 -0500 To: updates@globalserve.net Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: MJ-12 and Area 51 In a message dated 96-12-05 07:33:39 EST, Stan Friedman writes: > Kevin re PT, Hillenkoetter, wrong rank. > > I asked for a report from PT because to the best > of my knowledge he never did one. He made oral comments. I noticed that you answered neither of the questions. They won't take long. Who are the question document experts who said the Truman memo was consistent with typewrites available in 1947? Do you have any evidence that the term Area 51 was in use prior to 1960? As for the Showtime movie, if you have a complaint, please take it up with the writers of that film. Besides, as you seem to have forgotten, it is a movie. KRandle ======================================================================== From: KRandle993@aol.com Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:32:37 -0500 To: updates@globalserve.net Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: MJ-12 and Area 51 Since Stan keeps making these same allegations, I thought I would respond to them one final time and see if we can all come to some sort of understanding... Stan wrote: <Kevin re PT, Hillenkoetter, wrong rank. <I asked for a report from PT because to the best <of my knowledge he never did one. He made oral comments. So you knew the answer that there was no written report. He made these oral comments to you, and to me, and to others who have contacted him. Why is it that you make no mention of his findings in any of your work on MJ-12? Aren't his findings, even if different than your beliefs, relevant to the discussions? <Your asking for a memo signed by Hillenkoetter with the <wrong rank certainly sounds like a suggestion that the <Briefing is signed by him with the wrong rank. It is of <course, not signed by him and the rank isn't wrong. In <the context of a memo about a group of 12, half of whom <were civilians, generic ranks were perfectly appropriate <and applied to all the military personnel. This point of <view has been taken by General Exon, Colonel Jesse <Marcel Jr., Commander Thomas Deuley.. Asking the wrong question provides inaccurate information and leads to faulty conclusions. You asked if it was proper to address flag officers as general and admiral and the answer to that question is yes. How do I know? I stood right there when you asked Jesse Marcel. I then changed the question to: Have you ever created a document in which you got your rank wrong? He said, "No." In a generic list created of military officers and governmental officials, created outside the military, such generic ranks appear frequently. However, Hillenkoetter is listed as the briefing officer at the top of the document. The challenge is, find a document CREATED by Hillenkoetter in which he got his rank wrong. Or, for simpicity, find one he signed in which he got his rank wrong. We must remember that the document was allegedly created for Eisenhower, one of the few men to achieve five star rank, and who was a stickler for these sorts of details thanks to his training under Douglas MacArthur, another stickler for detail. Those of us who have served as officers in the military understand the importance of this. Hillenkoetter, as the briefing officer, would not have made such a mistake. <I gather you feel I haven't been sharing much data about <Roswell.. perhaps you haven't been looking or have been <too busy, and that would explain the absence of reference <in "The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell" to 29 of <the 30 papers I had published about Roswell and/or MJ-12 <in a list of, as I recall, over 200 references. You had said that you provided Don Schmitt and me with a great deal of material. I said that you gave us nothing we didn't already had. In fact, you told us Lewis Rickett was dead when he was not and that Johnny McBoyle lived in Wyoming when he did not, as just two examples. You also know why there are few references to your self-published papers in the books. One of the reasons is the less than flattering review of the first book you wrote and second is that I used nothing of yours in the second book. But more importantly, I left them out because I know it will annoy you. You count the references and then tell me how many there are without your papers added. Next you'll be complaining because you didn't get a promised acknowledgment in THE ROSWELL INCIDENT. <Your being too busy might also explain why the Showtime <Movie, Roswell, makes it seem as though the Roswell Story <came out because an angry old man. Jesse Sr., wanted to <vindicate himself .. rather then the truth that a serious <scientist, me, was referred to him by an old ham radio <buddy of his, a TV station manager at that. I've told you repeatedly that this was a movie and not a documentary. I've told you that if you have complaints, take them up with the executive producer. I've told you that if you have complaints, take them up with the director and the writers. I didn't write the story, I was not given script approval, and I didn't have authority to change the script. However, I did enjoy the film. I thought it was a good MOVIE. Get it. It was a movie. <I will try to share more in the future to move us towards <our goal. <Stan Friedman Good. Maybe you'll tell us the names of the questioned document examiners who said that the typewriter for the Truman memo existed in 1947. As a scientist, you much know, that if your peers can't replicate your data, then those data become suspect. You can't say they exist but not reveal to independent third parties who they are. To refuse suggests they don't exist. And maybe you can supply some data to suggest that there was a military installation at Groom Lake in 1954 that could receive shipments of EBEs and UFO wreckage as alleged in the Operations Manual. By the way, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the only reference to S-4 came from Bob Lazar. It is my understanding, at the moment, that there is no independent corroboration for that designation. If there isn't, doesn't that give us all pause. Just a thought. KRandle ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 17:25:16 -0600 (CST) To: updates@globalserve.net From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net> Subject: Re: MJ-12 and Area 51 On 12-5-96 James wrote: >Included below is one of the documents returned whose date is 1/1/52 >and references tests done 7 months prior in Area51-55. This clearly >shows that the term, Area 51, was in use prior to 1960. And the >mention of Groom Mine shows us that this is indeed the same Area51 as >we are discussing today. Hope this info helps in resolving the >validity of the MJ12 documents. >Sincerely, > >james There seems to be a misunderstanding afoot here. The issue (or question) is not whether there was a map quadrant or a specific area known as Area 51 prior to April of 1954. The issue is whether there was a physical facility known or referenced as Area 51 _at_ Area 51 to which the remains of a crashed saucer and any alien cadavers could or would have been sent at that time. If you read the 1/1/52 document James included (thanks, BTW!), it's quite clear that an _area_, not a laboratory or other facility, is being referred to here. In fact, one of the things being monitored in the document is apparently radioactive fallout, highly suggestive of the conclusion, ironically, that there would have been _no_ military facilities with humans in them at the time in Areas 51-55. In other words, the area was open, uninhabited desert, save for whoever might have been working the Groom Mine. Unless one supposes that the second MJ-12 document is merely asking personnel to parachute alien bodies and debris into a vast area of desert (Area 51) as of April 1954, as opposed to shipping them to a physical facility then in place (for which there is no evidence), common sense suggests that the document "got it wrong." And if it got its own "mailing address" wrong, so to speak, chances are it's a fake. There is one other issue I should raise here. While I don't necessarily begrudge Friedman converting the second alleged MJ-12 document into nice, neat cold print in his book (as opposed to reproducing the very bad copies of the photographed "original"), it does lend the whole a versimilitude of reality it may well not deserve. Friedman should have pictured an original page or two in his book so that readers would have a better idea of what they were dealing with. One last thing for the moment: the first roll of MJ-12 film that Jaimie Shandera received was postmarked (or at least so we've been told) Albuquerque, New Mexico. Where was the second set postmarked? I've heard, but don't feel it's my place to make it public unless it's no longer an agreed upon "state" secret. In my mind, though, both postmarks should set off alarms in the minds of cautious ufologists everywhere, assuming such creatures are still in the field. SA Sasquatch Area 102 (51x2) ======================================================================== From: fsphys@brunswickmicro.nb.ca Date: Thu, 05 Dec 96 20:30:11 -0400 Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Lazar (Ascci) graphic To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >REVERSE-ENGINEERED ALIEN SPACECRAFT >as reported by physicist Robert Lazar after his brief employment with "S-4," an >enigmatic facility located within Area 51, the United States Government's >classified research/aerospace testing complex (known as "Dreamland" to aviation >and UFO enthusiasts). >The data below is taken, in part, from Timothy Good's "Alien Contact: Top- >Secret UFO Files Revealed." I guess a little science-fiction may lighten things up a bit. Incidentally Zeta Reticuli 1 and 2 are NOT a double star system.. just as Bob Lazar is not a scientist. Stan Friedman ======================================================================== From: fsphys@brunswickmicro.nb.ca Date: Fri, 06 Dec 96 01:39:57 -0400 Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: MJ-12 and Area 51 To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Kevin: As I have told you before, the examiner refuses to let his name be used. Without a written report how could I present PT's case especially without using his name? Why would one expect there to be references to areas used for very classified activities in the open literature? The existence of the U-2 and Stealth fighter is now out in the open. Ben Rich's excellent book the Skunk Works talks about U-2 testing. He makes very clear that access is restricted to those with a need to know. They needed an airfield for flight testing. Examination and storage of wreckage and bodies does NOT require an active airfield. Mines would do just as well. So far as I know, the US government has not yet admitted it has wreckage and bodies of aliens.. something we both agree is the case. The existence of Los Alamos wasn't admitted until after the bombs were dropped on Japan. If enough people look, we may find documentation about S-4 and Area 51. It won't be easy. Schliemann had to dig down 75 feet to find Troy. Until he hit paydirt, one could correctly state there was no evidence for the existence of Troy...yet. BTW I have no recollection of telling you Rickett was dead. I asked questions of him as supplied by Don. I took Don to his place. I took Don to a guy (located by me) in the Dayton area. His name was used in your book though he had requested it not be. Hillenkoetter's wife told me he didn't preserve his papers. I have seen no compartmentalized briefings or other compartmentalized documents from him and thus obviously cannot provide similar documents for comparison. I gather you feel you know what was in his mind. I am not a mind reader. I have been unable to locate briefings for Ike in late 1952 by DCI Smith. Though I know they existed, the CIA couldn't find them. Stan Friedman ======================================================================== From: KRandle993@aol.com Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 22:48:06 -0500 To: updates@globalserve.net Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: MJ-12 and Area 51 In a message dated 96-12-06 05:22:43 EST, Stan Friedman wrote: <As I have told you before, the examiner refuses to let his name be used. <Without a written report how could I present PT's case especially without <using his name? Since you do make the arguments for the authenticity of the MJ-12 documents based on the opinions of the two unnamed experts, you must have a written report from one or both of them. Since you will not reveal the name, I will pay you 10 cents a page for a copy of that report, with the names blacked out, up to a total of $50.00. It will let us, at the very least, see the quality of the work... and no, this does not count the nonsense produced by Bill Moore. <BTW I have no recollection of telling you Rickett was dead. I asked <questions of <him as supplied by Don. I took Don to his place. I took Don to a guy <(located by <me) in the Dayton area. His name was used in your book though he had requested <it not be. Doesn't mean that it didn't happen. I remember quite well after Don called Mary Rickett to ask a question and was stunned when asked if he wanted to talk to Bill. We had been told he was dead. Don claims that he found the guy and took you there. I, on the other hand, wasn't there and relied on the notes given to me by Don. Besides, what in the hell is the point here? I thought we were trying to determine something about MJ-12, not who found whom. <Hillenkoetter's wife told me he didn't preserve his papers. I have seen no <compartmentalized briefings or other compartmentalized documents from him and <thus obviously cannot provide similar documents for comparison. I gather you <feel you know what was in his mind. I am not a mind reader. >> In the case of the use of his rank on a document he created, it is not necessary to be a mind reader, only to understand military protocol. Flag officers are very careful about this, and each knows exactly where he stands in the military hierarchy. The problem is Hillenkoetter's use of admiral when he was a rear admiral. He would not have made that mistake, but a civilian who is completely unfamilar with this, will miss it. Again, the point is not all of this issues. It is a matter of simple questions and answers. I believe that MJ-12 is a crock, based on many problems which have not been adequately answered. You believe that it is authentic for reasons I don't believe to be adequate. The questions that need answering now are if you can provide any corroboration for your belief that there are questioned document experts who believe the Truman memo was typed on a typewriter that existed in 1947. We all know, though there seems to have been no problem presenting his argument without using his name. You understand what he says, I understand what he says, everyone understands what he says. The Truman memo is a fake because the typewriter did not exist in 1947. You make no mention of this, and you even suggest that there have been no arguments raised to suggest otherwise. We need evidence and not additional rhetoric. The second question, that has not been answered concerns any evidence that there was a facility designated as Area 51 and S-4 in 1954. The best evidence available suggests there was not. In fact, the references to Area 51 and S-4 as they relate to UFO material comes from Bob Lazar who you are quick to point out is a liar. You don't need to continue to complain about the Roswell movie, or how you didn't get the proper acknowledgment in THE ROSWELL INCIDENT. We've all heard this before. Now we want to see the questions answered. As a scientist, you must understand the desire of others to verify your claim that you have to two experts. I infer from your answer that if documents and reports exist you are more inclined to accept a tale as true than if no documentation or reports have been offered. KRandle ======================================================================== From: fsphys@brunswickmicro.nb.ca Date: Sat, 07 Dec 96 00:27:18 -0400 Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: MJ-12 and Area 51 To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Re SA Sasquatch comments about Area 51 and MJ-12... As I have said earlier, it would be natural to place a highly classified facility on government owned and controlled land.. near the nuclear test site is not a bad idea. Nuclear Rockets were tested out that way too because of the remoteness and ease of controlling access. But don't expect unclassified references to such a facility until the government admits it has wreckage etc. Re the SOM 1.01. I did include a copy of page l of the xerox of the original print. opposite page 147 of TOP SECRET/MAJIC. However, there are some excellent very high quality prints made from the original which I and a number of others have seen..I mentioned these on p.164.I had thought that only a few pages would be shown . I was wrong. One problem with TOP SECRET/MAJIC is that I expected various documents such as the Humelsine memo, Colonel Shubert's letter, the list of FOIA exemptions etc. to be shown as is rather than be typeset..I had no control just as Kevin didn't of the Roswell movie. Stan Friedman (The box with the film came from Wisconsin not New Mexico.)

[ Archive Index | Mailing List Information ]

Sponsored by the Area 51 Research Center (www.ufomind.com)

Created: 8 Dec 1996