Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by 3FEL9, Oct 4, 2017.
It was first acknowledged in 2013
Well, sort of. In the 90's the USAF did state that they had an "operating location" where classified work is carried out. Actually, acknowledgment would be stating what the official name of the base is, who commands it, and who the public information officer in charge is and how to contact them. You know, like every other military base and place where secret stuff happens. I think the USAF has painted itself into a corner on this issue and now are just going to sit there, it's not like anybody is going to compel them to do otherwise. Denying the existence of the base also neatly sidesteps torts, workman's comp claims, and EPA/OSHA regulations.
I remember watching TV shows at Area 51 for at least the last 10 years.....and knew there was a secret base there since the early 1990s.
Thanks Rick ! This will keep me smiling for the rest of the night
The monitoring and remediation will likely start now that it is acknowledged. But those same regulations are probably another reason that people should be kept out.....as the security forces are actually there to keep people safe from the radiation/hazardous waste and unexploded ordinance in the area immediately around the base itself.
Actually Navy, Marine and Army bases weren't any better at that time.
Well, they are not under scrutiny in this thread, but I'm sure you're right.. Their main objectives are on the opposite end when
it comes to the environment and life in general. But thats not a typical U.S thing, and applies to a lot of countries world wide.
Area 51: Secrets under the sun
Yes we are talking about Area 51....but the other bases also had poor environmental practices at that time which are also now being worked on by companies under USEPA and OSHA guidelines.
Actually because of those guidelines and regulations the US is cleaning their environment up fairly quick.
You are correct that the US is not the only country that has polluted the planet.
If the USAF won't allow EPA or OSHA to get involved with A51 there is little that the latter two could, or would, realistically do to change that. It is one location out of thousands for them to worry about and no one important (in their eyes) is complaining about it.
There are environmental companies working at the Nellis Testing and Training Range......and numerous other military installations. Actually if a person was standing near where they were burning hazardous waste they'd know its not a good idea and accepted the risk.....it was common practice around the country in the 1960's and 1970s.
Having worked at numerous air force bases, a couple navy bases and marine corps air stations I know they are allowed.
Yes...Lazar went public with his claims in May of 1989.....to Knapp a reporter from LA.
(btw ..for those interested Lazar has a wiki page.) Bob Lazar - Wikipedia
The United States Air Force facility commonly known as Area 51 is a highly classified remote detachment of Edwards Air Force Base, within the Nevada Test and Training Range. According to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the correct names for the facility are Homey Airport (ICAO: KXTA) and Groom Lake, though the name Area 51 was used in a CIA document from the Vietnam War. The facility has also been referred to as Dreamland and Paradise Ranch, among other nicknames. The special use airspace around the field is referred to as Restricted Area 4808 North (R-4808N).
The origin of the Area 51 name is unclear. The most accepted comes from a grid numbering system of the area by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC); while Area 51 is not part of this system, it is adjacent to Area 15. Another explanation is that 51 was used because it was unlikely that the AEC would use the number.
Yes, except A51 is not just any other military base and the USAF doesn't like letting anybody in there unless it furthers the narrow interest of their activities there. The men who sued the USAF in the 1980's for injuries sustained while working there in decades earlier would have had little trouble getting compensation if they had worked on pretty much any other government installation. Because it was A51 the USAF refused to even confirm that the place existed and the judge signed off on this nonsense, ergo the plaintiffs could not prove they actually worked there and had no standing to sue. Unless something has changed dramatically over the last 30 years (USAF actions and policies do not suggest this) I really don't think that taking care of the environment or worker safety is enough of a priority for the USAF to let anybody into their secret playground just for that purpose.
Personally I think it's BS that they didn't help those injured by toxins from working there. They could have arranged something with the Judge and others to keep disclosure from the press and still paid for medical care for those men.
IMHO that was a poor excuse not to help. At that point everyone in the area around there and most of the people in the US knew of Nellis/Groom Lake Airforce base by then.
Yes they could have....but maybe the people wanted to let the news of the environmental conditions out. Bear in mind these 1980s lawsuits were around the time the news of places like Love Canal and Times Beach were coming out.
Where I work we have annual FDA audits, ISO audits, and others and work under strict regulations...People cannot simply walk in our facility with our camera system and selflocking doors but what we do there is no secret, it's needed security to keep people safe...
I've worked at a number of military bases and security facilities......so I understand. These did include non-disclosure agreements.
But one thing I've seen at all of them are very safety conscious......so contractors as well as workers all knew the hazards in their work areas. Even in the days when safety was not really in use people still knew that burning toxic fluids was not a healthy thing.
I dont understand why they dug these burn pits so close to the buildings and hangars. Its a large base,...
Also just pouring jet fuel over it and set it in fire is very crude., They should have chopped up the material in
little pieces feeding them to a high temperature controlled incinerator. Thats not even rocket science !
It was common practice in the 1960s to 1970s.
At least they learned something from doing that. The hard way..
Separate names with a comma.