From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:57:16 -0300 Archived: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:03:06 -0400 Subject: Re: Devastating Critique Of Jacobsen's 'Area 51' >From: Joshua Laudermilk <joshua.laudermilk.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:37:57 -0400 >Subject: Re: Devastating Critique Of Jacobsen's 'Area 51' Book >>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 15:01:05 -0300 >>Subject: Re: Devastating Critique Of Jacobsen's 'Area 51' Book >>From ridiculous claims for the name Area 51 being >>derived from the beginning of operations in 1951 >These kind of claims make me think that many people didn't even >read the book. The book does not claim that Area 51 was founded >in 1951, it claims that a facility called S-4 (Sigma-4) was >founded in 1951, five miles north of what would eventually >become Area 12 & Area 15. Ms. Jacobsen makes it very clear that >the reason Area 51's existence is covered up is not because of >the development of secret aircraft there, but because of S-4, >which was operational at least into the 1980s and as I believe, >continues to operate to this day. I have been given to understand over the years that S-4 meant South or Sector 4. Had some other complex such as a "Sigma 4" been in existence I think it highly unlikely that Test pilot Tony LeVier would have missed it while out out looking around for and rediscovering what is now Groome Lake some new area in which Lockheed could test fly the U-2 prototype. 5 miles is nothing while airborne even when you are as low as a couple of thousand feet. Had it been a secret facility I'm sure the USAF would have known about it and forbidden LeVier to fly in that sector to begin with. And of course there is no trace of it in Groome Lake's (Alamo if you wish) geography which itself stretches north over five miles from the center of the main complex or new RWY east. It seems to me that the word Sigma was some silly attempt to sexy up the S in S-4. >I don't know why my previous message wasn't sent through, but I >was trying to write that the article is totally crap in regard >to its critique of Jacobsen's view of Roswell. The Roswell >Incident was not the result of Project Mogul, Brad Sparks has >proven that the Project Mogule cover was a lie and that the >flight path didn't go anywhere remotely near the site of the >alleged recovered craft and bodies. It wasn't just Brad Sparks who doubted the balloon theory but Brad certainly did the hard research and proved the lie about Charles Moore's-and the USAF's- Mogul balloon explanation. I see that there is one on here who still thinks that Jacobsen was thinking 'outside of the box'. Apparently if Jacobsen's book is an example of wild-eyed speculation and any foolish theory regardless of how silly it might be is claimed as 'thinking outside the box' while reason and common sense when it comes to theories have no value. No one who has an inkling of what was going on at the War's end would give any credence to this volume of fiction. The whole premise of the plywood Horton flying wing-cum-flying saucer packed with 13 year olds who flew it down from Alaska, sent to panic American's by Stalin is so stupid that it beggars belief. It taints anyone who buys into the theory. Don Ledger Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp