Message posted by JB737 on May 26, 2007 at 21:43:47 PST:
lone wolf, Good to hear from you again, as always. My own main interest was not to precisely locate the VOR itself, but to see if the weather report corresponded to Groom Lake's elevation, or somewhere else specific, or was just some unidentifiable generic approximation that didn't correspond to any particular airfield. Any of those results would have had some little implications to them. I guess I hoped it might provide straightforward, government-sponsored evidence of aircraft operations at Groom, which I believe it did. It doesn't change any of my personal beliefs, as I'm not one who particularly disbelieves satellite photos, Tikaboo photos, etc. However, those are not via US-government-provided information, so doing otherwise-redundant little exercises like this on every little detail we find, is useful to expand what is known from official government sources. Plus, we don't even have to keep the info under lock and key like the other government stuff that Professor/Atty Turley learned. So it's a tiny piece of the puzzle, and it was a fun little challenge to find out why it did not seem to precisely fit at first, but does now. It would also be true that pinning down a VOR location at the base by direct observation, could also be considered to be using government-provided info to prove that the base "is what (/where?) it is". JB737
And as usual, your ideas are solid.
In Reply to: Re: The NWS approximation explains it posted by lone wolf on May 26, 2007 at 0:32:31 PST:
Replies: