Jump to content

Talk:Dugway Proving Ground

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mars?

[edit]

Did the Army special forces train for a deployment to mars or did astronauts train for mars or is that part just a joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.30.243.32 (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


new area for area 51

[edit]

Can this be the new area that they are moving some of the research from Area 51 to? I have heard about a base in Utah that they were supposed to have moved some research to as "too many people" are camping out and observing Area 51 or trying to talk to the people flying in and out with Bechtel's private airline... --Lindus 20:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted image

[edit]

This page contains a copyrighted image from Google Earth (Image:Dug.jpg) which has been put up for deletion (screenshots of Google Maps/Google Earth aren't fair use). A new image will be needed. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, another paternal volunteer copyright policeman.Travb 04:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and? Zetawoof(ζ) 05:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
realizing you have a problem is the first step :) I have argued until I am hoarse about copyright law, no desire to start that one up again. You voluteers are better organized than those who take a different tact, which, in my opinion, is a really pity.Travb 08:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The terms of copyright are pretty clearly stated on Google Maps (nee Google Local), which says that:
"The photographic imagery made available for display through Google Local is provided under a nonexclusive, non-transferable license for use only by you. You... may not rent, disclose, publish, sell, assign, lease, sublicense, market, or transfer the imagery or any part thereof or use it in any manner not expressly authorized by this agreement. By using Google Local, you do not receive any, and Google and/or its licensors (if any) retain all ownership rights in the imagery. The imagery is copyrighted and may not be copied, even if modified or merged with other data or software."
Seems pretty clear to me. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text

[edit]

I removed the following text:

Following the public attention drawn to Area 51 in the early 1990s, it has been suggested that whatever covert operations, if any, may have been underway at that location were subsequently transferred to DPG on the basis that, although the very real threat of arrest for felony tresspassing had proven insufficient to deter the curious from entering the perimeter of Area 51, the presence of biological and chemical weapons tests would prove an ample deterrent to scofflaws. The veracity of these claims is unknown. However, the merits of this strategy are undeniable. The chemical/biological/radiological identities and exact whereabouts of extremely hazardous materials are unknown to those outside the DPG community and, even then, one would presume such knowledge is limited in scope to a need-to-know basis. Thus those researching government activities at this site must takes risks equally consequential as for Russian Roulette but with no knowledge of the odds. Conversely, in the event an unauthorized intruder to DPG were assessed to be an informational threat based on the actuality or mere probability that covert activities had been compromised, there exist presumably numerous explanations for said intruder's demise (i.e., VX gas, etc.) For these reasons, DPG seems an ideal location for the undertaking of any covert and/or illegal activities deemed desirous by government agencies or the military establishment.

It is not verified WP:verifiability, with no source, and it also appears to be orginal research WP:NOR. In addition, this paragraph uses weasel terms WP:AWW: "it has been suggested". This begs the question: who suggested it?

There are a lot of presumptions, etc. "However, the merits of this strategy are undeniable." "one would presume" "seems an ideal location" Travb (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The objections above have been addressed and the general content reposted with edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.5.195 (talk • contribs)

Newer text moved to talk

[edit]

Text in bold remained in the article:

Following the public attention drawn to Area 51 in the early 1990s, UFOlogists and conspiracy theorists have suggested that whatever covert operations, if any, may have been underway at that location were subsequently transferred to DPG on the basis that, although the very real threat of arrest for felony tresspassing had proven insufficient to deter the curious from entering the perimeter of Area 51, the presence of biological and chemical weapons tests would prove an ample deterrent to scofflaws. The veracity of these claims is unknown and, given the classified status of activities at both locations, unknowable. However, the alleged merits of this strategy are as follows:

The chemical/biological/radiological identities and exact whereabouts of extremely hazardous materials are unknown to those outside the DPG community and, even then, based on standard military operating procedures, such knowledge would be limited in scope on a need-to-know basis. Thus those researching government activities at this site must risk serious illness and/or death with no knowledge of the attendent probability of such outcomes.

Furthermore, in the event an unauthorized intruder to DPG were assessed to be an informational threat based on the actuality or mere probability that covert activities had been compromised, there exist presumably numerous explanations for said intruder's demise (i.e., VX gas, etc.) For these reasons, it is understanable why the aforementioned parties consider DPG to be Area 51's successor location for the undertaking of any covert and/or illegal activities deemed desirous by government agencies or the military establishment.

*Article: Is Dugway the New Groom Lake?

I appreciate your contributions anon. I added a quote from the Deseret News article you provided. Thanks for the link.

Unfortunatly, the site you citied was a conspiracy theory site. As the guidelines state: Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources. Please read over: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources particularly Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet.

I want to encourage you to continue editing on wikipedia, but please use reliable, verifiable sources.

Please read over WP:NOR because the next two paragraphs seem like speculation (maybe from the conspiracy website you listed.

Also please sign your posts with ~~~~.

I look forward to your future edits. I will look into the DPG alien thing on lexis nexis academic. Travb (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added 4 articles to this site, I didn't read the full Popular mechanics article though. Maybe you can add relevant information from any of these articles.
Anon, I am open to new ideas, I researched and then created: Cia#UFOs_and_Robertson_Panel after someone like yourself insisted on UFO info on the CIA page. Travb (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand objection to the text in bold.

"Following the public attention drawn to Area 51 in the early 1990s, UFOlogists and conspiracy theorists have suggested that whatever covert operations, if any, may have been underway at that location were subsequently transferred to DPG" is an undeniable factual statement.

This opinion is expressed by UFOlogists and alien-conspiracy "experts" in all recent programming concerning Area 51 found on Discovery Channel, History Channel, The Science Channel, etc. The article link you removed supports that a bona fide subset of Area 51 "watchers" believes Dugway is the new Area 51.

Here is another similar site maintained by a different, similarly opinioned, individual: http://www.aliendave.com/UUFOH_DugwayProvingGrounds.html

Also, you'll find substantial discussion on this topic by Googling "dugway area 51"

24.15.5.195 15:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice, the text in bold remained in the article, it has 5-6 footnotes attached to it now...
I will look over the sites provided, and add back all of the information that is confirmed/verified later today. I am really sorry about my initial skeptisism. It is like the Cia#UFOs_and_Robertson_Panel.
I had to do some research to confirm what was said there. My views are unpopular enough, I don't want to risk having my crediblity ruined by stating that I believe in aliens.
As I did here,Talk:Central_Intelligence_Agency#UFO, I will study the issue more and issue a mea culpa (apology) if I am proven wrong, which is often :) As I wrote there, which I think is important enough to repeat here:
...if you want to continue to advance your CIA UFO coverup stories, I suggest you start doing real reseach. I have learned long ago that the best way to "win" a debate on wikipedia is to outsource someone. People are going to naturally be wary of anything with "UFO" in it, because of the nuts this issue attracts. So the only way that you can get a large audience to support what you write is to research what you write, and provide sources. Use amazon.com and google print. The best example in my expereince has been Business Plot.
Central_Intelligence_Agency#Highly-illegal_activities has recieved a little criticism, including someone attempting to delete it, but Central_Intelligence_Agency#Drug_trafficking which I completely rewrote, has recieved absolutly no criticism for months. Despite being highly controverisal sections, I think verifying every word has allowed these sections to remain unquestioned on the page.
I can empathize with your position, most of my views are highyly unpopular, and I often have to vigorously fight for my material to stay on wikipedia. Adding controversial material that has been deleted because of no references is a losing battle.
Thank you for your pateince, courteousy, and cooperation. I really look forward to your future contributions.
Thanks for signing your posts.
Again, I will read over your material later today, and include everything I can back into the article.
Signed: Travb (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Popular Mechanics article is interesting; e.g., "Studying a map of Utah shows that Michael AAF has the exact same security feature that drew U-2 developers to Area 51. It sits next to a ferocious junkyard dog. Where the Groom Dry Lake Bed had a nuclear test site to discourage the uninvited, Michael AAF has an equally, perhaps more, compelling deterrent. It is in the midst of Dugway Proving Ground, the place where the Army stores and tests nerve gas."

24.15.5.195 17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will include this in the newer edits. I was hoping you liked the article. Travb (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved new additions to talk

[edit]

Thanks for the new contributions today, I moved them to talk. Please provide sources for the new additions:

A glaring omission in UFO siting reports is that the entirety of young residents whose families live and work on post have never seen a UFO. These young residents do not undergo any type of background check or security clearance, and would have nothing to lose from reporting a supposed UFO.
In addition, the main research facilities (Chemical, Biological, Munitions, etc.) of the Proving Grounds are open to public tours. Potential employees are given full tours of the facilities in which they will work before they are hired and well before a security clearance is granted. Speculation then lies that any potential hiding places for UFO's would lie buried in the West Desert. However, due to past testing whose cleanup was unregulated decades ago, it would be too dangerous to initiate subterranian construction in the West Desert due to the vast amounts of unexploded ordnance (UXO) and discarded chemical and biological agents, whose dumping locations were at one time unmarked.

Travb (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Anthrax attacks

[edit]

There were quite a few reports linking the DPG to the 2001 anthrax attacks [1][2][3]. Shouldn't it be also included in the article?Froy1100 (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there are a myriad of evidence, then it is moved from speculation, to fact. Please publish the info. 2602:306:BDBD:C00:F835:B7C4:539D:3BB9 (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and without context infer removed and place here for discussion

[edit]

None of the stamens below make sense or are sourced:

In October 2011, DPG established biological warfare facilities at an isolated area within DPG known as the Granite Peak Installation - UTTR's range telemetry and tracking radar installation.

In September 2013 Dugway started working on the "X" project, which involved many secret squirrel milestones. This project was completed fall of 2014.

Lestatdelc (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Southeastern Bearded Elephants?

[edit]

I'm no expert, but I don't think there is such a thing as a "Southeastern Bearded Elephant." Funny, though. Flag the "Dugway Southeastern Bearded Elephant Kill" incident section of this page as citation needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.92.83 (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dugway Proving Ground. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dugway Proving Ground. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dugway Proving Ground. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dugway Proving Ground. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just checked out your edit, and I did not find any faults. Just thought I should chip in. I know that it encourages me, so it might encourage you to not stop learning! 2602:306:BDBD:C00:F835:B7C4:539D:3BB9 (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dugway_Proving_Ground&oldid=1212719726"