If this base doesn't exist, why did the US government buy several more thousands of miles of land around it to stop people getting anywhere near it

Nobody is claiming it doesn't exist. The claim is that the U.S. military and the civilian companies that operate there do not acknowledge its existence. There's a difference.

The reason they don't talk about it is because that's where most of the high-end aerospace technology is tested. Not space alien technology, just the stuff we don't necessarily want our prospective enemies getting a good look at before they have to go up against it.

The point is, just because it's secret doesn't mean you get to make up stories about what you think goes on there and assume they're true until proven otherwise.

Were talking about Russian intelligence here, remember... the same guys who beat the US to putting everything else up in space except a man on the moon!

No. Russian intelligence is not the Russian space program.

And the Soviets did not do "everything else" in space except to put a man on the moon. They captured a few early, high-profile aerospace records. Hoax believers generally stop comparing Russian and American space accomplishments after about 1966 because that's when the Americans started capturing the important records. These records weren't as high-profile, but they are much more important toward getting to the moon.

It's not hard to see that the Russian space program was more geared toward show than toward go. Sure, they nabbed the record, for example, for the first three-man spacecraft. Do you know how? By taking their two-man capsule, ripping all the safety equipment out of it, cramming an extra couch in there, and taking away the cosmonauts' space suits.

The Americans, on the other hand, designed and built a spacecraft that was intended from the start to carry three astronauts in reasonable safety and comfort. Whose space program is better?

I'd go and read a bit more before making silly comments.

LOL! Take your own advice.

Could sun scatter create blue outside with the camera filming right against the window?

Yes.

I know I saw it on a site about 4 months ago, but which one?

Oh, well, if you saw it on a web site then it must be true.

I have no idea what you think you're trying to prove, and I don't think you do either. Are you saying that aerial views of the Groom Lake environs were displayed for the public with the story that they were supposed to be the lunar surface? If this is true then those photos would have the standard NASA photo ID numbers. If you cannot supply the relevant photo ID numbers then I will not examine your evidence.

While you're trying to find your site that gives me the conclusive proof I seek, please answer my previous question:

Given that by late 1969 NASA had already acquired several hundred photographs allegedly of the lunar surface at a range of as close as 10,000 feet altitude, and these can be correlated to known features of the lunar surface, it is reasonable to conclude one of the following:

1. NASA had by that time acquired the ability to take close-range photos of the actual lunar surface, by whatever means, or

2. NASA had by that time perfected the art of falsifying pictures allegedly of the lunar surface at the ranges above given.

Under color of either of these, can you explain why NASA would need or want to use photos of earth terrain and try to pass them off as photos of the lunar surface? If they could legitimately obtain actual lunar surface photos, or falsify them convincingly, what possible advantage would this give them?

There is no clear advantage, and considerable risk of discovery from those both inside and outside the United States who might be very familiar with that terrain as seen from the air. Believing your hypothesis requires me to believe that NASA would do something incredibly stupid with no clear motive for doing it.

Please let me know if this question has been answered, but I believe Dave Cosnette was confused when he published question number two on his Web site (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html). Bennett and Percy wrote in their crappy book, "Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers," that one of the modifications made to the Hasselblad cameras that were used for the Apollo missions was the removal of the leatherette coverings out of concern that the material could outgas potentially poisonous fumes in the oxygen-rich environment of the CM and LEM.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Alan G. Archer on 2002-06-02 01:58 ]</font>

You got it exactly right, NASA are keeping things from us and are releasing it slowly

I know you're talking about Mars, but I don't care about Mars. The Apollo materials have been available to researchers since the early 1970s. The reason for the resurgence of the hoax theories is that more and more information is now being made available on the web where any unqualified yahoo can download it, crown himself King of Photo Interpretation, and make up whatever story he wants.

If you want to yell about selectivity, yell at the hoax believers. They're the ones that show you one or two photos which appear to support their points while ignoring six dozen which clearly dispute it. They know that their average reader won't check up on their research, even if that were possible given their haphazard documentation.

I am in the UFO field purely because I have a great interest in the subject, nothing more, nothing less.

But why can't you believe in UFOs and simultaneously believe that Apollo might just have done what it claimed to do? You are just unthinkingly buying into a whole web of unsupported conspiracy because it's commonly presented as one huge parcel. It's quite clear that you believe in the moon landing hoax because that's what you perceive as part of your duty as a UFO enthusiast.

Think for yourself. You obviously haven't been dragged away from skepticism toward your belief by any evidence. What you're citing as evidence is merely post-justification for a conclusion you had already decided upon.

especially if they are over a hot country where cloud cover would be at a minimum.

No. "Hot countries" with no prevailing cloud cover appear tan from orbit. Ocean looks mostly bluish black on video, with a specular bluish highlight where the sun hits it. On film it looks more blue than black.

now why would this be when they had not done so for the hour or so that I had been watching previously?

For the same reason you get your hair cut and wear a nice pressed shirt if you are going on television, as opposed to dressing casually to go to a movie. People will be looking at you in either circumstance, but you are expected to make a better impression in the former case.

You imply they're trying to hide something by drawing the shades. If that is your argument, state what it is you think they're trying to hide, and what evidence leads you to conclude that the astronauts' drawing of the shades is actually intended to hide that thing, as opposed to any other purpose.

Further, reconcile that argument with the notion that on-orbit video of the shuttle is routinely broadcast continuously over NASA TV, which is available uncoded from satellites, available on Dish Network, available on many cable systems, and frequently viewable online from NASA web sites. Clearly NASA goes to great lengths to allow people to watch what goes on in their spacecraft, shades open or closed.

Now consider this hypothesis. If the shuttle is in LVLH guidance mode, which would be most of the time, the motion of the orbiter will cause sunlight to shift and move across a video frame. Now the astronauts know that they're pretty much always on camera. So they're not necessarily going to take any steps to improve the image quality during the mundane parts of their work.

But during a designated media broadcast there is some motivation to produce as high a quality picture as possible. If you have a square of sunlight moving across your frame, or even just sitting in it, it's distracting and it causes exposure problems for the camera. So they draw the shades to temporarily provide a controlled and homogeneous lighting environment in order to put their best feet forward for a media opportunity.

But they can't have the shades drawn all the time, and they can't always pay close attention to making a good media impression. But the notion that they're hiding something by drawing the shades is awfully weak in light of the fact that anyone who wants to can see what's going on up there at any given moment.

... that one of the modifications made to the Hasselblad cameras that were used for the Apollo missions was the removal of the leatherette coverings out of concern that the material could outgas potentially poisonous fumes in the oxygen-rich environment of the CM and LEM.

That sounds familiar. But the notion that the atmosphere in the CM and LM is "oxygen-rich" is the problem. The partial pressure of oxygen was 5 psia in each spacecraft, about the same as you'd find anyplace on earth. The rest of the normal sea level pressure on earth is supplied by the relatively inert nitrogen. Chemically the oxygen in the spacecraft isn't going to react much differently than the oxygen in normal earth air.

Now there are a couple of exceptions to this. First, during the plugs-out test in Apollo 1, the pressure was set at 5 psig, which would be nearly 20 psia, using pure oxygen. This would be a very different chemical situation from earth normal, and may cause outgassing of oxygen-sensitive compounds. And then there is the obvious combustion risk which was tragically demonstrated. With such a high concentration of oxygen, combustion would be supported to a much greater extent.

This leads to the second point. For some chemical processes, the nitrogen is important because it inertly absorbs energy that would go toward other purposes in a single-gas environment. A 5 psia oxygen-only atmosphere is a greater combustion risk than an oxygen-nitrogen mix. The nitrogen absorbs energy by increasing molecular vibration. In the absence of nitrogen, that energy would contribute toward the activation energy of some certain combustion. Thus it's easier to ignite things in an all-oxygen atmosphere, even if the partial pressure of oxygen is the same. But that doesn't mean that all chemical reactions are similarly affected. For those whose rate of reaction depends solely upon the partial pressure and temperature of the gas, the rate of reaction remains largely unchanged.

The lunar surface cameras were coated with aluminum for thermal reasons, precluding any faux leather coverings. Any modification to the cameras to preclude potential outgassing would have been done to the CM cameras only, and to the one CM-type camera carried on the Apollo 11 LM but not used during EVA.

Why would someone fly to a secret military base from a civilian field if they were trying to keep it a secret?

There are flights allegedly to the Groom Lake facility from private airfields near Las Vegas. The military relies on several private companies to supply technology, evaluation, and support. While the private company in question will neither confirm nor deny that its employees are involved with Groom Lake activities, it is not farfetched to make that hypothesis.

If people were transported to the Groom Lake facility via military aircraft, this would confirm that the site had a military purpose. (As if there were any doubt.) But by using civilian aircraft they can avoid conveying that explicit idea.

The presence of which does not imply a secret UFO base, or that Apollo was hoaxed there.

True, but at the location commonly referred to as "Area 51" there is indeed a facility which has been photographed indistictly by photographers situated at ground level. This portion of the Groom Lake area is commonly believed to be a test site for highly advanced aircraft. But of course there is no official information, and so nothing conclusive can be said aside from that which can be generalized from observation. The facility appears to be some type of airfield.

However, there is nothing whatsoever to support the notion that alien spacecraft are being housed and/or flown there, or that the Apollo landings were falsified there. In fact, I believe I have pointed out that such a facility would be completely inadequate to supply the "exteriors" for a faked lunar landing.

Bill Kaysing and others have argued that the hangars there were used as soundstages, but that's a different story.

This is America, we have lots of them.

Also true, especially in this area of the country. Much of this land is unsuitable for continuous habitation, and so it is cordoned off for use as bombing ranges and secluded test facilities.

To convice me otherwise you'll have to more provide than just a picture of a runway and some frequencies gleaned off of a few websites.

Agreed. While I don't believe it's fruitful to argue that no facility exists in the Groom Lake area, I strongly believe that it is the responsiblity of the hoax proponents to substantiate that the aerial photos they allege are of this facility, truly are of it. It is also their responsiblity to substantiate that what they say goes on there, actually does.

Being shown two photos -- one allegedly of the Groom Lake facility and the other allegedly of some Apollo landing site -- and told that they match exactly is not convincing. I must be able to authenticate each photo, and I will judge for myself whether, in my opinion, they match exactly.

Thank you, JayUtah.

From what I have read at http://www.hasselblad.com/general/It...85&itemId=1235 and elsewhere, the Hasselblad EC 500EL carried by Apollo 8 was painted black, while the Hasselblad EDC (called the Lunar Data Camera by NASA) used for the later Apollo lunar surface missions were painted matte silver. I do not know the exact composition of the finish used on the cameras.

Assuming that the Hasselblad EDC had an aluminum alloy body, the matte silver finish most likely enhanced its thermal properties.

Albert J. Derr wrote in "Photography Equipment and Techniques: A Survey of NASA Developments," page 21:

All of the early cameras were painted completely black to minimize disturbances caused by the reflection of polished surfaces in the high solar intensity of outer space. The only exception to the rule is the Lunar Data Camera, which was painted matte silver to minimize the absorption of thermal radiation and to assist in maintaining a reasonably constant temperature environment within the camera.

Source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...photechnqs.htm.

Aside from the possibilities already mentioned, I can think of two possible reasons that the Apollo version of the Hasselblad camera had no leatherette cover. One of them even matches up with cosmicdave's claim, though in a rather distorted way.

1) Weight savings. Apollo designers shaved every ounce of unnecessary weight. Why include a camera part that was nonfunctional in its intended use?

2) Elimination of flammable materials. I assume that "leatherette" is a man-made material that feels like leather, but isn't. Such a material could very well be flammable. (For that matter, real leather might be, in a 5psi pure-O2 environment). Getting flammable materials out of the spacecraft was an obsession after the "Apollo 1" fire.

Perhaps Dave's claim makes sense -- if you add the words "should it catch fire" to the original phrasing.

[Added] Hmmm, re-reading his claim, I see that he seems to think the leatherette cover was present on the Apollo missions' cameras, but that it would have emitted toxic fumes. Does anyone know whether the leatherette cover was or was not actually present on the Hasselblad? If it was, it must have been covered by the shielding -- in which case it makes even less sense to leave it on. Of course, I'd like to see some evidence that there would have been any toxic fumes at all...


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2002-06-02 11:29 ]</font>

The leatherette covering on the Hasselblad camera body is cosmetic and also give a person a bit better grip on the camera. Since the lunar cameras were attached to the suit and were used in that configuration for the most part, providing as bit better grip seems non essential to me. Besides the cameras looked really cool (pun intended) painted matte silver! I only wish they had brought a few of them back from the moon. What a collectors item they would be!

If I remember correctly did'nt they take a gold Hasselblad to the moon on Apollo 11?

BTW I am looking for a used 60mm C T* Hasselblad lens to add to my system. If anyone sees one for sale please let me know.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: infocusinc on 2002-06-02 11:11 ]</font>

I do not know the exact composition of the finish used on the cameras.

I know the active ingredient in the EVA cameras' outer layer is aluminum but I don't know how that finish was applied. There are several means available for depositing a thin layer aluminum on various surfaces.

Elimination of flammable materials. I assume that "leatherette" is a man-made material that feels like leather, but isn't. Such a material could very well be flammable.

Good point. Typically someone who pays that amount of money for a camera (they're selling used for about $1,300 on E-bay) could demand real leather. But if the material supplied by Hasselblad were polyurethane or any similar substance, it would most certainly be removed from the camera for reasons of combustion, not so much for its potential role as fuel, but because of the toxic fumes those substances give off.

The post Apollo 1 materials audit concentrated just as heavily on the toxicity of combustion products as on the propensity of materials to ignite or fuel a fire.

Another good point – many of the aluminum parts on the LM were acid etched to remove excess weight. I don’t know if this process was used on the CM or SM but I would not be surprised if it was.

[spelling [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-06-02 12:31 ]</font>

If I remember correctly did'nt they take a gold Hasselblad to the moon on Apollo 11?

No, you're probably thinking of the Gold camera, named after astronomer Tommy Gold. Its official name was the Apollo Lunar Surface Closeup Camera (ALSCC) This is the camera used to take extreme stereo close-ups of the lunar surface. It's the thing that looks like a very large walkie-talkie in some of the Apollo 11 photos, and the object sometimes used by David Percy to show allegedly occluded reseau fiducials.

The Apollo 11 crew took the Gold camera, a lunar surface (silver) Hasselblad, a black Hasselblad which stayed in the LM cabin and with which Roll 37 was shot, the 16mm DAC, and the custom television camera.

many of the aluminum parts on the LM were acid etched to remove excess weight.

And other materials too. Chem-milling was extensively used on the LM, and less so on the CSM, but North American had it in their toolbox.

Very often the exact shape of a part depends on the limitations of the process likely used to produce it. In consumer mass production you can use die casting and other such processes to produce metal parts quickly and cheaply. These processes are typically not appropriate for aerospace because they introduce stress microfractures that weak the part and provide paths for tearing, corrosion, and exfoliation. Thus mechanical machining from a billet of precise composition and treatment is one of the preferred means for producing parts for critical applications. This limits the designer to the geometries than can be produced by this process.

The mechanical designer is usually aware of the precise load paths that exist in any part he is designing, but he cannot design the optimal part because there would often be no way to manufacture it given the required milling process. Therefore the part ends up being more massive than required because the designer has to leave extra material around the load paths to compensate for the inability to remove it without intruding upon the load path.

Chem-milling provides a method for removing excess material non-mechanically. It cannot be used where precise surface finishes are required (e.g., bearings, bushings, slide paths), but because it can be precisely applied and precisely controlled, it can suffice to remove material from elsewhere on the part.

Advanced manufacturing techniques are the hallmark of aerospace, and got a big boost during Apollo. About ten years ago I used a wire EDM machine to cut the passage in a feedhorn that proved to be about 15% more efficient than the one it replaced.

Imagine a solid billet of aluminum. Draw a square on one face and a circle on the opposite face. Now cut a hole through the billet which blends smoothly between the square and the circle. The normal way to manufacture one of these is to make it two halves where normal milling equipment can cut matching channels in two billets, and then the parts are fastened together to form the whole (and the hole). Unfortunately the least error disrupts the flow and diminishes the efficiency of the feedhorn. And over time the parts slip and fall out of tolerance.

A wire EDM is a device which uses a very thin wire and huge amounts of electricity to burn away the metal surrounding the wire. Or as I explained it to mechanical engineering students: it's a cheese-cutter for metal. You drill a hole through your billet with a regular tool, then you thread the EDM wire through it and connect it to the take-up spool. Then you connect the electrode to the billet, start the spools up and turn on the current, and the arms holding the spools move according to program you have loaded. The material a couple thousandths of an inch around the wire is vaporized. It's really cool.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-02 13:25 ]</font>

JayUtah,
There are people on this board who believes that Area 51 doesn't exist, you only have to read Pvt Pylots claims as follows:

'My point is simply that I don't believe it's the fabled "Area 51" because I don't believe any such place ever existed in the context described by UFO and Apollo conspiricists.'

or


'Area 51 is a designation that was invented by UFO believers. No Air Force facility was ever known by that name. Try some supporting evidence, cosmicdave. It works better. Give me a Lat./Lon. location for these photos and I'll look them up on '.

Well, I have given the group the longitude and latitude and you either haven't bothered to look them up or cannot take my map references as evidence. What other evidence other than photos or map references could I tell you about?

I understand that you live near Area 51, perhaps you could go and photograph the warning signs on the bases perimeter and post them to PvtPylot?


Heres some more info for you:

On 17 April 2000 Aerial Images posted on its Web site 2-meter imagery of Area 51 acquired by Russia's Space Information KVR-1000 satellite system. The Area 51 images were acquired as part of the company's deal with Sovinformsputnik, a commercial arm of the Russian Aviation and Space Agency.

FAS (Federation of American Scientists)ordered an IKONOS 1-meter resolution image of Area-51 in mid-February 2000. As of early April 2000 SpaceImaging stated that the request remained "in collection" and had offered a variety of explanations as to why it has taken over two months not to collect imagery. On 18 April 2000, SpaceImaging released the requested image, which had been acquired on 02 April 2000.

This article also appeared in The New York Times on April 18th, 2ooo.

Satellite Images of Area 51 Are Being Put on the Web
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
ALEIGH, N.C. -- The first detailed satellite images of Groom Dry Lake Air Force Base in Nevada, known to U.F.O. buffs as Area 51, were released on the Web yesterday by Aerial Images Inc. of Raleigh, N.C.

The company's president, John Hoffman, said the photographs, at http://www.terraserver.com, revealed runways and buildings "but there aren't any little green men or super-secret aircraft to be seen."

Aerial Images Inc. -- in collaboration with Microsoft, Kodak, Digital Equipment Corp., Autometric Inc. and the Russian agency Sovinformsputnik -- posted five images of the location on Monday.

The partners launched a Russian satellite from Kazakstan in 1998 to map Earth's surface. An open-skies agreement signed in 1992 by 24 nations, including the United States and Russia, made the effort possible.

"The site is being hammered," said Mr. Hoffman. "This is the first glimpse into the most secret training and testing facility for the Air Force."

The Air Force only recently acknowledged that Groom Dry Lake Air Force Base even exists. The 8,000-square-mile base is 75 miles northwest of Las Vegas, in the arid, rugged Nellis Range.

Beginning with the U-2 spy plane in the 1950s, the base has been the testing ground for a host of top-secret aircraft, including the SR-71 Blackbird, the F-117A stealth fighter and B-2 stealth bomber.

The base's airspace is restricted; aircraft aren't allowed to fly over it. But satellite overflights are allowed as part of an agreement to verify arms-control compliance.

Among UFO aficionados, the site has long been known simply as Area 51, the base's designation on old Nevada test site maps. They believe unidentified flying objects are hidden at the base, where their parts are copied for U.S. prototypes.

The images, with resolution good enough to distinguish a car from a truck, are better than earlier telephoto shots from nearby mountains. The only other known image purportedly was shot by a satellite in the 1960s.

Several government agencies are aware of the images and haven't responded, said Hoffman, 52. "I've had no feedback from anybody that indicates anybody gives a hoot," he said.

"We acknowledge having an operating site there, and the work is classified," Air Force spokeswoman Gloria Cales said. The work involves "operations critical to the U.S. military and the country's security."

From Aerial Images surfers can click on the Area 51 pages. Viewing the images is free; downloading them costs $8.95 and up. Kodak will print photographs for $20 to $30.

The images show craters, some seemingly formed by something dropped from the sky, others possibly by something coming out of the ground. There are hundreds of buildings, living quarters, tennis courts, a baseball field, a track and a swimming pool.

There are no paved roads and no parking lots; buses are the only visible vehicles, raising the question of how employees get to and from work. Unpaved roads disappear into cliffsides, suggesting a possible underground network.

Even Chris Carter, creator of "The X-Files," apparently was skeptical when Hoffman told him of the site. Some of the show's favorite themes are UFOs and secret government activities.

"He clearly didn't believe me," Hoffman said. "From his tone, you could tell he didn't believe me that we had Area 51 and we had the whole area covered."

I HOPE THAT THIS IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVINCE PVTPYLOT THAT THE BASE EXISTS.

Also the producers of Independence Day were advised by the US Government what they could and could not add about Area 51 which appeared in the film.

Dave, since you seem to have ample time to discuss the ins and outs of the Groom Lake Test Facility, could you also start defending some of the fallacious statements you made about the Apollo missions on your web site?

You seem very adept at changing the subject, but I'm going to keep reminding you. You have made some serious accusations, some of which have been thoroughly rebutted here, and it is incumbent upon you to either defend them or remove them from your website.

I HOPE THAT THIS IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVINCE PVTPYLOT THAT THE BASE EXISTS.

Not even close. I repeat my point that "Area 51" is a term invented by UFO conspricists that pop culture has since associated with an actual location. No Air Force post ever carried any such designation. I would also point out that over the last several decades UFO consiricists have claimed that several sites were the mythical "Area 51". Groom Lake is simply the "Area 51" en vogue until enough evidence forces them to find another site to host their conspiracy theories.

In any case, we're losing focus. What happened to your evidence that portions of the Apollo 11 landing were filmed in the Nevada desert?

There are people on this board who believes that Area 51 doesn't exist, you only have to read Pvt Pylots claims as follows:

If you actually read his comments, he's saying that what's there is not necessarily what you say is there. That is, the photos taken on the ground from some distance away, and the photos allegedly of the facility taken from orbit, do not show anything like UFOs or storage facilities that must be for UFOs, or any indication that anything having to do with UFOs or the falsification of moon landings has occurred or continues to occur.

There is an incredible amount of mythology that has been built up around the Groom Lake site, and this provides conspiracy theorists with a myriad of "facts" which they use to support their theories.

Well, I have given the group the longitude and latitude and you either haven't bothered to look them up or cannot take my map references as evidence.

I will stipulate that the map references are of the Groom Lake facility, but that does not prove that your photo is of that map reference, nor that the identification of features in the photographs are necessarily correct.

And none of this demonstrates that the site is anything other than a flight test facility for earth aircraft.

I understand that you live near Area 51, perhaps you could go and photograph the warning signs on the bases perimeter and post them to PvtPylot?

You aren't paying attention. The signs prove nothing except the disallowance of entry. I can photograph any number of identical signs at many locations in Nevada and in my state. For example, there is also the White Sands Missile Range Utah Launch Site. (Yes, Utah has space-launch capability.) There is an unlimited-ceiling no-fly zone around it, and similarly ominous signs at its perimeter.

The images show craters, some seemingly formed by something dropped from the sky, others possibly by something coming out of the ground.

Do you know what a bombing range looks like from orbit?

I HOPE THAT THIS IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVINCE PVTPYLOT THAT THE BASE EXISTS.

If I read his remarks correctly, he agrees that some facility exists there. He is quibbling with your characterization of that facility.

For my part, I will stipulate that a facility exists at Groom Lake, and that the most likely purpose for such a facility is flight test. I will also stipulate that satellite photos allegedly of this site may possibly be of that site. But I will draw my own conclusions about what is apparent in those photographs.

Now you claimed that you have evidence that aerial and/or orbital photographs allegedly of this site (accepted for the sake of argument to be of some area of earth) "exactly matched" photographs of an Apollo landing site, by which I understand that a very high percentage of visible features can be spatially correlated in the photos. The time is fast drawing nigh where you must either produce these photos and their supporting documentation or concede that you cannot.

Also the producers of Independence Day were advised by the US Government what they could and could not add about Area 51 which appeared in the film.

False. But by mentioning it in their screenplay, they lost the cooperation of the U.S. military in the making of their film. My source for this is none other than a personal conversation with Dean Devlin, who stayed at the (then) Red Lion hotel in Salt Lake City, less than two miles from my house, during the filming of Independence Day. I was very nearly an extra in that film.

By the way, the location used for Area 51 in the film is the old Wendover Air Force Base in Utah, about an hour's flight in a Cessna from Salt Lake International. It's quite a pleasure to land on those luxurious runways originally built for B-29s. I've been there several times. It now serves as the community airport for the town of Wendover, and is also very near the Bonneville salt flats, across which Will Smith dragged the downed alien.

The U.S. government does not attempt control what can or cannot be said in the media about "Area 51" or the Groom Lake facility. But at the time, if you made reference to the facility, the U.S. military would not provide its assistance to your endeavor.