Helicopter Activity at Papoose Lake

[astr0144]

I came across this on some forum, that someone  suggested it is from an older map of the surrounding Area around Area 51 and Papoose Lake. 

It shows an Helicopter which I think must have been in flight as I think I can see its shadow, South East of Papoose Lake.

I also noted that there seemed to be some other object further west that seems to be faded out that may have looked like a Disc type object.

I am not sure what date it was from,It refers to a website showing Wayback maps,

There has been suggestions of some of the maps being from either Mar or Nov 2021.
but some comments are saying not to believe the dates that are suggested.

If I recal, I think there was also a list of other dates to select from.

I am unable to see the map on any of my two browsers on my computer, but I am able to see it on a mobile phone browser.

So I am unable to experiment in trying to see if I can find other related maps from different dates.
I am not sure if they are google maps or from another Source.

Does anyone know of any other websites that may show older maps of the same areas.

I think this is the 1st time that I have ever seen any sort of activity around this area.

Here you can see a Helicoper very close to Papoose lake. You may have to zoom in to see it.
IF its possible maybe some one can post an image of it.

https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#active=10312&ext=-115.82632,37.10295,-115.82282,37.10580&localChangesOnly=true

Below is two other links to some past maps of surround areas.

Ones for Groom lake area and another is for the NTS Tonapah area North of Groom Lake..

https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#active=10312&ext=-115.83029,37.22400,-115.78352,37.25096&localChangesOnly=true

https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#active=10312&ext=-116.78270,37.80677,-116.77428,37.81071&localChangesOnly=true

[ArMaP]

It shows an Helicopter which I think must have been in flight as I think I can see its shadow, South East of Papoose Lake.

I don't think it's a shadow, I think it's the same helicopter captured in two different photos in two slightly different locations, so the mapping software repeated the helicopter because it couldn't find a reference for it on the second photo.

I also noted that there seemed to be some other object further west that seems to be faded out that may have looked like a Disc type object.

Coordinates would help.

I am not sure what date it was from,It refers to a website showing Wayback maps,

Doesn't it show the date on the left side of the screen?

I am unable to see the map on any of my two browsers on my computer, but I am able to see it on a mobile phone browser.

I see the maps without any problems in Opera.

I am not sure if they are google maps or from another Source.

There are many satellites doing that kind of photography.

Does anyone know of any other websites that may show older maps of the same areas.

Google Earth (the application, not the web version) has a timeline that allows you to got back or forth in time and see the photos from those occasions.

IF its possible maybe some one can post an image of it.

Like this?
(click for full size)

[astr0144]

.I am not sure that I would understand why there could be two different photos or images on such a one specific map or why such maps would want or need to show two different references.

my only explantion to my understanding on looking at the map and seeing the image/s would to think I was seeing the helicopter flying and the satellite captured its shadow at the time it photographed it as it passed by.

I don't think it's a shadow, I think it's the same helicopter captured in two different photos in two slightly different locations, so the mapping software repeated the helicopter because it couldn't find a reference for it on the second photo.

Unfortunately I am not sure when I look at the map how to obtain the specific co-ordinates .
But I had a look on a Bing map of that same area, and I could see something on their map that seems the
same location, but looking at it in more detail, its not what I originally thought. So now I dont think it is a Disc.

I think it was just part of the terrain that seemed rounded.

Coordinates would help.

There are dates that are shown on the map and other dates that you can select.

The persons who posted it on the forum I obtained it from, did not think that those dates being shown were correct.  because they also looked at Area 51.. and some of the more recent buildings that are at the base were not shown or built on at the time of the dates that the map/s suggest.

Doesn't it show the date on the left side of the screen?

Unfortunatley I was unable to install Opera on my Windows XP system.
BUT I was not able to view the map on Firefox or G Chrome...
which unfortunately in the last few months, I am finding I am being unable to see more and more websites
or images anymore... Which maybe because now a lot of things are posted on the Cloud and maybe Windows xP
is unable to view such sites or files.

I was able to view it on Safari on a mobile phone.

I see the maps without any problems in Opera.

If I recall not long ago you posted something from a WAY BACK image of some sort.
and I was not sure if there are free websites that allow you to find old images or maps that maybe classed as
WAYBACK pages...or something along that line.

However..
On the image that you posted.  I can see some information that I think refers to the map that was used that I was not able to see when I looked at the map on a mobile phone. that is shown at the bottom of the image.

but I am not sure if its from a free source or something or a Map software package  you have to pay for ?
https://www.esri.com/en-us/home

There are many satellites doing that kind of photography.

Google Earth (the application, not the web version) has a timeline that allows you to got back or forth in time and see the photos from those occasions.

Many thanks for posting the image.

I do find it interesting that at last I have found something that appears to show up at Papoose.

It would had been fascinating if it had been an older map that also had shown Bob Lazars suggested S4 Base that showed a Saucer. such as like this.

Like this?

[ArMaP]

.I am not sure that I would understand why there could be two different photos or images on such a one specific map or why such maps would want or need to show two different references.

Because images like that are really mosaics made with many photos stitched together by some special software.

If that image was made from two images taken at slightly different times (maybe one second between them), the helicopter would have moved a little, so in the second photo it would appear in a slightly different place.

[astr0144]

I dont know enough to know how the maps are created and how many photos/  images it may take for a given area.

BUT I would be very surprised if they could not have just had the one photo for that particular area where the helicopter is shown. where that particular area would be seen a small in comparision to much of the other surrounding areas.   

So even just for the Pappose lake area.
How many photos do you think that they maybe likely use.

They could I assume take some photos from high up and even just have one photo for the Papoose lake area
that could have included the Helicopter.

OR do you think they would take a series of closer up photos and piece them together ?

Because images like that are really mosaics made with many photos stitched together by some special software.

If that image was made from two images taken at slightly different times (maybe one second between them), the helicopter would have moved a little, so in the second photo it would appear in a slightly different place.

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

Did you know that there are a McDonalds, a Burger King, a Popeyes, a Taco Bell there?
There's also a Hilton Hotel, a Motel 6, a Holiday Inn too?

[astr0144]

Nice find Sgt.

You found something  that I was asking about in the past some time ago, that I failed to save details of the webpage or map...and later I did ask if anyone had been aware of such a thing.

when I had come across a map that showed at least one of those things you listed..I think it was the Hotel that I found a ref to and I think it was on what I had thought had been on an official google map at the time. but I was never able to find that same version again for what ever reason.

I questioned could it possibly for real or just a made up version.
There may well be a hotel for certain visitors to the base. and there could be some other facilities,  BUT we are led to believe that many of the workers are not supposed to be able to go to certain places.

but there maybe certain areas where they can have access to.

Or your self or someone you came across may have created it. 

Can I ask do you you have a link for it ? or ask where you obtained it ?

I suppose  the helicoptor in the ref image I referred to could have  also been created.

The thing is with most maps I have looked at online, around Area 51, most seem to have numerous parts to them
that have been altered, so its hard to know what maybe for real and whats not.

I know John Lear used to claim much of the Area 51 Maps were altered.

Did you know that there are a McDonalds, a Burger King, a Popeyes, a Taco Bell there?
There's also a Hilton Hotel, a Motel 6, a Holiday Inn too?

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

I created the image from my Google Earth Pro Map.
I also have the moon leases on the moon mapped out.
(a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away)

[astr0144]

Well that was a good creation Sgt.  Nice one !

You had me questioning such a thing ! 

We  will have to see if there maybe  any other future posts.

I created the image from my Google Earth Pro Map.
I also have the moon leases on the moon mapped out.
(a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away)

[ArMaP]

They could I assume take some photos from high up and even just have one photo for the Papoose lake area
that could have included the Helicopter.

OR do you think they would take a series of closer up photos and piece them together ?

If they take photos from high up they will get a bigger area for each photo, but lower resolution.
The higher the resolution the closer they need to be, resulting in smaller areas covered and, as a consequence, more photos needed for a specific area.

[astr0144]

Thanks for your thoughts on the two possibilities.

However to be able to see the helicopter in the photo /image or map we refer to.

Would you think it needed to have been done by higher resolution judging by how it appears to us when we look
at it ?

and as the Helicopter itself is very small in comparision to even a relatively small area of Papoose lake or part of its surroundings.

I myself would doubt very much that the resoltions we see would have to include s series numerous small
areas to make the Helicopter appear to be seen as two seperate images as you initially suggested rather than
the photo showing a shadow on a larger scale photo image..

I suspect that the size of the helicopter would be unlikely any more than 20 to 70 foot square area on average.
although I believe that there are some types of helicopters that maybe as long as 120 foot or more.

This link and image shows some egs of various helicopter sizes.

https://external-preview.redd.it/D4Ul57pcYZL1-lkVWnNxJsvj2myFLgBSvj-Pg_piZz8.jpg?auto=webp&s=ee1bd383ff9a856ec47a18311c7417e3a8d5528e





so I would very much doubt that they would be taking numerous photos of say 50 ft square areas and piecing all them together.

I am also not sure if they have certain photography film / cameras that could show much more detail from further away images... that could just require one or just a few photos and still allow you to see the helicopter in the same
same detail that we can see it as long as we zoom into the image.

Different films used in at least the older style cameras before digital, used to show different grain structures.
I am not how the more modern digital options may vary !

If they take photos from high up they will get a bigger area for each photo, but lower resolution.
The higher the resolution the closer they need to be, resulting in smaller areas covered and, as a consequence, more photos needed for a specific area.

[ArMaP]

I myself would doubt very much that the resoltions we see would have to include s series numerous small
areas to make the Helicopter appear to be seen as two seperate images as you initially suggested rather than
the photo showing a shadow on a larger scale photo image..

Now that I have more time I can explain it better.

To make those images (or any other mosaic), we need to several photos that have overlapping areas, something like this:


Depending on the software used (you can do it by hand, but it's a very hard work) and the content of the photos (images with lots of detail are easier to aligned than images of, for example, the ocean) they may need an overlapping of some 20% or more to be able to "stitch" the photos together.

What I think may have happened was that the helicopter was close to the right edge of one photo and so appeared near the left edge of the next, like if it was, for example, on that part that is covered by both the red and yellow squares on the image above.

After a quick search I found that, apparently, the highest resolution photos are close to 60 cm (2 ft) per pixel and cover a 20 km area of the ground.

I am also not sure if they have certain photography film / cameras that could show much more detail from further away images... that could just require one or just a few photos and still allow you to see the helicopter in the same
same detail that we can see it as long as we zoom into the image.

For that they would need a bigger camera. The satellites that take those 60 cm per pixel photos have a 650 mm diameter telescope, so to have the same resolution at a higher altitude they would need an even bigger telescope and put it in orbit.

Different films used in at least the older style cameras before digital, used to show different grain structures.
I am not how the more modern digital options may vary !

It's not that different.
The more sensitive sensors can capture more detail with less light, while the less sensitive sensors need a longer exposure time to achieve the same result, but they will have more noise from the increased exposure time.

[ArMaP]

I forgot to say one reason that makes me think that is not a shadow: the colour.

A shadow shouldn't be as dark (or almost as dark) as the object itself, specially on a bright surface.

[astr0144]

Interesting to read what you have described along with your image eg ArMaP.

If you are right, that surprises me.

I am suspecting what you shown, was the older methods that they used to use.

and I am aware of certain technology to do with photos now has special software to piece a series of images together , like with a series of photos to be joined up as a panoramic.

I assume that the image that shows the Helicopter at Papoose Lake, is not highest resolution photos.

but if they were you are suggesting that each small photo would only be maybe 2 FT per pixal.

so is that the say for eg that an area of an size of a helicopter if it was say 70 ft long  x 70 Ft wide
(or is that 70 Sq feet)  could have 35 x 35  photos 35 x 2 ft wide and another 35 x 2ft long.
or something along that line.

So could it be to question maybe how many pixels we may be seeing on the image.

BUT I would think along the lines of maybe... that say a 70 Ft Square area for a helecopter could be over 35 times larger than that of the equivalent of a 2 Ft per pixel resolution.

so we would still see the helicopter on much lesser resolutions. and would that also be larger sized pixels.
BUT that may eliminate any shadows or not, I am not sure.

Also the Helicopter be stationary and still show the shadow. in that eg I think the sun would need to had been quite low to the horizon, were it cast longer shadows.  BUT as I mentioned its unlikely to have been in the right direction to have cast the shadow in the position that we see.

Depending on the software used (you can do it by hand, but it's a very hard work) and the content of the photos (images with lots of detail are easier to aligned than images of, for example, the ocean) they may need an overlapping of some 20% or more to be able to "stitch" the photos together.

What I think may have happened was that the helicopter was close to the right edge of one photo and so appeared near the left edge of the next, like if it was, for example, on that part that is covered by both the red and yellow squares on the image above.

After a quick search I found that, apparently, the highest resolution photos are close to 60 cm (2 ft) per pixel and cover a 20 km area of the ground.

I am /or was not aware of the details of what such a Satellites camera's details may involve or what size they maybe or how they operate.and to what specifications.

but if your description maybe such an example, thats worth noting.

For that they would need a bigger camera. The satellites that take those 60 cm per pixel photos have a 650 mm diameter telescope, so to have the same resolution at a higher altitude they would need an even bigger telescope and put it in orbit.

It's not that different.
The more sensitive sensors can capture more detail with less light, while the less sensitive sensors need a longer exposure time to achieve the same result, but they will have more noise from the increased exposure time.

Looking again at the image of the helicopter and its possible shadow.  to me the Helicopter does look quite black.
and what maybe the shadow seems more lighter or greyer. The ground or surface does look relatively light or bright, assuming that the sun is shining on a lightish color type rock surface..

THE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER.

Is to look at the images shadow (if it is one) and where it appears.
The location where the image is taken is to the South East of Papoose lake.

Yet the shadow seems to be towards the South West. Would that suggest maybe that the Sun would have had to have been positioned towards the North East ?  Which would be possible in the Northern hemsphere.

and as far as I recall when at At Area 51, generally the Sun would anywhere from rising in  the East to then travel South to set in the west. but would depend also on the time of the year.

There is suggested dates shown for the images, and it suggests it was taken in Feb 2022. so in winter.

I think generally in the Winter the rises later and less towards from the east.

So maybe the shadow does not make sense and your theory could suggest you could be right.

Unless you analyse it differently to me.


IF the image of the helicopter is genuine and not been inserted to be created as a hoax,
IT could be one of the suggested Black helicopters that people often refer to that they report that they see around Area 51.

I forgot to say one reason that makes me think that is not a shadow: the colour.

A shadow shouldn't be as dark (or almost as dark) as the object itself, specially on a bright surface.

[ArMaP]

I am suspecting what you shown, was the older methods that they used to use.

and I am aware of certain technology to do with photos now has special software to piece a series of images together , like with a series of photos to be joined up as a panoramic.

Not the older method (that would be doing thing by hand) I was talking about the software used to make image mosaics, panoramas being one example of those.

I assume that the image that shows the Helicopter at Papoose Lake, is not highest resolution photos.

but if they were you are suggesting that each small photo would only be maybe 2 FT per pixal.

so is that the say for eg that an area of an size of a helicopter if it was say 70 ft long  x 70 Ft wide
(or is that 70 Sq feet)  could have 35 x 35  photos 35 x 2 ft wide and another 35 x 2ft long.
or something along that line.

2 ft per pixel is correct, but the photos are many pixels wide and usually even more pixels long (see the note at the bottom of this post).
In the case I was talking about, the photos cover an area of 20 km, which, at 0.6 metres per pixel means more than 30,000 pixels wide, so no, certainly not 35 photos to capture a 70 ft object.
35 pixels to capture a 70 ft object, yes.
On a 20 km wide photo a 20 metres object would represent 1/1000 of the total photo width.

BUT I would think along the lines of maybe... that say a 70 Ft Square area for a helecopter could be over 35 times larger than that of the equivalent of a 2 Ft per pixel resolution.

so we would still see the helicopter on much lesser resolutions. and would that also be larger sized pixels.

I was talking about the satellite I found with the highest resolution, I don't know the resolution of the camera that took the photos used to create that image.

BUT that may eliminate any shadows or not, I am not sure.

If we see the object we see it's shadow, as they are the same size (in fact, the shadow is always a little bigger, but wouldn't make a difference at this distance).

Looking again at the image of the helicopter and its possible shadow.  to me the Helicopter does look quite black.
and what maybe the shadow seems more lighter or greyer. The ground or surface does look relatively light or bright, assuming that the sun is shining on a lightish color type rock surface..

Looking closer I agree, the possible shadow does look slightly lighter, and we can also see the vegetation, so it could really be a the shadow.

THE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER.

Is to look at the images shadow (if it is one) and where it appears.
The location where the image is taken is to the South East of Papoose lake.

Yet the shadow seems to be towards the South West. Would that suggest maybe that the Sun would have had to have been positioned towards the North East ?  Which would be possible in the Northern hemsphere.

and as far as I recall when at At Area 51, generally the Sun would anywhere from rising in  the East to then travel South to set in the west. but would depend also on the time of the year.

Isn't the shadow southeast regarding the helicopter? That would put the Sun at northwest (more west-northwest, in fact).

There is suggested dates shown for the images, and it suggests it was taken in Feb 2022. so in winter.

I think generally in the Winter the rises later and less towards from the east.

In Winter the Sun rises and sets more to the south and in the Summer more to the north.

So maybe the shadow does not make sense and your theory could suggest you could be right.

Unless you analyse it differently to me.

Using this site we can see that on 2022-02-24 the Sun set close to a west-southwest position, so it was not possible for it to cast an east-southeast shadow.

IF the image of the helicopter is genuine and not been inserted to be created as a hoax,
IT could be one of the suggested Black helicopters that people often refer to that they report that they see around Area 51.

Why would anyone create a fake shadow?


Note: many satellites, instead of using a rectangular sensor for their cameras, use only a one line sensor, and they work as a scanner, capturing one line at a time while moving across the area they are photographing, so their photos usually have much more pixels in length than in width. The fact that most satellites have orbits that are further away from Earth over the poles than over the equator also changes the resolution, so the higher resolution photos are only possible closer to the equator, the closer to the poles they get the lower the resolution.