Re: On the other hand . . .

Message posted by Steve Hauser on December 20, 2005 at 17:46:37 PST:

Thanks. I agree that Area 51 should have been designated with an area number immediately upon its addition to the NTS or very soon thereafter; however, I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that it was. 1958 or early 1959 maps would provide such evidence.

I think anyone who knows the truth and is reading this thread probably is having a good chuckle over the notion that the naming of the Red Hat Squadron had anything to do with a porter carrying someone's luggage. They can thank me for that.

Do you know whether the number "51" has as little significance as the other area numbers, "12" for example, or whether the number "51" was chosen for some non-mundane reason? To illustrate what I mean by non-mundane, I would consider the reason the base early on was referred to as "Watertown" as non-mundane, i.e., there's an interesting story behind it.

In Reply to: Re: On the other hand . . . posted by Peter Merlin on December 20, 2005 at 8:57:31 PST:


[ Discussion Forum Index ] [ FAQ ]