(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Map Pack 4 is already at about a 75% chance of coming out because of treyarch's recent success and they have said that it will if they make it take place in nevada. Many say Area 51 isn't possible because it came out in the 50's. That is wrong because that was the first public release of area 51 but the blackbird project happened there long before that public release. Keep in mind area 51 wanted to keep as secretive as they possibly could so that they can work in peace without any worry of suspicions on what they were doing there. So they worked there since the end of world war one when they started project blackbird to make stealth fighters and bombers to help aid in future wars this project couldn't happen during the war because they had insufficient funds to keep the project going and they didn't know where was safe during the war. So this data shows that area 51 is a high possibility in the next map pack.:cool:

Public awareness was increasing, so they had to say that the areas buildings were recently instructed. Ok and dont use wikipedia that site fails. Start reading books about it, thats where the real info is and not wikipedia..
P.S books are more useful than the internet, especially on stuff like this.

Well, like I said, i'm not trying to deny that what your saying is true or that the next level is at area 51, I'm just merely asking for what your sources are. Like you said, those sources are in books, but which books are they. I would like to look into those. And I also hope you noticed that 4 of the 6 website sources I posted are not wikipedia, and your response had no sources whatsoever.
Furthermore, I am an avid book reader so I am very aware of them being an excellent source of information. If you can, cite these books where you got the information for Area 51's existence prior to the 50's, and I will agree with you. Besides, the majority of online sources get there information from books. And so far, all we have in information from you, which is on the internet and nothing else. And true, public awareness may have increased about the existence of Area 51, but that still doesn't prove that it existed during World War II.
Like I said, I would gladly take a look at those books where you got this information from, and will admit your were right. Thanks.

[quote='[-RX-]RAY;435576']Public awareness was increasing, so they had to say that the areas buildings were recently instructed. Ok and dont use wikipedia that site fails. Start reading books about it, thats where the real info is and not wikipedia..
P.S books are more useful than the internet, especially on stuff like this.[/quote]
dont be a nerd reading books what u do is watch history channel **** ya but i hate books and any1 in the right mind hates books becuase its like a chore u just keep going and going and going but to tell u the truth the best place to get info is probaly through storys of ppl or interviewws idk but ppl will tell u about the deprision better than a book all u have to do is find them and conact them

You kind of creep me out and noah nice theory btw^:confused:



Books are good to the soul apparently but i don't agree with that

Ok, I don't know how many times I have to say this, but again, only 2 of the 6 sites I posted are from wikipedia. Again, I'm not saying its the most reliable source ever and that is why I didn't just quote that as a source. Second of all, I will reiterate that I am an avid book reader and agree that they are great sources of information. However, you should realize that even books can be tainted with bias and innacurate information. Also, you misspelled gullible, but being gullible is believing your suspicions about the blackbird project just because you say you're suspicious. Since i first posted on this thread, no one has been able to cite any sources, either internet or books, that show any evidence of the blackbird project or Area 51 prior to the dates I stated.
So I'm not saying the 6 sources I stated (only 2 being from wikipedia) are the most reliable or most accurate, but no one has cited a source that contradicts them. So Please, if you have those sources, please post them. I would immediately take a look at them and put this all too rest.

actually you can believe almost all wikipedia articles if the articles cite another source.
Another thing, why don't u start giving us some book titles, author names, and page numbers instead of "I read this in a book somewhere" cause that's not how to properly cite evidence

well this didnt happen

LOL i laugh at you idiots that thought it would be out by now. You guys think you know everything but you don't. You guys made fools of yourselfs.