posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 01:32 AM
Thanks for posting that...
I read that a few days ago, and I was thinking that it was biased and here's why....
Feel free as always to disagree, but did you guys/gals not get the underlying sarcasm inherent in some of the description?
It was subtle, but there....going to pull up the article so I can give you specifics....
""That door," he says with dramatic pause. "That door weighs 4,000 pounds. It's been reinforced to withstand a nuclear blast.""
""Although mainstream science tends to dismiss the subject, along with Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster, a number of prominent scientists and much
of the public -- as many as 60%, according to polls -- believe UFOs exist and should be studied. "" (Totally condescending and inaccurate IMO)
""The plan was to live and work in here. But the site needed more work than expected. The place leaks. The ventilation isn't good, and there's a
little bat problem."" Makes him seem like an idiot who can't even check out a missile bunker IMO LOL, it is funny, but, not really.
"""Not many people would waste their lives pursuing such an elusive subject," Davenport says on the drive home. His car is an 18-year-old gray
Crown Victoria with a quarter-million miles. The windshield is cracked. "Sometimes I don't know why I do it."" (The reporter basically calls him
a crack pot here, and speaks condescendingly about his old beater and his windshield, what exactly does that have to do with anything?)
These are some of the glaring attempts to make him look like a complete lunatic, nutcase, IMO...
I did not think this was fair reporting at all...it was pandering at it's best and making a great guy who, although is eccentric, didn't deserve
being made to look like an idiot.
Anyway, that was my take on it. I was actually outraged at the article.
[edit on 4-4-2008 by LateApexer313]