Originally posted by angus1745
ok, let me clarify at where I was directing my 'uninformed rubbish' statement... Why are aerial photos of it [the airport] being posted on ATS to
lend credibility to some silly modern legend?
I believe this is part of the disconnect.
JohnPhoenix did a good job
explaining the situation, and the photos were not being posted in a manner to "lend credibility to some silly modern legend".
Originally posted by angus1745
As for the 'wild sensationalist and fanciful claims' look at the video in the origional post...snip... I do have a problem with old 'one sack' and
his wild and fanciful claims.
I've viewed the video, and perhaps you need to view it again because I fail to see any 'wild sensationalist and fanciful claims' being made by WOS.
As far as claims being made; there were:
He attended seminars, and one featured a guest speaker named Michelle Guerin.
In Guerin's talk she put forth many seemingly "outlandish" (WOS's word) claims. If you don't believe Guerin would put forth such a dialogue, then
a simple reading of some of her
online writings should confirm her stance
when it comes to the subject of Montauk; so it would be hard to claim that WOS somehow misrepresented
her beliefs.
Due to the nature of Guerin's beliefs, and his proximity to the location, WOS was inspired to put his feet to the ground, and personally investigate
the area to see if he could verify/disprove anything in her presentation.
In 1998 maps cited the location as Camp Hero State Park; however, at that time it was closed to the public.
Currently it is a state park; however, 30-40% is still closed to the public.
On his first visit he went swimming with his family.
He drove to the base itself alone.
He saw barbed wire fences, a police presence, and signs marking "Keep Out".
On one occasion he witnessed two tinted, low-flying, and "modern" looking black helicopters flying towards the base.
During a visit he parked at the lighthouse and walked along the beach to the base.
He noticed mounds/small hills, and discovered sealed-off square concrete "ducts" on top of these mounds.
Upon further investigation he discovered sealed-off bunkers built into the sides of the mounds.
He saw a large radar structure on the grounds.
He contends there is a large underground structure under the radar station based off of a few notable observations:
1) The concrete backed house has a visible tunnel heading out the back, and proceeding underground towards the radar station.
2) The radar station is on top of a huge mound, and he discovered that "If you see a hill, there's a structure underneath it", due to the fact that
every hill they saw/investigated contained a man-made structure.
3) He believes it would require a deep anchor/base underground to keep such a structure (dish) steady due to the natural weather conditions in the
area (frequent high winds).
In conclusion he states he couldn't prove/disprove if any parts of the base are still active today. Guerin claims it's active, while others
disagree.
Sorry, but I fail to see any "wild and fanciful claims" being made by WOS; so it would be much appreciated if you could point them out. The only
claim he makes, that seems remotely worthwhile for debate, is the possible existance of an underground structure beneath the radar building; however,
the reasons for him drawing such a conclusion seem completely logical. He also makes no diffinitive claims as to what such a structure may be used for
beyond the stabilization of such a large radar dish.
Originally posted by angus1745
Yes WOS eventually noticed that the airfield was in fact Montauk Airport, as he should, but that didnt stop people banging on about it.
"Eventually"? Do you realize he'd already set the record straight before
your
post here?
As far as "banging on about it"; sorry, but that's just blatant dishonesty. There is not
one post that even mentions the airport between the
photo post and
WOS's reply. Drew hempel says "Thanks for that awesome Montauk report and
photos"; however, giving you the benefit of the doubt, even if he'd been referring to the airport photos, instead of the photos presented in the
video itself, that one statement hardly qualifies as people "banging on about it".
Originally posted by angus1745
I love the way you address this like a lawyer. I can tell I've really annoyed you with this.
Yeah, I suppose I do like to stick to the facts. As far as "annoyed" goes... yes, it's a bit annoying when people come into a thread spouting
flagrant hyperboles and straw man arguments. Unfortunately your pointed critiques, of the thread and video, seem to contain such characteristics in
spades.
[edit on 11/21/09 by redmage]