As of today, I'm officially spooked...

reply to post by ignorant_ape


I just posted about the supposed DIA underground base in another thread. I've been hearing about it for years but I've yet to see any compelling evidence of it. You would think someone on the inside would have leaked some by now...

reply to post by markymint

Or will another Flight 447 just disintegrate like 747's generally do these days?

This explains why you believe in there silly conjunctions and conspiracies.

447 was not a 747. It was made by Airbus a totally different company.
Where do you get the idea that747's just disintegrate? That is a really off the wall statement. No Boeing or Airbus planes just disintegrate.

I'll bet your are afraid to fly. And I can see why if that's the stuff flaoting in your head.

WARNING...WARNING...WARNING: THIS VIDEO IS NOT TO BE WATCHED IF YOU HAVE A WEAK HEART. IF YOU'RE EASILY SCARED, DO NOT WATCH THIS.

Dr. Michio Kaku speaks about Defcon 1 in Denver Colorado on September 22, 2011. Americans who can perform high skilled technology jobs. As a result, America's H-1B Genius visa is used to attract immigrants who are skilled enough to perform these jobs.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by EmilNomel


hey, thanks alot you horses arse....

I was in the middle of a precision stroke for a painting i'm working on when this generic scare tactic screamed through my speakers....

"Well", you might say, "Thats what you get for being interested in science".....


Find another forum you half wit....

reply to post by EmilNomel


You do realize that you misrepresented the video. The video states that people believing in conspiracies and youtube videos are dolts. That is the message of the video.

So, I was looking at the stats for my website today, and noticed a ginormous spike in readers. I tracked the majority of the hits to my post about the DIA. I wondered, "Why the heck is this article that I wrote like 3 years ago suddenly getting slammed?" Then I saw it was shared here on ATS. So, thanks to the OP for giving me a little boostaroo!

Anyway, I am the author of the article Mysterious Murals and Monuments at the Denver Airport. I wrote it back in 2009 and over the past couple of years it has been one of the most visited articles on Extraordinary Intelligence. It's a topic that just grabs people's fascination. But, I hadn't really read it all of the way through for quite some time, other than periodically updating it as needed.

I haven't read every post in this thread, but there is one person who is calling me a "typical conspiracy author", along with a few other choice words (I don't mind... comes with the territory). His main bone of contention seems to be with my pointing out that there were some strange occurrences with airplanes at the DIA. Here's the entirety of what was said:

Originally posted by stereologist
Here are comments by the artist that painted the murals.
www.leotanguma.com...

The description is substantially different from the odd claims from the link you posted. At least the author reported comments from Tanguma.

In the middle of the art discussion is this:

"According to Compilots.com, there were 13 windshields that cracked in February of 2007. The official reason is supposedly high winds, although there is no explanation as to why high winds have never caused such a series of cracks at other airports. It is still considered a mystery. In December of 2008, a plane with a mysterious crack in its fuselage actually burst into flame on the runway, injuring several passengers."

There is a link to a news article. Does it say there is an official explanation? NO. Is this unique to DIA? NO.

Here is another take on the story with much more info.
abcnews.go.com...

So now we need to find out if there was some official study result.
www.denverpost.com...

So when the author of the mysterious monuments and murals writes that it is still a mystery it simply means that the author never made an effort to determine what happened. Typical conspiracy author.

And then there was this baloney sentence.

"Some have speculated that this is due to an abnormally high or low frequency pulse that is being emanated by the airport."

Typical conspiracy author that tosses in a nonsense sentence right before claiming that the cause is still a mystery. Notice that all of the 14 planes involved suffered damage in a 3 hour period.

To address these comments we'll start at the beginning. First of all, he says that my discussion about the planes happens in the middle of the art discussion. Which isn't the case... I transition at the end of my discussion of the murals into the topic of airplanes by saying, "With that said, the murals and the giant blue horse are not the only items of intrigue. There are many reported anomalies about the DIA." This is meant to indicate that we're changing the subject.

Then, he basically implies that I misused the information in the Compilots.com article, because "Does it say there is an official explanation? NO. Is this unique to DIA? NO."

Exactly... there's no official explanation. That was my point! A quote by an airline spokesperson within the compilots.com article that I sited states, "It's not exactly unusual weather for Denver,'' Hodas said. "We don't know what it is... It's kind of a mystery at this point.'"

Further, the articles used to back up the claims made by stereologist actually seem to further indicate that there is more mystery than explanation afoot, so it remains quite fair, I believe, that I call it a mystery within my original article, and I stand by my statement.

As to my final quoted comment where I wrote that "Some have speculated that this is due to an abnormally high or low frequency pulse that is being emanated by the airport.".... that is just what it is... some people have made those claims. I included those claims in my article... but I didn't focus on them, I didn't rely on them as an explanation, because I think they're pretty weak claims. This is why they only got a cursory mention without much further thought.

Anyhoooo, I still think my article is pretty fun and interesting, but feel free to pick it apart some more. I can take it

reply to post by NatalinaEx


It must feel great to have such a poorly written article where the so-caleld official story is blowing debris damages planes.

Further, the articles used to back up the claims made by stereologist actually seem to further indicate that there is more mystery than explanation afoot, so it remains quite fair, I believe, that I call it a mystery within my original article, and I stand by my statement.

Great. You stand by your lousy article and pretend there is a mystery.

Anyhoooo, I still think my article is pretty fun and interesting, but feel free to pick it apart some more. I can take it

It's a typical conspiracy article which relies on tossing in inconsequential comments.

Thanks for amusing people with your article.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by NatalinaEx

 

It must feel great to have such a poorly written article where the so-caleld official story is blowing debris damages planes.

Further, the articles used to back up the claims made by stereologist actually seem to further indicate that there is more mystery than explanation afoot, so it remains quite fair, I believe, that I call it a mystery within my original article, and I stand by my statement.

Great. You stand by your lousy article and pretend there is a mystery.

Anyhoooo, I still think my article is pretty fun and interesting, but feel free to pick it apart some more. I can take it

It's a typical conspiracy article which relies on tossing in inconsequential comments.

Thanks for amusing people with your article.

Hey no problemo, entertainment is part of the goal, my friend. Mission accomplished I'm not embarrassed to admit that I'm entertained by many conspiracy theories. It is why I began my site in the first place. With that said, it doesn't mean that there isn't something wacky going on at DIA. If you disagree, whoopdidlydee! There's no reason to be rude!

With that said, you still seem to be missing a crucial point which is that the article is meant to be inclusive. Meaning, I share the conspiracies that have been discussed about the DIA, and some of the theories that people have come up with. If I include it, that doesn't mean I endorse it, nor does it mean it is beyond the pale.

But, to say I "pretend there is a mystery" is pretty lame. Clearly, I am only one of many that finds the circumstances surrounding the airplane damage at DIA to be mysterious, not the least of which being the official spokesperson, as I previously mentioned. You don't have to think it is mysterious. But others do. Including some of those who are cited in the articles that you shared. I fail to see the point of your vitriol.

I don't think my article is lousy, but I don't claim it is a scholarly thesis on the composition of the airliners that commonly depart from the Denver International Airport and the frequency of damage as it relates to common weather phenomena. It's a freakin' blog, man.

reply to post by NatalinaEx

But, to say I "pretend there is a mystery" is pretty lame. Clearly, I am only one of many that finds the circumstances surrounding the airplane damage at DIA to be mysterious, not the least of which being the official spokesperson, as I previously mentioned.

Is this the day of the damage comment you are relying on? Then place it in that context and state that. There is no mystery there. You are pretending there is a mystery there. That's a common technique for charlatans to use. You think that debris blown by winds is mysterious?

I fail to see the point of your story.

It's a freakin' blog, man.

It is a blog and it is so-so like most blogs are.

The fact is that nothing mysterious happened. End of story.

I was kinda having fun with you, but now you're getting cruel. I think you are out of line implying that I am a charlatan. First of all, you're focusing on one of the most minor points of the entire post. It is not the "point of my story". The info about airplanes comprises exactly one paragraph of the entire post. But, if you'd like for me to elaborate I shall.

The comment within the compilots.com article which states that the circumstances surrounding the cracked windshields is mysterious IS part of what I will rely upon to back up my claim that the damage was mysterious. But I will further state that within the article the final line is "None of the pilots reported flying debris". So, your conclusion seems a bit more presumptuous than mine. Of course, you are more comfortable coming to your definitive conclusion than relying upon the spokesperson and the pilots that were actually THERE.

So, lets go to the articles that YOU provided to solidify your claim that NOTHING mysterious was happening. First, lets use the article you provided which is titled The Mystery of the Cracked Airplane Windshields. Interesting title. Then again, ABC news is known primarily as one of those wacky conspiracy sites, right? Ok what does the article say....

First line of the article, "Investigators at the Denver International Airport are trying to figure out why the windshields on at least 13 planes have cracked." Ok, now, what do we call it when something happens that experts are having a hard time figuring out? Hmmmmm..... a mystery? Surely not. Reading on...

Also from the article:

"This is not only unusual, I know of no precedent for anything like this where multiple windshields have been cracked, simply by being in a particular place at a particular time," said John Nance, a pilot and aviation consultant for ABC News.

and... yes, as the article goes on, there are speculations as to what caused the cracks. They discuss birds, weather, debris, etc. BUT, as of the time that the article was posted, investigators were still... investigating. No conclusion was made. Further, those interviewed seemed to be of the opinion that what had happened was unusual enough to warrant said investigation. I still think "mysterious" fits. But let us look at your other article.

You are exactly right on the BINGO money with this one. They do state that they've come to a conclusion as to what caused the damage. All signs point to debris. And my bad for not finding this article as I was writing in order to share the info. I'll be wearing my dunce hat for the remainder of this thread. With that said, we still find that the article ends by saying....

Investigators were not able to determine the precise nature of the debris because there were no "transfer" marks of the material onto the windshields, Kaiser said. "We have nothing at the impact sites to say this is definitively what it is."

SO, I think it is fair to say that the entire scenario was strange and unusual... and obviously the investigators, pilots, and experts all thought so as well. If the word "mystery" isn't to your liking, I guess that's the way it goes. Can't please them all.

However, I will again state that clearly this was an extremely minor point in my overall article. And I can't believe I've continued to entertain this topic.

I think you ruffled my feathers a bit, by your desire to paint me, someone you do not know, as a charlatan, or whatever words you choose to use. I write about the things that I find interesting. Periodically, I may not cover topics at the length that some people would like me to, and there are times where I may miss something or come to a conclusion that you may not agree with. That's the way it goes. You don't like most blogs, you REALLY don't like mine, and that's ok. But name calling is really unnecessary. In fact, in the several years that I've been doing this, I've never really had anyone imply that I'm dishonest. I've had lots of insults lobbed at me which comes with the territory. That one stings because it is entirely untrue.

reply to post by NatalinaEx

The comment within the compilots.com article which states that the circumstances surrounding the cracked windshields is mysterious IS part of what I will rely upon to back up my claim that the damage was mysterious. But I will further state that within the article the final line is "None of the pilots reported flying debris". So, your conclusion seems a bit more presumptuous than mine. Of course, you are more comfortable coming to your definitive conclusion than relying upon the spokesperson and the pilots that were actually THERE.

False. I relied on the statement which I posted that stated the cause of the damage. Go back and learn what actually happened.

So now you continue to act like as if there is mystery by relying on early reports from the media that use typical modern journalism hoopla to make a bland event more interesting.

PS I never called you a charlatan. What I stated was "That's a common technique for charlatans to use." My suggestion is that you learn to avoid such tactics to distinguish your writings from the writings of people like Lucus that even when shown an article that states a previous report is in error continue to run with the original claim.