Duncan Kunz
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
|
 Fri Apr 26, 2002 6:50 am
|
 |
|
“Over three months, three separate rainwater and snow samples from Chapel Hill, North Carolina were collected and submitted for 'double-blind' laboratory analysis in March, 2002. Tests were ordered for several elements which should not be present in normal rain or snow. The result was devastating news about the health of our ecosystem: all samples consistently revealed enough of the following materials to indicate that they were present in the atmosphere 'in large amounts...and concentrated form' through a 'very controlled delivery (dispersion),' primarily: aluminum and barium.”
It appears that Mr. Jones did not actually review the lab analyses, which, of course, is the completely fraudulent Therese Aigner “analysis”. Instead, I figure he must’ve read what she wrote – instead of what the lab analysis really was ( http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000004.html and http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001120.html#12 ) he would not have blown his credibility by (inadvertently, I’m sure) perpetuating the fraud.
Again, Jones tries to tie the recent “black water” phenomenon off the Florida coast to a commercial precipitation inhibitor Dyn-o-Gel:
“The most plausible explanation for 'black water': a recent real world test on a hurricane released enough Gel into the atmosphere to kill everything in the sea below. What goes up, must come down. So what about humans breathing in this miracle product?”
Except that, of course, it’s not the “most plausible” explanation. Every marine biologist around has independently come to the same conclusion: that the ‘black water’ is the result of two algal blooms happening about the same time. These algal blooms might’ve been triggered by fresh-water concentration as the result of heavy rains – or they may not have. But the point is that the conclusion drawn by scientists, borne out by sampling, has just a leeetle bit more plausibility than that of Jones.
There’s nothing wrong with a reporter having an opinion – most reporters do. And there’s nothing wrong with a reporter writing up his or her opinions without any evidence or even lip service of objectivity. That’s what editorials are about.
Jones wants us to believe he’s acting like a real reporter, yet he publishes second-hand reports without checking the accuracy or even reading them (!) and he seems woefully unaware of all the real news about the Florida algal bloom. It’s people like Jones who, paradoxically enough, keep real reporters and objective reporting away from the chemtrail controversy – and help to ensure that it is simply not taken seriously.
Regards,
------------------
Duncan Kunz / duncankunz@cox.net
Mesa AZ / 480-891-2525
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Duncan Kunz on 04-25-2002] |
Login
