|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
Duncan Kunz Wants EVIDENCE
 Tue Apr 30, 2002 6:25 am
|
 |
|
from an attributed source:
Here Duncan...try this on, since you refuse to address the State of California Air Resources Control Board evidence of significant increases of the TOXIC heavy metal barium in the air of California...thousands of samples over many years.
So here's some fresh evidence today:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/images/vis_enhanced/2002042919.gif
Now once your done explaining the UNIQUE atmospheric conditions necessary to produce these "ship trails" at high latitudes in the Gulf of Alaska, we'll look at some from the tropics.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 04-29-2002] |
| |
|
|
Duncan Kunz
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
|
|
Tue Apr 30, 2002 6:30 am
|
|
|
Wow, throat!
Pictures of clouds and contrails over the Pacific Ocean!
I guess you showed me some "evidence"!
Read my comment to you other post below. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Tue Apr 30, 2002 6:39 am
|
|
|
Contrails...or "Ship Trails"...
did you forget to confer with CANEX before you so hastily responded ...
Kunz ?
You'd think the debunkers would get their stories straight. |
| |
|
|
PHANTOM911
Joined: 31 Oct 2001
Posts: 341
|
|
Tue Apr 30, 2002 5:34 pm
|
|
|
Not to interrupt here, but maybe some evidence has been slid under some noses already.
Duncan, with all due respect, you never got around to fully de-bunking my video. I believe this was one of the lost threads last week. Remember? You gave me that LONG spiel on aircraft travelling through atmospheric blah blah blah blah, (edit; not blah blah blah blah but very knowledgable information far beyond my comprehension 4-30-02 4:15 pm) and I questioned why there was such a vast difference between the two sides of the aircraft, you know, how the one side of the aircraft's trail peters out to a sputtering state while the other remained pretty steady. Not to mention the FACT (edit; not FACT, my mistake 4-30-02 4:15 pm) that this clip starts out with significant trails being laid down, then shut off, purged momentarily, then resumed once more with seemingly lesser density. So please do, at your earliest convenience, finish with de-bunking my video. I await your learned comments. Thank you, and sorry to interrupt this particular whizzing contest.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by PHANTOM911 on 04-30-2002] |
| |
|
|
Duncan Kunz
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
|
|
Tue Apr 30, 2002 9:20 pm
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Phantom 911:
I have read your post, and have responded on a point-by-point basis. As usual, your comments are in "quotes"; mine are in italics.
"You gave me that LONG spiel on aircraft travelling through atmospheric blah blah blah blah...."
To be honest, if you are going to refer to my explanations as 'blah, blah, blah', then why should I bother trying to explain it any more? It seems to me that, if you consider any explanation I make as 'blah blah blah', either you don't understand my point or you already have your mind made up.
But since you asked me again, I'm going to assume that you really want some answers and are not asking just because you want to troll or flame me. Here we go:
First, there's not much difference in the reporting via a video clip and a still photograph. With a video-clip we can see the contrails start and stop, but the still photograph shows us what had just happened, and we can reasonably assume that because the still photograph shows a broken contrail, then it really did start and stop.
Therefore, any comment that can explain the still photo of a broken contrail can probably explain a video of the same, right?
Now you weren't in the airplane to see them starting and stopping the "spray nozzles"; and I wasn't on board to see that there really weren't any "spray nozzles", so neither of knows for sure. All we have is our respective hypotheses, based on how we interpret the evidence; in other words, our own explanations for the 'start-and-stop' contrails.
I explain this phenomenon, as I mentioned earlier, by the fact that the upper-atmospheric environment is very dynamic, with as little as fifty meters of altitude showing enough differentiation in conditions for contrails to either form or not form. This means that a plane that varies its altitude by 50 meters or so - if the conditions were right - could very well "dip" into and out of a different altitude with different atmospheric characteristics, and thus display (or not display) a contrail. I'm sure you've been a passenger on a commercial jet often enough to know that sometimes the plane bounces up and down!
But the plane can be flying perfectly level and still exhibit start-an-stop contrails. For example, a freshly-plowed field six miles below can result in a higher IR radiation reflectance that would rise right up and change an area that may only be a mile in diameter. If you postulate a commercial aircraft flying at 500 miles per hour, it would fly through that patch of disturbed air in 7.2 seconds. That way, you could have (even with an anomalous area a mile across) a contrail start and then stop - or stop and then re-start - in seven seconds.
This existence of this atmospheric dynamism has been demonstrated for over fifty years by detailed balloon- and aircraft-borne radiosonde deployments, and you can find detailed reports of this in almost any textbook of meteorology published in my lifetime - and I'm pretty old.
On the other hand, you might say that such 'start-and-stop' contrails are caused by clogged nozzles or some other malfunction in the 'spray' device. If you think about it, doesn't it seem a bit far-fetched that the same folks who make aircraft engines that almost never malfunction would build such a failure-prone device as the technological centerpiece of their worldwide plot?
Or, if you think that the "turning on and off" is deliberate on the part of the chemtrail-weenies, wouldn't you have to ask why? I mean, if the turn their 'sprayers' on and off and on and off, then they'd be getting peoples' attention which could blow the entire Secret Plot, right? Plus, if they stopped spraying, then they'd have to come back later and spray again to cover the area they missed!
So if you want an explanation for start-and stop contrails, you either have to be in the aircraft looking at the crewmembers (which you weren't, of course, and neither was I) or you have to come up with an explanation for the phenomenon which makes sense to you. The first explanation above makes more sense to me. If the second explanation makes more sense to you, I'm certainly not going to hold a gun to your head and make you think otherwise.
"... and I questioned why there was such a vast difference between the two sides of the aircraft, you know, how the one side of the aircraft's trail peters out to a sputtering state while the other remained pretty steady."
I haven't a clue. I wasn't there. Perhaps one side of the aircraft was heated by the sun a bit more which caused a change in the fuel burn characteristics, or one engine was set at a slightly higher speed or fuel mixture. Or perhaps not.
"Not to mention the FACT that this clip starts out with significant trails being laid down, then shut off, purged momentarily, then resumed once more with seemingly lesser density."
In the words of Ronald Reagan to Jimmy Carter during the 1980 presidential debate: 'There you go again, Mr. President.' It is not a 'FACT' that trails were 'laid down then shut off, purged momentarily, then resumed...' What is a 'FACT' is that the pictures show an aircraft contrail start and stop and start again. You are confusing an observation on your part - which is a perfectly good observation -- with your interpretation of an observation. It may sound nit-picky to you, but being able to differentiate between observations and interpretations is what separates scientists from non-scientists.
Or, to paraphrase poor Wisequakker: "...By itself, science tells us what should be. Only tempered with clinical observation and common sense, does it tell us what really is, and when we add wishful thinking, we end up going off the deep end......"
"Thank you, and sorry to interrupt this particular whizzing contest."
Thank you for your consideration, Phantom911. However, in the words of the famous International Olympic Committee President (and crook) Juan Samaranch: "I declare the 2002 Urinary Olympiad to be over!!"
Regards,
------------------
Duncan Kunz / duncankunz@cox.net
Mesa AZ / 480-891-2525
[Edited 6 times, lastly by Duncan Kunz on 04-30-2002] |
| |
|
|
WiseQuakker
Joined: 21 Aug 2000
Posts: 141
Location: Wherever I happen to be at the time |
|
Tue Apr 30, 2002 10:43 pm
|
|
|
Spare me your sarcasm, Kunz. The fact is that you fail to hold yourself to the same standards of proof that you expect from those you claim to have successfully debunked. You want to see “wishful thinking”, go review some of your own inadequate and pathetic responses where you only think that you have scored any points.
quote:
Don't believe me? Argue it with these guys at Cornell: http://www.vortex.mae.cornell.edu/long_top.html
Sounds like a plan to me. I visited the Cornell site, saw the same type of thing based on a series of photographs in their simulation, and managed to stumble through the accompanying text.
Admittedly it is kind of complex, and fluid dynamics was not my strong suit (nor were the diffie-q's you need to pencil-whip them). Nonetheless, I'm convinced that the 'rings-on-a-snake' are explained jsut fine by interaction of vortices.
Sorry.
You’re “sorry”, alright. And your ongoing display of humility is just as phony. I don’t have to take up anything with “the guys at Cornell”. Their presentation is perfectly valid. It’s your application of their findings in such a slipshod fashion that is an insult to their research. I already explained why that is, in detail. If you need a refresher, go back and reread it. If you don’t care, well that’s fine, too.
Now, here is some valid science for you — which you have failed to address. To quote myself:
quote:
If what I photographed was such a classic example of the rarely-seen vortex core, then where are the rings? They are much more prominent than any “snake” that is visible in one of the images I have presented, above. In the actual clinical SUCCESS trial, shown above that, the core is completely undetectable. Furthermore, any trapped ice crystals still form an aggregate — not a conglomerate — and they must obey the same dynamic laws as does the parent vortex. That is, the vortex core will expand with time and distance from the point of its generation. There is no evidence of expansion in either of the photographs that I have submitted.
And remember, one-third atmosphere makes it even less likely that any part of a vortex is going to retain the same radius for miles and miles. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to figure that one out.
No, Duncan, you and I are not teammates. Not in the broadest sense. You can add anything you like to my tagline, if you want to. It is nice to know that it has found it’s mark in poor old Mr. Kunz...
_____________________________
“When walking amongst predators, never lose awareness of your surroundings. By itself, science tells us what should be. Only tempered with clinical observation and common sense, does it tell us what really is......”
|
| |
|
|
PHANTOM911
Joined: 31 Oct 2001
Posts: 341
|
|
Tue Apr 30, 2002 11:06 pm
|
|
|
Well folks,
Ya just gotta love this guy. And now I do.
Duncan, with me, your job is complete. There are no chemtrails. I have been duped. I stand corrected and ashamed. How could I be so STUPID as to believe that anyone could do such a thing as deploy chemicals on a population of innocents from a jet's exhaust?
I only hope I can get this egg off my face and get on with my life being no longer startled by the ominous displays seen overhead. I have you to thank now that I can tell everyone I was wrong. In my defense though, I was misled by a bunch of mean people who wanted to cause me harm by generating fear in me with something I knew nothing about. Well mean people do suck. Mine eyes have seen the light. Hell, now with all this newly freed-up time, I can help you spread the word so that all these fine people on all these conspiracy touting Chemtrail websites can eliminate their fears and go on to lead more productive lives with the knowledge that you are correct. You must be rewarded for this, although I can't see what would be a just reward for you. I love you man. Please don't give up on the rest of them. They all need you too. Thank You Thank You Thank You! PEACE OUT!
Can anyone tell me where to get that Bart Simpson thingy where he gives the moon?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by PHANTOM911 on 04-30-2002] |
| |
|
|
David
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 1381
|
|
Wed May 01, 2002 12:09 am
|
|
|
Sorry, broken link.
[Edited 9 times, lastly by David on 04-30-2002] |
| |
|
|
Duncan Kunz
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
|
|
Wed May 01, 2002 2:25 am
|
|
|
Quak and Phan, you may believe what you choose; inasmuch as we still live in a free country.
Phan, I am sorry you failed again. Not sorry for you, but sorry that I wasted my time thinking that you were really asking questions.
Quak, I firmly believe you don't have the brains to bait a fish-hook, and I understand now what you mean about us not being "teammates" -- I made a few calls myself over the past couple of days.
But I do owe you, for one of the best (inadvertent, I'm sure) jokes I'd ever heard:
"Now, here is some valid science for you ... to quote myself"
|
| |
|
|
PHANTOM911
Joined: 31 Oct 2001
Posts: 341
|
|
Wed May 01, 2002 3:50 am
|
|
|
Regards to De-Buncan
Utter disappointment
Looming about
Thought it was clear
He called me out
Showing my hand
With only his word
Dropped to his side
His words only heard
That not being enough
He tossed me aside
Now on whose coatails
Will I ride?
Pssssstttt.....Don't tell De-Buncan, but I still believe there is something funny about all those planes in all those places creating all those wild skies! Don't forget to visit my website often and see for yourself what the De-Buncan crowd can't explain with their mumbo jumbo! http://mochemtrails.topcities.com/ct001.html
[Edited 1 times, lastly by PHANTOM911 on 04-30-2002] |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Thu May 02, 2002 5:56 am
|
|
|
Thermit, Lulu, 3T3L1, FLKook,
Please link this satellite picture to this thread before it becomes unavailable.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/images/vis_enhanced/2002042919.gif
Everyone should easily be able to see what Kunz reefers to as , "Pictures of clouds and contrails over the Pacific Ocean".
He may be laughing to himself...others aren't.
It would be interesting to see a discussion between CANEX and Kunz as to whether these are "contrails-Kunz" or "ship trails-CANEX".
But then that would create dissension in the ranks of the debunkers.
Make note that the unique atmospheric conditions necessary for the creation of these persistent trails are occurring at 55 degrees north latitude.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 05-01-2002] |
| |
|
|
Lulu
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 2501
Location: right here |
|
Thu May 02, 2002 6:03 am
|
|
|
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Lulu on 05-01-2002] |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Thu May 02, 2002 6:08 am
|
|
|
damn I actually lived long enough to see you make a valid point throat, and a funny...lol...
It would be interesting to see a discussion between CANEX and Kunz as to whether these are "contrails-Kunz" or "ship trails-CANEX".
I'll put a hundred on canex...
I saved the pic (one better on my site btw), just in case it's gone...all you have to do throat is save it to your "documents" then upload it to ctc uploading area...
still laughing...."contrails over the pacific"...isn't that a broadway muscial !!...LOL...
------------------
T/S |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Thu May 02, 2002 6:24 am
|
|
|
Can't wait for the usual explanation from CANEX seeker.
THEN we'll consider COMPARABLE conditions occuring in the TROPICS.
|
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Thu May 02, 2002 6:57 am
|
|
|
"I'm gonna wash that trail right out-a my hair..."
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Thermit on 05-01-2002] |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 4:14 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
