|
|
Duncan Kunz
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
|
Particulate Crimes
 Fri Jul 06, 2001 7:53 pm
|
 |
|
Dear Colleagues:
I wrote the following letter to Mr. Clifford Carnicom, in response to a thread on particulates at http://pub8.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessage?topicID=5065.topic , which, in turn, references another research page at http://www.carnicom.com/part3.htm .
Inasmuch as technical considerations sometimes result in posts being inadvertently deleted from Mr. Carnicom's site, I have reprinted the letter here. I'd urge anyone interested to visit the two referenced URLs to review and evaluate Mr. loookinup's research.
MESSAGE FOLLOWS:
Dear Mr. Carnicom:
While Mr. loookinup's research may be significant in acquiring pictures of particles in the atmosphere, I do not see how one can logically infer anything other than the fact that there are localized particles of an indeterminate size and origin.
Given that the stills presented are taken from a video camera, we cannot see the particles themselves, merely their trail as they are illuminated during the opening of the camera's shutter. With the inherent difficulty of measuring such particles, I believe that any discussion of whether they are 'dust' or 'aerosol' is moot.
I do not see any discussion of subsequent collection of the particulate/aerosol or any associated examination, either by microscope, reagent, or culture. Therefore, the only conclusions that I can draw from this series of observations is that some particulate matter of unknown size and composition was seen and photographed on July 5 2001 in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
This is not to say that such observation is invalid; there may well be more such particulates in the air. This would seem to be the case, inasmuch as they or something similar has been observed as mentioned in the discussions of the Sun's corona. It is not out of the question, either, that the presence of such particulate matter has some correlation with aircraft contrails, or that such contrails and subsequent particulates are part of an insertion program by individuals or agencies unknown.
I believe that subsequent efforts in this vein should include (1) acquisition and testing of the particulate to determine its size and composition; and (2) a series of further investigations to determine if the presence of these particulates correlates in any way with the appearance of long-lasting contrails. Such research, if carried out in accordance with scientific rules of evidence, evaluation, and reporting, could provide valuable data in helping us determine the facts about the important issues of contrails.
But until such valid data as available, such comments as
"another body of evidence that demonstrates that the atmosphere of this earth has been tragically altered as a result of the aerosol operations",
"evidence presented on this site that demonstrates the saturation levels of particulate matter that are now in our atmosphere",
"a crime against humanity", and
"seek an immediate disclosure of the parties responsible for the damage to the atmosphere, health and the environment"
are irresponsible. They are unsupported by the evidence of Mr. loookinup's observations; they do not shed any light on the chemtrail-controversy; indeed, they will probably create more of a rift between the chemtrail community and the very people - researchers and the mainstream press - which can provide the visibility that I am sure we both consider key to acceptance of the chemtrail phenomenon.
Sincerely,
Duncan Kunz
Duncan.kunz@prodigy.net
Mesa, Arizona
|
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Fri Jul 06, 2001 11:13 pm
|
|
|
Mr. Kunz,
Until recently, I have been working under the assumption that you were a sincere and well-spoken sceptic making a good faith effort to examine the issue from a perspective of scientific dilligence. In light of your recent comments on another board, my opinion has changed:
quote:
"The bottom line is this." The quiet man spread the contents of the three ring binder on the table. "All of the conspirators - Chris Concarnie, Jeb Rentz, William Thompson, Brad Donley, Mark Schuyler, and the others - have been in the pay of the three biggest herbal additives manufacturers in the country. When their hoax was in full swing, over ninety percent of their devotees - and we have all the demographic data to prove it - spent an average of a thousand dollars a year buying quack herbal nostrums to stave off the non-existent "chemscum" and try to cure the common cold or pollen allergies, which they attributed to chemtrails."
You hardly seem to be concerned with 'mending
rifts', Duncan. Quite the contrary. Your rather disturbing and ethically questionable accusations, inferred or otherwise, shed light on your true agenda.
I highly doubt Mr. 'Concarnie' will dignify you with a response.
|
| |
|
|
eyesopen
Joined: 25 Apr 2001
Posts: 663
Location: Nashville TN |
|
Fri Jul 06, 2001 11:48 pm
|
|
|
That Kunz character is sure becoming annoying.
"All of the conspirators - Chris Concarnie, Jeb Rentz, William Thompson, Brad Donley, Mark Schuyler, and the others...."
Ya know Kunz's name lends itself well to parody as well.  |
| |
|
|
Delphi
Joined: 17 Mar 2001
Posts: 1571
Location: S. Bossier, Louisiana |
|
Sat Jul 07, 2001 6:59 am
|
|
|
Chem 11, Eyesopen...DITTO! Absotively posilutely, EXCLAMATION POINT!!!!!!  |
| |
|
|
Norrin Radd
Joined: 04 Nov 2000
Posts: 90
|
|
Sat Jul 07, 2001 7:47 am
|
|
|
I have been debating Duncan Kunz for over two years now.
We have debated y2k, o.k. he won that debate.
We have debated GM Foods, TWA 800 as well as a few other issues.
We agree on supporting the second amendment and ending the moronic war on drugs, but differ on several other issues.
I am not sure of Duncan's motives. I hope they are sincere, but I am unsure.
His inability to admit that there was an obvious cover-up concerning TWA 800 has me concerned he might be hiding something.
If you read this Duncan, I would be interested in knowing if you have seen the video "Silenced" yet and what you thought of it?
I hope to hear from you.
Brent |
| |
|
|
Delphi
Joined: 17 Mar 2001
Posts: 1571
Location: S. Bossier, Louisiana |
|
Sat Jul 07, 2001 8:46 am
|
|
|
Hi Brent, Long time no "see". Sure surprised me he supports 2nd ammend. and ending the war on drugs....Hmmmm. The CIA will always be in the drug business either way, anyway. Blessings, Take care. Joanne An Angel for you ^j^ |
| |
|
|
Duncan Kunz
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
|
|
Sat Jul 07, 2001 9:42 am
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Chem11:
Come off your high horse. When I visit your website, I post with courtesy and consideration for others. I do not accuse anyone who disagrees with me of being a “sheeple”. I do not believe, like many of your colleagues, someone who sees things differently than I do is automatically in the pay of the CIA or part of a plot. I do not respond to anyone’s observations by attacking them personally.
I have my reasons for doubting the existence of chemtrails as anything other than perfectly normal contrails, and I have never made any bones about it. I have seen no hard evidence of such activity, and I have explained why as best as I can.
Furthermore, you may notice that I do not even talk about chemtrails per se on your board; most of my comments are about othe items.
I do not understand what you mean about my being concerned with “mending rifts”. I would be satisfied if everyone on both sides of this controversy would post with dignity and courtesy.
However, when I post something on a board which is devoted to non-factual writings, such as the “freeform” room, I am under no obligation to you or anyone else to follow some sort of religious orthodoxy, chemtrail or otherwise. My stuff is satire, and I think it’s pretty good. If you have a problem when someone pokes a little gentle fun at you (while not bothering about some of the personal accusations and attacks by others on some of these boards), then you must look at yourself.
Furthermore, I do not consider my satire as being “ethically questionable”. What I consider “ethically questionable” is exactly what got this thread started. Cliff Carnicom has taken some very broad and general observations and turned them, without any evidence at all, into a series of completely unsupported allegations and accusations.
I too, doubt if Mr., Carnicom will respond to my comments, but even if he did, he would not be “dignifying” me. Instead, he’d (hopefully) admit that his attacks and accusations are gratuitous, uncalled-for, and completely unsupported by the evidence.
But, in the final analyis, what Mr. Carnicom does or does not do is beyond either your or my power to control. He will either agree with me, disagree with me, or blow my comments off. that is his call; it is a free country.
Now, as the sysop of your own site, you can set your rules. You can ban anyone who does not hold your beliefs. You can censor any posts you choose for any reasons you choose. You can ignore any post which may cast doubts on the chemtrail orthodoxy – especially if such doubts are disturbing. That is your board, and what you do is your right.
But I’d appreciate it if you’d either apply the same standards to anyone – whether they disagree with you or not – or just come right out and say that you don’t want to hear anything that might upset your associates’ -- and your – beliefs.
Duncan Kunz
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Duncan Kunz on 07-07-2001] |
| |
|
|
Duncan Kunz
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
|
|
Sat Jul 07, 2001 10:13 am
|
|
|
Dear Brent,
Actually, it’s been closer to three years. Let me respond to your post item by item, with your comments in “quotes”, mine in [brackets].
“His inability to admit that there was an obvious cover-up concerning TWA 800 has me concerned he might be hiding something.”
[That’s rather presumptuous of you, I think. I am not “unable” to admit there was an “obvious” cover up concerning TWA 800; I could not see that the bulk of evidence showed any sort of foul play on the part of the US Navy or anyone else. It is simply not “obvious” to me – or to most of the professionals from my company and everyone else, either.]
[But that is not the point. Even if there were evidence that the unfortunate aircraft was “shot down” by the Navy (and I don’t deny that it’s a possibility, although a remote one) I simply cannot see why you would be concerned about me “hiding something” just because I interpret data differently than you do. That’s as silly as me saying, ‘Well, the fact that Brent doesn’t agree with MY beliefs makes me concerned that he’s hiding something.’]
[I would hope that you can understand that two people, based on differences in their outlook, access to different data-sets, and background can come to different conclusions without one of them being a plotter or hiding something.]
[Brent, there are many people posting on the internet who have so much emotion tied up in various orthodoxies that they cannot possibly conceive that anyone who disagrees with them is an good person. These unfortunate individuals believe that everyone who does not agree with them on everything is their enemy.]
[I have known you for three years. You are better than that.]
“If you read this Duncan, I would be interested in knowing if you have seen the video "Silenced" yet and what you thought of it?”
[I have not. However, I am always looking for additional data; if you make it available to me or tell me where I can get it from, say a library or Interned download, I will be happy to review it and provide you as objective review as I can.]
Regards,
Duncan Kunz
Duncan.kunz@prodigy.net
Mesa AZ
480-891-2525
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Duncan Kunz on 07-07-2001] |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Sat Jul 07, 2001 8:31 pm
|
|
|
quote:
But I’d appreciate it if you’d either apply the same standards to anyone – whether they disagree with you or not – or just come right out and say that you don’t want to hear anything that might upset your associates’ -- and your – beliefs.
Duncan, the rules for posting at the SCA forum are clearly posted. You are free to air whatever grievances, personsal differences or satirical exposes you wish in the appropriate section.
This minimizes disruption within the forum proper, while providing a section for all who wish to engage in trolling, flamewars or debunking. These rules apply to everyone, including yourself.
If you require further clarification, please respond on the message board in question.
|
| |
|
|
Duncan Kunz
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
|
|
Sat Jul 07, 2001 11:37 pm
|
|
|
Nonsense.
Your forum rules state “The Seattle Chemtrail Alliance forum is dedicated to open, respectful discussion on the reality of the CT phenomena.”
I was not posting any grievances, personal differences, or satirical exposes in your forum. I was not even questioning the orthodoxy of ‘chemtrails’.
Instead, I called Cliff Carnicom’s attention to what I considered incorrect interpretation of an existing observation on his part.
As can be seen by my non-censored post above, I even mentioned to Mr. Carnicom that Mr. or Ms. looookinup’s observation was a data point and should be repeated, and mentioned to him that, since he is truly interested in convincing other people that there might be something to chemtrails, it was in his best interest – as well as mine – to provide as unbiased and objective an interpretation of existing data as he could.
Now I assume – and maybe I’m wrong – that “open” means that we can discuss questions about data, interpretation, hypotheses, evaluation, observations, and that no one will be called into account for any hypothesis, observation, test, or questions regarding the same – as long as it’s presented in a courteous matter and does not bring up the forbidden belief that chemtrails are merely contrails.
And I assume – and maybe I’m wrong here, too – that respectful means we avoid calling people names or start personal attacks on your forum.
However, if you define “open, respectful discussion” as “you may bring up any hypothesis you choose, but you must never say anything against Cliff Carnicom’s pronouncements”, or “You must never question any pro-chemical hypothesis, but we have a right to do so to yours”, then a simple statement to that effect might avoid any further unpleasantness.
Meanwhile, I note with dismay that no one here has even addressed the subject I brought up. No one has said “Well, Carnicom’s interpretations ARE true because . . . etc. etc.” or “Well, Carnicom’s interpretations are invalid, and he should . . . etc. etc.”
Instead rather than responding to what I consider a valid observation on my part, I seem to be excoriated for something I wrote on a different forum.
Do YOU have any comments on Carnicom’s interpretation of lookingup’s data?
Duncan Kunz |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Sun Jul 08, 2001 12:23 am
|
|
|
In fact, I do Mr. Kunz. However let me first quote from the rules regarding posting on the SCA forum.
quote:
This thread, and this thread only, is open to everyone with a bone to pick, including self-styled debunkers.
Alliance regulations do not apply. Only posts that contain illegal content or otherwise violate network54 terms of use will be deleted.
Let me make this transparently clear; all posts that fall outside of respectful discussion on the reality of the chemtrail phenomena on other threads will be deleted. Corrective action will immediately be taken against anyone foolish enough to violate these rules.
I don't think I can make it any clearer than that, Duncan. If you feel that Mr. Carnicom (or anyone else) is acting 'irresponsibly' you are free to address your concerns in Fight Club. Period. Let's move on.
Since I've yet to actually try LKU's method for visually identifing airborne particulate matter, I don't think I'm qualified to offer a credible opinion on the methodology or the results obtained. The stills that C.C. posted certainly appear to be anamolous, based on the sheer volume of particles that are being illuminated. I suspect this is something that one would have too see for oneself in order to form an valid opinion. Hence my silence on the matter.
It should be fairly easy to obtain a sample for analysis and I supect this process is well under way. Until a sample is obtained and analyzed, I don't see much to be gained from debating the issue. Why don't you wait and see what happens (or perform your own experiment) instead of cross-posting the same higly critical letter on every CT forum in existence?
If you were wrong about the cabin air filters, you could just as easily be wrong about this... |
| |
|
|
Norrin Radd
Joined: 04 Nov 2000
Posts: 90
|
|
Sun Jul 08, 2001 9:11 pm
|
|
|
Joanne,
It is nice to see you have found a cool place to hang out.
There are some good people here and I am glad you are still involved in this issue.
I have many other issues that interest me and I believe that chemtrails are not a problem, but rather a symptom.
The problem is the corruption in government, as you know, which leads to all these symptoms which we call issues.
Until we treat the disease, corruption in government, instead of the symptoms, we might win small battles here and there, but we will never win the war.
Brent
p.s. I hope you had a good 4th and thanks for the card, it was really cute. |
| |
|
|
Norrin Radd
Joined: 04 Nov 2000
Posts: 90
|
|
Sun Jul 08, 2001 9:15 pm
|
|
|
Duncan,
You said two people can come to different conclusions after examining the same evidence.
Yet you have not examined the same evidence in this case.
You did not even read all the witness statements.
You did not read half of what I have read about TWA 800, because if you had, there would be no doubt in your mind that there was a coverup.
Please e-mail me an address where I can send it and I will send you a copy of the video at my expense.
Brent |
| |
|
|
cydoniaquest
Joined: 12 Aug 2000
Posts: 797
Location: nowhere |
|
Sun Jul 08, 2001 9:32 pm
|
|
|
Duncan K,
If anyone cares, I'd have to say you are hands down the best writer on any of these boards. I'm just saying what I think, not kissing any hindee. Your satire is incredibly well written, and for those who don't appreciate or understand it....well it's their loss is all I can say.
I agree with your philosophy completely that people with opposing views can still have civil discourse and very valuable exchanges....but it is a rare thing indeed.
Although I am probably more aligned with Brent's views on things like TWA 800, I have to say that as a skeptic, as a writer, as a satirist, a thinker, a gentleman and a scholar , you are first class, top notch and an invaluable asset to any board. Chem11 is not worthy of your presence at his joint!
And no.....the agency did not pay me to say this!
|
| |
|
|
Catnip57
Joined: 22 Apr 2001
Posts: 596
Location: Central Washington |
|
Sun Jul 08, 2001 10:36 pm
|
|
|
Well...I'm a bit reluctant to dive into this thread since there are bits of information I still need to really state my case but.. I didn't want this opportunity to pass without at least bringing out my observations of the particulate matter thus far.
I'm posting a portion of Chem 11's quote here to help with my comment.
"Since I've yet to actually try LKU's method for visually identifing airborne particulate matter, I don't think I'm qualified to offer a credible opinion on the methodology or the results obtained. The stills that C.C. posted certainly appear to be anamolous, based on the sheer volume of particles that are being illuminated. I suspect this is something that one would have too see for oneself in order to form an valid opinion. Hence my silence on the matter."
I have to state here for the record that the technique used by Lookinup to see the particles is an excellent method to use. I have personally seen the particles using this method and continue to use this technique on occasion to see the particles and try to collect samples. So I feel I can form a valid opinion here.
Last October 2,000 I had the opportunity to see for the first time the webs and sparkles that were creating quite the controversy. On this particular day there was intense spraying going on in the skies. We had just returned from town and I happened to notice a very long web hanging from the awning of our mobile home. I had become aware of the chemtrail issue thru one of Carnicom's interviews on the Rense show so I knew a little bit about the issue.
Before I knew anything about Lookinups method I accidently stumbled about the technique myself. As I was outside observing the web hanging off the awning I was in just the right position to block the suns ray with a corner of the awning. This provided a great view of webs and large floating flakes in the air. None of this stuff could be seen without the right angle of sunlight illuminating them.
All the information that I'd heard up to that point really hit me... It was then I knew something was going on. That's when I really started to research the issue.
I was so alarmed at the quantity of matter in the air I began to try and find samples so they could be examined by someone qualified. Well... I found the samples and that was no easy chore either since the web strands were difficult to see and even worse to handle.
My best source for finding webs turned out to be the barb wire fence surrounding our property. I felt reasonably sure that I wasn't picking up actual spider webs since I kept making comparisons with what I knew were spider webs and what I was sure were a manufactured web.
Several months passed until I was lucky enough to make an acquaintance with an individual who made his living looking at things under a microscope. There's a name for his profession but I can't remember what he said it was.
After waiting a couple of weeks he came back and told me what he'd found. He described seeing an extremely fibrous material that was also highly refractive. It reflected light extremely well he told me. In fact he mentioned that the only other time he'd seen such refractive qualities in a material was when he had examined some volcanic ash from the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Which of course was made up of mostly silica. He also confirmed that these were not natural webs but some type of manufacturing process created them.
I told him a little bit about some of the theories and how this particular piece of information supported the theory of trying to block the suns rays in a effort to control global warming. Then we discussed the fibrous qualities and how it was like breathing in asbestos .We all remember the controversy surrounding the asbestos issue don't we?
A light dawned in his mind and he knew now why he had been afflicted with a nasty cough for several weeks. I also had a nasty cough for a couple of months after making my first observation of the particulate matter.
I had planned to hold off posting his findings on the message board until he had sent me an e-mail to verify his findings and also present them in laymans and scientific terms so nobody could deny or argue with him. I'm still waiting for that e-mail.
One other reason I've delayed in reporting this is that the opinions of debunkers have led me to believe that there is nothing that can be presented that would change their minds.
Comments like... " the need to obtain samples directly behind a plane that's actually in the process of spaying. All the negative comments I've read concerning Carnicom's techniques for examining samples. All the bickering gets to be ridicules.
So I sat on this information.... and now that I've printed it out... I'm am 100% sure that it's still not going to be good enough for the skeptics. So just consider this to be my two cents worth...this is my valid observation about the chemtrail issue so far.
Just want to add something about the scientific method. When the scientists set out to examine rain water because of the acid rain theory a few years back did they go up thousands of feet in the air to obtain their samples? When you think of all the concerns raised about auto pollution and the laws the government has enforced over the auto makers... makes me wonder what gives here?
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 12:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
