posted 06-13-2001 10:10 AM            

When asked by the interviewer about touring, The Hag took a moment and mentioned in a confidential voice that "...everywhere I go, I can see we're being sprayed. Baltimore, Detroit, Wilmington -- everywhere....The Government knows about it; hell, they're probably doing it."

He didn't mention it further, nor did the interviewer follow through. I thought it interesting that a major entertainer was a chemtrailer; but then, Bonnie Raitt is a rabid anti-nuclear tree-hugger and I still like her music....

So why is an old debunker like me posting this? Simple. If you work this right, you just might be able to provide some research which can go a long way towards increasing the visibility of the chemtrail community -- and providing evidence for chemtrails' existence.

You know that the one investigative approach that comes closest to satisfying both the pro- and anti-chemtrail folks is in-situ collection of airborne exhaust particulates. In-situ collection, of course, minimizes potential post-dispersal contamination, as well as chemical or biological degradation of the particulates.

(There's a more cost-effective way to determine particulate makeup: remote atmospheric spectroscopy. However, this approach can be complex and difficult to interpret to everyone's satisfaction -- from what I understand; I'm not an analytical chemist.)

As a matter of fact, I understand that a fund for in-situ collection has been set up, although I am not familiar with any published "scope of effort" or even if there is a Statement of Work or Request for Quote. But what the chemtrail community needs, in my opinion, is a "sugar-daddy": someone with enough interest, profile, and money to fund such an in-situ study.

Ol' Merle just might be that person. If the chemtrail community could put together a sound proposal for collection/evaluation of suspect particulates, as well as publication and proper dissemination of the results, you might be able to get him to lend both his name and financial resources to the effort.

posted 06-13-2001 10:40 AM            

Okay, we've got telephone, fax, email and snail mail, let's go...

posted 06-13-2001 11:20 AM            

Not that I have a vested interest in this thing (other than the desire to find some reliable data), but you might want to put together a package that would increase the chances of his participation - and the general public's acceptance.

For example, if you came up with a Statement of Work (SOW), it could improve your chances. If I were involved in such an undertaking, I would consider the following:

1. Pick the right people to present the proposal and be involved in the project. I would want at least three from group A: Thermit, LT3, Weber, Swedishoo, Carnicom, Thomas, and Rense. I would also want at least three from group B: Reynolds, Chickie Deb, TopGun, Cassani, Cydoniaquest, and Strieber. If you pack the project group with people with a single agenda, you'll lose credibility. (Could you imagine Jay and Cliff co-authoring a report? That'd be worth the price of admission all by itself!)

2. Issue your SOW in a neutral way. "This study will investigate the composition of particulates in jet aircraft exhaust to determine if there are components which are not combustion-related; and to determine if a correlation exists between such particulates, if present, and particular types of aircraft" is good.

"Getting To The Bottom Of The Evil Government Plot To Kill Us All" or "Debunking Those Paranoid Chemmies' Bonehead Conspiracies" are losers.

3. Come up with a collection methodology that is acceptable to responsible people on both sides of the issue. The approach won't, of course, lend itself to a double-blind study; but if you determine that a chartered aircraft with a pitot-tube collection apparatus and a sterile holding vessel is the best approach, document it in the SOW. If you choose to go with a baseline collection, emphasize that additional ambient samples would be collected from an area outside any plume and the two sets of particulates would be investigated using the same approach to determine what correlation(s) exist.

4. Come up with a evaluation approach that everyone can live with. This means a reputable analytical laboratory with the capability to determine both organic and inorganic components. Given the ongoing adversarial relationship between the enviros and the present government, you can be secure that there are lots of good labs manned by qualified researchers which will provide sound evaluation - that aren't on the government payroll.

5. Develop an agreement on how the final report will be presented that everyone can live with. This doesn't mean that the conclusions have to be unanimous; they won't be. But the results, as reported by the lab, should be presented in their entirety. Save the axe-grinding, if any, for the editorializing in the majority and minority annexes to the report; in other words, separate the opinions from the facts.

6. Get the principals to agree, up front and in writing, to participate in all phases of the project. This way, if Cliff Carnicom or Jay Reynolds don't like the way the evidence is going, they'll probably be too embarrassed to back out, seeing as how they'd lose most of their credibility if they did. If you could get some of the more well-known of the folks (e.g., Rense, Strieber, Thomas) to actually publicize the report, it would provide both visibility and credibility to anyone out there with an interest in the chemtrail phenomenon.

7. Once you design the project, cost the thing out with the subcontractors (i.e., the lab, the airplane lessor, the collection apparatus developer) to find out how much it would really cost before you start chasing the money. If I were a rich man (hey, that's make a good title for a song!) I'd be much more likely to get involved with a program that had a realistic price tag.

Duncan Kunz
duncan.kunz@prodigy.net
Mesa AZ
480-891-2525

posted 06-13-2001 11:39 AM            

If a few of these CT aware celebrities were to host a fundraiser, our financial woes would be quickly over and the media exposure would be priceless.

I can recall reading a interview in Rolling Stone in which a member of Slipknot was talking about Chemtrails. I just saw a promotional photo of Frank Black (from the Pixies) with blatant and massive CT's in the background. I've heard Dave Grohl from the Foo Fighters is aware.

We really need to encourage the folks in the public eye who have the courage to speak out on this issue.

I really feel for Merle. It's one thing to see your own geographical area being sprayed. It's another to watch this whole damn country being turned into a chemical warfare zone.

There is a great deal of mistrust in this country with regards to the Bush administration. Clinton was an enormously popular president and even he barely escaped removal from office because of his dishonesty.

posted 06-13-2001 12:27 PM            

Thanks for your orginazational thoughts on the Statement of Work. Great ideas. Although I'm too busy to be a pointperson on this project, I encourage others to be involved. Lorie K. should be contacted as well, if her "official" fund is to be utilized as a part of this.

To All,

I'm a bit verklempt at the moment. I'll give you a topic...How to get Merle to help us with awareness and in-situ testing...discuss amongst yourselves...

posted 06-13-2001 12:38 PM            

LTC8K6 has provide the link to the audio file, thanks Will Bill!

http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/wesat/20010609.wesat.07.ram

posted 06-13-2001 05:13 PM            

Googled a search on "AIR SAMPLING" and found a half million hits. It'll take me a moment to go through them however preliminary sites viewed prompted me to post this one. http://www.jal-foundation.or.jp/html/TaikiKansoku/html/ed_taikisaishushikumi.htm

Do you think one of these giants would be willing to test the capabilities of their high quality equipment on a little 'follow the chem plane' experiment?
Trouble is which plane where. Solution is patterns. We all know that every aircraft we see may not be expiring the unusual substance's we are seeing( I think), however some patterns do exist.
If we could convince an air sampling corporate giant to prove their wares, free sample. We may even find the results we hope (or do not hope) to find for a "Global"
media giant to air.

I shall go forward when I can and contact local Corp's. Will other's do the same?

Two other questions:

1) Is there any way of determining the rate of skin cancers in area's that do not report unusual contrail activity? This could provide a "Bench Mark" on the reflectivity theory.

2) Can we find a different Merle song? This one says that we don't smoke marijuana in Muskogee. I think that's pretty obvious!

posted 06-13-2001 10:32 PM            

This was broadcast on NPR.

National Public Radio.