posted 06-26-2001 10:44 AM            

Mr. McDonnough strikes me as someone who is more interested in finding out the truth than in maintaining politically-correct (or incorrect) views which are not supported by evidence. I believe he is aware that, regardless of his findings, he will upset more doctrinaire colleagues, but is willing to take that risk.

I sent the following message to Mr. McDonnough. I'd appreciate if you would review it, visit his website, and consider getting involved in such a project. If designed and carried out properly, such a project would provide important data that would give people on both sides of this issue critical information about contrails. I assume, given the interest on both sides of the debate that exist, such information would be welcome to all.

LETTER FOLLOWS:

Michael McDonnough
Research Director,
Chemtrails.org

Dear Mr. McDonnough:

Congratulations on a fine contrails web-site. I reviewed it this morning and particularly appreciate your comment at the Research section:

"We are going to be working with other strong supporters of truth in uncovering the unknown about this subject and getting the whole thing out in the open. What ever the truth about the Chemtrails may be we have no personal agenda to fulfill so we will support the revealing of the truth no mater what it might turn out to be .... we are not in a popularity contest. We are not media hounds seeking attention. So if the truth turns out to be un-supportive of someone else's claims then that's the way that it goes."

Despite my being an avowed skeptic of the chemtrail hypothesis, I find myself in complete agreement with you in your goals and philosophies regarding sound investigation; valid data-gathering; accepted analyses; objective data-reduction and conclusions; and proper dissemination of the report to all interested parties.

As you're undoubtedly aware, there are individuals on both sides of the debate who are uncomfortable with new ideas. Many people - again, on both sides of the debate - have much emotion tied up in their own beliefs, and some of them might actually prefer not to know the facts if those facts run counter to their beliefs.

But we both seem to recognize that we must subordinate our own agendas to finding out what the truth is, and I agree with you that in-situ sampling of contrails is one of the best approaches to such an evaluation. As a matter of fact, I have suggested such an approach many times before; a recent example can be seen in my posts located at http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000649.html entitled "What's Merle Haggard doing on a board like this?"

Although the bulk of my comments were suggestions as to how various researchers might design a Statement of Work to get proper funding, I believe the suggested structure and investigative approach to be a valid one, and lends itself to your proposal for a sounding balloon/RPV approach.

However, despite posting those comments on several boards (on both sides of the debate), no one seemed interested in following through. I am not sure why this is; perhaps it's that many people are afraid of the conclusions, or simply did not have the time. It appears that neither of those two constraints applies to you and I; and I would like to offer any help I can to assist in the collection approach, as well as the development and deployment of the in-situ collection project.

I will post this letter on all the bulletin-boards and websites of interest to researchers in the chemtrail issue. Hopefully, it will be help to engender renewed interest in such a program. If done properly, such a program could, as you put it, "help to answer these questions once and for all."

Again, congratulations on your web-site. I hope to have the opportunity to assist in this project, and look forward to your reply.

Regards,

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

LETTER ENDS

[Edited 2 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 06-26-2001]