Originally posted by Mirlin11
As you pointed out, why would such a heavy hitter as Ed respond to a post on a conspiracy theory website?

Probably because someone emailed him about it and he wanted to set things straight.

Such as the "refugees" issue. A refugee is someone who's been driven from their homeland and is being resettled in another country. The Katrina victims are EVACUEES. They aren't being shuttled off to Canada. Most of them have said that they will return to New Orleans.

In an article that's being passed around as news, this kind of spin would be very upsetting. Maybe not to YOU, but to someone who works with relief organizations and news agencies, this is an important distinction.

And the label is actually important to the people caught in the system.

I recommend someone forward Val's article to the media and let's see who responds to that. Ed or someone above him.

No doubt it was already done.

You bring up some important points Shuffleon. The one that interests me most is, why was Ed's bio sanitized?

Probably to focus on what he wanted focus on. I don't know if you've ever applied for a job, but after awhile you change your resume to the set of references most appropriate for the job you want to apply for.

If you had my real name, for instance, you would be surprised at how many things I'm involved in that do NOT show up in any resume or in my application for the university. My bio for some of the other professional organizations I am in looks very different than the one I turn in for science fiction conventions.

My own ever-changing bio doesn't mean that I'm a member of some super-secret organization or that I'm hiding anything. It means that I am selective about what I present where -- the Anthropology Department, for instance, has no idea that I have an interest in model rocketry. The Society for Applied Anthropology has no idea that I'm a professional Tarot Card reader. And my clients for Tarot Card reading have no idea that I'm a scientist.

I "sanitized" my bio for those people.

Originally posted by Byrd
Probably to focus on what he wanted focus on. I don't know if you've ever applied for a job, but after awhile you change your resume to the set of references most appropriate for the job you want to apply for.

This hardly would seem the case....Consider the timing of the change and what kind of career track he has had. My sense is it was done (for whatever reason-benign or otherwise) to obscure his background. There is no indication, exactly, that he is looking for another job outside his field.


[edit on 12-9-2005 by loam]

Yes it was a bad decision for his biography to be removed, though I can understand it as people would read into in a negative manner as they are.
I personally believe the act of removing it to be far more damaging than anything that was on it.

And with respect to that, let's once again look at what his job is in brief, taken from the edited version of the site:

Ed Kostiuk works in the Oklahoma State Health Department Terrorism and Preparedness Division. He provides technical assistance and training for many advanced disciplines for search and rescue.

Emmm, well one indeed hope that they would choose someone like himself to do the kind of work he does. What do you expect? Someone with a couple of GCSEs or whatever you have in the states?

If they didn't fill those positions with anyone other than people with years of experience in relevent fields, would you not find that even more disturbing?

And lets look at the site his biography was on, as he is an advisor for that organisation:

Pathfinder Search and Rescue Inc. is a Non Profit, all volunteer Canine Search and Rescue team based in Moore, Oklahoma. We are deeply committed to our community and the State of Oklahoma. We provide trained, non aggressive dog's, handlers and support personnel to assist in a wide variety of disaster and emergency management responses.

Our members are very highly trained volunteers. Members have attended many specialized courses for search and rescue to include the following.

ICS, AFRCC Inland SAR course, AFRCC Search Mission Coordinators course, and Rescue Systems I. In addition we have many in-house training requirements for all team members before they are certified field ready

And their motto at the top:

Blessed are those that give of themselves!

My god your all right! He obviously is an uncaring and dishonourable person - the evidence speaks for itself..

Like I said, the worst thing was to remove the info, but I'm sure a lot of us have been eager to and maybe even carried out a little spring cleaning sometimes when we think it won't help what we are trying to do. And that doesn't always mean in a bad way.

And the way some of you talk one would think you had been talking to the head of FEMA or something, he is 'just' a member of staff.
Don't feel too embarrased if he has managed to accomplish more in his life than you have.. you know..

I actually find it insulting that so many people seem to think that if someone is in the forces or tries to help people on a government level then they have sold their soul to the devil.

Before this country (UK) got rid of it's Civil Defense program (or whatever we called it) my Dad used to be a part of it and co-ordinator for our area. He also used to serve in the armed forces as an officer when he was younger.. I expect he's evil too...

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Byrd
Probably to focus on what he wanted focus on. I don't know if you've ever applied for a job, but after awhile you change your resume to the set of references most appropriate for the job you want to apply for.

This hardly would seem the case....Consider the timing of the change and what kind of career track he has had. My sense is it was done (for whatever reason-benign or otherwise) to obscure his background. There is no indication, exactly, that he is looking for another job outside his field.


[edit on 12-9-2005 by loam]

Good points,

While some are all too willing to just accept Ed and his explanations, I maintain that he hasn't answered the questions submitted in response to his rebuttal. These are valid questions that need valid answers. We shouldn't just stop asking questions because a government employee gave a rebuttal to Val's article. The escuses for why he isn't answering the questions aren't working. If he really wanted to set the record straight, he'd answer the questions. He hasn't. No one else has either, but some seem awefully eager to make excuses for him and try to quiet the voices of those asking the questions. Why is that? There are too many questions that aren't being answered for us to just drop the subject and forget about it. I refuse to do that. Others do as well. I could care less about his background or the sanitation of his online bio. What I care about are getting the questions answered and obtaining information to further explain what is going on at Falls Creek Camp.

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Mirlin11]

I cannot personally verify whether or not Ed is "honorable" or "caring". The length of his resume, his qualifications, or his accomplishments while impressive, doesn't guarantee that he's honorable and the fact that he posted a rebuttal to Val's article doesn't prove that he's "caring". Are all qualified ex military personnel "honorable" and "caring"? Probably not. Does Ed have an accomplished career? Sure he does. None of that is getting the questions answered that Val and myself have posted. I don't buy for a minute that the less than "caring" responses some members here have posted to Ed's post is reason enough for not answering the questions. I'm not going to stop asking the questions because the guy we're asking them to is "qualified and accomplished" or because someone thinks he's "honorable" or "caring". Answering the questions is what matters to me. I'm not trying to smear the man or ruin his "stellar reputation". I just want the questions answered. I don't care if Ed does it or someone else. The questions need to be answered.

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Mirlin11]

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Mirlin11]

Byrd
The definition of refugee is maleable. As a legal term, in most courts, it does specify the leaving of the homeland, and sometimes specifies the person has to be fleeing from armed conflict to earn the designation 'refugee', however, it can be used in a broader sense to include anyone who is seeking refuge away from their home.

Refugee is a loaded word, but it's a good word. I think it applies to these people, which is why I keep using it, regardless of what Jesse and his posse think.

Think of the term refuge, and ask yourself, isn't that what these people are seeking? First they sought refuge from the storm, and now, from the aftermath.

In any case, I think the term evacuee is clunky and odd-sounding, so I don't use it often.

But I wanted to take a second and post this link to the various definitions of refugee. I think it may put an end to the semantics debate. I think it's safe to say there are more important things to worry about right now, besides the term used to describe the people engaged in this diaspora.

Edit: The link is a no-go, so for anyone interested, just Google "Refugee Definition" to get the info. Sorry for the confusion.

[edit on 12-9-2005 by WyrdeOne]

[edit on 12-9-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Let's hope this does make it into the mainstream media.

Some questions have not been answered. They are rellevent questions. Ed hasn't come back to respond to them. It could be that he didn't like the responses that some members here have posted, but what did he expect to happen at a conspiracy theory website? Did he expect to be welcomed with open arms and his word to be taken as gospel by all? Some may have reacted that way, and others may have been a tad bit "enthusiastic" in their responses, but Val responded to his rebuttal with good questions and I added a couple, NONE of which have been answered. I personally am neither condemning Ed as the enemy, nor am I quick to worship his accomplishments and proclaim him to be honorable or caring. I'm simply asking questions based on Val's experiences at the Falls Creek Camp in comparison to completely different ways of handling evacuees that are here in Atlanta. No one here is being isolated from the population for fear of spreading disease. No one here is in need of an isolated camp where they need military protection. There are mountain cabins in North Georgia and other secluded camp areas that would serve such a purpose if evacuees needed to be isolated from the population for some reason. Job fairs have been held and people have been hired to work and support themselves and their families, evacuee children have been welcomed into schools. No one here is turning away anyone's donation of clothing, food, or anything else here in Atlanta because it's obviously needed. The Fulton county animal shelter even accepted animal evacuees who are now up for adoption as pets. I want to know what is different about the residents of the Falls Creek camp from any other evacuees of the same disaster? Some of the evacuees here in Atlanta were exposed to the fetid flood waters and are being treated for that, but none are isolated in a camp outside of the City. What is different about the Falls Creek Camp residents? Any answers on that?

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Mirlin11]

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Mirlin11]

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Mirlin11]

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Mirlin11]

AgentSmith

Understood. The fact of the matter is that I mostly agree with you. I get your point.

haven't read all of the posts in this thread, so I don't know if this has been answered or not.....don't really know if Ed ever came back after his first post. But, just in case, would like to know a few things....

first, how long will the evacuees be at this camp? are measures being taking now for them to get into a more populated area so they can look for work when THEY determine that they are ready for that step in restarting their lives? or are they to sit around and wait for someone else to determine this for them?
and, well, since this is a "faith based" thing, will the evacuees have to accept your faith to recieve ALL of the services being offered?

The evacuees are to be at the Falls Creek camp for five months. Neither Ed nor anyone else has answered as to what happens to them after that. No one has yet offered any answers to your other questions, mine or Val's. Questions need to be asked and answered so that we know exactly what is going on there. If Ed isn't going to answer them, then perhaps some other "qualified" individual who is "caring" can answer them for us. Ed can't be the only person who knows the answers to these questions, could he?

I'm still having a problem with the need to isolate the camp residents from populated areas. Are these particular evacuees contageous with something that they don't want to spread to populated areas? Some thoughts:

* If the explanation for isolating the Falls Creek Camp residents is to inoculate them so that they don't spread disease to populated areas, other evacuees from New Orleans who were exposed to the same contaminants were treated here in Atlanta without isolation from the population and are not living in isolated areas from the population.

* It is understood that the Falls Creek Camp residents are to be housed there for five months. Is anything being done about assisting them with obtaining employment, while housed at Falls Creek?

* Is anything being done about getting the children of Falls Creek families into schools. Since those schools are not close to the camp, how will the children be transported to and from school?

* Why do the Falls Creek Camp residents require Military AND police protection?

All these questions should be answered straight up without excuses or rhetoric.

Edkostiuk shouldn't have wasted his time. It's pretty obvious to me that you people are so desperate for there to be a conspiracy that you place this poor bureaucerat in a no-win position.

If the feds don't do anything, it's a plot to kill black people.
If the feds do something, it's a plot to kill black people.

As a long-term libertarian, I'm about as anti-government as the next person, since I consider them to be -- primarily -- a bunch of tax-gobbling incompetents.

But incompetent doesn't mean Evil Sinister Plotters; it just means incompetent.

When it comes to Katrina, I see four incompetent losers here:

(1) The Mayor of New Orleans and his Magical Disappearing Police Force, trying to cover up his complete failure by blaming everyone else;

(2) The Governor and Senior Senator of Louisiana, caught just as flat-footed as that mayor bozo and trying to score political points by bashing the Feds.

(3) Dubya himself and his Feds -- especially Brown and FEMA, who waited until it was too late to gain an opportunity to cut the death toll; and to the idiots who cut the Army Corps of Engineers funding for Levee repair so they could build a bridge to an uninhabited island in Alaska.

(4) You people who howl about conspiracies while not doing a lick yourselves to ameliorate the problem.

Everyone who is involved in the government efforts to stop/minimize/fix this horrid problem has failed.

But that ain't the point. Finally they're trying to get their sorry bureacratic butts in gear and are actually relocating people (and they are not refugees, since they're Americans still in America) and trying to put their lives back in some semblance of order and safety, and you all jump on this Edkostiuk weenie because the attempted in all honesty to try and answer your questions.

Sheesh.

I tihnk SO got it right in his podcast (which I just listened to - very good it is too!), no-one should be wanting to find a conspiracy. In fact they should damn well hope there isn't one - not just in this case but in any.

I think I got the jist of it right.

My comment:

Problem is, so many people seem to want a conspiracy so bad they will do anything to entertain it, it makes you wonder who the real criminals to humanity are sometimes (Not pointing any fingers now - don't get jumpy unless you have a guilty conscience).

[edit on 12-9-2005 by AgentSmith]

Although, to be fair, SO also mentioned being vigilant with regard to the possibility of such conspiracies.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

But that ain't the point. Finally they're trying to get their sorry bureacratic butts in gear and are actually relocating people (and they are not refugees, since they're Americans still in America) and trying to put their lives back in some semblance of order and safety, and you all jump on this Edkostiuk weenie because the attempted in all honesty to try and answer your questions.

Sheesh.

He did NOT answer my questions. He gave me the excuses for why certain policies were to be implemented. Fine. He did NOT answer the important questions that have concerned me from the time I wrote my account. I'm not looking for a conspiracy. I'm looking to get confirmation that these people's civil rights are not going to be restricted if they come to this camp. That's not looking for a conspiracy. That's looking out for my fellow citizens!

Here is my email to Mr. Kostiuk and his reply (less than 2 hours later):

Dear Mr. Kostiuk,

In regards to your rebuttal thread posted on the ATS website:

I truly appreciate that you have taken the time, even moreso your personal time, to respond to this discussion.

Obviously, considering the nature of the site, your response was taken by many with a "proverbial" grain of salt, some even got out the whole shaker.

If/When you have a moment I would greatly appreciate a response to the following questions/concerns.


quote: by Ed Kostiuk:
She states her daughter "turned and snapped a picture of his vehicle (Page 5)—very conspicuously". There was no reason for some James Bond type of picture taking OHP officers are very friendly and will allow their photo's and that of their cruisers to be taken.


Main Entry: con·spic·u·ous
Pronunciation: kun-'spi-kyu-wus
Function: adjective
1 : obvious to the eye or mind
2 : attracting attention
synonym see NOTICEABLE
- con·spic·u·ous·ly adverb

"very conspicuously" = James Bond type of picture taking ?

hopefully just an oversight?!


quote: by Ed Kostiuk:
We are trying to protect our Louisiana friends from the criminal element and bad people that might want harm done to them.

?At a former church camp, with the majority of donations coming from said churches, the Red Cross, and Salvation Army?


quote: by Ed Kostiuk:
The toys she refers to must first be checked. We have had "Christian groups" donate toys such as swords, toy guns and other devices that usually mean harm donated to our causes over the years so we check them closely before allowing any kids to play with them.


Though obviously not impossible, I feel it rather improbable that so-called Christian groups would donate toys such as swords, guns.

The photos provided by Valhall showed none of what you speak of.


quote: by Ed Kostiuk:
The meals were going to be provided by the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army. We at the Health Department were requiring that they eat hot food with plenty of vegetables not the "junk food" that this lady stated she was brining. Snacks were to be laid out during the day and night for their use, but meals which included the basic food groups were required 3 times a day


The individual who made the original post brought BASIC SNACKS [to be laid out during the day and night for their use] and her mother brought more + VEGETABLES [to eat with the hot food] ( yes, the veggies probably would have to be donated to the church groups, Red Cross, and/or the Salvation Army for inclusion in the meals they would be providing)


Understandably the initial primary concern would be that each individual receive a complete medical evaluation to determine their condition both physically and mentally. Once that is accomplished, and those requiring medical assistance/attention have been treated , would they be allowed to receive visitors, go to church on Sunday (if they so desire), etc.?

Again, your response to the above would be greatly appreciated, and thank you for your time.

On another note:

I understand that you would have to handle and address these situations in a very fluid and dynamic manner, as even the best planning and implimentation templates cannot possibly allow for all foreseeable situations. For the most part, I would assume that you start with what has been put in place ( i.e. preparedness/response templates), and from there you pretty much have to play it by ear with proper and sound judgement/decisions.

Obviously no single response/preparedness template will ever fit all situations of said type. Sad but true, heck if it worked that way your job would obviously be made much easier. (i.e. put peg A in hole B . . . Done!)

You plan for "A", plan for "B", allow for "C" & "D" . . . yet inevitably it's the rest of the alphabet that seems to rear their heads and throw the proverbial stick into the works when the time arises for implementation.

In the long run I guess you simply have to Plan, Exercise, Assess, and Plan again.?

Thanks Ed!
God Bless

Sincerely,
Jon

His reply:

Kostiuk, Ed M. to me
More options 5:10 pm (22 minutes ago)

Thank you and God bless you and your family. I wanted to open a dialogue with the good folks on the web site, however after receiving a number calls with "death threats" and "what a jerk profanity remarks" I abandoned the idea. Thanks for responding to me off list and God Bless and take care.

Ed


No, I didn't pose some of the more important questions that have been raised by several members, actually I was waiting to see if he would even respond to the request.

Well he did . . .

ANYWAY JUST F.Y.I.!

I intend to reply with an inquiry asking if he will answer some of the questions raised, that truly deserve a response and need to be addressed . . . hopefully he will.

Oh well isn't that just ripe!

To all the f***ing freaks out there that can't contain yourselves. Thanks a lot. Thanks a great deal.

I can't believe some one would threaten this guy...PERIOD...But what for, because he came here and started talking to us?

IDIOTS.