posted 01-28-2002 11:54 AM            

Given your terminal velocity estimate of 200 mi/hr (89.4 m/sec) and using the acceleration resulting from the gravitational constant (8/9 m/sec/sec), you have probably already determined the time that the rock was falling - 9.12 sec.

Using the displacement equation S = (1/2 g) (t^2), You have probably also derived the altitude of the rock when it was released from the spray-plane: S = (4.9) (83.17) = 407.5 meters or 1,222.6 feet AGL.

I trust, with the aircraft being at such a low altitude, you were able to observe its type and markings as well.

Regards,

posted 01-28-2002 12:20 PM            

The reason that I left out aerodynamic drag was that I inferred some sort of significant density, inasmuch as the object put a dent in your truck.

Bear in mind that Ba(C18H35O2)2 has a specific gravity of 1.11 - 1.19, compared to 0.94 for ice.

But even if you (1) plug in atmospheric friction based on the rock's irregularities (I assumed, of course, that it was spherical) and (2) postulated its density of something like pumice (which is pretty light stuff), I can't see how the 'fudge factor' would be more than, say, 1.5.

So even if the rock in question was somewhat irregular and light, you would still end up with a purported altitude of, say (1,222 ft X 1.5) or less than two thousand feet.

Regards,

posted 01-28-2002 03:49 PM            

You science types keep a lid on it over here or I'm moving this thread to the Science Forum, then 3T3 can really have her way with you.

posted 01-29-2002 12:58 AM            

mathmatics the universal language

posted 01-29-2002 01:51 AM            

but I seen a circle, with two pillars on each side connected at the top...

hmmm.

T/S

posted 01-29-2002 02:15 AM            

as usual I'm out of the loop on these things...and in trying again, what looks like a big I with a circle in it is all I see...

posted 01-29-2002 09:35 AM            

I read portions of the cited web-site (http://cuteasabutton.port5.com/ca/data1.html ) with interest, although I have not followed all the links cited therein; that will require further research on my part. I want to commend you for your setting up search-engine parameters; it obviously is the result of extensive work and thought.

However, I do have several concerns and comments, which, in light of your courteous invitation to our colleagues and me, I am sure will be welcomed in the spirit of scientific collaboration.

You quote the goal of the report as being "Do Chemtrails exist and if so, what is their intended purpose?"

I think this is a laudable goal. Most people in the general public, if they are even aware of the term "chemtrails", do not believe in their existence; this disbelief extends to almost all major media worldwide. Ascertaining the existence of chemtrails will undoubtedly help in overcoming this disbelief, which is absolutely key in gaining support in determining the root cause and rationale for chemtrails.

If, as some claim, "chemtrails" are a part of a covert program, only the knowledge and concern of either the bulk of the citizenry will enable that program to be brought to light - and, if necessary, stopped. Attempting to determine the cause for a phenomenon whose very existence is unproved may be good for conversation; however, it will be of no avail in attempting to further understand and stop such phenomena.

Still, despite the claim of the goal to determine the existence, I see no evidence on the part of the report that such a search has been undertaken. You do an excellent job of developing keywords from non-accessible sites, which provides many avenues of research. Yet one of your search-parameter comments is "I have selected certain paragraphs I feel would pertain to massive global atmospheric chemical applications, should they exist."

It seems to me that by doing this, you have immediately injected a pro-chemtrail bias in your research. Of course, these paragraphs are essential in determining the details of a putative atmospheric chemical application, but by doing so, you seem to have bypassed the first portion of your goal.

This impression is strengthened by the thrust of the citations; they all appear to fall into one of two categories: (1) science-related sites that discuss putative methodologies, and (2) general sites that all assume that the spraying actually exists. I believe that, in order to fulfill the requirements of determining the existence of the chemtrails, a list of general sites that present arguments for both sides of the controversy would be necessary.

For example, a potential approach would be to visit sites that present an anti-chemtrail argument, determine any flaws in those arguments, and do the same with sites that present pro-chemtrail arguments. Given the obvious disparity of the information in such sites, a serious researcher would then have enough data to make a determination that could result in a working hypoothesis.

This is not an easy task, of course. The research community would have to weigh conflicting arguments, and rely to a large extent of constructs such as "Occam's Razor" to come to a decision. The difficulties would be exacerbated by claims on both sides that sometimes descend to rather bitter invective; however, this is often a barrier to any serious research in a subject about which the proponents and detractors have strong opinions.

In summary, I would like to thank you again and express my appreciation for your work. However, unless the first portion of your goal is resolved, I must consider the report as incomplete.

If you wish any further input or suggestions for a reiteration of your work, I would be more than happy to assist in any way I can. Please feel free to contact me at the address or telephone below, or by additional postings on this forum.

Regards,

posted 01-29-2002 11:17 AM            

It appears that I could go on forever.
We must agree that the air we breathe is a limiting factor to our survival. Are you really looking at this problem? Or do we see different things in the illusion?

posted 01-29-2002 11:42 AM            

You said to Duncan, "We agree that Barium salt was used to support the Navy's RFMP mission over Iraq."

posted 01-29-2002 03:21 PM            

Your response above was the best "summings-up" of the differences of belief (and maybe the fact that there aren't that many differences in belief) between pro- and anti- chemtrailers that I have seen. Your list should be required reading for every chemtrail discussion group (on both sides of the issue).

I agree with all of your points, except for the comment on barium salts and the RFMP mission (which a colleague discussed with me via telephone last month). And the only reason I do not concur with that is because I know nothing about it.

However, I do have some comments (not disagreement) with some of the items that you listed. Permit me, if you will, to re-list your points, followed by my comments on them. Your points in "quotes"; mine in italics.

"We agree that aircraft condensation trails exist within certain parameters in the atmosphere."

True, and we're pretty sure that, outside of a defined range of relative humidity and temperature, contrail formation - assuming that the contrails are primarily water vapor - will not occur.

"We agree that outside these parameters condensation trails cannot exist."

True.

"We agree that Skew-T charts/ upper sounding charts identify in the area of reporting what atmospheric conditions exist."

Only within broad boundaries. The atmosphere is extremely dynamic, and contrail-forming environments can vary significantly over a hundred meters of altitude and perhaps a bit more laterally.

"We agree that if an observer identifies a condensation trail that exists within an atmospheric area that does not support condensation trails that it is not a condensation trail."

By definition, yes; but given that the environment is dynamic, we can't, with any degree of certainty, say whether the trails are 'not contrails' or whether the atmospheric conditions at that particular location and time are conducive to such 'normal' contrail formation.

"We agree that most aircraft fly in controlled corridors at controlled altitudes or suggested altitudes."

True, at least for commercial aviation.

"We agree that gathering information to solve problems is a method of making an informed decision."

No argument there!

"We agree that awareness to the environment comes from gathering information."

True, whether by direct observation, reviewing scientific literature, etc.

"We agree to work together to bring information to a public forum so others can become informed."

Hopefully. I would like to think that all of us are willing to look at all phenomena and reports with an open mind, even if the results of such observations may tend to disprove our own pet theories.

"We agree to support each other even when opinions vary."

I will agree to that. Hopefully, I won't have to eat crow some day, but you never can tell!

"We agree that Barium salt was used to support the Navy's RFMP mission over Iraq."

I don't know enough about such a program to agree or disagree.

"We agree that silver iodide is used in weather modification, hail suppression."

Yes; probably for forty or fifty years now.

"We agree HAARP exists."

True; but if there is any verifiable correlation between the existence of HAARP and damage to the atmosphere -- or between HAARP and aircraft contrails -- I am not familiar with it.

"We agree thousands of good people are questioning unusual contrail formations."

Probably so, given the number of posts I see here. But thousands of people are questioning many other things, as well.

"We agree that unusual contrails have been termed 'chemtrails'."

Yes. But giving a phenomenon a name doesn't necessarily correlate with aspects of its behavior or even its existence.

"We agree that we must protect the innocent."

I think we have a moral obligation to try; but that is an imperative to which we must each respond in our own way.

"We must agree that the air we breathe is a limiting factor to our survival."

You bet.

As you can see, within certain constraints we have no major disagreements. But, given the possibility (not the 'fact'; not the 'probability'; but the possibility) that all visible contrails are simply that, I think it is incumbent on all researchers to determine that some contrails are so obviously outside the parameters of normal contrail-formation that they must be something else. If they cannot do so, then the proof of the existence of chemtrails is simply not there, and the government, the media, and the vast majority of the citizenry will simply ignore the whole issue.

How do we get this proof? Collecting and analyzing contrail material in situ, of course, is the best way. But given the cost of that approach, it is not likely that we will be able to do so. One possibility mentioned is the use of lidar spectroscopy, but I am not sure if anyone here is familiar enough with the technology and its limitations to even guess the cost and validity of such an approach.

But I do know that, if the public and the media are to be won over, it will require such evidence and data that, up till now, is still lacking. Remember, science teaches - and people believe - that the onus of proof for the existence of something is on the person who propounds the hypothesis. If we come up with that proof, everything else will follow.

Regards,