posted 02-27-2002 01:30 PM
Dear Thermit:I think your approach makes a lot of sense. I am particularly interested in your plan to have, as your top priority, the cataloging and tracking of contrail activity nationwide.
Project One - Approach, Critique, and Recommendations.
However, the ongoing reports on this and similar boards do not, in my opinion, answer any questions inasmuch as they don't give either objective or quantifiable data. For example, something like "we started off with a clear day and by 2:00 pm we were socked in with chemhaze' would be meaningless. On the other hand, something like: "at 8:00 pm the skies were clear. The first trail was at 9:15, directly overhead, traveling from southwest to northeast, and left a persistent trail which, by 10:30, had spread out to ten times its original width and merged with..." would be a lot better, since you could get an idea how many trails there were, where the aircraft that produced them were traveling, what percentage of the trails were persistent, etc.
Even better would be to correlate those contrails with real-time FE readings, as well as the atmospheric characteristics at that particular location and altitude - in other words, observations built on the work you did early last year.
There are down sides to this approach, however. 1. it would require that the researchers had a subscription to FE, which, I understand, costs ten bucks a month. 2. the researchers would have to commit to a regular regime of observation, say, an hour a day, every day, at the same time. 3. They would have to keep clear records, with the number, persistence, etc. of contrails correlated (if such a correlation exists) to any real-time FE and environmental data. 4. The data would have to be reduced and evaluated using serious methods, which requires knowledge of spreadsheets (for both flat-file database and display), report summarization, and basic statistics to provide the reviewers with both sigma values and level-of-confidence in any correlation. 5. (and most important of all) The approach and methodology must be determined in advance, provided to the research team, not modified in any way during the collection exercise, and constantly reviewed with the team and against the incoming data to ensure that any variables have been removed.
None of this stuff is impossible, of course; but you can see that setting up and running a meaningful data collection project is challenging. Yet if the data is collected in this way, correlated against known atmospheric conditions, forwarded promptly, reduced and presented in an acceptable way, with a summary report made in accordance with good scientific study, you would have an invaluable set of data.
Subsequent and/or Follow-On Studies
I'm not sure what you have planned, although you did say that they are already determined. If they can be carried out in an objective and quantifiable manner, like your earlier study and the recommendations for Project One outlined above, then the should add a lot of credence. However, it would be good for the research group to have a chance to look at these projected studies as their design matures, to ensure that they are both valid and effective.
Secondary Objective(s)
"...produce our findings once deemed appropriate by the unanimous decision of all active researchers."
Whoah!! I would rather have a job herding cats or pushing cooked spaghetti, but if anyone can do it, you can.
Hope I have an opportunity to help.
Regards,
------------------
Duncan Kunz / duncankunz@cox.net
Mesa AZ / 480-891-2525
Chemtrail Central Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
posted 02-27-2002 10:39 AM
posted 02-27-2002 01:30 PM
