A case for chemtrails?

Personally I still think the main purpose of chemtrails is for geoengineering. The other theories fall into sub categories or isolated incidents and occurrences.

If chemtrails exist and are being used for aerosol geoengineering then the substance would not have to be anything nefarious. It could be nothing more than extra nuclei for cloud condensation development. Djcarlosa is correct when he says.

the main factors that effect how long a contrail can last is the aerosol content produced by the plane's engines as these liquid volatile aerosols (mainly composed of H2SO4/H2O), leads to the nucleation of ice crystals

Clouds and contrails can not form without nuclei. Humidity is secondary. The needed humidity, as pointed out by the con-trailers, already exists in the modern jet engine exhaust. Therefore all that is necessary is the extra cloud condensation nuclei.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Why are you afraid to try to debunk chemtrails? Like I said, let's take it one item at a time. Starting with the wildest claim.

What's the wildest claim made by "chemtrailers"?

Let's keep it short and simple, let's just try to debunk the theory with the least evidence.

Can you do that?

If you insist, Mathias!

How about your belief, and other chemtrailers, that the contrail should come direct from the engine and that there should be no gap?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How about your belief, and other chemtrailers, that old newsreel footage has been manipulated?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

TJ

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


So are you calling me a nut job because I believe in chemtrail's ?
I can assure you that I'm the most sane and rational person you will ever meet I have done my research with an open mind and I feel that this has only confirmed that what I see in the sky is not normal.
Also on your other point that this is not news due to us all being nut job's then why do we see reports on ufo's after all that subject falls under the same premise dose it not

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Because not only is it tripe, it is tripe that doesn't sell newspapers - the public is simply not interested in conspiracy theories.

I believe it is by design the use of the word "conspiracy" to influence people to disreguard facts that TPTB don't want given attention by the public. Think back on Bush's speach reguarding 911 ,not to be taken in by conspiracy theories, it's no accident he used that wording. What's a shame is more people don't see through this stradegy of using peoples desire to "fit in" and be looked upon favorably by others against them. The story " The Emperor's Clothes" is a great example of how this works.

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

1) Motive and intent

we know the technology has been patened and developed,

I don't.

I have seen the usual couple of patents posted here, but no information on development.

we know funds have been allocated for testing,

Again - not that I'm aware. Funds for research certainly.

but if there has been testing, does it explain how these chemtrails have been around for 15 or so years?

If it is recent testing then it seems unlikely that it's anything that is going to support something that's been around 15 years - I'd expect testing to have been done in teh 1970's and 80's to have somethign on aircraft from 1995 onwards.

we know many geo-engineers believe this should be done,

what is "this"? All the geo-engineering discussion for putting stuff in the atmosphere is about putting it into the Stratosphere, which is above where commercial jets fly. And it is about sulphates - not Aluminium and Barium.

we know the presidents advisor for science and technology John Holdren has said this "may" be used if needed, we know the Counsil on Foreign relations has people in place to moniter this program.

Certainly there is an argument for Geo-engineering, but your post notes that it MAY need to be done - strong circumstantial evidence that it is NOT being done yet.

2) Eyewitness Testimony

unless all the people seeing these things are suffering from mass delusion they are reporting trails that are unlike the normal contrails they are used to seeing.

I would suggest that they are not used to seeing contrails at all. Invariably people who have noticed "these" were simply not loking at the sky in this manner 10, 20, 30 years ago. they have their childhood memories of "blue skies", but of course they do - good memories of holidays, sunshine, at a time when there was much less air travel....

But ther weer stil persistant contrails back then & I would produce eyewitnesses that said so - I recall them from my childhood in the 1960's, and I think there is ample photographic and eyewitness testimony to establish long antecendance of contrails.

I can only say to you, you know it when you see it, several non-commercial planes flying in some sort of collective effort, making bizzare tic tac toe patterns, then the sky becomes milky. What motive do all these good people have to make this up?

I don't believe they are making up what they see.

I believe they have no evidence to support the conclusions that they come to about what it is they are seeing. How do they identify "non-commercial planes" at 30,000 feet? I've seen no decent long range photography to confirm that aspect - it is possible to take excellent photos of a/c at high atitude - eg check Skystef's contrail photography page

Cross hatch, "X"'s, etc - all are explained by known contrail phenomena and air routes

3) Circumstantial evidence

unusually high levels of alluminum, barium and strotium found in soil and water samples,

Every one of these I've seen have not had high levels at all. I haven't sen anything about strontium.....but certainly the Barium & aluminium tests have all been completely un-strange when examined in detail.

KSLA was one of hte first - but they made abasic error reading the results - reading "milli-" for "micro-", and thus overstated the results by a factor of 1000!!

Also "What in the World are they Spraying" which makes basic errors - testing slude and saying that it has a high level of aluminium for wate....but sludge isn't water, and it actually has a somewhat LOW level of aluminium for soil - which is what sludge is!

And Mt Shasta - where subsequent testingby the same laboratory found lttle of no trace of the alleged minerals at ll, let along high levels.

also Arizona Skywatch making unsupported claims about their sampling of air.

people and animals getting sick, trees dying,

None of which can be traced to anything from 30,000 feet. There's usually plenty of pollution generated at ground level that is a much more likely explaination.

reluctance of government officials to directly answer questions, seemingly avoiding the subject to name just a few.

Govt officials unable to answer questions because they have no information on the topic shuold hardly be a surprise.

And the reason they have no information is that there is none - none of their officials have any, there is nothing credible on the 'net, and if they came out and said they believed in this they'd just get massacred by their opposition - and no politician is going to take up the cudgel for chemtrails unless they actually believe it, or they think there aer votes in it.

For example the question of chemtrails was raised in the Parliament of New Zealand - see here for a transcript - this site is a New Zealand contrail conspiracy site, which also shows that the phenomena is not limited to NATO countries as some have suggested (just in case anyone was going to raise that )

So you see you have a great deal of factual, verifiable, logical and scientific evidence pointing to "chemtails" not actually being anything unexpected at all.

THAT is what yuo have to argue against.

I was pleased for a moment to see the discussion heading in the right direction as far as both sides respecting each others points of view. I don't think it is polite or correct to suggest that people are nut jobs because they have a different opinion than you do.

Geoengineering is not a conspiracy theory. It has been intensely researched, highly promoted and greatly funded by many investors from many countries. All the scientist involved seem to lean towards the tropospheric and stratospheric aerosol techniques to be the most likely method for success.

It isn't very nutty to think that these techniques, if used, which would most likely look exactly they way these persistent contrails look, are in fact the testing or actual secret implementation of the geoengineering project.

That along with the large increase in sightings, the strange water and soil samples and the lack of willing official investigation into the large number of complaints makes a person quite sane and logical to be suspicious. I feel it would be nutty and conspiratorial if a person wasn't suspicious.

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

So are you calling me a nut job because I believe in chemtrail's ?

I posted what I think the PUBLIC response is.

I believe that the public does largely believe that people who believe conspiracies are nutjobs.

I can assure you that I'm the most sane and rational person you will ever meet I have done my research with an open mind and I feel that this has only confirmed that what I see in the sky is not normal.
Also on your other point that this is not news due to us all being nut job's then why do we see reports on ufo's after all that subject falls under the same premise dose it not

Because they have seized the publics imagination in a way that chemtrails have not. dont' ask me why - I'm jsut telling you why I think one is reported and the other is not.

And even though many public believe in UFO's to some degree or other, I think that the public probably sees hard core UFOologists as nutjobs too. Regardless of how rational and well informed the UFOologists think themselves.

Mathius,

Following on from your belief that newsreels have been edited. There is also the claim amongst chemtrail believers that still images are also lies.

Here is someone that you can correspond with? Remember he isn't 'buying' it! The date, the date!!!!!

Save us from this ignorance!



TJ

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I don't think it is polite or correct to suggest that people are nut jobs because they have a different opinion than you do.

and no-one has done so.

Geoengineering is not a conspiracy theory.

And it is also not chemtrails.

It has been intensely researched, highly promoted and greatly funded by many investors from many countries. All the scientist involved seem to lean towards the tropospheric and stratospheric aerosol techniques to be the most likely method for success.

Nope - most of the papers for stratospheric aerosols say it is fraught with problems and these are well documented - eg see en.wikipedia.org...(geoengineering)

most forms of geo-engineering have nothigg to do with aircraft at all - see en.wikipedia.org...

It isn't very nutty to think that these techniques, if used, which would most likely look exactly they way these persistent contrails look,

Except you have already been shown that stratospheric aerosols woudl actually be invisible to teh human eye, so they would not be visible at all - so no, they would not look like contrails!

are in fact the testing or actual secret implementation of the geoengineering project.

It is a leap of imagination that has no evidene to supprt it, othe than supposition, as has been pointed out ad nasueum.

That along with the large increase in sightings, the strange water and soil samples and the lack of willing official investigation into the large number of complaints

What complaints?

Who among the chemtrail crowd has actualy made a formal complaint through an official channel that would require some investigation? Some may have been made - I'm unaware of any.

The "complaints" I've seen are on Youtube, or in the face of a politician, or some street theatre.

How about making a formal complaint of criminal behaviour?

And if it goes nowhere then you willhave some sort of paper trail to audit, to investigatge how the investigatino went, etc.

makes a person quite sane and logical to be suspicious. I feel it would be nutty and conspiratorial if a person wasn't suspicious.

only up to the point where you find there actually is no credible evidence for chemtrails, and plenty that they are nothing moer than contrails.

One you reach that point and yet persist with saying that it is a "fact" that chemtrails exist, or any similar position, then you are no longer being logical by being suspicious IMO.

The irony is this is the last thing in the world I want to worry about or believe. I respect your opinions, have learned more about the subject then I ever wanted to....but I trust my instincts that there is more to this than meets the eye, time will tell...I wish you all a good evening....life is about balance, lol, and I need a break...

reply to post by weedwhacker


I don't know much about contrails or chemtrails or bigfoottrails or whatever yet, but your extremely adamant argument here seems to be that because something happened in the past it cannot happen in the present. You seem so sure this is a great point, when it's clearly muddled, that it makes me question whether your other points can be trusted.

reply to post by sepermeru


I do not believe that is what he is saying.

What he is saying is that the fact that something happened in the past that only vaguely resembles chemtrails (eg it had aircraft, it sprayed something) is not evidence that it is happening now, unless you can show a connection.

The post you link to is pointing out that the "Barium dispersal device" was patented in 1973 - I think his point there is that the chemtrail conspiracy says that chemtrails started in the mid 1990's - so what happened in the 20+ years in between? If the device is evidence of chsmtrail technology existing in 1973, then why wasn't it in use in 1974?

In other words it is still not evidence that anything is actually happening - ther eare papers and discussion and REAL TESTS for nuclear excavation for example.....also see Operation Plowshare on Wikie - en.wikipedia.org...

.....but it never happened.

So the "fact" that something existed in the past is simply not evidence that something else is happening now.......regardless of how close the linkage may appear.

It IS evidence that the technology exists.....but there has never been any doubt that it would not be technically difficult to put somethnig on the back of an airfrat to spray something at 30,000 feet.

It's "just" that there's no evidence it's been done.

I posted this video and pdf report because it is one the most complete and accurate pieces of evidence for chemtrails. The report is examined in the video by Dr. Vermeeren. This was done at an international symposium in Belgium. I agree with the arguments and conclusions found in this report.

Belfort group - Case Orange report pdf
saive.com...

Ghent Belgium: Aerospace Engineer, Coen Vermeeren performs a peer review the 300 page scientific assessment of Chemtrails commissioned by the Belfort group referres to as "Case Orange"

Website
saive.com...

edit on 3-4-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add link

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


interesting point you made there about the 20 years in between and I'm glad to see you answered that question in your post before
quote: Nope - most of the papers for stratospheric aerosols say it is fraught with problems and these are well documented
therefore maybe they needed that 20 years to iron out the problems and i'm sure thats more than enough time.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I posted this video and pdf report because it is one the most complete and accurate pieces of evidence for chemtrails. The report is examined in the video by Dr. Vermeeren. This was done at an international symposium in Belgium. I agree with the arguments and conclusions found in this report.

and I don't.

the only verifiable conclusions in the report is that the BNATO AWACs fleet has old engines that need replacing..........as if they were the sum total of chemtrail plains or something??

the report is notable for its lack of scientific credentials -

- no one is listed as an author
- it reviews its own evidence and decides that it is adequate, rather than having it peer reviewed


Here's some of the more obvious problems with its conclusions:

1. Manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory, but currently the best option in geo-engineering considered by decision makers to counter global warming. The impact of production of artificial Cirrus clouds on temperature and precipitation patterns is supported by adequate hard scientific evidence.

altering cirrus clouds is not teh best option for geo-engineering at all - indeeed AFAIK it is not actually an option that is seriously studied at all for that purpose. Changes to cirrus coulds are certainly studied to see what effect they have ....but the results of that study have been inconclusive with one report coming out saying they help cool the climate (in the wake of 9/11), and nother later saying that is not the case.

. The ambition of the United States is to control the weather by the year 2025, both for civil and military purposes (offensive and defensive strategies). This research paper contains a proven track record to support that statement.

the date of 2025 is from "WEather as a force multiplier: Owning the weather in 2025" - was a thought exercise based upon projected technological advances in the 30 years after it was written, that invents scenarios and the measures by which they might be affected.

Note the self-assessment of their evidence.

3. The technology to organize spraying actions on a global scale is widely available. Both civil and military aviation is used for that purpose. The mix, containing oxides of metals and chemical components, can either be dispersed through special designed pods or directly incorporated into the jet fuel. This research paper is well documented in this respect.

the technology is not actually widely available at all - there are no masses of spraying systems waiting to be installed onto aircraft. Matty you yourself have noted that the research for putting aluminium into fuel is only very recent, and it is not mentioned anywhere in this paper.

Again note the self assessment of their evidence.

4. Since the patents are owned by the main defense contractor for the U.S. armed forces (Raytheon) or the U.S. department of defense itself and given the history record it is obvious that current climate manipulation programs are organized and directed by the United States government.

5. . The spraying actions in Europe are only possible with prior approval and intense co-ordination on top government level and industry on executive level. The general public is intentionally kept unaware of the existence of such projects.

6. Although the spraying actions may be considered legal these actions may have a potential detrimental effect on health. There is sufficient scientific evidence available in this research paper to support this thesis.

All of these presume that the spraying is taking place in the first place.

This is a logical fallacy called "begging the question" - en.wikipedia.org...

On to the recommendations:

Report recommendations:
It is not the purpose of this research paper to give a moral appreciation of these actions. Nevertheless the investigation team unanimously comes to the following recommendations for the future:
a) Artificial Cirrus clouds should be classified as a separate cloud genus by the WMO. Additional scientific research with the effects on nature and public health on this subject should be considered. Results -whatever the outcome- should be made public.

No problem with that.

b) It is unacceptable that the Awacs aircraft fleet under NATO operates under a Luxemburg civil registration without complying with civil aviation regulations. This is a flagrant violation of the law and this should be corrected in the near future.

Unacceptable to whom? It seems perfectly acceptable to Luxemburg, and the reason is quiet simple - Luxemburg does not have an airforce that could operate them, but it does have a civil aircraft register.

there is nothing inherently illegal about it at all - it seems a very odd thing for such a weighty document to be making a recommendation about.

Given the very unfavorable engine emission ratios of this aircraft retrofitting of these engines should be considered as soon as practical.

Sure - give the a/c better engines by all means...again why? Aer thse the only a/c making chemtrails, and is it because they have old engines?? Again a very strange thing for the report to think worthy to make a recommendation on.

c) When considering a legal case it is better to sue an industrial group, such as Raytheon, rather than a government agency. It is clear for us that the responsibility of Raytheon in this respect is far reaching with the creation of a monopoly in climate modeling and weather as a geo-engineering or military instrument.

So should someone be sued at all? What for? If Raytheon are doing something wrong then why not recommend that they be sued rather than this wishy-washy wording?

I believe they don't recommend any legal action because they did not identify any wrong doing.

It also begs the question that there is a monopoly on climate modelling and geo-engineering - which seems completely unsupportable given the number of places studying both.

If possible an international ban should be placed on such weapons

What weapons? Again begging the question.

However the UN conference on biodiversity has placed a moratorium on any geoengineering that might affect biodiversity - which effectively means all of it.

I don't know that anyone involved read this report tho, so giving it any kudos should be accompanied by some proof that it had an effect.

d) Although the existence of weather modification projects have been illustrated in an adequate way in this research paper it is now the duty of a serious politician on any level to make enquiries to the government for public release of these spraying schemes through aviation. It is mandatory that such statement should include the reason why such operations are conducted. It is not an option to hide behind the motive of national security.

Again the self assessment of the adequacy of their evidence.

not only that, but they define non-existant rules that politicians have to follow - note they do not RECOMMEND the rules - the wording is that such rules already exist.

all in all I find it quite shonky

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

therefore maybe they needed that 20 years to iron out the problems and i'm sure thats more than enough time.

Except the stratospheric studies are all for sulphur oxides, not barium - AFAIK barium is completely unimportant to all the solar radiation managmene measures being proposed.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Fair enough, and well stated. It's not evidence for the present either, I agree.

I'd like to stress that I'm attempting to evaluate this from as close to a completely clean slate as I can get. WIthout any history in the issue to bias me, I'm trying to approach it rationally and assume either side may be correct. To disclaim my conflicts of interest with that goal, while I do believe in general that They in the Government &co in Power etc are fully capable and prepared to enact any number of weird secret programs and dump as much toxic crap anywhere they please, when it comes to specific theories I look for an extreme degree of rigorous analysis by experts in the field, and highly persuasive direct evidence wherever that is at all possible (in some cases, for example mysteries hundreds of years old, it never will be, so sometimes a bar too high is unreasonable).

I'm already pretty sure neither of those exist for the issue of chemtrails, which doesn't make them false, but does put them out of the realm of theories I would personally accept.

So with that established, now I'm just evaluating exactly how strong the particular argument for the existence of these old patents and proposal as circumstantial evidence for chemtrails is, with as little bias as I can manage. I need more information to really be able to tell at this point.

But it does seem clear that merely finding evidence that people have at some point sprayed something from some kind of aircraft for some purpose is insufficient. I think we can all accept that is true. It's not necessary to establish that, so if a piece of proposed evidence can at best duplicate that awareness, it can be discarded.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Geoengineering is not a conspiracy theory.

No, it's not. But it is still largely only a theory. No study has yet produced measurable results from a stratospheric application of aerosols to mitigate anthropogenic (or any other) global warming.

It has been intensely researched, highly promoted and greatly funded by many investors from many countries.

Governments, NGOs and privately-funded studies have explored and promoted stratospheric aerosols, among other things, as a means of mitigation. None have proven viable thus far. There has been no reduction in global temperatures, warming or "climate change" attributed to these theories.
True "investors" fund for a return on their "investment." No such investment programs exist and no measurable "return" enjoyed from them.

All the scientist involved seem to lean towards the tropospheric and stratospheric aerosol techniques to be the most likely method for success.

Stratospheric injection of aerosols is one technique considered, but none of the alternatives have been rejected nor has it been adopted as the most likely for success. The debate continues. No one is seriously considering tropospheric injection of aerosols for SRM/AGW mitigation.

It isn't very nutty to think that these techniques ... would most likely look exactly they way these persistent contrails look

In reality, stratospheric aerosols would not be visible from the ground. They would remain afloat for extended (e.g., weeks and months) periods and affect UV and IR radiation, not light in the visible spectrum. Thus, they would not look like "these persistent contrails" you admit exist.

It isn't very nutty to think that these techniques ... are in fact the testing or actual secret implementation of the geoengineering project.

Except that since the "studies, funding and promotion" are common knowledge, the implementation would not need to be "secret," either. It is, after all, supposed to be a beneficial proposal.

The few geoengineering theories that have seen small-scale testing have not been secret either, and have all been public failures. There are no "techniques" as you described them, presently being tested. There are no such "techniques" being implemented, secretly or otherwise.

Given that AGW advocates claim that objectively observed global temperatures are rising, such hypothetical testing and implementation of these "techniques" would seem to have disproved the "theory" after 20+ years.

That along with the large increase in sightings

More flights in more places would seem to produce more "sightings" of contrails.

the strange water and soil samples

There are no "strange water and soil samples;" there are misinterpretations and misrepresentations.

the lack of willing official investigation into the large number of complaints

You just outlined the high level of "funding, investment and promotion" for geoengineering. This preliminary work includes consideration of potential complaints, whether legitimate or not. You have stated more than once that you do not know what or why "chemtrails" exist.
What "official" complaints have not been investigated? You cannot investigate speculation and opinion.

makes a person quite sane and logical to be suspicious.

Suspicious of a publicly-known, widely discussed program meant to address what many believe is the greatest threat (AGW/"Climate Change") to face mankind and all of nature? Thus far, no one has shown any sane or logical reason for such "suspicion" that any proposed geoengineering "solution" is harmful or nefarious.

I feel it would be nutty and conspiratorial if a person wasn't suspicious.

Of what? You've already stated you don't know "what" "chemtrails" really are, or "why" they exist.

jw

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Personally I still think the main purpose of chemtrails is for geoengineering. The other theories fall into sub categories or isolated incidents and occurrences.

And as we keep pointing out there is zero evidence for any possible form of geoengineering that would result in the creation of what people call chemtrails. Furthermore, what people call chemtrails have been, and continue to be, extensively studied to determine their impact on climate and to determine ways of preventing them from forming.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Barium is used by NASA and other space / weather agencies in conjunction with satellites, Lidar and radar. It is used to study the magnetosphere, ionosphere, radio and other frequency waves.

www.mendeley.com...

The relationship between releases of barium from the NASA Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite (CRRES) and enhanced auroral activity is discussed with reference to observational data. Barium releases were conducted at a variety of altitudes and injection velocities, and plasma irregularities are reported as a result of the interactions. Auroral activity increased within 5 min of each release, and references are made to the effects on diamagnetic cavities, bulk ion motion, and stimulated electron and ion precipitation. Artificially created structured diamagnetic cavities are noted for each release, plasma waves are generated by the high-speed ion clouds, and enhanced ionization is found in the critical ionization-velocity process. Barium releases are effective in stimulating electron precipitation, and the observed irregularities are related to cycloid bunching of the initial ion distributions.

www.freepatentsonline.com...

BARIUM RELEASE SYSTEM
United States Patent 3751913

ORIGIN OF THE DISCLOSURE

The invention described herein was made in the performance of work under a NASA contract and is subject to the provisions of section 305 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, Public Law 85-568 (72 Stat. 435; 42 USC 2457).

This invention relates generally to a chemical release system and relates in particular to a system for releasing barium in the vapor phase so that it can be ionized by solar radiation and also be excited to emit resonance radiation in the visible range. The ionized luminous cloud of barium then becomes a visible indication of magnetic and electric characteristics in space and allows determination of these properties over relatively large areas of space at a given time compared to rocket borne or orbiting instruments. For example, a geomagnetic field line could be illuminated by the present invention from pole-to-pole.

www.agu.org...

Lidar Technique for Measuring Ionospheric Barium Release Ion Density

An evaluation of the resonant fluorescence lidar technique as a method of measuring ion density during ionospheric barium releases is presented. We find that it is technically feasible to measure ion densities of 103 cm−3 at an altitude of 200 km with a time resolution of 0.5 s by using a ground-based laser and telescope. One application of the lidar technique would be observation of the critical ionization velocity effect at nighttime, without the complication of solar illumination. Criteria useful for evaluating the feasibility of other experiments are presented.

oai.dtic.mil...

STEP FREQUENCY RADAR STUDY OF SECEDE 3 BARIUM RELEASE
Abstract : The purpose of this project was to determine the behavior of the backscatter cross section in the HF to low VHF region from barium clouds in the lower F layer. The hope was that these data would provide a basis for understanding the mechanism of radio-wave scatter from barium clouds. It is believed that the results of this study have indeed led to a better understanding of the scattering processes involved, although in the course of the study as many new questions were raised as were answered. An unfortunate combination of circumstances from the standpoint of our radar experiment led to the result that usable amplitude data were obtained from only one release, making the general applicability of some of the results open to question.

Descriptors : *RADAR SCANNING, *RADIO TRANSMISSION, *BARIUM, HIGH FREQUENCY, CHEMICALS, ALASKA, TRACER STUDIES, RADAR CROSS SECTIONS, IONIZATION, VERY HIGH FREQUENCY, CLOUDS, IONOSPHERE, DATA PROCESSING, BACKSCATTERING

Subject Categories : ACTIVE AND PASSIVE RADAR DETECTION & EQUIPMENT
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS