The Cause of the Cloud - Revision history

Admin: /* The Scientific Explanation */

2026-06-18T18:55:52Z

The Scientific Explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, 18 June 2026
Line 31:		Line 31:
	Today, rocket launches from Vandenberg are routinely documented on video. Depending on atmospheric conditions, they can be seen from Tucson and beyond, leaving mesospheric clouds that remain illuminated well after sunset.<ref>http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=SGBuQL-FvGI</ref><ref>http://spaceflightnow.com/minotaur/cosmic/launch.html and http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/rktr1j.htm</ref> This kind of direct visual evidence was simply unavailable in 1963.		Today, rocket launches from Vandenberg are routinely documented on video. Depending on atmospheric conditions, they can be seen from Tucson and beyond, leaving mesospheric clouds that remain illuminated well after sunset.<ref>http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=SGBuQL-FvGI</ref><ref>http://spaceflightnow.com/minotaur/cosmic/launch.html and http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/rktr1j.htm</ref> This kind of direct visual evidence was simply unavailable in 1963.

	Scientists also linked similar clouds appearing later in 1963 to rocket launches:<blockquote>''A bright noctilucent cloud was observed and photographed northwest of Tucson on 15 June 1963. Results of computations indicate that the cloud was at a height of 71 kilometers. The cloud appears to have resulted from the launching of a Scout space vehicle.''<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/141/3586/1176.abstract Science Magazine, September 1963: Vol. 141, no. 3586, pp. 1176-1178, DOI: 10.1126/science.141.3586.1176, ''Low-Latitude Noctilucent Cloud of 15 June 1963'', Aden B. Meinel1, Barbara Middlehurst, Ewen Whitaker]</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''Measurement of the filamentary noctilucent cloud of 2 November 1963 yields a height of 56 km. Study of the motion and orientation of the cloud confirms the hypothesis that these unusual clouds appearing in the southwestern states are produced by the launching of rocket vehicles from the Pacific Missile Range.''<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/143/3601/38.abstract Science Magazine, January 1964: Vol. 143, no. 3601, pp. 38-39, DOI:0.1126/science.143.3601.38, Low-Latitude Noctilucent Cloud of 2 November 1963, Aden B. Meinel, Carolyn P. Meinel]</ref></blockquote>NASA launched ~~its "Super Soaker" rocket in~~ the ~~early morning hours~~ of ~~January 26, 2018, from Poker Flat research range~~ in ~~Fairbanks~~, ~~Alaska. It reached an altitude of about 53 miles when the team triggered the explosion of their canister of about 485 pounds (220 kilograms) of water~~. The clouds it created were very similar to the 1963 Arizona Cloud. Was that just a coincidence?~~[[Image:NasaMakesACloud.jpg\|thumb\|370px]]~~		Scientists also linked similar clouds appearing later in 1963 to rocket launches:<blockquote>''A bright noctilucent cloud was observed and photographed northwest of Tucson on 15 June 1963. Results of computations indicate that the cloud was at a height of 71 kilometers. The cloud appears to have resulted from the launching of a Scout space vehicle.''<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/141/3586/1176.abstract Science Magazine, September 1963: Vol. 141, no. 3586, pp. 1176-1178, DOI: 10.1126/science.141.3586.1176, ''Low-Latitude Noctilucent Cloud of 15 June 1963'', Aden B. Meinel1, Barbara Middlehurst, Ewen Whitaker]</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''Measurement of the filamentary noctilucent cloud of 2 November 1963 yields a height of 56 km. Study of the motion and orientation of the cloud confirms the hypothesis that these unusual clouds appearing in the southwestern states are produced by the launching of rocket vehicles from the Pacific Missile Range.''<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/143/3601/38.abstract Science Magazine, January 1964: Vol. 143, no. 3601, pp. 38-39, DOI:0.1126/science.143.3601.38, Low-Latitude Noctilucent Cloud of 2 November 1963, Aden B. Meinel, Carolyn P. Meinel]</ref></blockquote>
			[[Image:NasaMakesACloud.jpg\|thumb\|370px]]NASA has launched several experimental rockets to try to understand the increasing prevalence of noctilucent clouds. Noctilucent clouds have been increasing in occurrence over the past 100 years, and some scientists think it may be related to climate change. The clouds NASA created were very similar to the 1963 Arizona Cloud. Was that just a coincidence?

	=== Why Didn't Dr. McDonald Publish a Final Report? ===		=== Why Didn't Dr. McDonald Publish a Final Report? ===

Admin: /* The Scientific Explanation */

2026-06-18T18:49:13Z

The Scientific Explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:49, 18 June 2026
Line 26:		Line 26:
	# '''Consistent wind speeds.''' No wind speed data was recorded at Vandenberg on that specific day, but Dr. McDonald noted that wind speeds measured at comparable altitudes at other times were "tantalizingly close" to what would have been required to carry debris from Vandenberg to Flagstaff. Since wind speeds vary by location and altitude, these measurements are consistent with a transport scenario, not proof against one.		# '''Consistent wind speeds.''' No wind speed data was recorded at Vandenberg on that specific day, but Dr. McDonald noted that wind speeds measured at comparable altitudes at other times were "tantalizingly close" to what would have been required to carry debris from Vandenberg to Flagstaff. Since wind speeds vary by location and altitude, these measurements are consistent with a transport scenario, not proof against one.
	# '''Military confirmation.''' When launch records were later declassified, the United States Air Force released documentation confirming that the cloud resulted from a military rocket operation.<ref>Jackson, Jeff G., 30th Space Wing History, Department of the Air Force, January 26, 1995, Vandenburg AFB, California</ref>		# '''Military confirmation.''' When launch records were later declassified, the United States Air Force released documentation confirming that the cloud resulted from a military rocket operation.<ref>Jackson, Jeff G., 30th Space Wing History, Department of the Air Force, January 26, 1995, Vandenburg AFB, California</ref>
	~~[[Image:NasaMakesACloud.jpg\|thumb\|370px\|In March 2012 NASA made some clouds in the morning sky with a shape and height similar to the February 1963 cloud.]]~~
	Dr. McDonald initially noted that clouds do not normally form at mesospheric altitudes — but subsequent research demonstrated that visible exhaust clouds from rocket launches can indeed reach into the mesosphere.<ref>http://www.spokenwordchurch.com/themessageresourcelibrary/Articles/Cloud%20Article%20-%20Dr%20McDonalds%20Cloud%20Investigation%20Supplement%201963.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/rktr1j.htm</ref> NASA has since created similar high-altitude clouds in chemical experiments, and some closely resemble the shape photographed on February 28 — appearing without any visible exhaust trail back to the launch site.<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/03/pictures/120327-nasa-rockets-clouds-wallops-jet-stream-edge-space-science/#/nasa-rocket-launch-strange-clouds-blue_50490_600x450.jpg</ref>		Dr. McDonald initially noted that clouds do not normally form at mesospheric altitudes — but subsequent research demonstrated that visible exhaust clouds from rocket launches can indeed reach into the mesosphere.<ref>http://www.spokenwordchurch.com/themessageresourcelibrary/Articles/Cloud%20Article%20-%20Dr%20McDonalds%20Cloud%20Investigation%20Supplement%201963.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/rktr1j.htm</ref> NASA has since created similar high-altitude clouds in chemical experiments, and some closely resemble the shape photographed on February 28 — appearing without any visible exhaust trail back to the launch site.<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/03/pictures/120327-nasa-rockets-clouds-wallops-jet-stream-edge-space-science/#/nasa-rocket-launch-strange-clouds-blue_50490_600x450.jpg</ref>

	Today, rocket launches from Vandenberg are routinely documented on video. Depending on atmospheric conditions, they can be seen from Tucson and beyond, leaving mesospheric clouds that remain illuminated well after sunset.<ref>http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=SGBuQL-FvGI</ref><ref>http://spaceflightnow.com/minotaur/cosmic/launch.html and http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/rktr1j.htm</ref> This kind of direct visual evidence was simply unavailable in 1963.		Today, rocket launches from Vandenberg are routinely documented on video. Depending on atmospheric conditions, they can be seen from Tucson and beyond, leaving mesospheric clouds that remain illuminated well after sunset.<ref>http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=SGBuQL-FvGI</ref><ref>http://spaceflightnow.com/minotaur/cosmic/launch.html and http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/rktr1j.htm</ref> This kind of direct visual evidence was simply unavailable in 1963.

	Scientists also linked similar clouds appearing later in 1963 to rocket launches:<blockquote>''A bright noctilucent cloud was observed and photographed northwest of Tucson on 15 June 1963. Results of computations indicate that the cloud was at a height of 71 kilometers. The cloud appears to have resulted from the launching of a Scout space vehicle.''<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/141/3586/1176.abstract Science Magazine, September 1963: Vol. 141, no. 3586, pp. 1176-1178, DOI: 10.1126/science.141.3586.1176, ''Low-Latitude Noctilucent Cloud of 15 June 1963'', Aden B. Meinel1, Barbara Middlehurst, Ewen Whitaker]</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''Measurement of the filamentary noctilucent cloud of 2 November 1963 yields a height of 56 km. Study of the motion and orientation of the cloud confirms the hypothesis that these unusual clouds appearing in the southwestern states are produced by the launching of rocket vehicles from the Pacific Missile Range.''<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/143/3601/38.abstract Science Magazine, January 1964: Vol. 143, no. 3601, pp. 38-39, DOI:0.1126/science.143.3601.38, Low-Latitude Noctilucent Cloud of 2 November 1963, Aden B. Meinel, Carolyn P. Meinel]</ref></blockquote>NASA launched its "Super Soaker" rocket in the early morning hours of January 26, 2018, from Poker Flat research range in Fairbanks, Alaska. It reached an altitude of about 53 miles when the team triggered the explosion of their canister of about 485 pounds (220 kilograms) of water. The clouds it created were very similar to the 1963 Arizona Cloud. Was that just a coincidence?		Scientists also linked similar clouds appearing later in 1963 to rocket launches:<blockquote>''A bright noctilucent cloud was observed and photographed northwest of Tucson on 15 June 1963. Results of computations indicate that the cloud was at a height of 71 kilometers. The cloud appears to have resulted from the launching of a Scout space vehicle.''<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/141/3586/1176.abstract Science Magazine, September 1963: Vol. 141, no. 3586, pp. 1176-1178, DOI: 10.1126/science.141.3586.1176, ''Low-Latitude Noctilucent Cloud of 15 June 1963'', Aden B. Meinel1, Barbara Middlehurst, Ewen Whitaker]</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''Measurement of the filamentary noctilucent cloud of 2 November 1963 yields a height of 56 km. Study of the motion and orientation of the cloud confirms the hypothesis that these unusual clouds appearing in the southwestern states are produced by the launching of rocket vehicles from the Pacific Missile Range.''<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/143/3601/38.abstract Science Magazine, January 1964: Vol. 143, no. 3601, pp. 38-39, DOI:0.1126/science.143.3601.38, Low-Latitude Noctilucent Cloud of 2 November 1963, Aden B. Meinel, Carolyn P. Meinel]</ref></blockquote>NASA launched its "Super Soaker" rocket in the early morning hours of January 26, 2018, from Poker Flat research range in Fairbanks, Alaska. It reached an altitude of about 53 miles when the team triggered the explosion of their canister of about 485 pounds (220 kilograms) of water. The clouds it created were very similar to the 1963 Arizona Cloud. Was that just a coincidence?[[Image:NasaMakesACloud.jpg\|thumb\|370px]]

	=== Why Didn't Dr. McDonald Publish a Final Report? ===		=== Why Didn't Dr. McDonald Publish a Final Report? ===

Admin: /* The Scientific Explanation */

2026-06-18T18:47:55Z

The Scientific Explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, 18 June 2026
Line 31:		Line 31:
	Today, rocket launches from Vandenberg are routinely documented on video. Depending on atmospheric conditions, they can be seen from Tucson and beyond, leaving mesospheric clouds that remain illuminated well after sunset.<ref>http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=SGBuQL-FvGI</ref><ref>http://spaceflightnow.com/minotaur/cosmic/launch.html and http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/rktr1j.htm</ref> This kind of direct visual evidence was simply unavailable in 1963.		Today, rocket launches from Vandenberg are routinely documented on video. Depending on atmospheric conditions, they can be seen from Tucson and beyond, leaving mesospheric clouds that remain illuminated well after sunset.<ref>http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=SGBuQL-FvGI</ref><ref>http://spaceflightnow.com/minotaur/cosmic/launch.html and http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/rktr1j.htm</ref> This kind of direct visual evidence was simply unavailable in 1963.

	Scientists also linked similar clouds appearing later in 1963 to rocket launches:<blockquote>''A bright noctilucent cloud was observed and photographed northwest of Tucson on 15 June 1963. Results of computations indicate that the cloud was at a height of 71 kilometers. The cloud appears to have resulted from the launching of a Scout space vehicle.''<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/141/3586/1176.abstract Science Magazine, September 1963: Vol. 141, no. 3586, pp. 1176-1178, DOI: 10.1126/science.141.3586.1176, ''Low-Latitude Noctilucent Cloud of 15 June 1963'', Aden B. Meinel1, Barbara Middlehurst, Ewen Whitaker]</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''Measurement of the filamentary noctilucent cloud of 2 November 1963 yields a height of 56 km. Study of the motion and orientation of the cloud confirms the hypothesis that these unusual clouds appearing in the southwestern states are produced by the launching of rocket vehicles from the Pacific Missile Range.''<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/143/3601/38.abstract Science Magazine, January 1964: Vol. 143, no. 3601, pp. 38-39, DOI:0.1126/science.143.3601.38, Low-Latitude Noctilucent Cloud of 2 November 1963, Aden B. Meinel, Carolyn P. Meinel]</ref></blockquote>		Scientists also linked similar clouds appearing later in 1963 to rocket launches:<blockquote>''A bright noctilucent cloud was observed and photographed northwest of Tucson on 15 June 1963. Results of computations indicate that the cloud was at a height of 71 kilometers. The cloud appears to have resulted from the launching of a Scout space vehicle.''<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/141/3586/1176.abstract Science Magazine, September 1963: Vol. 141, no. 3586, pp. 1176-1178, DOI: 10.1126/science.141.3586.1176, ''Low-Latitude Noctilucent Cloud of 15 June 1963'', Aden B. Meinel1, Barbara Middlehurst, Ewen Whitaker]</ref></blockquote><blockquote>''Measurement of the filamentary noctilucent cloud of 2 November 1963 yields a height of 56 km. Study of the motion and orientation of the cloud confirms the hypothesis that these unusual clouds appearing in the southwestern states are produced by the launching of rocket vehicles from the Pacific Missile Range.''<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/143/3601/38.abstract Science Magazine, January 1964: Vol. 143, no. 3601, pp. 38-39, DOI:0.1126/science.143.3601.38, Low-Latitude Noctilucent Cloud of 2 November 1963, Aden B. Meinel, Carolyn P. Meinel]</ref></blockquote>NASA launched its "Super Soaker" rocket in the early morning hours of January 26, 2018, from Poker Flat research range in Fairbanks, Alaska. It reached an altitude of about 53 miles when the team triggered the explosion of their canister of about 485 pounds (220 kilograms) of water. The clouds it created were very similar to the 1963 Arizona Cloud. Was that just a coincidence?

	=== Why Didn't Dr. McDonald Publish a Final Report? ===		=== Why Didn't Dr. McDonald Publish a Final Report? ===

Admin: /* Dr. McDonald's Re-Assessment */

2026-06-18T17:20:29Z

Dr. McDonald's Re-Assessment

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:20, 18 June 2026
Line 66:		Line 66:
	'''And the amusing matter of the satellite cloud, west of Flagstaff, which shows on numerous photos taken from eastern Arizona and New Mexico, but which Branham's group did not know about until I confronted Green with it, seems to go a long way towards exposing the irrationality of the religious interpretations.'''		'''And the amusing matter of the satellite cloud, west of Flagstaff, which shows on numerous photos taken from eastern Arizona and New Mexico, but which Branham's group did not know about until I confronted Green with it, seems to go a long way towards exposing the irrationality of the religious interpretations.'''

	DAVIES OMITTED all mention of data I gave him on the detonation of a rocket at Vandenberg Air Force Base at almost precisely the elevation of that cloud, about four hours earlier that day. Although there do indeed remain difficulties in explaining that cloud, supernaturalism ought not be even a last resort.		'''DAVIES OMITTED all mention of data I gave him on the detonation of a rocket at Vandenberg Air Force Base at almost precisely the elevation of that cloud, about four hours earlier that day. Although there do indeed remain difficulties in explaining that cloud, supernaturalism ought not be even a last resort.'''

	'''Let's keep the Middle Ages back where they belong.'''		'''Let's keep the Middle Ages back where they belong.'''

Admin at 17:19, 18 June 2026

2026-06-18T17:19:40Z

Admin at 17:16, 18 June 2026

2026-06-18T17:16:20Z

Show changes

Admin at 16:02, 17 June 2026

2026-06-17T16:02:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:02, 17 June 2026
Line 35:		Line 35:
	=== Why Didn't Dr. McDonald Publish a Final Report? ===		=== Why Didn't Dr. McDonald Publish a Final Report? ===
	Dr. McDonald was senior physicist at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and professor of meteorology at the University of Arizona. He was also well known for his serious investigation of UFO reports — which makes him an unlikely candidate to shelve a genuinely unexplained phenomenon simply out of disinterest. The most natural explanation for his failure to publish a final report is that he arrived at a sufficient explanation — the rocket — and didn't consider that conclusion publishable as a scientific finding. A researcher who made his reputation pursuing phenomena that defied conventional science would not have quietly dropped the subject if it remained genuinely mysterious.		Dr. McDonald was senior physicist at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and professor of meteorology at the University of Arizona. He was also well known for his serious investigation of UFO reports — which makes him an unlikely candidate to shelve a genuinely unexplained phenomenon simply out of disinterest. The most natural explanation for his failure to publish a final report is that he arrived at a sufficient explanation — the rocket — and didn't consider that conclusion publishable as a scientific finding. A researcher who made his reputation pursuing phenomena that defied conventional science would not have quietly dropped the subject if it remained genuinely mysterious.

			What is extremely interesting is Dr. McDonald's 1967 response to Pearry Green's view of the supernatural nature of the Cloud.
	----		----

	== Dr. McDonald's ~~Own~~ Assessment ==		== Dr. McDonald's Re-Assessment ==
	[[File:19670405 Mysterious Cloud Formation Vanishes Under Examination.jpg\|right\|250px]]		[[File:19670405 Mysterious Cloud Formation Vanishes Under Examination.jpg\|right\|250px]]
	In April 1967, Dr. McDonald wrote a letter to ''The Arizona Republic'' that leaves no ambiguity about his conclusions:		In April 1967, Dr. McDonald wrote a letter to ''The Arizona Republic'' that leaves no ambiguity about his conclusions:

Admin: /* A Word for Those Who Are Watching */

2026-06-17T15:54:10Z

A Word for Those Who Are Watching

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:54, 17 June 2026
Line 196:		Line 196:

	The honest thing to do is listen to those words again, carefully, and ask whether the story holds together. Not because critics want it to fail, but because the truth matters. A faith built on a story that doesn't hold up isn't safer for not being examined. It's just more fragile.		The honest thing to do is listen to those words again, carefully, and ask whether the story holds together. Not because critics want it to fail, but because the truth matters. A faith built on a story that doesn't hold up isn't safer for not being examined. It's just more fragile.
			----

	= Problems with the Spiritual Interpretation =		= Problems with the Spiritual Interpretation =
	The chronological and geographical facts present serious, unresolved difficulties for those who believe the cloud was a supernatural sign connected to Branham's angelic visitation.		The chronological and geographical facts present serious, unresolved difficulties for those who believe the cloud was a supernatural sign connected to Branham's angelic visitation.

Admin: /* Problems with the Spiritual Interpretation */

2026-06-17T15:53:16Z

Problems with the Spiritual Interpretation

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 17 June 2026
Line 198:		Line 198:


	== Problems with the Spiritual Interpretation ==		= Problems with the Spiritual Interpretation =
	The chronological and geographical facts present serious, unresolved difficulties for those who believe the cloud was a supernatural sign connected to Branham's angelic visitation.		The chronological and geographical facts present serious, unresolved difficulties for those who believe the cloud was a supernatural sign connected to Branham's angelic visitation.

Admin: /* The Mass Calculation: A Critical Omission */

2026-06-17T15:52:43Z

The Mass Calculation: A Critical Omission

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:52, 17 June 2026
Line 126:		Line 126:

	He does show a striking Space Shuttle exhaust cloud (STS-131) as a visual comparison, but the comparison is misleading. That photograph was taken five minutes after launch, during active burning. The 1963 cloud appeared three and a half hours after the rocket's destruction. Of course they look different. Arguing that rocket exhaust in active flight looks unlike a dispersed, wind-shaped cloud hours later proves nothing about whether the rocket caused the cloud.		He does show a striking Space Shuttle exhaust cloud (STS-131) as a visual comparison, but the comparison is misleading. That photograph was taken five minutes after launch, during active burning. The 1963 cloud appeared three and a half hours after the rocket's destruction. Of course they look different. Arguing that rocket exhaust in active flight looks unlike a dispersed, wind-shaped cloud hours later proves nothing about whether the rocket caused the cloud.
			----

			== The Cloud Density Contradiction: Rostron's Framework Collapses His Own Math ==
			There is a deeper problem with the mass calculation that Rostron doesn't notice — because it requires him to apply his own logic consistently, which he doesn't.

			Throughout the presentation, Rostron correctly invokes the analogy of noctilucent clouds to explain one of the cloud's most striking features: why nobody saw it until sunset. He explains the physics accurately. Noctilucent clouds are visible only at twilight because they are too faint to scatter enough light to be visible against a bright daytime sky. They only appear once the background sky darkens and sunlight catches them from below the horizon. He uses this same principle to explain why the Flagstaff cloud was invisible during the day and only appeared as the sun went down.

			This is the correct explanation. But Rostron never follows that logic into his density calculation.

			Noctilucent clouds are extraordinarily tenuous. Their ice water content is typically on the order of '''10⁻⁵ to 10⁻⁶ grams per cubic meter''' — roughly one thousand to one hundred thousand times less dense than an ordinary cirrus cloud. That tenuousness is not incidental to how they behave. It ''is'' why they can't be seen in daylight. A cirrus cloud, with its density of around 0.03 to 0.05 g/m³, is clearly visible in full sunlight. Something only visible during a narrow twilight window, when the background sky is dark and the sun's rays are hitting it from far below the horizon, has to be far, far thinner than a cirrus cloud.

			Rostron's mass calculation uses a cirrus cloud density of '''1/20 gram per cubic meter (0.05 g/m³)'''. That's how he arrives at his 2.2 million pound figure. But he has already established — in the same presentation — that the cloud behaved like a noctilucent cloud in terms of its visibility. You cannot simultaneously claim a cloud is too tenuous to be seen in daylight ''and'' assume cirrus-level ice density when calculating how much water formed it. Those two claims are mutually exclusive.

			The numbers make this stark. At cirrus density (0.05 g/m³), Rostron calculates roughly 1.35 million kilograms of water needed. Now apply a density consistent with something only visible at twilight — say, 10⁻⁴ g/m³, which is still five hundred times denser than a typical noctilucent cloud and thus a very conservative estimate:<blockquote>27 billion m³ × 0.0001 g/m³ = '''2,700 kilograms — about 5,950 pounds'''</blockquote>At actual noctilucent cloud densities (10⁻⁵ g/m³):<blockquote>27 billion m³ × 0.00001 g/m³ = '''270 kilograms — about 595 pounds'''</blockquote>Not 2.2 million pounds. Hundreds of pounds. The Thor rocket's main liquid-fueled engine — which Rostron ignored entirely — produced combustion byproducts including water on the order of tens of thousands of kilograms. Even the Castor-1 solid boosters that Rostron himself analysed exceed this threshold by a significant margin.

			Rostron uses noctilucent cloud physics when it helps explain daytime invisibility, then quietly reverts to cirrus cloud density when he needs a large number for his water mass argument. A root cause analysis doesn't get to choose which physical properties apply and when. Either the cloud was dense enough to behave like a cirrus cloud (visible in daylight, requiring ~2.2 million pounds of water) or it was tenuous enough to behave like a noctilucent cloud (invisible in daylight, requiring a tiny fraction of that). It cannot be both.
	----		----

Line 163:		Line 179:
	He correctly demonstrates that natural clouds do not form at 43 kilometers through ordinary atmospheric processes. This is real atmospheric science and he explains it clearly.		He correctly demonstrates that natural clouds do not form at 43 kilometers through ordinary atmospheric processes. This is real atmospheric science and he explains it clearly.

	He correctly notes that the cloud was unusual and that McDonald found it difficult to explain ~~within~~ the data available to him in 1963.		He correctly notes that the cloud was unusual and that McDonald found it difficult to explain WHEN FIRST CONFRONTED with the data available to him in 1963. However, MacDonald's story changed by the time of his response in 1967.

	He raises legitimate questions about whether the Castor-1 solid boosters alone could account for the cloud's size. This is a fair point, though he reaches it by ignoring the primary propulsion system.		He raises legitimate questions about whether the Castor-1 solid boosters alone could account for the cloud's size. This is a fair point, though he reaches it by ignoring the primary propulsion system. He also ignores the amount of water vapour required for noctilucent clouds.

	What his analysis does not establish is that the rocket could not have caused the cloud. His wind speed calculation uses anachronistic data. His mass calculation omits the main engine. His moisture argument supports rather than undermines the rocket hypothesis. And his conclusion — that supernatural causation is therefore implied — does not follow from his premises even if those premises were correct.		What his analysis does not establish is that the rocket could not have caused the cloud. His wind speed calculation uses anachronistic data. His mass calculation omits the main engine. His moisture argument '''supports''' rather than undermines the rocket hypothesis. And his conclusion — that supernatural causation is therefore implied — does not follow from his premises even if those premises were correct.
	----		----

Line 173:		Line 189:
	If you've sat through this series, or heard someone cite it, or had it shared with you as the definitive answer to critics of the Message, you deserve to know what it actually proved and what it didn't.		If you've sat through this series, or heard someone cite it, or had it shared with you as the definitive answer to critics of the Message, you deserve to know what it actually proved and what it didn't.

	Rostron is a capable engineer who spent months on this project. He clearly cares deeply about his faith, and he is trying to be rigorous. That's admirable. But rigour has to go all the way through — including to the question of whether the person whose testimony you're defending actually told a consistent, verifiable story. The scientific question of what caused the cloud is genuinely interesting. But the problem with Branham's cloud story was never primarily scientific. It was always about why a man who claimed to stand under a cloud was 200 miles away when it appeared, why the cloud preceded his vision's fulfillment by eight days, and why he never mentioned any of this until a magazine brought the photograph to his attention.		Rostron is a capable engineer who spent months on this project. He clearly cares deeply about his faith, and he is trying to be rigorous. That's admirable. But rigour has to go all the way through — including to the question of whether the person whose testimony you're defending actually told a consistent, verifiable story. The scientific question of what caused the cloud is genuinely interesting but Rostron fails to disprove the rocket argment... in fact, he helps to prove it.

			But the problem with Branham's cloud story was never primarily scientific. It was always about why a man who claimed to stand under a cloud was 200 miles away when it appeared, why the cloud preceded his vision's fulfillment by eight days, and why he never mentioned any of this until a magazine brought the photograph to his attention.

	Those questions don't get answered by atmospheric physics. They get answered — or not answered — by Branham's own words.		Those questions don't get answered by atmospheric physics. They get answered — or not answered — by Branham's own words.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:19, 18 June 2026
Line 50:		Line 50:
	The March 26 issue of your Sunday supplement, ''Arizona'', carried an article by Reporter Dave Davies, entitled "The Cloud," concerning a very unusual stratospheric cloud formation that appeared over Flagstaff on Feb. 28, 1963.		The March 26 issue of your Sunday supplement, ''Arizona'', carried an article by Reporter Dave Davies, entitled "The Cloud," concerning a very unusual stratospheric cloud formation that appeared over Flagstaff on Feb. 28, 1963.

	My investigations of that cloud are quoted in part, but a number of aspects of my findings were omitted or overlooked, so that the supernatural and religious construction that has been put on that event was improperly supported.		My investigations of that cloud are quoted in part, but a number of aspects of my findings were omitted or overlooked, so that '''the supernatural and religious construction that has been put on that event was improperly supported.'''

	I am quoted as "frankly skeptical," as if to suggest that I am half-convinced, half-unconvinced by the occult interpretation. I am, in fact, wholly unconvinced and regard the entire business as quite distressing.		I am quoted as "frankly skeptical," as if to suggest that I am half-convinced, half-unconvinced by the occult interpretation. '''I am, in fact, wholly unconvinced and regard the entire business as quite distressing.'''

	IT IS NOT CORRECT that the cloud "swept northward across Arizona." It moved in from almost due west. If Mr. Sothman saw anything which he thought to be a "strange circular-shaped cloud rise into the air" over Branham's head, he is clearly talking about some other cloud than that of Feb. 28 over Flagstaff.		IT IS NOT CORRECT that the cloud "swept northward across Arizona." It moved in from almost due west. If Mr. Sothman saw anything which he thought to be a "strange circular-shaped cloud rise into the air" over Branham's head, he is clearly talking about some other cloud than that of Feb. 28 over Flagstaff.
Line 58:		Line 58:
	Sothman is quoted as asserting that "it was kind of small at first, but the higher it rose the bigger it became." The observations of scores of reliable witnesses disinclined to pseudo-religious interpretations attest to the fact that the Flagstaff cloud appeared and disappeared without significant overall size or shape change.		Sothman is quoted as asserting that "it was kind of small at first, but the higher it rose the bigger it became." The observations of scores of reliable witnesses disinclined to pseudo-religious interpretations attest to the fact that the Flagstaff cloud appeared and disappeared without significant overall size or shape change.

	Rev. Pearry Green, cited in the article, asserted to me (in a phone conversation in which I pointed out many discrepancies in the occult interpretation he and others seek to place on this event) that the "seven angels," after speaking to Rev. Branham, flew up into the sky and assumed the form of this cloud which, he claims, outlined the face of Christ to Branham.		Rev. Pearry Green, cited in the article, asserted to me ('''in a phone conversation in which I pointed out many discrepancies in the occult interpretation he and others seek to place on this event''') that the "seven angels," after speaking to Rev. Branham, flew up into the sky and assumed the form of this cloud which, he claims, outlined the face of Christ to Branham.

	AS A MATTER of fact, the photograph which accompanied the recent article as alleged documentation of this angelic revelation constitutes a projection entirely different from that which an observer would have seen in Branham's reported location in the Sunset Mountain area.		AS A MATTER of fact, the photograph which accompanied the recent article as alleged documentation of this angelic revelation constitutes a projection entirely different from that which an observer would have seen in Branham's reported location in the Sunset Mountain area.

	From the latter area, as also from Tucson where I myself saw it, the cloud bore absolutely no resemblance to any face. Rev. Mr. Green asserts that "facial features" can be seen in the inside of the cloud. When I told him no such features are detectable on the original prints, and when I asked for sample copies of the prints which he claimed showed such features, I never received any copies to examine.		From the latter area, as also from Tucson where I myself saw it, '''the cloud bore absolutely no resemblance to any face.''' Rev. Mr. Green asserts that "facial features" can be seen in the inside of the cloud. When I told him no such features are detectable on the original prints, and when I asked for sample copies of the prints which he claimed showed such features, I never received any copies to examine.

	And the amusing matter of the satellite cloud, west of Flagstaff, which shows on numerous photos taken from eastern Arizona and New Mexico, but which Branham's group did not know about until I confronted Green with it, seems to go a long way towards exposing the irrationality of the religious interpretations.		'''And the amusing matter of the satellite cloud, west of Flagstaff, which shows on numerous photos taken from eastern Arizona and New Mexico, but which Branham's group did not know about until I confronted Green with it, seems to go a long way towards exposing the irrationality of the religious interpretations.'''

	DAVIES OMITTED all mention of data I gave him on the detonation of a rocket at Vandenberg Air Force Base at almost precisely the elevation of that cloud, about four hours earlier that day. Although there do indeed remain difficulties in explaining that cloud, supernaturalism ought not be even a last resort.		DAVIES OMITTED all mention of data I gave him on the detonation of a rocket at Vandenberg Air Force Base at almost precisely the elevation of that cloud, about four hours earlier that day. Although there do indeed remain difficulties in explaining that cloud, supernaturalism ought not be even a last resort.

	Let's keep the Middle Ages back where they belong.		'''Let's keep the Middle Ages back where they belong.'''

	''JAMES E. MCDONALD, Professor, UofA, Institute of Atmospheric Physics''		''JAMES E. MCDONALD, Professor, UofA, Institute of Atmospheric Physics''