Good Morning John,

I don't really understand how it is that I and apparently many others who post on other boards are constantly noting how FFA's work and yet the project you did negates that observation. It is most puzzling. To me your conclusion just seemed to jump off of the written page and I swear I could see the words "WRONG ANSWER" flashing in front of my face. Wow, what a powerful thought that was. I mean I showed you how it worked in regard to the MT area, but you don't see it? There has to be something wrong. I think I'll need some outside assistance as the answer you're going to need to more than I can offer in a way that you understand these matters. And I don't mean by asking Lowell either. I'll see who has some time to work on this one. They are in your profession and most of them are pretty busy, so I can't promise a response in a short period of time.

You and I seem to camp out in different campgrounds so often. It reminds me of that time we were discussing using natural geysers as predictive tools and since I had personal experience with using the one here I knew it was good for that use, but you hadn't gone down that road before. This is why collaborative efforts can be so fruitful; everyone has some knowledge that the majority may not and so if people work together the results can be most beneficial. But some in your field can't quite get there yet.

I don't know how to affix the word "sensible" in regard to scientists. Science is about exploring the unknown and learning something and yet when the unknown is brought to the table it isn't welcome for examination. I'm not the only one who has seen this and I won't be the last.

I guess at this point in time we will have to leave your work in regard to FFA's on the shelf until I can find someone who is willing to volunteer their time to defend a theory that has a useful and practical application. Meanwhile, when I see the obvious I'll point it out so you too can see what I see. I guess that's the best I can do.

Petra