1. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    A new article on a 'Carnicom Institute' site tries to make the case that samples sent to CC from all over the world are not threads made by ballooning spiders. However, on first glance the only indication for this is that they look a bit different when compared to self-collected spider webs under a microscope. No chemical analysis provided so far.

    Screenshot from the article:

    carniscreen.
    Quote from the article:

    https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/global-validation/

    The occasion for that article seems to have been a recent ballooning event reported by Terry Lawton from Wexford. See post #15 for details about this video.

    Discussion:

    It is not very obvious from the images on the site that there is an optical difference between the 'normal' spider webs and the 'filament' sample. However, even if it were - there are significant differences between threads in a normal spider web and the threads used for 'ballooning'

    Ballooning threads consist only of a certain type of silk, produced by the so called ampullate glands (the majority of spiders has several different types of silk glands). The ampullate silk is also used as a 'life line' (constantly attached during movement) and for 'bridging' (connecting wide gaps with wind support). In webs, it appears only in the 'framework'. One important property is that it is less sticky than silk from other glands.

    Consequently, it is to be expected that the micro-optical properties of threads from a collected web and 'balloon' threads are different - even if they came from the same species of spider.

    In this case however, neither of the species producing the samples is known in the first place, so the comparison does not make much scientific sense at all.

    Reference:

    Spider Physiology and Behaviour, Jérôme Casas (ed.), Academic Press, 2011. Excerpt:
    Pg. 190, retrieved from Google Books

    The specific chapter of the book is available (but probably unintentional, as it's not free):
    http://ezlab.zrc-sazu.si/uploads/2011/10/Blackledgeal2011_Review-OrbWebs.pdf

    [appended with information from the following posts]

    See also this thread: Debunked: Chemwebs / Mysterious Fibers fall from sky (ballooning spiders)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 15, 2017 at 8:59 AM
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Yes, it is, although producing it in bulk is still a challenge.

    But can Clifford (or anyone) explain what anyone would gain by scattering miles and miles of expensive artificial silk all over a cornfield in Ireland where it is only encountered by (literally) one man and his dog?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

    An attempt to ensnare wily Irish activists?


    In other news, I can't find anything on what type of silk that spiders use for flying. Plenty on the types they produce and what they are used for but nothing about the type for flying
     
  4. Rory

    Rory Active Member

    That's just the warm-up. Wait till it gets released across the entire planet. :eek:
     
  5. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

    The following is the original video from Terry Lawton in Ireland. He repeatedly claims that they are not spider webs and claims to have contacted two independent laboratories.

    upload_2017-11-14_23-15-38.



    Emboldened by the Clifford Carnicom's "analysis" he has produced an updated video.

    Nothing really to see in the video. Just Terry reading out the article from the Carnicom website and then linking it to his chemtrail and nano theories.



    You Tuber conspiracy theorist RichieFromBoston has also been sent samples of the spider webs and is awaiting to hear back from his "friend in the science field".

    upload_2017-11-14_23-10-37.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    Carnicom, near end of article.....
    So, pictures only ?
    Yes, that is enough for most people that take his site seriously.

    I wonder why it's been 20 years to do a proper chemical, biological, and physical analysis on the collected/donated samples..... and still not done ?

    So is it funding issue ? ...or an issue that any undisclosed results from outside testing were not to their liking ?
    Carnicom doesn't mention this (that I could find).
    Back in 2000 they sent samples to two EPA labs, and Carnicom says the samples took around a year to be returned, untested. Carnicom seems to imply this delay and refusal to test, was significant.
    But the EPA responses were clear.....

    epa114.

    Kinda looks like that he couldn't get it done for free, and so far, hasn't sought alternate means in ~20 years.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Agree Agree x 2