Debunked: C-130 dropping 'raindrop shaped fibers', lab tests for metals [Spider Silk, Dirt]

jaydeehess said:
So the logical conclusion is that what is being found in these tests is aluminum as a component of compounds found in the samples
Click to expand...

Of course, but the question here is not really what it is, but how to explain what it is. Your explanation is rather technical for the average person to understand.

I'd be interested in how @hiilikeyourbird views this discussion. @hiilikeyourbird, do you follow the explanation of the test detecting bauxite the same as free aluminum? Was there a specific point in this discussion that clarified it for you? Or do you still disagree, and think the tests found free aluminum?
 
Mick,
Chemtrailers have no difficulty understanding that aluminum exists in nature as a compound.
Its a very small technical leap to understand that this is because the element, aluminum, reacts very quickly with oxygen, an obvious high concentration element in the atmosphere. ( lucky for all terrestrial large animal life)
My example of dust on a country road is about as nontechnical as can be , except perhaps to someone who has lived their entire life deep within a large city.
It might take some cognitive ability to then deduce that elemental aluminum that spends many minutes or hours mixing in the atmosphere cannot reach the surface in any appreciable concentration much less after being transported to a test lab hours from the sample site. However, I don't think its much more than the cognition required to understand that the test itself separates constituents and is not indicating the presence of elemental aluminum.

If one can note that one's premise about what a test is showing simply cannot be right, then its quite logical to assume the premise must not be true. Basically the same point you are making from another direction.

As to your query, yes it would be good to know if hiilikeyourbird understands to discussion at all or simply dismisses it out of hand as all techno babble.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Chemtrailers have no difficulty understanding that aluminum exists in nature as a compound.
Click to expand...

But there are millions of perfectly ordinary people who don't actually understand what a compound is. I think you are really over-estimating the chemistry understanding of the average person.

Unfortunately when you don't understand something, then your beliefs about that thing become an issue of trust.
 
Mick West said:
But there are millions of perfectly ordinary people who don't actually understand what a compound is. I think you are really over-estimating the chemistry understanding of the average person.

Unfortunately when you don't understand something, then your beliefs about that thing become an issue of trust.
Click to expand...
Definitely.
However, explaining that the test is not measuring elemental aluminum requires the same understanding that what is going into the test was not elemental, but a compound, or simple trust, , does it not?

Perhaps my own understanding is in the way of describing colour to a blind person, however seems your direction suffers the same problem.

hiilikeyourbird might be able to contribute an opinion on this though.
 
Last edited:
A vital point to keep in mind here is that there is nothing wrong with not understanding this. Billions of people don't. Most people don't. Lots of "debunkers" don't. It's knowledge that seems basic to some, but is esoteric to others. Think how some people don't understand basic algebra, like how solving 2x+2=4x seem obvious to you, but it totally gobbledygook to some of your friends and family. Same thing with chemistry.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree.
I know that maybe, just maybe, one person I work with would be able to solve that equation to determine the value of x. Others would not even recognize that it can be done and would not understand even if I showed them step by step how to do it, let alone comprehend that I arrived at x=1 by doing it in my head without simple trial and error.

Like I said, describe colour to a blind person.

All we can do is patiently explain and hope for the best.
 
jaydeehess said:
However, explaining that the test is not measuring elemental aluminum requires the same understanding that what is going into the test was not elemental, but a compound, or simple trust, , does it not?
Click to expand...

It does. I think what we need to aim for here is something in the middle. A simplistic explanation that can be backed by reputable sources, or is even approaching self-evident truth.

How about
"If you run this test on bauxite, then it will find a lot of aluminum"

Or even some graduated Socratic method:

"What percentage of soil is aluminum?" .... 7%
"If you run the same test on soil, how much aluminum will you find" ... 7%
"If the spider web is dirty, maybe 1% of the weight of the sample is dirt/soil, how much aluminum will you find?" ... 1% of 7%, so 0.07%
"What's that in mg/kg" ... 700
"how much was found on the samples here?" 1000
"So the aluminum found in this sample is consistent with it being about 1.5% dirt?" yes

Now if you try that, you'll probably encounter resistance at different points with different people. You have to solve those points of resistance. This can be challenging, because as well as not understanding chemistry, a lot of people have problems with percentages, and units like mg and Kg, and even just general arithmetic.

And then people react angrily if they think you are deliberately simplifying things, as it's like saying they are stupid. So there's a whole bunch of challenges.
 
That last part is hard to avoid, especially for one who can be a sarcastic so-and-so like my brother or me.:eek:
 
This is a little off topic now. Sorry.

But, wait a minute! let's back the truck up a bit here. Going back a page to this...
jaydeehess said:
The theme is self debunking. Aluminum exclusively exists in the air or soil as a compound ( other than in enviroments that strongly promote reduction processes) because it reacts so readily with, among other elements, oxygen. That is a point which chemtrailers promote quite vocally.

Spraying elemental aluminum in fine particles from thousands of feet above the surface will garuntee it is oxidized by the time it reaches the surface.
Click to expand...

And on this page ...
jaydeehess said:
It might take some cognitive ability to then deduce that elemental aluminum that spends many minutes or hours mixing in the atmosphere cannot reach the surface in any appreciable concentration much less after being transported to a test lab hours from the sample site.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that "elemental aluminum" is sprayed from aircraft for some reason?
And this is why it is found in soil as aluminum oxide?

Just one of many problems with this... what is stopping the "elemental aluminum" in the plane from oxidizing in the plane, while it's being loaded, in the transport to the forecourt at the airport, in the storage facility, during manufacture into "fine particles"?

I'm sorry to have introduced some question beggars in there, and maybe it's a bit of a strawman argument. But, seriously? "Spraying elemental aluminum in fine particles from thousands of feet"?
 
Ross Marsden said:
I'm sorry to have introduced some question beggars in there, and maybe it's a bit of a strawman argument. But, seriously? "Spraying elemental aluminum in fine particles from thousands of feet"?
Click to expand...

Ross, you "quoted" jaydeehess...I don't think he was the one making that assertion.

But agree....the very premise of "spraying" fine aluminium particles (whatever THAT means) from over 30,000 feet above the Earth's surface IS absurd. It is pointless in the extreme...and "absurd" in the context that it is 'presumed' to be done by regularly scheduled passenger airliners....the VERY "absurdity" is dictated by the facts of aviation, payloads, weight & balance considerations....(ETC, ETC, ETC...).
 
Mick West said:
"What percentage of soil is aluminum?" .... 7%
Click to expand...
My impression is that even this simple statement is met with incredulity - because people know how aluminum is supposed to look like. Slightly shiny and cold, like in a windows frame. That just can't be in soil naturally, can it?

So the central point is that there are substances with properties far from those of metals, but which still contain it. That's the "missing link".

Maybe this point can be communicated with the iron / rust example; it should be present to most people. Metal to dust, in everyday life.
 
Mick West said:
It does. I think what we need to aim for here is something in the middle. A simplistic explanation that can be backed by reputable sources, or is even approaching self-evident truth.

How about
"If you run this test on bauxite, then it will find a lot of aluminum"
Click to expand...

Or bring it back to something people are familiar with. Table salt. Run this test on table salt and you'll find sodium and chlorine.
 
cloudspotter said:
Or bring it back to something people are familiar with. Table salt. Run this test on table salt and you'll find sodium and chlorine.
Click to expand...
The trouble with that is that most people aren't familiar with sodium metal. The only reference to "sodium" many people have is on a food label, when it is (to the layman) synonymous with "salt".

Water is a possibility. People know what oxygen is, and they probably have an idea what hydrogen is. They probably know that both are gases, at any rate, but if you combine them in a compound you get a liquid.
 
Trailblazer said:
The trouble with that is that most people aren't familiar with sodium metal. The only reference to "sodium" many people have is on a food label, when it is (to the layman) synonymous with "salt".

Water is a possibility. People know what oxygen is, and they probably have an idea what hydrogen is. They probably know that both are gases, at any rate, but if you combine them in a compound you get a liquid.
Click to expand...

Something along those lines
 
Ross Marsden said:
This is a little off topic now. Sorry.

But, wait a minute! let's back the truck up a bit here. Going back a page to this...
Are you suggesting that "elemental aluminum" is sprayed from aircraft for some reason?
Click to expand...

No, quite the contrary. I am saying that the chemtrailer notion that elemental aluminum is found at the surface because its being sprayed by aircraft, is quite obviously incorrect.


Just one of many problems with this... what is stopping the "elemental aluminum" in the plane from oxidizing in the plane, while it's being loaded, in the transport to the forecourt at the airport, in the storage facility, during manufacture into "fine particles"?

I'm sorry to have introduced some question beggars in there, and maybe it's a bit of a strawman argument. But, seriously? "Spraying elemental aluminum in fine particles from thousands of feet"?
Click to expand...
Exactly my point, "spraying elemental aluminum from thousands of feet" Really?
 
Trailblazer said:
The trouble with that is that most people aren't familiar with sodium metal. The only reference to "sodium" many people have is on a food label, when it is (to the layman) synonymous with "salt".

Water is a possibility. People know what oxygen is, and they probably have an idea what hydrogen is. They probably know that both are gases, at any rate, but if you combine them in a compound you get a liquid.
Click to expand...
You get a liquid,,, plus a bit o' heat.:)
 
Last edited:
TEEJ said:
Looks like they are not interested in debate over on intellihub? I've posted twice in the comments section. One of my posts appeared and has now been removed. Looks like they have turned on the old get out clause of "awaiting moderation". I bet if I posted "I am being sprayed like a bug today by unmarked windowless aircraft" my post would magically appear!
Click to expand...

Intellihub is famous for pushing a story about the sun rising in the wrong place a couple years ago. It featured a haggard-and-hungover-looking Sheppard early one morning pointing at his windowsill, declaring that they sun shouldn't rise beyond a certain angle. Long on sensational stories, short on real journalism.
 
This claim, from that comments section, keeps getting repeated:

you are a disinformation idiot. i've watched planes grid our area all day long. i've watched them spray a line, turn it off, make a turn and come back and spray another line, over and over.
Content from External Source
No matter how many times I request vid showing this actually happening, with none EVER being supplied, they never cease to make the same claim.
 
Hama Neggs said:
Intellihub is famous for pushing a story about the sun rising in the wrong place a couple years ago. It featured a haggard-and-hungover-looking Sheppard early one morning pointing at his windowsill, declaring that they sun shouldn't rise beyond a certain angle. Long on sensational stories, short on real journalism.
Click to expand...

Which is largely why the focus of my first post here was the local news story. Sheppard's response to me identifying the fibers as spider silk was:

Cached:
 
Last edited:
Hama Neggs said:
This claim, from that comments section, keeps getting repeated:

you are a disinformation idiot. i've watched planes grid our area all day long. i've watched them spray a line, turn it off, make a turn and come back and spray another line, over and over.
Content from External Source
No matter how many times I request vid showing this actually happening, with none EVER being supplied, they never cease to make the same claim.
Click to expand...

I think I remember this actually happening once in an Australian location, with planes in a holding pattern leaving partial trails. So it's not entirely impossible. But it's only going to account for a minuscule portion of the trails people see on a daily basis. Very hard to video, and quite easy to mix up trails from different planes. But we should not automatically assume people are mistaken when they make this claim.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/unusual-trails-and-clouds-in-australia.984/
 
Mick West said:
I think I remember this actually happening once in an Australian location, with planes in a holding pattern leaving partial trails. So it's not entirely impossible. But it's only going to account for a minuscule portion of the trails people see on a daily basis. Very hard to video, and quite easy to mix up trails from different planes. But we should not automatically assume people are mistaken when they make this claim.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/unusual-trails-and-clouds-in-australia.984/
Click to expand...

What I automatically assume is that they should be able show some vid of it, if it is happening regularly, as they seem to be claiming. Never had anyone come back with any, in maybe 30 requests. I'm quite sure they are mistaking more than one plane for the same one returning.
 
Could be on to a winner. 'Mick Wests Spider Web Suprise... includes REAL spider webs!' I can see a whole range of tasty sweet and savoury dishes. I mean after all Birds Nest soup is just cave swift spit, and thats a delicacy.

Edit... you could even claim it protects you from chemtrails and sell it via Infowars. ;)
 
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/1777/


Are spiders web edible?

Spiders do eat their webs. Sometimes they eat them everyday to try and get back in some of the energy they've expended on it. Another interesting use of spider webs is that they've got quite a lot of a vitamin K in them which can help your blood to clot, and before the use of gauze, people used to put spider webs on wounds.
People are currently looking into what makes spider webs so strong, with hope to make this artificially, they would make great bullet-proof vests. They've found the proteins in them that makes them strong, called Spidroin 1 and 2, and you can produce these in the lab. But they have to use insect cells to grow it, because the insect cells do some chemical modification and insects are more closely related to spiders.
They're not at the point where you can scale it up to a bullet-proof vest yet, but its certainly interesting.
Content from External Source
 
TEEJ said:
Looks like they are not interested in debate over on intellihub? I've posted twice in the comments section. One of my posts appeared and has now been removed. Looks like they have turned on the old get out clause of "awaiting moderation". I bet if I posted "I am being sprayed like a bug today by unmarked windowless aircraft" my post would magically appear!
Click to expand...

Congrats! Three days and the comment is still there. :p
 
Cori Gunnells gave an interview about the C-130 incident on the Radiothon Against Geoengineering on Dec. 28. She has added a little to her story since the idea of spider webs has been brought to her attention.


"One of the women is a student at UC Davis in toxicology, and she had the good fortune to take a sample to the school and put it under the electron microscope. What’s really interesting about this, is that it was also these, the photos, from the electron microscope, were examined by a person who is a spider specialist. So they compared real spider silk to these filaments, they are completely different. The spider silk is very organic looking, it almost looks like a root, like if you had pulled a bush out of the soil. It has thick pieces, skinny pieces, a lot of arms and legs to it, and scales. Very organic, it’s irregular. The fibers, these filaments are almost techie looking like if you pulled a bunch of wires out of a radio and they are extremely uniform, extremely smooth, no irregularity whatsoever."
Content from External Source

The interview starts @1hr 45 min, The above quote is at 1hr 57 min

It is not really clear if it was from the Arizona sample or a different sample. What we have is an identified student talking to an unidentified "spider specialist" with no photos to examine to my knowledge.

A search on google for images of spider silk under an electron microscope can be found.

Untitled.jpg
https://www.biotechnologie.de/BIO/N...rderbeispiele,did=48904.html?view=renderPrint

None of the images I looked at, I would describe as being like roots being pulled out of the ground. I'd like to see the photos Cori claims to have become available.
 
I see you are primarily discussing the aluminum in the published tests of this material/spiderweb/whatever. Can you address the amounts of barium(very common in nature) and strontium(not so common) in the samples?
 
T Stewart said:
I see you are primarily discussing the aluminum in the published tests of this material/spiderweb/whatever. Can you address the amounts of barium(very common in nature) and strontium(not so common) in the samples?
Click to expand...

What range of values would you expect to find?

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp24.pdf

Background levels of barium in the environment are very low. The air that most people breathe
contains about 0.0015 parts of barium per billion parts of air (ppb). The air around factories that
release barium compounds into the air has about 0.33 ppb or less of barium. Most surface water
and public water supplies contain on average 0.030 parts of barium per million parts of water
(ppm) or less, but can average as high as 0.30 ppm in some regions of the United States. In some
areas that have underground water wells, drinking water may contain more barium than the
2 ppm limit set by EPA. The highest amount measured from these water wells has been 10 ppm.
The amount of barium found in soil ranges from about 15 to 3,500 ppm [mg/Kg]. Some foods, such as
Brazil nuts, seaweed, fish, and certain plants, may contain high amounts of barium. T
Content from External Source
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp159.pdf

The general population is exposed to stable strontium primarily by ingestion of food and water, and to a
lesser degree, by inhalation. The strontium content in air averages 20 ng/m3
, with higher concentrations
resulting from stack emissions from coal-burning plants. Strontium is present in nearly all fresh waters in
amounts generally ranging between 0.5 and 1.5 mg/L, with higher levels occurring where there are
celestite-rich limestone deposits. The average concentration of stable strontium in soil is approximately
240 mg Sr/kg, but agricultural soils may be treated with phosphate fertilizer or limestone, which contain
~610 mg Sr/kg. Because strontium is chemically similar to calcium, it is taken up from the soil by fruits
and vegetables. The average concentration of strontium in fruit produce ranged from 0.0416 to
2.232 µg/L. The total estimated daily exposure to stable strontium is approximately 3.3 mg/day
(0.046 mg/kg/day): 400 ng/day from inhalation, 2 mg/day from drinking water, and 1.3 mg/day from the
diet (see Chapter 6). Assuming a reference body weight of 70 kg, the typical daily strontium exposure is
46 µg/kg body weight. The strontium content of the human body is approximately 4.6 ppm by weight,
99% of which is localized in bones and teeth. Blood concentrations of strontium are in the range of
20–31 µg/L.
Content from External Source
 
Mick West said:
What range of values would you expect to find?

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp24.pdf

Background levels of barium in the environment are very low. The air that most people breathe
contains about 0.0015 parts of barium per billion parts of air (ppb). The air around factories that
release barium compounds into the air has about 0.33 ppb or less of barium. Most surface water
and public water supplies contain on average 0.030 parts of barium per million parts of water
(ppm) or less, but can average as high as 0.30 ppm in some regions of the United States. In some
areas that have underground water wells, drinking water may contain more barium than the
2 ppm limit set by EPA. The highest amount measured from these water wells has been 10 ppm.
The amount of barium found in soil ranges from about 15 to 3,500 ppm [mg/Kg]. Some foods, such as
Brazil nuts, seaweed, fish, and certain plants, may contain high amounts of barium. T
Content from External Source
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp159.pdf

The general population is exposed to stable strontium primarily by ingestion of food and water, and to a
lesser degree, by inhalation. The strontium content in air averages 20 ng/m3
, with higher concentrations
resulting from stack emissions from coal-burning plants. Strontium is present in nearly all fresh waters in
amounts generally ranging between 0.5 and 1.5 mg/L, with higher levels occurring where there are
celestite-rich limestone deposits. The average concentration of stable strontium in soil is approximately
240 mg Sr/kg, but agricultural soils may be treated with phosphate fertilizer or limestone, which contain
~610 mg Sr/kg. Because strontium is chemically similar to calcium, it is taken up from the soil by fruits
and vegetables. The average concentration of strontium in fruit produce ranged from 0.0416 to
2.232 µg/L. The total estimated daily exposure to stable strontium is approximately 3.3 mg/day
(0.046 mg/kg/day): 400 ng/day from inhalation, 2 mg/day from drinking water, and 1.3 mg/day from the
diet (see Chapter 6). Assuming a reference body weight of 70 kg, the typical daily strontium exposure is
46 µg/kg body weight. The strontium content of the human body is approximately 4.6 ppm by weight,
99% of which is localized in bones and teeth. Blood concentrations of strontium are in the range of
20–31 µg/L.
Content from External Source
Click to expand...
I'm just trying to understand if these are "normal" amouts of these elements that might be found in airborn "dirt" or if they are higher concentrations. The concentrations of strontium seem to be higher than the listed "total estimated daily exposures" by quite a bit. The barium much higher than the "air released around industry releasing barium compounds into the air". Where would these spiderwebs picked up the "extra"?
 
T Stewart said:
I'm just trying to understand if these are "normal" amouts of these elements that might be found in airborn "dirt" or if they are higher concentrations. The concentrations of strontium seem to be higher than the listed "total estimated daily exposures" by quite a bit. The barium much higher than the "air released around industry releasing barium compounds into the air". Where would these spiderwebs picked up the "extra"?
Click to expand...
Dust, which right there would largely be dry soil, and maybe fertilizer.
 
For the regular people like me that have no clue what the graphs means, what does "very close" means? Very close can mean it's a match within a understood, accepted range of difference, very close can mean it's kinda close but not exact, or it can mean its similar but not the same.

What does almost certain mean? Does it mean you're not certain? Maybe we have different definitions of certain. In my book, either your certain or your not by its very definition.

As far as the scientific data goes and your scientific analysis from it, you are basing your comparison on one graph and one method of analysis. Did Melissa beddows only use this one type of analysis to form her conclusion or multiple experiments? I think this is relevant when trying to disprove her conclusion.

Also, did you just assume the absorption rate on the computer monitor because I don't see them. How can you scale the spider silk ftir to the correct placement vertically if you do not have that date to do so?
 
Thom said:
For the regular people like me that have no clue what the graphs means, what does "very close" means? Very close can mean it's a match within a understood, accepted range of difference, very close can mean it's kinda close but not exact, or it can mean its similar but not the same.

What does almost certain mean? Does it mean you're not certain? Maybe we have different definitions of certain. In my book, either your certain or your not by its very definition.

As far as the scientific data goes and your scientific analysis from it, you are basing your comparison on one graph and one method of analysis. Did Melissa beddows only use this one type of analysis to form her conclusion or multiple experiments? I think this is relevant when trying to disprove her conclusion.

Also, did you just assume the absorption rate on the computer monitor because I don't see them. How can you scale the spider silk ftir to the correct placement vertically if you do not have that date to do so?
Click to expand...

That's entirely irrelevant semantics. The graph comparison is what it is.
 
No its not semantics ... its huge. And I'll show you and everyone on this thread why its huge. You presented a graph to show the FTIR of Spider Silk. Now, that graph, shows two lines ... BOTH very similar.Lets take a look at those two lines on the same graph. The trend on both lines are "very close", using your words as my own. Actually both lines are pretty close up to the third phase, the phase after the big surge upwards... then, there is still the same trend, but only a difference in absorbance intensity, and even though the graph shows a big gap between the two at the end visually, its very minimal in reference to the absorption numbers, we're talking about a difference of .03 -.04.

Now, you always like to give links to stuff. But its hard not to notice that you failed to give a link to your graph. I would think that would be VERY vital, considering that it is one of the foundations of your argument. Look at all the links you provided.. But amazingly.. Forgot the most important one... That's a coincidence i guess. So, I'll do you a favor and reveal where it is from: Nature Communications (link at bottom). And the name of the article is: Carbon Nanotubes on a Spider Silk Scaffold.

Nanotubes? WTH? You see, thats why you made sure to inform everyone, "its the red line". The red line is the "neat" SS, or spider silk. The blue line is: f-CNT-SS. Everyone can read the article to undersand what that is, but to break it down, its man-altered spider silk. They are "300% tougher then neat silk fiber, versatile and multi-functional and exhibit polar, shapeable, conducting, flexible, strain and humidity sensitive properties. Good stuff.

So now, we have a graph, with two lines which are "really close", again using your words as mine, compared to themselves ... yet one is natural .. while the other was man altered. So when we speak of "really close" ... yes, Mick, you need to put that into context. Because really close can mean we are dealing with a natural spider silk, or really close can mean we are dealing with a technologically advanced spider silk. You also have to explain how you "scaled" the FTIR graph, in light of this revelation, which has the absorption rates AND the wavenumber - to - the graph showed on the computer monitor which only had wavenumbers (fuzzy as hell, but I think you scaled that right Mick), but NO absorption rates. Again, this is very important, because just a insanely small difference of absorption rates or a mistake in scaling the absorption rates can literally turn this substance from a natural spider silk to a man-altered http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130910/ncomms3435/full/ncomms3435.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JFDee
Clifford Carnicom weighs in on 'filaments' (likely spider threads)
Replies
6
Views
6K
Mick West
Mick West
Mick West
Why "Chemtrail" Tests on the Ground Find Metals That Don't Occur Naturally
Replies
14
Views
25K
Corey A Williams
C
Mick West
Debunked: Strontium as Footprint of Geoengineering Proposals or Patents [There is none]
Replies
24
Views
19K
Mick West
Mick West
jvnk08
'Chem webs' over UK - video
Replies
2
Views
3K
jvnk08
jvnk08
Mick West
Debunked: J. Marvin Herndon's "Geoengineering" Articles in Current Science (India) and IJERPH
7 8 9
Replies
355
Views
156K
Critical Thinker
Critical Thinker

Latest posts

Back
Top