1. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Looks like the chemtrailists have not yet noticed the retraction. Not a word about it anywhere.
     
  2. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    I don;t suppose they would be itching to tell everyone about it
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    • Like Like x 1
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/...te-subject-of-conspiracy-theorists-retracted/

     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    that sounds like his response to the CS thing though. Not the new retraction of the MDPI paper.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    On the lighter side of things, Herndon has inspired blog articles like this one:

    http://eusa-riddled.blogspot.de/2015/09/a-pig-and-poke-cat-and-bag-and-thinking.html
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    I think he wants to sue the journal or something.
    Actually, with some justification, as they should have rejected the paper in the first place, thereby saving him from the public embarrassment of having his paper retracted.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Amen.

    I mean, after all, we hope that a 10 year-old has the sense to know that he can't fly,
    but--just the same--if Dad says "Actually son, I think you likely can!" while the kid stands on the roof...
    it's hard to feel that Dad didn't contribute to the injury.



    (Dang...it sounded like an awesome analogy...in my head!) :p
     
  10. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I just sent this information to Dr. Herndon and Dr. Tchounwou with a request that they forward the info to Dane Wigington. They can't say they don't know!
    ==========================
    thechief762 . <thechief762@gmail.com>

    7:22 AM (0 minutes ago)
    to mherndon, paul.b.tchounw.
    Drs. Tchounwou and Herndon,

    I see that Dr. Herndon is publicly stating, " keep in mind the dust has not settled on the retraction matter"

    http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/...te-subject-of-conspiracy-theorists-retracted/

    For your edification I'm attaching several historical references for elemental analyses of rain and snow.
    These include Antarctic ice cores 183 years old, the 1930's, 1960's and 70's. So, as you can see the dust has been settling for a very long time! I hope this information will be useful to you and am sure that with the vast resources out there you can confirm my own review of the subject many other ways.

    Dr. Herndon, I would still enjoy seeing the data I requested from you a week ago to add to my collection. Finally, please share my references with your friend Dane Wigington as he has long been stating that zero aluminum should be found in rainwater.

    Sincerely,
    Jay Reynolds

    On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 1:03 PM, thechief762 . <thechief762@gmail.com> wrote:
    Dr. Herndon,
    I would like to see the San Diego rain water analysis data and collection method which you mention in your recent IJERH paper,
    Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9375-9390; doi:10.3390/ijerph120809375

    "The author personally collected rainwater samples for chemical analysis and compared those data to corresponding average values of experimental leachate chemical analyses [10], which as shown below provides a firm basis for identifying the particulate substance being emplaced as an aerosol in the troposphere as coal fly ash. Because of persistent spraying, rainwater devoid of spray contamination was not available."

    How may I access that information?

    Jay Reynolds
    6 Attachments
    AE1976.
    ===============================================

    aluminum in rain 1976.
    ================================================


    CJES1967.
    ==============================================

    Mcconnel.

    =================================================

    Robinson 1936.

    ======================================================

    Typical Troposheric aerosols.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2015
    • Like Like x 6
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  12. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    The pdf of the paper is still available, but "RETRACTED" is written on it in huge letters:
    14377fa612af98687c630af13a4d1f85.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    This is in Chemtrails Global Skywatch.







    ret1.PNG

    ret2.PNG

    ret3.PNG
     
  14. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Here's more comment from Herndon regarding the retraction:

    He doesn't appear to have understood what the problem is with his paper.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. derwoodii

    derwoodii Senior Member

    i reckon he understands, its his site subscribers he hopes don't ever work it out.

    as i just watched the thread unfold its scientific depth a tad beyond me, here's a jolly well done to all the MB clear thinkers skeptic & boffins who saw and sorted this
     
    • Like Like x 9
    • Agree Agree x 4
  16. Critical Thinker

    Critical Thinker Senior Member

    As is often the case is the Conspiracy Community, they take one piece of incorrect information and they build upon it further and so the Conspiracy evolves. In this case Syd Stevens from San Diego, the person behind the pseudonym Socal Skywatch, has posted this to his page;

    Capture.JPG
     
  17. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I noticed that with the "Planet X" people. They(or their leader, Nancy Lieder) would take a false "fact", declare it proved, then build on that. Over and over and over again until they had what appeared to be a veritable mountain of "evidence" proving them right.
     
  18. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/...ted-not-sufficiently-scientifically-objective
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. tadaaa

    tadaaa Active Member

    The comments are fun
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    His reply when asked about the quality of his own work?
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  21. Auldy

    Auldy Senior Member

    Yes, but there is a surprising amount of rational and sensible people there too, which is always refreshing. Go team brains!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. tadaaa

    tadaaa Active Member

    Yes, absolutely I was thinking the same

    Simply trying to explain the science

    Then the inevitable "disinfo / shill" in response
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  23. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    Herndon replies again.

    https://www.facebook.com/ralph.ely.7/posts/324967814294137


    "instead of 140,000"??? Dude, it should have been 140,000,000!
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  24. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Yes, but all the other values in the table are also off by a factor of 1000, so the fractions are only off by a factor of 2, not a factor of 2000.
    I believe basically he mistakenly wrote micrograms instead of milligrams in the heading.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    I notice he doesn't really address any of the other criticisms except to effectively recast them as slander.
     
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, the most important problem with the paper (in terms of pure science) is the statistical irrelevance of his results, with or without the correct figures. Unfortunately it's harder to explain this, and easy to point out the numerical errors. But it's a poor quality retraction, even if the paper obviously need retracting.

    Regarding 70,000 vs. 140,000, I don't think he simply wrote down the wrong value there, as it's not written down in Moreno. You have to calculate it from the AlO2 percentage, and I think he calculated it incorrectly, which is a bit more telling than simply transcribing it incorrectly.
     
  27. M Bornong

    M Bornong Senior Member

    Herndon has issued a public rejection to the retraction. http://nuclearplanet.com/public_rejection.pdf

    The explanation of the Leachate error:

     
  28. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    And this is why the retraction was so poorly done. Focusing on minor errors like that just makes it look petty, and gives the impression that the basic science is sound, but there were a few typos.

    What the retraction should have done is demolished the entire proposition Herndon made, and called out the pseudoscience for what it is.
     
  29. M Bornong

    M Bornong Senior Member

    I'm still reading Herndon's corrected paper linked in his rejection, is his only correction the leachate graph? http://www.nuclearplanet.com/ijerph-original.pdf

    I'm just a dumb plumber and drummer, some of this kind of stuff does go over my head. :rolleyes:
     
  30. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    but in his letter to the publisher people he says that his "unleached" was wrong by only a factor of 2. but doesnt the 5 here.... well is the 5 wrong too?

    hh.PNG
     

    Attached Files:

  31. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    This is his reply to the second point of criticism which was "The chemical compositions obtained for rainwater and HEPA air filter dust are only compared to chemical compositions obtained for coal-fly-ash leaching experiments [2]. The author did not attempt to compare his results to chemical compositions of other potential sources.":
    How about rocks and soils from the region of San Diego?
    Apparently he doesn't realize that one cannot prove that a car of unknown make X is a Mercedes by only comparing it to a Mercedes. Because then one will find the car of make X has four wheels, one engine, one steering wheel, and one transmission, just like the Mercedes, so it must be a Mercedes. Even if it's a Land Rover in reality.

    By the way, he simply omitted the statistical analysis from his revised manuscript. He expects the reader to just look at the figures and conclude that the rain contains coal fly ash.
    The fact that the revised version contains no statistical analysis is by itself enough to warrant another rejection.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, 1.4x105 is 14x104
     
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Could someone explain what I am missing here?

    upload_2015-9-25_10-58-30.

    He claims that the black bars are the element ratios for "leach data", i.e. the leachate from Figure 1 [sic: "Figure 1" is his photos of contrails; he means "Table 1"].

    Here is Table 1:

    upload_2015-9-25_10-59-45.

    The leachate figure is the second column of values for each element. So how is he working out his ratios?

    For instance, for Ba/Al I get:

    5.34 x 10-1 / 5.37 x 103 = 9.94 x 10-5, or 0.0000994.

    Yet, the value on the bar graph is approximately 0.1.

    Similarly, for Sr/Al the ratio is:

    5.09 / 5.37 x 103 = 9.48 x 10-4 = 0.000948

    Whereas the value on the bar graph is approximately 1.



    The ratios appear to bear no relation to the leachate figures. How can boron, with a leachate value of 3.32 ug/L, have a higher ratio than magnesium, with a leachate value of 2.85 x 103 ug/L, almost 1,000 times higher? How come iron (1.22 x 102 ug/L) has the lowest ratio, when it is present at over 200 times the concentration of barium (5.34 x 10-1 ug/L)?


    I'm sure I am missing something simple here, but what is he actually comparing on this graph?
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2015
  34. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    The table is a mess, most values are off by several orders of magnitude. We discussed this earlier (see around post #146). But the figure is actually correct, except that he shows the ratios of the averages instead of the averages of the ratios.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  35. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Excerpt from Herndon's email to the editor at http://www.nuclearplanet.com/email-Sept21.pdf

    upload_2015-9-25_12-31-17.

    So he argues that the 1967 rain data are irrelevant because coal fly ash was then released into the air.

    BTW he also cites us in his rejection notice:
    upload_2015-9-25_12-34-26.
     
  36. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Thanks. I saw that his figures were out by several orders of magnitude, but I hadn't done all the calculations. So the figures on the graph are actually correct (ish), they just bear no relation to the table that he claims is the source for the graph? How did he manage that? :)
     
  37. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    And surely the major point of the retraction ought to be that the central thrust of the article - that the "fingerprints" match - is utterly untrue! Even if you assume that this graph is correct, the ratios are clearly not similar.

    From Mick's spreadsheet, these are the ratios (rainwater first, then leachate).

    Ba: 0.129, 0.100
    Sr: 0.170, 0.933
    Fe: 0.912, 0.022
    Ca: 38.0, 63.1
    Sr: 12.9, 27.5
    Mg: 19.1, 0.525
    B: 0.240, 0.617

    Putting those values on a linear rather than logarithmic axis (and removing aluminium, because showing that 1=1 doesn't add anything but clutter), they are clearly not alike at all.

    First, showing all the values:

    upload_2015-9-25_11-50-43.

    And now, adjusting the axis to show only the trace elements (Ca, Sr and Mg not shown - although note that the leachate bar for Mg would fit on this scale, despite the rainwater one being up at almost 20!)

    upload_2015-9-25_11-55-55.

    As "fingerprint matches" go, this is pretty abysmal!
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  38. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    Wow.

    For the benefit of any lurkers (including possibly Dr. Herndon), here is a thread where we collected a bunch of references showing aluminum content in precipitation, ranging from the 1960s to the modern day: https://www.metabunk.org/chemical-composition-of-rain-and-snow-aluminum-barium-etc.t135/
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  39. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    Ian Simpson seems to be pushing the idea that it was retracted due to a request by Mick/Metabunk. He doesn't mention what issues he has with the paper, but I wonder if it's that all those "100% PROOF!!!!" links to it on chemtrail sites now show it's been retracted?

    HerndonRetraction.

    Ray Von
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  40. MikeG

    MikeG Senior Member

    Metabunk is concerned for different reasons than he is willing to recognize.

    And "MI5K WEST"? Really? I thought he was CIA?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1