How did pH get involved with chemtrails?

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Around June of 2000, shortly after being contacted by A.C. Griffith, who began the idea that barium was in chemtrails, Clifford Carnicom posted the following at his website:

Clifford Carnicom said:
A case for the environmental testing of barium and barium
compounds now exists. This case is developed from the following
sequences of events and reasoning:

1. Meteorological study.
2. An anonymous source of information stated to be reliable.
3. Chemistry analysis.
4. pH testing of rainwaters.
5. Physical sample collected in association with aircraft
activity.
6. Testing of chemical hypothesis.
7. Solubility and equilibrium considerations.
8. Environmental testing : water, air, soil.
http://www.carnicom.com/case1.htm

At the link, Carnicom gives more details and outlines his reasoning, but the inception of the idea was through A.C. Griffith and a sample of stuff scraped off a car windshield. Despite the impression Carnicom gives, he has never shown any actual lab or chemical analysis of this material, though his claims about it have continued for over a decade. The Carnicom web page concludes this way:

Clifford Carnicom said:
Rainwater samples have been collected on 5 different occasions in the southern Santa Fe, NM area, and they have been tested for
pH. It should be mentioned that collectable rainwater in the location mentioned has been an extremely rare event since before October of 1999 to the present day. Extreme drought is now characteristic of this location, and the city of Santa Fe itself
is under the next to highest level of water restrictions that can be imposed under law.
As such, collection and ph testing of rainwater by interested readers is both welcomed and encouraged. This can be accomplished relatively easily and inexpensively
with pH test kits available at aquarium or pet stores.

The results of this testing are as follows:
June 26 : 6.6
June 27 : 6.6
Aug 17 : 6.2
Aug 18 : 6.3
Aug 19 : 6.6


September 7, 2000:
Clifford Carnicom said:
Measured values in the Santa Fe area of several samples average at 6.5. The difference of these samples from the expected norm is statistically significant at the 99.9% level. It is important for other parties to verify or refute these observations that have been made. pH testing of rainwater has now become an important tool in identifying important changes that have recently occurred within the chemistry of our atmosphere, and tests from other locations are needed.

In addition to the two sources identified within a previous article that have established a baseline value for rainwater pH, the following source has now confirmed the stated value of approximately 5.6.

pH test kits can be purchased inexpensively at most aquarium, pet or department stores. A specific product that has been used is manufactured by Aquarium Pharmaceuticals called "Deluxe pH Test Kit". This test kit will measure pH values from 6.0 to 7.6 incrementally. Values equal to, greater than or less than the extremes can be inferred if the end of the scale is reached.
http://www.carnicom.com/ph1.htm

Later in September, Carnicom and others purportedly had made 87 tests total, in which he claimed the pH generally ranged from 4 to 7:

Clifford Carnicom said:
Significant differences from the baseline indicate significant changes in atmospheric chemistry that have occurred since the baseline values were recorded. Significant positive differences indicate a much higher presence of hydroxide ions (OH-) than is expected. Significant differences, as found, warrant a formal investigation into the magnitude and origin of recent changes in atmospheric chemistry.
http://www.carnicom.com/ph2.htm

By September 21, 2000, Carnicom was claiming that pH had risen by a factor of 20:

Clifford Carnicom said:
Recent and preliminary pH test data from across the nation indicates that the atmospheric chemistry has been altered by a factor of 20 with respect to hydroxide ion concentration, relative to baseline values established from the years of 1990 -1999, as well as individually with respect to 1999 data. This is a remarkable change in a relatively short period of time, and has major implications for both the chemistry and biology of the nation and the globe.
http://www.carnicom.com/ph3.htm

Three days later, Carnicom called for more help:

Clifford Carnicom said:
These drastic changes and the results of these studies
demonstrate the urgent need for a formal investigation into recent
and radical changes in the atmospheric chemistry of the nation and
globe. Citizens across the country are urged to organize and to
demand this investigation without delay.
http://www.carnicom.com/ph4.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
By June of 2001, two PhD scientists, "Toxdoc", a toxicologist from Kentucky/Ohio who was a chemtrail skeptic and "3T3L1", a molecular biologist from Texas who briefly believed in chemtrails teamed up to evaluate Carnicom's methodology, specifically the use of an aquarium water testing kit. They found that both the aquarium test kit and pH test strips did not always give accurate results compared to a properly calibrated digital pH meter:

3T3L1 said:
Abstract:
The pH of sample of fresh rainwater was measured using three methods: (A) using a calibrated pH meter, (B) using pH paper, and (C) using an aquarium pH indicator solution. The pH paper and the aquarium pH indicator solution were rated for pH levels above that expected for fresh rainwater. The calibrated pH meter gave a value of 4.3 pH units, which corresponds exactly with the current published value for the same locality, 4.38 ± 0.08 (Source: National Atmospheric Deposition Bureau--NADP). The pH obtained by pH paper and by a pH indicator solution was limited in every case to the lowest sensitivity of the method used, and was incorrect by as much as 3.2 pH units.

It is therefore inadvisable to measure the pH of fresh rainwater using pH paper or a pH indicator solution outside its suggested range of accuracy. It is especially inadvisable to use such readings to infer that the pH of fresh rainwater in the United States may be considerably higher than that reported by the NADP.

http://3t3l1.homestead.com/

I confirmed the actual names and credentials of both of the scientists who authored the study.

3T3L1, the molecular biologist who believed in chemtrails, was a moderator at the chemtrailcentral.com forum:
profile for 3T3L1:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=201
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000717.html

In this thread, both Toxdoc and 3T3L1 further discuss some of Carnicom's claims:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread5930.html

Toxdoc hasn't been around for quite awhile, and 3T3L1 dropped out about a year after she began acting as moderator of the "science" forum. I'd like to think that she finally let go of her chemtrails belief. Near to the time she quit, she pretty much said she had done that:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/msg12202.html#12202

So, when tracked back to it's origins, the idea that chemtrails contain barium and that the pH of rainwater has changed as a result leads back to the same person, A.C. Griffith:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/210-How-did-barium-get-into-chemtrails
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've never really got involved at Chemtrailcentral; is there much point or is it like pissing into the wind over there?
 
Once the site owner, Thermit(Mark Steadham), delegated responsibility for the message board to others and left, the message board dwindled rapidly in popularity.
That was around 2005-2007. There are not many people there now, but it was once the most visited message board of all. Currently, very few people join there and only a few die-hards post occasionally. The new moderators had some big fights, the owner appears to have left the idea of chemtrails behind. I'm not sure if any skeptical comments are allowed. For a while, the back-and-forth was exciting for both sides of the issue and with controversy came interest. Eventually calls came for censorship and skepics were told to go to a 'ghetto' within the board system and not allowed to post elsewhere. I refused to submit and had my membership removed. It might be interesting to see what would happen now if skeptical comments were made.

Does anyone have any thoughts about why some people are getting different results with higher pH than the NADP (National Atmospheric Deposition Program)?

I can imagine that as Carnicom's tests used inferior methods that is one of the main reasons.

This study from the 1970's found large variability across a relatively small area:

Temporal and Spatial Variability of Rainfall pH said:
ABSTRACT.-The distribution of average rainwater pH over an area of 1,800 km2 containing 81 collectors was determined from 25 storm events. The areal average of the data was pH 4.9, with a range of values from 4.3 to 6.8. A single storm event was studied to determine the change of pH as a function of time. The initial rain was pH 7.1, decreasing to 4.1. An excellent agreement was observed between the H+ deposition rate and the rainfall rate.
http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_ne25/gtr_ne25_053.pdf

They found puzzling differences spatially across the area, and temporal variability in which sometimes the beginning, yet sometimes the end of a rain event had higher pH.

The bottom line here is that the NADP currently uses one type of rainfall collection device:
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/newissues/newCollectors/NCON_NTN_BrochurePrice.pdf
and
the citizens who are collecting rainall use whatever, who knows what?

The NADP is not necessarily looking at single rain events because they are an NTN (National Trends Network) which is manly concerned with trends over time. They collect using the above technical equipment, but only empty the container weekly, so probably often get two three or more rainfall events combined into one sample. Their samples are all analyzed at a single locaton with probably above-average equipment, and by experienced technicians.

These are some reasons why the NADP results will often be different from single rainfall event samples which were found above to vary from 4.3 to 6.8 in the 1971-2 study thirty years ago.

Carnicom's data here compares quite closely with the 1970's study
 
You can't actually register there now though, so nobody new can comment.

The activity there seems to consist of a handful of people posting photos or accounts of clouds and contrails in an endless "CT Reports" thread. Mostly by one poster, "Ellyn".
 
Isn't it interesting that so many chemtrail believers seem so obsessed about taking the pictures? I'm really baffled trying to understand why several hundred aren't enough, and some have several thousand and don't ever seem to have enough! Do you think that they are saying to themselves, "If I only take enough pictures...... ?", or else they just can't think of anything else to do, or is it maybe they think more picures will convince others?
 
I think it's the same, very human pitfall of logic seen across conspiracies in general; the idea that you can create evidence simply with sheer volume, whether of 'believers', 'reports from concerned citizens' or indeed of photography or video.

'One swallow does not a Summer make.'
 
"If 50 million people believe a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing." Anatole France
 
A good number of the very few Chemtrail Central postings are Ellyn ranting about the insidious Jews..
 
I think most of the active discussion of chemtrails now goes on in facebook groups, and on Yahoo groups.

THis yahoo group seems to share the obsession with photos:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/

It seems like the more fringe the beliefs, the more insular the form of discussion forum. The Yahoo folk are also big into orbs, morgellons, black helicopter and the like. Facebook people are similar:

http://www.facebook.com/WhatintheWorldAreTheySpraying

I've been posting about Chemtrails and showing neighbors, but they have been so "Dumbed Down", they refuse to acknowledge what they see. I've posted the hour long proof, but "Dumbed Down" stay in Denial. The TRUTH is not fun. High Levels of Aluminum and Barium are killing plants, animals and inflicting people with Alzheimer's, Cancer, Fatigue, Coughing.....leading to an early death to assist the Elite with Depopulation. These toxins also have a Sterilization affect over time. We should be wiped out in 20-50 years. The Elite have underground Cities. They claim it's for Global Warming.
 
Chemtrail tracking USA has been around for a long time. I seem to remember that being one of the worst ones, and prone to ban their own members who did not fall in line whatever the owner of the group believed chemtrails were about.
 
It is interesting to note that the Yahoo group has seen a relatively steady decrease in messages over the years...from a peak in 2000/2001 to last month's lowest ever total of 253...

Maybe after years of fearing and fretting some people are realizing that perhaps there really isn't anything happening...

or not.
 
Carnicom and Chemtrail Central, were probably busiest around 2001 to 2003 or 4. Yahoo groups were probably busier than too, but have dropped off as other ways to communicate online exist now.

I think Youtube caused a bit of a resurgence in chemtrails, since it seemed to have decreased quite a bit before that from its 2003 peaks of people. Now anyone can put up videos of airplane contrails.
Youtube seems to be for the chemmies, what WebTV was in 2000. WebTV seemed to be the main internet provider of chemmies back in the day.
 


Yeah, it was at an all-time low in 2005-2006. Could be some interesting data mining there.
 
Last edited:
WebTV seemed to be the main internet provider of chemmies back in the day.
In the beginning, I consider internet writers doing articles and talk radio like Art Bell and Jeff Rense as the main recruiters, followed by message boards where newbies could be culled, encouraged and cultivated into true believers.

The process I call 'devolution', wherein the most critical thinkers were selected out leaving the dross behind. The process is in a way the opposite of evolution, though in a way it is just a different sort of evolution, because the 'survival' of the least critical within the group encourages that sort to remain, while the more critial get weeded out.

And yes I agree that CTTUSA has always been the most censor prone of all the fora, with absolute control wielded ruthlessly from the inception. The founder, Lori Kramer, was described by her former friend this way:
Swedishoo said:
"I doubt many will argue with this....

When it comes to "bow down to my feet or I'll delete you", no one tops that title better than CTTUSA's new-age Texan socialist Lorie Kramer.
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/msg7723.html&sid=3c51720b5309edf4c05c4931b2fbcb27#7723

I'm happy to report that Swedishoo was able to finally come to terms several years ago with her former belief in chemtrails, and has left it behind.
 
Interesting quote from 3T3L1 on that page:

A little history: Thermit opened Chemtrail Central in July, 2000. By March, 2001, debunkers had overrun Chemtrail Central, and Thermit had to ban them in order to get the "chemtrails exist" people to participate significantly on this board. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Thermit.) Because of that, a bunch of us came over from Carnicom's, liked it here, and stayed.

In order to get the debunker side back, to some extent, Thermit opened The Neutral Zone and the Science Forum this summer. But many of the debunkers had become convinced that we were scum and most refused to come. (You notice how I do lots of cutting and pasting of scientific arguments into the Science Forum? That explains a great deal of it.)

I went over to the debunker board to learn "the rest of the story" from the debunkers. For a while that happened, and people were most courteous and civil to me. Lately, however, the board has turned into an extended diatribe against Larry Lawson (hitech 46253) in particular and a flame war against chemtrail believers in general. Ridicule, not reason, is the order of the day.

I have given up going to Clifford Carnicom's board because the level of spite against debunkers or possible debunkers has become so poisonous. I hope I won't have to give up going to the debunkers' board because the level of spite against chemtrail believers is as high or higher.
 
In the beginning, I consider internet writers doing articles and talk radio like Art Bell and Jeff Rense as the main recruiters, followed by message boards where newbies could be culled, encouraged and cultivated into true believers.

The process I call 'devolution', wherein the most critical thinkers were selected out leaving the dross behind. The process is in a way the opposite of evolution, though in a way it is just a different sort of evolution, because the 'survival' of the least critical within the group encourages that sort to remain, while the more critial get weeded out.

And yes I agree that CTTUSA has always been the most censor prone of all the fora, with absolute control wielded ruthlessly from the inception. The founder, Lori Kramer, was described by her former friend this way:


I'm happy to report that Swedishoo was able to finally come to terms several years ago with her former belief in chemtrails, and has left it behind.

I am not so sure Swedishoo ever actually stopped believing in chemtrails.

Lorie Kramer is still around
http://www.seektress.com/briktst2.htm
 
Back
Top