My main point was that the sample percentage added up to 200.1% ....
The latent point is that the material can only be primer paint. The poor provenance is the guarantee of it. The "toy primer" idea was an attempt to free up the poor thinking around this idea.
Agreed. Something is wonky with the %'s. I took it to be some kind of typo error as the actual ingredients appeared to be accurate. But stating that it can only be primer is the issue. Harrit, in this short vid presentation sets out his reasons to dispute that. So its not certain that you are correct by saying that.
Provenance was always going to be an issue over dust samples as the collectors were not scientists and would not be aware that years later their 'scoop and bag' techniques would be questioned. Of course once they were handed over to people who recognised the issues, a proper 'chain of custody' regime was put in.
But logically, to dispute the original samples authenticity, you would have to be suggesting that ordinary citizens had tampered with them. And that they knew in advance what % of material that may or may not be scrutinised later that they should intersperse in the dust. And that five people who had no contact with each other all tampered in identical ways. Not to mention that if these chips are energetic and comprise nanoparticles only available in government labs - then how did they come across them in order to seed the samples ? Unless, of course the accusation of such 'seeding' is to be laid at the door of others taking charge of the samples. But where did they get the seeds from ? It all seems unlikely to me. And to simply question the provenance without overcoming these kinds of issues turns it into a weak 'strawman' argument in my opinion.
As to the 'toy primer' -- I have to give you credit for an attempt to engage critical thinking skills in others. My pedantic reply was really aimed at @qed though, who obviously had not done that, and was seeking to defend your mention of that possibility, rather than discard it as I did as being improbable.