Debunked: J. Marvin Herndon's "Geoengineering" Articles in Current Science (India) and IJERPH

JDubyah

Member
Man he really tries hard to get mention of geoengineering in that paper....but ultimately his conclusions about the amount of aluminium is that it probably comes from coal fly ash and there needs to be more study done!!
I think it's trying to lend credibility to, or piggyback on, the theory that the source of the aluminum used to 'load up' chemtrails planes is coal fly ash, as the HAARP Report guy 'eureka'd one day:

https://www.metabunk.org/claim-chemtrails-are-coal-ash.t5691/

I wouldn't be surprised if these two guys talked about it.
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member
Figure 2 in the article is a photo of alleged multiple "chemical trails" taken in San Diego on January 16, 2015:
Screen Shot 2015-06-26 at 22.18.05.png
However, the most of them appear to be natural cirrus. The satellite images of the day confirm that this is indeed the case. There was a huge cloud band spreading across SoCal from Pacific to Nevada that moved South during the day. Here is the Terra image taken at 18:15 UTC (10:15 PST):

and the Aqua image taken more than three hours later, at 21:30 UTC (13:30 PST):


This is in a good agreement with the ground photos of San Diego skies on the day, that I've also checked in flickr. There were mostly natural cirrus clouds:
 

M Bornong

Senior Member
Man he really tries hard to get mention of geoengineering in that paper....but ultimately his conclusions about the amount of aluminium is that it probably comes from coal fly ash and there needs to be more study done!!

If Dane thinks this is evidence proving geoengineering is going on then he hasn't actually read the paper!!
It looks like he might be publishing his evidence for coal ash, soon.

coalash.jpg

https://www.facebook.com/j.marvin.herndon/posts/10206843485467289?pnref=story (his privacy setting is set for friends only)
 

Belfrey

Senior Member
I found something interesting when I dug a bit deeper into Herndon's "rainwater vs. coal ash leachate" graphs.

As has been shown, it's very likely that one or both datasets in the Sr:Ba graph were faked; that kind of perfect "mirror image" between them just wouldn't happen by chance. But even putting that aside, as I complained earlier, the bizarre way that he constructed the graphs would obscure any meaningful visual way to compare the data. So, estimating the values of the data points from his published graphs, I replotted them so that they were evenly spaced, in order from least to greatest:

HerndonReplot.jpg

Then I started wondering what the real datasets might look like. For the leachate figures, he gives this source: Moreno et al. (2005), Physicochemical characteristics of European pulverized coal combustion fly ashes. That article gives tables of measurements and analysis from 23 coal ash samples. For the rainwater samples, he gives a French link (http://www.cielvoile.fr/article-con...ns-l-eau-de-pluie-en-allemagne-118778899.html), which oddly enough is a post about information posted on a German group's page (http://www.sauberer-himmel.de/). By going to the German source, I eventually found where they posted their Al, Ba, and Sr results from 70 sampling sites.

So, here's what happened when I took the Ba and Sr data from those sources, turned them into Sr:Ba ratios, and plotted them against the estimates of the points that Herndon presented in that figure:

HerndonSources.jpg

The rainwater data from SaubererHimmel actually followed Herndon's claimed "leachate" data better than in his original plot (perhaps he included some results from GSW). But the REAL leachate data from Moreno et al. was nothing at all like Herndon's graph - it ranged about 3 orders of magnitude higher (maximum 1322, rather than 2).

HerndonComparison.jpg

So, in addition to everything else, it appears that Herndon misrepresented one of his primary sources.
 

skephu

Senior Member
On another point ... a full re-evaluation of the data in the paper and historical data from other historical sources would most likely just show that both the Sr/Ba and Al/Ba ratios would be similar in rainwater, fly ash, dirt, surface water, snow melt and air. A somewhat banal finding unrelated to contrails at +30,000 feet.
I think the most important point of criticism here is that both the Sr/Ba and the Al/Ba ratios vary in very wide ranges. Looking at the figures in the paper, the Sr/Ba ratio varies over about 2 orders of magnitude while the Al/Ba ratio varies over 3 to 4 orders of magnitude. How Dr. Herndon can call this a "fingerprint" and claim that the indistinguishable ranges are evidence that coal ash is being sprayed is beyond comprehension. Practically any material derived from the Earth's crust will show similar ratios. This is the fundamental flaw of the paper, and it renders the paper entirely worthless. Any reputable journal would reject this.

BTW if Dr. Herndon wanted to compare fingerprints, why did he limit himself to three elements, Al, Ba, and Sr? There are a lot more elements in both rainwater and coal ash. The only reason he examined these is that these are the elements most often referred to in the chemtrail/geoengineering mythology. On the other hand, I don't think any chemical "fingerprint" exists for either rainwater or coal ash leachate, as the compositions of both are extremely variable.

Besides, I looked at ref. 1. in the list of references, which was the motivation for Herndon's paper. It can be found here: High mobility of aluminium in Gomati River Basin: implications to human health. This paper looks at the aluminum concentration in the river water and ground water in the Gomati river basin, and finds that sometimes it is somewhat high. Then they complain about the river water containing more aluminum than the standard for drinking water. I don't quite get the reasoning, as I don't believe people in India drink the unpurified river water directly, so what is the problem? But anyway, the authors of this paper know very well that this aluminum comes from the weathering of the sediments:
Dr. Herndon does not bother to explain why this would be incorrect and why some additional unknown source of aluminum should be sought.
 

MikeG

Senior Member
I am an historian by training and could never claim any particular in-depth understanding of the science discussed in posts on this thread.

That said, I have refereed professional journal articles and have a good grasp of what peer review standards require. I applied these standards to Herndon's article as I read it. It is pretty appalling.

On page 2173, the sum total of his evidence regarding "profound increases in geoengineering activity" are three familiar geoengineering websites and a number of pictures of the sky over San Diego.

His use of rainwater samples also struck me as interesting. They look derived from geoengineeringwatch.org, particularly the reference to pond water.

But what amazes me is the complete absence of any criteria to identify the samples. How many? Where were they located? Collection method?

Other posts have picked out additional mistakes. I'll add just one more. My dissertation advisor was famous for simply asking his students "So what?" when time came to defend their thesis proposals.

That is my question. What do contrails in San Diego have to do with aluminum poisoning in India? There are so many gaps in a basic train of logic here, that I would not accept this paper from one of my students.

Just terrible.

My two cents
 

skephu

Senior Member
To illustrate Herndon's proof of coal ash being sprayed, I found an analogy:

English people are 0 to 100 years old. French people are also 0 to 100 years old. So that proves English people are actually French (or vice versa). :D
 

MikeG

Senior Member
To illustrate Herndon's proof of coal ash being sprayed, I found an analogy:

English people are 0 to 100 years old. French people are also 0 to 100 years old. So that proves English people are actually French (or vice versa). :D
Nice.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Herdon's response:
I found it interesting and ironic that Herndon, in an interview with "Current Biography" reprinted at his own website said this:

Herndon seems to have spent many years decrying others who won't debate his other geophysical theories, yet now he has gone all "District Attorney" on this subject.

In a 2003 Today article about an apocalyptic movie of the time, he stated:

 
Last edited:

Gabriel Incertis

New Member
His use of rainwater samples also struck me as interesting. They look derived from geoengineeringwatch.org, particularly the reference to pond water.

I am quite sure that those 375,000ug/l are referred to the result of the sludge test in "What in the World are they spraying" (30:02)

().

Notice that the concentration is exactly the same as the one in Murphy's documentary and that he remits to geoengineeringwatch.org as the source of this data.
So this part of Hendron's paper is also debunked http://contrailscience.com/what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/
 

MikeG

Senior Member
I am quite sure that those 375,000ug/l are referred to the result of the sludge test in "What in the World are they spraying" (30:02)

().

Notice that the concentration is exactly the same as the one in Murphy's documentary and that he remits to geoengineeringwatch.org as the source of this data.
So this part of Hendron's paper is also debunked http://contrailscience.com/what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/
In completely agree. The "independent scientists" that Herndon refers to likely are the people who provided samples to geoengineeringwatch.org or other chemtrail sites.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
His use of rainwater samples also struck me as interesting. They look derived from geoengineeringwatch.org, particularly the reference to pond water.
Yes. That will have been from Dane Wigington's own original pond water test where they included "sludge" from the bottom of the pond. Somewhere, he/they even recommend that as the correct method of collection of samples to test. :rolleyes:
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes. That will have been from Dane Wigington's own original pond water test where they included "sludge" from the bottom of the pond. Somewhere, he/they even recommend that as the correct method of collection of samples to test. :rolleyes:
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-geoengineeringwatch-org-trails-coming-from-nozzles.t138/
That page is still there, maybe not linked any more:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/html/watertesting.html
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
About the pond water test here:
http://contrailscience.com/what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/

Recommendation to collect sludge in so-called "water" samples:

2013 archived version of geoengineeringwatch.org

 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member
Article on Natural Blaze link

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Article on Natural Blaze link


Note how the pertinent questions about logistics, etc, are simply dodged, even though the questioner has presumed to answer her own questions with 'stuff-she-read-on-the-internet':

 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
From reference citations, in that article, is this: http://chronicle.su/2014/01/22/haar...-systems-protect-americas-climate-says-obama/

Anybody have any idea where they got that supposed quote?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
From reference citations, in that article, is this: http://chronicle.su/2014/01/22/haar...-systems-protect-americas-climate-says-obama/

Anybody have any idea where they got that supposed quote?
Chronical.su is a satirical site, so they made it up. See thread on their "Snowden uncovers chemtrails...." hoax:
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-snowden-uncovers-shocking-truth-behind-chemtrails.t2550/
 

M Bornong

Senior Member
Anybody have any idea where they got that supposed quote?
Have you ever read the about page for the Internet Chronicle? http://chronicle.su/about/

 
Last edited:

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member
Whole cloth I'd say. All seven hits are alternative sites.

Though "Executive Order -- Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change" was released a few months prior, and may have been the implied source.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So of their three references:
The first is essentially a circular reference, as it's Wigington's article about Hendon's paper about things he heard from Wigington

The second is to a site that debunks the interviewers claims about aluminum and Alzheimer's.
http://m.alz.org/myths.asp?sp=true
And the third, as noted above, is to a joke story on a satirical web site, like The Onion.
 

skephu

Senior Member
From the interview:
That's quite a strange statement from a scientist.
The very essence of science is the construction of models that describe reality.
Right, and I discovered by the same "scientific" method that English people are French.
That is weather modification, not "weather geoengineering". There is no such thing as "weather geoengineering". You are confusing two unrelated things.
BTW Dane Wigington also defined geoengineering as "weather modification on a global scale". That's wrong. Geoengineering has nothing to do with weather modification.
As a nuclear chemist, you are not qualified to publish papers on medical topics. Leave that to the experts.
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member
Not to be a snob, but according to wiki Current Science has an impact factor of 0.935 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Science.
The New England Journal of Medicine has an impact factor of 55.873

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_England_Journal_of_Medicine

I see your point.
Current Science IF of 0.935 is for 2011, which was its maximum value in recent years. In 2014, it has dropped to 0.833. Having said this, I should point out that the comparison with The New England Journal of Medicine IF is apples and oranges.
If compared with similar journal types, publishing general interdisciplinary science articles, Current Science is not that bad. For example, the Scientific American impact factors for the corresponding years were 2.369 and 1.328; those for New Scientist - 0.313 and 0.328.
http://www.citefactor.org/journal-impact-factor-list-2014.html

PS I've asked several of my colleagues, who came from India, about this journal. They all said it used to be a popular journal amongst Indian scientists, but currently it suffers decline.
 
Last edited:

MikeG

Senior Member
Current Science IF of 0.935 is for 2011, which was its maximum value in recent years. In 2014, it has dropped to 0.833. Having said this, I should point out that the comparison with The New England Journal of Medicine IF is apples and oranges.
If compared with similar journal types, publishing general interdisciplinary science articles, Current Science is not that bad. For example, the Scientific American impact factors for the corresponding years were 2.369 and 1.328; those for New Scientist - 0.313 and 0.328.
http://www.citefactor.org/journal-impact-factor-list-2014.html

PS I've asked several of my colleagues, who came from India, about this journal. They all said it used to be a popular journal amongst Indian scientists, but currently it suffers decline.
Agreed. Well put.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Why would it be seen as noteworthy that earth minerals found in rain water match what is found in a product of the earth (coal ash)?
I have located a citation within this book which seems quite relevant.

The Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Natural and Contaminant Substances
edited by Anthony H. Knap
https://books.google.com

From Page 44:

knapp-wangen 1981.jpg

I'd like to see the paper cited by Knapp. I believe the author would be L.E. Wangen who authored other papers circa 1970's-'80's about fly ash speciation.

If Herndon's paper had properly controlled data and sampling for elements other than the Big 3, it might actually point to the rainfall sample results being more closely fingerprinted to ordinary crustal material than fly ash. Alas, the chemtrail folks had hundreds of samples taken at considerable cost which are worthless because they were misled by Mangels et. al. to only test for Al, Ba, and Sr.

Those who followed the sampling regime set up by Geoengineeringwatch were led down the wrong path and need to realize how duped they were, then hold those responsible for the original error and subsequent cover-up for that failure.
 
Last edited:

skephu

Senior Member
Interesting pair of articles on Dane's site:
How the PhDs Have Wrecked The World
vs.
Well Known Scientist Sounds The Alarm On Geoengineering
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member
Well yeah, notoriety is the state of being notorious, so I'd hope so. ;)



 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
It seems to be a common name. But I think the one in question could be a Hungarian sceptic who is involved with chemtrail.hu, a debunking site.

See the comments on this page: http://szkeptikus.blog.hu/2013/07/19/a_nagy_chemtrail_osszeeskuves#comments

Edit: I think it is the same biophysicist. He is the vice-president of the Hungarian Skeptic Society. (Hungarian names are written with the surname first, opposite to English.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Skeptic_Society

Now, I managed to find all that in 15 minutes on my phone on the train to work. J. Marvin isn't much of a researcher is he?
 
Last edited:
Top