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

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.
 
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):
5a2d50aa8ea9b6cbde8e7abf4cc162e4._.jpg

and the Aqua image taken more than three hours later, at 21:30 UTC (13:30 PST):
0d859fbd50ec9cdfb2737bc0cfcf60e7._.jpg


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:
 
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!!

External Quote:

I suggest that the primary source of highly mobile aluminum is aerosolized coal fly ash. This suggestion is relatively easy to verify by taking rainwater samples and analysing them for aluminum, barium and strontium. If aerosolized coal fly ash is indeed verified as the major source of highly mobile aluminum, then another more difficult question should be addressed: What proportion of the aerosolized coal fly ash derives from clandestine geoengineering activities and what proportion comes from industrial coal burning in India? One forensic approach that should be considered is direct sampling of the coal fly ash in the monsoon clouds and in the clouds before they enter the Indian airspace. These samples may then be compared with the Indian industrial coal fly ash samples. Although the above described forensic investigation may be difficult and expensive, the results might help India improve the health of its citizens.

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)
 
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.
 
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:
External Quote:
Aluminium is predominantly transported in water of the Gomati River Basin by the weathering processes of the alluvial sediments (parent material). ... Dissolution and weathering of biotite is important to provide Al and other trace elements in the Gomati River water. Some contributions from muscovite and feldspar are also considered important.
Dr. Herndon does not bother to explain why this would be incorrect and why some additional unknown source of aluminum should be sought.
 
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.

External Quote:
Figure 4 shows measurement of aluminum content of collected rainwater samples from 2001 to 2014. Gener- ally, the samples were collected by independent scientists who paid the analytical laboratory fees out of their own pockets, hence the paucity of data; government supported academic scientists either have not made comparable measurements or else have not published them. Rainwater evaporation concentrates the aluminum content. In one lined pond fed by rainwater and well water with unde- tectable aluminum content, the aluminum concentration of the pond water was found to be 375,000 g/l (ref. 16).
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
 
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
 
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.
 
Herdon's response:
External Quote:
There are no problems in said scientific paper. Moreover, the results have been confirmed and greatly extended. Your intense and consistent efforts to systematically discredit legitimate information related to an activity that I allege constitutes crimes against humanity, might at some point, I allege, be viewed as complicity. Do not contact me again.

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

External Quote:
"When an important contradiction arises in ethical science, the new idea should be discussed and debated," Herndon noted to Current Biography. "Experiments and/or theoretical considerations should be made. If the new idea is wrong, it should be refuted in the literature, preferably in the journal of original publication; otherwise, it should be acknowledged."
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:

External Quote:
"Jon has a good, healthy attitude toward science," Herndon, who became acquainted with Amiel during the film's production. "He thinks new ideas ought to be debated and discussed, and I think that's good. I wish more scientists had that attitude."
and
"Meanwhile, Herndon's theories on the "nuclear planet" are far from being widely accepted, even though they've been propounded in peer-reviewed journals as well as mass-market magazines. In fact, he says his work has been "systematically ignored" by much of the scientific community."
 
Last edited:
His use of rainwater samples also struck me as interesting. They look derived from geoengineeringwatch.org, particularly the reference to pond water.

External Quote:
(...)In one lined pond fed by rainwater and well water with unde- tectable aluminum content, the aluminum concentration of the pond water was found to be 375,000 g/l (ref. 16).

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/
 
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.
 
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:
 
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/
External Quote:
If you are testing a pond, then the only thing different is how you collect the sample. The very bottom of the pond is where the elements stack up. Turn your jar upside down and get the mouth to the bottom of the pond or still water....the older the pond the higher the readings. Turn the jar over and collect both the water and a LITTLE of the bottom sediment.

You will need to put the lid on underwater before you lift the jar off the bottom and out of the water....thats it!
That page is still there, maybe not linked any more:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/html/watertesting.html
 
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

External Quote:
SURFACE WATER

Surface water tests have the highest numbers and will really freak you out when you get the results.

If you are testing a pond, then the only thing different is how you collect the sample. The very bottom of the pond is where the elements stack up. Turn your jar upside down and get the mouth to the bottom of the pond or still water....the older the pond the higher the readings. Turn the jar over and collect both the water and a LITTLE of the bottom sediment.

You will need to put the lid on underwater before you lift the jar off the bottom and out of the water....thats it!
 
Article on Natural Blaze link

External Quote:

Weather Geoengineering, Chemtrails, Aluminum and Alzheimer's: The Four Horsemen of the Weather Apocalypse
Wednesday, July 01, 2015 | 0 comments
By Catherine J. Frompovich

J. Marvin Herndon (born 1944) is an American interdisciplinary scientist, who earned his BA degree in physics in 1970 from the University of California, San Diego and his Ph.D. degree in nuclear chemistry in 1974 from Texas A&M University. For three years, J. Marvin Herndon was a post-doctoral assistant to Hans Suess and Harold C. Urey in geochemistry and cosmochemistry at the University of California, San Diego. He is the President of Transdyne Corporation in San Diego, California. A listing of more than a dozen of his peer-reviewed papers can be found on Dr. Herndon'sWikipedia page. January 20, 2015, Dr. Herndon published his concerns about weather geoengineering on GeoengineeringWatch.org's website. [1]

After reading Dr. Herndon's June 2015 article, "Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth's biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: implications for India," [Current Science, Vol. 108, No. 12, 25 June 2015, 2173-2176]

I just had to interview him, since what he discussed needs to be mainstreamed globally—something the controlled media and vested interests are discouraging, and even preventing. So, following is my extensive interview with Dr. Herndon.

http://www.naturalblaze.com/2015/07/weather-geoengineering-chemtrails.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Article on Natural Blaze link

External Quote:

Weather Geoengineering, Chemtrails, Aluminum and Alzheimer's: The Four Horsemen of the Weather Apocalypse
Wednesday, July 01, 2015 | 0 comments
By Catherine J. Frompovich

J. Marvin Herndon (born 1944) is an American interdisciplinary scientist, who earned his BA degree in physics in 1970 from the University of California, San Diego and his Ph.D. degree in nuclear chemistry in 1974 from Texas A&M University. For three years, J. Marvin Herndon was a post-doctoral assistant to Hans Suess and Harold C. Urey in geochemistry and cosmochemistry at the University of California, San Diego. He is the President of Transdyne Corporation in San Diego, California. A listing of more than a dozen of his peer-reviewed papers can be found on Dr. Herndon'sWikipedia page. January 20, 2015, Dr. Herndon published his concerns about weather geoengineering on GeoengineeringWatch.org's website. [1]

After reading Dr. Herndon's June 2015 article, "Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth's biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: implications for India," [Current Science, Vol. 108, No. 12, 25 June 2015, 2173-2176]

I just had to interview him, since what he discussed needs to be mainstreamed globally—something the controlled media and vested interests are discouraging, and even preventing. So, following is my extensive interview with Dr. Herndon.

http://www.naturalblaze.com/2015/07/weather-geoengineering-chemtrails.html


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':

External Quote:
You state that weather geoengineering is "clandestine." How can that be, when its effects are in plain sight above our heads daily? Who is doing the spraying? I understand there are airlines devoted to doing just that on a global basis, plus U.S. military planes, and those planes do not file flight plans and at times have almost caused accidents with commercial airliners.

Even when visible overhead, the operation is clandestine or covert when specific information is withheld, especially the chemical composition, the purpose, the public health consequences, etc. and there exists in its place, an organized pattern of disinformation.
 
From reference citations, in that article, is this: http://chronicle.su/2014/01/22/haar...-systems-protect-americas-climate-says-obama/

External Quote:
President Obama shocked the world with candid words, "Hundreds of countries are carrying out weather modification programs, and we're doing it better than any of them. However, this has been secret for too long. The American People need to know about what we do to make sure our children have something to eat each and every year. It's true we need more oversight for geoengineering projects, so I've signed an executive order establishing an international third party oversight group to not only investigate for abuse but also to keep the public informed about new and existing geoengineering programs."
Anybody have any idea where they got that supposed quote?
 
From reference citations, in that article, is this: http://chronicle.su/2014/01/22/haar...-systems-protect-americas-climate-says-obama/

External Quote:
President Obama shocked the world with candid words, "Hundreds of countries are carrying out weather modification programs, and we're doing it better than any of them. However, this has been secret for too long. The American People need to know about what we do to make sure our children have something to eat each and every year. It's true we need more oversight for geoengineering projects, so I've signed an executive order establishing an international third party oversight group to not only investigate for abuse but also to keep the public informed about new and existing geoengineering programs."
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/
 
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/

External Quote:

At the Chronicle.SU, we take truth seriously. We take what we do so seriusly, untruths at chronicle.su are punishable by mutilation or death.
Sadly, chronicle.su is not of this earth. After crash landing in an asteroid December 30th, 1976, the alien husks of Chronicle editors rapidly adapted to Earth climates and bacterial flora. They are able to survive naturally in the wild and reproduce freely.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
So of their three references:
External Quote:
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
External Quote:

[Myth] Drinking out of aluminum cans or cooking in aluminum pots and pans can lead to Alzheimer's disease.
Reality: During the 1960s and 1970s, aluminum emerged as a possible suspect in Alzheimer's. This suspicion led to concern about exposure to aluminum through everyday sources such as pots and pans, beverage cans, antacids and antiperspirants. Since then, studies have failed to confirm any role for aluminum in causing Alzheimer's. Experts today focus on other areas of research, and few believe that everyday sources of aluminum pose any threat.
And the third, as noted above, is to a joke story on a satirical web site, like The Onion.
 
From the interview:
External Quote:
Models are not science.
That's quite a strange statement from a scientist.
The very essence of science is the construction of models that describe reality.
External Quote:
The "stuff," as I discovered scientifically, is coal combustion fly ash.
Right, and I discovered by the same "scientific" method that English people are French.
External Quote:
Initially, weather geoengineering was meant to benefit agriculture
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.
External Quote:
In the just-published paper, I discussed the health risks of aluminum in a chemically mobile state as relates to neurological disorders. The most vulnerable are the children [fetuses] pregnant women are carrying, children, the elderly, and those with compromised immune and respiratory systems. There is much more information in my just-submitted paper.
As a nuclear chemist, you are not qualified to publish papers on medical topics. Leave that to the experts.
 
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:
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.
 
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:
Interesting pair of articles on Dane's site:
How the PhDs Have Wrecked The World
External Quote:
This essay is the first of a three part series that delineates how the advanced degreed, highly credentialed PhD professionals of the world have significantly contributed to its relentless destruction.
vs.
Well Known Scientist Sounds The Alarm On Geoengineering
External Quote:
Marvin Herndon, Ph.D. , is a scientist of considerable notoriety. Marvin contacted me recently to express his growing concerns about the constant toxic aerosol spraying of our planet and the obvious human health and environmental ramifications we all face from this contamination.
 
Well yeah, notoriety is the state of being notorious, so I'd hope so. ;)

External Quote:

no·to·ri·e·ty
ˌnōdəˈrīədē/
noun
  1. the state of being famous or well known for some bad quality or deed.
    "the song has gained some notoriety in the press"
    synonyms: infamy, disrepute, ill repute, bad name, dishonor, discredit;
    datedill fame
    "his undeserved notoriety"


 
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:
Back
Top