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

skephu

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

Mick West

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

 

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
 

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.
 

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
 

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For your edification I'm attaching several historical references for elemental analyses of rain and snow.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.jpg
===============================================

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


CJES1967.jpg
==============================================

Mcconnel.jpg

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

Robinson 1936.jpg

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

Typical Troposheric aerosols.jpg
 
Last edited:

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.
 

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
 

Critical Thinker

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

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
 

Hama Neggs

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

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.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/...ted-not-sufficiently-scientifically-objective
 

solrey

Senior Member.
His reply when asked about the quality of his own work?
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
Yes, but there is a surprising amount of rational and sensible people there too, which is always refreshing. Go team brains!

Yes, absolutely I was thinking the same

Simply trying to explain the science

Then the inevitable "disinfo / shill" in response
 

skephu

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!
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.
 

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.
 

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:

 

Trailblazer

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

The explanation of the Leachate error:

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.
 

M Bornong

Senior 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.

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:
 

deirdre

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:
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
 

Attachments

  • ijerph-error_corrected.pdf
    724.6 KB · Views: 563

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.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Could someone explain what I am missing here?

upload_2015-9-25_10-58-30.png

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.png

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:

skephu

Senior Member.
I'm sure I am missing something simple here, but what is he actually comparing on this graph?
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.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff 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.

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? :)
 

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.png

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.png

As "fingerprint matches" go, this is pretty abysmal!
 

Belfrey

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.png

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.png
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/
 

Ray Von Geezer

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/
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.jpg

Ray Von
 

MikeG

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.jpg

Ray Von

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

And "MI5K WEST"? Really? I thought he was CIA?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top