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

Jay Reynolds

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/
I was the person who sent Herndon and Editor Dr. Tchounwou the attachments Herndon is referring to. Here is a copy of the email they received,which I advised them to share with Dane Wigington:
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-j-marvin-herndons-geoengineering-articles-in-current-science-india-and-ijerph.t6456/page-7#post-164238

Considering the references show indisputably that aluminum, being one of the top three crustal elements, is commonly found in dry deposition of mineral dust back before the Industrial Age as shown in the ice cores from Antarctica.
The Editor knows that fact, Herndon knows it, and just getting that word out means they can no longer have deniability going forward. If they do, it can only be out of deliberate deception.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Ian Simpson seems to be pushing the idea that it was retracted due to a request by Mick/Metabunk.
I doubt that Mick had any personal contact with the Editor, but I paid a five minute visit to him at his office and handed him some handwritten criticisms written into the margins on a copy of the Herndon paper. I asked him to look into it, but didn't insist on a retraction. Dr. Tchounwou told me that he was already aware of the controversy before I visited him, but a face-to-face likely showed him that there were probably serious problems in the paper and people were interested.
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member
It seems that Herndon's other claim to fame, of a "georeactor" hypothesis has also been dis-proven as well. I guess all he has left is the adoration and attention from the Chemtrail Conspiracy promoters who seek anything that superficially seems credible to post to their websites.

Link

 

cmnit

Member
It seems that Herndon's other claim to fame, of a "georeactor" hypothesis has also been dis-proven as well. I guess all he has left is the adoration and attention from the Chemtrail Conspiracy promoters who seek anything that superficially seems credible to post to their websites.

Link

Exactly! I edited myself that sentence with reference ;-) Italians are heavily involved in neutrino detection experiments :)
 

skephu

Senior Member
I'm at a loss for words after watching this... I don't even know what this is. Should I cry or should I laugh?

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm at a loss for words after watching this... I don't even know what this is. Should I cry or should I laugh?

Probably both. It's sad that people are so deep into the belief. But also the more ridiculous they make things, the more it has the potential to prompt people to ask if the theory actually holds up to serious examination.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
I've noticed that the mere fact that claims are so far out has a way of enhancing their believablilty because such claims draw more ridicule, which is then painted as part of a coverup. The more technical the subject matter, the better that works, because more people don't understand the details.
 

skephu

Senior Member
Some people think the fact that Herndon's paper was retracted indicates he is correct, and anyway he published a "Rejection Notice" where he rejected the retraction:
From here:
J. MARVIN HERNDON, Ph.D. — THE NEW WEAPON FOR THE ANTI-CHEMTRAILS COMMUNITY
http://socalskywatch.net/forums/topic/j-marvin-herndon-ph-d-the-new-weapon-for-the-anti-chemtrails-community/
 

Henk001

Active Member
The next Herndon paper is in the making:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/monumental-air-test-planned-examine-120000099.html
Seems two pilots (two paragliders!) will collect air samples at high altitude. Herndon will monitor the sampling and plans to publish a peer reviewed article about it
 
Last edited:

Henk001

Active Member
That URL is a troubling trend. The Finance pages of Yahoo will be seen (rightly or wrongly) as a "reputable source". But in fact this is just a paid press release put out by PR Newswire and reposted by Yahoo.
Do you mean that this is not going to happen?
 

JRBids

Senior Member
The next Herndon paper is in the making:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/monumental-air-test-planned-examine-120000099.html
Seems two pilots (two paragliders!) will collect air samples at high altitude. Herndon will monitor the sampling and plans to publish a peer reviewed article about it

Well that's the fox watching the hen house!
 

skephu

Senior Member
Who knows? It's very hard to follow what he's doing with the numbers. His numbers are off by random factors everywhere.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member
And of course, he's still ignoring one of the main problems with his whole premise: that you get a very similar degree of "match" if you compare the results to the average prevalence of those elements in the crust of the Earth, meaning that he could easily be detecting simple dirt and dust:

HerndonSnowComparison.jpg
 
Last edited:

M Bornong

Senior Member
Did he do it again? Did he again use 7% aluminum again instead of 14% for coal fly ash? The trace element of barium was 1380 mg/kg. So the ratio of aluminum to barium should be 101, instead of 50 as seen in his graph.

From here:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207784339388049&set=a.10207784347508252.1073741826.1281098326&type=3&permPage=1

View attachment 16225
According to a reply under Herndon's FB post, this is where the "sticky goo" sample was taken. It appears to be the last pile of snow melting in the shadows.

 

deirdre

Senior Member
According to a reply under Herndon's FB post, this is where the "sticky goo" sample was taken. It appears to be the last pile of snow melting in the shadows.

so his "debunk" is that snow mold isnt sticky?
add: here he shows several years of his snow mold, looks like snow mold. wonder what the composition of snow mold is.
 
Last edited:

M Bornong

Senior Member
so his "debunk" is that snow mold isnt sticky?
add: here he shows several years of his snow mold, looks like snow mold. wonder what the composition of snow mold is.
It looks like different states of drying.
 

M Bornong

Senior Member

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
They still seem to have an idea that these tests are showing pure metallic elements, when of course they are just normal minerals. The test method breaks all compounds down into their constituent elements.
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member
Link to Stanford News Service

 

Dan Page

Active Member
Trying very hard to not laugh hysterically. The more they advertise this, the bigger deal it becomes IMHO. So according to this site,
AND
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A very enlightening paper on the problem of detecting coal fly ash:

http://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei20/session5/smueller.pdf
So there's the root problem (as has been said several times in the thread above). You can't tell the difference between fly ash and soil dust by chemical analysis.

http://www.greenpeace.to/publications/philflyash.pdf
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And of course, he's still ignoring one of the main problems with his whole premise: that you get a very similar degree of "match" if you compare the results to the average prevalence of those elements in the crust of the Earth, meaning that he could easily be detecting simple dirt and dust:

View attachment 16226
I've added this to the OP, together with shorter quotes from the two papers above.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Herndon has a new article out in the journal Frontiers in Public Health (June 30 2016).

PDF is here: http://nuclearplanet.com/frontiers1.pdf

upload_2016-7-12_13-11-2.png

I haven't had time to read it properly yet, but a brief skim suggests more of the same, viz comparing dirt from different sources and finding a roughly dirt-ish elemental composition. This time he has also tested "fibrous mesh" found on grass after snow melt, aka snow mould.

upload_2016-7-12_13-18-48.png
 
Last edited:

M Bornong

Senior Member
Herndon has a new article out in the journal Frontiers in Public Health (June 30 2016).

PDF is here: http://nuclearplanet.com/frontiers1.pdf
The first comment has been made on the Frontiers in Public Health site. http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139/full
Andras Szilagyi's website: http://www.szialab.org/
 

deirdre

Senior Member
i'm getting a bit 'annoyed' because i dont know the chemical letters used for each of these elements.. so maybe someone can tell me easier:

-herndon lists 9 elements in the sticky snow goo -1 sample!- that "match" fly coal ash (although they match different coal ash samples, but that's another story)
-Robert West tested 28 elements
-According to this paper 1992, page 14, there are 33 elements* in fly coal ash..although this paper doesnt list Lithium but Herndon does ?

so my question for those who dont have to look up each element for their letters (ie Be, Ca etc) how many of the elements Robert West tested are also in Coal fly ash? or in other words.. how many elements in Roberts sample don't match the signature of coal fly ash?

*the elements in the 1992 paper are Al,As,B,Ba,Ca,Cd,Ce,Cl,Co,Cr,C?,F,Fe,Hg,I,K,Mg,Mn,Mo,Na,Ni,P,Pb,Rb,S,Sc?,Se?,Si,Sr,Th,U,V,Zn

hrgoo.JPG
 

Marin B

Active Member
so my question for those who dont have to look up each element for their letters (ie Be, Ca etc) how many of the elements Robert West tested are also in Coal fly ash? or in other words.. how many elements in Roberts sample don't match the signature of coal fly ash?



View attachment 19893
There might be a mistake or two, but this is what I saw:

Elements in common:
Aluminum (AL)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B) [tested but not detectable (ND) in West]
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co) [detected but below quantifiable amount (<LOQ) in West]
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Potassium (K)
Silicon (Si)
Strontium (Sr)
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (Zn)

Elements in '92 paper, not Robert West
Cerium (Ce)
Chlorine (Cl)
Carbon? (C)
Fluorine (F)
Mercury (Hg)
Iodine (I)
Rubidium (Rb)
Sulphur (S)
Scandium (Sc)
Selenium (Se)
Thorium (Th)
Uranium (U)

Elements in Robert West, not '92 paper
Antimony (Sb) [ND]
Beryllium (be) [<LOQ]
Copper (Cu)
Lithium (Li)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Molybdenum (Mo) [<LOQ]
Nickel (Ni)
Silver (Ag) [ND]
Sodium (Na)
Thallium (Ti) [ND]
Tin (Sn) [ND]
Titanium
 
Last edited:

MikeG

Senior Member
I made it through about half of the paper and it reads like a rehash of his previous work.

Two comments:

1. Frontiers has an interesting background and not without controversy.

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

http://www.nature.com/news/backlash-after-frontiers-journals-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers-1.18639

2. I was looking at one of Herdon's tables:

Tabulation of Data.png
It is just a list of numbers. And footnotes 2-5 for the "Internet-posted ICP-MS data" are here:
Footnotes.png
Yea gods. I am having a distinct feeling of deja vu.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member
@Marin B i just realized R. West's test has the letters there too. o_O

so basically, Herndon has 2 more elements in his fly ash than my 1992 paper, which means there are at least 35 elements in coal fly ash. and herndon "matched" 9. AND he counts "lithium" as an indicator even though his hepa tests show Lithium in only 1 of 5 tests. add: actually only half of his hepa filters show the elements he matched in his snow goo.

I'm so confused as to where he got his conclusions from.
 
Last edited:

M Bornong

Senior Member
@Marin B

I'm so confused as to where he got his conclusions from.
I'd like to know what Nobel Prize-winning chemist Harold C. Urey and Hans E. Suess would think about Herndon's work in general?

http://nuclearplanet.com/Current Biography Profile.html
 
Top