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

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
In the retraction of Herndon's previous paper, the Editor, Dr. Paul Tchounwou, stated this as one of the reasons for the retraction:

As Editor of Frontiers, Dr. Judi Krzyzanowski should have recognized that she was allowing the same fallacy to re-occur under her tenure. Either she didn't care or didn't make an attempt to look into the retraction of Herndon's previous publication. In either case, she failed in her position as editor to produce sound science.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
This is a chart from the latest paper comparing rainwater samples to laboratory samples of leachate from coal fly ash:



Take a note of the scale at the bottom, and then look at, for example, the aluminium to barium ration at the top. The variability is enormous. His "internet readings" (black dots) vary between a ratio of 1 and a ratio of over 100. And the "EU lab range" for coal fly ash leachate ranges between just over 0.001 and almost 1,000. That's almost six orders of magnitude: basically any slightly dusty water sample anywhere on earth is likely to fit into that range!
 

skephu

Senior Member.
Here's the statement from Frontiers:
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00155/full
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
To clarify what is happening, Frontiers abides by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)
guidelines regarding their publications and how allegations such as this are handled.

Here is a link to the downloadable guidelines:
http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines

The point at which an "expression of concern" is issued, the process after such and expression is made, and the reason for such a statement is detailed in the process for retraction:
http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction guidelines_0.pdf
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
And Retraction Watch is also keeping tabs on Herndon's attempt to re-publish his previously retracted work.

 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I just posted this comment for the Herndon paper. I referred to my correspondence here previously:

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139/full



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
 

skephu

Senior Member.
The editors were quick, the paper has been retracted:
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00156/full
 

skephu

Senior Member.
I must say though that the retraction note is unsatisfactory. It should have explicitly pointed out the problems with the paper, not just say "the complaints were valid" when those complaints are unspecified.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
Herndon has posted his correspondence with the editors:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction.html

It appears one of the reviewers had issues the paper:
from: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtg.pdf

On the other hand, Judi Krzyzanowski claims both reviewers accepted the paper but there was a 3rd reviewer who removed themselves. She does not seem to agree with the retraction. (http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtc.pdf)

Both Herndon and Krzyzanowski complain that they were not presented with the actual complaints. This is somewhat justified, but the flaws of the paper are actually so basic that anyone with any familiarity with the scientific method should immediately see them.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Herndon has posted his correspondence with the editors:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction.html

It appears one of the reviewers had issues the paper:
from: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtg.pdf

On the other hand, Judi Krzyzanowski claims both reviewers accepted the paper but there was a 3rd reviewer who removed themselves. She does not seem to agree with the retraction. (http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtc.pdf)

Both Herndon and Krzyzanowski complain that they were not presented with the actual complaints. This is somewhat justified, but the flaws of the paper are actually so basic that anyone with any familiarity with the scientific method should immediately see them.

Herndon expects the conspiracy to be taken as a given(as it were) and implies [states] that the reviewers were part of the conspiracy. How convenient.

"When the editor asked the complainer permission to publish the complaint, that individual backed off."

PS: Do we know who that was and whether they really "backed off"? I'll check Herndon's link.

PPS: That complainant's name seems to have been redacted.
 
Last edited:

MikeG

Senior Member.
Herndon has posted his correspondence with the editors:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction.html

It appears one of the reviewers had issues the paper:
from: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtg.pdf

On the other hand, Judi Krzyzanowski claims both reviewers accepted the paper but there was a 3rd reviewer who removed themselves. She does not seem to agree with the retraction. (http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtc.pdf)

Both Herndon and Krzyzanowski complain that they were not presented with the actual complaints. This is somewhat justified, but the flaws of the paper are actually so basic that anyone with any familiarity with the scientific method should immediately see them.

This part of Krzyzanowski's letter struck me as important:

It seems to me that the "open" process Krzyzanowski advocates is simply a mandate to publish without adequate peer review.

I can understand the principle of an "open and transparent science or editorial process," but it shouldn't be a blank check for poor reasoning and evidence.
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
If you look at the original article, can you spot the retraction notice? Hint: it's not really prominently displayed ...
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139/full

It seems that the publisher did not indicate that the paper has been retracted on the original paper, but instead they left the original (retracted article) up without any indication of the retraction and posted separately that the article was retracted. It is puzzling that they would leave the original (retracted) article up without any indication of the retraction (other than in the sidebar that is not readily apparent unless one is looking for it), which, as we know, will continue to be cited by the chemtrail conspiracy crowd as scientific 'proof' that there is irrefutable evidence that 'they are poisoning us' or whatever the spin of the day is.Capture.JPG
 

skephu

Senior Member.
Frontiers says the retraction process is still in progress. As soon as it gets completed, the article text will be removed.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
... and I see Dan Pelletier has chimed in at the comment section which is still accessible.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
Herndon continues to complain about the retraction by writing letters to officials at the University of Maryland where the editor signing the retraction is employed. First he wrote a letter to the dean, and now to the provost:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction.html

From his latest letter:
He seems to think that the way to get his bad science accepted is by using force and threats.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
He seems to think that the way to get his bad science accepted is by using force and threats.

By doing this, Herndon paints himself into a corner where he digs a very deep hole. The more he does it, the wider his paranoid conspiracy grows, with ever more people being involved. That will result in what some of the believers calls "critical mass", but not a mass who believes what he says, a mass that considers the belief even more in the realm of crackpottery.
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
Herndon continues to complain about the retraction by writing letters to officials at the University of Maryland where the editor signing the retraction is employed. First he wrote a letter to the dean, and now to the provost:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction.html

From his latest letter:
He seems to think that the way to get his bad science accepted is by using force and threats.

Wow. "Fired for cause" within 48 hours and a "narrow window of time" before the matter escalates.

And he expects the school to just roll over?

Best case, they ignore him. Worst case, they pick up the phone and call the university attorneys to deal with him.

Wow.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I see that the Provost's office passed the letter down to a subordinate which Herndon took as a slap in the face.

http://nuclearplanet.com/rtp2.pdf

However, one thing I only now realized is that in Herndon's original letter to the provost, he completely neglected to mention anything at all about his 2015 IJERPH paper which was retracted. I take that as an attempt to persuade by neglecting to tell the complete story. It is unethical for a scientist to submit information when he has been made aware that it is false, even if he doesn't agree with those reasons.

Additionally, today I was thinking about what a great opportunity which has been lost. Because Herndon has hidden the real reasons for why his papers have and will continue to be rejected/retracted, and because those same reasons have not been transmitted to the public at large. I'm sure that many chemtrail believers wouldn't pay attention, care or understand, but if the Herndon affair had been a 'closed loop' in which the coal ash hypothesis were shown false or even shown lacking at least one rabbit hole might have been plugged up.

You may not realize but many studies which don't agree with a hypothesis never get published, it happens all the time.
By doing so, they don't enter the literature at all and later scientists who therefore don't know repeat the experiment.
This case is actually worse because an experiment was conducted improperly and subsequently retracted yet even that should have yielded something if only Herndon would stop the paranoid recalcitrance.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
The Univ. of Maryland's provost replied to Herndon's letter:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtq.pdf
Herndon's long reply:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtr.pdf
etc. etc.
 

cmnit

Member
The self-appointed "maverick" Herndon took the liberty of removing TWICE from his Wikipedia entry a paragraph, edited by yours truly, quoting a recent experimental neutrino study (including Italian physicists). This peer-reviewed paper falsifies (per Popper) Herndon's "georeactor" theory. I'm sick and tired of this "maverick".
 

cmnit

Member
[Herndon] was able to publish another paper on JGEESI (Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International), this time with coauthors (Open Access):
http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract/25532

The paper takes for granted the coal fly ash "theory", and actually looks more of an op-ed than a review article.
Available also from his own site:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/macd.pdf

Sadly, among five JGEESI reviewers only one asked for more proofs, beyond mere opinions:
http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history/25532
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
There are stories about journals publishing for profit, studies that would not pass muster were they to be peer reviewed by actual experts/scientists. Herndon's work has been retracted many times after experts have weighed in and pointed out the falsified data, poor techniques and conclusions that are not supported by the evidence therein.

Journal retracts paper on "chemtrail" threat to San Diego
This Guy’s ‘Scientific’ Articles on Chemtrails Keep Getting Retracted But how did they get published in the first place?
Author loses 2nd paper on supposed dangers of chemtrails

An interesting article about another 'researcher' who used falsified data and whose results were unable to be replicated, that Harvard is now calling to have his papers retracted.

Harvard Calls for Retraction of Dozens of Studies by Noted Cardiologist
Some 31 studies by Dr. Piero Anversa contain fabricated or falsified data, officials concluded. Dr. Anversa popularized the idea of stem cell treatment for damaged hearts.


 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 0
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 34
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 8
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 75
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
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top