# Debunked: Shasta Snow and Water Aluminum Tests.

Discussion in 'Contrails and Chemtrails' started by Chemtrail Kook, Apr 18, 2011.

1. ### Chemtrail KookNew Member

Aluminum Barium Strontium -Mount Shasta snow pack readings - and soil samples from all over the world - all is well... don't mind the man behind the curtain...
2. ### StupidSenior Member

@ Kook....what about the Shasta test results ?
There were follow-up results. Have you seen them ?
http://www.mtshastanews.com/article/20090610/NEWS/306109966/0/SEARCH

3. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member

See part 2, where he discusses the attempts of the PTB to debunk his film.

Note the ONLY rebuttal he offers to the numerous problems with his samples is that "Ski Bowl" is no longer an active ski bowl, so contamination is unlikely to come from skis. That's fair enough, but he totally ignores all the other issues, the most likely one being contamination with local dust - especially as the sample of snow was taken in the middle of summer, when snow is usually somewhat dirty. Here's the actual lab test:

http://contrailscience.com/files/USFS-labtestMShastaSnow.pdf

Last edited: Nov 20, 2013

Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
7. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member

I agree that the new poster was prompted by you, and that the person is sorely mistaken, but has been carefully taking stock of the test results.
The particular misspellings could just be sloppiness, but I see a strong possibility that the person is not a native english speaker.

I've been looking into the crowd over there in Siskiyou county, CA.

The science guy there is Francis Mangels. He is trusted by the folks over there, trusted too much and they haven't vetted what he told them through anyone else or else they would have known better.

Judging strictly from his credentials, he should know better, much better. Maybe too many drugs, mental illness, just a highly educated person who rose beyond his actual abilities. For whatever reason, either he hasn't recognized his mistakes, doesn't want to admit them, or has gotten himself in so deep that he can't bring himself to admit to the others the truth.

He does have a 'history' of radicalization dating back to the '80's or even before(about 2/3rd's down):
http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew920330

This document by him tells much more about what he has told his friends than what he has said in interviews.

Someone created an account on ATS just to post this:

To which I replied:

Yet another thing that people can bring up is MJM ever gets around to answering his critics.

It's interesting that this was a new user. It makes me think that someone read the rather active thread there, and told the WITWATS crowd, and they send someone over there. I strongly suspect that they actually believed it was metallic aluminum. So their entire film is based on high-school-chemistry level mistake.
Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
9. ### Jay ReynoldsGuest

The soil mentioned by Mangels as typical around Mt. Shasta are of the Deetz Series.
http://www.cei.psu.edu/soiltool/semtool.html?seriesname=DEETZ
The Deetz series consists of deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in glacial outwash from volcanic rock and ash sources.

The main types of ash from Mt. Shasta are andesite and dacite.
http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/geo/pro.htm

Mt Shasta Andesite is rich in aluminum, the mafic ash tends to be high in trace elements, including Ba.
http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/7/1571.abstract

The andesite found at Mt. Shasta is known to be high in Sr.
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/35/1/e149.full

This is looking worse and worse for the chemmies...................

PS: I did take one soils course while I was working on a degree in Tropical Horticulture, this took about an hour,
and anyone with enough familiarity to identify Deetz soils as Mangels did should have known and checked to see
what was in the native soil. I'm thinking the USFS Ranger that called Mangels "incompetent" was correct!

Jay

Very interesting about the soil composition.

I think you need to be careful in too much criticism of individuals. Ultimately it may or may not be accurate, but it generally only serves to polarize the discussion. Better to try to stick to facts, rather than too much speculation about a person's mental state.

Interesting document. Here's a link to it as a web page for easy viewing:

http://uncensored.co.nz/2011/03/07/chemtrail-lab-reports/

It gives a bit more detail on the various tests, but still no actual methodology as to how the samples were taken, what the surrounding weather was, or how the contrail observations were made.

The observations on the third page are a lot of the usual chemtrail stuff, in particular denying that persistent contrails existed before the late 1990. He claims they are military jets, but of course provides no photos.
11. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member

Pinning this down:
12. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member

Further pinning down:

13. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member

I wouldn't trust Mangels ph paper tests. I might trust a lab test.
Paper strip soil tests are notoriously hard to do. Did he use real distilled water to make the solution, or just bottled water?
The best soil tests take many small samples across an area which are mixed, then a real lab does the test. If he is just using a small amount from here or there, even a little bit like a bird pooping on the spot can make a big difference.

Plus, the phydrion paper he is using is actually a range for saliva and urine 5.5-8.0 ph.
Ordinary soil test paper is a wider range maybe 4-9 because that's all that paper is supposed to do, get a rough idea.

He could have used a standard for calibration test.

Here's an older version of Mangels' investigations:

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/library/testing/california/private/Chemtrail pH reportshasta.doc

And another, undated:

16. ### StupidSenior Member

http://foodintegritynow.org/2011/03/07/food-integrity-now-francis-mangels-chemtrails-e36/ (podcast)

Francis Mangels quotes several test results with high levels of Al.
However, he should know better that when only a tiny portion of test results flag high amounts....that there is likely some explanation for such rare results.
But his explanation for all these tests, is the widespread high flying "chemtrail" jets.
If these trails are so common and widespread, then the test results would be similarly common and widespread.

I believe soil (as is water) is tested professionally around the world, and by many entities for various reasons. Why are not all these entities crying foul ?

There are many concerned nature-loving environmentalists and scientists involved in carrying out these tests.......why aren't they outraged ? Could it be because they do not find the same results as those like Mr. Mangels ?

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds
Water Quality Monitoring
Guidebook

Elements of the Nature and Properties
of Soils

USDA: Soil Quality Information Sheet

Mangel's creditability is constantly reduced by his own words, when for example he claims one proof of "chemtrails" are when looking through his 400mm telescope, he sees two engines, but three trails. (is this the common system of deployment ? Not likely, as nearly ALL persistent trails emanate from an accurate engine count.)

Basically, WITWATS and it's proponents, take abnormal figures, and claim them to be typical, and terrifying.
17. ### StupidSenior Member

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
18. ### Jay ReynoldsGuest

In some of his writings, Mangels refers to some sort of correlations he has of changing concentrations in his samples wit "spraying". I haven't seen any documetation for this, but he could be just choosing the first rainfall after a dsty spell to take his sample, which could account for some of his claims.
19. ### StupidSenior Member

Let's look at the annual precipitation pH results for Mr. Mangels' own Siskiyou County, CA, over a 10 year period.......
(the period where he was complaining about his own garden was struggling, lending the cause to be abnormal pH.)

....as you can see, the pH levels have not deviated much in 10 years, all hovering around 5.5 pH.

(I also checked the last 2 years, where the pH was recorded seasonally (monthly) and the were all nearly consistent with the yearly averages, with two spiked highs of around 6.2 pH.....the rest were all ~5.5 pH.)

But I also realize that it's the soil that's being tested (that if Al is in the rain, it may alter the soil's ph)
I did check Siskiyou's soil, and it does range quite a bit from pH of 5.5 - 8.1. Alfalfa and grazeland grasses dominate there for farming and herding, and these levels of PH seem fine for that. I have tried hard to find some farming report in that area that noticed an abnormal change in pH levels....but it seems "farming as usual" there.

The shear lack of complaints throughout the vast California farming and agriculture community about "toxic amounts of aluminum" or overall pH changes, leads me to think it's like chasing an imaginary chicken.
http://ucanr.org/sites/calasa/files/319.pdf
Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
20. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member

More aluminum nails in the coffin

Areal distribution and age of low-K, high-alumina olivine tholeiite magmatism in the northwestern Great Basin
WILLIAM K. HART*,1, JAMES L. ARONSON1 and STANLEY A. MERTZMAN2
1 Department of Geological Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106
2 Department of Geology, Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17604

Field, petrographic, chemical, and geochronologic information has led to the identification and characterization of a widespread low-K, high-alumina olivine tholeiite (HAOT) magma type in the northwestern Great Basin. This basalt covers at least 22,000 km2 and is estimated to represent a total volume of at least 650 km3.

The time period over which HAOT lavas were erupted extends from late Miocene to Holocene (10.5–0 m.y. B.P.). This interval overlaps with the timing of Snake River, Cascade, and northwestern Basin and Range volcanism but distinguishes HAOT from the main pulse of Columbia River volcanism (15 m.y. B.P.). Furthermore, three major pulses of HAOT magmatism are suggested from the geochronology of this study: 0 to 2.5 m.y. B.P., 3.5 to 6 m.y. B.P., and 7 to 10 m.y. B.P.

The distinctive holocrystalline, nonporphyritic, and diktytaxitic texture, the low incompatible-element concentrations, and the high MgO/FeO* of HAOT serve to distinguish this basalt from other basalts of the northwestern United States. The low incompatible-element signature accentuates the similarities between HAOT, mid-ocean–ridge basalts, and back-arc–basin basalts. These similarities, combined with the HAOT chronology, support the idea that the processes giving rise to extensional tectonism and HAOT magmatism in the northwestern Great Basin are similar to those acting in active back-arc–spreading regions.
http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/2/186
Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
21. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member

Interesting response from a the editor of Water Technology about Mt. Shasta water

http://www.watertechonline.com/environmental-issues/article/professor-pou-poe-november-2010

I note the text in red, which I haven't heard before. Wonder where this particular bit of info came from?
22. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member

Statements by Francis Mangels:
During his interview with Food Integrity Now on March 7, 2011, Francis Mangels was asked if there was anywhere else aluminum in his samples could have come from, and he answered "no". The facts are, however, that Mt. Shasta and much of Siskiyou county is covered by remnants of the volcanic eruptions which formed the mountain 1/2 million years ago. Mangels knows this as he has mentioned in previous writings that the DEETZ soil series which covers much of the county.

Mangels "no" statement to Food Integrity Now:
http://foodintegritynow.org/2011/03/07/food-integrity-now-francis-mangels-chemtrails-e36/

Mangels opinion column in Mt. Shasta News quotes an unnamed source reiterating the same:

Mangels reference to Deetz series soils:
http://uncensored.co.nz/2011/03/07/chemtrail-lab-reports/

Location of the Deetz soil series(contains volcanic ash, most, base saturated, naturally contains aluminum oxide):
http://www.cei.psu.edu/soiltool/semtool.html?seriesname=DEETZ

The main types of ash from Mt. Shasta are andesite and dacite.
http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/geo/pro.htm

Mt Shasta Andesite is rich in aluminum, the mafic ash tends to be high in trace elements, including Ba.
http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/7/1571.abstract

The andesite found at Mt. Shasta is known to be high in strontium.
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/35/1/e149.full

"The notably high strontium content (1400 ppm) in the andesites from Mount Shasta also indicates a mantle origin at depths where plagioclase is absent as a stable phase in the residual material."
http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/81/1/311.abstract

"These data are consistent with continuous isotope fractionation of Li during dehydration of the subducted oceanic lithosphere, an interpretation corroborated by uniformly high pre-eruptive H2O contents in basaltic andesites accompanied by high Li, Rb, Sr, Ba and Pb abundances."
http://web.mit.edu/people/tlgrove/pubs/138-Magna.pdf

Conclusions:
Either Francis Mangels was unaware that Aluminum,Barium, and Strontium rich soils make up his county, he forgot about the facts he knew, or he intentionally did not mention these widely known facts. I note that Mangels is described as a USDA scientist with many years residence in Siskiyou county, and find it unlikely that such a person with that sort of experience and interest in the subject does not know the facts and did no research before drawing his conclusions. It appears that Michael J. Murphy has been relying on faulty information either way. He knows now, however, and I will await a reevaluation of his position.
=========================================
Statement by Michael J. Murphy:
During the Food Integrity Now interview of May 18, 2011, I mentioned that the Mt. Shasta News had reported two years ago that local tests found only trace or no aluminum in water samples of the area. This is important because these local tests had to have been known to Wigington, Mangels, and Rose Taylor prior to creation of Murphy's film, yet no mention of it had ever been made. Mangels and the others even asked for the local tests to be made! In his response, however, it was clear that indeed Murphy was aware of the local testing that contradicted the tests shown in the movie. Murphy claimed in the interview that the tests that contradicted his own were only from "well water." Murphy's claim is not true.

Wigington, Mangels, Taylor and Peterson ask local government to do testing confirming their own tests:

Two months later, this Mt. Shasta news article clearly shows a photo captioned "No aluminum was detected at the Mount Shasta city park headwaters, shown", and states, "• City Park headwaters - Not detected".
http://www.mtshastanews.com/news/x1176011800/New-tests-find-trace-or-no-aluminum-in-area-water

Conclusions:
Murphy is aware that the testing that Mangels, Wigington, and Rose Taylor requested had publicly contradicted those shown in his movie. Murphy nevertheless created the movie as if no such tests existed. Either Murphy never read the article, was misinformed about the article, or he intentionally did not mention the fact that further testing contradicted the movie and the so-called "evidence" he cites at every public appearance. He knows now, however, and I will await a reevaluation of his position.
========================================
Statement by G. Edward Griffin:
In the Food Integrity Now interview of May 18, 2011, Griffin mentioned that I had contended that since Mangels' Mt. Shasta surface snow samples had been taken in July, that I was claiming that lava underneath the snow containing aluminum, barium, and strontium had contaminated the snow surface. I never made that claim, nor do I have to. July of 2008, when the sample was taken, had been a period of drought and during that month dust could have easily blown for many miles from bare ground to reach the old snow's surface where the samples were taken.

Satelite imagery of Mt. Shasta during July:
http://picturepush.com/public/5687091

Conclusions:
Griffin may have not even been aware that the samples cited in his movie were taken during July. His response seems designed to deflect my criticism, but does not accurately address it.
=====================================
Statement by Michael J. Murphy:
In the Food Integrity Now interview of May 18, 2011, Murphy was asked why he was claiming that geoengineering is currently taking place while earth's Aerosol Optical Thickness(AOT) was decreasing rather than increasing as it would under geoengineering. Murphy insisted that aerosols were increasing, and that he had thousands of tests showing it. His website says that geoengineering must be stopped now. His claim does not agree with the facts. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo is clearly seen to drastically increase AOT. However, often cited geoengineering proposals to inject 20 million tons of aerosols high into the stratosphere to mimic the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo have not taken place during the past decade. The review of 30 years Satellite records of AOT clearly shows this.

30 years of satellite records record Pinatubo spike in Aerosol Optical Thickness shows a steady decline since 1990.
http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/cappa/ECI289A_Fa07/Mishchenko2007.pdf

Atmospheric Aerosol Condensation nuclei at Mauna Loa, Hawaii reflect and confirm the satellite records:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/N_TimeSeries.html

Conclusions:
Murphy is show to be incorrect. He may be unaware that records of aerosols are available, and that the trend contadicts the entire premise of his claims. If he was unaware, this demonstrates scant knowledge of the subject matter which underpins his entire thesis. This shows a failure to logically test his ideas against known facts, and I must also conclude that either no one else close to him has such knowledge either, or that he has ignored what they told him. He knows now, however, and I will await a reevaluation of his position.
===================================
Statement by Michael J. Murphy:
In the Food Integrity Now interview of May 18, 2011, Murphy claimed that aluminum oxde was changing soil ph and that it was toxic. I disuted those claims, and mentioned that it was inert, to which he reluctantly agreed, but then insisted that it was reactive! The only factual statement he made was that aluminum oxide was inert. Aluminum oxide is not toxic, It is not reactive, and it can therefore not change soil ph in any way. Aluminum oxide in soil has been around for eons as a naturally occurring mineral. It is known in it's crystalline form as Ruby or Garnet, birthstones of July and January.

Wikipedia on aluminum oxide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxide

MSDS for aluminum oxide
http://www.sciencestuff.com/msds/C1181.html

Conclusions:
Murphy appears to be unacquainted with chemical terms. He seems to have been told that aluminum oxide is inert, yet does not understand the meaning of the word. Murphy has not gained a grasp of the subject underlying his claims. He knows now, however, and I will await a reevaluation of his position
23. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member

Wow, what a great resource these searchable databases of public photos are. Thanks so much for teasing these out.
No wonder none of the snow samples are documented by video.
Just looking at the paucity of snow in July 3/4 mile above ski bowl, no one can claim there wasn't a possibility of windblown dust like Griffin tried to pull. Certainly no virgin white blanket of "snowpack" like they try to describe it.

Come to think of it, was there a seal put on, signed, and a chain of custody form? I know that I am sure that is done when I get random urine tested almost ever year as a transportation worker.

I'll have to remember this resource. Which one has the map you can click on to find photos?

Simply marvelous.......!

Have you considered breaking down the WITWATS page into sections and include some of what has emerged in the last few weeks about Mt. Shasta?

Snow on Mt Shasta, Jun 12th 2009, at position 41.375732,-122.222618, close to where the Ski Bowl sample was taken. Showing typical summer dirt deposition, and exposed rocks. Rocks are exposed all the way to the summit.

This image for the same album shows exposed rock at the summit

Note this is in june, July would likely have even less snow, and dirtier.

The sample was taken July 9th, 2008. This Photo shows dirty snow on the top of Shasta, 11 days later, on July 20th 2008:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29101882@N06/2716311961/in/photostream/

This photo shows the upper ski-bowl parking lot on the day before (July 8th) the sample was taken. The sample was taken 3/4 of a mile above here. Note smoke from fire confirms date. View is looking south.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dickvet/2760309305/in/photostream/

And here's the view up the mountain, the day before the sample was taken, showing where the sample was taken:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dickvet/2760308683/in/photostream/
Last edited: Nov 20, 2013

Flickr has a map, I don't find it that useful though. Most of the photos I find are on Flickr, and I use a date limited search by keyword. Some photos have GPS coordinates, like the dirty snow examples above. Some I can just figure out where they are by looking at them. The bottom view from the upper ski bowl parking lot can also be matched up by Google Earth, even though there's no info beyond "Shasta" in the originals.

I doubt the chain of custody angle is worth pursuing. They do have chain of custody forms on some of the samples, but with nothing on them beyond the sampler and the lab, and no way of verifying anything. There's far more damning evidence though, like the date of the sample.

I probably would structure the WITWATS post a bit differently now with what I know. Maybe later.

GEG Responds:

http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress....an-chemtrails-be-proved-from-g-edward-griffin

So, yes, it's not a ski slope any more (it was from 1958 to 1979, hence the name, and a reasonable mistake). We accept new evidence, and we change our theories.

But it IS a dust bowl.

OF course, it does not have to be a dust bowl either, dust from many miles away can easily be deposited on the upper slopes of any snow covered mountain. But in this case, probably the majority of the dust is local.
Last edited: Nov 20, 2013

my happy thought

That's Claire Swiney's site, I've been told, and her censorship is legendary so as a community, I feel we are unable to even respond in the same discussion. Over time, this begins to aggravate me, until I am again struck by a happy thought: the number of people globally who are ignorant and paranoid enough to believe in the chemtrail hoax is infinitesimal.

They have no vast financial backers, or legal precedent, no 1000s strong national marches under the banner of their cause, no prominent scientists or politicians willing to stand with them, put their name on the issues or bring any authority to their unfocussed slander and libel.

It's just them, alone, separate from the rest of the world who satisfy any unanswered questions about condensation trails in the logical way, with extant peer-reviewed atmospheric science. For a supposed global crime against nature and humanity that ratio is embarrassingly, vanishingly small.

That never fails to cheer me up.
28. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member

National Aluminum & Barium & pH Water/Soil Testing Program

http://chemtrailsproject.com/

No name, send me $99.00 What In The World Are They Doing? 29. ### Mick WestAdministratorStaff Member 30. ### Jay ReynoldsGuest Hmmm, ground coral limestone for$30, a bottle of vinegar for \$10, nothing says the quantity in the bottles,
I hope this guy doesn't "cleanse" too many people's wallets.

On checking further, it seems these products are sold to go along with a 'homeopathic' hcg(99% water) diet giving the dieter 500 calories/day. Wow, somebody's going to lose brain function pretty fast on that diet, if they stick with it, maybe muscle function too. Run away from this stuff, folks.
31. ### Jay ReynoldsGuest

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013

Thanks Jay, I also confirmed it with Google Earth:

The parking lot is at 41.361408,-122.200793
Last edited: Nov 20, 2013

With that and the photo from the time the sample was taken, showing all the bare rock and dirt, without any of the supposed protection from vegetation, it's clear the snow samples were far from the quality required to draw any valid scientific conclusions.
34. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member

I spoke with Francis Mangels yesterday for about an hour. He has confirmed with a local geologist that I am 100% correct in my research on the soil around Mt. Shasta being naturally high in Aluminum, Barium, and Strontium.

Despite being in possession of the same information, Michael J. Murphy has made no response on this matter.
Jay Reynolds
35. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member

In my conversation with Francis Mangels on 5/31/11, he insisted that no surface waters were sampled by local officials, and mentioned that he considered the "City Park Headwaters" mentioned in the Mt Shasta news article above to be groundwater, since the headwaters refers to a spring which discharges at that point.

This appears to have been yet another 'Straw Man', as the article also states:
• Ream Ave. and W.A. Barr Road pond - Not Detected;
• Shasta Ranch Road pond - 0.097 milligrams per liter;
Both of these locations are very close together, and
in this google map I can see at least one pond:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
• Sisson Meadows pond - 0.085 milligrams per liter;
"The Sisson Meadow property was purchased in January of 2003 to protect a remarkable 7.5 acre wetland parcel near the center of Mt. Shasta City. Adjacent to Sisson Elementary School, this parcel offers a unique opportunity to develop trails and boardwalks for environmental and education opportunities and to restore the wetland resource values of the property."

--------------------------------------------------------------
So, let the record show that in fact, three ponds were sampled by the local officials, despite both Michael J. Murphy's statement above, and the statement of Francis Mangels in a direct personal conversation on 5/31/11

Jay Reynolds
36. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member

In our conversation, Francis Mangels denied first hand knowledge of the conditions around the snow sample site.
He could not recall the date or year it was taken, or the person who took the sample. He said that he supposed the person's name would be at the top of the lab report, which says, "Attention: Rose Taylor". However, what appears to be a hand written note on the lab report is stamped with Mangels' name and address, so Mangels has had his hand on it.

Did Mangels say anything about the sample being taken in July?

I think Griffin would probably be interested in this, particularly based on his statement above:

38. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member

I've been reading this about elements found in surface waters of Norway. They include data on lements normally found in rivers on a worldwide average.
http://www.iwaponline.com/nh/010/0115/0100115.pdf

Ironically, this reference link comes directly from the "Coalition Against Geoengineering" website,
No need to go into details, but suffice it to say that this link found on their own website debunks all of their statements about aluminum toxicity, prevalence in water, etc.
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPdf/Aluminumalt.pdf
39. ### Ross MarsdenSenior Member

Chemtrail believers often link to sources that contradict the point they are using the source to support.
Belfort Group's "Case Orange" does this in several places.