Magnesium and Titanium levels in Rainwater

[Jay Reynolds]

Woody, you simply can't take a single sample and use that to make a conclusion of causation. You cannot even use a series of tests, however extensive, to do that either.

For example, let me ask you this:
Q: Does this trend line support the claim that "According to data produced by the National Atmospheric Deposition Program(NADP), spraying of magnesium by jet planes equipped with external tanks flying at 30,000 ft has decreased over Lamberton, MN since 1980" ?

 

[Woody]

I can definitely see the two right side engines in front of the wing. I see NO external tanks as Woody described.

I said I have seen them, not this one on this day. The engines cannot be identified as you say, I could not identify them with even greater resolution than you are viewing.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I have seen the tanks with my own eyes, I know what they are doing and why, you are entitled to your opinion. You can choose to not trust me or think I am lying, this does not alter what I know I have seen and we can respect one another best by agreeing to disagree. Sometimes I feel as if people are just implying that I am lying, and if this is the case then so be it, doesn't alter the truth. I was one of the few that knew Saddam had no WMD's because of my connections to people who were living there at the time. Later, the truth was revealed and they and I were correct, there were none. 90% of the population felt they had WMD's, and was willing to go to war. In fact I still have the letter from Bush somewhere saying they have the middle east under control. This is another issue that will require time to reveal the truth. In fact, until I asked them I never knew why they lit those Kuwait oil fields on fire, we were told it was vengence and spite, but it wasn't at all. There was one road leading to Iraq and we were destroying everything and killing every Iraqi, so they lit them on fire to provide smoke cover to escape. Most Iraqi's never wanted to be there and just wanted to go home. From a military perspective, it was ingenious on their part, but I question, why is this truth withheld from American's to this day?

I didn't say you were lying. I say that your video shows no evidence of external tanks and that it can be seen to be a four engine type plane.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

i said i have seen them, not this one on this day. The engines cannot be identified as you say, i could not identify them with even greater resolution than you are viewing.

I say they can be! Two engines CAN be seen forward of the right wing!

 

[Woody]

Woody, you simply can't take a single sample and use that to make a conclusion of causation. You cannot even use a series of tests, however extensive, to do that either.

For example, let me ask you this:
Q: Does this trend line support the claim that "According to data produced by the National Atmospheric Deposition Program(NADP), spraying of magnesium by jet planes equipped with external tanks flying at 30,000 ft has decreased over Lamberton, MN since 1980" ?

Regardless, lets use some sense here, take all these graphs in Minnesota and see where .323 is on the scale, get the idea now?

If you take all of Minnesota's readings and input .323, where does it land? Remember, we were battling acid rains and pollutants in those early days that eventually led to a decline in emiissions. This area is rich with industry and coal burning power plants. So do not look to a decline because that is what the clean air act was intended to do, look at its natural amounts recently and the elevated amount in my reading.

 

[Belfrey]

I have seen the tanks with my own eyes, I know what they are doing and why, you are entitled to your opinion. You can choose to not trust me or think I am lying, this does not alter what I know I have seen and we can respect one another best by agreeing to disagree. Sometimes I feel as if people are just implying that I am lying, and if this is the case then so be it, doesn't alter the truth.

It's not so much that I think you're lying as that I think you're probably mistaken. But if you can bring forth evidence showing that you're correct, I'd look at it and I'm sure others here would too. You can get reasonably good pictures using a standard camera combined with a telescope - see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1293-Attaching-Digital-Camera-to-Binoculars-or-Spotting-Scopes

 

[Woody]

I didn't say you were lying. I say that your video shows no evidence of external tanks and that it can be seen to be a four engine type plane.

I know, there are none on this that I saw, I only stated and will state that I have seen them on one plane leaving a permanent trail.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

.....smoke cover to escape?

Why would you bring Iraq into this discussion. Smoke cover to escape?

 

[F4Jock]

I said I have seen them, not this one on this day. The engines cannot be identified as you say, I could not identify them with even greater resolution than you are viewing.

Can you send me a picture?? Look at the MD-80 series. Bombardier Regional jets as well. Could it have been one of these?

 

[Belfrey]

If you take all of Minnesota's readings and input .323, where does it land? Remember, we were battling acid rains and pollutants in those early days that eventually led to a decline in emiissions. This area is rich with industry and coal burning power plants. So do not look to a decline because that is what the clean air act was intended to do, look at its natural amounts recently and the elevated amount in my reading.

But if your sample is elevated due to regionwide "spraying" from planes, then why wouldn't an increase be seen in the NADP results?

 

[Mick West]

I say they can be! Two engines CAN be seen forward of the right wing!

I retract my previous statement, I agree with Jay that the engines can be made out, even at this low resolution.



There is no reason to think this is anything other than a normal 4-engine jet leaving normal contrails.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Woody,
The sample collection site for NADP is supposed to conform to these restrictions(though not every site does in every respect):

Residential structures within 30 meters of the collector should not be within the 30° cone of the mean wind direction.
No object or structure shall project onto the collector with an angle greater than 45° from the horizontal.
No object or structure shall project onto the raingage with an angle greater than 45° from the horizontal.
Any object over 1 meter high with sufficient mass to deflect wind should not be located within 5 meters of the collector.
Any object over 1 meter high with sufficient mass to deflect wind should not be located within 5 meters of the raingage.
Annual vegetation within the site should be maintained at less than 0.6 meter in height.
No pasture land is located within 20 meters of collector.
Storage areas or parking lots are not located within 100 meters of collector.
No feedlots are within 500 meters of collector.
No public roads are within 100 meters of collector.

How closely does your sample collection location conform to these guidelines, because if it is quite different, that could easily account for the difference you have in your results.

 

[Woody]

It's not so much that I think you're lying as that I think you're probably mistaken. But if you can bring forth evidence showing that you're correct, I'd look at it and I'm sure others here would too. You can get reasonably good pictures using a standard camera combined with a telescope - see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1293-Attaching-Digital-Camera-to-Binoculars-or-Spotting-Scopes

I know what I saw and I am working on this issue...and I agree with you, until there is a pic of one many will not believe, yet we needed no pics of WMD's to believe it, such is the human character. I own my own security company and CCTV is a part of this, the problem is this, a 5 megapixal camera with the right DVR will cost me nearly 8k. They use these on toll booths and was on myth busters, license plate capture quality with a stable pan and tilt, but the prices are coming down with iphone and samsung technologies so when summer comes I will be on my roof installing something. I do have a 180mm lens for a 2/3 format available with a 2x zoom giving me a full 760x on a 1/3" format camera. Decreased format size increases field of view by 2x. If needed 1/4" is now available too that can increase the zoom even more. Stability is the problem at this range. Sometime all one needs to do is say something a certain way that implies the other is full of crap or lying, and many implication here, especially when I have been looking for information.

 

[Woody]

I retract my previous statement, I agree with Jay that the engines can be made out, even at this low resolution.



There is no reason to think this is anything other than a normal 4-engine jet leaving normal contrails.

Nick, frame by fame the trails move back and forth in front and then the back of the plane, you are seeing the digital distortion of the trail. I hate digital zoom for this reason, this is why I am upgrading to a full lens zoom of 780x on a pan and tilt, when it warms up and snow gets off the roof.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Woody,
The sample collection site for NADP is supposed to conform to these restrictions(though not every site does in every respect):

Residential structures within 30 meters of the collector should not be within the 30° cone of the mean wind direction.
No object or structure shall project onto the collector with an angle greater than 45° from the horizontal.
No object or structure shall project onto the raingage with an angle greater than 45° from the horizontal.
Any object over 1 meter high with sufficient mass to deflect wind should not be located within 5 meters of the collector.
Any object over 1 meter high with sufficient mass to deflect wind should not be located within 5 meters of the raingage.
Annual vegetation within the site should be maintained at less than 0.6 meter in height.
No pasture land is located within 20 meters of collector.
Storage areas or parking lots are not located within 100 meters of collector.
No feedlots are within 500 meters of collector.
No public roads are within 100 meters of collector.

How closely does your sample collection location conform to these guidelines, because if it is quite different, that could easily account for the difference you have in your results.

Can you show us several photos of the site and sample collector where you took your rain samples? Still waiting for that lab report.....

 

[Woody]

I didn't say you were lying. I say that your video shows no evidence of external tanks and that it can be seen to be a four engine type plane.

Well, you can all believe what you want, I have the original video and coming from someone who uses this as part of his work and helps police through enhanced video techniques I am telling you all this is worthless and would NOT stand up in the court of law for identification, this much I DO know as it is a part of my work.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

If you take all of Minnesota's readings and input .323, where does it land? Remember, we were battling acid rains and pollutants in those early days that eventually led to a decline in emiissions. This area is rich with industry and coal burning power plants. So do not look to a decline because that is what the clean air act was intended to do, look at its natural amounts recently and the elevated amount in my reading.

The natural amounts recently seem to have decreased at Lamberton. Your reading seems anomalous. Unless you produce some evidence regarding the conditions in which your sample was taken, an actual lab report and a sample date, no conclusions can be made about your claims. I would like to see it, specifically to compare a few other elements with the NADP to see if other elements are "elevated" also. If so, that could possibly indicate broader contamination besides magnesium, and be an indication of simply a dusty atmosphere rather than pointing towards what you seem to have concluded already. If you don't wish to provide more complete information, that is certainly OK with me, I have encountered that attitude almost universally withing chemtrails advocates and don't find it unusual anymore.

 

[Woody]

Can you show us several photos of the site and sample collector where you took your rain samples? Still waiting for that lab report.....

Look back, I submitted it already. Glass jar was boiled for 10 minutes and left to air dry in a stable environment, no movement in the room. I have a van in the driveway on jack stands far away from anything, no trees, nothing. Placed it on the roof overnight 7 feet above the ground and then sealed with cap that was also boiled for 10 minutes and left to dry in stable environment. Took samples off the van on Saturday morning and refrigerated the sample, samples need to stay at a cool temperature too. Then it was taken down first thing Monday morning and the test results are what is posted.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Well, you can all believe what you want, I have the original video and coming from someone who uses this as part of his work and helps police through enhanced video techniques I am telling you all this is worthless and would NOT stand up in the court of law for identification, this much I DO know as it is a part of my work.

Sounds like a good enough disclaimer to me. You were the one who brought the video to the table making claims about it, but if you want to discount your work at this point, so be it.

 

[Woody]

The natural amounts recently seem to have decreased at Lamberton. Your reading seems anomalous. Unless you produce some evidence regarding the conditions in which your sample was taken, an actual lab report and a sample date, no conclusions can be made about your claims. I would like to see it, specifically to compare a few other elements with the NADP to see if other elements are "elevated" also. If so, that could possibly indicate broader contamination besides magnesium, and be an indication of simply a dusty atmosphere rather than pointing towards what you seem to have concluded already. If you don't wish to provide more complete information, that is certainly OK with me, I have encountered that attitude almost universally withing chemtrails advocates and don't find it unusual anymore.

Because I cannot apply the actual data, I would have to e-mail it. Its a different form of PDF file so all I can do is what I did earlier, cut and paste the results, won't allow me to copy the page to an image for some reason. Its a lengthy report.

 

[Woody]

Because I cannot apply the actual data, I would have to e-mail it. Its a different form of PDF file so all I can do is what I did earlier, cut and paste the results, won't allow me to copy the page to an image for some reason. Its a lengthy report.

#=AR#
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
10224218
C. Wood
Sample: Raw Water Lab ID: 10224218001 Collected: 03/30/13 09:00 Received: 04/02/13 09:25 Matrix: Water
Parameters Results Units Report Limit DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. Qual
200.8 MET ICPMS Analytical Method: EPA 200.8 Preparation Method: EPA 200.8
Aluminum 92.4 ug/L 4.0 1 04/08/13 08:41 04/08/13 18:40 7429-90-5
Barium 5.2 ug/L 0.30 1 04/08/13 08:41 04/08/13 18:40 7440-39-3
Copper 2.1 ug/L 0.50 1 04/08/13 08:41 04/08/13 18:40 7440-50-8
Iron 147 ug/L 50.0 1 04/08/13 08:41 04/08/13 18:40 7439-89-6
Magnesium 323 ug/L 5.0 1 04/08/13 08:41 04/08/13 18:40 7439-95-4
Titanium 3.7 ug/L 0.50 1 04/08/13 08:41 04/08/13 18:40 7440-32-6
Zinc 13.6 ug/L 5.0 1 04/08/13 08:41 04/08/13 18:40 7440-66-6
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 04/15/2013 03:37 PM Page 5 of 8

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Look back, I submitted it already. Glass jar was boiled for 10 minutes and left to air dry in a stable environment, no movement in the room. I have a van in the driveway on jack stands far away from anything, no trees, nothing. Placed it on the roof overnight 7 feet above the ground and then sealed with cap that was also boiled for 10 minutes and left to dry in stable environment. Took samples off the van on Saturday morning and refrigerated the sample, samples need to stay at a cool temperature too. Then it was taken down first thing Monday morning and the test results are what is posted.

Woody, sorry that you have wasted our time and your $250.00. Your sampling method is far too poor to use as evidence of anything. A glass jar sitting on the roof of a painted van is not a valid position to recover an uncontaminated sample. When rain falls on the surface of the roof, it will spatter up anything present on the surface and fall into the glass jar. Oxidized paint from the van is the most likely source of your titanium.

 

[Woody]

Sounds like a good enough disclaimer to me. You were the one who brought the video to the table making claims about it, but if you want to discount your work at this point, so be it.

Not discounnting the video, just stating this one aspect you say you can identify you can't. 4 engines vs 2. The trails are still unexplained running parallel with one another across the ENTIRE sky, more than 50 miles, one with a con trail and one with a different trail.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
10224218
C. Wood
Sample: Raw Water Lab ID: 10224218001 Collected: 03/30/13 09:00 Received: 04/02/13 09:25 Matrix: Water
Parameters Results Units Report Limit DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. Qual
200.8 MET ICPMS Analytical Method: EPA 200.8 Preparation Method: EPA 200.8
Aluminum 92.4 ug/L 4.0 1 04/08/13 08:41 04/08/13 18:40 7429-90-5
Barium 5.2 ug/L 0.30 1 04/08/13 08:41 04/08/13 18:40 7440-39-3
Copper 2.1 ug/L 0.50 1 04/08/13 08:41 04/08/13 18:40 7440-50-8
Iron 147 ug/L 50.0 1 04/08/13 08:41 04/08/13 18:40 7439-89-6
Magnesium 323 ug/L 5.0 1 04/08/13 08:41 04/08/13 18:40 7439-95-4
Titanium 3.7 ug/L 0.50 1 04/08/13 08:41 04/08/13 18:40 7440-32-6
Zinc 13.6 ug/L 5.0 1 04/08/13 08:41 04/08/13 18:40 7440-66-6
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 04/15/2013 03:37 PM Page 5 of 8
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.

Magnesium spiked high in contrast to all interrcontinental rainfall I have observed with the exception of the one in Ontario that makes me question the analysis may be different than the EPA's guideline. Titanium from what I can gather is usually picked up in rocks and sediments and any trace amounts in the atmosphere would be such a small trace that it would be nearly undetectable. Titanium is frequently pickup up through gutters and building structures from my research thus far.

Why didn't you conclude that you were being sprayed with iron?

 

[Woody]

You are missing a key element, if the government was to spray the air and increase the cloud cover to cool us, would they tell a lawsuit happy world? The Yangtze river backed up putting many farmers out of their field in Mongolia, what kind of law suit would they potentially have? Minnesota farmers experienced a loss last year due to an early frost, what kind of law suit could they file? My point is, denial over such an action to me is expected.

 

[Woody]

Why didn't you conclude that you were being sprayed with iron?

Iron is not that high for this area, remember we are filled with some of the highest grades of iron in the world here.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Not discounnting the video, just stating this one aspect you say you can identify you can't. 4 engines vs 2. The trails are still unexplained running parallel with one another across the ENTIRE sky, more than 50 miles, one with a con trail and one with a different trail.

This has already been explained. here it is again. Please show where this is wrong, or quit claiming it has not been explained:


http://contrailscience.com/why-do-some-planes-leave-long-trails-but-others-dont/

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Iron is not that high for this area.

Upon what data do you base that claim?

 

[Woody]

Upon what data do you base that claim?

Upon what do you place your claim that Iron is elevated? because it has a high number?

 

[Woody]

Upon what data do you base that claim?

You are making the assertion Iron is too high, please expand on this.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

According to NOAA data, on the date you claim to have taken your sample:

1. St. Cloud had not received appreciable rain for the preceding 11 days.
2. The area did, however, experience several days with wind gusts in excess of 30 mph.
3. This allowed 11 days of dust buildup on the surface upon which you placed your sample container.
4. Subsequently, 0.42 inches of rain fell and likely splashed whatever had built up on the van's surface causing considerable contamination of your sample making it non-representative of the chemical makeup of the uncontaminated rainfall.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

You are making the assertion Iron is too high, please expand on this.

I made no assertion. I asked upon what basis did you find iron to be "not that high for this area"?

Either you have some reason behind your claim, or not.

 

[Woody]

Why didn't you conclude that you were being sprayed with iron?

Why do you ask?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Woody,
In an experimantal situation you need to control variables. It is the old analogy of comparing apples to oranges.
This is the equipment with which the NADP samples are taken:



As you can see, the sample bucket is protected from contamination until rain is sensed, at which time the bucket is uncovered and nothing lies close enough to the bucket to allow splash up into the bucket. When rain stops, the sample bucket automatically closes. Next time, install your sample jar away from any horizontal surface, possibly on a post as the NADP sampler.
Try to add silicon to your list of analytes, because it is the most common element in earth's crust besides oxygen. Generally the presence of silicon will tell you the extent of ordinary crustal components in the sample.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Why do you ask?

Because I wish to know.

 

[Woody]

According to NOAA data, on the date you claim to have taken your sample:

1. St. Cloud had not received appreciable rain for the preceding 11 days.
2. The area did, however, experience several days with wind gusts in excess of 30 mph.
3. This allowed 11 days of dust buildup on the surface upon which you placed your sample container.
4. Subsequently, 0.42 inches of rain fell and likely splashed whatever had built up on the van's surface causing considerable contamination of your sample making it non-representative of the chemical makeup of the uncontaminated rainfall.

You see that rainfall amount on March 30th? Thats the rainfall, I put it out on the evening of the 29th and collected it on Saturday morning. Rain came in after midnight. You are spending way too much effort in trying to disprove something that is factual.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

You see that rainfall amount on March 30th? Thats the rainfall, I put it out on the evening of the 29th and collected it on Saturday morning. Rain came in after midnight. You are spending way too much effort in trying to disprove something that is factual.

I am examining the conditions surrounding your test, Woody.
If you don't want your test to be scrutinized, just let me know.

 

[Woody]

According to NOAA data, on the date you claim to have taken your sample:

1. St. Cloud had not received appreciable rain for the preceding 11 days.
2. The area did, however, experience several days with wind gusts in excess of 30 mph.
3. This allowed 11 days of dust buildup on the surface upon which you placed your sample container.
4. Subsequently, 0.42 inches of rain fell and likely splashed whatever had built up on the van's surface causing considerable contamination of your sample making it non-representative of the chemical makeup of the uncontaminated rainfall.

Once agian you are implying I am deceptive, also known as lying

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Once agian you are implying I am deceptive, also known as lying

No, I haven't seen any deception, or lying. I have seen some mistakes which I've seen others make before, and you have graciously admitted and corrected them.
I'd like to understand why you focused on magnesium. Was it because it was the highest out of the elements you sampled for? That is my best guess, but then I wondered why you didn't sample for silicon. That is another common mistake which the Mt. Shasta people made, along with not determining what ordinary levels would be and what influences variability of rain water chemical composition. By the way, they would have concluded that the aluminum levels you found were extraordinarily high. Everyone must have his own demon, I suppose. I've spent considerable time over the past few years familiarizing myself with rain testing, the pitfalls, etc. Hope that what I have learned can be shared. Others simply put out claims and never allow them to be discussed, and I appreciate your openness in doing so, actually.

 

[Woody]

Why didn't you conclude that you were being sprayed with iron?

Nothing worse than a person making an assertion and asking another to support his unsubstantiated claim.