The Claims of Francis Mangels- a Factual Examination

[Trailblazer]

But that's not true. M is the Roman numeral for mille=1000, so milli- is 1/1000, and micro- is 1/1,000,000, the millionth.

Yes, I think he meant that if you (erroneously) think milli- is a millionth, then you could assume that micro- is a thousandth (i.e. get them the wrong way round).

 

[John J.]

Not directly connected, but we've seen misinterpreted lab results used before as evidence of "chemtrails", see post #17 of the "Malpensa technician whistleblower on chemtrail activities in airport" thread:
In 2007 Louisiana TV channel KLSA investigated claims that aircraft had caused dangerous levels of barium on the ground and reported finding 6.88 ppm in water samples, more than 3 times the Environmental Protection Agency's definition of a toxic level.
But their own video of the lab report clearly showed a result of 68.8 μg/l (micrograms per litre), or 68.8 ppb = 0.0688 ppm.

 

[Mick West]

Not directly connected, but we've seen misinterpreted lab results used before as evidence of "chemtrails", see post #17 of the "Malpensa technician whistleblower on chemtrail activities in airport" thread:
In 2007 Louisiana TV channel KLSA investigated claims that aircraft had caused dangerous levels of barium on the ground and reported finding 6.88 ppm in water samples, more than 3 times the Environmental Protection Agency's definition of a toxic level.
But their own video of the lab report clearly showed a result of 68.8 μg/l (micrograms per litre), or 68.8 ppb = 0.0688 ppm.

Somewhat amusingly, that post references two articles, Sarah Thompson of Lead Stories and Ben Radford of Skeptical Inquirer. Both of them reference Dave Thomas, and his article on the subject, http://www.nmsr.org/chemtrls.htm, which references the original research on the KSLA topic from 2007, which was done by ..... me!
https://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/

 

[FatPhil]

But that's not true. M is the Roman numeral for mille=1000, so milli- is 1/1000, and micro- is 1/1,000,000, the millionth.

Bollocks, it's 100% true - read it again. It's a logical implication - it does not presume the truth of the antecedent, it merely says that that truth of one thing implies the truth of another thing, where the former thing is a more understandable mistake to make.

You think this guy understands Latin-based etymologies, do you? What evidence do you have that he's that smart? Can you imagine what counter-evidence I might present that would imply otherwise? (Hint - look up, it's already been presented.)