The Claims of Francis Mangels- a Factual Examination

[Jay Reynolds]

The purpose of this thread is to factually and logically examine the claims of Francis Mangels about chemtrails. They are in no particular order, and since I am a curious person and enjoy learning about diverse subjects, I will likely jump around. The references I have been working on first come from a set of youtube interviews with Mangels on a program called "Food Integrity Now". They may be heard here, in a 5 part series.
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...s+mangels&aq=f

Mangels is described as "A former USDA scientist and featured expert in the movie "What In The World Are They Spraying?" He is the sole person with an advanced degree in the movie.

He lists his education as:
PhD. Forestry
Masters Zoology(Aquatic Insects) University of Montana
35 years Federal Scientist, USDA Soil Conservation Service US Forest Service
Minors in "about a dozen other subjects":
Botany
Chemistry
Wildlife Management
Ichthyology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vwY3wKd6Z4

A 1992 reference may be found here:
http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew920330
================================================== ========
Claim #1- Soil pH has changed as a result of spraying, and California's commercial growers can't get a crop that's financially big enough to harvest

From Chemtrails With Francis Mangels Part 3 of 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBq0B...eature=related
Question by Carol Grieve: @2:30 "Francis, can you talk a little bit now about what's happening to the planet from the aluminum, barium, and strontium that you've tested for and how that is affecting the pH of our soil?"

@4:00 "Ok, now what happens and what has happened in California? Well, the most dramatic thing that has happened in California is our tomato crops just went to pieces. We raised the pH so high in California that the bottom fell out of the tomato growers, and now they are raising other crops instead of tomatoes, that's one major thing."

@4:20 "So, can you explain that a little bit for our listeners, so because the pH went so high?"

@ 4:25- 6:50 Ok, well when you start throwing these oxides, like aluminum hydroxide, barium oxide, boron, manganese oxide, these things, it raises the pH of the soil. Now, like I said, I've got the 1983 soil data for my area and I know which type of soil is naturally high in pH, and soils should be running somewhere between 4.5 to 6.0 and since the chemtrails have been started, pH has gone sky-high, about 10-20 times more alkaline. And we have measured this, and we have previous data, we have current data, over 300 tests have been taken, and we are getting sky high pH's now that should not be there. And when that gets into commercial agricultural crops such as tomatoes and potatoes you should have a pH of your soil to grow good tomatoes and potatoes somewhere in the 5's, like oh, somewhere in the 5.5 to 6.0 would be good for tomatoes and potatoes. But my, our, my tomato crop has gone way way down, and I've given up on potatoes now, because in my soil, and I measure it on a regular basis, my pH is 6.8, whereas 5, 6, or 7 years ago, it was about 5.6. And I'm pouring pine needles and black oak leaves into the ground as compost, trying to get the pH back down into the acidic range so I can have good tomatoes. I can't drive the pH back to it's normal level, I'm getting very consistently 6.8 , 6.6 pH when I should have 5.6. This is what happened to the California tomato crop, same thing. pH went so high you could still get tomatoes, but you couldn't get a crop that was financially big enough to harvest."

This claim can be factually examined by seeking out USDA production data for California tomato production.

From: Table 8: California total tomatoes, Acreage, Yield, Production and Value, 1960-2009:
See EXCEL File at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/Mann...ocumentID=1210
Year Acreage Value
1997 300,800 817,497
1998 323,000 912,513
1999 384,000 1,335,377
2000 333,000 948,469
2001 296,000 779,174
2002 336,000 946,761
2003 323,000 895,394
2004 343,500 1,180,357
2005 308,000 919,360
2006 324,400 1,165,992
2007 339,000 1,223,435
2008 319,000 1,316,155
2009 348,500 1,509,647

For 2010, a near record 2010 processing tomato harvest:
"The 2010 processing tomato harvest is estimated to be close to 12.3 million tons, the second largest in California history."
http://westernfarmpress.com/vegetabl...tomato-harvest


What logical explanation can be made for Mangels making such an absurd statement?

The only explanation I can make is that he is projecting the failure of his own personal backyard garden onto the entire State of California. Psychologically, I see this is a form of grandiose victimization behavior, where Mangels has shifted the blame for his garden problems onto "chemtrails" which he claims have caused the problems.

Mangels has publicly listed his address, and viewing that location via google maps shows that he lives in a small house on a street of similar houses, all on small house lots. His backyard garden cannot be larger than 50 ft. by 50 ft. In a telephone conversation with me on 5/31/11, Mangels reiterated the statements in the above interview almost verbatim. To me, this confirms that he has told this story many times before, and has convinced himself that it is true despite it's absurdity.

In my conversation, Mangels also mentioned that he knows of other soils in his area which have not seen pH increases, and could not account for that fact, even this logically negates his premise.

Ordinarily, the citizen's first contact point when having agricultural problems is to contact their County Extension Service. In a conversation with Steve Orloff of the Siskiyou County, CA, Agriculture Extension Service on 5/25/11, he stated to me that he had never heard of Mangels or "Chemtrails", and had no reports of unusual changes in soil pH in the area.

I hope this can provide some insight into how such a hoax has been propagated, expanded, and sustained.

[Mick]

The only explanation I can make is that he is projecting the failure of his own personal backyard garden onto the entire State of California.

That does actually seem like the plausible explanation. High (and low) pH levels are simply common gardening problems. Since they only seem to occur in his backyard, it's basically impossible to ascribe it to any kind of spraying.

[Mick]

Regarding the Tomato crop in California, it's even more apparent everything is just fine if you you look at the yield/planted acre ratio:

1990 0.55
1991 0.57
1992 0.61
1993 0.60
1994 0.63
1995 0.60
1996 0.63
1997 0.65
1998 0.58
1999 0.67
2000 0.65
2001 0.67
2002 0.70
2003 0.60
2004 0.72
2005 0.66
2006 0.66
2007 0.75
2008 0.78
2009 0.79

As well as crops increasing in size, the amount of tomatoes an acre can grow seems to have actually increased over the last 20 years (with normal variations for weather). I suspect Mangels just thinks of years like 2003, when the yield dropped because of heat. Then ignores the fact that things bounced back and improved the next year.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_...200305ptom.pdf

The 2003 crop is off to a slower start than normal due to the poor spring weather conditions that existed earlier this year. Some processors report the crop currently as in good condition, but one to two weeks behind normal. Observers have noted similarities between this year's planting conditions and those of 1998, when the processing tomato crop suffered its poorest yields in recent history. Rainy weather provided abundant plant food for stink bugs, which may provide a base for migration into tomato fields.

Clearly though his statements about tomato crops in CA are entirely wrong. There's no way one could take the rest of his claims seriously after looking at that.

[Jay Reynolds]

Claim #2 - After years of soil amendment with compost, his backyard garden soil pH has increased from acidic to more basic levels, and more additions of compost haven't driven it down again.

@ 4:25- 6:50 Ok, well when you start throwing these oxides, like aluminum hydroxide, barium oxide, boron, manganese oxide, these things, it raises the pH of the soil. Now, like I said, I've got the 1983 soil data for my area and I know which type of soil is naturally high in pH, and soils should be running somewhere between 4.5 to 6.0 and since the chemtrails have been started, pH has gone sky-high, about 10-20 times more alkaline. And we have measured this, and we have previous data, we have current data, over 300 tests have been taken, and we are getting sky high pH's now that should not be there. And when that gets into commercial agricultural crops such as tomatoes and potatoes you should have a pH of your soil to grow good tomatoes and potatoes somewhere in the 5's, like oh, somewhere in the 5.5 to 6.0 would be good for tomatoes and potatoes. But my, our, my tomato crop has gone way way down, and I've given up on potatoes now, because in my soil, and I measure it on a regular basis, my pH is 6.8, whereas 5, 6, or 7 years ago, it was about 5.6. And I'm pouring pine needles and black oak leaves into the ground as compost, trying to get the pH back down into the acidic range so I can have good tomatoes. I can't drive the pH back to it's normal level, I'm getting very consistently 6.8 , 6.6 pH when I should have 5.6.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBq0BoHKe6I&feature=related

@ 8:40 [Withdraws pH paper from compost pile] Maybe 6.8 if you look at the darkest little portions in there. But this is black oak leaf, [scoops hand into compost pile] this is black oak acorns this should be very acid and I'm getting ten times higher than expected. there is something really wrong here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtlOXhSnNw8

Yes, there is something really wrong here, but as you will see, the problem is with Mr. Mangels claim, not jets passing six miles overhead.

Compost is decayed organic material. One documented attribute of compost addition to soil is its buffering capacity. This buffering capacity tends to resist soil pH change and also to neutralize acidic conditions.

Reference:

Finished compost usually has a pH around neutral, in the range of 6–8. It also tends to have a high buffering capacity, meaning that it resists change in pH. Soils with high buffering capacities do not experience drastic pH fluctuations that may be detrimental to microbial life and plant growth. Buffering capacity needs to be taken into account when determining the amounts of lime, sulfur, or other chemicals that are applied to soil to alter its pH.

The buffering capacity of soil may be provided by either mineral or organic components.
Quartz sand has almost no buffering capacity, so even small additions of acid will drop the pH of the sand and its drainage water. In contrast, a sand made of crushed limestone is highly buffered because it contains calcium and magnesium carbonates. The addition of organic matter such as compost tends to increase a soil’s buffering capacity.
http://soilislife.psu.edu/envirothon...y_exercise.pdf

Mangels is under the mistaken impression that adding compost which he measures at 6.8 pH will acidify his soil when the facts are that compost addition tends to do the exact opposite, it neutralizes soil and adds a buffering capacity that resists pH change.

In a phone conversation with Mangels on 5/31/11, he reiterated to me his experience as told in both the video and podcast above.

Conclusion: Francis Mangels, despite having a PhD in Forestry which must have included advanced courses in soil science does not understand basic soil science and the relationship between soil pH and organic matter.

[Jay Reynolds]

@8: 40 in the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtlOXhSnNw8
Mangels is seen withdrawing pH paper directly from the compost and comparing its color to the scale on the container.

This is not correct practice for making a valid pH test.

This method is seen in the video to allow adherence of soil debris to the paper and does not obtain a general saturation of the paper since not enough soil moisture is present.

Mangels comments:

"Maybe 6.8 if you look at the darkest little portions in there.'

This indicates that when he inserted the paper into the compost, full saturation of the paper did not occur, and error was thus introduced by using this incorrect method.

In my conversation with Mangels on 5/31/11, I asked him how he does a soil pH test, and he told me that he just inserts a trowel into the soil and then follows that by inserting the paper directly into the soil. I told him that method was not correct, yet he insisted that it was.

I have been unable to find a single reference to the "Mangels Method" of pH testing.

Here are the manufacturer's instructions for use of the product he is holding:

Simply tear off a small strip of pH paper, dip into the test solution, then instantly compare the resulting color with the matching pH color chart.
https://www.microessentiallab.com/Pr...55080-SRD.aspx

Note that the product mentions using a SOLUTION, because the particular product he is using is designed for urine and saliva pH tests.

This student experimental guide shows how to create a proper soil SOLUTION for getting an accurate measurement of pH, which is necessary for accurate results:

How are pH values determined? Simple. One can use a special pH paper (called Hydrion™ pH Paper or pH test paper) which, when placed in a solution, turns a specific color depending upon the pH value of the substance. The color of the test strip is matched to a color chart, which gives the pH value. A pH tester can also be used to measure the pH of soil, water, or other substances. A pH tester is an instrument that has a probe, which is inserted into a soil or liquid sample and gives a “readout” concerning the pH of the substance tested. Knowing the pH of the soil can help a farmer know what soil type is best in which to grow particular plants, vegetables, or flowers.
Procedure

Select 3 test sites; places from which you want to collect soil.
Dig approximately 6 inches down into the area and place the bottom half of the sample into the plastic bag and label according to the site.
Place one tablespoon of soil from the collection bag into a small plastic cup. Add 1/4 cup of distilled water.
Swirl the soil and water mixture three times.
Place the edge of a 2-inch piece of pH Hydrion paper into the mixture.
Observe the color change of the pH paper.
Try to match the resulting color to the colors listed on the outside of the pH Hydrion paper package.
The colors match with a correlated pH number. This number is the pH value of the soil.
If the number is less than 7, the soil has an acidic nature.
If the number is more than 7, the soil has a basic nature.
http://www.forestry-suppliers.com/s0.../58_soilph.asp

Note also that rather than dipping the test strip into the solution, which would allow soil particulate contact and contamination of color by dissolved clay, etc., the instructions tell the user to allow absorption of the liquid into the paper from the edge, by osmosis.

Conclusion:
Francis Mangels has been making soil pH tests using improper procedure, and as a result, none of his results can be considered valid.

[Mick]

All excellent points. The details of the terrible science in WITWATS just keep piling up.

In his video, the paper he is using is Hydrion (O67) Urine & Saliva. It's clearly marked "IN VITRO ONLY" at the top of the label.



So it's paper intended for testing urine or saliva in a cup.

[Jay Reynolds]

All excellent points. The details of the terrible science in WITWATS just keep piling up.

In his video, the paper he is using is Hydrion (O67) Urine & Saliva. It's clearly marked "IN VITRO ONLY" at the top of the label.



So it's paper intended for testing urine or saliva in a cup.

Yes, it's very clear that what has been put out wouldn't pass muster for a junior high school science fair project, even with a PhD onboard. Such tiny details have doomed the whole 'enterprise' from the start.

Plus, they broke my rule numero uno:
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/scarehow.html

The result, I predict, will be a confirmation of "The bigger they get, the harder they fall."

When the rank and file get to understand what has been foisted on them, they will turn on these hoaxers like a beast eat's its young. I saw this wit William Thomas, who is a 'nobody' today.

What it will take is one person who got taken in too far and wants out.

[Jay Reynolds]

Background documentation about Francis Mangels' state of mind circa 2008 and 2009:
Both in MSWord97-03 document format.

In this one, Mangels has the most to say, read it and see if you can find the flaws in his reasoning.

Chemtrails Ecology 2008
http://geoengineeringwatch.org/docum...ailEcology.doc

Statement on Aerosols and Drought for DOE 5/27/09 in Sacramento
This was written on the occasion when members of the Shasta group went to a
meeting of the California Department of Energy (see transcript)

http://geoengineeringwatch.org/docum...anddrought.doc

[Jay Reynolds]

A Factual and Logical Review of the Mangels Rainfall pH claims:
On June 11, 2011, via email, Francis Mangels wrote:

Why does the pH of the Rain change directly in phase with the spraying?

On June 12, 2011, via email, I asked Francis Mangels, "Please provide documentation showing such correlation and I can have a look at it. I do know that independent records of rain pH show nothing out of the ordinary."

On October 20, 2011, Mangels told Michael J. Murphy, G. Edward Griffin, Mauro Martins de Oliveira, and myself:

"Usually with the jets spraying, the rain and snow is 6.6 or higher. As usual, you ignored our data. " "Reynolds already has my data about the soils and rain tests"." and "Go get the lab data off the web Reynolds,......its there in many places."

To date, Mangels has not provided any documentation demonstrating his claimed correlation of pH changing or being "in phase with spraying".

The only documentation available on line from him relevant to rainfall pH is this letter:

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/d...WhatWeKnow.doc

This letter does contain some information, here is the relevant portion:

The natural pH of rain or snow by the text and county records is 5.5 pH. When contrails have not been active, under 6 pH is measured. When contrails were very active, the rain/snow was pH 6.8 to 7.5. The pH can be anywhere in between with moderate contrail activity. These numbers were simultaneously confirmed between Mt. Shasta, Redding and other cities. The pH is directly and widespread related to contrail pre-storm front spraying. Over 400 tests made.

What sort of information would be needed to establish such a correlation? I will list these in their approximately relative positions from least reliable towards further certainty:

1. Simply accept the claim asking no questions whatsoever.
2. Accept the claim based on Francis Mangels' PhD. in biology
3. Prepare an experimental plan including a background paper, hypothesis, procedure, data, analysis and conclusion. This is a regular feature of elementary school science fair projects which children are taught at a early age.
4. The experimental design should take into account:
-a collection location clear of sources of local inputs other than rainfall. ie., leaves, debris, etc.
-cleaning of collection device before rainfall using acid to prevent contamination
-covering of collection container until rainfall begins, and pH testing at completion of rainfall
-type of instrumentation used, calibration of the instrument using standard solutions. Digital meter is standard, pH paper introduces human error and bias
-Defining the terms: "contrails not active", "moderate contrail activity", and "contrails very active"
-Recording of above activity levels by video, date and time stamped, third party observer confirmed, or blinded.
-Recording of atmospheric conditions both at flight level and at sampling location. Wind at upper levels prevent correlation with anything at ground level since release at altitude and rate of fall displaces material released at altitude downwind from a point of release nearby! This probably means that an observer would be required far away from the sampling location, depending on upper level winds which could be from different directions at different levels during descent of the material. This is a major obstacle for establshing any substantial correlation.
-Record time of rainfall inception and cessation and amount of rainfall. Low rainfall tends to concentrate crustal components in a smaller amount of water and raise pH, greater rainfall dilutes crustal components resuling in lower pH.
-Conduct data collection, documenting each step. Since this issue is contentious, such research would be best documented in video format, and could be either 'blinded' or make use of a third party for credibility.
-compile data in standard database format
5. Analyze data looking for statistical significance, errors and repeatability
6. Draw conclusions.
7. Publish study

Please peruse the above and let me know of other factors which I may have not taken into account.

How many expect Mangels to never supply anything past #2 above because nothing else exists?

Even if the above was done scrupulously, and a correlation was shown, the research would raise more questions, one of which is:

Since contrail formation and rainfall takes place in the troposphere, how could this be related to a purported Stratospheric Radiation Management program?

[MikeC]

The purpose of this thread is to factually and logically examine the claims of Francis Mangels about chemtrails. They are in no particular order, and since I am a curious person and enjoy learning about diverse subjects, I will likely jump around. The references I have been working on first come from a set of youtube interviews with Mangels on a program called "Food Integrity Now". They may be heard here, in a 5 part series.
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...s+mangels&aq=f

Mangels is described as "A former USDA scientist and featured expert in the movie "What In The World Are They Spraying?" He is the sole person with an advanced degree in the movie.

He lists his education as:
PhD. Forestry
......

I was just listening to this and I think he says "Bachelor cum laude", not PhD??

[Jay Reynolds]

In a recent radio interview, Francis Mangels makes a challenge to debate his claims:
@53:00 minutes in and onward



here is what I wrote to the host:
Dear Irritate the State,
I just listened to a replay of your 1-10-12 broadcast on Orion with Francis Mangels, and heard him ask for a debate with a skeptical person. Unfortunately, I was not aware of the challenge until this time, but I am now writing to request such a debate in the near future.

First, you might wonder if such a debate would be of interest, what could it offer to your listeners? My qualifications uniquely make me as the perfect guest to debate the issue of chemtrails.

My background as an engineer working with gas turbine engines originally drew me to apply my curiosity and skills to the conundrum of whether or not there is a difference between purported 'chemtrails' and ordinary water vapor contrails. After examining the facts, I have yet to find any evidence which supports the 'chemtrails' idea.

I have followed the issue from its very inception in 1997 and created the first skeptical website on the subject in 2000. My writings have appeared in venues such as the Congressional Research Services report to Congress on contrails and Earth Island Journal.

Over the last fifteen years, I have developed an intimate, comprehensive and encyclopedic insight into the claims made, the individuals involved, and the factual issues surrounding the subject.

During the last year, I have closely followed and examined the claims of Francis Mangels, Dane Wigington, Michael Murphy, G. Edward Griffin, and Mauro Oliveira, and have communicated with them via email and telephone. They know me well, and I can provide to you a resume, biography and samples of my work on request.


I request the opportunity to engage in a debate hosted by you with Francis Mangels regarding his claims. I propose that the rules of the debate would be Lincoln-Douglas style with Mangels taking the affirmative and myself the negative as described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln..._debate#Format

Please let me know by email if this is acceptable to you and Mr. Mangels so that we may arrange a schedule for the event to take place. Should Mr. Mangels not accept the challenge, any of your other previous guests would be acceptable to me as an opponent.

I am posting this challenge publicly alongside a short examination I made of the Mangels claims here:


Best regards,
Jay Reynolds

[Unregistered]

There is a poster downtown in Mt. Shasta saying Mangels will show the film on March 3. If you want to try to debate him, that might be an opportunity.
Mangels has never claimed locally that he has a phd in forestry. The film maker probably added that.
I live about half a mile away from Mangels, and have similar soil. I doubt the ph was ever as acidic as 4.5 to 5.0, although I can't document that. The most common tree on both his property and mine is black oak, which tends to make the soil more alkaline than would pine needles. A couple of years back, I was getting readings of 7.0 to 7.5 in my small garden and the compost pile. I took another test in an undisturbed part of my property and got a reading of 6.2 to 6.3, the same as I have usually gotten. I just use the lime solution test that you buy at the hardware store, which is not very precise, but OK for garden purposes. The most likely explanation for the alkaline readings in my garden was that I added too much wood ashes to the compost. Mangels is a very enthusiastic gardener, and I doubt he has anyplace on his property that is undisturbed for a comparison. My tomato crop in 2011 was my best in the last 20 years, and I think his was also much improved.

[Jay Reynolds]

If you are in the area, I need to have some communication, please email me at [email protected]

Murphy's writing in 2010 mentioned no PhD either:

Francis Mangels, BS in Forestry, Masters in zoology and a retired soil conservationist and wildlife biologist who worked for the U.S. Forest Service for over thirty five years,

http://www.rense.com/general90/spray.htm

[Jay Reynolds]

Mangels has never claimed locally that he has a phd in forestry. The film maker probably added that.

Mangels definitely is claiming a PhD in the foodintergritynow interview here:

"Doctor of Science in Forestry cum laude, Masters of Science in Zoology from University of Montana"

From what I've gathered, with the exception of J.D.(law degrees), almost no latin honors are usually given for Doctorate degrees, so his current claim is most likely false.

The University of Montana ony awards "Cum Laude" honors for Bachelor degrees!
http://www.montana.edu/honors/docume...ion%20form.pdf

This is about what I'd expect from Mangels, he exaggerates things, I suppose, even his credentials.
I've never heard anyone mistake their BS degree as a Doctorate, though.

In his most recent interview(1/10/12), he claims to have an IQ of 168, and to be above the 99th percentile with a certificate from "Intertel", and the list of his accolades is growing:
http://irritatethestate.net/show-archives/

[firepilot]

Yeah having a bit of a time finding any evidence of a PhD. Seems his Forestry degree is either a bachelors, or a PhD, depending on which chemtrail site you find.

[Unregistered]

Went to a chemtrails advocacy meeting in Mt. Shasta last night, showing WITWATS. In the discussion I was exposed to four claims I hadn't heard before.
1. Defense Secretary Cohen admitted using chemtrails in 1996.
2. A plane tried to sample a contrail, but was prevented from doing so by military jets.
3. Redding water supply shows jumps in aluminum following periods of heavy spraying.
4. The chief German meteorologist sued the government over chemtrails.
The last one I think you have covered well in the post on Karsten Brandt and doppel.
Anyone have any comments or sources for the first three?

[Mick]

#1 is probably this:
http://metabunk.org/threads/159-Debu...terrorism-quot

#2 I've never heard of that story.

#3 Sounds like an evolution of Rosalind Peterson's tales of spikes in aluminum in certain years. They actually correlated with years with increased rainfall.

#4 Probably the Karsten Brandt story, as you said.

I seems like these tales grow in the telling. It's like a virus, the story evolved and mutates, and the more interesting a version is, the more it gets passed around. A lone weatherman complaining about chaff messing up the weather radar eventually transmogrifies into the chief meteorologist suing the government over chemtrails.

Clearly verifying facts is not a high priority with the WITWATS crowd.

[Jay Reynolds]

2. A plane tried to sample a contrail, but was prevented from doing so by military jets.

I expect that absolutely nothing confirmable was offered for that one.

This could be viewed several ways:
a) The story is an excuse designed to avoid doing what chemtrail believers should have done, well, since about 12 years ago at least.
b) The story is designed to simply increase fear within the believers while at the same time suggesting to them that such a common sense project is futile.
c) The story was designed by someone to advance their status as someone "In The Know".

I look at it this way.
If such a story were true, and the person(s) involved are telling the story without any confirmable details, of what real use is this information?

Who benefits from telling such a story, while at the same time giving no one anything useful?

Think about it.....

[Jay Reynolds]

Claim:

This is what happened to the California tomato crop, same thing. pH went so high you could still get tomatoes, but you couldn't get a crop that was financially big enough to harvest."

Reality:

California Vegetable Review for 2011
Compiled by staff
Published: Sep 30, 2011
The 2011 California processing tomato production is forecast at 12.2 million tons, 1% below 2010.
The acreage, at 257 thousand acres, decreased 4% from a year earlier.
The yield is forecast to be 47.47 tons per acre, 4% above last year's 45.54 tons per acre.

In California, the season got off to a slow start due to cool temperatures and wet conditions. Harvest was underway by August.

Nationally, contracted tomato production is forecast at 12.7 million tons, up slightly from last year.
A decline of 4% in contracted harvested area is expected to be more than offset by a yield increase of 2.08 tons per acre.
http://farmprogress.com/story-califo...r-2011-0-53494

I heard that some of the yield increase has come from the practice of planting on wider beds with drip irrigation, and using two rows on each bed, which leaves less fruit in the furrow to spoil.

[Mick]

Yield is the key factor there.

What year was his quote about?

[Jay Reynolds]

He was speaking in 2011. Time has never been on the side of the chemtrails hoax, it is their worst enemy because time has a way of dealing a fatal blow to fantastic claims. Most of the hoax promoters themselves have no idea that the claims that "Death From The Skies-Genocide On A Wholesale Lot" was being said back in 1997. They said we were being sprayed like bugs with the banned pesticide ethylene dibromide.


Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:18:37 -0300
From: Richard Finke
To: [email protected]

Subject: [BIOWAR] LINES IN THE SKIES IDENTIFIED
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: Richard Finke
GENOCIDE ON A WHOLESALE LOT
LINES IN THE SKY ARE IDENTIFIED!!
SAMPLES Are ANALYZED!!!
The lab director of Aqua-tech Environmental (aka. Aqua-Tel), Marion, OH,ph., (707) 887-2228, using samples taken from JP-8 contaminated fields of Maryland and Pennsylvania, reported today (9/18/97) that ethylene dibromide, otherwise known as EDB, has been the contaminate in the fuel and water samples taken of submitted by farmers, pilots and tanker drivers. EDB is one of the most tightly controlled EPA substances and was banned in 1983 due to its carcinogenieity. EDB is a pesticide that apparently is being placed in the jet fuel and dispersed on a daily, almost non-stop basis in our skies. The lines filling our skies are not contrails. The lines are dispersed and may linger for hours, slowly filtering down to unsuspecting pests, and I guess we’re the PESTS.

Fifteen years later, those claims seem pretty ridiculous, don't they?

[Steve Funk]

I have a ph test in Deetz soil, done by a professional lab in 2010. It is 6.01, about a half mile from Mangels' garden. That is what the most current USDA entry for Deetz soil says it should be.

[Jay Reynolds]

I have a ph test in Deetz soil, done by a professional lab in 2010. It is 6.01, about a half mile from Mangels' garden. That is what the most current USDA entry for Deetz soil says it should be.

Would you be willing to share this with us, Steve? You could send this in and redact the personal info.
Could you also let me know how I can document the ASDA entry for Deetz soil?
Does Mangels know that other tests such as yours do not agree with his claims?

here is what Mangels was saying last spring:

What we know as of 6/1/11:
Normal acidity for Mt. Shasta area Deetz 125, 126 soils, a habitat of acidic black oak and/or mixed conifer forest, is 4.5-6.0. About 5.5 pH is normal for Deetz black oak or coniferous forests. Now it is 6.5-7.0 pH, in over 200 samples.
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/d...WhatWeKnow.doc

[Steve Funk]

http://www.project.nsearch.com/profi...-tonights-show

Here is the latest version of the "What we know" document. I need to print it out to see if there are any changes.

[Mick]

I've created a file comparison here:

http://metabunk.org/files/WWK-FileComparisonReport.html

There are some interesting changes, for example he changes "Muddy pond water" to "Sisson meadow pond water"

[SR1419]

I am confused why he thinks/says this: "Counting all flights north over N. CA, the FAA indicates 4 flights per day"

That simply defies logic...not to mention the facts.

He also seemingly clings several old misconceptions regarding contrails- persistence, fall streaks etc...

Jay- any chance you could get him to participate here to discuss the facts?

[Mick]

I notice he's changed it from 3 flights to 4 flights. At least a step in the right direction, although the true number is more like 200 flights.

[Steve Funk]

Sisson meadows pond is nearby and on quasi-public land. It should be easy to check. I'm sure there is a spring. It's in the middle of a wetland. But it also gets runoff from nearby streets.
Incidentally, does anyone have a precise definition for "Welsbach materials?" It is usually referred to as "Welsbach materials or aluminum." I gather Welsbach's main scientific achievement was inventing the material used for the mantels in Coleman lanterns.

[MikeC]

IIRC the term "Welsbach material" refers to those that can receive energy in 1 part of the spectrum, and then radiate it in another - so the lamp mantels take heat (infrared) and turn it into white light.

The idea of the stratospheric welsbach seeding patent is to take incoming heat and re-radiate it as some other wavelength - and part of that re-radiation would be back out into space.

I can't help but think it would be almost trivially easy to see such a material in action through various filters & sensors.

[firepilot]

I notice he's changed it from 3 flights to 4 flights. At least a step in the right direction, although the true number is more like 200 flights.

I wonder how it is that people come up with such idiocy. That there should only be 4 flights a day over northern California, and no E/W flights? It just boggles the mind, considering that San Fran is a United hub. There was so much bunk in that link, I could be here all day debunking it.

[Danny55]

"Sugar Pine Canyon Cr. near Redding, CA has over 4,600,000 ug/l of aluminum in two tests, upper and lower areas of the watershed. Fish losing scales, sick looking."

That's mmmm, 4.6 grams per litre? As well as losing scales they would need to gain a spade to get anywhere.

[Steve Funk]

I see from the Shasta snow and water thread that Sisson Meadows Pond was also tested independently in 2009. I'm not sure who took the sample. It analyzed at 85 micrograms per liter.
http://www.mtshastanews.com/news/x11...-in-area-water

[Steve Funk]

Sisson meadows pond. I looked at it this morning. I'm making a ballpark estimate that it is 5,000 square feet, and 2 feet deep on average. That's 10,000 cubic feet, or 283,000 liters. In order to get 12 grams per liter, as Mangels claims, you would have to add 3,396 kg, or 7,470 lb of aluminum. That would come to a spray rate of 65,000 pounds per acre. A KC 135, for example has a payload of 83,000 lb. so each flight could spray about 1.25 acres. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_..._.28KC-135R.29
Actually the most likely spray material would be Al2O3, which is only 54% aluminum, so the tanker would only be able to cover 0.67 acres.

[Mick]

Or just make sure you sample the sediment at the bottom of the pond, and not the water. Note he says mg/kg, not mg/L, which means he's testing solids, not liquids.

I suspect it's this test. Of solids.



Page 4 here:

http://contrailscience.com/files/che...lab_report.pdf

Note that 1265 mg/Kg is 1,265,000 ug/L, which is the units the other tests are in.

Clearly there's a lot of confusion there.

[Steve Funk]

Yeah, looks like the Sisson meadows pond test is for solids, but Mt. Shasta City is about 70 miles from Wiggington's place. I don't think he would be taking that sample.

[ernie]

Sorry I have not checked this thread for some months. Actually, I thought this Mangels guy together with the other frauds in the "what in the World" series had been thoroughly debunked!
Did you see my video
ALUMINUM in POND RESIDUE and SOIL. Francis Mangels ADMITS HE WAS WRONG !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QCEJLAvlc4

I though this would have been enough to discredit anything Mangels says.

Ernie Lee
erniepond1

[Mick]

Oh I think he's been totally discredited if you look at all the analysis out there - unfortunately he keeps coming up. And this latest document seems to be a weak attempt to cover over some of his previous mistakes - like removing the words "muddy water".

[Steve Funk]

Mangels: "Some contrails appear to haveparticulate matter streaming down out of them, much like fireworks displays,leaving trails of smoke as the particles descend."
Is there a picture of this phenomenon on the site? I know I have seen it somewhere in a pre 1995 source, but it may have been in a book.
Those folks are going to have a booth at earth day. I want to get a handout together and shadow them.

[Mick]

One very effective source is the 1972 book "A color guide to clouds", of which I scanned in the chapter on contrails:

https://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus...t=embedwebsite

Maybe he's referring to somethng like 11.4.2

https://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus...63643702553810



I used this when I went to talk to the local Chemtrail theorists here on Venice Beach, it's great because 1972 is well before the proposed start of the Chemtrail theory. They were slighly perturbed by my copy previously being at an Alaskan Air Force base library (shades of HAARP), but it's a great resource to counter "things were not like this". It also has great explanations of various things.

You can get it on Amazon used for about $15, and it's well worth it if you want to engage them in conversation.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listi...condition=used

Pick one that's ex-library, as that's more evidence that it's genuine.

[Steve Funk]

From the 6/25 version of "What we Know."
ü Mud rain in Chico, CA on5/14/12 had58,000 ugh/l Al, 480 Sr, and 413 Ba. “Never seen it before. Gooey, hard scrub to get off,” newspaperreport.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/observati.../post-105.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...al-explanation

This was a thunderstorm with a lot of dust and wind and very little rain. It occurred during pollen season, and also when farmers were plowing fields. Mangels has not linked to the actual lab report. In this weather, not only would the raindrops intercept a lot of dust, but the rain gauge or other container would be contaminated to some extent with dust deposited before or after the scattered rain showers. The Al/Ba/Sr figures are meaningless without a comparison to total suspended sediment. If the concentration of aluminum is about 8% or less of the total suspended sediment, that is a pretty good indication that the storm contained normal dust.