Search results

And surely the major point of the retraction ought to be that the central thrust of the article - that the "fingerprints" match - is utterly untrue! Even if you assume that this graph is correct, the ratios are clearly not similar. From Mick's spreadsheet, these are the ratios (rainwater first...

Thanks. I saw that his figures were out by several orders of magnitude, but I hadn't done all the calculations. So the figures on the graph are actually correct (ish), they just bear no relation to the table that he claims is the source for the graph? How did he manage that? :)

Could someone explain what I am missing here? He claims that the black bars are the element ratios for "leach data", i.e. the leachate from Figure 1 [sic: "Figure 1" is his photos of contrails; he means "Table 1"]. Here is Table 1: The leachate figure is the second column of values for...

This is an old thread, but I thought I would add these for the record: An exchange of letters in The Times (UK) from August 1944, showing that people have been observing haloes associated with aircraft contrails for over 70 years: That should be no surprise, as contrails are cirriform...

And this is why the retraction was so poorly done. Focusing on minor errors like that just makes it look petty, and gives the impression that the basic science is sound, but there were a few typos. What the retraction should have done is demolished the entire proposition Herndon made, and...

Of course, there are certain white lines that contain strontium... and barium! :) http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5665793

You would have seen the flash as the lightning lit up the scene, but the actual source of the light (the lightning bolt) probably wasn't visible to you (it certainly isn't present in the field of view of the camera). So all your eye would see is the bright flash with no obvious source.

After a grey and wet day there was a sudden clearance about an hour ago. This little cloud just drifted into the perfect position to form a sundog.

I wonder if the position of the sun could help narrow it down? Correcting for altitude (1732m), sunrise for Snowflake was at 5.59am on a bearing of 86.6 degrees. I looked at this same video before I was aware of this thread, and I thought it was probably FedEx 691. That would have been in the...

Im still certain it's fake, but it's actually not the one I was thinking of. I agree that it looks like a clumsy attempt by a believer to create "evidence". And the fact that the screenshot was taken so soon after it was posted suggests it was probably taken by the person who posted it.

I am certain this is fake, and I believe it originated from the same group as the International Chemtrail Association etc.

Not so much trailed as dangled, if this is to be believed: https://planesandstuff.wordpress.com/tag/e-6b/ Did you notice a big cable knocking your garden gnomes over as it passed? :)

An interesting article about this plane here: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/heres-how-to-track-the-pentagons-airborne-command-posts-over-the-internet-5145e019886b

As it passed Shingle Springs it was at 14,000ft and on a heading of 285º. You get a B minus. ;) Edit: OK, maybe an A minus as you got the E-6 right! Here's the plane: tail number 164405. http://jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?regsearch=164405

Planefinder.net has it.

Yes, I had the same impression. Image search just gave lots and lots of articles about Bermeja, with the image endlessly recycled between them, but I couldn't find an original.

This is an old story from Before Its News, but I saw it shared again recently and I couldn't find a debunk on here. http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2012/11/haarp-unleashes-tesla-death-ray-2498644.html The claim is that HAARP has been "weaponised" and used to vaporise at least...

Agreed, you can follow the shadow right the way through the sequence from the separation:

If a building is falling in on itself from the top down, I would be astonished if the air pressure didn't blow out windows and fan flames on levels below the collapse.

Hi Jim. There's a lot of discussion of the errors that led the paper to be retracted here: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-j-marvin-herndons-geoengineering-articles-in-current-science-india-and-ijerph.t6456/ I think the first posts on these threads should be updated to reflect the retraction.