Eminent scientist James Marvin Herndon asserts that the chemtrails so often seen polluting our skies and fouling our biosphere consist of coal fly ash. Since June of 2015 Dr. Herndon has published eight scientific journal articles exposing the currently ongoing, uncontrolled geoengineering experiments taking place daily above our heads. In the course of his investigations, he has found that the chemical signatures of chemtrail spray and coal fly ash are indistinguishable.
This article takes Herndon’s thesis and runs with it. In an attempt to clarify and enlighten, this article looks into Herndon’s anti-geoengineering work, the physical properties of coal fly ash, and the possible utilization thereof as part of the biggest scientific effort in history. This article examines the potentialities of coal fly ash as common New Manhattan Project chemtrail spray and finds many rich, new avenues of investigation.
If you are not familiar with the New Manhattan Project (NMP), please read the author’s book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project.
Researcher and activist Patrick Roddie, author Elana Freeland, radio host Clyde Lewis, your author Peter Kirby, and others will be speaking at the Chemtrails/Geoengineering Awareness Forum to be held at the San Francisco Main Library’s Koret Auditorium this Saturday, July 29th from 10:00am to 5:30pm. Although donations are welcome, admission is FREE. For more information go to geoengineeringforum-sf.com.
Catching up with J. Marvin Herndon
J. Marvin Herndon is an American interdisciplinary scientist. He earned his BA in physics in 1970 from the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) and his PhD in nuclear chemistry in 1974 from Texas A&M University. He has worked extensively with famous scientists such as geochemist Hans Suess and Manhattan Project physical chemist Harold Urey. Marvin is a well known and respected, politically active citizen.
Although he has written a great many scientific journal articles over his multi-decade career, his first published anti-geoengineering piece appeared in the June 2015 edition of Current Science. It is the first published, anti-SRM geoengineering journal article. It is titled “Aluminum Poisoning of Humanity and Earth’s Biota by Clandestine Geoengineering Activity: Implications for India.” Later that year he published another anti-geoengineering piece in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Come early 2016, he gave us another; this time published in the Indian Journal of Scientific Research and Technology. In the middle of 2016, he published another paper in Frontiers in Public Health; followed by yet another in the Journal of Agricultural Science. A complete bibliography of Herndon’s anti-geoengineering journal articles can be referenced below in the ‘Notes’ section of this article.
With the start of 2017, Herndon has only upped his game. ALL THREE ANTI-GEOENGINEERING JOURNAL ARTICLES HERNDON HAS PUBLISHED IN 2017 ARE PEER REVIEWED. J. Marvin Herndon is here to devastate the enemy. Make no mistake about that. I suggest that we all get on the same train. We have a world-class conductor. All three 2017 articles have been published in the Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International.
You see, when a paper is peer reviewed, that means it is peer endorsed. That means that one might as well put the peer reviewers’ names in place of the author’s. The peer reviewers are verifying their colleague’s work. This means that it’s not just old J. Marvin shooting off any more. As time has gone on, more have been joining him. They know the scientific establishment is up against them, but they’re putting their careers on the line anyway. They are Spartacus! This is huge.
Throughout Herndon’s anti-geoengineering articles, one finds a staunch opposition and many bold assertions. Exploration of all his vital anti-geoengineering work would require another (longer) paper entirely. We concern ourselves here with his coal fly ash hypothesis because this hypothesis can be most effectively used to produce further avenues of investigation. Of particular interest to our movement, though, in multiple articles, Herndon provides us with a definitive word on the chemtrails vs. contrails debate. And the word is that contrails do not persist. Chemtrails do. Please use his information to defeat the trolls when they claim otherwise as they so often do.
Coal fly ash
Coal fly ash is the ash that rises when coal burns. It is a byproduct of coal-fired power plants. Today in America there is a vast, inexpensive, and readily available supply of coal fly ash. This is because, since passage of the 1976 Environmental Protection Act, the United States federal government has mandated that all coal fly ash be entirely removed from the smokestacks of all U.S. coal-fired power plants.
Power plants were sequestering coal fly ash since long before 1976, though. Historically people have not liked having to breathe in large quantities of the stuff, so they have petitioned industry and government to intervene and by the grace of God the ash has been sequestered; first by mechanical means and later by electrostatic methods.
It is interesting to note that when today’s coal fly ash is sequestered, a mini New Manhattan Project occurs. Today’s coal fly ash is removed from a power plant’s exhaust system using something called an electrostatic precipitator. These electrostatic precipitators collect fly ash by first electrically charging the airborne ash particles then attracting them to oppositely charged plates where the ash is then taken away. This is analogous to how, in the course of today’s New Manhattan Project, atmospheric particles are electromagnetically ionized (charged) and then manipulated. This use of electromagnetic energy is the defining aspect of the project and, strangely enough, we see it replicated in this NMP sub-operation of fly ash sequestration. Maybe people who know about electrostatic fly ash precipitators also know about the New Manhattan Project.
For thousands of years, coal fly ash has been used in cements. Today coal fly ash is mostly used in construction materials such as roadbeds and high-quality cements. Coal fly ash enables cementitious building materials to dry faster and set stronger. But only about 45% of today’s national coal fly ash production is used for these purposes. Most of it is buried as a toxic waste, to the great expense of the power industry.
In attempts to turn their lemons into lemonade, since 1967 international fly ash utilization symposia have been held. Powerful organizations such as: the Calgary Fly Ash Research Group, the Western Fly Ash Research Development and Data Center, the Edison Electric Institute, the Electric Power Research Institute, the American Public Power Association, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Energy have historically been very serious about utilizing coal fly ash. Today the biggest dog in the space appears to be an industry group called The American Coal Ash Association.
Hunting for the source
In the interest of exposing chemtrails and for the purposes of this investigation, let us assume that the good Doctor Herndon is correct. Let us assume that chemtrails are in fact coal fly ash. It’s really not that far-fetched, being that peer-reviewed hard evidence from world-renowned scientists supports the notion. If chemtrails are coal fly ash, then chemtrails are probably coal fly ash derived from a certain type of coal. Here we hunt for a single source of coal used to produce the coal fly ash of the New Manhattan Project.
It is reasonable to assume that the coal used to produce today’s coal fly ash chemtrail spray is derived from a single source because the Project demands that the chemtrail spray be standardized. It would not be advantageous to have inhomogeneous chemtrail spray particle clouds. Inhomogeneous particle clouds of chemtrail spray would be problematic to unworkable in the context of the New Manhattan Project because such ad hoc atmospheric saturations would greatly complicate operations. There may be multiple power plants and multiple power plant operators producing the coal fly ash, but we are probably looking at a single source of coal because it would be easier to standardize the fly ash from a single source. When dealing with such massive quantities of ash, one needs to make it as easy as possible.
We may be able to identify the coal source by matching NMP coal fly ash properties to those of a known, standardized coal fly ash. Identifying the coal source can lead us to the identity of the miner(s) and other people and organizations involved.
The physical and chemical properties of fly ash are a function of the source of coal, the combustion system of the power plant, and the collection system used. Coal may contain impurities such as clay, shale, limestone, etc.. These materials will not burn and appear chemically as calcium, silica, alumina, iron, magnesium, and other elements in the ash.
We already know some things about this single source of coal. From hundreds of rainwater sample test results and the California Air Resources Board’s ambient air samplings, we know that this coal and its resultant ash contain barium and strontium and have a high aluminum content.
Further, it would be advantageous for the fly ash resulting from this single source of coal to have certain other properties. For example, it should probably have some iron in it. Iron’s magnetic properties might help with the NMP’s electromagnetic particle control.
It would probably be a high-calcium ash. High-calcium coal fly ashes have a basic pH and environmental scientists such as Francis Mangels and others from the USDA Soil Conservation Department have confirmed that soils are turning basic.
So the evidence suggests that the coal deposit for which we are hunting contains high levels of aluminum and calcium as well as barium, strontium, and iron.
So where might we find such a coal? It would probably be a large deposit of American coal. The New Manhattan Project has almost entirely been developed in America. It would be easier to maintain this secret project’s cover and more convenient to use coal from an abundant, domestic source rather than any importing. It would need to be a large deposit because of the massive quantities of ash required.
NIST SRMs 1633c & 1633a
In order to find the coal in question, we can apply the parameters of our hypothetical coal to standardized coal fly ashes. For many decades now, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has been certifying standardized coal fly ashes. NIST has probably standardized today’s common chemtrail spray. Here we compare our hypothetical coal to the NIST standardized fly ashes.
Of these NIST standardized coal fly ashes currently available, the one that most closely matches our hypothetical NMP coal fly ash is NIST Standard Reference Material (SRM) 1633c. This has been determined by comparing the average ratios of aluminum to barium found in the American rainwater sample test results posted on GeoengineeringWatch.org, to the ratios of same in the standardized NIST coal fly ashes. From the 31 sample test results considered, the average ratio of aluminum to barium is 65 to 1. The ratio of aluminum to barium in SRM 1633c is 121 to 1.
Only the ratio of aluminum to barium is considered here because that’s where the abundance of data is. Most of the test results included aluminum and barium while test results for the other elements were much more scarce. Average ratios produced from lacking data sets are prone to be less representative and therefore less accurate and are therefore not included here.
NIST describes SRM 1633c only as, “supplied by a coal fired power plant and is the product of Western Pennsylvania bituminous coal.” It is interesting to note that NIST notes the exact origins of all the other SRM fly ashes, such as the name and location of the power plant from whence it came and the specific location of the coal deposit, but they do not list such information for 1633c. Is this information omitted in order to thwart our investigation?
A discontinued NIST coal fly ash known as SRM 1633a is an even closer match. Although NIST stopped selling SRM 1633a in 1993 (a few years before large-scale spraying operations began), the certificate for it is still available online and the ratio of aluminum to barium in SRM 1633a is 95 to 1; much closer to the 65 to 1 ratio determined previously. Maybe today’s chemtrail sprayers are using this discontinued SRM fly ash. Just because NIST is no longer providing it does not mean that it can’t still be in production. Once the production methods have been established, it would be relatively easy to continue to produce the material.
Again without disclosing the power plant(s) involved or a specific coal source, NIST says only that the discontinued 1633a is, “a product of Pennsylvania and West Virginia coals.” The region around the border of Pennsylvania and West Virginia and up on into western Pennsylvania is the Northern Appalachian region and yes, they are sitting on one of the largest coal deposits in North America. There are a number of coal-fired power plants in the area.
Both 1633c and 1633a have the other elements noted here which have been consistently showing up in the rainwater sample test results: calcium, iron, strontium, etc..
The next logical step is for a reputable scientist such as Marvin Herndon to order a 75g sample of SRM 1633c (NIST price $698) and compare it’s chemical signature to that of collected chemtrail spray. Better yet, maybe someone can get their hands on a sample of 1633a. A comparison might also be made by analysis of readily available data such as that which has been presented here. However it happens, it would behoove our anti-geoengineering movement to corroborate these findings.
Fly ash and weather modification
There is quite a historical precedent for the use of coal fly ash in weather modification and the atmospheric sciences. Many military men have claimed that the smoke from exploded bombs causes precipitation. The early American meteorologist James Pollard Espy (‘The Storm King’) claimed that forest fires cause rain to fall. The Nobel Prize-winning weather modifier Irving Langmuir and NMP pioneer Bernard Vonnegut were working with fine particle oil smokes way back during WWII. The silver iodide discovered by Vonnegut and used through to the conventional weather modification industry of today is the smoke of burning silver iodide. In all of these instances, as with the coal fly ash hypothesis, smoke from some type of fire is either said to cause or is known to cause weather modification.
The geoengineers of today talk about how stratospheric masses of volcanic ash spewing from a fiery volcano can reflect sunlight back into space and therefore cool the planet, saving us from the dreaded global warming. In other words, ash can accomplish SRM geoengineering.
In 1963, weather modifier Narayan R. Gokhale of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences of the State University of New York was experimenting with volcanic ash as a nucleant.
Although coal fly ash most commonly is produced in much larger particle sizes, it is possible to produce coal fly ash particles of the proper size. The proper size is most probably in the neighborhood of one micron. Different substances, if they can be used as a nucleant at all, have different optimal nucleation sizes. Most ashes have an optimal nucleation size of around 1µ (1 micron). Therefore it is safe to assume that the coal fly ash particles to be used as part of the New Manhattan Project are in the neighborhood of 1µ in diameter. For coal fly ash particles, 1µ is extremely small, but, to attain the proper particle size, before combustion, the coal can be finely pulverized. This is known to produce much smaller coal fly ash particles. Coal prepared for combustion in coal-fired power plants is not usually finely pulverized. It is an extra step and an extra cost. Therefore, a coal-fired power plant finely pulverizing their coal before combustion may be an indication that the resultant fly ash is to be used as part of the New Manhattan Project.
The different elements which comprise the coal fly ash of the New Manhattan Project may serve different purposes. Aluminum has been used extensively as a nucleant. Silicon (which presents abundantly in coal fly ash) has too. As noted earlier, iron may serve as the bit which is manipulated by the applied electromagnetic energy as iron is a highly magnetic metal. The barium and strontium may serve as atmospheric tracers. Geoengineers are on record as using tiny radioactive particles, monitored by satellites and computers, to track atmospheric movements. Both barium and strontium can be naturally radioactive.
The evidence for coal fly ash being common chemtrail spray just goes on and on.
The First International Coal Fly Ash Utilization Symposium and Marvin Herndon both mention how the iron oxide in the fly ash makes it a brownish color. Your author has observed that chemtrail spray has a brownish tint.
Many, if not all of the things geoengineers say they want to spray us with are in coal fly ash like silica, sulphates, salts, and aluminum.
The use of coal fly ash as chemtrails has precedent in that it is analogous to water fluoridation. What our local water district calls ‘fluoride’ is not the fluoride most people think it is. What is put in the water is an industrial waste product called hydrofluosilicic acid which, if the population was not forced to ingest it, would be expensive to get rid of. Instead, corrupt governments pay for it to be consumed by the unsuspecting public. Does that sound familiar?
Marvin Herndon’s detractors (the shills) like to claim that, because two of his eight anti-geoengineering journal articles have been retracted, the good doctor is discredited. These retractions were political decisions, not scientific ones. Herndon says the journals involved violated codes of conduct up one side and down the other. He says that these journals (the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health and Frontiers in Public Health) have internal problems that should be resolved. He says that he is pursuing the issue, not running from it.
Would not it be apropos if the revelation of chemtrails being coal fly ash ends up being what leads to fully blowing the Project’s cover and subsequent mass arrests of the chemtrail sprayers? That would be using the enemy’s weapon against him now, wouldn’t it? With what they assault us with physically, we may assault them metaphysically. That’s where you, the reader comes in. Please ram this information down the establishment’s throat by spreading it far and wide.
Death to the New World Order. May the flaming sword of logic and truth cut them down for they are enemies of both.
Notes (in order of appearance)
-“Aluminum Poisoning of Humanity and Earth’s Biota by Clandestine Geoengineering Activity: Implications for India” an article by J. Marvin Herndon, published in Current Science on June 25, 2015, Vol. 108, no. 12
-“Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health” an article by J. Marvin Herndon, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on August 11, 2015
-“Obtaining Evidence of Coal Fly Ash Content in Weather Modification (Geoengineering) Through Analyses of Post-Aerosol-Spraying Rainwater and Solid Substances” an article by J. Marvin Herndon, published in the Indian Journal of Scientific Research and Technology, February, 2016
-“Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification” an article by J. Marvin Herndon, published in Frontiers in Public Health, June 30, 2016
-“Adverse Agricultural Consequences of Weather Modification” an article by J. Marvin Herndon, published in the Journal of Agricultural Science, 2016, 38(3): p213-221
-“An Indication of Intentional Efforts to Cause Global Warming and Glacier Melting” an article by J. Marvin Herndon, published in the Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, January 29, 2017
-“Further Evidence of Coal Fly Ash Utilization in Tropospheric Geoengineering: Implications on Human and Environmental Health” an article by J. Marvin Herndon, published in the Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, February 3, 2017
-“Evidence of Variable Earth-heat Production, Global Non-anthropogenic Climate Change, and Geoengineered Global Warming and Polar Melting” an article by J. Marvin Herndon, published in the Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, April 21, 2017
-“Fly Ash Utilization: Proceedings: Edison Electric Institute-National Coal Association-Bureau of Mines Symposium, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, March 14-16, 1967” a report by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1967
-“Third International Ash Utilization Symposium Proceedings” a book by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1973
-“Denver Fly Ash Symposium Proceedings” a book edited by Edwin R. Dustan, published by the Denver Fly Ash Symposium, Inc., 1984
-“Fly Ash and Coal Conversion By-Products: Characterization, Utilization and Disposal I” a book edited by Gregory J. McCarthy and Robert J. Lauf, published by the Materials Research Society, 1984
-“Fly Ash and Coal Conversion By-Products: Characterization, Utilization and Disposal III” a book edited by Gregory J. McCarthy, Fredrik P. Glasser, Della M. Roy, and Sidney Diamond, published by the Materials Research Society, 1986
-“Fly Ash and Coal Conversion By-Products: Characterization, Utilization and Disposal VI” a book edited by Robert L. Day and Fredrik P. Glasser, published by the Materials Research Society, 1989
-“Fly Ash and Coal Conversion By-Products: Characterization, Utilization and Disposal IV” a book edited by Gregory J. McCarthy, Fredrik P. Glasser, Della M. Roy, and Raymond T. Hemmings, published by the Materials Research Society, 1987
-“Chemistry and Mineralogy of Coal Fly Ash: Basis for Beneficial Use” a paper by Barry E. Scheetz, as published in the “State Regulation of Coal Combustion By-product Placement at Mine Sites” a report by Southern Illinois University and the U.S. Department of the Interior, published by Southern Illinois University and the U.S. Department of the Interior, 2004
-NIST SRM 1633c certificate
-NIST SRM 1633a certificate
-Seventh National Science Foundation Annual Weather Modification Report, 1966
Peter A. Kirby is a San Rafael, CA researcher, writer, and activist. Subscribe to his email list at his website peterakirby.com.