Environmental Filament Project : Metals Testing Laboratory Report

Environmental Filament, Project:
Metals Testing Laboratory Report


Clifford E Carnicorn
Aug 21 2017

A unique form of “environmental filament” material has long been under study at Carnicom Institute. Those familiar with the work here know that the early history of study involves a refusal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to examine that material, and those events are well documented on this site. Many readers are also familiar with the biological components that have accompanied this sample type and the similar refusal by any authoritative agencies to acknowledge the realities of these environmental and health dangers to the public.

This paper will present the data from a high level analytical chemistry examination of this same sample type for metals content. The method of examination is that of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP MS) The testing procedures conform to requirements at the detection level of parts per billion (ppb, or mg/kg). The original observation of the sample is airborne. A low power microscopic image of a second collected sample (identical in nature to that analyzed in the laboratory) follows immediately below:




The test results show the clear presence of numerous metals, frequently to excess levels:



Clifford E Carnicom
Aug 21 2017

A Response to the University of California and the Carnegie Institute

A Response to the University of California and the Carnegie Institute

Clifford E Carnicom
Aug 22 2016

Preliminary Note:  A journalist of professional standing recently contacted Carnicom Institute requesting comments with respect to a recently published paper by the University of California.  The paper claims to issue an authoritative edict as a denial of geoengineering activities that are now actively practiced and that are detrimental to the global environment.  The following comments were provided to that journalist and they are made available to the public as follows:


The body of scientific work on geoengineering and bioengineering issues by Carnicom Institute spans close to twenty years.  The library of work, approximately 350 original research papers, encompasses a variety of scientific disciplines.  The methods and results, essentially with no exception, are reproducible and adhere to scientific protocols.  This evidence (not survey) based work is available for your review at:

(by category):


In addition, documentary summaries are available at:

(2005 full-version):

(2011 abbreviated version):

The remainder of this response will be necessarily brief: we can pursue further discussion later, should you choose.

Specifically, in reference to the UC “peer-review study” and the presentation on the UC website, I will make the following comments at this time:

  1. The paper in no way represents honest scientific work. This is a shining example of modern “science with an agenda” as opposed to truthful scientific pursuit. The paper is characterized more accurately as an exercise in social engineering versus fulfilling the requirements of the scientific method.
  1. The emphasis upon the act of “debunking,” in itself, is a prelude to a biased investigation. The term implies a strong association with an attempt to disprove, discredit, and refute claims without fulfilling the obligations to conduct the actual research that is required to answer a question or to solve a problem.
  1. The creation of the acronym “SLAP” at the onset is an obvious ruse and manipulative ploy to steer public perception toward ridicule. The term has not existed in the history of the issues and it was created specifically for the purpose above. It is an example of the many clever and subtle machinations to affect public psychology under the purported guise of professional presentation and credentials. It is a cheap ruse.
  1. It is understood that most individuals will never read the actual paper at the “core” of the study. I hope that you may choose to devote some time to this effort, as well as gain some familiarity with the body of Carnicom Institute research listed above. The UC paper can, of course, be dissected to infinity; however, I will make a few individual references to exemplify pertinent topics for discussion.

Let us begin with what appears to be the motive for the study; it speaks more strongly of the desire to influence public behavior than it does to seek observational and evidence-based data to substantiate the scientific method.

“Meanwhile, a growing number of studies have shown that quantifying and communicating the scientific consensus on contested issues such as vaccine safety and climate change can help lower public misperceptions and uncertainty(Myers et al 2015, vander Linden et al 2015, van der Linden et al 2015).

Here, therefore, we report the results of an expert survey in which we asked experts on atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric deposition to scientifically evaluate the claims of SLAP theorists.”

The first assumption implicit within this statement is that for some “unknown” reason, the public is in a state of “misperception” and “uncertainty.” Why would such an assumption need to exist for the scientific method to proceed?  This type of bias is a discredit to the acumen of the public.  Even casual research will reveal that the concern by the public regarding the geoengineering issue is now elevated to a global level.  By what right and upon what basis must we start our endeavor by assuming that this global population is ill-informed?

Notice the phrase “Here, therefore, we report the results of an expert survey….”  This phrase continues the mis-advised logic from above and it states the true motive for the project.  It is to “correct” the misguided ways of the global public in their “growing public distrust of elites and social institutions.”

The project is flawed from the beginning. It does not embody or represent the scientific method; it is not based upon direct observation, direct collection of evidence, the testing of hypothesis, and the fair and honest assessment of bonafide data to reach accurate and truthful conclusions.  None of the work or research in the paper is original.  This so-called “peer-review study” is an orchestrated and manipulative social engineering project; it is not science.

  1. If you continue to examine the processes adopted within the survey (an incomplete approach, at best, to a phenomenon of global proportions), you will see the frequent repetition of the words “thought” and “likely” (NOT observation, NOT evidence) by the claimed experts. No participant offers any objective data or pursuit of resolution to eliminate this ambiguous response. A more fair and thorough response to many of the questions posed would be: What steps are being taken to acquire the data to eliminate the ambiguity? What data do I need? Who is responsible for providing the data? How is the data audited? The peer-review process itself is now flawed and it does not assimilate independently (i.e. “citizen science”) acquired data, contributions, and reviews into science as it is now claimed to exist.
  1. We have an additional curiosity taking place. It will be noticed on multiple occasions that unexplainable data results were apparent to the participants. Subsequently, a generally uniform response of rejection was avowed. The thought process of rejection is not adequately explained and the dismissal is substituted with an ambiguous call for “more data.”

Where is the cry and demand for the data? Not a trailing and vague ending to the most critical questions at hand, but real data, impartial data, independent data, accountable data.  The lack of accountability on this global environmental issue is preposterous.

  1. There are, with no doubt, weaknesses and flaws that exist in the quality and standards of control for citizen collected samples. More importantly, we should be asking the question as to why citizens are in such a position to begin with. Maybe it is because of the inadequacy of the regulatory agencies to fulfill their own responsibilities for environment protection.
  1. There are many technical issues that can also be discussed within this paper. These issues are subject to serious evaluation and debate in comparison to how they have been cited as authoritative references. One example of this includes the elaborate discussion of a mixed “contrail-cirrus” mathematical model. The very basis of the model itself is open to contentious discussion. This and other topics can be discussed further by those with interest.
  1. For now, let me end this brief examination with attention to a closing phrase of the paper.

“We therefore offer the first peer-reviewed expert response on SLAP data.” … “The evidence as evaluated here does not point to a ….”

What a perfectly loaded and crafted phrase.  It is everything that the social engineers need to achieve their goals of manipulating and affecting public perception. Sarcasm aside, it is even more impressive because it is the “first.” This statement is a masterful conclusion of an incomplete and questionable process that avoids the hard-hitting realities and confrontations that come forth from TRUE science. Finally, I would claim that this paper does not present evidence; it present a series of ambiguous and incomplete responses to the reasonable demands from an alert and aware global population that is truly and genuinely concerned about our environment.

This is only a partial response to a purported accredited and authoritative study.  My hope is that readers will pursue honesty and thoroughness in these affairs and that they will be guided by their moral conscience toward truth.


Additional Notes:

1. Having attended the University of California at the onset of my higher education pursuits approximately 45 years ago, I must say that I am embarrassed and sorry for the state of education as it now exists in this country.  What was once considered to be an honor and privilege of attendance must now be accepted with a level of disgrace to the nobler goals that were once served.  I encourage each member of that institution, student, faculty and administrator, to reclaim the powers and benefits that come forth from comprehensive investigation and critical thinking to reach honest conclusions and assessments of the state of our world.

2. As of this date, the journalist referred to has not acknowledged receipt of the comments above.  This statement will be revised as circumstances warrant.

CI Collaborates with NHFC

CI Logo

CI Collaborates with NHFC

NHFC Congress

A Report by Kate Willens, Associate, Carnicom Institute
Dec 3, 2014

Late on the night of September 23rd, Clifford Carnicom, founder and president of Carnicom Institute, set out by train from Spokane, Washington to attend the 2014 United States Health Freedom Congress in St. Paul Minnesota.  He was invited by Diane Miller, JD, Director of Law and Public Policy for the National Health Freedom Coalition (NHFC), and the National Health Freedom Action.  These organizations bring together leaders from across the country who are working toward health freedoms and the legislation which can secure these freedoms for people in the United States.  Clifford was honored to be invited and to offer a view of his work to people unfamiliar with it.  At the same time, he was eager to learn about the work of the other members.  I interviewed Clifford upon his return.

KW: Clifford, you seem very eager to share your experience of the Health Freedom Congress.  What happened there?  What’s it all about?

CEC: I am excited by my experience there.  It was so encouraging to see that many other organizations are working along similar lines as Carnicom Institute.  We each have our different focus areas, of course, but generally we are working to provide a climate in which people have access to health care of their choosing, rather than being forced into accepting health care that does not fit with their values and preferences.  You’ve probably heard the stories about people losing their children because they refused a certain course of prescribed and mandated treatment.  The National Health Freedom Coalition is at the forefront of a movement that will give people the rights to decide for themselves what kind of healthcare they want without being penalized for their choices.  The NHFC also created the legislation to protect healthcare practitioners in what are called Safe Harbor Laws.  A safe harbor provides protection so that those providing alternative healthcare will not be penalized for practicing medicine which falls outside the domain of conventional medicine.

KW:  That’s impressive, Clifford.  I hear about people whose practices have been closed down by the authorities for practicing medicine without a license, even though these people did have licenses or certifications in their chosen field of alternative medicine.

CEC: Conventional medical professionals have, in many cases, been given powers that far exceed what is reasonable and it was never intended to be so.  It all depends on how you define medicine.  Nine states have passed health freedom legislation that was spearheaded by the NHFC.  This legislation is sweeping the nation and more than two dozen other states are working on similar legislation. These laws define the scope of licensing, as well as support the freedoms to which people are entitled.  People have a right to informed consent and a right to choose.

KW: Why did they ask you to come?

CEC: They recognize that CI and scores of other organizations are working along the same lines.  The focus of the organizations which make up the NHFC encompass a broad range of issues, including vaccines and GMOs.  They are gradually increasing the scope of issues they are bringing to the table; this year they decided it was important to begin learning about geoengineering.  CI extended the discussion to include the full range of the research, which includes bioengineering as well.

KW: How did you bring this issue to the people attending?

CEC: The conference was structured to allow for discussion in smaller groups.  There were no presentations by voting members of the congress, of which I was one.  But though I was not one of the speakers, I was working and making connections whenever I could… in the hallways, at the breaks, and in the small groups.  Many connections and understandings were reached, but not to the depths that we will seek in the future.  Many people showed an interest in our organization and would like to learn what we do.  Likewise, I had an equal interest in understanding the other organizations and what they are working toward.  We are all sharing the same interests here.  What they didn’t know when they invited me was whether CI was working along the same lines.  They found out that we share common goals and a seriousness about the depth of the issues involved with health freedoms.  However, our work is international in scope, while that of the other organizations is at the national or state level.  It became overwhelming to many of them because it was outside of their normal turf.

KW: So now what, Clifford?  Where do we go from here?

CEC: I want to forge a collaboration between CI and the other organizations that are part of the Coalition, and I want to bring the public into an understanding of all the issues at stake here.  There is CI, there are the members of the Coalition, and there is the public.  I am looking toward increased awareness, involvement, and action between all parties.  I want to openly declare Carnicom Institutes advocacy and active support for the National Health Freedom Coalition.  Additionally, the public has a responsibility to become educated in the shared principles of CI and the Coalition, such as informed consent, and to become aware of the work that is being done to benefit the public.  This awareness will present the work of Carnicom Institute in relationship to the larger themes that involve the violations of basic human rights and the freedom of choice.  What excites me is the potential for a more powerful network of public involvement through the collaboration of Carnicom Institute and the National Freedom Health Coalition.

Alfred Stites Joins the Institute – Creating “History of the Written Word”

Alfred Stites Joins the Institute

Creating “History of the Written Word”


Carnicom Institute is very pleased to announce a collaboration and association with Foliophiles Publishing, LLC., Alfred W. Stites, President, Santa Fe, NM. The project is entitled History of the Written Word.  Mr. Stites is working with the cooperation of the Indiana University Lilly Rare Book Library.

This project will be a unique collection of the most important writings since a mark on clay ca. 3400 B.C. to the present century. Such an undertaking has never before been attempted in presenting both a facsimile and explanatory text , and it cannot be duplicated.

There are two simple reasons for such an undertaking: books as we know them are disappearing because most of the volumes in the 640,000 libraries throughout the world were printed on acidic wood-pulp paper since ca. 1840, as most were, will have disintegrated within a few hundred more years.

The second reason is technical: Within this century, and most librarians say within the next decade or two, all books will be printed digitally to be read on a hand-held appliance that can store thousands of books. It really is probable that within a few decades libraries will become “computer reading stations” Most major libraries throughout the world are digitizing their entire collection. The first library without books, Biblio Tech, opened a few months ago in San Antonio, TX.

The result: There will be no other place any can go and see how communication developed-a picture of an Egyptian Demotic writing, a Gutenberg page, the first page of Newton’s theories that changed our thinking, and illustrations of 181 books, the originals  that throughout the ages created our communication and developed our civilization in the fields of education, physics, medicine, religion, literature, psychology, and others. The Collection will first be offered to university and major public libraries throughout the English-speaking world. It will be printed on acid-free paper to last 500 years, and includes 18 major languages, with  pictorial images from papyrus hieroglyphs, and illustrations, early woodcuts, and on and on to the present. There is now no other single library or group of libraries that have examples that are in this collection of 181 influential examples of the development of communication.

We are pleased that this project will eventually provide even small rural public school libraries with this Collection, as part of our charitable program.

Carnicom Institute anticipates collaboration with numerous projects and endeavors in the future that support humanitarian and educational causes.  Carnicom Institute is proud to announce the initiation of these efforts with Alfred Stites as a consultant to the Institute.


APRIL 29, 2006
SATURDAY : 11:00AM – 4:00PM

Posted on behalf of Bridget Conroy
by Clifford E Carnicom
April  09 2006

The following scheduled protest against the aerosol operations
is announced to the public; it is recommended that this announcement be
distributed to the public as widely as is possible.  Thank you. CEC



Aerosol Spraying




“Weather Modification” Bills

SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 2006  

   11:00 A.M. – 4:00 P.M.


Location: Capitol Lawn

1700 West Washington Street

Phoenix Arizona 85007

Speakers / Music / Documents

For More Information Please Contact:

         Agriculture Defense Coalition     

                    Bridget Conroy (602) 404-0847  E-Mail: bcolemanconroy8@yahoo.com

                    P.O. Box 54297 Phoenix, Arizona 85078


                  Rosalind Peterson (707) 485-7520 E-Mail: info@californiaskywatch.com

                  P.O. Box 499 Redwood Valley, California 95470

Protest Location
LOCATION: 1700 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Capitol Lawn

(map by Mapquest.com)

MapQuest Link


MARCH 23, 2006

Posted on behalf of Kathy Ornstein
by Clifford E Carnicom
Feb  12 2006
Edited March 08 2006

The following scheduled protest against the aerosol operations
is announced to the public; it is recommended that this announcement be
distributed to the public as widely as is possible.  Thank you. CEC







TIME: 9 A.M. – 2:00 P.M.


LOCATION: 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012


Senator Barbara Boxer’s Office


(Corner of Spring & Temples Streets – Downtown Los Angeles)












R.S.V.P. by February 27, 2006


K. Ornstein “Right to Breathe Healthy Air” (310) 657-5174


E-Mail: kathyornstein@hotmail.com


Protest Location
LOCATION: 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012
Senator Barbara Boxer’s Office


Parking Location
La Catedral De Los Angeles


251 S Broadway, Los Angeles, CA (0.35 miles away)
(Maps from

Play the clip using the stand-alone player

Blue Skies – The Revised Version

Can’t hear the clip? Download the player plug-in from Microsoft
Blue Skies – The Revised Version
by Kathy Ornstein
(windows media player – listen here)

Additional Options:
Download Windows Media Audio File (165k)
(right click, save target as)
Download mp3 Audio File (200k)