Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory

German MMS admits chemtrails are real

Here's a link to the video report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaPqCMIuEk4 I'd like to get some input on how to add this information to the wiki. Where should I put it, how much should I write, etc... Can someone with privileges remove "conspiracy theory" from the title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can't use this because youtube videos are not considered reliable sources to use as references on wikipedia. The article name was settled on some time ago from the consensus of editors to adopt the a common usage in the reliable sources used here and because the article is about the cultural phenomenon rather than a "chemtrail" itself (which are simply conjectures without any authoritative definition as of yet). Professor marginalia (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This video is a good example of why youtube clips cannot be considered RS. The clip is taken from a commercial German TV station, but the subtitles are misleading. The translation is incorrect at times, as it leaves out certain words and misleadingly mistranslates whole phrases. There would be no support of the notion of chemtrails in the segment originally aired, even if we found it at the station's website. So, the clip provided is unreliable (WP:RS) and misleading, and the original clip has no connection to the topic at all. Putting it into the article would at best be WP:OR, and bad one at that. 92.77.150.79 (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this video report doesn't even deal with "chemtrails" in any way. The uploader's subtitles claim so, but that doesn't make it true. The report is actually about chaff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_%28countermeasure%29 - The subtitles then replace "chaff" with "chemtrail"... among other things. Der_Hans 18:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment removal

Off topic, this is not a WP:FORUM for WP:OR and speculation

What explicitly is the following comment violating in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines that it warrants removal in this edit by User:Verbal? You know, I have been following this discussion, since I was in the last section. It seems this phenomena is only occurring in NATO countries. I have asked some people (few of them lifelong pilots, military and non-military) from Brazil, China, Dubai, and they have not seen them. I find it interesting that you do not see massive amounts of videos and blogs about Chem-trails from Brazil or South Africa for example. I saw one about Spain or Germany as mentioned in this section, I think it might be the recession that is causing this or something else. Is this why only Americans and Europeans are going nuts over this stuff?--67.188.124.21 (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Smallman12q (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Collapsed as off topic. Verbal chat 18:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSSWnXQsgOU&feature=player_embedded

Should we add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.107.253 (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not WP:RS. 134.106.41.29 (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ISDAC

Hi, I am not sure what this is 1, but after reading this document it could be summarized as program by the NSA's (a research institute) ARM department to see the effects of aerosol spraying and monitor a three weeks testing program for April 2008. This is not about possible future geo-engineering, so this is about the present moment. This is just one of many patents, an incomplete list of patents can be seen here (some links at the bottom go to conspiracy websites, but it has nothing to do with the patents) 2. Also, ISDAC is not a cloud seeding program, it contains aerosol/electromagnetically charged particulates, which would make it automatic geo-engineering and not just weather modification by cloud seeding to create rain. The purpose is to see what effect their aerosol spraying has on the cloud/weather/climate, so it is a test (stimulate) and result (retrieval) experiment. There is also Operation Cloverleaf and Raindance to know about. Also, if patents and programs already exist for future geo-engineering experiments, would then that would mean we should see similar chemtrial like phenomenon in the future? Then I guess a conspiracy theorist is one who thinks they not going to conduct tests in the near future, but are doing it now? By the way, I am not implying this is malicious conspiracy, however I am implying that this was a temporary geo-engineering program that was conducted for a short time with a few to no effects. However, if this is true, that would these little experiments, if put together with thousands of other possible experiments (with reports of Corexit found in peoples pools on the mainland 3), as whole would be large in scale, and may account for some of the chemtrail sightings. Plus (going a little off-topic now), in the CFR's papers on geo-engineering they said a C-130 Hercules plane is best suited for the job, well that is same plane they used to spray the dispersing chemicals in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which I find interesting. So basically this is something I found (thanks to a tip from a friend) just by looking for patents, but I could be wrong, any thoughts with what we can do with the document? Thanks for reading.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think ISDAC is what you think it is. There is recent climate research that aerosols are major factors in Arctic warming. They aren't actually spraying any aerosols, but they plan to fly about and take readings throughout the Alaska. You might want to read [1]. Just to clear up any misconception, a conspiracy theorist is someone that refuses rational arguments, and possibly has weak reading comprehension too. 216.113.193.88 (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I understand that ISDAC is a program to get results from how much aerosols are affecting the Arctic area, but according to Wikipedia itself, it states that from the early 1990's to now there has been a 87% increase in greenhouse gases from contrails, whether there is something in the contrails doing this or that climate change is causing contrails to spread a heating to cooling effect remains unanswered (note, in the first place there was no rational arguments to be refused, so now is this rational enough?). So when a reputable I.P. user like me comments from a neutral point of view on the controversial matter, one would think a presumed Wikipedia n would offer new information, and not regurgitate a cheap joke. There is only one part that I may have misread (that led me to the probable conclusion), but its exact wording I will include some here so you can see it for yourself and how easily one would think it means something else...

Several different aircraft flight patterns are needed to achieve the objectives of the experiment. Vertical spirals over the Barrow site will be performed at the beginning and end of each flight to provide aerosol input data for the cloud models and to provide aerosol and cloud evaluation data for the retrievals (this sentence threw me off as I thought why would they need to input data first and then retrieve it, they should just retrieve it, and retrieve usually means getting something you released back to yourself, I also read how they would do it, and they did not really show in the pictures about throwing something out first). If sky is clear, one vertical spiral will be performed to sample aerosol up as high as the aircraft will fly. Horizontal legs of 15 minutes, each below and above each cloud layer, will be performed to better characterize the aerosol going into the clouds (they should have reworded it as 'to better characterize how [the natural] aerosols go into the clouds [notice they call it the aerosol as if its a independent variable in a experiment],' IF they were not dispersing the aerosols to begin with, SO does this mean pushing the aerosols already there into the clouds or pushing the aerosols they put into the clouds?). At an aircraft speed of 100 ms-1, these legs would span 90 km. 15-minute horizontal legs through liquid clouds (whenever something is sprayed it is at first usually in liquid form, or could it mean rain clouds?) will be performed to characterize the size distribution in liquid and mixed-phase clouds. 15-minute horizontal legs through ice clouds will be performed to characterize the crystal size distribution in ice and mixed-phase clouds. It should be possible to fly all of these flight patterns in a 3-hour flight, depending on the number of cloud layers. Thus, 45 hours (that is a lot of flight time) of flights will permit 15 flights, and 30 hours of flights will permit 10 flights. Although icing is always a concern in the Arctic, our experience during M-PACE (referring to similar previous experiments as mentioned in the first parts of the report) suggests probes could sustain operation for at least 40-50 minutes at an average liquid water of 0.1 g m-3; analysis of SHEBA data for April suggests lower LWCs and smaller droplets than those encountered during M-PACE, so that de-icing will probably not be necessary for horizontal legs through liquid clouds for less than 15 minutes. Actual flight profiles will be subject to aircraft and air traffic control (that means the FAA and other departments would know about this program). 1.5 Expected Results. This refers to the next paragraph in section 1.5 on pages 14-15 (so you know where to look).

So basically, as you can see there is a lot of uncertainty and I have studied the meanings so it could either mean one thing or another respectively. Also, since they word the operation in vague terms, you would have assume they are just going to take readings and nothing more. So that is why I am not here to prove anything in this sample, since I am here to see if anyone can explain this program so that the average people will not get confused over it, as you can see some parts are open to interpretation, or not (please be courteous). So I really commend you for reading this. Any informed comment on this subject matter is appreciated. Thank you.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)