Jump to content

Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Template:Pbneutral


Hold on a second

There has been information released by Government sources on spaying chemicals and diseases on domestic populations. The United States Government has admitted to spraying chemicals to create rain during the Vietnam conflict. Patents on how to spray the sky to 'reduce' global warming exist as well (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5003186.PN.&OS=PN/5003186&RS=PN/5003186)

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20D13FB3F5F117B93C1A9178CD85F468785F9&scp=1&sq=Rainmaking%20Is%20Used%20As%20Weapon%20by%20U.S&st=cse

That is an archive from 1972 where the U.S Government admitted that it sprayed the skies to create rain during Vietnam -- from the New York Times not what I would call a 'conspiracy' source.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20A17F83E5814728DDDA00994DD405B848BF1D3&scp=3&sq=Rainmaking%20Is%20Used%20As%20Weapon%20by%20U.S&st=cse

That's another one from the 70's...

I really cannot understand why this page is labelled 'conspiracy theory' when there is much evidence to support the fact. I mean, you can see it with your own eyes. Contrails used to stay up for 5-20 minutes and fade away I've looked at some of these lines in the sky from work and they'll be there for the entire day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Well, it's labelled a "conspiracy theory" because those that know SOME degree of physics (I mean, one doesn't have to be a genious) and fluid dynamics know that it's IMPOSSILE for a plane to fly in certain conditions of speed, air temperature and air humidity without leaving a trail. So while it is entirely possible THEORETICALLY for a plane to spray chemicals from the air (meaning that it's not physically impossible), you guys make it sound like there is no such thing as a condensation trail, that all condensation trails are in fact chemical trails and all of us who actually know some pysics are involved in some kind of criminal plot. So yeah I find it unlikely that I'm involved in a criminal plot for the mere fact that I actually took the time in highschool and college to learn some physics and fluid dynamics. That's why it's called a "conspiracy theory". That being said, it's not physically impossible to attach to a plane some kind of spraying device, BUT, in certain conditions a plane WILL leave a trail that is NOT chemical and that is something no plane constructor or designer can do anything about. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British tests

The cited Guardian article describes the use of harmless biological and chemical agents to test the spread pattern when such material is sprayed from an airplane. Chemtrails are not mentioned. Is it original synthesis to include this paragraph here?

- 2/0 (cont.) 05:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3#Historical_Aerial_Spraying. While it apparent that these biological/chemical agents that were dispersed through air are indeed similar in context with chemtrails, no consensus was made. However, the discussion was held in March, so there is no reason not to try and gather a consensus now. To answer your question, as this debate was held before, its best to arrive at a consensus on the talk page(or at a notice board) so as to avoid the appearance of WP:OR.Smallman12q (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That looks to me like a consensus against inclusion, and I am convinced by the arguments put forth. If we find a source explicitly discussing chemtrails and these tests we can come back to it, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then...*continues to wait for such a publication*.Smallman12q (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article state that "zinc cadmium sulphide [were dropped] on the population." ---Cadmium is not harmless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining NPOV

Is this section really neutral?

Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric scientist with NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, is quoted in USA Today as saying that logic is not exactly a real selling point for most chemtrail proponents: "If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it's, 'Well, you're just part of the conspiracy'," he said.

This really seems to be an application of the ad hominem argument...and it creates a false premise.Smallman12q (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the notable opinion of an expert, and people who believe this rubbish are loons and often regarded as such - saying that would be a problem. It's commonly stated, so it should probably be in the article. The quote should remain, I'm open to changing the text around it. Verbal chat 20:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit WP:UNDUE...I'll wait to see what other people say...Smallman12q (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's stating that, in his experience, attempts to explain the actual scientific reasons contrails form are met with accusations that the... enlighted party is 'in on it'. We don't have to limit the quotes we choose to the ones that are unbiased. The pre-quote summary could be reworked, though. --King Öomie 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's NPOV and seems to me that's a bit controversial. First, it looks like that "notable opinion" doesn't provide much to the con arguments and globally to the quality of this article as it doesn't give any explaination to the phenomena. I think it shows a jugement that is not necessarily a rule for all conspirationists ("logic is not exactly a real selling point for most chemtrail proponents"): let's say that there are mathematicians or physicians who are conspirationists. Well, we can conclude that it is the opinion of an "expert of contrails", not an expert of "conspirationists". Let's avoid such quotes. Mik--193.49.124.107 (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any policy reasons? NPOV means neutral by the way, what we strive for, and it doesn't mean removing unflattering content that is reliably sourced. Verbal chat 16:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Many people seem to misunderstand what NPOV means for Wikipedia purposes. Yes, articles should maintain a neutral point of view, but that most certainly does not mean that articles have to be a complete whitewash of the subject to the exclusion of any and all properly sourced criticism and contrary views. – ukexpat (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for a whitewash...the quote seems {{lopsided}}. And the way its used, its a {{POV-assertion}}.Smallman12q (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A notable and attributed POV of an expert. What's your point? Do you dispute the opinion of the expert (not that it matters, I'm just interested)?Verbal chat 22:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that such a quote will addle the article's otherwise balanced approach. I do not have the credentials do dispute him as that isn't my area of expertise. It should be recognized however, that his argument is an ad hominem argument. I for one do not support the use of ad hominem arguments. In this case however, it is used as a quote which happens to represent that scientists POV. I'm not disputing his opinion; such debates are "childish dispositions" and are unrelated to the overall topic. I'm here to ensure that the article maintains as neutral a point of view that a conspiracy theory article can. Smallman12q (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

request you remove "theory" from the title, add UK government admitance of testing in the 80's which is easy to find, and...nah forget it, you won't anyway, but maybe someone with a brain will read this. 90.207.92.146 (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from an IP

Gazing at the sky above Central Hungary on this sunny afternoon, I can see a good two dozen crisscrossing trails, many of which have been slowly dissipating for the last hour. They have not appeared before and I am many miles from the nearest airport. Judging by the turns of these trails, the jets spraying them (for they are not airliners) appear to have some system. We also have a biplane that sprays chemicals to dispel mosquitos in summer. They leave a chemical trail, or "chemtrail". Where's the conspiracy? Naturally, if a government - or a Wikipedia editor - denies something and launches into ad hominems, that does not mean it is a "conspiracy". Remember Gallileo? The very title of this article begins with a puerile attack on people who wish to know and understand the world about them, and who would never believe a politican at first blush. Very often a denial is as good as confirmation.213.222.131.222 (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Your observation is WP:OR; I'm not saying it is inaccurate, but it has no place in discussion here as this is a place to discuss the article, not debate "chemtrails". However, to satisfy your curiosity, those aircraft are likely flying over a GPS point or navigational beacon, which are often nowhere near airports. Their rate of dissipation is governed by laws of physics and vary by location, temperature, altitude, winds, etc. This is all in the article.
  2. If you wish to discuss the article, by all means do so. Could you be more specific on what is wrong with the title? — BQZip01 — talk 18:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And have a look at the logical fallacies article. Verbal chat 19:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with ruminating over what's going on in the sky. But as per Wikipedia policy, title changes & article additions can only be made using verifiable sources, which happen to be the public media and government publications (as well as some independent journals).Smallman12q (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another Sunday and another slew of crisscrossing trails in the sky. One plane I saw at the same height was trailing nothing, not even a contrail. The logical fallacy for me are the weasel words "conspiracy theory" in the title. No one can seriously deny chemical trails are most definitely possible to create in the sky by whatever means (see above for the mosquito repellent), so my question is why does the title bear those words "conspiracy theory" (which Verbal cannot resist using ad nauseum in just about all his responses) - it smacks of a deliberate attempt to stifle discussion, denigrating all those who dare to question the conventional "wisdom" as lunatics (again per Verbal). Again, see Gallileo. I apologise for contributing my ruminations; I understand the strictures on using the Talk page. But let's face it, original research as it is termed in this forum of the government faithful is often left unpublished or out of the mainstream-sanctioned arena (e.g. Wikipedia) for a good (read bad) reason.213.222.131.222 (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Another Sunday and another slew of crisscrossing trails in the sky." Again, this is not the place for WP:OR
"One plane I saw at the same height was trailing nothing, not even a contrail." It is nearly impossible to visually determine the altitude of an airplane from the ground without special training and some equipment. Your depth perception cannot possibly tell if two objects at 4+ miles are 1 mile apart, next to each other, or even further apart.
"The logical fallacy for me are the weasel words "conspiracy theory" in the title. No one can seriously deny chemical trails are most definitely possible to create in the sky by whatever means (see above for the mosquito repellent), so my question is why does the title bear those words "conspiracy theory" (which Verbal cannot resist using ad nauseum in just about all his responses) - it smacks of a deliberate attempt to stifle discussion, denigrating all those who dare to question the conventional "wisdom" as lunatics (again per Verbal)." Mosquito repellent is aerial spraying, not the subject of this page. That kind of spraying though is acknowledged in the article. The title does not "stifle" discussion; the Wikipedia rules stifle discussion. This is an encyclopedia, not a debate forum. If you want to create your own webpage, then do so; nothing on Wikipedia can stop you from doing that. If you have reliable sources, let's see them.
"Again, see Gallileo. I apologise for contributing my ruminations; I understand the strictures on using the Talk page. But let's face it, original research as it is termed in this forum of the government faithful is often left unpublished or out of the mainstream-sanctioned arena (e.g. Wikipedia) for a good (read bad) reason." The government doesn't control Wikipedia content; period. — BQZip01 — talk 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure it does... Government controls mainstream media (or visa versa, same people), and wikipedia only consists of the sacred "reliable sources" which just happen to be govt. sources and mainstream media sources.. so yeah, goverment AND mainstream media DO control wikipedia, albeit indirectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.87.50 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to break this to you, but you are not Galileo. 134.106.41.25 (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible doesn't mean 'plausible'. Who's denying that chemtrails are POSSIBLE to create? It would have been POSSIBLE to fake the moon landing, that doesn't mean the moon landing was DEFINITELY faked. --King Öomie 13:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be one of those logical fallacies I mentioned. I wonder how many more will come up? Verbal chat 13:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) Recalling that this page is intended for discussing the article rather than more general discussion about the article's subject, perhaps we could clarify exactly what the purpose of this discussion is. 213.222.131.222 (talk · contribs) seems to have expressed that they are unhappy with a few aspects of the article, for example the title being Chemtrail conspiracy theory, but we don't have any proposals as far as I can see on how anything should be changed. As such, I'm unclear as to where this discussion is supposed to be heading. Adambro (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes about 5 of us... — BQZip01 — talk 00:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too am unsure as to what the the IP is leading too...however, as the title of this section suggests "Comment from IP"...I posit that this merely a remark rather an opening to a meaningful discussion. On a side note(perhaps further derailing this thread...), there is a famous book by one of Intel's founders, Andrew Grove, Only the Paranoid Survive.Smallman12q (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article, and all similar articles, should immediately be changed to remove the words "Conspiracy theory". Are you going to put that next to the holocaust, too, just because some people don't believe it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.220.130 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ContrailScience.com

I just came across this great website and it quite convinced me that there wasn't any chemtrail conspiracy, so I included it in the external links. plus, it has a link to a histerical photo of a stork contrail! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brinerustle (talk • contribs) 23:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There MIGHT be some nasty chemicals in that particular contrail. Suffice to say, I don't want to be behind it. --King Öomie 21:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove At Least Weather Control From Theories About Chemtrails - Possibly The Best Evidence Contrail Unnaturalness to date

Hi, here it is this one [2], I understand that the news broadcast was initially about cloud seeding in Northern California to create more rain, but it later mentions that in San Fransisco's PG&E offices they have a department there that freely operates a program with no government rules or restrictions, though some recent laws let them take test drives. Does KTVU News make the mistake of including persistent contrails (from commercial airliners/military jets) in the broadcast? Listen closely from 3:07-3:27, it says quote (the man who the second half of it with others runs the private corporatist program, he implies these are tests to see if it works - by contrails) [the parenthesis are my commentary, so you can better understand it], Narrator: And what about unintended weather modification such as those persistent jet contrails that criss-cross our sky, these are over Mendocino County where military jets practice... The Man: They are blocking some of the sunlight coming in (Like factory pollution/ice age.), they also trap some of the heat (Also like a greenhouse effect which pertains to how global cooling/warming/dimming - I am just going to call it climate change enthusiasts blame most Co2 output only from human beings - even though the polar ice caps of Mars and the moons of Jupiter are melting, and 30,000 real climatologists and meteorologists signed a petition about it being unvalidated and they are skeptical about human made climate change - not denying climate change itself.), so the jury is out to what the exact effects are (Oh so lets just guess? Since nobody cares about the weather and passing laws before enacting such a program right?), but those contrails do have an effect on the weather and climate (Stop it, your giving away too much (Best examples [3] (this is a weather modification company that does more than just cloud seeding - I know cloud seeding is not chemtrails), and [4])!)... Notice how the last man does not say it is only for cloud seeds to make limited rain, it will effect the weather and climate in other ways.

Other newscasts, like the weathermen here both say some strips of some kind of metal alloy is released by military jets for weather warfare exercises which is to protect us [5], [6], and [7], plus [8]. We should make a section in the article where lawful proposals have been made to use contrails to decrease (or intentionally increase for some agenda - as chemtrail conspiracy theorists propose) the effects of climate change by geo-engineering the planet. I guess we can rule out that weather control by persistent contrails (wrongfully called chemtrails - which is slang) is not a theory anymore.

The CHAP experiments mentioned in the various newscasts are therefore real, this does not mean chemtrails are real, it just means some other materials are being added to the jet fuel with new compartments mostly (this means 90% of chemtrail pictures and videos are actually showing normal contrail and the spread out is maybe because of climate change, but a third trail can be seen at the tip of the tale of the plane, even one added to one of the engines - which this has yet to be explained by anyone) at the nose tip of the small or commercial airliners. You can see it in this video, the song and information is entertaining so you will not get bored, the small strips of material (as explained on the contrail science website as a metalized plastic strip dropped from the planes - maybe angel hair) at the end of the video are probably from the CHAP experiments [9], and do not forget the Weather Control episode of the "That's Impossible" show is filled with some truth. Although I do not agree with every opinion shown in this last video, only the two cones from one engine and one cone from the tail is unusual (even if a engine is at tip end of the tail [notice dumping fuel is done at one time in a fast matter and only from two places but not the tail, and not on and off], which there is no aircraft with an engine on the tip end of the tail, you can not turn it on and off in mid flight).

So finally, what I am implying in this message is that no one can say what the true agenda of adding materials or aerosol spraying (as done in 1940-58-67's - these dates are used by de-bunkers of this article to say that it is just the same as long time ago, forgetting that those were isolated experiments themselves - mostly famously for a British town and the Vietnam War - cloud seeding by military jets.) are for, we mostly know that they may have negative side effects, and since its resurgence in 1996 (in small amounts) until now, we can (until a real experiment is done to measure them scientifically) know what these new materials are that are added to persistent contrails and why. However, as seen in a still from a video at the top right of the You tube page, you can see a jet fuel being dumped (jet fuel either gets dumped as depending on the type of plane from the middle of the wings or between the wings and the tail - but never from the tail itself), but in the video the little wisps being turned of and one are coming from the tail of the planes, which there is nothing supposed to be coming out from there and should not exist (but it does), so this is a mystery. I do not support or oppose the chemtrail conspiracy theory (I would change the wording) because I am a neutral skeptic, and go by scientific observation, so if 50 years from now it gets disclosed that it was some sort of experiment or that it was not it will not matter, because it has been admitted and denied long time ago that experiments on masses of people without their knowledge is a common practice for security reasons. Verdict is that something is going on with the recent contrails. So please if you are finished reading this one hour message, feel free respond right here on the page. Thank you and goodbye.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory&oldid=359748030"