Jump to content

Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Contrails vs chemtrails

Bryce Edited this article at 10:04 on may 22nd 2020 The article suggest Chemtrails "does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding..." And continues on to state that supporters of the conspiracy do attribute chemtrails to practices such as cloud seeding with "Supporters of this conspiracy theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be for...weather control..." Cloud seeding, according to Wikipedia is described as "dispersing substances into the air that serve as cloud condensation or ice nuclei, which alter the microphysical processes within the cloud." I do not want to argue semantics, but individuals unrelated to any conspiracies may refer to dispersing silver iodide as "chemtrails" and/or "contrails." In this report by KTVU Man-Made Storm Clouds Hover Over Northern California they refer to the weather modification trails as "persistent jet contrails that crisscross our sky." The "contrails" mentioned would appear to be what many refer to as "chemtrails" for purpose of weather control.. Also, on the contrail page it does not even mention the trails as a method for cloud seeding (which in the images, looks as if the plane is sprinkling, rather misleading too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.92.243 (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The link to the news report makes no mention of chemtrails. This article is about a conspiracy theory which says that persistent aircraft contrails are actually some kind of chemical spraying (for whatever purpose). Actual (silver iodide) cloud seeding is not a conspiracy theory (although some conspiracy theorists think that chemtrails are some form of cloud seeding) and persistent contrails are unrelated. The report you link does make this tangential link in regards to weather changes caused by aircraft, but this has nothing to do with this article, contrails do cause slight changes in weather, but this is not a secret or a conspiracy. --Daniel 01:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Cloud seeding doesn't leave a persistent visible trail. Mystylplx (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"Following suit, Phoenix News Reporter Pat McReynolds at CBS KPHO interviewed Geoengineering[24] investigators and concluded that chemtrails do not exist." but reading the interview linked at [24] shows NO USE of the word Geoengineering. I consider this statement false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.36.209 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT Shot info (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The US Government now ADMITS to Chemtrails (Aerosol Spraying)! WORLD WIDE!

U.S. Climate Change Science Program (Proof from our own Gov!) 

http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap2-3/sap2-3-final-report-all.pdf
See page32; Figure 2.6. Geographical coverage of active AERONET sites in 2006.
Every Major US City is being sprayed and that was 5 years ago! They expand every year! Also the nice picture on p84, Korea.

At first America was only chemical spraying itself with (aerosol aluminium) as a solar shield to try to cool itself from Global Warming.

US Climate Change Science Program

www.climatescience.gov
The Climate Change Science Program integrates federal research
on climate and global change, as sponsored by thirteen federal agencies
and overseen by ...

Now there doing it worldwide!

United States Global Change Research Program
www.globalchange.gov

United Kingdom:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/221.pdf

If you don't want to believe it from the horse's own mouth ABOVE then here is some more scientific PROOF.

Chemtrail Spray Operations Captured on Doppler Radar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWvwaOgP564

Personal Comment:

If what they admit to doing is truly only an elaborate "solar shield" to try to keep the earth cool from global warming, then why are they spraying at night as I've personally witnessed every month near full moons. Why low altitudes daily; instead of at 120 miles in the mesosphere or higher so it takes weeks, months, or years for the toxins to fall on us; thus not harming humans, animals, plants and insects! They could put it in orbit spraying once and they're done, and we're not breathing the stuff ever!

Resources:

--GlennD.108 (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The first link is interesting but has absolutely nothing to do with chemtrails. Atmospheric aerosols come from many different sources, jet exhaust is not one of them. The UK one is also interesting but also has nothing to do with chemtrails. We already have a geoengineering article. The rest is, quite frankly, crap. No offense. Mystylplx (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually I should correct what I said above--jet exhaust is one contributor to atmospheric aerosols. One among many. That still doesn't make it a "chemtrail." It's simply a perfectly normal byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion. The only thing they are "spraying" is the normal exhaust from burning jet fuel. Mystylplx (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I know the report doesn't directly say they are dumping 300 metric tons of Aerosol v2.3 a day, but it does show the abnormal amounts of aluminum and other aerosol particles. Then to just call the rest crap, without proper comment or reasoning, is crap. I guess the science of Doppler Radar is crap too. Whenever someone resorts to insults instead of facts, I know they are full of something but it is not the facts! --GlennD.108 (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Please don't use this page as a forum to discuss chemical spraying. And note that this is an article about chemtrails, and not about chemical spraying. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Dougweller, what are Chemtrails made of (in theory), yes Aerosol-ed (sprayed) chemicals out of Jet planes. Motion to delete both your Dougweller post and my reply to it.
--GlennD.108 (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional solid irrefutable evidence supporting Chemtrails:

  • A normal Jet's Contrail dissipating at the same time right next to Jet Chemtrail spraying Aerosol Chemicals across the horizon.
  • Jets at low altitude (not cold enough; temp > -40C) and/or too dry (not enough humidity < 60%)

Remember; for a contrail to form specific uncommon upper troposphere conditions must exist; Temp at or below -40C and humidity => 60%. CONTRAILS CONDITIONS DON'T HAPPEN EVERY STINKING DAY! It used to happen once every other month, rarely twice in a month! http://i522.photobucket.com/albums/w348/GlennD108/ContrailandChemtrailatsametime.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JakkmlyfI8Y (Go to 2:30 in the video) --GlennD.108 (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Glenn please read wp:rs, wp:or and wp:syn. None of the source you have given are reliable enough to be useful. Youtube and photobucket are self published sources so they will not be useful for anything. Thanks.--Adam in MO Talk 08:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Even a video of Doppler Radar with dates and times that can be verified with multiple weather archive sources? The other video is just an example of what I've witnessed myself and anyone can if they keep looking up at the jets you'll see short Contrails with Long Chemtrails in the same sky.
--GlennD.108 (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
As I said, read WP:RS - and WP:NOR. Plus, this is not a forum. Sources MUST both be reliable by our criteria and discuss chemtrails. If they don't, they can't be used in the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Doug are you and Adam the same, because you didn't say read anything?
Anyway, you're trying to play word games; also called "semantics". One definition (if not the only one) for Chemtrails: "ChemTrail is a conjunctive or compound word from the joining of two words; Chemical and Trails, because it is theorized that Chemicals are sprayed out (Aerosol-ed) from hidden nozzles near Jet Plane engines to give the appearance of a contrail!" Thus Chemtrail means SPRAYED CHEMICALS out of a jet plane. Sprayed and Aerosol-ed are synonyms for simple purpose of explaining what a Chemtrail is. :::Who decides "reliable enough", "usefulness", "Relevance"? Is their a jury of peers? Is there at vote system.--GlennD.108 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, I thought I had written that. It's still something you need to do if you are going to try to change this article. Also read WP:VERIFY. You're new and it takes time to understand how Wikipedia works. And yes, your comment below is correct, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for any of its articles, ie you can use another article as a source for this one. Dougweller (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
FACTS STAND BY THEMSELVES REGARDLESS OF THE SOURCE, THEY CAN BE VERIFIED! That truth should be the standard above pointing a finger at any source. If the content of any source can be Verifiable, then that source is valid. Showing a picture example of what to look for so readers can verify it with their own eyes; thus becoming an "Eye Witness" is a valid source entry. Weather Records can be verified, as can Air and Soil Samples from multiple sources. To turn a blind eye to verifiable evidence just because of where or who the source is, is the same as a camel sticking its head in the sand. Isn't Wiki itself also a self-published source? Wiki might as well put itself in the non-reliable source list; if that is its policy! I stated the scientific facts (formula) of what conditions are required for a Contrail to come into existence, then gave a still and video picture as an example, however readers are encouraged to get weather data in there region and see if the Conditions exist for the creation of contrails.--GlennD.108 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a tertiary source, relying on material that has been published and analyzed by reputable secondary sources. It is not a place to present one's own personal analysis or original research, nor is a WP:SYNTHESIS argument permissible, nor is this a forum for your personal views. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and no matter how certain you may personally be, you must make a persuasive argument that any proposed addition must have been published in toto in reputable sources elsewhere. You have not done so, but have instead presented your personal synthesis from pieces of other sources, most of which do not say what you believe they do. Acroterion (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

GlennD, I only glanced at the report you cite, "http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap2-3/sap2-3-final-report-all.pdf See page32; Figure 2.6. Geographical coverage of active AERONET sites in 2006." I don't see where it says anything was sprayed or introduced into the atmosphere. AERONET seems to be a network of monitoring stations. Please point to the specific place in that report where it says the government introduced chemicals into the atmosphere. If the government is spraying chemicals into the atmosphere, even if it is in tiny amounts and for good reasons, then I would support noting this in the article, using language like "thus-and-such report says that on thus-and-such dates thus-and-such amounts of thus-and-such were sprayed. The report states thus-and-such reasons for doing it and thus-and-such reasons for claiming it is harmless. However, chemtrail advocate so-and-so said in thus-and-such publication that this proves that chemicals are, in fact, being sprayed." But at the moment, I'm not seeing anything like that. I don't have time to read the whole report. The only occurrence of the word "spray" is in the context of salt spray in ocean whitecaps, and the only experiments that seem to be discussed are "model experiments" taking place inside computer simulations, not in the atmosphere. Where in this report does it say the government is spraying chemicals into the atmosphere? Please quote the sentence that says so. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Statements from credible organizations

You can check http://www.ekopokret.org.rs/ (Ekoloski Pokret Novog Sada), it is an ecological movement from Serbia (the biggest and most respected of such organizations in Europe). They are constantly updating about their research of the compounds found in chemtrails, with medical analysis and laboratory reports. Further more, Nikola Aleksic (the director of that movement) had sued the government (including the president) of Serbia for allowing the poisoning of the people, with all the proofs, gathered during years of their research. You can contact them if you need more credible claims for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burek021 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that info. We may include that Chemtrail Theorists now are trying to support their claims by analysing rain water, snow, hair, etc. Personally, I came across some of these attempts. Yet, I think we'd still need reliable sources as to not dabble into original research. (Especially since most of the attempts I came across were marred by methodological errors. Thus both the validity as well as, in the end, the relevance is so far not clear.) Would you have reliable, secondary sources warranting inclusion? Regards SK (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
What sources are counted as "reliable" sources here? I'd be curious to know.98.80.44.254 (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Mainstream, official, or academically published. The do-it-yourself stuff or stuff from websites that focus on issues the "mainstream can't or won't tell us the truth" are not. I'd also add that English language sources be required. It's enough of a fringe topic that we shouldn't burden the community to have to verify or investigate any sources written in other languages. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears that editing does not apply to the summary at the top of this article - when I click on the edit above overview - the text below comes up. But I am concerned by the statement at the top that "the scientific community does not support this theory". I did not notice in the text any verifiable evidence that some entity called "the scientific community" researched or weighed in on this theory. What I do see is that certain government agencies have stated that they have investigated it and do not support the theory. Given the use of fuel air explosives to seed a trail of death in the first Iraq war - exterminating a column of tanks that were essentially prisoners of war, and given the statement by Robert McNamara, shortly before he died that - as an officer on the staff of General Curtis LeMay involved in the targeting of the fire-bombing of japan "We destroyed over 60 (McNamara stated an exact number in the 60s ranges) of the largest cities in Japan 50 - 90% by fire bombing. How many civilians did we kill. But we won the war, so we are heroes. Is the difference between a war criminal and a hero whether or not you won?" To the victors belong the spoils - or rather the "right" to exterminate the "enemy" with impunity - even if they are civilians. And gaseous deposits from planes are one of the tactics.

So such a claim as made in this article merits investigation by the scientific community - independent of any government that might conduct such actions or the agencies of that government. Please show me the evidence that "the scientific community" either researched or weighed in on this theory before stating it as fact at the summary of this article.

By the way, I am still a sceptic about whether there is a "chem trail conspiracy" - but I don't yet have the evidence to deny - and neither - do I think - does Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthatisknown (talk • contribs) 17:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The statement about the "scientific community" is referenced in the body of the text: lead paragraphs are summaries of the article and are not referenced on Wikipedia. The USAF reference itself references additional publications. There are extensive references in the article for both the conspiracy theories and their status as fringe ideas. As for McNamara, the Gulf War, etc., none of that has anything to do with the conspiracy theory. Acroterion (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Documentary

This article is obviously flawed if it dosent mention documentary "What in the World Are They Spraying?" wow, just wow.... its from 2010 too, kinda dissapointed in wikipedia for the first time.

and stuff like this shoudl not be in encyclopedia, its obviously bias and trying to make those theorists look bad. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.25.252 (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

How is it biased to quote a notable atmospheric scientist's opinions regarding this conspiracy theory? On the other hand a limited distribution film on a fringe topic made by non experts is unsurprisingly not mentioned. --Daniel 21:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The film contains quiet a few scientists. And its obviously attacking sentence, not an scientific opinion. Thou i did more investigation and i wanted to edit my first part since it was obviously badly presented. And yeah, wikipedia cant be fully objective, since it has to rely on "reliable sources". You can delete all of this if you deem it neccecary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.25.252 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
If you track down their claimed qualifications, and the institutions that they apparently received them from, I afraid that you might be disappointed with many of those "scientists". AndroidCat (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know about that documentary in particular, but I've seen too many documentaries where they had people claiming to be "scientists" but when I checked their credentials it turned out they weren't all they were cracked up to be. Zeitgeist and What the Bleep spring immediately to mind. It's sad that documentary filmaking used to be a respected form of journalism but has devolved into a platform for any hairbrained theory that gets popular on the interwebs. Mystylplx (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE CONSIDERING A CHEMTRIAL/AERIAL SPRAYING BAN 12/6/2011

http://truedemocracyparty.net/2011/11/citizens-initiative-to-ban-chemtrails-proposal-to-ban-aerial-spraying-of-aluminum-oxide-barium-sulfur-rady-ananda/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.134.154 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I might even vote for something like that for the same reason I might vote for an ordinance banning dragons. Couldn't do any harm, and it puts the ball (again) back in the court of those who believe in chemtrails (or dragons) to prove they exist before any action was taken based on the ordinance. Doubt it will pass though. Most people don't have my sense of humor. Mystylplx (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, don't ban a dragons, I like them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.32.117.210 (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
<Removed comment by Hommedespoir on 22:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC) as a violation of WP:TALK and WP:SOAP> Buffs (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you have anything to contribute to the article based on reliable sources? That's what this page is for. We discuss how to improve the article, not gripe about how we don't like it. If you have reliable sources we can use, please provide them, otherwise your rant is the type of stuff that can get you blocked for violation of the rules for WP:TALK. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Foreign language sources

Someone made a few claims with TV news in foreign languageedit, sources: ZDF ZDF RTL

Only the last video has a translation, and I could only check two sentences. It happens to be a misleading translation, giving the false impression that the TV channel is reporting usage of chemtrails to modify the climate. In reality, it's saying that their government was testing Chaff (countermeasure).

In 1:20-1:27:

  • original text: "Die Aufzeichnungen belegen, dass dabei sehr geringe Mengen von Düppeln ausgebracht wurden"
  • provided translation: "The registers report emissions of chemtrails at low attitudes"
  • google translation: "The records show that it has been applied very small amounts of chaff"[1]

And in 2:23:

  • original text: "Wetterkartenmanipulation ist verboten"
  • provided translation: "Weather manipulation is prohibited"
  • correct translation: "Weather map manipulation is prohibited"

The other sources were a domestic video [2], and a newspaper article about possibly using climate engineering in the future, it's not about people using chemtrails currently[3] translation.

I don't see anything salvageable here. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I originally reverted as copyvio links (and the translations were original research which I didn't bother to check but suspected they'd be inaccurate and pov). Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Being German, I can attest to the the RTL video's misleading translation (also here). Furthermore, while the Kieler Studie does mention bringing out Sulphur, it mentions ideas about doing so in the stratosphere, higher than the altitude airplanes fly at. Thus, it does not really fit together with what is usually described as "chemtrails". (Same goes for the ZDF video, AFAIR). The Kieler Paper also rejects this option on several grounds. Accordingly, I reverted the whole passage. It's just not borne by the sources. SK (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Government Statements are not reliable

Government Statements are not reliable unless there is some tangible evidence to support them. Chemtrails are a conspiracy theory they say. Anyone who accepts these statements as 'respected 3rd party publishing' has already shown their inability to think critically about a subject and should not be allowed to edit an online encyclopedia as it is clear they will endanger innocent people. Jardycoho (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether they are reliable or not. For the purposes of an Encyclopedia article we report what was said in reliable sources. If we state, for instance, that the Air Force says chemtrails are a hoax, then that is a simple statement of fact. They did indeed state that. And their statement particularly deserves inclusion because they are the one's being accused of spraying chemicals on the population. These are the rules for what is and is not included in a Wikipedia article.
I'd be ok with what you just stated, if it were actually enforced. Allow me to expose yet another Wikipedia:Double-Standard. If we state for example that a college student's research led him to believe that "chemtrails" were indeed a real phenomenon, and that they could contain harmful substances, then that would be a simple statement of fact.Bold text He did indeed say that, in his paper that was published on a real college university website. So, how come my statement got removed after being live for about 5 seconds? Let me guess, it was because your statement came from USA TODAY, which is much more trusted and reliable than scientific research. 63.225.172.90 (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
A student publishing a paper on a personal site through his college is not the same as a news organization with a reputation for fact checking. Those personal sites provided by colleges have no fact checking--they are no better than any other blogs. Mystylplx (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, the Air Force's statements in response to the allegations of chemical spraying should come after the scientific research and other credible public sources have been made clear in the article. Just like in court, the prosecution goes first, then the defense. Cheers. 63.225.177.44 (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. If you know of any credible scientific research or other credible public sources that either support or contradict the chemtrail theory, and that aren't already in the article, then they should be in the article. The problem is many people mistake those chemtrail sites as "scientific" simply because they claim to be scientific. Anyone can claim to be doing "scientific research." By 'credible scientific research' I mean something published in an actual science journal or at least mentioned in a reliable secondary source. Mystylplx (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Personally I would love to include statements about how utterly idiotic the whole chemtrail conspiracy theory is, include pictures of spreading persisting contrails from the 1940's, and point out how dumb it is to test barium levels in rainwater and think that means anything about what is in jet exhaust, but that would be original research and is not allowed. Mystylplx (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey that's cool, I'm not trying to discredit your belief systems. It's just that Wikipedia is so obsessed with their precious reliable sources these days. And that alone blows your cover! Cheers. PS what does 'reliable' mean cause I must have been waay off about that :p63.225.177.44 (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
If you don't like WP's guidelines, you basically have 2 options: go to the appropriate places to discuss changes to them or decide that WP is not for you as nobody is forcing you to write here. SK (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Further to what Mystylplx says, click on this link WP:5P to give you some idea of the "rules" that Wikipedia runs on. Enjoy!  :-) Shot info (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors should all be warned: There are editors among us that are speaking on our behalf, removing edits so quickly it makes you wonder if they were watching you the whole time, with their finger hovering on the submit button. Whatever happened to waiting for the other editors to give their feedback FIRST before removing content? This person or group of people has stated above, after I pointed out the obvious double-standard of 'official statements' that "..It doesn't matter whether they are reliable or not". Once again, this person stated "..It doesn't matter whether they are reliable or not". Really? And this is supposed to be an 'encyclopedia' right? ......... I could have avoided coming here and avoided writing all of this too, if Wikipedia would have changed their name to something more appropriate for the quality of content they allow. Something like Tabloidapedia.com would work, Plutocrapedia.com is also a fine candidate, if I do say so myself. Thank you. 63.225.172.90 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Or, you could post your proposed edits here on the talkpage per WP:BRD? Shot info (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Incidently IP63, if you are only here to whine about how bad Wikipedia is, you're not going to have much fun making friends here in Wikipedia. Also given that talk space is about discussions to improve articles, if you continue with the above don't be surprised when your comments are removed per WP:SOAP and WP:TALK. Your choice, you can help. Shot info (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
And there's no way that we would accept a student's powerpoint presentation as a reliable source. I also note that this undergraduate used self-published works as a source (Carnicom.com, Dave Dahl's self-published book). Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Incidently IP63, if you are only here to whine about how bad Wikipedia is," wikipedia gives anyone trying to find out facts a headache. its basically impossible now. many people complain on many threads about this. if only they would understand, all you gotta do is become a journalist working for a well known publication and then you too can write history. Just like all the greats did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.229.79 (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

O noes... Shot info (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If the Government publishes its own 128 page scientific report detailing and proving their Chemtrail program called "AERONET", should not this article's Title be changed to "Conspiracy Proven"? How much scientific evidence is required? If 13 major government agencies say they are doing something and offer a 128 page scientific report proving it, what skeptics are we!

U.S. Climate Change Science Program 128 page report:
http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap2-3/sap2-3-final-report-all.pdf

Shouldn't this report or the link to it, be included in the main article?

--GlennD.108 (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If the government did publish such a document, it would be newsworthy. Unfortunately, your link has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory detailed in the article. It's just a report on atmospheric aerosols, including those generated by the burning of jet fuel. Acroterion (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


It's no surprise that none of these whacko conspiracy theorists have bothered to send an aircraft or probe up to collect a sample of these "chemtrails" for analysis. Never let the evidence get in the way of a paranoid story, eh? The only evidence we have, and that we ever have had, is that the visible trails are nothing more than ice crystals formed from the freezing of water produced during combustion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPMD (talk • contribs) 14:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Just more of the same mindset. If the government remains silent, they're hiding something. If the government responds, they're covering it up. In short, paranoia exemplified.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV?

In my opinion, the writing style of this article does not respect the Neutral Point of View principle.

Chemtrail theory actually is what its name states: a theory. It is not an "absolute truth" but a theory, and like most theories, it can be proven or disproven in the course of time, or can hold true only under certain assumptions. I would normally expect a Wikipedia article to, first, present the subject matter (chemtrail theory), discuss whatever evidence is quoted in its support, and then proceed to presenting any arguments against.

Instead, this article only fights this theory right from its first sentence, using very judgemental language. Illustrations are also made selectively and do not include a single photograph presented by the proponents of this theory.

Please, Wikipedia is not Fox News, we need to respect the neutral point of view. Someone please take time to improve this article. Thanks! kashmiri 12:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV requires that all aspects of a subject be covered in due proportion to their coverage in reliable sources, and that fringe points of view, conspiracy theories, internet rumors and the like be described as such, rather than granting a false legitimacy to fringe POVs. There are no reliable sources supporting this conspiracy theory as fact. The lead summarizes the article, so if it is a fringe theory or conspiracy theory, the lead will say so. Wikipedia is not required to "balance" a subject when the subject itself is a fringe theory: rather the opposite. Acroterion (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Over all, my view is that the article is neutral in its present form, for purposes of the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. And I agree with editor Acroterion; Neutral Point of View does not mean mean giving equal weight to all points of view, especially where, as here, the theory is a fringe theory. Famspear (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
It is not up to the editor to label a theory as a "fringe theory" - it is up to the reader to understand it as such based on presented material. However, this "chemtrail theory" IMHO is as true as God or UFO theory - neither can be proven or denied beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of available information. Still, the Wikipedia article on "God" does not start by terming it , say, "a creature not substantiated scientifically".
Similarly, the chemtrail theory cannot be reasonably disproved based on available information. It can however be proven unfounded by disputing the credibility of the sources quoted in its support. Unfortunately, this article does not even bother going into the sources that the proponents quote, even less into refuting them. Hence my objection.
It can also be kept in mind that a fraction of conspiracy theories turned out true many years down the history lane. kashmiri 21:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
It is not up to the editor to label a theory as a "fringe theory" - it is up to the reader to understand it as such based on presented material.
It is up to editors to present the consensus of reliable sources on the subject, and in cases when those sources declare it to be fringe they label it fringe. I can't think of any conspiracy theories that ended up being true at the top of my head, certainly that does not mean we should start believing that all conspiracy theories have a chance of being right(fake moon landing?) because some unrelated theory turned out to be true. Besides, science is improving at an exponential rate, and the amount of times it is wrong is decreasing rapidly as is the amount of times that conspiracy theories are proving correct.AerobicFox (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You might wish to review WP:FRINGE, which discusses how Wikipedia characterizes this kind of subject matter. Acroterion (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Fuel Dumps

I wonder why the article doesn't mention fuel dumps. Fuel dumps look like contrails. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0245b.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.68.204 (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Fuel dumps may look somewhat like contrails from that perspective, but a contrail usually expands to a size significantly larger than the aircraft engine that produced it. A fuel dump RAPIDLY dissipates and does NOT create a cloud behind the airplane. It vaporizes nearly instantly. Buffs (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Technically, the fuel doesn't vaporize, it's aerosolized by the high speed wind caused by the aircraft's travel. Most jet fuel IS only a high grade of kerosene, hence isn't very volatile. A fuel dump is also performed at a lower altitude than where contrails are typically observed. That said, it does rapidly dissipate. Far more rapidly than the majority of contrails, from a visual perspective.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A relationship between Rainmaking Patents & Chemtrails

I've always thought people proposing this "ChemTrail" conspiracy are a little odd. This is exactly how the bills relating to the 'banning' of chemtrails get treated in court and the newspapers. However since it has neither been proven nor disproven, I do want to add that it is quite logical for 'some' agency within the U.S. government to experiment with Rainmaking/Weather technology. Rainmaking is basically the process of spraying "rainmaking chemicals" into the atmosphere. King Bhumibol Adulyadej owns the patent for one 'chemtrail' that a few countries in Africa pay money for. Here is an article about that patent: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2940430.stm I hope the editors and the 'conpiracy' theorists can find some middle ground, because it is quite possible that such experimentation is possibly taking place in Hawaii because of A. volcano B. Isolation C. Several different ecosystems D. A plethora of Air Force and Armed Force Land bases E. Long history of Arms Experimentation in Makua Valley, Barking Sands, and Kahoolave. There may be other correlations between Air Force facilities and Reports of "Chemtrails", but then again it could just be contrails. Quash-asia (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, weather modification would be a very valid point to discuss in this article - it looks very likely to me that a hearsay on the use of weather modification techniques might actually stand behind the origin of the chemtrail theory.
P.S. I moved your section to the bottom - discussions on Wikipedia always go top down. kashmiri 09:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia's just an encyclopedia-we don't don't incorporate new cutting edge, "you heard it here first" theories here. So the article sticks to independently published, reliable sources that write about chemtrails. By name. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Solar radiation management

BBC World Service broadcasted a piece some time ago on the work of Nobel prize winning atmospheric chemist Paul J. Crutzen. There is enough reliably sourced information on stratospheric sulfate aerosols (geoengineering), cloud reflectivity modification, solar radiation management, albedo, albedo enhancement, and geoengineering to create a new section that goes into more detail on that aspect of the theory. This change would be beneficial because the lead section states various, conflicting speculations in only one sentence, and the rest of the article doesn't completely expand upon or organize them. 178.8.154.26 (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the way we work, our sources must discuss chemtrails, and yours doesn't. See WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
While interesting, 'chemtrails' aren't related to atmospheric engineering programs (real, proposed, or imagined); it would be an inappropriate expansion of the definition of 'chemtrail' to incorporate those programs – already well-covered in the other Wikipedia articles you mentioned – into this article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This article currently states that "Supporters of this conspiracy theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be for solar radiation management..." followed by a list of other speculations. So how is referenced material about aerosols sprayed from aircraft for that purpose not relevant? The reason I mentioned this is because the article is rather disorganized. Giving each major component of the conspiracy theory a small section would be a large improvement. As it is, the article is structured as a lead, followed by an overview, followed by a comparison of contrails to chemtrails. I propose that the information be structured in solar radiation management, weather control, population control, and biological/chemical warfare sections (as they very briefly are in the lead section). I believe that there is already enough sourced information on solar radiation management to have a section on that topic. I understand the desire to keep the concept of chemtrails in a narrow scope; this article even does this by discounting various kinds of known aerial spraying. Those four components of the theory, however, are within even that scope and deserving of expansion. 92.78.117.153 (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Chemtrails = contrails

There's no evidence that chemical spraying is being done, and no evidence of any benefit that spraying could achieve, so it looks like a simple conspiracy theory for the gullible to enjoy. Commercial airliners do everything they can to reduce weight - extra weight means extra costs. But hang on, we know the planes are spraying out CO2 and other greenhouse gases, so why not concentrate on this as a campaign? CO2 is a chemical, so contrails can quite logically be called chemtrails without the need for anyone to be labelled as conspiracy-theory wierdos :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.82.76 (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There WERE and may well still be true chemtrails, but not from some nefarious operation. The SR-71 used highly specialized fuel, whose additives would then leave a chemical trail that was easily visible on radar, hence a cesium compound was added to lower the radar signature. But, some would latch onto THAT as "evidence" of some conspiracy.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Not a chemical trail per se (except for the brief moment when the chemical catalyst for the afterburner kicked on) - but the superheated gases from combustion that were visible because they were so hot and fast that they effectively formed a surface for the radar to reflect from. The cesium compound was an unsuccessful attempt to break up that surface. La Maupin (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert edit

Undid revision 510018425 by 69.253.109.141 (talk) Spelling/grammar correction.

Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Insect Spraying

I believe this statement, "It does not refer to other forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting.[7]" Is missing "insect control". Insect control is accepted by most first world nations, people that believe in this application do not profess belief in a conspiracy theory. This is openly performed and evidence of this can be found in the Washington Post. Spraying for insect control has been going on for almost 90 years. Evan Carroll (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It would probably just be best to refer to "crop dusting" as "agricultural spraying". That would encompass both. Buffs (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the source says crop dusting, so we can't make that change. Maybe somebody could find another source. 88.75.162.231 (talk) 07:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The term crop dusting is colloquially used used to encompass all forms of agricultural spraying, including of pesticides, fungicides, and fertilizers. (Note where the link to 'crop dusting' takes you.) Since our use of the given reference isn't a direct quotation, paraphrasing for clarity (in this case, substituting a reasonably synonymous term) is permitted; I'm going to go ahead and do that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Chemtrails as criticism of pollution

I believe there is another use of the word chemtrail that doesn't imply a conspiracy theory but just tries to point out that while contrails sound like harmless clouds they are in fact caused by chemical aeresol pollutants in jet engine exhaust that has an environmental impact. Maybe this should be mentioned in a small paragraph in the intro. AbstractClass (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth a brief mention if there is reliable sourcing to indicate this additional widespread misuse of the term. (That is to say, a small number of internet forums, or a few confused bloggers and columnists, probably wouldn't suffice. It's not Wikipedia's role to promote and spread new definitions for words.) Of course, like the main meaning of the term chemtrail, this usage would also be based in ignorance or fear-mongering—the largest component of jet exhaust, and the one principally responsible for the formation of contrails, is water vapor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Changing the article title

Hi all, I see that the editor who redirected Chemtrail to this page has been banned from Wikipedia. Could someone move this article back to it's proper title chemtrail. thanks.178.148.227.210 (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources call it a conspiracy theory, so that's what Wikipedia calls it. This was discussed in 2009, and I'm not aware of any change that would warrant a title change. Nobody's been banned for a redirect that I can see. Acroterion (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

EL

Hopefully someone will be able to explain why chemtrail conference link is not "External link in an article ... helpful to the reader ... and directly relevant to the article." WP:EL

After all, article is titled 'chemtrail conspiracy theory' and why conference organized by 'believers' as described in daily news is not directly relevant to the article?

Chemtrail Conference [4]

178.148.227.210 (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the target of the link is effectively advertising ("Now You Can Own & Relive This Historic Conference!"), ("Complete Presenter Box Set - Buy Now"), rather than an extension of encyclopedic content. Linkspam of this sort is discouraged. Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Gotcha! Thanks :) 178.148.227.210 (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

(Reverted to revision 521856541 by SkepticalRaptor: In what way is YouTube a TW))

To SkepticalRaptor. Not only the link was not cited in the article as a source, so to have to be an absolutely reliable source, but YouTube isn't even the source, the source is the documentary, YouTube is just the container. Also, the request for a reliable source in this case is absolutely ridiculous... you must present what each of the sides is claiming from an original source of theirs, not what one of the sides is claiming that the other is saying, and that documentary was a relevant source of the conspiracy supporters side, even though it was just listed as an external link, for reference.

Also, why didn't you discussed the change before removing the content? --ANDROBETA 18:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of ...present(ing) what each of the sides is claiming from an original source..., would you be in favour of listing this link directly next to the Youtube link - Debunked: What In The World Are They Spraying?

--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 19:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, if there aren't already enough anti-conspiracy sources --ANDROBETA 19:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

U5K0: Please reach a consensus before reinstating a reverted edit as per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) First of all, user U5K0, that was not a reverted edit, it was a different link to a different documentary, second, it was the user that originally removed the content the one who should have discussed the change and reach a consensus before taking action. --ANDROBETA 19:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The article was in a certain state. After that, the link to the youtube video was added, this addition was reverted and if the link is to be restored, consensus must first be reached. The policy is clear. The point is that you can't just add stuff and then keep it in the article until discussion is finished. Additions must be agreed before they are restored. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 20:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the policies are clear in another regard, in the regard that you have to discuss removal of content before doing it, repeatedly. And I still haven't seen a valid reason for that. --ANDROBETA 21:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The fact is that consensus mus be reached in order for the article to be changed. You changed the article here and never got consensus for it. In this regard it is perfectly appropriate that the change was reverted. If you want to restore your original change, there must be consensus, which does not exist. Because it does not, the article remains in its previous, unchanged condition, that is, pre-your change. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 21:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about? By your logic, any user should revert anyone's contributions until endless threads of useless discussions are consumed. How would an article ever progress by this absurd method you're proposing? You should only revert edits for a well justified reason. Instead you keep blabbing about the need to discuss the change without ever addressing the arguments I already brought since the very beginning. You're just like a theist 8| --ANDROBETA 01:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Much as I would like to take credit for the method outlined above, it isn't mine to take. The procedure is accepted Wikipedia practice and you will just have to find a way to abide by it. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 01:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Still waiting for you to argument what in fact makes you oppose the link, still waiting... --ANDROBETA 02:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Your waiting is over: the link would be promotion for the video and would not benefit the article, which could be expanded to include same information, but present it better than the "documentary". --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 08:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • SkepticalRaptor: Seriously, get consensus before adding another YouTube video where someone is presenting junk science and craziness..

Seriously, stop manipulating the reader's opinion in the edit description field... You actually show that you are a biased editor. The video has nothing to do with YouTube except for the fact that it's one of the places where it's available to see. The validity of the content, as stated above, is completely irrelevant, as the purpose of the link is just to present a relevant source of what the supporters of the theory actually claim, not only what the opponent side says they claim, as the current article does.

If you don't want edit wars, why don't you stop edit warring? why did you began it in the first place? If you want consensus, why don't you participate in this discussion? Or the childish act of threatening the others with being blocked if they don't stop edit warring is more mature? Should I start leaving you the same messages on your discussion page? --ANDROBETA 21:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Editor started a thread at ANI

WP:ANI#Need help at "Chemtrail conspiracy theory". Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean "thread"?Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Hm, a compromise? ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Lol. Strikethrough doesn't work well with a 't', so I'll just edit it. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Swedish politician comments

Due to the fact that she was a "too minor" a politician, Pernilla Hagberg's comments were removed from this article. The comments are well sourced and directly reference the subject matter here. This removal is baseless and bordering on censorship. petrarchan47tc 00:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really. She genuinely does seem to be 'too minor'. Her sole claim to notability seems to be that she's on the village council of a town with a population of 4000. Bluntly, the other wingnut politicians mentioned in the article have some sort of widespread (often national) prominence; Hagberg does not. Even within the chemtrail conspiracy community, Hagberg's principle source of notoriety is due to the bizarre and utterly mistaken mistranslation that credited her with membership – indeed, party leadership! (see above) – in Sweden's national parliament. (Dennis Kucinich, for instance, actually does sit in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he most recently embarrassed himself spouting off on discredited links between vaccines and autism).
Unless she has assumed some sort of major, noteworthy, leadership role within the chemtrail community (merely being mentioned in their blogs isn't quite sufficient), then there's no reason to mention her in this article—she isn't notable by virtue of her political office, and she isn't notable by virtue of her position within the chemtrail movement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
While that's a lot of nice rationalizing, for Wikipedia standards, if we have literally TWO (in total) politicians of any caliber, mentioning the chemtrail conspiracy, they should both be mentioned in this article. It doesn't matter what any blogs print about either politician, and it doesn't matter whether any editors here agree with or like Kucinich or any other politician. We are here to add pertinent information if it's well sourced. petrarchan47tc 01:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I would not include this material unless there was more widespread coverage. Has there been? --Malerooster (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Widespread coverage in sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS. We don't mention just any politician's opinion, that would be pretty ridiculous - there must be hundreds of thousands of very minor politicians like her and among those there must be someone with almost any opinion you can imagine. And you clearly don't have consensus, which you also need, so please stop trying to force this into the article. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
About widespread coverage, the original source was a tabloid of low quality.[5] The other sources were advocacy blogs that has mistranslated it. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent "examples"

I heard about the chemtrail conspiracy thory on the local newscast the other day. I had not heard of any actual "examples" though. If *reliable* sources become available, I suggest that we document specific examples of chemicals launched into space that chemtrail conspiracists refer to to substantiate their conspiracy. For example, I know that tonight, NASA's Wallops Flight Facility is scheduled to launch a sounding rocket that will release "two red-colored lithium vapor trails in space." link but I don't think we have reliable sources where theorists are calling this Wallops launch an instance of chemtrailing. Peace, MPS (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've not seen any claims that rockets were considered a source, just airplanes, but I did see this evening's release - two pink dots in the east. Acroterion (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Officials who support this theory" section

These sources may not be adequete to support claims about named individuals. The material should not be resotred until/unless there is a clear consensus that they satisfy the policy about biographies of living people. Tom Harrison Talk 21:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I've blocked the IP (which may be a proxy which means that it may be being used by others). There are clear BLP issues here and some original research. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The IPs that showed up yesterday and today have now been blocked as open proxies. If there are further shenanigans I would be inclined to semiprotect for a while. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec)...let's try that again. I've blocked 187.6.57.118 as an open proxy, 190.145.55.171 was blocked by ProcseeBot as an open proxy, 83.245.63.2 was blocked by Dougweller for 3RR (but I've now bumped up the duration of the block as it is obviously an open proxy). 176.106.120.61 is suspicious but not definitive (though a Checkuser might have something more concrete to say). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with the text? It's digested from the official (governmental) links. This looks more like finding any kind of reason to delete all the added content, instead of narrowing down what exactly is the problematic part to be able to correct/improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.37.137 (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
And another block-evading proxy. Blocked, and this article and talk page are semiprotected. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Great, shut his mouth up... --ANDROBETA 00:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Nikola Aleksic

On the Serbian guy, none of the secondary sources were about chemtrails, only the primary sources mentioned them. There is one source that can be used and it doesn't mention the guy: "Ispitati navode o hemijskim tragovima nad Srbijom (Investigate allegations of chemtrails over Serbia)". ssp.org.rs. 2012-10-15. Retrieved 2012-11-03. google translation. The President of the Serbian police union has asked the Prime Minister and the Minister of Internal Affairs to investigate if chemtrails are being used to damage Serbia. However, this is published by the union itself and I can't check if the petition has been noted by Serbian newspapers because I don't know Serbian. So, I would mark this as not notable, in absence of better sources.

Here are the additional links, that will back up claims stated in the section "Officials who support this theory". On all pages, please just press "CTRL+F" (to open the Find dialog) and search for Nikola Aleksic, to see for yourself that these links do confirm what is stated in the text:
I'm willing to rewrite that section so that it conforms to the Wikipedia standards, I just need you to point out what exactly is problematic in the text so I can fix it. Burek021 (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Pernilla Hagberg

On the Swedish potician, Pernilla Hagberg is a local politician in the small town of Vingåker. It has two sources and both are unreliable, one of them has published several articles on chemtrails [6], I checked two of them at random and they were borderline crackpot with conspiracy theory. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This says that Pernilla Hagberg is the leader of the Environmental Party (Miljöpartie) faction in the Swedish parliament. --ANDROBETA 01:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that theintelhub.com is a particularly reliable source by Wikipedia standards. As well, it's just a dubious copy of a blog post from another questionable source: [7]. Comparing the two articles, it's apparent that theintelhub's editors substituted the Swedish parliament for town of Vingåker in their introduction; it's not clear why. You're welcome to check for yourself that Hagberg does not hold a seat, let alone lead the Green Party, in the Riksdag. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree on that one. But this doesn't change the point of the issue. --ANDROBETA 01:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

These are clearly not reliable sources. Tom Harrison Talk 01:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Leaving aside the BLP concerns, the (lack of) reliabilty of sources concerns, and the block-evading open-proxy-using edit warrior concerns, even if everything reported about Pernilla Hagberg on these blogs and crackpot sites is a 100%-accurate recounting of her statements and beliefs, there may still be serious problems with giving her opinions undue weight within this article.
As a small-town politician (can anyone find a reliable source that actually describes her role, and if/when/where she was elected?), she isn't inherently notable by Wikipedia standards, spending a significant amount of time and space in Wikipedia discussing her or her opinions isn't obviously justified. It's possible that she might warrant a brief mention if there were credible evidence that she was a leading player within this particular conspiracy theory's community...but we run a very real risk of running afoul of WP:BLP if we over-emphasize her role in, or association with, this particular fringe theory at the expense of whatever else she might do in her career.
If there is a lesson that we can draw from the recent U.S. election, it is that echo-chamber blogosphere pronouncements tend to have only the most tenuous link to reality. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I found the original source. It's an interview in Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet, a source that seems to have low editorial standards. Pernilla Hagberg is a local politician in the small town of Vingåker, probably the local leader of the green Party (the source says "Green Party leader in Vingåker", aka leader of the local branch). She didn't address the Swedish Parliament. And: "She stresses that she speaks as a private individual and not as a representative of the Green Party. But she promises still trying to stop the "chemtrails" if she gets elected again." We have:
  • a) a local politician speaking as a particular
  • b) in an interview to a national tabloid, and
  • b) some unreliable blogs blowing the event out of proportion with inaccurate info.
  • d) the politician believes in conspiracy theories, since she is blaming the CIA and the NSA.
  • e) in the original source she is already discredited by:
  • the local leader of the Green Party in a bigger town "Many ecologists have rejected the theories by Roy Hagberg moves. - There is enough in reality to work with the environment, you do not find on the follies, says Gudrun Lindvall, group leader of the Green Party in Katrineholm to sv:Katrineholms Courier."
  • a meteorologist in the Swedish weather service Sveriges Meteorologiska och Hydrologiska Institut. "But Roy Hagberg do not get much support from meteorological sources. - This, I think definitely not. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone could manipulate the weather like that, says Anette Levin at SMHI."
  • f) the original source finishes with a "Facts" box where it defines chemtrails as a conspiracy theory with no scientific evidence.
--Enric Naval (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(and why aren't we quoting the Finnish Minister of Environment's view that it's a conspiracy theory [8], published in online newsapaper Uusi Suomi?) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ted Gunderson

Also, there is Theodore L. Gunderson (November 7, 1928 - July 31, 2011[1]) was an American Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent In Charge and head of the Los Angeles FBI., who was publicly saying stuff about chemtrails for years, even on Wikipedia there is a paragraph that says so: "The last years of Ted Gunderson's life were spent warning people of what he called Chemtrails and of planetwide Satanic and New World Order conspiracies. Gunderson had identified military bases he said were responsible for dumping unidentified poisons around the world from unmarked aircraft which he indicated killed wildlife and perhaps even humans. Gunderson spent years speaking on this and has made a number of videos". Burek021 (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is just one video where he is saying something about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR6KVYJ73AU Burek021 (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Edward Griffin

One more notable person: G. Edward Griffin, (born November 7, 1931) is an American film producer, author, and political lecturer. He participated a lot in a documentary movie named "What in the World Are They Spraying?" (and also he was a producer of that same movie, together with Michael Murphy and Paul Wittenberger). In the trailer for that movie, he is publicly saying some things about aerosols that he calls Chemtrails, describing what those aerosols are and how they are distributed. Burek021 (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Alex Jones

Another notable person is Alex Jones who provided several "reliable links" (if wikipedia considers links from sites such as "gpo.gov" and "usatoday.com" reliable): www.infowars.com/information-for-chemtrail-skeptics/ infowars.com does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used

He stated (at least) the following:

  • "In this document the United States Government openly admits the existence of Chemtrails and weather control weapons" - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr2977ih/pdf/BILLS-107hr2977ih.pdf
  • "This next document is an article from USA Today from Feb 25th, 2011 titled 'Can Geoengineering put the freeze on global warming?'. The article admits that Chemtrails and Geoengineering exist, but it’s done to protect us from Global Warming." - http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2011-02-25-geoengineering25_CV_N.htm
  • "...there are patents for these very such things. This was released on December 5th, 2010 Spraying the Skies: 1975 U.S. Patent for Powder Contrail Generation with patents dating back all the way to March 1st, 1927." - www.infowars.com/spraying-the-skies-1975-u-s-patent-for-powder-contrail-generation/ infowars.com does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used

Burek021 (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, he was airing live with Paul Joseph Watson in a show which exposes numerous resources that confirm this conspiracy theory is actually a geoengineering project, whose purpose is weather control in Weather warfare:

  • Quoting US Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, who said on 28 April 1997 at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy, University of Georgia "Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves." (quoted from that Wikipedia page). "So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important." (quoted from William Cohen - Wikiquote, since the mentioned Wikipedia page didn't quote his entire statement).
  • Quoting several sources on "Solar shield" whose purpose is allegedly to block the Sun from reaching to the Earth in order to stop the "global warming", like Stratospheric Injection of Reflective Aerosols or Particles by Means of Aviation Fuel Additives or Solar shield on agenda at climate summit
  • Quoting a research paper, presented to US Air Force, named "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025", which was also described/summarized in this document named "Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails": "Case Orange ties a 1996 report by top military personnel in the U.S., “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” [19] to evidentiary details (like governmental spraying schedules, chemical orders, correct nomenclature used in airline operating manuals, and calls for geoengineering by economists) to support its notion of “heavy involvement of governments at top level in climate control projects.” Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific timeline for the use of EnMod technologies in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association (WMA), a business-government group promoting the beneficial uses of environmental modification [20]..." Burek021 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

It's pretty obvious that some Wikipedia editors here (like Enric Naval), who claim something like this: "chemtrails as a conspiracy theory with no scientific evidence", have no deeper knowledge of this topic. I can only guess they are governed by their "common sense" that this all is just a bunch of crap and that people who support that idea are just delusional. Obviously, there are scientific papers (not to mention numerous legal patents) who are proving that those toxic aerosols are being sprayed over our heads as we speak, but it is more and more justified as a way to prevent global warming or that it is "for your own good". I encourage you all to research more about this whole topic, because not everything in this story is actually black or white. There are many spins introduced to confuse people and steer them away from this topic. Remember that, back in time, when Hitler himself caused the Reichstag fire, saying it was a Communist conspiracy to burn down the Reichstag and seize power, when in fact, many years later, we found out that it was him who caused all that mess, where Van der Lubbe was part of his Nazi conspiracy to blame the crime on Communists and pass an emergency decree to counter the "ruthless confrontation of the Communist Party of Germany". With civil liberties suspended, the government instituted mass arrests of Communists... This was one of many False flag operations, throughout our history, which should have thought us a lesson that those who are in power write the rules (and the news). So you really need to keep your mind open and critical for all the possibilities if you really want to have a "credible" or "unbiased" opinions/articles about pretty much anything. Please don't just reject any text in this article, that contrasts your own personal opinion. Please do check the links to find enough evidence (or reject) that this is not just a delusional people trying to get some attention. Burek021 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not reinsert this without consensus, which you don't have. You also need to read WP:BLP as you are violating one of our core policies, as well as WP:NPOV and your lack of reliable sources. And it was a mess with comments about needing to place the references in the right place, etc. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Dougweller, why deleting EVERYTHING? What's the point of such behavior? Ted Gunderson is not "a living person", so how can he fall under "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons"? I will put Ted Gunderson back, since he clearly does not fall under this ridiculous excuse.Burek021 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I have undone your edit. The style was not fit for an encyclopedia and a youtube video does not prove the relevance of Mr. Gunderson's claims. For example, he has no expertise at all about chemical processes, meteorology, or aviation, on the other hands he has very controversial views (to say the least) about satanic conspiracies etc. Please review WP:RS and WP:Style. Best Regards SK (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

^ This is scary disinfo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It is on the part of the scientist to present evidence to back-up a position. It is not acceptable to require disproof of something, or force others to "find the proof/sources". If you think Chem-trails are real and dropping toxic chemicals, find reliable sources and present them. Link to the scientific papers. "Legal patents" can be bought by anyone with a novel idea; they are not evidence. 83.70.170.48 (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

year of origin

It says it started in 1996, but in the Woodstock Documentary some of the attendees are talking about how an airplane was flying over Woodstock and caused it to rain by releasing chemicals. Wouldn't this be the same thing as a chemtrail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.251.19 (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

no, this is known as cloud seeding. Buffs (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Wikipedia chemtrail policies sought by a conspiratorially-conditioned reader

Just the most casual glance at these discussion behind the chemtrail scene reinforces this reader's preconception that the Wiki Bored are determined to enforce certain establishment prejudicies acceptable presumably to The Powers That Be. If indeed the subject of chemtrails as presented on these encylopedic articles is deemed must exclude any logical discussion why e.g. jet-erxhaust contrails will never explain observational and sampled evidence over 60 years of aerosolized stratospheric spraying of material substances (omitting for now any serious questions why this Operation Cloverleaf has always been conducted in top-level military secrecy).... if Wikipedia is determined to propagate egregious untruths, and if therefore anything I contribute is to be censored at all costs, can anybody give me ONE good reason why I might bother? Hommedespoir (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hommedespoir (talk • contribs) 06:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

One reason - editing Wikipedia is purely voluntary. Shot info (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Jonh holdran the american science adviser to obama has said chemtrails exist therefore it is no longer a theory. Now we need to change the chemtrail conspiracy theory title to what are chemtrails now we know they exist officially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16f8871 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, do you have any source for this? --McSly (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I think I have the source. John Holdren said in an interview "we have to keep Geoengineering in the table, we have to look at it very carefully because we might get desperate enough to want to use it". He warns about potential side effects, backfiring, lack of understanding of how it works. He gives an example of spraying reflective material and he recommends not doing it because of the negative effects. He says it's not a good solution. He doesn't say that it's currently being used anywhere. At most, this belongs in the geoengineering article. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
So, no mention of chemtrails? Mstuomel (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A basic issue with this page...

It makes the claim of the "chemtrail conspircacy theory," (inaccurate and loaded to begin with) not being "supported by government officials." The fact is, many states have cloud seeding programs, which was claimed by the article to be omitted from the conspiracy in general. We must clarify that weather modification is using chemical substances, pumping tons of them into the atmosphere around the world. For more information look at wiki's weather modification page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.174.11 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The chemtrail conspiracy theory by definition centers on the idea that some or all visible contrails in the sky are evidence of some kind of spraying. It is completely rejected by all atmospheric scientists (who bother to comment on this sort of thing). Weather modification and cloud seeding are different concepts which have nothing to do with lines in the sky. --Daniel(talk) 15:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. If you look at images of cloud seeding and aerial spraying they clearly produce a different effect than a contrail. This article is about the theory that some or all of the contrails contain chemicals. The proponents in this talk pages who post evidence for the existence of spraying chemicals from planes need to provide particular evidence that contrails contain chemicals - ie. that "chemtrails" exist, not that aerial spraying from planes exists. Owheelj (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What about this?

"In 1950, in order to conduct a simulation of a biological warfare attack, the U.S. Navy used airplanes to spray large quantities of the bacteria Serratia marcescens – considered harmless at this time – over the city of San Francisco, which caused numerous citizens to contract pneumonia-like illnesses, and killed at least one person.[30][31][32][33][34][35] The family of the man who was killed sued for gross negligence, but a federal judge ruled in favor of the government in 1981.[36] Serratia tests were continued until at least 1969.[37]"

From the Wikipedia article "unethical human experimentation in the united states".

Surely this incident merits inclusion in this article, owing to be significantly similar to the "conspiracy theory" of chemtrails? It really happened. The US Navy really DID spray pathogens onto unsuspecting people via aircraft.71.162.101.8 (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, here is an external link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1003703226697496080.html

If you are not a WSJ member: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Military-Germs-US-Cities.htm

That this is go unmentioned in this article is a little bit crazy, isn't it? 71.162.101.8 (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


The history notatino would make for a better less biased article.

Becauase as it stands the article is clearly biased. I guess crop dusters don't count either. Nor do bona fide journalist media outlets

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=geoengineering-could-turn-skies-white

Because it is not a theory that various chemicals are being sprayed into the atmosphere for various reasons. Multiple levels of research. More than just one college and one plane. I completely fail to understand this entry.. it isn't a theory. It may not be morgellons or nano robots or any other silly thing that can be thought of...but it is chemicals. sprayed out of planes .. leaving a trail.. it is real . Just like that eco vigilante that dumped all the iron oxide off the cost of Alaska to increase alge blooms....

To flatly deny chemical trails exist at all and insist that it is all conspiracy theory... well that is biased and ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.104.253 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a BBC article about the UK government aerially dispersing zinc cadmium sulphide above the city of Norwich. Governments using aircraft to spray chemicals onto their populations is a matter of record, although I'm not aware of any reason to think that the visible trails typically left by civilian aircraft are related to it. IMO the article in its current form is misleading and probably counterproductive. Joeboy (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is this article locked in its currently misleading state? This should probably be mentioned as well: "During the 1944-1974 period, the [United States] government conducted several hundred intentional releases of radiation into the environment for research purposes. Generally, these releases were not conducted for the purpose of studying the effects of radiation on humans. Instead they were usually conducted to test the operation of weapons, the safety of equipment, or the dispersal of radiation into the environment." (source: ACHRE Report) 71.162.98.199 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is specifically about "chemtrails" and the attendant conspiracy theories, not about intentional (and nowadays widely-known) radiation releases from ground-based reactors during the Green Run. It's not a coatrack for all things that the government did or might have put into the air by any possible method.. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"Any possible method"? What about instances wherein governments dispersed germs or poisons ~by airplane~? 71.255.171.7 (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"Other than commercial aircraft" is a necessary qualifier. I refer specifically to the intentional release of radioactive gases during the Green Run, referred to immediately above, where the OP asked about nuclear reactors. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
More to the point, this article is about chemtrails specifically; i.e. the conspiracy thoery regarding the purported dissemination of chemicals via contrails. There are a wide variety of other dispersal methods that either have been used (cloud seeding, etc) or are susepcted of having been used. However, this article only refers to the allegations concerning contrails. The instance you are referring to deals with aerial spraying, but not contrails.204.65.34.238 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This article should be part of

Category:Weather modification

-- 3rdBIT (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

3rdBIT can you explain your rationale for this? How can a conspiracy theory (the subject of this article) modify weather? Please cite reliable sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
In some of its more popular versions, it is indeed a conspiracy theory about weather modification. In others, it is about mind control. I guess it all depends on what the radios in your teeth tell you its all about. 67.87.217.163 (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Weather modification

I have a suggestion. I agree that this article deals with the conspiracy theory, and should continue to focus on that topic alone. However, we could probably add a similar notice at the top of the article: "This article is about the chemtrail conspiracy theory. For a more information on jet vapor trails, see contrail. For information about exsting or future applications potentially using aerosol dispersal for specific purposes, see aerial application, weather control and geoengineering". It would then become unnecessary for this article to deal further with such topics, other than the conspiracy theory and its fringe beliefs. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot, not only its fringe beliefs, but also perhaps about notable satire on the subject... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Pernilla Hagberg, again

Pernilla Hagberg is a swedish politician elected to a Municipal council (Sweden). She was mentioned in the article earlier. Here is an interview with her about chemtrails on swedish state television (SVT) [9]. I don´t know if it can or should be used for anything, but the source is good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

She is a local politician in a small Swedish village, see last thread. There are many local politicians with crazy ideas all over the world. We don't usually list the opinions of those local politicians. --83.44.228.192 (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Why does a plane crapping out a contrail, suddenly stop leaving a contrail?

Why does a plane crapping out a contrail, suddenly stop leaving a contrail? The article does not yet explain this. Readers reading the article wish to understand this curiosity. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Planes make contrails only under certain atmospheric conditions. I suppose the plane enters a zone with different conditions: hotter/colder air, more/less humidity. --83.44.228.192 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at the article on contrails. Contrails are dependent on altitude, temperature and humidity. WWII bombers sought to avoid contrail altitudes to avoid making an obvious target. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Reason for popularity

Has anyone seen any research into why the chemtrail conspiracy theory is so popular? Is this simply the current era's moon landing conspiracy theory? It seems notably popular among extreme libertarians from personal experience (am also a libertarian). Anyone? 99.7.168.160 (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

it is popular because thousands are dying and being weakened by this, and the environment and climate are being affected. This is important planes are making hashmarks and other patterns in the sky not just going from one place to another. Something appears to be going on, and wikipedia looks like it is helping to cover this up by not fully exploring the studies on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Scientific illiteracy, gullibility, paranoia, psychosis, mistrust of government (this one is likely more common among libertarians)... It varies from person to person, but the reason, from what I've seen, usually falls into one of those "categories" that I listed off, often intertwining them. Although, it does seem like the people who spread these conspiracy theories and have a lot of followers are just in it for the money above all else. ComfyKem (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
At an international symposium held in Ghent, Belgium May 28-30, 2010, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” It is “fully operational” with a solid sixty-year history. Though “hostile” environmental modification was banned by UN Convention in 1978, its “friendly” use today is being hailed as the new savior to climate change and to water and food shortages. Military forces stand poised to capitalize on controlling the world’s weather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Some excellent sources there [10]. (just to be clear, I copied part of the post and pasted it in to google, this is a copy paste job and it is all over conspiracy theory sites etc) Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
You have your head too firmly implanted in the sand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Cloud Seeding

Can someone add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding to the "see also"-section in the article please? It really need to be linked here, both believers and non-believers of the chemtrail 'conspiracy' theory should know that weather modficiation by cloud seeding is a fact! Trancelot (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Cloud seeding is already mentioned in the article. Per WP:Manual_of_Style/Layout#See_also_section adding it to the see also section hardly seems necessary. SK (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Notes of sources about current chemtrails..

With the notion that 'Chem trails' is not conspiracy, but a possible fact. I've decided we should list sources here for discussion:

Book: Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy published Jan 2013 (available here)
Authors: Kelsi Bracmort Resources Policy. kbracmort@crs.loc.gov, 7-7283 and Richard K. Lattanzio rlattanzio@crs.loc.gov, 7-1754

ref: Solar Radiation Management (SRM), page 2:
"Enhanced albedo is one SRM effort currently being undertaken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency."

--Seb-Gibbs (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting! I´ve learned a new word, "albedo". I get the impression that "effort currently being undertaken" in the context of the document means "We´re thinking about researching this", not that it´s actually happening right now, see the "Solar Radiation Management" section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
As that document explains, SRM via enhanced albedo includes such things as painting the roofs of buildings white or using lighter-colored pavement, in order to increase reflectivity. This is already being done to some extent. The document does not say that the EPA is currently using anything like "chemtrails". Belfrey (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Uniquely American?

This conspiracy theory, or whatever you want to call it, only ever seems to crop up in American folklore - would it be possible to alter the article to reflect this? It seems to be a cultural phenomenon that is absent in the rest of the English-speaking world. Indigoloki (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, a good question would be: What do the sources say? I think that it would probably be easier to establish that the phenomenon originates in the US and perhaps that it is most pervasive there. If it has, or begins to, spread beyond that in a significant way this information could also be added. The fact is that it does exist at some level outside the US. The question is if it justifies a mention here according to Wikipedia:WEIGHT.--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 18:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There is actually widespread existence of this notion in Europe. 68.183.100.60 (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In europe, in almost all countries there have been parlamentary enquiries on the topic. State agencies of environmental control don't know what to say about the topic - that means, they don't deny it. In Russia it was public that they they spray with chemical substances the sky to avoid rain. There is a global commitment as it regards climate control, and wikipedia is discussing whether a source is reliable or not... I think that, before policies, people should use their brain and wikipedia should do the same.we've just this world to live, and things that happen are never neutral. Things are on one side, or the other. Talking of chemical trails as "folklore" shows a clear understatement. The term "conspiracy theory" is misleading. Here the talk is not of theories, but of practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.210.180.55 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've noted that if there is ever this "contrail" (chemtrail) ever over London, it's always from American based company/airlines plane. But seriously, there needs to be more reference to the European and Russian debates. Faro0485 (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We invite you to be bold and add infomration from reputable sources. Emphasis on the reputable sources, and in the mondset of maintaining NPOV, FRINGE, and Due Weight.204.65.34.238 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


The first sentence of this section is incorrect. David Lim, of the University of Reading (UK), is actively researching - not persistent contrails - but chemically seeded trails containing Al, Ba, S (David Keith of Harvard freely admits all of this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.127.124.14 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

David Lim is not researching chem trails or con trails at Reading as implied above, according to his own page on the university web site his research is on "A model of domestic appliance energy consumption using Artificial Neural Networks". In other words, absolutely nothing to do with the atmosphere in any way whatsoever.
KeithC (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The only David Lim I can find at Reading appears to be (or to have been) a graduate student under the supervision of Runming Yao, rather than an independent researcher on the faculty. The only publications that I can find for Lim are on Dr. Yao's page [11]—none of which appear to have any obvious connection to persistent or seeded contrails.
In any case, 'chemtrails' as described in this Wikipedia article are distinct from 'cloud seeding' or seeded contrails. The former involves the introduction of (generally secret or mysterious) substances into aircraft exhaust (or dumped behind aircraft) for the purpose of widely spreading those substances over an unsuspecting population below. The latter involves the introduction of known, described compounds into the air for the express and deliberate purpose of creating or maintaining clouds and contrails. In other words, for generation of persistant contrails and cloud seeing, the chemicals used are incidental and the contrail itself is the desired end, whereas for chemtrails it is the spreading of the purported 'chemicals' which matters and the generation of the contrail is incidental (and probably undesirable). We shouldn't blur the distinction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This article violates WP:NOT

In the WP:SOAP section, it states that content in Wikipedia is not hosted for:

"Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions."

Well, stating that Chemtrails are a conspiracy theory is promoting both commercial and political propoganda.

"Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles."

Calling Chemtrails a conspiracy theory is one's own opinion, and therefore this article does not provide a neutral point of view.

It is impossible to call this an unbiased page when WP is only allowing sources to be cited that promote Chemtrails as a conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.33.213 (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC) 174.102.33.213 (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Not calling it a conspiracy theory would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. It is a conspiracy theory, and the article is referenced. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
From WP:FRINGE, which applies here in spades, just after the WP:NOT discussion, we find "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." Your proposal would turn the article into a soapbox for proponents of a fringe theory. Acroterion (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
That article shows nothing but a handful of people's word of mouth. They're definitely not reliable sources. While there may not be enough evidence to prove Chemtrails, there is certainly not enough evidence to prove that Chemtrails are a conspiracy theory, so why does the page exist? 174.102.33.213 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It is sourced. This discussion is pointless, much like calling other editors 'sheep' and asking 'what they are smoking' [12]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree: It is properly sourced, and therefore *is* a conspiracy theory. If you can provide even *one* neutral, reliable source that gives even the *slightest* indication that supposed chemtrails exist, we would be *very* interested to see it. But, just like in the comments above (about the Youtube video), *every* supposed source that shows proof of chemtrail spraying has turned out to just be utter nonsense. Basically, it looks like you don't like it being called a conspiracy theory, and are therefore trying to use Wiki's own rules to get the article removed: This will not work. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this among the things Edward Snowden leaked? How long ago did his leak happen? Long before your statement that no sources exist.
On a slightly related note, "Conspiracy theory" doesn't imply crazy, or even not true. Basically, a conspiracy theory is any time someone claims two or more people are collaborating to achieve the same goal. So, since almost everything is, by definition, a conspiracy theory, the phrase is literally meaningless. Only people who use it as a pejorative or as an excuse to dismiss arguments before hearing the case should be called closed-minded or biased for using it. It would behove this guy to remember that the next time he sees an allegedly neutral source use the phrase.76.29.225.28 (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
A quick look shows no leaked documents from Snowden, just evidence that he too might be a conspiracy theorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Ehm, the Snowden Story originated from chronicle.su (.su as in Soviet Union), a satirical website. Sure enough, the joke was lost on chemtrail believers. Nevertheless, Snowden has said nothing about chemtrails. SK (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Original source of fake leak. You can tell it's a satirical website from their about page. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
So, I still fully stand by our position on this article: It is a conspiracy theory. You even tried to quote a JOKE as proof! Real sources, with real science, do not have this issue. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. I can sleep safer at night knowing that this leak was fake and not one of Snowden's actual leaks (though his actual leaks were pretty bad too).76.29.225.28 (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, a conspiracy theory, at least in my mind (and dictionary) is a theory about a conspiracy. Isn't that exactly what you chemtrailers claim; that someone is conspiring against us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.102.106 (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracies are by definition secretive and without evidence. No popular conspiracy theory promoted by conspiracy theorists has ever turned out to be true. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This page is basically an opinion piece

Seriously? Titling the page "Chemtrails conspiracy theory"? Classic weasel wording intended to "debunk" the idea before the issues have even been broached? Surely not.

It gets even worse in the article itself. "Experts on atmospheric phenomena deny the existence of chemtrails". Even if this were vaguely sensible, "some experts" would be the minimum requisite pretence at neutrality. But of course it's not even vaguely true. Unless experts on atmospheric phenomena are now denying the existence of crop-spraying planes - must have missed that one.

Incidentally, I am not myself a proponent of the theories being aimed at here - but one-sided hatchet jobs like this page (a) detract from the credibility of Wikipedia as viable encyclopaedic source, and (b) encourage the very paranoia which they seek to quash, by coming across as the sort of hamfisted cover-ups one might reasonably expect from a global conspiracy.

Actually... wait. Have I just been kidding myself all along?

87.194.152.219 (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears that you're working from an over-broad impression of what the term "chemtrail" – purportedly – encompasses. I don't think there is any reasonable person who disputes the existence of aircraft which are capable of (and indeed, designed for) dispersing chemical agents into the atmosphere. The two principal applications that come to mind are the aforementioned crop-spraying, as well as cloud-seeding. Rarely, jet aircraft may also dump fuel while in flight (typically to reduce weight prior to an unscheduled, early, sometimes-emergency landing); airlines try to avoid this because jet fuel is expensive. In all of these cases, the chemicals released are regulated, the locations where releases may occur are controlled, and information about time, place, and contents are available to the public.
While all of the above might be described as trails containing chemicals, none are chemtrails. The essential element to a proper 'chemtrail' is secrecy: chemicals of an unknown nature being dispersed over an unwitting populace, generally by shadowy and powerful forces, for inscrutable or nefarious ends. (While people may object to the safety or risks or principles of aerial spraying or cloud seeding or fuel dumping – and we probably should cover any health and safety issues associated with each of these topics in their respective Wikipedia articles – there's no conspiracy to these activities.) The 'conspiracy' is required for something to be a chemtrail; otherwise it's just crop-dusting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Totally agree: When the word 'chemtrail' is used, it is universally recognized as pertaining to this conspiracy theory. Crop dusters do not refer to themselves as 'chemtrailers'. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Chemtrail conspiracies are their own "thing", they are not comtrails, cropdusting etc. If you (IP) have good sources on experts on atmospheric phenomena that promote chemtrail conspiracies, those might be interesting for this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This Wikipedia page "Chemtrail conspiracy theory" contains the statement "The existence of chemtrails has been repeatedly denied by scientists and government officials around the world, who say the trails are normal contrails"

The most casual reader would not have to read many articles on this topic to form an opposite opinion, like "The existence of chemtrails has been repeatedly confirmed by scientists around the world, who say the trails are not the same phenomenon as normal contrails"

What in the real world is the presumed "reliable source" which "meets Wikipedia's guideline" that allows one statement to be accepted by editorial bias, if the opposite view isn't just as acceptable and meaningful? If Http://executivereasoning.files.wordpress.com is not considered a reliable source, can ANY source comply with guidelines other those that Wikipedia politics approves of?

I add here the provably-accurate text that Barak finds objectionable:

What is the real problem here?

Or are we wasting our time trying to introduce facts into a political arena too big to listen?


"What are often called contrails are more often than not in fact the visible manifestation of some yet-to-be-identified liquid or power chemical substance being injected INTO to the exhaust plume emanating from each of the airplane turbojet engines, to which phenomenon the term "chemtrail" would be more appropriate, as opposed to the rarer "contrail" phenomenon which is the result of H2O vapor (always found as a combustion product in jet-engine exhaust) condensing in the ambient air. This nefarious process by which chemicals are introduced into the airplane exhaust plume is frequently achieved by means of injectors surreptitiously installed in obscure positions immediately behind each engine. Such an installation can fairly safely be assumed to have been carried out subsequent to the manufacture of the airplane, carried out in order to give the illusion to e.g. airplane spotters and others watching from a distance that the visible trail is produced by the products of combustion inside the engine. This is be a deliberate deception typical of various deceptions conducted under the extreme secrecy in which the topic of chemtrail production is shrouded. File:Http://executivereasoning.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/img 5999-edited2.jpg?w=300&h=187 Hidden injection nozzle in line with jet engine exhaust

A clear photograph of the typical dispersal-nozzle installation referred to here is to be found at 30 --Hommedespoir (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC) --Hommedespoir (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The two small tubes seen in that photo are not nozzles; they are the pylon drain tubes whose purpose is to drain any leaking fluid (oil, fuel, hydraulic fluid, or water) from the engine pylon. Such drain tubes are a standard part of airplanes. Aszilagyi (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Even on my own personal Cessna, during my inspection walk-around I have to check similar tubes, and even drain water from the sump. This is nothing but hysterics.TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please locate sources that meet Wikipedia's guideline of being a reliable source, or at least discuss to get consensus on the article talk page before restoring the content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hommedespoir (talk • contribs)

That blog is self-published and unsigned. The problems with this type of sources are described in Reliable sources guideline: Self-published sources and its footnotes. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
And I'll agree even further: The blog is unscientific, has nothing to back itself up with, is unreliable, and full of alarmist nonsense. Blogs and personal pages are NOT reliable sources.TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Disputing conspiracy claim

Far from pure conspiracy theory, "chemtrails" is a term used more and more by observers in several languages to describe unusual and unnatural persistent jet aerosol emissions.

1) It's far from conspiracy theory that the US Department of Defense first published “Chemtrails” in 1990 as the title to a chemistry course for new pilots attending the esteemed US Air Force Academy. A PDF copy of the chemtrails manual is available for download. (source)

2) The term "chemtrails is defined in HR-2977 as an "exotic weapon". (Source)

3) The Oxford dictionary defines chemtrails as: "a visible trail left in the sky by an aircraft and believed by some to consist of chemical or biological agents released as part of a covert operation." (source)

4) Described by some as covert "geoengineering", increasing public awareness of unnatural persistent contrail emissions has raised alarms of fear within citizens of the US and developed countries as a global health threat. Some even regard covert geoengineering (chemtrails) as a form of "terrorism". A recent SKYDERALERT site uses a smartphone app to report photo images to members of congress to force action to stop the emissions. (source) Hsaive (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

And none of this shows that there is no chemtrails conspiracy theory. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
1) The USAF Academy first-year cadet handbook goes by the somewhat cutesy name Contrails; some wag in the chemistry department figured that Chemtrails would therefore be an amusing play on words for the first-year chemistry book. [13]
2) Politicians make dumb statements on a very regular basis, and frankly, they seldom have read all the fine print in the draft resolutions that come out of their offices. [14]
3) Not sure why this doesn't fit our description of chemtrails as a conspiracy theory.
4) Not sure why this doesn't fit our description of chemtrails as a conspiracy theory.
The most effective strategy for bringing about changes to a Wikipedia article (and making them stick) is to propose specific edits to the article on its talk page, and to provide links/citations that refer to clear and relevant, reliable sources. Check out Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sourcing to see what types of material meet that standard. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of Photos

Top Secret: Project 112 U.S. cover story, Foreign Affairs and Defence committee Canberra, Australia, May 18, 1965[1]

I'm all for the excessive use of photos but there is an excessive use of Contrail photos rather than chemical trails or alleged chemical trails if there is such a thing- to the point that it gives undue weight. There probably needs to be some contrail photos, but there are too many of contrails if the topic is chemtrails. The article states contrails are not chemtrails but sometimes are mis-identified as such. Use one or two only of them.

If this entry is to have a collection of what chemtrails aren't then there are several on the Lockheed C-130 entry.

I suggest several that are in the public domain that should be added and even two quicktime movies if someone wants to upload it or add links. They can be found here with the US Air force Special spray squadron! They more or less have the mission of making "chemtrails" with aerosols.

This document and photo shows that for CBW tests by the Deseret Test Center, the US suggested that the Australians use the same technique that the US uses to cover up aerial dissemination of CBW agents The suggestion is to use pesticide and herbicide spraying to deceive any observers of spraying activities or pattern of trails. It is self explanatory. Johnvr4 (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Historical Concept or Theory

Change the title of the entry. "Chem-trail Theory" could denote the theoretical concept of an aerosol "chemtrail" as well as the "conspiracy theory" concerning ongoing use of the concept. The Umbrella term is Geoengineering and climate-engineering. That some aerosol chem-trials exist is un-challenged and documented in the entry. The contrails or lost jet fuel during aerial refueling are good examples. The lost fuel is still technically an aerosol chemical-trail- however innocent. The "conspiracy theory" seems to be focused on or convinced of (an ongoing?) (and organized?) nefarious use of aerosol chemtrails. First, I don't know a lot about the chemtrail subject so help me out. I was looking at Chem-biological testing on Okinawa that led to weather modification and cloud-seeding tested there. My issue with this page is that Chem-trails is re-directed to this page with the primary focus on the Conspiracy theory. This is a problem because the proven concept is declared only a (conspiracy) theory. Statements or sources presented as fact that the concept is has no basis in reality are faulty. The study of the capability was conducted by several governments for the purpose of exactly what that the conspiracy describes (spreading CBW aerosols or radiation on a large scale) see Operation Large Area Coverage. There is an established and verifiable initial concept, proof of the concept (tests), proof of the tests (documentation), covert programs by several governments (admissions). The reasoning, and ability to put the concept into practice has a long history entirely separate from the conspiracy theory. Even a verifiable military document using the term "chemtrails" has been found. Split the topics or rename the entry.Johnvr4 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hasn't this already been discussed, and cleared-up, with the topic right above this?TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
No not all of it, some was mentioned, not addressed. So it is brought up again as I made additional changes requiring discussion. Combine the two topics if it makes you comfortable. As I understand it, the USAF chemistry handout is titled "Chemtrails" not "contrails" (like the yearbook) as mis-represented above. I have found that Metabunk.org is unreliable. I have had one such experience with it, now two. The house bill and the "source" comment dismissing it above is unreliable, not only that, the source (a blog?) actually states "but was pressured by the government to modify the act to remove the mention of “chemtrails” (isn't the feeling that the government "has something to hide" about chemtrails part of or feed into the conspiracy)."
There is tons of (military) scientific community stuff about chemtrails in Cold War testing by airplanes (plus ships etc) only it was called Large Area Coverage at the time. As I said, the concept is real and the nefarious use has happened in cold war testing (just as described by the conspiracy). The Conspiracy theory is that LAC still continues. Yes it was mentioned above but No, "none of this shows that there is no chemtrails conspiracy theory." Who could possible show that?? It's dumbest possible argument for anything (ever). Please don't make that argument too or refer to it as a "discussion" or "clearing up the controversy." The nature of my previous post was as a quick fix, to simply not redirect chemtrails to the conspiracy page too or as a real solution, to include the proven concept in concert with the theory as a popular conspiracy.
Have you ever heard of Agent FP (fluorescent particles) or CB simulants? Biological crop control with Fusarium oxysporum? Project 112 or Project SHAD? Each of these are a type of chemtrail too. Going by the Oxford dictionary definition above this document on dissemination of agents (mostly by air) describes chemtrails per the definition (does one really have to observe it for it to count as a chemtrail?) My knowledge of LAC says agents would be dropped almost always at night because they would survive longer and travel farther and not be broken down by sunlight. "Crop dusters do not refer to themselves as 'chemtrailers'" No but they are sometimes armed and called "counter- insurgency aircraft".
Quoting the 1971 dissemination document linked above:

An appropriate aircraft, independent of the agent dissemination aircraft, will fly along with the dissemination aircraft. The aircraft will be equipped with cameras and timing equipment to observe the initial dissemination from the test aircraft and the dissemination cloud's formation, movement, dispersion and time of dispersion. Upon signal by radio, the aircraft will photograph the disseminating aircraft and continue to observe the dissemination cloud formation until dissipation. The observer aircraft will time the agent dissemination from initial release until cloud dissipation. The observer aircraft crew should have protective masks available in case of inadvertent exposure to Agents.

Johnvr4 (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Any reliable sources in sight? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
As a last thought (hopefully) the chemical trail vs. the conspiracy theory definition offered in the entry and above has problems and includes the mis-use of a source about what "chemtrails" are and are not (and sources seem to vary). Under the Oxford definition, It is only a chemtrail if there is a actual aerosol/cloud/trail other than a contrail, there are health/envionmental concerns by an actual observer, and it remains covert. Missing proof of any of these requirement, a "chemtrail" is just a theory. Once a "chemical trail" is actually admitted by the disseminater, technically it is no longer a chemtrail under the definition as it's not a secret anymore. A program that was secret but has been released to the public domain can be evidence to prove a theory that there was a conspiracy but not that there is a conspiracy. The plausibility of the chemtrail conspiracy theory is legitimate but any admission of a factual basis of the theory would disprove the ongoing conspiracy and as a consequence would never allow the chemtrail conspiracy theory to be "proven." The conspiracy theorists beliefs about chemtrails is not relevant to the question of whether chemical trail activities have happened or are ongoing- at least not unless the theorist is the one asking the question.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Address these

In a video, it said that the contrails are unnatural because it seems the airplanes go back and forth, and the contrails are turned on and off. Can you address this issue in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.76.43 (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What video? Is it form a reliable source (very doubtful) Wikipedia is about reliable, evidence based explanations of genuine phenomena, not vague unsubstantiated claims Adagio67 (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


User 72.174.76.43 (some dude in Missoula, Montana) seems to accept the idea that airplanes going "back and forth" is unnatural. Speaking as a frequent flyer, I'm rather pleased that they do, because if they didn't I would never get back home from my business meetings. More seriously, aircraft routings these days are constrained into very tight patterns. What typically happens is that aircraft A lays down a contrail. Aircraft B lays down another contrail in the exact same position, but by then A's trail has shifted a few hundred metres because of prevailing winds. And there you have the makings of a pattern that looks suspicious to people whose mindset is "The gubbmint lies". El Ingles (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What about this video ? It shows clearly planes at high altitude spraying something. As you can see in the video at some moments planes are stopping spraying before changing course and spraying again. 05:40, 19 Sept 2013 (UTC)

YouTube videos aren't reliable sources for anything. Besides, how do you know that they're "spraying" if they're at high altitude? Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not really Wikipedia's role to report on, analyze, or debunk YouTube videos; see WP:NOR. That said, I'll give you this one for free since the explanation is in the top-rated comment below the video: "After the refueling boom between the tanker and the AWACS is decoupled, the AWACS cuts its throttles back to idle and immediately begins to decelerate, descend, fall behind the tanker and change course. The short time the AWACS was not making a contrail was while the engines were at idle during the separation maneuver after refueling." You are watching an unremarkable mid-air refuelling operation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The video shows a jet aircraft's contrails. What is fascinating about the mental problems harbored by the conspiracy believers that look at clouds and see flying saucers, look at contrails and see poison spraying, look at Presidential birth certificates and see Communist conspiracies is that no amount of evidence which debunks their delusions makes one iota of difference to their unevidenced beliefs, to the point where the conspiracy they believe in is forced to widen and grow in the face of such debunkings.
Wikipedia seeks to be encyclopedic, utilizing falsifiable and testable citations and references. The video suggested here would be a good reference for people wishing to see video of what passes for "evidence of Chemtrails" among believers however it is only evidence that people believe silly things, not evidence of what they believe in.
Wiki editors have done a very good job with the extant article keeping it clean and free from evolving in to a rabid kook spew. If people wish to advance unevidenced delusions about chemtrails, Conservapedia is a good place for that since that particular Wiki is primarily falsehoods and conspiracy notions. Damotclese (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that this is not an internet chat forum. Your comments add nothing to the quality of this article. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2014

I would like to know why all the lies in this article. Shame on you Wikipedia. 50.174.60.91 (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia aims to reflect reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
If you can improve the article with good, reliable sources, be bold and do so!TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor moves

I'm going to make some minor moves of information between sections on the main page to try to make this sensible. There is nothing controversial in this action. I anticipate that all will agree it is an improvement. Please give me time to edit then look at the changes before making any reversion. If done, please cite your legitimate concern and discuss it here. Thank you.Johnvr4 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have left alone some of your minor additions.
However, I have reverted the moving of one paragraph. The last paragraph of "Contrails vs chemtrails" should not be moved from where it is. This is not for content reasons, it's only for compliance with wikipedia's writing guideline WP:LEAD. (The lead summarizes the content in the body, the lead shouldn't have content that is not present in the body of the article. With your move, some of the content was present only in the lead. Any veteran editor would have reverted your move because of WP:LEAD compliance)
By moving and rewriting in the same edit, it's very difficult to see what has changed. Try rewriting the last paragraph of the lead without changing anything else in the article.
--Enric Naval (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Got it, I didn't want to put in nonsense or do multiple edits to make it difficult to revert it
The concern I have is that we are trying to define the chemtrail conspiracy thory without first narrowly defining chemtrial (which is redirected to the conspiracy). This is super confusing to read. The best definition of contrail is stuck way done in the Chemical vs contrails section. That's no good for defining what this entry is. I had moved repeated similarities between chems and cons stuff, what a contrial is with the differences between chems and cons to the section labeled for that topic.
The re-organization of the entry needs to go something like:
  • The definition of what a chemtrail entails,
  • What the conspiracy theory entails,
  • a back ground on contrails, with the contrail photos
  • differences between chemtrail and contrails and how they fit into the conspiracy misidentificaon, more contrail photos
  • kernel of truth, contrail research, legitimate uses of chemical trails,
  • false evidence of.
Johnvr4 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Chemtrails only exist in a conspiracy theory; we musn't imply otherwise. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
You can't make the argument that past events such as the cold war testing have not fit the basic criteria and definition of a chem trail and these theorist's beliefs are rooted in those past capabilities and testing by CIA and Air Force. The OED source says only those associated with with the crazy theory are imagined. Other sources list all kinds of other chemtrail theroies that are not specifically CBW agents. This discussion is actually in another section (feel free to move it) and the potential change creating new main page sections farther down the road. Because there is a false evidence section there has to be balance. This part can't be ignored or this will never have a NPOV required. Perhaps a list of examples or I might suggest a heading of 'Mis-Identification' of legitimate trails and put subheadings with everything else under it. There needs to be the honest history follow by a clear separation from the crazy parts of the conspiracy concerning perfectly normal air operations. Allowing the abuse of sources simply in the belief that wikipedia is here to advance a "we mustn't imply otherwise" agenda is not allowed. I don't buy into this chem trail conspiracy (at all) however up to the 1970s test programs like this were very real- at least in testing. The first reports of chem trails in the late 1970 were precisely when some prior CIA covet human testing was declassified (1977) by Congress and by 1979 it was sensationalized in the news and and the conspiracy seemed to begin. Acknowledge it and explain it ended. If there is some other grey areas, and there are, they can be approached without implying anything about the current conspiracy and alleged yet unsubstantiated phenomenon. Find reliable sources and cite them but be neutral about it. I sense a lot of fear here so lets please do this right.Johnvr4 (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the conspiracy started around the 1990s, and it was originally a claim that aircraft fuels were modified in 1995 for nefarious purposes. It was not originated by those test programs. For RS you can see this Skeptical Inquirer, and for non-RS you can see here and follow the links. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
According to Brad Steiger, reports of suspicious chemical trails or aerosol spraying appeared in the late 1970s. Which is straight from the entry.


Truncated. The remaining conversation was moved to POV, Beliefs of editors section.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Cloverleaf

There are many first hand testimonials from reputable people who served our country at the highest levels of security that are now coming forward with the truth. Project "cloverleaf" it is called and the word "chemtrails" is used throughout documentation now made available to the public. People are dying. This needs to stop! Here are just a couple of video threads: tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=3C4BE7C7066288CA799232F6A680B142 [unreliable fringe source?] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udEtOc2IFO8&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.123.46 (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Naturalnews.com is not a reliable source, and neither is that YouTube video. The existence of Project Cloverleaf, much less its connection to the modern chemtrail conspiracy theory, hasn't been well established in a way that is usable to Wikipedia. The video also appears to be a WP:COPYVIO, since there is no indication that whoever uploaded it had permission to do so.Grayfell (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I stopped looking at the video when I saw the first picture of water-filled ballast tanks in the cabin of a passenger airliner undergoing flight testing. I wish that conspiracy theorists would at least take the time to come up with something more original from time to time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Canberra1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory/Archive_5&oldid=1136607767"