Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory

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)

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'sTalk_{Make 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)