Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory

Patent for contrail creation

Could this patent entitled Powder contrail generation be included as an example in the article?Smallman12q (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I would say "not unless something else calls it a chemtrail," but, if used in context in a sentence involving aerial spraying for known testing within the context of this article, it could have a place, but it needs to be explained in that context. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Something along the lines that "Proponents argue that exsisting patents such ***** are being used to create these chemtrails."I would of course have sources to ensure that this isn't OR or synth.Smallman12q (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro rewrite

I have proposed a rewrite for the introduction as seen below...please let me know what you think(its wikified).

The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some condensation trails (contrails) are actually chemicals or biological agents that are deliberately sprayed at high altitudes in certain regions of the world for a purpose undisclosed to the general public. Proponents of the theory speculate that the purpose of chemtrails may be for global dimming, population control, weather control, geoengineering, biowarfare, mass vaccinations, project cloverleaf, or for superweapons development based around HAARP. The theory also posits that chemtrails are causing respiratory illnesses and are responsible for Morgellons. Versions of the chemtrail conspiracy theory circulating on the internet and radio talk shows speculate that this activity is directed by government officials. As a result, federal agencies have received thousands of complaints from concerned citizens who have demanded an explanation. In addition, troubled civilians have created dozens of petitions, activist organizations, protests, and websites in an attempt to make the public aware of the perceived problem.

The existence of chemtrails has been repeatedly denied by government agencies and scientists around the world.[2] The United States Air Force has stated that the theory is a hoax which "has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications".[3] The British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has stated that chemtrails "are not scientifically recognised phenomena".[4]The Canadian Government House Leader has stated that "The term 'chemtrails' is a popularized expression, and there is no scientific evidence to support their existence."[5] Meteorologists and atmospheric scientists have stated that what civilians are seeing is a phenomenon known as "persistent contrails" in which contrails can persist for several hours depending on atmospheric conditions.

The expression chemtrail which was derived from "chemical trail" in the similar fashion that contrail is an abbreviation for "condensation trail" does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding, or aerial firefighting. Rather it specifically refers to aerial trails allegedly caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical substances by black and white unmarked jets that are not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of supposedly uncharacteristic long lasting sky tracks.

Smallman12q (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like you are placing too much weight on specific versions of the theory, and saying they apply to everyone who believes in it. I don't think the majority of theorists think that "chemtrails" cause Morgellons - indeed, the most common theory is that it's weather modification - so there I'd say "one version of the theory ...".

Similarly, the "black and white unmarked jets" seems like a rather odd specification that I'd not heard before. I assume you mean "black or white unmarked jets", but even so, I think "unmarked" is more accurate, and even then, lots of chemtrailers seem to think the planes are also diguised as, or even operating as, normal commercial flights. Herd of Swine (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep the current lead rather than going off on further flights of fancy. What do you think is wrong with the current lead? Also, do you believe in chemtrails? Verbal chat 07:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Smallman, there are so many things wrong with your suggestion that it can never run. Let's look at the first sentence only. It says "The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some condensation trails (contrails) are actually chemicals or biological agents that are deliberately sprayed at high altitudes in certain regions of the world for a purpose undisclosed to the general public".

1. First of all, your " condensation trails (contrails)" is unacceptable. People call them contrails, not condensation trails, and so does Wikipedia. Click on Condensation trails and see where it takes you. Why would you want to use "condensation trails" instead of "contrails"?
2. "Chemicals"? Where's your <ref>?
3. "Biological agents"? Where's your <ref>? Also, aren't they the same as chemicals? So why the repetition?
4. "....are deliberately sprayed". Where's your <ref>?
5. ".....in certain regions of the world". Where's your <ref> for only certain regions being sprayed?
6. "....for a purpose undisclosed to the general public". Where's your <ref>?

That's only your first sentence! There are six sentences in the first paragraph alone, some of them making the most outrageous claims. There is not even one <ref> in the whole paragraph. Sorry, Wiki needs better scholarship than that. The current version needs work, but it doesn't need the addition of massive POV inference. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is one version I just picked at random from months ago that I know was solidly sourced with inline cites, though I've trimmed the inlines for simplicity:

The Chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some contrails are actually toxic chemicals or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitude for a purpose undisclosed to the general public. Versions of the conspiracy theory circulating on the internet and on some radio talk shows theorize that this activity is directed by government officials, and federal agencies have received thousands of complaints from people who have demanded an explanation. The existence of chemtrails has been repeatedly denied by federal agencies and scientists. The term chemtrail does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding or aerial firefighting. The term specifically refers to aerial trails allegedly caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical substances not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of supposedly uncharacteristic sky tracks. Believers of this theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be global dimming or population control, and claim that these trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.

So adding anything else needs to be solidly sourced and appropriate for the lead. We shouldn't exhaustively list all the various agencies etc that deny chemtrails, nor exhaustively list all the various speculations by believers. To do so isn't serving the purpose of a lead. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't "exhaustively list all the various agencies etc that deny chemtrails", I simply want to point out the top 3 that are in English... the US, the Canadians, and the British. I can't readily express my personal view as that would create a WP:COI and would be seen as POV pushing. Rather I simply remain as neutral and objective as I can. As for the concerns put forth by User:Kaiwhakahaere, I would like to point out that 1,2,3,4 and 6 all have references and are currently incorporated in the current article. I have offered this rewrite as a proposal and it is subject to change. I will remove all unsourced material.Smallman12q (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Smallman, I think, in general, your rewrite seems fine, but without a side-by-side comparison, it is hard to tell the differences. There are a few problems. Namely, you need to be more inclusive and less specific in the lead. You don't need to touch on every concept in the article, only the highlights.

Kai, the idea that chemtrails exist is absurd, but the theory holds that X, Y, and Z are ABC, is perfectly verifiable from multiple sources. It would be like finding out tomorrow from a verifiable source "Al Gore claimed the Earth is the center of the solar system". It's worth pointing out as he is a prominent figure/leader in the world. That is not to say the statement is true, but the fact that he claimed it certainly is true and, in this hypothetical, verifiable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't want to stray from a NPOV, so I've tried to be as inclusive, but general as I can.Smallman12q (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision 2

The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some condensation trails (contrails) are actually chemicals or biological agents that are deliberately sprayed at high altitudes throughout the world for a purpose undisclosed to the general public. Proponents of the theory speculate that the purpose of chemtrails may be for global dimming, population control, weather control, geoengineering, biowarfare, mass vaccinations, for superweapons development based around HAARP or as part of project cloverleaf. The theory also posits that chemtrails are responsible for respiratory illnesses among other diseases. Versions of the chemtrail conspiracy theory circulating on the internet and radio talk shows speculate that this activity is directed by government officials. As a result, federal agencies have received thousands of complaints from concerned citizens who have demanded an explanation. In addition, troubled civilians have created dozens of petitions, activist organizations, websites , and have held numerous protests in an attempt to make the public aware of the perceived problem.

The existence of chemtrails has been repeatedly denied by government agencies and scientists around the world.[2] The United States Air Force has stated that the theory is a hoax which "has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications".[3] The British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has stated that chemtrails "are not scientifically recognised phenomena".[4]The Canadian Government House Leader has stated that "The term 'chemtrails' is a popularized expression, and there is no scientific evidence to support their existence."[5] Meteorologists and atmospheric scientists have stated that what civilians are seeing is a phenomenon known as "persistent contrails" in which contrails can persist for several hours depending on atmospheric conditions.

The expression chemtrail which was derived from "chemical trail" in the similar fashion that contrail is an abbreviation for "condensation trail" does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding, or aerial firefighting. Rather it specifically refers to aerial trails allegedly caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical or biological substances that are not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of supposedly uncharacteristic long-lasting sky tracks. Chemtrail proponents

Revision 2 Smallman12q (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Smallman, what on earth are you on about? You are trying to squeeze an article into its intro. It should be a summary, not an epistle. Question. Why are you desperately trying not to say that the theory involves contrails, but insist on specifying "condensation trails (contrails)". They are called contrails and your Condensation trails is a redirect to Contrails, as pointed out in this edit. I am also puzzled why in your rewrite you split the claim "Proponents of the chemtrail theory say that chemtrails can be distinguished from contrails by their long duration, asserting that the chemtrails are those skytracks that persist for as much as a half day or transform into cirrus-like clouds" from its referenced rebuttal, "However, some contrails are visible for several hours according to Contrails facts, a USAF publication.". Why are the pro chemtrail petitions, activist organizations and websites all wikilinked, but not the "universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications" which have refuted the theory and branded it a hoax. Sorry, what we have now is not perfect but it less imperfect than your proposal.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My goal is to make this a featured article. The reason they are not wikilinked is because they are in a quote. I'm not fully sure as to what the standards are about wikilinking within quotes so I decided against it. (I would be happy to oblige to your request and wikilink within the quote if that is the standard). I am not trying to squeeze an article into the intro, but rather I'm writing what I percieve to be a fairly comprehensive and enticing lead.

It clearly stated in WP:LEAD:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

— WP:LEAD

I am a bit puzzled by your quote "Proponents of the chemtrail theory say that chemtrails can be distinguished from contrails by their long duration, asserting that the chemtrails are those skytracks that persist for as much as a half day or transform into cirrus-like clouds" from its referenced rebuttal, "However, some contrails are visible for several hours according to Contrails facts". I can't seem to find it in the article or my rewrite. Could you please point me to where you derived this quote.Smallman12q (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Here, quoted directly from the current version:

"Proponents of the chemtrail theory say that chemtrails can be distinguished from contrails by their long duration, asserting that the chemtrails are those skytracks that persist for as much as a half day or transform into cirrus-like clouds. However, some contrails are visible for several hours according to Contrails facts, a USAF publication. Air Force officials say that long lasting contrails result from certain atmospheric conditions, and their duration and rate of dissipation can be accurately predicted when humidity level and temperature are known."

The last sentence of your suggested intro ends with "in the appearance of supposedly uncharacteristic long-lasting sky tracks". It is separated from any rebuttal statement explaining that long lasting contrails are not unusual or uncharacteristic. FA? Long way to go before that. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice the word "supposedly" before 'uncharacteristic long-lasting sky tracks'? Now I believe you're also not reading correctly...the phrase does not imply that long-lasting sky tracks are unusual, but rather that unchararacteristic and long lasting skytracks are suggested by the conspiracy theory to be unusual.Do you have a suggestion to improve the word choice?(This is a very award grammatical debate=P).

While it does need some work to get FA status, it doesn't mean that it can't reach it.Smallman12q (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, if not long-lasting, then instead of saying "uncharacteristic", you could state in what way the theorists state they are uncharacteristic? Are they a different color or shape? Herd of Swine (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll add in a line that describes how theorists state they are uncharacterisitc.Smallman12q (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision 3

The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some condensation trails (contrails) are actually chemicals or biological agents that are deliberately sprayed at high altitudes throughout the world for a purpose undisclosed to the general public. Proponents of the theory speculate that the purpose of chemtrails may be for global dimming, population control, weather control, geoengineering, biowarfare, mass vaccinations, for superweapons development based around HAARP or as part of project cloverleaf. The theory also posits that chemtrails are responsible for respiratory illnesses among other diseases. Versions of the chemtrail conspiracy theory circulating on the internet and radio talk shows speculate that this activity is directed by government officials. As a result, federal agencies have received thousands of complaints from concerned citizens who have demanded an explanation. In addition, troubled civilians have created dozens of petitions, activist organizations, websites , and have held numerous protests in an attempt to make the public aware of the perceived problem.

The existence of chemtrails has been repeatedly denied by government agencies and scientists around the world.[2] The United States Air Force has stated that the theory is a hoax which "has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications".[3] The British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has stated that chemtrails "are not scientifically recognised phenomena".[4]The Canadian Government House Leader has stated that "The term 'chemtrails' is a popularized expression, and there is no scientific evidence to support their existence."[5] Meteorologists and atmospheric scientists have stated that what civilians are seeing is a phenomenon known as "persistent contrails" in which contrails can persist for several hours depending on atmospheric conditions.

The expression chemtrail which was derived from "chemical trail" in the similar fashion that contrail is an abbreviation for "condensation trail" does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding, or aerial firefighting. Rather, it specifically refers to aerial trails allegedly caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical or biological substances that are not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of supposedly uncharacteristic long-lasting sky tracks. Proponents of chemtrails argue that chemtrails are distinguishable from regular contrails because they appear in grids, parallel, or intersecting patterns and that they last for hours, turning into wispy clouds or merging with existing cloud formations.

Revision 3 V5 Smallman12q (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Auto Archive

I have added a bot to autoarchive every 30 days as I feel this page is getting needlessly cluttered and has a semi-active discussion. Does anyone oppose autoarchiving.Smallman12q (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Origin

This article doesn't say much about the origin of the theory. The air force claims it began in 1996 and says "Several authors cite an Air University research paper titled "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" (http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/research/ay1996/acsc/96-025ag.htm) that suggests the Air Force is conducting weather modification experiments." But I haven't been able to find those authors. Is there a link from 1996 describing chemtrails? I'd like to added an origin section.Smallman12q (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As is usually the case with rumors, it's likely impossible to find any definitive "origin". We have cited the claims, some written by reporters. But we're not reporters. If some reporter says "so-and-so started the story", we can use it. But which authors of what are you trying to find? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to find online posts and editorials that date to 1996.Smallman12q (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What our problem is

Let's examine the realiity of the situation. Here's an accurate nutshell description of the significant assertion of the theory.

The Chemtrails conspiracy theory contends that chemicals/biological agents are deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for undisclosed purposes.

The theory is not "some contrails are chemtrails but that is the theme of the article.

We link to Contrail (but Chemtrail does not appear in that article).

We don't link to Chemtrail to explain what they are, because that article doesn't exist. Therefore, this article has to define Chemtrail and adequately explain how it is created and manifested, with reputable sourcing. But it doesn't and without this information the current article may as well not exist.

It is possible to start by defining the theory roughly as I have in my nutshell above, and then to logically work through an article to cover all bases. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you rephrase? I'm confused what the objection is. Everything I've read on the subject indicate that

• conspiracy theorists do look up at the sky, point to certain skytracks, and claim "that's a chemtrail, not a contrail" -
• these believers do not all share the same description of what they are made of, who puts them up there, how you can tell a chemtrail from a contrail
• govt officials and scientists do insist the skytracks believers call chemtrails are just plain old contrails-and have responded to these believers by trying to educate them about contrails
• believers believe they're being lied to when they're told what they're told the skytracks they claim to be chemtrails are identical to plain old contrails
• the theory is precisely that some of tracks experts say are contrails are chemtrails. This is referenced in the article.

I guess I just don't understand how these things are in any way disputed. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Prof, I didn't intend confusion. What I am saying is that we shouldn't say X is Y, without saying what Y is and providing evidence that it exists. In this instance, govts/agencies are allegedly spraying populations with chemicals. We don't say which govts are involved, who plans activities, why, where the spray aircraft are stationed, who flies the aircraft, etc. Allegedly, agencies have conspired to do it in secret. That is the conspiracy theory -- not that contrails are chemtrails -- probably the biggest conspiracy in history because it would need to involve agencies worldwide because contrails are seen around the globe. Consider the following.

• UFO conspiracy theory -- early in the first sentence it links to unidentified flying object to describe the subject central to the conspiracy
• Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories -- early in the first sentence it links to Apollo Moon landings to describe the subject central to the conspiracy
• Masonic conspiracy theories -- the eighth word in the intro links to Freemasonry to describe the subject central to the conspiracy
• Chemtrail conspiracy theory -- It doesn't link to a Chemtrail article about chemtrails, or any other article which could describe the subject central to the conspiracy. It can't link to them because they don't exist.

We have the cart before the horse, saying that X is Y without defining Y. Hope this makes it a bit clearer. If we renamed this article Chemtrail, edited it somewhat, expanded on the Chemtrail component and created a comprehensive conspiracy theory section, we would have a much more informative, encyclopedic article. It might even lead to the Conspiracy bit being forked off to its own article, but the chemtrail one needs to be established first. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a seperate article on chemtrails. I'm a bit confused as to what you're requesting or what you're concerncerned about. Do you want a seperate article for the term chemtrail(s)?Smallman12q (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it is encyclopedic. It is logical to establish a comprehensive article about a subject instead of trying (unsuccessfuly) to incorporate it into another article about a conspiracy theory. Take a look at the examples I gave above. Unidentified flying object was established in Wiki on 7 October 2001 and UFO conspiracy theory came along later on 18 Jan 2003. Project Apollo began on 24 Sept 2001 and it was almost a year before Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories was created on 5 Sept 2002. Freemasonry first appeared on 28 Nov 2001 but Masonic conspiracy theories was not created until 22 Aug 04. In each of these examples, there was an established informative article which comprehensively described the subject. The followup conspiracy articles didn't need to explain the subject, just provide information relevant to the conspiracy theory. In our current Chemtrail conspiracy theory we are trying to do both, and have produced a mishmash. That happens when you put the cart before the horse. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, I'm more intent on improving the conspiracy article first and then devolping a seperate chemtrail article.Smallman12q (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We should not have a separate chemtrail article, as they do not exist outside of these conspiracies/delusions. UFOs do exist, the terrestrial aircraft/object/weather phenomena kind at least. Verbal chat 20:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a simple question: why is there no (linked) definition of the word "chemtrail?" Usaveritas (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is wikipedia. You are more than welcome to create, modify, and expand the article provided that you have reliable sources, and the content has notability. It's immaterial as to whether chemtrails do or don't exsist, but rather whether there are enough reliable sources to back up their notability. If there are, an article may be created, otherwise, the article will likely be deleted.Smallman12q (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Justification

As you requested, here is my justification. I added the Category:Planetary engineering because its related. Planetary engineering is defined as the application of technology for the purpose of influencing the global properties of a planet-this is something the chemtrail conspiracy theory purports is happening. The Weather Modification Operations and Research Board is a proposed committee in the United States that would oversee weather modification research and operations. While the chemtrail conspiracy theory speculates beyond weather control; weather modification is a major component. Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering) relates to chemtrails because they are suggested to be used in geoengineering projects in a manner similar to chemtrails.

The external link "Tropospheric Aerosol Program, United States Department of Energy Atmospheric Science Program (ASP)" was added because it refers to a previous Aerosol Program conducted by the Dept of Energy. Using aerosols in the troposhere is similar in nature as to what is suggested by the chemtrail conspiracy theory.Smallman12q (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't buy this. Do you have any RS linking the chemtrail conspiracy theory to this things? This looks like trying to justify the conspiracy by saying these are branches of it. Also, I don't see what population control etc has to do with planetary engineering. Please bring RS to link these topics, as it looks like WP:OR. Verbal chat 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You probably meant to refer to Wikipedia:BRD misuse . Anyways...according to Wikipedia:Category#Categorizing_pages states an article should be placed in all the categories to which it logically belongs. As the topic covers a "suggested" method of planetary engineering, I thought it fit to add the category. Other categories can also be added.

As for a reliable source, there aren't many but they do exist: see this Rolling Stone article (its a few pages). Let me know when I can put it back in.Smallman12q (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of it should go back in. Verbal chat 06:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not? (Please provide a rationale).Smallman12q (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please provide RS that these are linked to the chemtrail conspiracy theory and could be added to a more complete article, per policy. Verbal chat 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I did...have you seen the rolling stone article?Smallman12q (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the one paragraph that references chemtrail lunacy on page five justifies any of these additions. Verbal chat 06:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Lunacy or not, its referenced by a reliable source.Smallman12q (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The chemtrail paragraph doesn't mention all these things. Verbal chat 13:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by all? The article describes various methods to combat global warming...such as using polymer aerosols in the atmosphere(preceding paragraph) and cloud seeding. Smallman12q (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Still awaiting response...Smallman12q (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph about chemtrails mentions none of these things, they are not connected to chemtrails by this article. Verbal chat 06:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The article states "Evidence of this stealth campaign, they say, can be seen in the contrails of jets — which are actually "chemtrails" dumping polymer aerosols into the sky to reflect sunlight and cool the planet." Earlier it says "In comparison to such wild-eyed schemes, the notion of spraying aerosols into the stratosphere seems downright pedestrian."...(It may appear a bit out of context)...have you read the entire article?Smallman12q (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the whole thing. There is a small paragraph of the extream views of some fringe conspiracy theorists. However, that paragraph does not tie chemtrails and these real projects together. The article is dismissive of chemtrails, and does not make any link. Try bringing an RS that joins these things up explicitly. Verbal chat 13:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this bit fromt he Rolling Stone article justifies making referencies to geo-engeneering: "you could generate them easily enough by burning sulfur, then dumping the particles out of high-flying 747s," ALso, what about this article from times ? 87.194.204.236 (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)