Talk:Tin foil hat

9/11 Truth

Why is this relevant at all? -TehZorroness (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

the answer to your question lies right here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtsmallwood (talk • contribs) 06:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Man, this is a fun read

I don't have anything really helpful to add here (except that the current state of the page is probably "vandalized"), but man, this talk page is the most amusing thing I've read today. You couldn't set out to create a funnier assortment of comments from realists, crackpots, and people trying to be nice to the crackpots. Congratulations! 71.10.134.4 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

why do people insist on vandalisnig the pages?!? Smith Jones 19:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

EMR

From the article: "At this time, no link has been verifiably proven between EMR exposure and subsequent ill health (other than simple sunburn), however EMR exposure has many alleged effects.[1]"

This presumably means exposure to EMR commonplace in our society, and seems to me to be what the citation is implying. It is certainly the case that exposure to EMR not commonplace in our society can cause significant ill health. Too much X-ray radiation can easily kill a person, for example. As such, I believe this statement in the article is misleading but for the life of me, I can't figure out a better wording. Could someone else change it for me? --Yamla 03:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be modified to say that it means there is no proven link between ill health and EMR frequencies and strengths used for communications and prevalent in normal public areas. Too much X-rays, gamma rays, ultraviolet (thus the now gone mention of sunburn), and strong microwaves (though apparently not in the strengths used in cellphones and such) can certainly be harmful, even fatal. --69.148.182.17 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific research link seems a joke

The third link: http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/ seems like a joke to me. Their conclusions is just two lines long, without any paper with results to support it. I think this is a good link for the article, but please don't quote it as if it is scientific research. Of course, it could be the case that this quote is also meant as a joke, but wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a joke site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.201.67 (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2007

It is a joke, but it's a joke presented in a formal style, and the findings are accurate. This mirrors the article itself, which takes a very silly idea and presents it in a serious manner. Nobody said Wikipedia couldn't be subtly humourous in this way. Chris Cunningham 11:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I came to the Talk page to make the same point re Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia rather than a spoof site. I don't personally object to mild humour but it often doesn't translate well on the Internet. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few people who don't think critically or have a basic understanding of science think it's genuine because it's a formally written by academic researchers and it's linked to from Wikipedia (some readers consider this to be authoritative in itself). One daily newspaper (one of the free-sheets in Dublin) printed an article based on the this research paper. The tone of the article suggested that they thought it was genuine. (Sorry, I can't provide a reference). Antoin 12:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This standard of source quality is used in many other, popular, serious articles. All you can prove is that Wikipedia sucks!

The scientific basis section is way off the mark. Presumably there is aledgedly some kind of complex system that the government is using for mind control/reading/etc. The MIT article discusses antenna theory, but it does not discuss the potential for a tin foil hat to interfere with a hypothetical government mind control/reading/etc system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit 0 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Serious cleanup needed

Masses of OR in here, along with some supreme silliness (fashion statement indeed). Chris Cunningham 13:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Done quite a bit of this now. Heh, silly articles are always the most productive to improve. Chris Cunningham 11:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You must get a great sense of self-worth from it.

Needed?

Come on, is an article about "tin foil hats" really needed? This is absolutely ludicrous. Reccomended for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terminal Krisis (talk • contribs) 14:41, 19 April 2007

៛== I think it'd work anyway ==

The effectiveness of the tin-foil hat as electromagnetic shielding for stopping radio waves is greatly reduced by the fact that it is not a complete enclosure. Placing an AM radio under a metal bucket without a conductive layer underneath demonstrates the relative ineffectiveness of such a setup. Indeed, because the effect of an ungrounded Faraday cage is to partially reflect the incident radiation, a radio wave that is incident on the inner surface of the hat (i.e., coming from underneath the hat-wearer) would be reflected and partially 'focused' towards the user's brain.

Isn't the idea that the mind control waves would be coming from satellites or alien spaceships? Hence, a hat would do the job, as there wouldn't be waves coming from below you. Unless you stood on something metal, reflecting them off the ground into the hat... 198.53.72.66 06:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Radiation is reflected off of any surface, not just metal. Chris Cunningham 09:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

EM radiation is only reflected by electric conductors, so in practice that means metal. Then again, for extra paranoia, consider that the everyday EM radiation doesn't do much to the brain (except visible light via the eyes), you'd think the alien overlords would use some other kind of radiation that might also pass through metals ;) TeknoHog 20:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Visible light is, as you pointed out, also "EM radiation". Radio waves don't continue moving in a straight line permanently until they hit a metal surface... Chris Cunningham 11:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything is a little conductive.

Avoiding WP:NOR

In order to avoid Violating rules about Original research, what constitutes an "authority" on TFHs? Tar7arus 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop Abduction link

This is a humour site which, although related to the subject matter, isn't particularly appropriate as an encyclopedia link. I'm removing this again. Wikipedia is not a Google substitute. Chris Cunningham 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a humor site, unless my satire detection is faulty - this guy really believes that these hats will foil alien abductions. I was attempting to preserve the page against assault by a crank - he and associated IPs have a small history of disruption and vanispamcruftisement here and on the abduction phenomenon page. If an established editor thinks the link should go, then I concur with its removal, but not on the grounds of it being a humor site. It probably fails WP:EL anyway. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it, as I don't believe it's humour and it's an interesting variant. By the by, I happen to think tin foil hats are effective. —Ashley Y 08:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding WP:NOR

I think that this is an impotnat comment and we should really try to fidn authoritiy sources for the article? Smith Jones 02:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've tried to avoid OR statements as much as possible when cleaning this up. Chris Cunningham 09:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

that's good. very god. Smith Jones 00:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the sociological origin of the 'tin-foil hat' / mind-control rays complex?

This is the question I'm interested in. I know 'tin-foil hat' has become a standing joke over the last, what, 30-odd years? But when and how did the first reported cases appear of people associating schizophrenia-type symptoms of inner voices/compulsions with technological, EMF-mediated harassment and making/publicising these claims? There must have been a 'patient zero' for this particular complex of delusions, right? It's a pretty darn specific thing to be worried about - in earlier years people would have talked about 'God' or 'the devil' or 'ghosts' or 'angels' talking to them. So what's the sociology/history of the meme? Which decade did it originate in? 1980s? 1970s? 1950s? Any reported cases pre WW2? Is it associated particularly with Vietnam veterans? Military or civilians? People with better than average or lower than average education? People with a physics background or people with a religious background? Is it US-specific or were there cases in Europe? Were there elements of copycat fear/behaviour or has it always been a small hard core of psych patients who claim just this and only this delusion? Have the claimed symptoms changed over time? How did the idea first make its way into the public consciousness? From homeless street persons, samizdat zines, or popular science/medical reporting of psych/therapy cases? There must be some publication somewhere with some non-wink-wink-say-no-more sense of history about this, surely?

It always worries me when a phrase becomes a joke without any sense of wider context.

Natecull 02:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. It also seems surprising to me that Snopes.com doesn't seem to have any reference to this, which must be the mother of all urban legends. Still searching though.

Natecull 02:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In particular, I am interested to know if there were any instances of psych patients making this claim *before* publication of the microwave auditory effect of Allan H. Frey. Is it even remotely conceivable that any the original 'tin-foil hat' cases might have been people who had direct exposure to, or cause to know of, US military/scientific Frey Effect and similar communications testing from the late 1950s / early 1960s era? How widely were experiments such as Frey's popularised in the media of the day? Natecull 04:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The story "Tissue-Culture King", written by Julian Huxley, published in Amazing Stories in 1927 and likely more easily found in The Golden Age of Science Fiction, deals with some adventurers who develop a powerful type of telepathy. The relevant passage to this article would be: "The reader will perhaps ask how we ourselves expected to escape from the clutches of the superconsciousness we had created. Well, we had discovered that metal was relatively impervious to the telepathic effect, and had prepared for ourselves a sort of tin pulpit, behind which we could stand while conducting experiments. This, combined with caps of metal foil, enormously reduced the effects on ourselves." Of note, the term "tin-foil hat" is never used, but that would be the summary I'd use to describe it. Jeff Lait --99.231.17.31 (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation #4

It seems to me that citation #4 is completely unreliable. It's just trying to sell a load of garbage to paranoids. Thus the paragraph that cites #4 in this article ought to be deleted; on top of theat, it doesn't make any sense irrespective of is factual validity. Chrisdlandry 21:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT wikpedias job to decide for the readers what they can or cannot sell. our job isto write a factual article and not decide for readers what they should be allouded to rea.d or buy or sell. citation 4 should be left alone in the fearness of fair expression and legal rights. Smith Jones 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as far as wikipedia goes, it is an encyclopedia, not a commercial site. It is here to educate people, yes, but according to the guidelines on external links commercial links should not be included. So, according to this, Chris is right, and citation #4 should probably be deleteted.... I'll look at the whole paragraph now. Edhubbard 08:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

finebut it hinkt hat wikipedia should not be involved in censorship of ideas Smith Jones 00:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Smith Jones do you edit Wikipedia drunk?

HEY PUNK IF YOURE GOING TO BE A JERK TO STRANGER SONT HE INTERNET AT LEAST HAVE THE BALLS TO USE YOUR REAL NAME AN Smith Jones 03:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the hell you're trying to say to him/her? Which indicates that he/she has a pretty valid point. Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.20.14 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pulsed Microwave/Pulsed Infrared

Tin foil hat works as a faraday cage against EM radiation, but the pulsed signals create ultrasound that passes through. Private security firms are using this technology which is paid by federal government funds of FSSA. The purpose is not just field testing weapons, nor is it for just furthering the marketing interests of the mental health industry, but it is to be able to apply mental health laws to anyone deemed necessary. This is how western governments operate in the context of multibillion dollar corporations. It is bibilical level sorcery, and the Lake of Fire that burns forever is God's answer to it.

Look up what universities are doing pulsed microwave laser research, that is the lead.

71.114.163.55 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Socialogical Origin

This was discussed in a 1974 Psychology class at college, so if you want to research its roots, look at previous editions of the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, to see when it first pops up. 71.114.163.55 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert Anton Wilson's link to tinhats and crackpots

I know the Illuminatus! Trilogy pretty well, and have searched right through it (PDF) for any reference to tinfoil hats. Without success. In what way did it popularize them? I haven't thoroughly checked the Principia, but again, I have no recall of any reference. If the very loose link between RAW and crazy, paranoid thoughts seems sufficient, then let it stand, by all means. It can only really prove of interest (as a connection) to people who haven't read the book (and don't intend to) but who think they already know 'what it's about'. As the satirical core of the book arises from the authors assuming 'all conspiracies have a basis in fact' I suppose 'true believers' could even quote the imaginary connection as proof that Robert Anton Wilson 'believed' in their efficacy, or assume that the reference got cut out with the 5-600 missing pages that got slashed from the original in order to get published at all, as 'scientific knowledge that got suppressed'. --Bogus Magus 02:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeking other opinions: Links to conspiracy theorists

This article is about tin-foil hats. Although it does mention that this can be a slang term of derision for conspiracy theorists, it seems off topic and NPOV to include links to 9/11 Truth Movement and Alex Jones (radio). We certainly aren't going to link to all the conspiracy theorists out there, are we? I know Rothchild disagrees, I'm looking for other opinions, or for Rothchild to explain his reasoning. --barneca (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just the more notable conspiracy theorists. Those two are the more relevant (if you can call them that) in the media during our current time. I was about to add the Ron Paul campaign but I keep KISS in mind.--Rothchild (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Alex Jones and 9/11 Truthers aren't actually related to a tin foil hat article. That's not just a matter of my opinion either. M855GT (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They clearly demonstrate the fear and paranoia that would fit the description of someone that would wear a tin foil hat. If someone were doing a research paper on tin foil hats and they needed additional research then Alex Jones about would be a good example.--Rothchild (talk)

22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• People may disagree whether or not a person or group is part of the "tinfoil hat crowd," but I'm certain that almost all Wikipedians would agree that including these links is just blatant POV pushing. I think Alex Jones is loony too, but Wikipedia articles are no place for my opinion. In fact, this whole "See also" section is irrelevant and unnecessary, so I'm deleting it. Even including a paragraph in the article like, "Groups which have been said to be part of the tinfoil hat crowd include..." would open the article to a POV pushing war, with any and every group fair game. It has no place in Wikipedia.--Skylights76 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because Alex Jones seems to be your hero does not mean you have to keep reverting my edits.--Rothchild (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Check this out, this should be the newest addition to The lamest editing wars pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Edit_war_between_several_users_and_Rothchild

--Rothchild (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Need help to defend related page, Lyle Zapato

A related page on Lyle Zapato, author of a the leading site on Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanies is targeted for deletion. Please come to its defense atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyle Zapato and let your opinions be known.Mtsmallwood (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a useful link?

Stop Alien Abductions: "THIS WEBSITE TELLS YOU HOW TO MAKE A THOUGHT SCREEN HELMET, THE MATERIALS AND TOOLS YOU NEED TO MAKE ONE, AND WHERE YOU CAN OBTAIN THE MATERIALS". Doesn't use tin-foil though. --Stlemur (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to vote "not useful"; no tinfoil = not a TFH. Worth an Internal link, were it article-worthy. Tar7arus (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The concept of a tinfoil hat trancends the specific material used. Wikipedia is brilliant at being neutral until it decides it doesn't liek something.78.149.202.225 (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT: I don't understand the comment above that starts "I completely disagree". Oh, really? Completely? That comment goes into attack mode to reject a pretty reasonable point. It seems very strange to say that 'tin foil hat' is a concept that transcends anything. Rather, the term is taking as real (ironic sarcasm) to refer to what is not real. The real topic of this section is marketing tin foil hat scam. Should we have a wikipedia article entitled "Obey Your Thrist" for people who think they are special by drinking Sprite? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

fashion accessory

Please explain how http://www.fashion-era.com/1960-1980.htm demonstrates that "Others wear them as a stylish fashion accessory."P4k (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Frank Provasek

I heard that Frank Provasek endorses tin foil hats and has extolled their virtues on numerous occasions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.3.25 (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tin foil hat references in the movie "Be Kind, Rewind"

In the comedy film "Be Kind, Rewind," the character Jerry (played by Jack Black) is a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and he is seen a few times wearing metal headgear throughout the movie, such as colanders, strainers, and other such objects, claiming "they block the microwaves." While technically not a tin foil hat, it's close enough that I think it deserves to be mentioned under the pop culture reference section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timstuff (talk • contribs) 01:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Skin Depth

I saw a citation tag regarding skin depth of aluminum foil. For any non-scientists out there, skin depth refers to how far into a metal a RF signal can penetrate. In general, higher frequencies penetrate into metal poorly, and the line as written ("At GHz wavelengths, the skin depth is less than the thickness of even the thinnest foil") is almost correct. It can easily be calculated as follows:

As a good rule of thumb, a signal will penetrate about 5 skin depths before it is considered completely attenuated.

$(1/e)^{5}<$1% of the original signal strength

Since the skin depth of a good conductor is well approximated by equation 8 in the wikiarticle for skin depth, and using the thickness of foil as 0.006 mm (from aluminum foil), we get

$\delta /5=.0012mm={\frac {1}{\sqrt {\pi f\mu \sigma }}}\qquad \qquad (8)$

If the resistivity of aluminium is taken as 2.8×10-8 Ωm (which is $1/\sigma$) and its relative permeability ($\mu$) is 1, we find that the minimum frequency which satisfies this is 4.95 GHz. Thus any frequency higher than this would be unable to penetrate the foil.

Cheers! AndyHuston (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT ON THIS ENTRY

This is off topic and needs to be moved.

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that half of the equation got chopped off, so I restored it until we reach a decision to delete the post or not. I don't know how off topic it is. The precise reason for wearing a tinfoil hat is to block radiation, so the question of which radiation is actually blocked would be very relevant. I was just backing up the statement that had a "citation needed" tag in the only way I know how. However, I am perfectly willing to be conviced that this needs to go. Mostly, I find this to be a gray area when it comes to Original Research. AndyHuston (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the Topic Monetary Scams?

This entry has a 'freak show' aspect and needs to fine tune its purpose, guided by a sense of what might be useful. Defending the relevance, one commenter linked here:

This might imply that the relevance is that the thing featured is a scam. If so, that needs to guide the structure of the article. However, as written, it is a strange mixture of irony and information:

(a) it "embraces" the term (hat), allowing the marketing term to "be a real thing" (seems like irony or sarcasm, not what wikipedia is about)

(b) shows how laughable people are who might believe it. Is the purpose to ridicule people who are taken in by disinformation.

(c) does nothing about the apparent scam aspect of the sellers, something that might benefit people

(d)if the relevance is a scam, which might even be a crime (fraud), isn't it silly posting it on wikipedia (as if it is a "thing") rather than calling a consumer protection agency.

Why don't we instead make a page that lists organizations that oppose consumer fraud?

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Is This to Educate, or to Ridicule?

Should wikipedia have special entries or sections for ANY marketing language that is false or exaggerated?

That would be silly. You don't thing so?

1) How about an "American Revolution". page for people who believe their truck is an American revolution?

2) How about a "Dear Beloved Friend" page for people taken by internet scams.

3) How about a "No rules, Just Right" wikipedia page for people who are excited bout those commercials for Ponderosa?

4) A lot of people are taken in, every month, by false information from companies and government.

Should we have pages ridiculing people taken in by government and marketing claims? Instead, why not enlarge wikipedia pages to educate people about media literacy and media disinformation generally?

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder

Should we mention this movie in the "References in popular culture" section? Or should we wait until the movie is released? Rm999 (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say we can wait for its release in three days.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

rampant vandalism

This page is apparently being repeatedly vandalized by government agents inserting false information disparaging the effects of tin-foil hats in an obvious attempt to make people not wear them to insure their mind control waves work right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.182.17 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I Vote to KEEP Tin Foil Hats in the wiki...

I read an article where the author referenced "Tin Foil Hat" wearers, and I wanted to know the subtle nuances of what this meant. Obviously, I got the generally idea, but wanted some kind of authoritative reference. Wiki is the best choice for this, given that numerous POV's are considered, and workable solutions are found.

I learned something. The idea that electromagnetic energy can create the illusion of "hearing". I'd never heard that before, but I believe I experienced it once at Wal-Mart. Heard some speech about how shoplifting was bad, but it wasn't "sound" like I would normally think of it. Months later I read an article (Popular Science, maybe) where there was technology like this in testing; trying to influence people out of shoplifting by doing high-tech stuff like this.

So, for as funny as the idea wearing tin foil hats may be, the reasons for wanting to do so may not be so crazy. It's not just about the technology as it exists today, it's about what's possible, and what is coming. That a tin foil hat may not be effective is still worth mentioning. Also, greater clarity regarding the interchageable wording for "tin foil" and "aluminum foil". My understanding the word choice is regional for the US (some areas call it one thing, others the other), and wiki is an international resource, so some consideration should be given to those that do not speak English as a first language.

Finally, I am against the idea of subtle jokes. It is not fair for a group of people with an above-average (or higher) intelligence to assume that anyone that does not share their biases and opinions, even if they are of lower intelligence (or children, for that matter) should be presented simple, factual and neutral information just as if the subject matter were more serious and "significant". Keep the information straight, keep your arrogance in check, and keep your jokes on another site, where they belong.