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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia supports and represents the prevailing consensus - and that means whatever mainstream science, academia, government or media say. So if and when the 'mainstream' tell us it is necessary and right to depopulate the earth by means of a global genocide, Wikipedia will be going along for the ride - and that is, obviously, disgusting.

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 [1]. (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)

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) [2]. 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)

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)