Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


dismissed by the scientific community...[edit]

Certainly there are some scientists that have not dismissed wholesale the possibility that contrails could be and may be used as a medium to purposefully distribute chemicals around the globe, for whatever purpose, nefarious or otherwise. The 77 scientists in the Caldeira paper may indeed comprise the cream-of-the-crop in atmospheric science, but they are not by definition, "the scientific community." This generalization should be removed.

Also, to state that "any chemicals released at [an altitude of 5-10 miles] would disperse harmlessly and fall many hundreds of miles away, or degrade before touching the ground" is a gross non sequitur. There is no body of evidence that could ever fully support such a broad and vague assumption, Mr Pilkington. Many chemicals are extremely stable and would easily persist en route to the surface from that height, not to mention that fact the altitude would have minimal if any effect on the process of nuclear decay if any of these compounds happened to be radioactive. Again, this is an unsupported generalization which should be removed.

And in that same vein, to say that any chemicals would disperse harmlessly takes into account only those beings that inhabit the earth's surface. Many birds fly in this altitude range, breathing in chemicals that have not yet dispersed harmlessly, fallen hundreds of miles away, or degraded. Callously ignoring the health of the birds themselves for a moment, shouldn't we consider this as a direct path into our biosystem?

It seems obvious that the goal of this article is to dispel the chemtrail myth, which may very well be a respectable objective; however, with its assumption that all scientists are in consensus on the matter and that all of them somehow know without a shadow of a doubt that even if chemicals were being released in the atmosphere, they would all safely disperse or degrade, I think it's clear that the objective has not been reached. Mbb70 (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The article is well-sourced. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The scientific community is in consensus on this matter. There's no such thing as any matter that 100% of scientists agree on, nor is that the standard used for making decisions. That being said, WP:RGW. Even if the scientists are wrong, and that statement about chemicals dispersing is bogus (and given what we know of nuclear fallout, it smacks of being bogus straight off), we're still obligated to report it as fact here until a reliable source comes along to dispute it. Karunamon Talk 06:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
"Certainly there are some scientists" - We do not know of any, so we cannot just assume they exist. We can only work with the data we have.
Also, "disperse harmlessly" is supposed to be a reason against the viability of such a nefarious release of chemicals to harm humans. Are you really trying to replace the supposed conspiracy against humans by a new supposed conspiracy against birds? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That's very droll Hob, but I think you very well know what I am saying there. The argument for harmless dispersal is made in a vacuum, ignoring the possibility that toxins may enter the ecosystem rather quickly...birds are only one example. And another thought regarding chemicals that may fall undegraded hundreds of miles away (wherever that may be)...isn't it within the realm of possibility that these compounds could be concentrated into a nearby stream by rains and end up accumulating in our biosystem in that fashion?

I am keenly aware that that these are all hypotheticals, but this is also true of the referenced Pilkington statement, to which Karunamon says there is an obligation to report as fact. Until these "harmless dispersal" hypotheses are tested (and tested again...and again...and yet again) and a theory is developed and accepted, the Pilkington statement should at the very least in some way be clearly stamped as what it is...a mere guess, unproven by any experimentation. I trust that the scientific community would agree that unsupported hypotheses should not take the place of fact. Mbb70 (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Is an actual edit being proposed? Remember WP:NOTFORUM. Alexbrn (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
"I think you very well know what I am saying there" - Yes, you are losing the reference frame and going on a pointless tangent that has nothing to do with improving the article. Even with all your caveats ("hypothetical", "Certainly there are some scientists that have not dismissed wholesale", "ignoring the possibility") the dispersal argument does what it is supposed to do: it refutes the idea that anybody could plan on the chemicals hitting their supposed target. It is not supposed to be a Theory of Everything or even a new revolutionary idea that needs thorough testing before it is accepted, it is just a good reason that is obvious to anybody who knows how gasses work. "Could it be that it is not true" fails as an escape from the truth of truisms. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion that the article would be improved if the Pilkington assumption were removed, or at the very least edited so as not to be mistaken as evidence-based fact, which is how it is currently presented in the article. Proponents of the chemtrail conspiracy theory will come here, read your first paragraph, and wonder why you have included an assumption (by a non-scientist) to support the argument that it would be an absolute waste of time to introduce chemicals into the biosphere in this way as all of them would simply flit away harmlessly with no effect whatsoever on humans or any other surface-dwelling life-form. Again, this is simply a non-evidentiary guess that has no place in a "well-sourced" article, especially given the controversial nature of the subject matter. Using unsupported hypotheses as refutation devices is not very effective. Mbb70 (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I trashed that one sentence. Problem is, I think even if it does belong, it doesn't belong there. The Intro section is to describe the theory, not its refutations. I agree that the one guy is a non-scientist, and isn't a reliable source for the purposes of this article. If he's right, someone with more clout has no doubt said something similar. Karunamon 17:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to make the observation that some editors just like to argue and frequently change over to the side of the argument that suits them at that moment just to defend the status quo- no matter what.
quote: "And introducing this Pilkington guy into body text out of nowhere will just make the reader go "huh?". You are making a lot of edits that worsen the article in a various ways. This is continuing the disruption. Alexbrn (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC) " Johnvr4 (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I recognize that several admins have no desire for this page to consult the spectrum of scientific opinion, but instead prefer to turn it into an echo chamber for their own bias. Chemtrails are a theory (note the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is that a theory has evidence) explicitly regarding a global cloud-seeding and geoengineering, and to dismiss official sources who address geoengineering, with OR WITHOUT naming the colloqual "chemtrails" term are still referring explicitly to what chemtrail theories allude. Unfortunately, Harvard says you are wrong, as clearly laid out in their discussion of the Solar Shield geoengineering project:

https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu daedalus.su (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.144.201.148 (talk)

That is an old thread; but note that this article is about the conspiracy theory (as it clearly says). Conspiracy theories are also not scientific theories. We have other articles about geoengineering, contrails or agronomic pesticide application. —PaleoNeonate - 12:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
How daft must one be to imagine that chemtrail is anything but the colloquial equivalent of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection? A theory is a theory, otherwise you must label it a conspiracy hypothesis.
daedalus.su (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
By that reasoning, sea lions are lions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The only thing more ridiculous than being unable to recognize the parity of a colloquial term with its official moniker (like saying sex is not coitus) is to provide such a vastly false paradigm to prove that you clearly have no idea what "colloquial" means.
daedalus.su (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.203.103.179 (talk)
Agree with Hob Gadling a "conspiracy theory" is a nutty idea (like chemtrails, reptoids, all this David Icke stuff whatever). It different from something in the field of science like the theory of evolution. That they use the same term is a kind of false friend phenomenon. Grape nuts ain't grapes or nuts. Alexbrn (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
They Live!PaleoNeonate - 10:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Your assertion is laughable. The word "theory" has different meanings when used in different contexts. When one refers to a "conspiracy theory" the word "theory" does not have the same meaning that it has when used to denote scientific theories like the theory of quantum mechanics. Just because it isn't called a "conspiracy hypothesis" doesn't mean it's a scientific theory. The way people use language simply does not follow your argument that there is an equivalence between the colloquial and 'offical' uses of a term. 142.112.179.6 (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)AlkaloidMan

Swiss documentary Overcast[edit]

Better with citations templates:
Peaceray (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2017[edit]

I am suggesting a substantive change to this article. "Chemtrails" are not a theory; they indeed do exist, and they are defined as an "Exotic Weapons System" in the House of Representatives Bill H.R.2977 that was introduced 1st Session, 107th United States Congress on Oct. 2, 2001. The source for the information I present below, is the United States Congress at this URL: Source: [1]

Following are excerpts from the text of H.R.2977 that state the definition and purpose of Chemtrails. You will find the word "Chemtrails" at section (B)(ii) - but to learn their purpose, the rest of the information I provided below must be read.

H.R. 2977 SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) The term "Space" means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the

   earth and any celestial body in such space.

(2)(A) The terms "Weapon" and "Weapons System" mean a device capable of any of the following:

      (i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by:
            (I)   Firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;
            (II)  Detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;
            (III) Directing a source of energy (including Molecular or Atomic Energy, Subatomic Particle Beams,
                  Electromagnetic Radiation, Plasma, or Extremely Low Frequency("ELF") or Ultra Low Frequency ("ULF") 
                  energy radiation) against that object; or
            (IV)  Any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.
                   
     (ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying: a Person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental
          health, or physical and economic well-being of a Person) - 

(I) Through the use of any of the means described in clause(i) or subparagraph(B) below;

(II) Through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using Radiation, Electromagnetic, Psychotronic, Sonic,

    Laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of Information War, 
    Mood Management, or Mind Control of such Persons or Populations; or
                           

(III) By expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a Person.

(B) Such terms include "Exotic Weapons Systems," such as:

     (i) Electronic, Psychotronic, or Information Weapons;
    (ii) Chemtrails;
   (iii) High Altitude Ultra Low Frequency Weapons Systems;
    (iv) Plasma, Electromagnetic, Sonic, or Ultrasonic Weapons;
     (v) Laser Weapons Systems;
    (vi) Strategic, Theater, Tactical, or Extraterrestrial Weapons; and
   (vii) Chemical, Biological, Environmental, Climate, or Tectonic Weapons.
           

(C) The term "Exotic Weapons Systems" includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the Ionosphere

   and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and Tectonic systems; with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a
   target population or region on Earth or in Space.

SOURCE: [1]

References

Sandpinn (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Sandpinn 16 August 2017 Sandpinn (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. nihlus kryik (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That is, of course, a very silly argument. Suggesting that chemtrails must be real because they're mentioned in a draft bill that was presumably prepared by junior staffers...not read closely (if at all) by the Representative who introduced it...and then were subsequently amended out...before the whole thing died in committee...is some pretty thin gruel. Moreover, the proposed bill also includes references to "psychotronic" (remote mind control) and "extraterrestrial" (alien!) weapons; by your reasoning, these passing mentions thereby prove that these other weapon systems also exist. Are you sure that's the ground where you want to plant your flag? The most charitable interpretation – more charitable than they deserve, really – is that the original drafters were merely attempting to capture every conceivable possible weapon system, no matter how hypothetical or far-fetched, within the bill's scope.
A search of the archives of this talk page would also reveal previous discussions of HR 2977. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Airplane trackers such as Flightradar24 can be used to identify airplanes[edit]

It's easier to believe in chemtrails if airplanes seen in the sky are mysterious and unidentified. Perhaps this article should mention flight trackers such as Flightradar24, which can be used to identify airplanes in flight. I have used this, occasionally, for most of a year. 184.21.126.12 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many of the circulating variants of this conspiracy theory suggest that commercial airliners (passenger and freight) are complicit in the schemes. It's fairly straightforward to find websites which scream "smoking gun!" while showing pictures of pitot tubes and other obscure but innocuous hardware. Apparently, the gubmint is in league with the airlines to sprinkle their mind control dust on major population centers. Knowing that a particular contrail is associated with a particular Delta or Emirates or British Airways flight number doesn't dissuade the chemtrail proponents; they firmly believe that it's all part of a "hiding in plain sight" strategy.
While Flightradar is fun, it doesn't actually debunk the claims. More important, there aren't any reliable sources which advance the argument that Flightrader (or similar sites) does so, which precludes our using it in such a way in our article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Flightradar24 is of course part of the conspiracy itself[Humor]... —PaleoNeonate – 00:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Naled[edit]

Naled is a neurotoxin being spread by the USAF over Texas to control mosquitoes after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. Newsweek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.139.194 (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

... and so has nothing to do with the chemtrail conspiracy theory. Alexbrn (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)