Talk:Cloudbuster

Funny Ha-ha Or Funny Peculiar?

Is this some kind of joke? I think this article should be deleted, as this is nonsense. -KeeganB —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeganB (talk • contribs) 13:30, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a joke - Rolf (not Ralph) Alexander existed and claimed to be able to do this. Any notion that it was a real ability is undoubtedly nonsense on stilts, but from what little I can tell from Googling, the article is accurate. --OpenToppedBus 14:01, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem somehow notable to me. There are just too many such crazy theories and psychics, and to list them all there... --Samohyl Jan 15:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it's worth mentioning in the article, but Cloudbusting is one of the few "paranormal" abilities James Randi refuses to test for his million dollar prize.

"It's just such a silly notion, that we at the JREF can't waste time on it any more. We also don't test for Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Our tests conducted in the past were simple: we asked the "buster" to tell us which cloud he'd bust, then we videotaped the sky with a wide-angle camera. When the tape was played back for anyone else, they could not determine which cloud was "busted," because they all went away, in varying sequences. There was nothing special about the chosen cloud. The error is in watching only the cloud that was chosen, and not noticing that others go away at the same rate."

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.160.180.136 (talk • contribs) 18:02, July 3, 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Randi only tests people that he knows for sure can't beat his tests. I have seen cloudbusting in action before, and I have seen even truly skilled cloud-busters make clouds literally crumble away into mist. Personally, It think we should edit this article because right now the title implies that cloud-busting makes the clouds explode or something when actually they merely dissipate. Perhaps 'cloud-dissipation would a better name. I'll move it there. Smith Jones 21:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

STRANGE!

Ok......Umm........this is weird! WHATEVER!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.117.247 (talk • contribs) 14:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Should this perhaps be listed on Unusual_articles? -Cookiemobsta

Related link

Bush's "Cloudbusting" is generally thought to be about Wilhelm Reich, who also invented something called a Cloudbuster. The lyrics include these lines, which seem to reference Reich's run-in with the Feds:

You looked too small/In their big, black car,/To be a threat to the men in power.

I hid my yo-yo/In the garden./I can’t hide you/From the government.

The Reich article has info about his cloudbuster at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich#Orgone_accumulators_and_cloudbusters

Bush may have had non-Reichian cloudbusters in mind, but the article probably should reference Reich.

-24.148.136.192 19:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Bush definitely had Reich in mind. The song refers to 'Organon' ("I still dream of Organon"), Reich's house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.135.238 (talk • contribs) 01:45, July 31, 2006 (UTC)

Neil Slade

This guy claims that the amygdala can be used to burst clouds, and sells books on it. He makes a lot of claims on his site in different areas, such as running a school full of students who can tap their amygdala powers, but no controlled tests have been done.

[2] [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.130.5 (talk • contribs) 05:00, June 12, 2006 (UTC)

No claim by aforementioned self-published author, including a claim related to running a school, has been validated in any reputable publication. Subject is an occassional guest of fringe, conspiracy-oriented radio programs, which he uses to promote sales of his vanity-press books. ShoNuff 03:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rolf Alexander

Rolf Alexander was born in [[New Zealand]], and lived primarily in England. During a stint in Orillia, Ontario, Canada, he claimed that the [[prefrontal lobe]] of the brain radiates "some unknown form of energy" and that he could he could during his main stint of popularity. According to Rolf Alexander, who said he could cause cloud dispersal through concentration, . To demonstrate his theory of "creative realism", Alexander staged a demonstration in Geneva Park, Canada on [[September 12]], [[1954]]. The event was covered by a [[Canadian Press]] reporter and published in the ''Niagara Falls Evening Review'' the next day. From 2:09 to 2:17 that afternoon, Alexander claimed to use his "creative realism" to dissipate three [[cloud]]s, the first in just three minutes. The cloud's dispersal was photographed and published by the CP reporter. However, many at the event claimed other clouds around the area were being broken up by atmospheric conditions, and that Alexander's chosen cloud was no doubt the same. Alexander contested this, acknowledging the other clouds' disappearing, but all the while claiming that he doubted any of them disappeared at such a rate as his. {{Fact|date=February 2007}} Alexander published ''Creative Realism: A New Method of Winning'' (1954), and ''The Power of the Mind'' (1956). Alexander was criticized by Deny Parsons in an article published in the 1985 ''A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology''.

... I have moved this paragraph from the article here because I don't think it pertains to this lemma. "Cloudbuster" was the specific name of Wilhelm Reich's contraption. What Rolf Alexander did (or tried to do) might have been inspired by Reich and might vaguely described as "cloudbusting", but he himself described it as "Creative Realism". So the text should go into the lemma "Rolf Alexander" or "Creative Realism", but it shouldn't be mixed up with Reich's cloudbuster.

I can't open this lemma myself as I'm not competent on Alexander. Whoever wrote this paragraph please don't be miffed as I'm only trying to straighten out this article and not to censure Alexander. Maikel 08:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Dime cuando, cuando, cuando

When did Reich build his first cloudbuster, and until when did he continue with this? Maikel 08:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Metatech & CloudBuster+chemtrails

I recently read about CloudBusting at Metatech site: CloudBusting

It describes history of invention (Reich) and about person - Don Croft. But it mainly concentrates on building Your own CloudBuster from scratch and Holy Hand Granades (HHG) which are part of Orgone Generators.

There are also links to pictures about Chemtrails - toxic acids spread at high altitudes (30 000+feet). Their negative effects can be stopped with Orgone Generators (HHG or CloudBuster) Feel free to read it :)

89.76.10.139 (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Andrewst

And what does this have to do with improving the article (which is what this talk page should be about)? What do you suggest? --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Orgone Lab

There are some people doing more serious research about cloudbusting: http://www.orgonelab.org/

I think the Articles OROP Arizona 1989 and OROP Israel 1991 are very interesting.

Sgan81 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

• Strong Oppose to merge. It is clear that the integrity of the information cannot be trusted in a merge situation, it also seems clear that attempts at adding information will be difficult when it is a subsection of an already pruned article. Unomi (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The merger discussion is happening here 18:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose a merge, as it seems apparent that those feeling such are confusing "Cloubuster" the device using orgon energy, with other cloudbusting devices... or even with cloud seeding devices. "Cloudbuster" in an unique device with an unique history. Article merits further research and expansion. A merge dimninshes wiki and the information would be minimalized if placed within some context in some other article. Its a paperless encyclopdia. And the article has met inclusion requirements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose a merge. There is more to orgone energy theory than cloudbusting, and combining the two is, in my view, almost a violation of WP:NPOV by minimizing it into one article ("since orgone is pseudoscience, there is no sense in wasting multiple articles on it"). While I am not saying whether I espouse the theories of Wilhelm Reich or not, I do think that some people do, and as such, the article deserves its space.Eauhomme (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please post where most others have posted already, which is [here. Keep everyone in one place Dream Focus 02:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop redirecting it

Most are against the Merge thus far, over at the discussion at the other article's talk page. I am surprised to see that once again, someone tried to replace the article with a redirect. You must form a proper consensus before taking such a drastic action. Talk about it, don't just act. You should not delete/merge/redirect without first gaining a consensus. Dream Focus 02:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've raised this at WP:ANI, here. Artw (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OR vs 2+2

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloudbuster&diff=next&oldid=255960932

Does it really hurt to point out the self-evident but perhaps not immediately obvious? Unomi (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

err... 'self-evident' on a topic like Orgone is a bit of a strange assertion. the problem with that paragraph is the (a) it assumes that orgone is 'beam-like', which isn't really the way Reich conceived of it (if I remember correctly, Reich thought that orgone energy tended to curl rather than progress in a straight line), and (b) that changing the arrangement of the tubes would somehow make the device 'make sense'. plus, the cloudbuster, I think, was supposed to be more like a lightning rod than a gun. at any rate, that paragraph is making a whole lot of assertions that don't appear in Reich's work (as far as I can tell) or in the work of anyone who's tried to replicate or refute Reich's work. that's OR, by definition. --Ludwigs2 19:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Naively I figured that Reich conceived it to be beamlike. As for making sense?! :) Unomi (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

hey, I'm a scientist: for me, 'making sense' is intimately tied into functionality. I understand where Reich was coming from (historically and philosophically speaking), I respect him and his research, and I'll even go so far as to say I have a certain sympathy for his position (mostly I see it as an odd and intriguing effort to ground spiritual ideas in something solid and physical; kind of like Hegel's attempt to deduce God through purely rational argument). but there's just not a whole lot of evidence that there's anything particularly interesting that you can do with it. theories that don't do anything are like coffee table doodads; interesting to talk about, but doomed to end up in the back of a closet for your next-of-kin to goggle over ("Dude! What the heck did he want with this thing?"). --Ludwigs2 22:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There is not much literature on the rationale of the CB that I encountered. What I remember is that the pipes of the CB are likened to organ pipes, and the theory behind it has to do with sound. So 'directed': yes, 'beamlike': no, that would imply (particle) radiation. Regardless, the deleted paragraph looks like original research at best. Mpe (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine?

Out of curiosity, how did this manage to be in the Alternative Medicine category? Unomi (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

cloudbusting is a derivative of Orgone, which was Alt Med of a pseudoscience sort. probably a mistake to add cloudbusting there. --Ludwigs2 22:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Orgone appears to have a bit of an existance outside of the works of Reich, which is how it enters that feild. Cloudbusting comes from his later work though, when he had gone (if you'll forgive the expression) totally nutso, and relates to his theory of DOR or Deadly Orgone Radiation, which is a bit of different thing and I'm not sure has been picked up in newagey circles like orgone has. And while Reich felt DOR was related to illness, I'm not sure that something that is supposed to drift down from passing UFOs is really quite in the realm of Alt Med. Artw (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW That's probably the main reason why I'd oppose the merge from Cloudbuster to Orgone (Wilheim Reich, which covers DOR in passing, might be a better target, though IMHO covers it in sufficient detail and still leaves room for a seperate article). Artw (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

actually, most of the newagey Reichian stuff really stems from his 'character analysis' work; to the extent that they use the term orgone, they mean something much closer to libido and much less like the later meaning.

and what's 'nutso' about threatening to use your cloudbusters to drown an entire city because you think the FDA has it in for you? serious answers only, please. --Ludwigs2 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Got sources for that? ;) It seems sad that all this wonderfully weird 'stuff' is being 'thrown away'. It is not a matter of 'believing in it' but a matter of acknowledging that it played a role in history even if it was just for kooks and gullible sponsors. To a certain extent I think that wikipedians are starting to take the whole thing much too seriously for their own good. I don't understand how some seem to fear that readers might think that wikipedia 'endorses' things like cloudbusters by writing about them. Unomi (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

lol - actually, I do (he really did that...). as far as the wikipedia issue goes, though, I think it's a phase. As I understand it, there was a problem a while back with a lot of funky stuff being promoted as 'speculatively' true, by some very ardent promoters. That produced a bad taste for a lot of wikipedians (and rightfully so), and inspired a group of dedicated funk-busters who used some questionable methods but got some definite results. now the pendulum has swung the other way, and it's the funk-busters who are pushing too hard. In a couple of generations (and I figure a wikipedia generation is about 6 to 9 months) the most die-hard funk-busters will be blocked or banned for being overly aggressive and uncivil (or just will lose heart and retire), and the others will have mellowed enough that we can all start getting back to something like normal editing on fringe articles. fingers crossed, anyway. but no worries. wikipedia is a tertiary source, so nothing can really be 'thrown away' (except people's time and effort) because there's nothing really new or original here. and people who don't have time and energy to throw away aren't hanging out on wikipedia. --Ludwigs2 02:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question at the start of this section: Many Reichian therapists, besides using Vegetotherapy and Orgone accumulators, would sometimes use DOR-busters, scaled-down versions of Cloudbusters roughly the size of a refrigerator, to draw off 'bad energy' from patients' bodies. Hope this helps. David Spector 15:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic Orgone Engineering

How is it possible that this article doesn't mention C.O.R.E. - Cosmic Orgone Engineering? Or doing battle with UFO's? Reich in his later years believed that UFO's were here to steal our Orgone, and their vessels were powered by them, and they left Deadly Orgone (DOR) in its place, thus sickening earth? There are still people out there who regularly do experiments with cloudbusters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.122.55 (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

well, I've never added anything to that effect because I just don't know much about it. If you'd care to add it, please do, but with something like that please be very careful to stick to and cite reliable sources. things that any sensible person would recognize as 'crazy talk' should be handled with kid gloves, so as not to (a) give the impression that it might actually be true, and (b) misrepresent the position the speaker. For instance, from what I know of Reich's philosophy, I suspect he would have agreed with Jung that UFOs were a manifestation of an unconscious archetype, except that Jung would have seen it as an internal manifestation, where as Reich would have projected it outward onto the universe. UFO for Reich probably wouldn't have meant 'Alien from Another Planet' but something closer to 'Extra-Dimensional Being'. uh...

yeah. please use sources. this stuff hurts my brain. --Ludwigs2 14:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think Reich would have meant 'Alien from Another Planet' exactly. Him and his C.O.R.E. group were out doing battle with aliens, using cloudbusters. Whats even more wacky, is that there are people out there still doing this stuff, for the exact same reasons. I don't want to add anything, because I'm not really a 'Wikipedian', and the few times I've tried to edit something, I was shut out by editors pretty quickly, so, forget it. I'm sure there are folks out there in the wikipedia world who can do this better than me, so, please get on it. I'm just trying to open up some dialogue here on the discussion page. To me, it looks like the info on Cloudbusters is far too general. A casual observer might not get the full picture of some of the true purposes, like weather manipulation, alien battles, and the like. Orgone, for pete's sake, is supposed to make this thing 'go'. Come on! Orgone's not real, Reich wasn't a scientist, he didn't do good scientific research, his 'research' can't be duplicated in a lab using real scientific technique. He seems to get such a pass on these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.26.57 (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

don't mind the bears. if you have sources that we can look at (and you don't want to do the editing yourself), post them here. sorry, but my interest in Reich starts to fade after his Character Analysis period and disappears completely by the time he gets to DOR stuff. I don't really know much about this at all, so unless you can provide the information, there's not a lot I can do. --Ludwigs2 21:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter Reich (Wilhelm Reich's son) wrote about doing battle with UFO's in 'a Book of Dreams' which, unfortunately, is out of print at the moment. Perhaps someone knows where it is online? Wilhelm Reich wrote about UFO's in a paper called 'Contact with Space'. I have no idea about where to find that either. I'm of the understanding, but have no way to prove it, that the so called 'Cosmic Engineers' are still functioning, out doing supposed weather manipulation and whatever else they do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.26.57 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to suggest that sb writes a new wikipedia article on Cosmic ORgone Engineering. I myself have theoretical knowledge on that subject, but a shortage of sources, especially with respect to Jerome Eden. I have written an article Jerome Eden, however it may be deleted soon for several reasons: I don't know sources that are not primary, for example the newspaper articles that have been printed in local press in Spokane, Washington during the time when Eden worked with the cloudbuster. Eden is now dead. I also can give no information who has Eden's inheritance, especially the original of the photo I have in the article and the copyright for this photo. --David Moerike (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The German issue of the Book of Dreams (Der Traumvater) is still available, for example at Amazon. --David Moerike (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Reich actually witnessed UFO's and reported about them to US government. There once seems to have been a video of him doing a CB op, where a UFO appeared from a dissipating cloud. By the movements of the UFO, he concluded the CB's effect on it where deleterious. From this he reasoned UFO's are directly affecting or affected by Orgone, and fitted with his theory that Orgone has polarity he reasoned UFO's may be contributors to DOR in the atmosphere. C.O.R.E was his answer to this. 'The battle' between orgone and the DOR producing 'CORE man' (Ufonauts) became a recurring theme in his reports. Mpe (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture is not a cloudbuster

Note the gatling gun in the foreground and the name of the picture - something to do with a Tomb Raider game? Reich and his cloudbuster are shown in several pics around the web - this is clearly not a cloudbuster. 216.9.20.246 (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean: it is clearly not Reich's original cloudbuster. But that does not mean it's not a cloudbuster, since the development of cloudbusters did not necessarily stop with Reich's death. On the other hand, since I am confident that cloudbusters do not exist at all, you are right. But to illustrate a b***s*** article, any pretty b***s*** picture is equally suitable. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your POV just as anyone else is to theirs. I trust the sound mind and discernment of my great grandfather who, as his article explains, witnessed Reich's use of the cloudbuster, as well as other evidence for those who would care to go into the matter. With regard to this image, it is probably a contraption fabricated by Don Croft, known for his "Orgone adventures". And since Croft's lore has been found inadmissible for inclusion in this article, I also think that we shouldn't use images of his version of Reich's invention to illustrate the article. __meco (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Who has found Croft's work "inadmissible for inclusion in this article"? I cannot find his name anywhere on this talk page, and no link to archived talk pages. As for the non-original cloudbuster: is there any evidence that the device you assume to have been made by Croft is any less effective at cloudbusting than Reich's original cloudbuster?--DrTorstenHenning (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction: Croft is actually mentioned above once, but no conclusion about inadmissibility. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Croft has been removed from the external links previously, if I recall correctly. Whereas cloudbuster and orgonomy in general can easily be classified as pseudoscience, the Croft stuff is one great leap further into conspiracy land and his connection to Reich's actual writings and teachings seems tenuous at best. __meco (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The image should be removed and, if possible, replaced with one of Reichs cloudbusters, otherwise it's just confusing. Artw (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

bit o' pseudoscience POV pushing

Guyonthesubway (and an IP I assume is him - I'll checkuser it if it becomes important) has restarted some of the old pseudoscience tendentiousness on this long-stable page. It's not a big enough deal for me to squabble over it, but it is a misrepresentation of of both cloudbusters and pseudoscience. I'll give few days for comments and then revert to the stable version, unless we reach a new consensus. --Ludwigs2 20:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A cloudbuster is an engineered device to utilize a unproven mystical source of energy to control the weather, isn't it? Please explain how this is not a pseudoscientfic device. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

as always, pseudoscience refers to theory or research that is presented as scientific in opposition to well-established scientific theories of and methods. There is no doubt that Orgone is pseudoscience, and no doubt that cloudbusters are devices based on pseudoscientific theories. A device cannot itself be called pseudoscientific, however, any more than buckets of water can be called torture devices. people can use buckets of water as a torture device, people can make devices that are supposed to work in certain ways under pseudoscientific assumptions, but the phrase 'a pseudoscientific device' is literally meaningless. if you want to change it to 'a device based on pseudoscientific principles', I wouldn't have an objection. can we agree to that?

@ SA: that's a much better picture for the page. where did you find it? nevermind, I can look at the image history...--Ludwigs2 20:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I see... so a microscope is a device based on scientific principles, rather than a scientific device? Redundant and awkward. Scientific :(adj) Of, or having to do with science. Perhaps you would prefer "a device made in a process that could be construed as having pseuodoscientifcally engineered design"? Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

we never say (so far as I know) either 'a microscope is a device based on scientific principles' or 'a microscope is a scientific device'. we say (from microscope) "A microscope (from the Greek: μικρός, mikrós, "small" and σκοπεῖν, skopeîn, "to look" or "see") is an instrument to see objects too small for the naked eye." if you were for some reason to edit microscope to say it is a 'scientific instrument', I would likely make the same objection I'm making here (only in that case I'd ask to remove the word as unnecessary). As I said, you are trying to POV-push in a label in a way which does not properly apply to the object. the fact that you're even arguing this (rather than accepting the correction I made above, which would allow you to make your point perfectly well) means you're just trying to dick around. that's fine, but it makes you ignorable. I'll wait to see if anyone else cares to comment, and I'll edit in the change I suggested above, and if you want to edit war with me over it, so be it. --Ludwigs2 03:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems awkward to me. Taking a quick wander through Google scholar/books finds use of both 'scientfic device' and 'pseudoscientific device'. I suppose if you're willing to edit-war over it, put whatever you like in, you will anyhow. Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

well, your phrasing seems awkward to me. Look, I understand that encyclopedic need to clarify that cloudbusters are instruments derived from a pseudoscientific theory, and that there's no reason to believe they do what they are supposed to do, or even to believe that they do anything at all. however, the term 'pseudoscientific' has a specific meaning - it's not (or at least shouldn't be) a mere pejorative that you attach to anything you think is stupid, like some big fat grumpy-face sticker. If you don't believe that the article makes it sufficiently clear that the theory behind cloudbusters is defunct, then that is certainly something that we can talk about and address. However, merely sticking the word 'pseudoscientific' in willy-nilly doesn't fix that: the word explains nothing, and everyone who sees it (whether they approve of the word or not) recognizes that it's nothing more than a pejorative, and dismisses it. If it were up to me, I would dispose of the word pseudoscience entirely in favor of a short but effective description of the failings of the underlying theory: that would be the encyclopedic approach. would you be willing to work with me on that? --Ludwigs2 02:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Mr IP here on another computer, I think the term pseudoscientific is the best description of the device. If people recognise it as a prejorative and dismiss it, thats up to them. The underlying reason for it being pseudoscientific I agree should be stated and described, but the main section should summarise the device, and can be done so with the word pseudoscientific, amongst others. That it may cause people to dismiss it with this term it is entirely up to the reader, Some people may be looking for pseudoscientific devices, it would help them. Theres not a chance this is POV however.80.3.228.220 (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks, but as I pointed out, pseudoscience is not a term that applies to objects; it applies to theories and research. it would be helpful in the future if you read the preceding discussions so that we can have a discussion. simply throwing your opinion into the mix is not entirely helpful. --Ludwigs2 00:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to back that up? As I've said, the construct has been used. Perhaps not widely, but it -does- apply. Psuedoscientific is, after all, an adjective. Cloudbuster is a proper noun. So consensus at this point is 2-1.. and yes I know its not a vote, blah blah blah. Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I did read it and that point was already clarified, so I did not mention it, but it has been clarified again for you it seems80.3.228.220 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem discussing this with the present group of people is that they do not seem to realize that there exists a scientific discipline called philology. I'm sure it's correct that citations can be found where this adjective is applied to a device. The issue is however that that usage might be, and probably is, wrong, and a rudimentary knowledge of the rules of language would suffice to explain why that is so. Something scientific must necessarily relate to scientific endeavor. A product or device which is exclusively the result of someone applying the findings or theories of one or more disciplines of science to solve or attempt to solve some real-life challenge is not scientific. It can be labeled scientific only if it is used in the pursuit and practice of scientific investigations, i.e. it would have to measure something or be an instrument to be used together with a measuring device. I would argue that a microscope can be labeled a scientific instrument on these grounds. A cloudbuster could similarly be called a pseudoscientific device if and only if there is a focus on it being used in pseudoscientific investigations (obviously not simply related to developing the device and technology itself). __meco (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

it is used in pseudoscientific investigations, it was built using pseudoscience so can only measure pseudoscience 82.6.252.105 (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed Category:Pseudoscience as redundant, ill-justified, and unfairly stigmatizing. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Some musings about the value of this and similar articles

Too many WPians are using the term "pseudoscience" as a weapon, not only here, but in many other articles. Policing to eliminate unscientific claims has become a new religion, championed by CSICOP/CSI and WP. This is a kind of religion subtly motivated by the desire to be "right" and to prove a specific group "wrong". It is an attempted triumph of the ego.

Pseudoscience as it is actually used in English refers to people with little knowledge of science who like to make up weird theories filled with scientific-sounding words. While there may be a little of this in WR's work, particularly when he got paranoid after the unfair attacks against him (books burned, lab equipment destroyed, and finally WR jailed), there was also present a brilliant mind (WR was a student of Freud and developed a type of psychotherapy that was at least as effective as Freud's and went much further in treating sexuality as a normal and valuable part of life). WR was, in his early days, known and respected as a qualified scientist.

But that brilliant mind went astray even prior to the attacks by the government, a little like Pons and Fleishman's desire to believe the theory of Cold Fusion, coupled with their unscientific selection of which effects to emphasize in their experimental observations, caused them to risk their careers making premature, very public, and overly-enthusiastic announcements of theories and observations that proved incapable of reliable replication, as well as incapable of the predicted scaling-up to become a practical source of energy. Pons and Fleishman were competent electrochemists, but their desire to help transform the world warped their objectivity badly.

WR was so afraid that his "valid" experimentation would not be replicated reliably by others that he kept all of his later work very secret, even to most of his associates. His will specified that his notes were to be kept sealed for many years after his death. At the date specified in the will, his papers were examined and only a few unknown ones turned up. However, the trustees decided to continue to keep a number of these papers secret; no one seems sure why. As time goes on, they seem to release more of the papers, so I believe that most are released by now. Anyone who wishes to read them can obtain permission to view them at Organon in Rangeley, Maine.

The notability of WR's work with Orgone physics (cloudbusters, orgone motors, observation of orgone particles, bions, interaction with radioactity, etc.) is based on (1) his position as one of the greatest of the pupils of Freud (for his skill as a therapist and his development of Vegetotherapy), and (2) as a case study in the danger of getting so enthusiastic about a "breakthrough" theory that true science gets lost along the way (WR kept meticulous lab notes, but they were full of wild, unlikely interpretations--drawing conclusions before all the facts are known).

WR thus demonstrates, by his strange mix of intelligence, knowledge of science, unawareness of his own motivations, poor methodology, his inconsistent and sometimes very difficult behavior toward his colleagues, and his tendency to force all facts to fit within a theoretical framework, a warning to all of us, and especially to scientists, that should be documented and remembered.

His intention was wonderful; it showed a devotion to humankind, and especially to the full achievement of the human potential of children and to their protection, but his lack of objectivity resulted in much useless, poorly justified experimentation, poor interpretation of observations, and ultimately, the discarding of virtually all of his work by society and his peers. There's a lesson here that should never be forgotten. That is the main reason why this article, and the other WR articles, are so valuable to WP. David Spector (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Maine Blueberry Experiment

The source of these “claims” is the “The Wilhelm Reich Museum” webpage, copyright of The Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust. So… sounds like self-promotion to me. Should this stay?Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 15:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm killing it. --No qwach macken (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Name Dropping

As it stands now; "A cloudbuster, bearing only a superficial resemblance to the genuine article, was designed and built for the video by some of the designers who worked with H.R. Giger on the film Alien.[6][7]" Either the designers are of interest and we can name them, or they are not and we can skip the paragraph. No need to namedrop. I'm sure one of the designers know a guy who know a guy more famous than Giger, anyways. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttias (talk • contribs) 11:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Confused as to why Aternative Medicine used in article?Also,Anyone test, this device

Confused! Why is mention of Alternative medicine inarticle(Know Reich had a Orgone genertor device used for medicaltreatment butthis as a device Cloudbuster to make rain!) ThanksEddson storms (talk)

FDA involment

FDA had the inventor imprisoned and destroyed all of his work. True or not? Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)