Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory

ContrailScience.com

I just came across this great website and it quite convinced me that there wasn't any chemtrail conspiracy, so I included it in the external links. plus, it has a link to a histerical photo of a stork contrail! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brinerustle (talk • contribs) 23:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There MIGHT be some nasty chemicals in that particular contrail. Suffice to say, I don't want to be behind it. --King Öomie 21:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove At Least Weather Control From Theories About Chemtrails - Possibly The Best Evidence For Contrail Unnaturalness

Close discussion. Talk pages aren't like blogs, messageboards, or other internet venues which welcome opinions or original research on the topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, here it is this one [1], I understand that the news broadcast was initially about cloud seeding in Northern California to create more rain, but it later mentions that in San Fransisco's PG&E offices they have a department there that freely operates a program with no government rules or restrictions, though some recent laws let them take test drives. Does KTVU News make the mistake of including persistent contrails (from commercial airliners/military jets) in the broadcast? Listen closely from 3:07-3:27, it says quote (the man who the second half of it with others runs the private corporatist program, he implies these are tests to see if it works - by contrails) [the parenthesis are my commentary, so you can better understand it], Narrator: And what about unintended weather modification such as those persistent jet contrails that criss-cross our sky, these are over Mendocino County where military jets practice... The Man: They are blocking some of the sunlight coming in (Like factory pollution/ice age.), they also trap some of the heat (Also like a greenhouse effect which pertains to how global cooling/warming/dimming - I am just going to call it climate change enthusiasts blame most Co2 output only from human beings - even though the polar ice caps of Mars and the moons of Jupiter are melting, and 30,000 real climatologists and meteorologists signed a petition about it being unvalidated and they are skeptical about human made climate change - not denying climate change itself.), so the jury is out to what the exact effects are (Oh so lets just guess? Since nobody cares about the weather and passing laws before enacting such a program right?), but those contrails do have an effect on the weather and climate (Stop it, your giving away too much (Best examples [2] (this is a weather modification company that does more than just cloud seeding - I know cloud seeding is not chemtrails), and [3])!)... Notice how the last man does not say it is only for cloud seeds to make limited rain, it will effect the weather and climate in other ways. Other newscasts, like the weathermen here both say some strips of some kind of metal alloy is released by military jets for weather warfare exercises which is to protect us [4], [5], and [6], plus [7]. We should make a section in the article where lawful proposals have been made to use contrails to decrease (or intentionally increase for some agenda - as chemtrail conspiracy theorists propose) the effects of climate change by geo-engineering the planet. I guess we can rule out that weather control by persistent contrails (wrongfully called chemtrails - which is slang) is not a theory anymore. The Chaff experiments (it is also on Wikipedia Chaff (countermeasure), but what is interesting is that it shows up on radar - and it is showing up over the continental U.S radar, and its purpose is to give false data to scientists, so they would think there is rain when there is not, could not this affect climate change studies?) mentioned in the various newscasts are therefore real, this does not mean chemtrails are real, it just means some other materials are being added to the jet fuel with new compartments mostly (this means 90% of chemtrail pictures and videos are actually showing normal contrail and the spread out is maybe because of climate change, but a third trail can be seen at the tip of the tale of the plane, even one added to one of the engines - which this has yet to be explained by anyone) at the nose tip of the small or commercial airliners. You can see it in this video, the song and information is entertaining so you will not get bored, the small strips of material (as explained on the contrail science website as a metalized plastic strip dropped from the planes - maybe angel hair) at the end of the video are probably from the Chaff experiments [8], and do not forget the Weather Control episode of the "That's Impossible" show is filled with some truth. Although I do not agree with every opinion shown in this last video, only the two cones from one engine and one cone from the tail is unusual (even if a engine is at tip end of the tail [notice dumping fuel is done at one time in a fast matter and only from two places but not the tail, and not on and off], which there is no aircraft with an engine on the tip end of the tail, which even if there was, you can not turn it on and off in mid flight). So finally, what I am implying in this message is that no one can say what the true agenda of adding materials or aerosol spraying (as done in 1940-58-67's - these dates are used by de-bunkers of this article to say that it is just the same as long time ago, forgetting that those were isolated experiments themselves - mostly famously for a British town and the Vietnam War - cloud seeding by military jets.) are for, we mostly know that they may have negative side effects, and since its resurgence in 1996 (in small amounts) until now, we can (until a real experiment is done to measure them scientifically) know what these new materials are that are added to persistent contrails and why. However, as seen in a still from a video at the top right of the You tube page, you can see a jet fuel being dumped (jet fuel either gets dumped as depending on the type of plane from the middle of the wings or between the wings and the tail - but never from the tail itself), but in the video the little wisps being turned of and one are coming from the tail of the planes, which there is nothing supposed to be coming out from there and should not exist (but it does), so this is a mystery. I do not support or oppose the chemtrail conspiracy theory (I would change the wording) because I am a neutral skeptic, and go by scientific observation, so if 50 years from now it gets disclosed that it was some sort of experiment or that it was not it will not matter, because it has been admitted and denied long time ago that experiments on masses of people without their knowledge is a common practice for security reasons. Verdict is that something is going on with the recent contrails. So please if you are finished reading this one hour message, feel free respond right here on the page. Thank you and goodbye.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"Verdict"? In favor of the conspiracy theory? I think not.

"mentioned in the various newscasts are therefore real" Yeah, funny how the news is an unassailable source when it agrees with you, and part of the cover up when it doesn't.

"I guess we can rule out that weather control by persistent contrails (wrongfully called chemtrails - which is slang) is not a theory anymore. " Guess again.

You're free to post what you want (within the rules), but this is just insane. If you're truly a skeptic, then you MUST see how precious little evidence there is for ANY of this garbage. A skeptic doesn't look at 2-3 disparate points and decide "Yup, there must be a huge cover up here involving advanced technology the government's been keeping secret". In the words of Stephen Hawking- "If the government truly is covering up [a conspiracy], they're certainly doing a better job at that than anything else". --King Öomie 12:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding (sorry this is long, it is better written, so just bear with me)... However, firstly your taking this too seriously and way out of context, I never said the verdict was that it is a confirmed conspiracy, I said until we get enough evidence we can not say it was! My verdict as of now is I am not sure, like most people. Here is why, yes it does come from rense.com (a conspiracy website), but I only included it here because it has a good list of confirmed experiments on people, its admitted and the source is at the bottom of the page [9] (plus billions go annually to the black budget programs, so not even Boeing is involved). A true skeptic is someone who is neither in favor of the status quota or what conspiracy theorists claim, for this subject, there is contradictory evidence from both sides of the debate, and no one human being has analyzed all the evidence for and against it, so for me to say it is or not would be foolish.

Secondly, I never said the newscasts are true or false, I just presented some video evidence of them explaining the chaff experiments over the continental U.S and possibly other parts of the world, and when did I say when they do not agree with me they are part of the cover up? There is no part in the videos were they say it is not or it is a conspiracy. I have read your previous statements in other sections of the talk page and thought you might be more reasonable, guess I was too optimistic.

Sensationalizing my comments is not helpful here. Also I do not need to guess again, because if you read the quote from scientist guy (I refer to him as the man), he says it can modify weather (he is one of the coordinators of the program), I wrongfully said control, but there is a thin line between the two. I admit I wrote faster than I was thinking and may have mixed some stuff up, but all the links, especially the first one to KTVU News was accurately quoted, I wonder if you actually saw the video from 3:07-3:27 (it is okay, just check it out, it is only 20 seconds long), it says (no commentary, just the exact quote): Narrator: And what about unintended weather modification such as those persistent jet contrails that criss-cross our sky, these are over Mendocino County where military jets practice. Man: They are blocking some of the sunlight coming in, they also trap some of the heat, so the jury is out to what the exact effects are, but those contrails do have an effect on the weather and climate. It makes sense, since all that smoke has to go somewhere, if I smoke it will pollute, if smoke comes from planes it will pollute too (depending on what it is composed of).

Also, there are at least three other news investigations about chemtrails (you can easily find it on You Tube), but those are old and mostly debunked, they are neutral because they say there is no way to confirm if the barium is coming from the airplanes or not, you need a well funded experiment to prove it (government paid scientists will not do it, because their funding will be taken away - if it is a conspiracy). It is funny how the KTVU broadcast is talking about cloud seeding, and when they ask him about persistent contrails, the man explains to them that some of them do have an effect on the weather and climate, if he only said weather, okay making rain is about weather, but if climate is effected by other means then this is classic geo-engineering, block sun light - trap heat - we do not know what the effects are, unless I am wrong and cloud seeding changes the climate? Oh oh, if I am right, I guess this would mean they have to pay carbon scam credits/taxes too (notice they rarely mention the sun, carbon monoxide, polluting factories - which I think these should also pay)?

So my revised ongoing verdict is that (your Stephen Hawking quote does not prove anything, if they are, then they are, why can not they do it?), 1. Extra ingredients are added to normal cloud seeding programs (I think I even saw a little mention of that in the main article itself), which is currently in a testing phase, because some weather modification proposals (which say they do more than just cloud seeding) have been passed (I do not know the exact ones but they are said to have little effect and are in a few states - its been added to some bills, so when the main bill gets passed, these little recommendations do to). 2. Current chaff experiments (Chaff (countermeasure)) over the continental U.S look like persistent contrails which also explain the web like metalized plastic stuff they see coming from the military looking jets - which are give false radar information (this is not for a evil purpose, its just war game exercises) which the 4 weatherman links in the previous message say they are (they are links 4-7, check them out again and ignore the titles of the videos, just watch the video itself). 3. Some airplanes have a tail propeller or engine (which currently no plane in existence has) that has wisps of contrail coming from the end of the tip of the tail (which there is supposed to be nothing there), these planes are for weather modification/control as said in by the man in the KTVU broadcast, testing geo-engineering before passing the laws to do so (this does imply a secret conspiracy - but if it means well then it is okay), very limited experiments with almost no consequences at all, it is all going to be okay and it is good for stopping climate change. The best evidence is from contrail science.com, just skim through the first parts of the page (which itself has the links to the evidence - like new regulations and patents and past experiments [10]). Also, this is the video showing the unexplainable on and off - plus the two cones from one tail propeller or engine. Ignore the title and music if you choose too, and just watch this video, if you can explain those two things then I will commend you. Note, none of the videos I put links to are created by me, I just found them to see if I can debunk it myself [11]. Here is some good articles to read about (two are from a conspiracy sites, but links to news agencies - focus on the what the government proposal papers say - sulfur from airplanes - here is a quote from Time Magazine, Of course there's a catch: sulfur dioxide is a main cause of acid rain and a respiratory irritant. We'd have a cooler but dirtier Earth, also, the others are about geo-engineering from time.com - in order) [12], [13], [14], [15]. I know these are not about chemtrails specifically, but imply that the new phenomenon of special persistent contrails is from planetary geo-engineering. I am also sure that this talk page had a lot people posting some form of evidence only for it to be ignored (I have looked at all the previous posts).

Finally, I have listed the 3 most scientifically possible explanations for a verdict on the on and off phenomenon of chemtrails (even chemtrail conspiracy theorists do not agree with each other - you can say there are two schools of thought), only the last one implies a conspiracy, but all others can be traced to real ongoing things based on new government regulations, patents, and state experiments, just short of actual geo-engineering. I am open minded on the matter, but would like to think that it is not a conspiracy. You can respond here, thanks.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not put hab here, I am responding to another users message, please ask my permission before closing my message, it is not a opinion piece, it is a response. You can put your reason here or on my talk page. I will put my last message in another section, if I have too. Thank you.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but wikipedia is not a forum to discuss the science or evidence for chemtrails, and tempting though it may be to "have the last word" when the discussion veers off into speculation and debate, doing so is flouting the guideline also. IP, please review the wikipedia's content policies. You Tube and prison planet aren't suitable sources for wikipedia, and editors cannot contribute their own revolutionary insights or conclusions from studying those sources, or any other. All analysis added to the article, or talked about on this page, must come from published, reliable sources. What we conclude ourselves from studying their materials can't be used here. So this discussion is closed. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I understand, and thank you for taking the time to explain the removal. Next time I will put the source material first, the prison planet and info wars websites all together contain unwarranted junk, however the sources they site itself is reliable and is from some big time think tanks. I am not really new to wikpedia, but if you have the time please check out the last You Tube video, I am not here to revolutionize anything, just wanted some to see if anyone can answer my last question. Therefore, I guess we can close this here, just respond on my talk page. Best regards.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

German MMS admits chemtrails are real

Here's a link to the video report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaPqCMIuEk4 I'd like to get some input on how to add this information to the wiki. Where should I put it, how much should I write, etc... Can someone with privileges remove "conspiracy theory" from the title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can't use this because youtube videos are not considered reliable sources to use as references on wikipedia. The article name was settled on some time ago from the consensus of editors to adopt the a common usage in the reliable sources used here and because the article is about the cultural phenomenon rather than a "chemtrail" itself (which are simply conjectures without any authoritative definition as of yet). Professor marginalia (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This video is a good example of why youtube clips cannot be considered RS. The clip is taken from a commercial German TV station, but the subtitles are misleading. The translation is incorrect at times, as it leaves out certain words and misleadingly mistranslates whole phrases. There would be no support of the notion of chemtrails in the segment originally aired, even if we found it at the station's website. So, the clip provided is unreliable (WP:RS) and misleading, and the original clip has no connection to the topic at all. Putting it into the article would at best be WP:OR, and bad one at that. 92.77.150.79 (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this video report doesn't even deal with "chemtrails" in any way. The uploader's subtitles claim so, but that doesn't make it true. The report is actually about chaff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_%28countermeasure%29 - The subtitles then replace "chaff" with "chemtrail"... among other things. Der_Hans 18:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)