Talk:Cloudbuster

message: 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)
thread_title:  Related link 

message: 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.  
 —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)
thread_title: Neil Slade

message: :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 clouds, 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. 
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)
thread_title: Rolf Alexander

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Metatech & CloudBuster+chemtrails 

message: 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)
thread_title: Orgone Lab

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I've raised this at WP:ANI, here. Artw (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop redirecting it

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  OR vs 2+2 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Correction: Croft is actually mentioned above once, but no conclusion about inadmissibility. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Picture is not a cloudbuster 

message: 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)
thread_title: Some musings about the value of this and similar articles

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm killing it. --No qwach macken (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Maine Blueberry Experiment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Name Dropping 

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