Free Website Translator


Synonyms for Wicked: Unrighteous, ungodly, godless, impious, profane, blasphemous; immoral, corrupt, depraved, dissolute; heinous; infamous, villainous

Wikipedia has the reputation of being sacrosanct. How better to have any entry seem like fact than to name yourself something that sounds like an encyclopedia. Of course the sources used to "fact check" topics for Wikipedia are mainstream sources such as textbooks, encyclopedias and mainstream official narratives. That alone should tell you that Wikipedia is just another extension of the mainstream media.

This page looks into who edits Wikipedia and points out stark contradictions between reality and what is in the Wikipedia. It also points out their speculativeness, presumptions and omissions. I'll put my text in blue so that it stands out from the Wikipedia screen captures.



Examples of Wikipedia Entries




First off all, they call the belief in chemtrails erroneous, but do not prove themselves to be correct in that assertion. Also, they claim there is no evidence of chemtrails. Yet, if the writers of this entry did any real research; they might have come across the over 100 patents, or the hundreds of documents from government, military and other institutions (on chemtrailplanet). If they truely researched, they would have had no justification to call it a theory. Below, are a few examples that prove chemtrails is not just a theory:


Below is screen capture of part of page 5 of HR2977-Space Preservation Act (PDF)



Department of Defense Chemtrail Publications

Actual USAF Chemtrail Chemistry Manual for 1999 (PDF)


 Screen Captures (just in case pages disappear in the future) and links to original pages of what was shown in vid above:

Screen Captures

Chemtrail Chemistry Manual from Government Library 1990 -

Chemtrail Chemistry Manual from Government Library 1991 -

Chemtrail Chemistry Manual 1990 from Amazon (Sold Out) -

Chemtrail Chemistry Manual 1991 from Amazon (Sold Out) -

Website Links

Amazon Page for 1990 Manual

Amazon Page for 1991 Manual



To imply that the "conspiracy theory" was a result of a weather modification paper published in 1996 is pure specualtion. To claim WHY someone believes something is presumptious. Furthermore, they failed to include a link to the referenced paper. The paper they referenced was the one called "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025". How do I know that was the paper they were referring to? They said so in an earlier edition. It had been changed to not include the title of the paper (I almost wonder if they read my article about them). I didn't screen capture their earlier edition, but did write on it here: MediaTricks. Weather as a Force Multiplier; Owning the Weather in 2025 also includes current (at that time) and past weather modification. It was not just a paper on future possibilities for weather modification.

The New World Order

Below is a screen capture of Wikipedia's take on what they call "conspiracy theory" New World Order. Directly below this screen capture is a video of presidents, a prime minister and other people of influence talking about creating or needing a new world order.



David Rockefeller's book 'Memoirs' admits secretly conspiring for a NWO


So I guess the writers and editors of Wikipedia are either not paying attention, outright lying or did not research deeply enough, and I guess they don't know about Agenda 21. Wikipedia does give other definitions of the New World Order, but the screen capture above is what they referred to as "conspiracy New World Order".



Global Warming


First of all, the IPCC is not a panel of scientists. It is a panel of policy makers working for the United Nations. The United Nations is behind Agenda 50, megaregions and stack and pack smart cities. The writer of this entry also gave himself an out by using the word "likely". Science academies and universities get some government funding and therefore have a vested interest in upholding the status quo. Furthermore, it is deceptive to say "not disputed by any scientific body...". There are tens of thousands of scientists who dispute global warming. They might not be part of a body as in a scientific body, but they are scientists as can be seen in links below.


 U. S. Senate Minority Report: More than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims. Scientists Continue to Debunk "Consensus" in 2008

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs



Writers and Editors of Wikipedia

Who are the editors? / - this is an excerpt from Beyond Censorship: Destroying Free Thought Online by Truthstream Media

Seeing Corporate Fingerprints in Wikipedia Edits (Article)

CIA, FBI Computers Used for Wikipedia Edits - 2007 article from

Meet the man behind a third of what's on Wikipedia - CBS youtube video - shows his resources for the Wikipedia editing are mainstream and academic sources.

Astroturf and manipulation of media messages (Video) Former CBS Reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, shows how astroturf, or fake grassroots movements funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages, including Wikipedia.



Tools services webmasters counters generators scripts tutorials free