Talk:Tin foil hat/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NPOV

This entire article is essentially a ridicule of people who wear tin foil hats. Not very encyclopedic. I've deleted the image, as it's thoroughly ridiculous and a fully inaccurate representation of what people would actually wear, as it's easily four feet high. I've also changed the "Tin foil hats among the delusional" section header to "Tin foil hats and mental illness" as being POV. I was oging to do more extensive NPOV edits, but have currently not the time, maybe I'll do them later. --Blackcap | talk 03:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please make sure you understand the difference between NPOV, which is desired by Wikipedia, and false balance, which is not. What is the difference? NPOV is describing all significant positions on a disputed issue without taking the position that one is right and the others wrong. False balance is describing all positions as if they were all equally likely to be right or wrong.
I read the article and I frankly don't see the "ridicule" that you seem to see (apart from the picture caption, which reading the talk page shows we were already ready to replace if someone had had something informational to substitute.) What I see is a reflection of the fact that no mainstream science supports the notion that there is protective value to be had from a tin-foil hat and many wearers who insist that the headgear is protecting them from weaponry that is not known to mainstream science either are in fact mentally ill and delusional. Even the speculation that the article contains about a tin-foil hat possibly affording the protection of a "partial Faraday cage", I believe, is going a bit too far in trying to give an essentially irrational position as much credit can be given it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Right, that's certainly agreed. Of course no mainstream science supports the idea of tinfoil hats, because tinfoil hats are inherently ridiculous. I've re-read the article and am dropping my charges of POV; I think that having an obviously unhelpful and ridiculing photograph skewed the way I took things. The article is reasonably O.K. now, but it seems that the whole Faraday cage bit should be verified. I know nothing about Faraday cages and am therefore not in a position to say anything about it, but I also doubt that any helpful benefit could possibly arise from wearing one of these. Hope that clears things up. --Blackcap | talk 06:08, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's the SPF, stupid!

the only beams the tinfoil hat is protected the wearer from are sunbeams -- and with a SPF of about a million it's about as good as you're gonna get, this protection inhibits the SOLAR DEGREDATION of KEY MINERALS in the top of the head & face, held in COLLOIDAL SOLUTION throught the body and which COMPLETE the FARADAY CAGE, restoring the wearers' NATURAL ability to filter MC (mind control)-RAISE TELL NO ONE! -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.214.75 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article's Lack of Value

Thankfully I can quit looking for the worst and most worthless Wikipedia article ever. It's sitting right here. The writing is shoddy, malformed, and rather hoplessly depraved. It is the electronic equivalent of decomposing trash. There's no value in editing it either as this article should not exist. Spending time fixing something that's so hopelessly crappy and for which its very premise of existence is dubious makes no sense. It needs to go. (talking about this version) -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.103.41.201 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, AI. As we've explained to you before, it is not enough just to assert, in a very loud voice and in obnoxious words, that an article's factual content is "dubious". You need to actually point out some specific element of the content that is not factual, something you were never able to do for the simple reason that mentally ill people sometimes do imagine that hats layered with metal will protect them from imagined CIA superweapons, and that headgear has entered the common discourse as an iconic symbol of paranoia. What you really mean when you say that this article is "worthless", that it's "hopelessly depraved", "should not exist", "needs to go", is that you wish the facts described weren't reality. That's not the standard that applies in the real world. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know whether this comment was made by 'AI', but whether or not it was, it probably refers to this version of the article (a vandalized state). -SCEhardt 16:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I didn't realize that the article had been recently vandalized. That makes it possible, I guess, for an anon to happen to wander by just in time to see the article in its vandalized state and go off on a very personal rant on the talk page about how not only is the current content valueless, but that the article "needs to go" as "its very premise of existence is dubious". However, given AI's notorious hatred for this article (he/she tried to get it speedy-deleted three times, even after being made well aware that the article absolutely met no criteria for speedy deletion) and his/her promise to return and destroy Wikipedia through sockpuppets, I find the possibility of AI using one sockpuppet to vandalize the article and another sockpuppet to declare it "the worst and most worthless Wikipedia article ever" and call for it to be eliminated completely in keeping with his/her goals and tactics. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Conspiracy. Dude, take off the tinfoild hat, and go outside. W00t-on-a-shtick 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media Lab Study

I find the MIT Media Lab study to be of dubious scientific value. It has a number of serious methodological flaws. The dominant ones are:

  • Placing a receiver inside of the AFDB significantly affects the properties of the AFDB. A human brain does not have significant metal (or other conductive) elements inside it. Placing a wire and antenna on the head attached to the AFDB would cause it to work substantially differently.
  • The transmitter was placed in the near-field of the AFDB, whereas an actual mind-control/mind-reading/etc. device would most likely be in the far field. Doing an experiment over a wide frequency range with the transmitter adequately far away to get good results would land you in prison (or at least with large fines) for breaking FCC regulations.

The only good way to do this sort of study empirically would be either outside of the jurisdiction of the FCC (and similar international bodies). Nevertheless, finite-element modeling software for antennas is exceptionally good these days (and freely available in the ham radio community), and would allow one to solve this problem in simulation. One would need to know the relevant parameters of the brain, but those should be easy to come by.

A second claim is that the AFDB is not there to stop E&M waves, but rather some for of psychotronic waves, which behave substantially differently. If this is, indeed, the case, then there is no good way to do this sort of study, since there is no known scientific method to measure psychotronic waves. Indeed, there is no scientific basis for believing they exist.

One more minor point: Partial Faraday cages can work very well, depending on the frequency range. In PCB design, one often uses a ground plane for shielding (a single layer of the PCB that is a continuous piece of copper connected to ground). In IC design, one often uses guard rings, which as the name implies, form a ring, rather than a box around the portion of the circuit being shielded. Old Sony monitors, from the days when Sony made high quality products, had a Faraday cage that covered 5 sides of the monitor, but for obvious reasons, missed the part you look through (for a while, there was an area of research to develop good transparent shields). There is a dramatic improvement in going from a partial Faraday cage to a continuous, unbroken one (indeed, large sums of money are spent on special connectors in instrumentation electronics so that the shield is unbroken where the cables enter and leave), but a partial one can still be very, very effective, as compared to no cage. Also, in general, breaks in the cage that are substantially smaller than the wavelength in question do not matter (and, as a result, many cages are made out of aluminum screening, or at very low frequency, they literally look like a cage). Someone made some reference about partial cages needing to be connected to ground -- that is patently false -- 95% of electronics out there goes through an isolation transformer, and has no real ground reference. The exception are a subset of the things that use the three-prong connectors -- for safety reasons, everything with 2-prong connectors will not connect the shield to the house ground. A good reference on this is "Noise Reduction Techniques in Electronic Circuits" by Orr.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.248.219 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 November 2005

[edit] Protection against UV rays?

While I won't comment on the "traditional" topics revolving around the tin foil hat, I was just wondering, would such a hat protect you from heat and UV rays? Would it be a good idea to wear one in the desert to protect oneself from sunstroke and sunburn? (yes, wearing one is generally silly, but if no other articles or materials are available...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaven252 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 6 December 2005

Sure, just as much as an ordinary floppy hat would. Perhaps would be a little cooler because of the reflectivity? But that's just speculation. Would want to make toilfoil "brims" to protect the neck as well. Anyway, not something we should include in the article. Sdedeo 16:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for documentation of references

This article could definitely benefit from proper documentation of the claims it makes. The only specific reference is to the Media Lab experiment. There are some general references, but it is unclear what facts they are there to document. It seems many of the claims made by the article are not sourced. -- Beland 09:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In general references and sources are good things. On the other hand, a lot of the article is just statements of rather uncontroversial scientific and psychological facts (placebo effect, Faraday cages.) Not saying these or others shouldn't be sourced, but what statements or facts in particular do you want to see sourced? Sdedeo (tips) 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mental illness assertion

I would like to dispute the assertion made by some here that the wearing of such headgear is an indicator of chemical imbalance or biologically caused mental illness.

Psychiatry is yet to scientifically validate any so-called mental illness as having a medical etiology. Psychiatric diagnosis and labeling is nothing more than ideology, a means of social manipulation and control.

To the Yami tribe of the Orchid Islands the wearing of such headgear to protect them from evil spirits is a cultural norm. The people of the Yami Island have been described by anthropologists as a living museum.

The origins of wearing such headgear did not originate in a Dudley more film! Nor does it indicate a sign of mental illness anymore than a procession of Catholic priests parading behind a crucifix. I think this article and its references to "mental illness" reeks of ethnocentrism and cultural relativism.

I believe the traditional beliefs of the Yami tribe must be included in this article to give it some balance.

I apologise for not having great informational links to the culture of the Yami but here’s what I can supply at present. I will do more research if requested. Assistance in researching Yami culture in view to adding the Yami perspective on wearing such hats would be appreciated.

Firstly, here is an excellent picture of a Yami tribesman http://www.blasderobles.com/Varia/Kircher/images/yami.gif

And other link to a photo of a Yami tribesman wearing headgear. http://www.iov.org.tw/english/p_03e_2_9.htm

Here is another link to an untitled anthropological study of Yami Culture. http://www.uga.edu/~asian-lp/jpn_html/yami/chpt.1.html

My point is, the concept that wearing tin foil hats/deflector beanies is a mental illness is culturally specific and not constant throughout the world, especially in indigenous cultures.

Oracular —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.128.120 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 April 2006

If you have verifiable sources linking tinfoil hats with the cultural norms of the Yami, then they could be included in the article. However, please be aware of what Wikipedia is not -- if your reason for wanting to include the beliefs of the Yami is to promote in turn your own beliefs about Western psychiatry, then it could lead to a lot of disappointment on your part. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Before I do further research, is it crucial that the hat be made of tinfoil? Or is the point that these hats are worn by the Yami tribe to gain a similar effect as tinfoil (faraday cage) in eliminating head noise or in the case of the Yami eliminating evil spirits effecting the mind?
The documentary I watched showed a tribal elder’s hat that had been made from silver that was found on a Spanish ship wreck. According to the Yami it was the most powerful hat on the island.
It seems the Yami make these hats out of whatever metal they can find. I doubt tinfoil is used because of it's poor durability or lack of availability. However, the purpose of these hats are similar to the effect desired in both Yami and Westernised cultures.
Oracular —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.133.182 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 26 April 2006
That is true, but since you've clearly studied in the social sciences, you must realize that cultural context places very different meanings on what would otherwise be the same actions. Earlier, you stated that wearing a tin-foil hat does not "indicate a sign of mental illness anymore than a procession of Catholic priests parading behind a crucifix." Here is the thing, however: Catholic priests and their rituals, such as making a procession with the crucifix at the beginning of a mass, exist in a culture where Catholicism exists. Likewise, Yami tribespeople who wear metal hats to protect them from the malign influences of evil spirits are doing so in the context of a culture in which evil spirits are believed to exist and metal headgear is believed to ward them off. However, the Western individual who wears a tin-foil hat in the belief that it will protect him from the mind-controlling "beams of muons" aimed at him by the CIA is still exhibiting culturally abnormal behavior; neither his native culture nor the Yami culture recognize the "beams of muons" that he believes himself to be defending against. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I did try to voice my concerns that ethnocentrism and cultural relativism were "muddying the waters" on this issue above.
The interesting thing is, when power and telephone cables were installed on Yami Island, the whole village became extremely concerned that these cables-enabled phantoms to travel through these cables from hut to hut. I suppose if the technology and culture on the Island increased to a point where a covert intelligence gathering organisation was established on the Island, the cultural norm of wearing reflective headgear, to eliminate any mindcontrol "beams of muons" would make even more sense to the Yami.
We can talk about social constructionism and linguistic determinism until we are blue in the face.
My question's are:
  1. Is Wikipedia a culturally specific encyclopedia or doe's it take a worldview?
  2. You didn't answer my question above. So again, does the headgear have to be made of tinfoil?
Oracular —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.131.66 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 26 April 2006
Here is link to another Picture of Yami Tribesmen wearing traditional headdress.

Scroll down to picture 316.

http://www.weta.org/pressroom/globetrekker3/?p=Images
Oracular —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.137.155 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 28 April 2006

[edit] Other particles

This is a great article. But the discussion of the hat's effectiveness seems to focus solely on its ability to block photons. Can or should there be some comment on the hat's efficacy against beams of:

  1. neutrons
  2. neutrinos
  3. raw quarks
  4. kryptonite particles (both red and green)
  5. tachyons (perhaps coming from behind you)
  6. the corresponding antiparticles to all the above
  7. other unknown alien particles

This is just a quick list off the top of my (unprotected) head —Kymacpherson 14:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if we have that information from reliable sources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
And most of those particles are hypothetical or downright fictional 81.110.14.145 01:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The tinfoil hat's effectiveness vs various types of radiation can also be easily calculated. I would say sources aren't absolutely necessary, as long as the relevant electromagnetics formulas and calculations are shown. --Yuje 08:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Just for reference, every second millions of nutrinoes pass through your body, and through the earth, to come out the other side. I predict that you could make a hat out of all of the aluminum in the world and still be unable cause a significant decrease in the number of nutrinoes passing through you. You may however be comforted by the fact that they are in general too small and too fast moving to be able to interact with your physiology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.113.169 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 8 February 2007

[edit] I have removed the picture of me...

...wearing a tinfoil hat. It is copyrighted material, and was used here totally out of context. In belongs on a page making fun of various conspiracy theories, and I don't want my kids to see it in a serious(?) article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eovti (talk • contribs) 11:06, 19 August 2006

Very funny. Morton devonshire 00:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real use

Is there any real documented case of someone actually using one of these, or is it completely an investion of US popular culture? Self-Described Seabhcán 09:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Michael Menkin, the "alien thought screen helmet" guy, really does exist. He's been interviewed by several newspapers and radio shows, and by all accounts, he appears to be serious. That's the best I can come up with offhand. Zagalejo 14:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: This discussion might provide some leads. I'd be interested if anyone could find that Janov book.Zagalejo 17:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myths

Re: Devastating comments...

That statement is untrue. There isn't the slightest "kernel of truth or reason to be found in this explanation." A "partial" faraday cage (actually there is no such thing) requires grounding to be the slightest bit effective. In matter of fact, an aluminum hat (ungrounded) would become an antenna. That is, it's dimensions will make it an effective antenna at a given wavelength. Again, a tin-foil hat is not electrically grounded, nor is it grounded at RF. So, the wiki citation above is incorrect. Anyone that wears a tin foil hat to stop "radiation" is either grossly misinformed or a loon...... there aren't any other explanations, nor should there be any attempt at such. This is an example, in my mind, of the NPOV going directly against the facts. RF and its behaviors are no mystery, they are very well understood.

By coincidence I surfed into this article after testing out this theory only a few hours ago during a discssion with friends regarding mobile phone tracking by the state. The challenge was that standard aluminium tinfoil (cooking foil) "could not possibly" block the signal from a mobile phone (UK). The claim was also that even if it could work it would require to be earthed (grounded) and that this sort of idea was along the lines of the "tinfoil hat" theory. I sought to check this.

We took a current UK mobile phone (cellphone) - I forget which model - and wrapped it in light grade tinfoil without an earth and attempted to contact it. I then unwrapped it, checked for signal and dialled it successfully. Repeating the experiment several times. What we found was that folding the phone in tinfoil consistently DID block the signal and prevented the phone from connecting to the network. On unfolding the foil from around the phone the status bar indicated "no signal" and this reconnected a few seconds after each unwrapping. The foil did not act as an antenna nor did RF transmissions pass through the tinfoil.

I suggest you try this at home. I intend to try it with metallised crisp (potato chip) wrappers and PC anti-static bags out of interest to see if they also work as I have my own concerns about RfID scanners damaging SD/MMC cards when carried about the person. I have had several such chips "blown" but only whilst carrying them about my person through industrial RfID scanners.

This brief experiement demonstrates the problem with so-called "scientific" supposition and uninformed extrapolation from scientific "fact". It quite simply does not guard against being wrong. Something professional scientists would be only too happy to point out.

I have an issue with statements which claim that a fact is "so obvious" that it requires no justification or case presenting for it. Similar comments such as "clearly..." or "everyone knows..." etc. are all indications of bias and such articles ought to have a warning to that effect. Psychology is used far too often as a kind of pseduo religion in order to stifle discussion.

The statement associating any mental condition with a particular belief without proper and objective clinical diagnosis is an example of pejorative or condemnative insult either to a collective belief or individual. As such, I view the entire article as biased and it ought, really, to be re-written to indicate that this is a personal viewpoint and not an objective, scientific one. That tinfoil hats may well, indeed, work but their efficacy or nor is unproven in each case.

More to the point, if the assertions are true then someone needs to call the US Government into account for wasting many millions of tax dollars on remote viewing and other similar projects.

Furthermore, the grammar is rather obtuse...

There have been some people who believe in the efficacy of tin-foil hats and similar devices.

This sounds like a teenage Americanism for ...

There are people who believe in the efficacy of tinfoil hats or similar divices

By the way - "Tinfoil" is most commonly used as a single word.

I NOT a tinfoil hat fan myself, I just believe articles should state their case clearly and demonstrate any assertion rather than simply claiming it is "obvious" or dismissing any counter believer as a "crank". That is the definition of opinion versus objective analysis.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.2.50 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 23 October 2006