Vindog's Contrail Questions [Contrails Near Boston]

[JFDee]

And I am just supposed to believe you on this? How about a source?

Allow me to return that suggestion regarding your original claim "no persistent contrails in the nineties". If you expect references, you should be able to to provide some yourself.

I think everyone around here is aware of the shortcomings of personal memory. I wouldn't trust myself with such absolute certainty when it comes to things that were not actually relevant in my earlier life.

 

[captfitch]

Please consider these questions.
When you say 'chemtrail', are you referring to a persistant contrail that lasts longer than 20 minutes?
Do you dispute that contrails can last longer and spread out to become high altitude cirrus?
How large is the 'chemtrail' at a guess?
What plane do you imagine can carry that much material into the air to disperse?
How many of the planes you see are 'chemtrail' carrying planes?
Does that rule out commercial air traffic?

Wait though... That's like three new topics right there regarding time appearance and physical property. Let's solve the perception of quantity or frequency first.

 

[Vindog]

Please consider these questions.
When you say 'chemtrail', are you referring to a persistant contrail that lasts longer than 20 minutes?
Do you dispute that contrails can last longer and spread out to become high altitude cirrus?
How large is the 'chemtrail' at a guess?
What plane do you imagine can carry that much material into the air to disperse?
How many of the planes you see are 'chemtrail' carrying planes?
Does that rule out commercial air traffic?

Yes chemtrail would be a contrail that persists for longer than 20 minutes or so.
No I do no not dispute that it is possible for a contrail to do that, as I have stated many times here. I have covered this question extensively.
I have not speculated what kind of plane could carry that much material.
some days there are no "chem" planes. Some days I see over 100, or in other words just stop counting.
I have not ruled out commercial air traffic.
EDIT: its hard for me to guess on a size of the chemtrails and I dont think I should speculate on the answer.

 

[Vindog]

Allow me to return that suggestion regarding your original claim "no persistent contrails in the nineties". If you expect references, you should be able to to provide some yourself.

I think everyone around here is aware of the shortcomings of personal memory. I wouldn't trust myself with such absolute certainty when it comes to things that were not actually relevant in my earlier life.

The fact that this website is even here to "debunk" chemtrails is my source.... I am not the only one to make this observation, and in fact it is the fact that so many people have confirmed this observation that there is the "conspiracy theory"

EDIT: after re-reading this I realized how poorly I worded it. But for you to ask me for a source would mean that you are completely ignorant of the general consensus among the "conspiracy" community

 

[Mick West]

No I do no not dispute that it is possible for a contrail to do that, as I have stated many times here. I have covered this question extensively.

So why do YOU think there were zero in the 1990s?

If it's possible for them to persist, and other people remember them, and there's books and photos showing them, and there was flyover air traffic in your area, then there must have been some.

So why didn't you notice them?

 

[Vindog]

Wait though... That's like three new topics right there regarding time appearance and physical property. Let's solve the perception of quantity or frequency first.

agreed

 

[Vindog]

So why do YOU think there were zero in the 1990s?

If it's possible for them to persist, and other people remember them, and there's books and photos showing them, and there was flyover air traffic in your area, then there must have been some.

So why didn't you notice them?

I have covered this before as well. Just because there are pictures of it happening before, does not explain my own, and generally the entire "conspiracy" communities observations. I understand what you mean by my memory being fallible, but I assure you this is not the case.

It would almost seem to me that you are trying to use "fallible" memory as a panacea to the problem.

 

[captfitch]

The fact that this website is even here to "debunk" chemtrails is my source.... I am not the only one to make this observation, and in fact it is the fact that so many people have confirmed this observation that there is the "conspiracy theory"

EDIT: after re-reading this I realized how poorly I worded it. But for you to ask me for a source would mean that you are completely ignorant of the general consensus among the "conspiracy" community

No, we hear that all the time and it's represented as evidence but this site and it's sister can show without doubt that persistent contrails have been present for years and years. Even a plethora of conspiracy theorists claims can not override the physical evidence presented to the contrary.

 

[captfitch]

Can you concede that it's at least possible you are the victim of perception? Baby steps?

 

[Vindog]

Can you concede that it's at least possible you are the victim of perception? Baby steps?

No, can you?

 

[captfitch]

Ok. Well then we're at an impass. How do you suggest we help you or continue?

 

[JFDee]

It would almost seem to me that you are trying to use "fallible" memory as a panacea to the problem.

Well, the "quality" of your memory is obviously central to your claim, so its correctness is certainly an issue.

Again, your memory may be excellent regarding things that really counted in your life, or things that you learned actively. But how involved were you with watching the sky, the weather, the air traffic in the nineties? Was it one of your hobbies? Any notes perhaps?

 

[Vindog]

Well, the "quality" of your memory is obviously central to your claim, so its correctness is certainly an issue.

Again, your memory may be excellent regarding things that really counted in your life, or things that you learned actively. But how involved were you with watching the sky, the weather, the air traffic in the nineties? Was it one of your hobbies? Any notes perhaps?

So this is what we are going with now? that my memory is just wrong?

So when other people come to this site in search for answers, thats the answer they are going to get....that their memory is wrong, and that there was always the same amount of "persistent contrails"/"chemtrails" in the sky then and now?......somehow I just dont think that is going to convince anyone...

 

[Vindog]

Seems to me that you guys just dont have a good technical answer, and this just seems to be a panacea. "your memory is wrong"

 

[Svartbjørn]

I have covered this before as well. Just because there are pictures of it happening before, does not explain my own, and generally the entire "conspiracy" communities observations. I understand what you mean by my memory being fallible, but I assure you this is not the case.

It would almost seem to me that you are trying to use "fallible" memory as a panacea to the problem.

Let me ask you this Vin, and this is an honest inquiry so please dont take it as anything else but. I have no doubt that you remember what you remember. As an avid skywatcher, did you take any photographs of the sky back in those days? From my own experience, Ive taken pictures of beautiful deep blue cloudless skies, pictures of clouds that caught my fancy etc.. do you have anything -other- than the experiences that you alone have on a personal level that can be shared?

The Scientific Method requires that any hypothesis have the ability to be tested.. thats why you're feeling like you're against a wall.. all of the posters here think like scientists... they cant test your memory in an unbiased way, just as you cant test your own memory in an ubiased way.. because its your memory. What you see and experience is unique to you.

I can see that you're trying to get to the bottom of a situation that causes you distress, and its completely understandable from a human perspective. You want answers to a phenomena you see that you dont recall seeing in the past. Totally fair. All of us here are more than willing to help you sort the issue out, and help you get to the bottom of the mystery, but we need more to go on than just your personal memory of something that occurred nearly 20 years ago. If you have any evidence, other than your memory, that you can provide, it will go a LONG way in finding a middle ground that everyone can work from. Does that seem more reasonable to you?

 

[captfitch]

Seems to me that you guys just dont have a good technical answer, and this just seems to be a panacea. "your memory is wrong"

No, I think we have attempted to point out the fallacy of the question and therefore explain that we can not answer it. I find it frustrating that you can't admit that there is a possibility that your perception is wrong. How can we help you if there's not any give and take.

 

[Mick West]

So this is what we are going with now? that my memory is just wrong?

I think "wrong" is rather a strong term. You remember what you notice. Consider this photo I took on a ski trip about eleven years ago (March 2003). My actual memory is of sunshine and blue skies. And yet:


There's an enormous spreading contrail!

Later the contrails had spread out to cover the sky




Now, and this is entirely true, I, Mick West, owner of Contrail Science and Metabunk.org, don't remember seeing a persistent contrail prior to 2007.

So if I don't remember, then why should you?

 

[JFDee]

So when other people come to this site in search for answers, thats the answer they are going to get....that their memory is wrong, and that there was always the same amount of "persistent contrails"/"chemtrails" in the sky then and now?

Hmm, as far as I read it, nobody here claimed that there was always the same amount of persistent contrails in the sky then and now. Quite the contrary.

Personal memory is unreliable. That's what science is there for. It starts with taking notes.

 

[Peter]

OK let me see if i'm getting this right:

Vindog doesn't remember con/chemtrails in the 90's

But now there are plenty of them.

Correct me if i'm wrong on this.

Whatever was the case in the 90's the fact is that they're here now. So the question then is: what are they?

So I hope you've by now familiarized yourself with the properties of a persistent contrail. This comes in really handy in distinguishing them from chemtrails, if there's such a thing.

So my question then is: how do you distinguish a chemtrail from a contrail? What do you think makes a chemtrai a chemtrail (what chemicals)?

I hope we're not overwhelming you with all these posts yet.. lol.. take it easy, answer what you can

 

[Mick West]

Focus changes, depending on situation

My Ski Photos in 2003, family was visiting.


My Ski Photos in 2013, I've developed an interest in contrails.

 

[Vindog]

Let me ask you this Vin, and this is an honest inquiry so please dont take it as anything else but. I have no doubt that you remember what you remember. As an avid skywatcher, did you take any photographs of the sky back in those days? From my own experience, Ive taken pictures of beautiful deep blue cloudless skies, pictures of clouds that caught my fancy etc.. do you have anything -other- than the experiences that you alone have on a personal level that can be shared?

The Scientific Method requires that any hypothesis have the ability to be tested.. thats why you're feeling like you're against a wall.. all of the posters here think like scientists... they cant test your memory in an unbiased way, just as you cant test your own memory in an ubiased way.. because its your memory. What you see and experience is unique to you.

I can see that you're trying to get to the bottom of a situation that causes you distress, and its completely understandable from a human perspective. You want answers to a phenomena you see that you dont recall seeing in the past. Totally fair. All of us here are more than willing to help you sort the issue out, and help you get to the bottom of the mystery, but we need more to go on than just your personal memory of something that occurred nearly 20 years ago. If you have any evidence, other than your memory, that you can provide, it will go a LONG way in finding a middle ground that everyone can work from. Does that seem more reasonable to you?

No I do not have any pictures.

 

[Vindog]

Focus changes, depending on situation

My Ski Photos in 2003, family was visiting.


My Ski Photos in 2013, I've developed an interest in contrails.

Notice the location, and extremely cold conditions of these pictures.....I am not denying, and i have said this many many many times, that it CAN happen, if the conditions are right.

 

[JFDee]

I, Mick West, owner of Contrail Science and Metabunk.org, don't remember seeing a persistent contrail prior to 2007.

I never thought about persistent contrails prior to my pilot's exam (around the year 2000). I must have seen them but I did not notice them.

They were referred to in the meteorological class as an indicator of an approaching warm front. From then on, I started looking out for them - and saw lots.

 

[captfitch]

OK let me see if i'm getting this right:

Vindog doesn't remember con/chemtrails in the 90's

But now there are plenty of them.

Correct me if i'm wrong on this.

Whatever was the case in the 90's the fact is that they're here now. So the question then is: what are they?

So I hope you've by now familiarized yourself with the properties of a persistent contrail. This comes in really handy in distinguishing them from chemtrails, if there's such a thing.

So my question then is: how do you distinguish a chemtrail from a contrail? What do you think makes a chemtrai a chemtrail (what chemicals)?

I hope we're not overwhelming you with all these posts yet.. lol.. take it easy, answer what you can

Stop! We must not start a new sub topic until we rationalize the current one! A big issue here is whether we and vindog can get past this. I suggest that if he can not admit that he has a perception problem then we must not continue to discuss the main topic.

 

[Svartbjørn]

No I do not have any pictures.

Have you got anything, outside of your personal memory, that can be observed/tested? Again, Im not doubting your memory, but there needs to be a common frame of reference to work with.

 

[Vindog]

OK let me see if i'm getting this right:

Vindog doesn't remember con/chemtrails in the 90's

But now there are plenty of them.

Correct me if i'm wrong on this.

Whatever was the case in the 90's the fact is that they're here now. So the question then is: what are they?

So I hope you've by now familiarized yourself with the properties of a persistent contrail. This comes in really handy in distinguishing them from chemtrails, if there's such a thing.

So my question then is: how do you distinguish a chemtrail from a contrail? What do you think makes a chemtrai a chemtrail (what chemicals)?

I hope we're not overwhelming you with all these posts yet.. lol.. take it easy, answer what you can

You cannot just write off my question though. As I do understand that contrails can persist, it does not explain the difference from the 90's to now. That is a central part to this problem. To leave it out would do no justice. And Im wondering, IF im wrong, and that is a big, giant, impossible, IF, why has this subject only come to light now? why werent there people 20-30 years ago trying to claim conspiracy theories?

I understand what you are all trying to say about scienctific approach and this that and the other thing. But clearly if this was happening years and years ago, you would have seen more pictures of it and more talk about it.

The chemicals that could be in them have been discussed in movies that this site CLAIMS to have debunked. Alluminum, barium, i cant remember them all...

Part of the reason I have chosen this question is because I seem to be getting conflicting responses. I have received responses acknowledging that there has been a change, with reasons given to me like more air traffic, and cleaner engines etc, but now I am getting responses that are saying Fallible memory....I just need to get one clear answer on this before I can move on....

 

[Vindog]

Hmm, as far as I read it, nobody here claimed that there was always the same amount of persistent contrails in the sky then and now. Quite the contrary.

Personal memory is unreliable. That's what science is there for. It starts with taking notes.

So which is it...that there is an increase? that there werent any? that there were some, but now more? You all should maybe meet up in a PM and get your stories straight....

 

[Vindog]

Have you got anything, outside of your personal memory, that can be observed/tested? Again, Im not doubting your memory, but there needs to be a common frame of reference to work with.

It seems like you are trying to use a argument from ignorance, or appeal to ignorance type of argument. Such as, I cant produce any pictures of clear skies or non persistent contrails, therefor my memory, and the memory of countless other "chemtrail" researchers should not be considered.

I can also see how you could say the same for me I suppose.

 

[captfitch]

There are obviously more for a number of reasons. The problem is you started this sub topic by stating that there were 0 and now there's "more than you can count". We have explained that there were never 0, you just didn't notice them. But you are holding steadfast to the belief that you did not see any because there were none to be seen. I contend that unless you can admit that they did exist but you have no memory of them we have no place to go.

 

[Mick West]

Notice the location, and extremely cold conditions of these pictures.....I am not denying, and i have said this many many many times, that it CAN happen, if the conditions are right.

Not to get too far off topic - but this is an important misunderstanding here. The location of both these sets of photos is California, in March. It was not "extremely cold" in the general area - I just happened to be at 9,000 feet. The exact same contrails were visible just that same 20 miles away, where the temp was in the 70s. It's the conditions where the plane is flying that is important.

But the point of posting these photos is not to show that contrails can exist. But to demonstrate how your focus and memory can change. Had I been interested in contrails in the first trip in 2003, then I would have had lots of opportunities to take photos of them. I didn't, so just got a few accidental shots.

 

[JFDee]

Stop! We must not start a new sub topic until we rationalize the current one!

If Vindog agrees to move on, why shouldn't we?

I consider the question of the traffic increase much less interesting than why he thinks the trails today are not normal contrails.

 

[Vindog]

Stop! We must not start a new sub topic until we rationalize the current one! A big issue here is whether we and vindog can get past this. I suggest that if he can not admit that he has a perception problem then we must not continue to discuss the main topic.

And why do I have to be the one to admit this? Why should it not be you? Lets not just start throwing labels or assumptions around.

 

[Mick West]

Vindog. What it the most recent year that you personally know for sure there were no contrails over Braintree, MA?

 

[Vindog]

Not to get too far off topic - but this is an important misunderstanding here. The location of both these sets of photos is California, in March. It was not "extremely cold" in the general area - I just happened to be at 9,000 feet. The exact same contrails were visible just that same 20 miles away, where the temp was in the 70s. It's the conditions where the plane is flying that is important.

But the point of posting these photos is not to show that contrails can exist. But to demonstrate how your focus and memory can change. Had I been interested in contrails in the first trip in 2003, then I would have had lots of opportunities to take photos of them. I didn't, so just got a few accidental shots.

I understand Mick. So basically your saying that because I wasnt interested in them, that I didnt notice them. But thats just NOT THE CASE!!!!!! In fact it was quite the opposite. It was when I noticed them starting to come around to my area that I got interested.

 

[Mick West]

And why do I have to be the one to admit this? Why should it not be you? Lets not just start throwing labels or assumptions around.

You don't "have" to admit anything. But you made a pretty bold claim. So I think the focus should be on seeing if there's a way of figuring out if the claim can be tested, or not. I must be one of:

A) There were no contrails back in the 1990s visible from Braintree
B) There were contrails, but you don't remember them

B1) There was a big increase
B2) There was a moderate increase
​

 

[Vindog]

Vindog. What it the most recent year that you personally know for sure there were no contrails over Braintree, MA?

eeesh, Id say like 99 or 2000. I dont remember the exact year. Give or take 1 year. I noticed them starting to persist around that time. I'd say somewhere around 2004 is when I really noticed them start to take over my entire sky on a given day. but that could be wrong. One thing is for sure though, up to about 99, I was outside all summer long, and would watch planes any chance I got,(wanted to be a pilot, didnt work out). In the summer time, I had never seen a contrail persist like they do now. Now you can just watch them start in the morning, and by late afternoon the entire sky will be covered w/ artificial clouds. That NEVER used to happen in my area in the summer.

 

[Mick West]

I understand Mick. So basically your saying that because I wasnt interested in them, that I didnt notice them. But thats just NOT THE CASE!!!!!! In fact it was quite the opposite. It was when I noticed them starting to come around to my area that I got interested.

It's not too important what the trigger is. For many people (including myself) it seems to be hearing about the chemtrail theory. For some it's simply seeing an unusually large contrail, or a lot of contrails. This triggers an interest - and then reading about the theory greatly magnifies the interest.

 

[JFDee]

So which is it...that there is an increase?

Yes, with more and higher flights and newer airplane technology. Global increase, with local variations. I don't think anyone here disagrees.

 

[Mick West]

eeesh, Id say like 99 or 2000. I dont remember the exact year. Give or take 1 year. I noticed them starting to persist around that time. I'd say somewhere around 2004 is when I really noticed them start to take over my entire sky on a given day. but that could be wrong. One thing is for sure though, up to about 99, I was outside all summer long, and would watch planes any chance I got,(wanted to be a pilot, didnt work out). In the summer time, I had never seen a contrail persist like they do now. Now you can just watch them start in the morning, and by late afternoon the entire sky will be covered w/ artificial clouds. That NEVER used to happen in my area in the summer.

So, you'd assert that, according to your memory, there were no persistent contrails within 50 miles (being conservative here, you can actually see contrails up to 100 miles away) of Braintree (which is ten miles south of Boston)?

 

[captfitch]

You don't "have" to admit anything. But you made a pretty bold claim. So I think the focus should be on seeing if there's a way of figuring out if the claim can be tested, or not. I must be one of:

A) There were no contrails back in the 1990s visible from Braintree
B) There were contrails, but you don't remember them

B1) There was a big increase
B2) There was a moderate increase
​

While he doesn't have to admit to anything I think that if someone is presented or pointed toward evidence and still chooses to ignore it then we have no place to go. What's the point of being here? What's our motivation to even begin another sub topic?