Pre 1995 Persistent Contrail Archive

"Fastest Gun in the West" black & white, MGM, 1957.
20240629_181503.jpg
 
Found a nice one this morning via a local history Facebook group.

1774261123433.jpeg


Description from Facebook page:
External Quote:

MANOR CAFE PHOTOS (circa 1968 - 1974)
Credit (Lee Rawlings)
Location: The site of the current ALDI store, BLACKWATER, GU17.

Photos 1 to 13 I have dated around 1974 judging by the reg plates and price of 4 star following the OPEC oil crisis when the price went over a whopping 50p per gallon. The first photo shows J.A.FLACK the newsagents, F.BOND (greengrocer), NICOLUS (unknown) and NOEL'S FISHING TACKLE. Mr Bumble was known as Watneys Red Lion back then and can be seen over the road to the left of GUBBY's garage and forecourt (where LIDL is now) and also the gas tower in the background where the new car showroom is.
The photo was taken before I was born but I remember Brian Gubby's garage, it was where my dad used to take the car for a service.

Current Google Street View, All changed apart from the pub which still stands. Sky is a lot more "natural" in 2025 too!

IMG_0894.jpeg
 
Note the spreading contrails and hazy sky...

https://mymodernmet.com/london-photos-1970s/
That collection also illustrates how often the sky appears completely white in old photos, due to the limited dynamic range. Modern phone cameras apply HDR by default so will usually show cloud and contrail detail that would have been totally blown out on film.

Examples:

1785854640076.png


1785854709766.png
 
This whole thread is futile though. They'll just make an appeal to the Mandela Effect.

If Jiffy Peanut Butter and Stouffer's Stove Top Stuffing have been changed to Jif Peanut Butter and Stove Top Stuffing (a product of General Foods) in old TV commercials, why couldn't persistent contrails have been added into old photos? It's only common sense that they have been. "I don't remember contrails in the sky when I was a kid. They just weren't there."

I give you exhibit A - Vintage Jiffy Peanut Butter commercial, mysteriously changed to Jif.

It was, "Choosy mothers choose Jiffy!" I swear it was. And the kangaroo mascot was Jiffyaroo, not Jifaroo. What sense does Jifaroo make?
And it was Jiff Pop Popcorn! Not Jiffy Pop Popcorn!


Exhibit B - Vintage Stouffer's Stove Top Stuffing commercial, mysteriously changed to Stove Top Stuffing (a product of General Foods).


What more evidence do you need?
 
Last edited:
If Jiffy Peanut Butter and Stouffer's Stove Top Stuffing have been changed to Jif Peanut Butter and Stove Top Stuffing (a product of General Foods) in old TV commercials, why couldn't persistent contrails have been added into old photos?

I wasn't familiar with the products @Z.W. Wolf mentioned (maybe Jiffy Peanut Butter and Stouffer's Stove Top Stuffing were the real thing, the YouTube ads nefariously manipulated), so for others who don't know these products, Jif Peanut Butter and General Food's Stove Top Stuffing were the real things. Jif products were never named or advertised as "Jiffy", Stouffer never made an instant stuffing mix.

"Why Some People Swear Jif Peanut Butter Was Once Called Jiffy", The Takeout website https://www.thetakeout.com/2002069/jiffy-peanut-butter-jif-mandela-effect/ 25 October 2025, Moriah House.
The writer proposes that some people who misremember "Jiffy" have confused/ combined the names of Jif and Skippy peanut butter.

"Did Stouffer's Stove Top Stuffing Exist? It Did Not – Here's Why", Cooks Dream website https://cooksdream.com/did-stouffers-stovetop-stuffing-exist/ , updated 18 July 2024, "Anna".

Both articles mention the Mandela Effect.

Probably all of us misremember things and no-one has perfect recall. The internet enables people who have the same or similar mistaken views to be aware of each other; some make the mistake of interpreting other's accounts that chime with their own as evidence that they are correct, a confirmation bias. They might not test their "evidence", and if aware of conflicting evidence those prone to conspiratorial thinking sometimes seem to think the contrary evidence is manufactured in bad faith. Why a peanut butter manufacturer or the authors/ publishers of the Berenstain Bears would do this isn't really explained.

"Chemtrail" believers sometimes claim that, while conventional contrails exist (this isn't reasonably deniable), they are not as persistent as chemtrails. So any persistent contrail is in fact a chemtrail. Evidence for persistent contrails, which might be photographic, in literature or simply people's recollections, has to be ignored or dismissed. But the evidence for persistent contrails of well-understood, non-sinister origin is overwhelming, and dates back to at least the 1920s, e.g. this account of a relatively small propellor aircraft,
This is the item from U.S. Air Service, July 1921, from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Contrail_1921.jpg
External Quote:
An altitude flight was made in the morning at McCook Field (Dayton, Ohio) recently by Liet. J.A. Macready in a La Pere with supercharged Liberty. When the airplane reached a height of 26,000-27,000 feet at 11:50 a.m., a long feathery streamer was observed forming behind a rapidly-moving dark speck. ...After 20 minutes the streamer had drifted and spread until it merged indistinguishably with the other cirrus clouds visible.
See also thread Debunking "Contrails don't Persist" with a Study of 70 Years of Books on Clouds"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top