Discussion: False memories and "No persistent trails in the past"

I didn't pay attention to contrails in the early 90s when I was a kid, but I did pay attention to "HAARP clouds", better known as natural altocumulus clouds, in the sky that early in life. Why did I remember? Because the wavy patterns reminded me of the bottom of the lake were I loved to swim around during the summers :p

Perhaps HAARP is outside the scope of this thread, but my experience proves that if you have reason to pay attention to something, it will stick. If you have no reason to pay attention to something, you are very likely to forget about the experience. Believers in "chemtrails" often think they scanned the skies back in the 60s or 70s just like they do today, which can create an illusion of a memory. That false memory is likely enhanced by the fact that contrails have increased over the years, many times the air traffic, higher bypass, ect.
I remember persistent contrails from the early 1970s. I was aeroplane mad and used to watch with binoculars anything in the skies over Glasgow, Scotland. I particularly remember Boeing 747s laying down horizon to horizon very thick trails. I also remember watching USAF C-5 Galaxies laying down long persistent contrails with their TF39 high-bypass turbofans. As an Air Training Corps Cadet from 1978 it was a regular thing for the adult instructors on the squadron to teach aircraft recognition live. On some days the skies used to be criss-crossed with contrails that we used as guides to train our binoculars on.

I didn't start aircraft photography till around the early 1980s. I can remember using my 500mm mirror lens fitted with 2 x tele-converters to watch aircraft producing contrails up-close. I now wish that I had taken images of them now but used to save the slide film for trips to Glasgow Airport. I used to have a camera rifle grip and would use it to track the aircraft and keep it in frame. I distinctly remember watching what we now know as aerodynamic contrails forming off the wing surfaces and being fascinated as sometimes a rainbow formed.
Adding to this thread, studies made by criminal psychologist Julia Shaw shows that it's possible to create false memories when input is added from an external source. Shaw's published study explains:

External Quote:
This study provides evidence that people can come to visualize and recall detailed false memories of engaging in criminal behavior. Not only could the young adults in our sample be led to generate such memories, but their rate of false recollection was high, and the memories themselves were richly detailed. Additionally, false memories for perpetrating crime showed signs that they may have been generated in a way that is similar to the way in which false memories for noncriminal emotional memories are generated.
The phenomenon highlighted in this study is of course not the sole reason why people believe not to have seen persistent contrails in the past, inattentional blindness and the nature of paranoia are a strong contributors. But according to the study it seem to be very possible with the help of suggestive information to convince oneself of false memories that you never experienced. And the suggestive nature (as in evoking negative emotions) of conspiracy theories seem to be the ideal information for this phenomenon of planting false memories.

In this study, presented false memories were initially refused by the participants, but with time became more and more accepted by them as true memories. This might be relevant to how many conspiracy communities works as echo chambers were information is limited and constantly repeated by their members. Again, an ideal environment for this false memory phenomenon to happen.
Shaw shows that it's possible to create false memories when input is added from an external source.

The longer (time) people are away from an event, the more likely they are able to "reconstruct" the event to their varying opinions of events......or that when other sources (opinions or added info) are supplied as added info or suggestions.
Take a look at this "First 48" episode, "House of Cards".
This episode left me bewildered, because not one story agreed with the other, and when separate stories were introduced in a group....even "new" stories became "real" to them.
Maybe this was a group-slueth figured-out (genuine conclusion), or it was a changing of their stories in more assurance because of a sudden (live) mutual agreement.
Last edited: