Vindog's Contrail Questions [Contrails Near Boston]

Pete Tar said:
How do you decide to define them as chemtrails? You still haven't provided a list of the characteristics of chemtrails compared to contrails.
Click to expand...
If you are asking me for a general description of a Chemtrail vs a Contrail, then you are in no position to try to act like any kind of authority on this matter. that is why i have not answered your question. You know the answers already.
 
Vindog said:
I grew up in No. Easton MA, so you could probably say a 10-30 mile radius
Click to expand...
a 10-30 mile radius! so you are ok saying contrails persisted everywhere else in the world right? here's some photos 1990s from Central Park. it is hard to find a lot of them since cameras were so crudey back then.

cp1.JPG mid.JPG
 
Vindog said:
If you are asking me for a general description of a Chemtrail vs a Contrail, then you are in no position to try to act like any kind of authority on this matter. that is why i have not answered your question. You know the answers already.
Click to expand...
Could you point out where I have ever claimed or tried to act like an authority on this matter?
I know some stuff maybe that you don't, but I'm not an authority. I'm trying to help answer your questions.
No, I DO NOT know what you are deciding is contrail behaviour/chemtrail behaviour, which is WHY I ASKED!!!
It's important to get your personal definition so we have a common point of reference.
If you can't respond to simple requests for information, you're simply trolling and are not interested in actually having a conversation here.
 
Hama Neggs said:
Just so we're clear, you admit that persistent trails occurred in any number of other places around the world, but just not where you lived?
Click to expand...
No, I am not admitting that. I am admitting that I personally was only able to make observations in my area, since that would have been between the ages of 5-19 and my family did not travel outside of MA, CT, RI, and NH. In those areas I did personally make those observations.

I see what you are trying to do. I know that I can get a plethora of people to say the same things honestly about their own regions around the globe. Nice try.
 
Vindog said:
No, I am not admitting that. I am admitting that I personally was only able to make observations in my area, since that would have been between the ages of 5-19 and my family did not travel outside of MA, CT, RI, and NH. In those areas I did personally make those observations.

I see what you are trying to do. I know that I can get a plethora of people to say the same things honestly about their own regions around the globe. Nice try.
Click to expand...

We don't need to rely on people's memories. There are easily thousands of photos of persistent contrails from around the world in that decade. You don't need to "admit" it for it to be true. I'm sure someone will come up with one from your area too. There is really very little doubt they took place where you lived.
 
looking for photos (and interestingly I cant find even recent Massachusetts pics with tons of contrails) found this site, she explains her process of figuring out what shes seeing in the sky. cool.

excerpt:

I wonder what is going on. At this point I think back in my memory if I have seen this before in my life. I decide that I have not seen anything quite this extensive when I was younger.
What am I to do to figure this out? First I can think about my memories. I am certain that this amount of aircraft activity and all these trails were not present when I was younger and would look to the sky. This needs to be further investigated. I first need to understand that my own memory is a terrible base for conclusions. There are multiple studies, too many to not listen to or at least enough to doubt my own memory. The brain does not like empty space so it often creates false memories to fill the void. When I look back, I can not trust what I am recalling because the mind can play tricks like that. An example of the leading expert talking about this memory issue can be seenhere.
I am not worried because I can find other ways to address the question of whether this is a new phenomenon. I want to first know if there is documentation to prove that there are more aircrafts in the air at any given time than in the past and have there always been these white, puffy trails in the sky or is this a relatively new occurrence?
I look at airline data and I find that yes, there has been an increase in the number of planes in the air at any given time since the beginning of the use of aircrafts.
Content from External Source
http://airplanefoodcritic.blogspot.com/2014/01/contrail-vs-chemtrail-thought-process.html
 
Vindog said:
If you are asking me for a general description of a Chemtrail vs a Contrail, then you are in no position to try to act like any kind of authority on this matter. that is why i have not answered your question. You know the answers already.
Click to expand...

How can we explain what you are seeing if you won't describe the supposedly "abnormal" aspects of the trails?
 
Hama Neggs said:
Can I ask what the title is supposed to mean, where it says: " ...Plane Flying Vertical"?
Click to expand...
I hope nobody else has mentioned this yet, but at about 1:30 ish in the video, due to a perspective problem, the video maker appears to think a trail is going almost vertically and exclaims how it can't be passenger cos it;s going almost straight up.
 
How about this photo, showing persisting contrails (one being formed, one old and spreading) over Boston in 1959?
boston, massachusetts

august 1959

western sky, as viewed from a rooftop on beacon hill

part of an archival project, featuring the photographs of nick dewolf
Content from External Source
 
OK, Vindog.
Assuming that you are NOT trolling and just trying to annoy everyone, and are really just asking questions, then maybe you should read people's answers and the contrail science site a little more carefully and with an actual open mind.

The premise of the contrail website and this one is to explain what is ACTUALLY happening, not to convince you of one particualr thing but to remove bunk.

Chemtrail arguments say that contrails don't persist, chentrails do. YOU might not be saying this but LOADS of people do, including most of the proponents of the chemtrail idea. so if there are photos of contrails persisting in the past, that shows that contrails can persist.
If there are many trails now that look and behave exactly like persistent contrails, there is no reason to think they are anything else. NO-one is saying they definitely absolutely are persistent contrails, but if your ONLY reason for thinking they are chemtrails is that they persist, then that reasoning is flawed. People have asked you how you are determining they are chemtrails. Without you anwering how ELSE you know except they persist, then people are going to assume that is the only reason why you think that.

I only live about 5 miles from my nearest airport (Adge Cutler International, Bristol, UK) and I can clearly tell the difference from where I am from planes landing at Bristol and planes that are flying high overhead. the airport traffic is much lower in the sky and all in one particular tiny corridor to my south whereas the overhead traffic is much higher and more to the North of me. there is a huge air corridor that goes between Bristol and Gloucester that has LOADS of traffic to and from Ireland and London as well as to and from London and most parts of mainland Europe over to the USA and Canada. There is also a north South Corridor that takes planes from Spain/Portugal direction to and from Scotland.

People have shown you how the traffic corridors look over your area but you are also a little further away from Logan.
How do you ascertain that the traffic you see trailing is FROM Logan and has not just overflown it?

you have been asked this a few times, but next time you have some spare time to film, why not go MUCH nearer the airport and film planes actually taking off ans FOLLOW THOSE PLANES for as long as you can. If you get videos of trails, then you will have something surprising and shocking and people will NOT just dismiss them here. Your comments about if videos "go your way" like this is a high school debating class.
Are you trying to win an argument or actually find the truth?

Another thing people have brought up is perspective. Without a sensible frame of reference, I have absolutely NO IDEA what height the planes making trails are flying. and I really can't tell how far away horizontally those planes are flying.How do you determine the distance the planes are from you? Any figure I gave you would be pure guesswork. The only time I have seen a plane making a contrail DIRECTLY OVERHEAD, was when I was at Dunsfold the other weekend.
 
I do see chemtrails ALL year round. I do agree that "all-day every day" is probably very poor choice of words. But I do see them persistently all year round.
Why am I then able to watch that cloud slowly settle down, down down, not as if it was being blown by wind, but as if it was just dust settling?
Click to expand...

Your observations of contrails at all seasons of the year is related to living in a region where frontal storms are likely to occur in any month of the year. In California, we often have bone dry weather from June through September, and persistent contrails are very rare because the relative humidity in the upper atmosphere is too low to generate these contrail cirrus clouds. If these clouds were chemtrails, we should see more of them during the summer than other seasons, since it would be more logical to do the geoengineering when the solar radiation is more intense.

Schaefer and Day's guidebook, "Atmosphere," published 33 years ago, which might be in your library, has a good discussion of persistent and ephemeral contrails
"A persistent trail is an indicator of moist air, which may be the first sign of an extensive storm area moving into the region. "
"Sometimes they maintain their initial integrity as a line of cloud formed in the wake of the rapidly moving aircraft; at other times they develop a series of pendules from which streamers of precipitation are observed to fall." . . . "Observed systematically as a function of time, contrail information is a valuable adjunct to forecasting the weather."
Content from External Source
 
Steve Funk said:
Your observations of contrails at all seasons of the year is related to living in a region where frontal storms are likely to occur in any month of the year. In California, we often have bone dry weather from June through September, and persistent contrails are very rare because the relative humidity in the upper atmosphere is too low to generate these contrail cirrus clouds. If these clouds were chemtrails, we should see more of them during the summer than other seasons, since it would be more logical to do the geoengineering when the solar radiation is more intense.

Schaefer and Day's guidebook, "Atmosphere," published 33 years ago, which might be in your library, has a good discussion of persistent and ephemeral contrails
"A persistent trail is an indicator of moist air, which may be the first sign of an extensive storm area moving into the region. "
"Sometimes they maintain their initial integrity as a line of cloud formed in the wake of the rapidly moving aircraft; at other times they develop a series of pendules from which streamers of precipitation are observed to fall." . . . "Observed systematically as a function of time, contrail information is a valuable adjunct to forecasting the weather."
Content from External Source
Click to expand...

And the chemtrail believers think the trails CAUSE the weather to change to stormy. :rolleyes:

PS: Except when they think the trails CAUSE the weather to be dry... :rolleyes: ... like Wigington and nothern CA.
 
Vindog said:
I mean, since we are talking about contrails and chemtrails, i cant see how this video would be off topic....since the topic is contrails and chemtrails. Oh and watch the whole video....no timestamp. 3 minute video.

Click to expand...


That video's title (and content) are misleading. It is cherry-picking from an actual report (a tactic commonly used by "chem"trail myth and hoax promoters) and also, of course, by Alex Jones....note that the video is produced by that horrible man.
 
Vindog said:
No, I am not admitting that. I am admitting that I personally was only able to make observations in my area, since that would have been between the ages of 5-19 and my family did not travel outside of MA, CT, RI, and NH. In those areas I did personally make those observations.

I see what you are trying to do. I know that I can get a plethora of people to say the same things honestly about their own regions around the globe. Nice try.
Click to expand...


Hi Vindog- its possible there were not any contrails persisting in the sky when you looked at the sky when you were 11yrs old....its also possible that there were and you just do not remember them.

Of course, there is a lot more air traffic now then there was then:

RPK.JPG


Persistent contrails did happen frequently enough back in the 60s, 70s and 80s that they were the subject of much research. Here is a paper where they went back and studied satellite images from the 1977-79 and found many occurrences of persistent contrail "outbreaks: and clusters. Doesn't mention MA specifically but does highlight that they were common even back in the 70s.:

http://archive.today/jHHB2
 
Belfrey said:
How about this photo, showing persisting contrails (one being formed, one old and spreading) over Boston in 1959?
boston, massachusetts

august 1959

western sky, as viewed from a rooftop on beacon hill

part of an archival project, featuring the photographs of nick dewolf
Content from External Source
Click to expand...
This picture shows a contrail. In boston. I never said that there werent Condensation trails. This does not show a persistent Trail.
 
Vindog said:
This picture shows a contrail. In boston. I never said that there werent Condensation trails. This does not show a persistent Trail.
Click to expand...
it shows what the vast vast majority of chemtrailists call a persistent trail. If we show a similar pic but with a contrail more spread out (width wise) would you accept that as a persistent trail? or you wont accept any photo at all?
 
Vindog said:
This does not show a persistent Trail
Click to expand...
also note, the main evidence in Micks 70 years thread ISN'T the photos! It is the fact that for over 70 years books have been written EXPLAINING the phenomenon of persistent contrails. They existed, so the authors explained them. maybe you can rewatch the video?
 
Miss VocalCord said:
That really is a nice collection of photo's. They become color later on too ;)
Found a 'curved' contrail on that same page:
https://flic.kr/p/kfUJET
Click to expand...
Again, these pictures do not illustrate any kind of persistence. Maybe it is because of the quality of the photo, but this does not convince me. The trails here may be only minutes old. Just to be clear, when I say persistence in a contrail is suspicious, im referring to when they stay up there for hours and hours. I do not believe ones that dissipate within 10-20 minutes are suspicious.

I am heading up to Canton MA late tonight after mid-night from New Jersey, and I will do my best to get some photos in or near boston, or a video which would be better IMHO. I do believe that my wife wants to spend a lot of time on Cape Cod though, so it may be tough. Ill do my best. Ill try to get a compass or use the sun as some sort of reference in conjunction w/ a clock of some sort.

So I live in NJ, and I do see flight paths on 2 sides of my horizon, so it would be a lot easier for me to make a good time lapse capture down here when I get back from my trip. Any tips that you guys can give me would be great. What Im thinking I want to do is make a youtube video with my recordings, and then try to go back and track the planes I record on that Flight Radar 24 or what ever. Does anyone know if I will be able to go back in time on the radar to see which planes I would have been looking at when the recording is finished? I have also never made an edited youtube video with stuff like that, so any tips or websites with how to's would be great too.
 
Vindog said:
This picture shows a contrail. In boston. I never said that there werent Condensation trails. This does not show a persistent Trail.
Click to expand...

Actually- its shows 2 contrails...the thin one just being formed and almost perpendicular to it is a fatter- persistent- trail. It had to have persisted for a while to spread out that much
 
deirdre said:
it shows what the vast vast majority of chemtrailists call a persistent trail. If we show a similar pic but with a contrail more spread out (width wise) would you accept that as a persistent trail? or you wont accept any photo at all?
Click to expand...
Well what im finding, and Im sure it goes both ways, is that if you are going to try to present this kind of evidence, it would be best to have a video or at least a time lapse with time stamps, to be able to tell how long it persisted. That is why I want to try to make a video or time lapse myself, because like I said, I can see where 1 picture is kind of hard to judge.
 
I do have to say, and this is off topic, so maybe it could be moved to another thread, but, I caught onto the scam Mick runs here. Its all set up in one nice neat little package. Someone who is trying to debate a "theorist" will find this site on google, think because it says "contrailscience.com" that its legit and authoritative, and drink up all the cool aid presented on the main page. The main page ostensibly gives you everything a begginer needs to know on "how to debunk chemtrails" and then the second tab tells them how to be polite on the forums. It NEEDS to be noted that this is a disclaimer on the politeness policy tab: "P.S. Because the intent of this policy is to facilitate communication and debunking, it will be applied somewhat lopsidedly."

So, now a chemtrail skeptic knows "everything" they need to know about debunking contrails, and now all the have to do is press that "forums" tab and jump right in and join the debate with their newly found "knowledge". personally I think this site is a scam, but thats just my 2 cents.
 
Vindog said:
Followed your link. I see why your assessment is correct.
Click to expand...

If you are concerned about lies and misrepresented facts, you will find PLENTY of them in the chemtrail story/hoax. I would think that would give you pause before believing anything being promoted as "facts" within that 'movement'.
 
deirdre said:
it shows what the vast vast majority of chemtrailists call a persistent trail. If we show a similar pic but with a contrail more spread out (width wise) would you accept that as a persistent trail? or you wont accept any photo at all?
Click to expand...

Isn't the vertical line an old contrail?
 
Hama Neggs said:
Isn't the vertical line an old contrail?
Click to expand...
Like I said before. Im finding now that you guys are giving me photo evidence, that one picture of a condensation or chemical trail doesn't really show anything. It doesnt show how long it was up there, how much it spread out, when it was taken, weather/atmospheric conditions(which most certainly make a difference) or altitude of the planes. Now that I am on the receiving end of 1 random picture here and there, I am seeing why it helps to have all that other information. I have seen what I believe to be normal CONtrails spread out like that 1 vertical trail in a matter of minutes before. It's when they stay up there for hours and hours that I believe it is suspicious.
 
Vindog said:
Again, these pictures do not illustrate any kind of persistence. Maybe it is because of the quality of the photo, but this does not convince me. The trails here may be only minutes old. Just to be clear, when I say persistence in a contrail is suspicious, im referring to when they stay up there for hours and hours. I do not believe ones that dissipate within 10-20 minutes are suspicious.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? You spoke about "moving the goalposts" being an unfair type of argument. Here is your PREVIOUS statement about what constitutes a "normal" contrail: Quote you: "Contrail would dissipate with in seconds. every single time. No exceptions." Compare that to your latest statement. Which are you NOW standing by?

There is no way to determine, from a still photo, whether a trail has persisted for more than 20 minutes. You have just "moved the goalposts" to where it is impossible to falsify your (new, altered) claim.
 
Vindog said:
I do have to say, and this is off topic, so maybe it could be moved to another thread, but, I caught onto the scam Mick runs here. Its all set up in one nice neat little package. Someone who is trying to debate a "theorist" will find this site on google, think because it says "contrailscience.com" that its legit and authoritative, and drink up all the cool aid presented on the main page. The main page ostensibly gives you everything a begginer needs to know on "how to debunk chemtrails" and then the second tab tells them how to be polite on the forums. It NEEDS to be noted that this is a disclaimer on the politeness policy tab: "P.S. Because the intent of this policy is to facilitate communication and debunking, it will be applied somewhat lopsidedly."

So, now a chemtrail skeptic knows "everything" they need to know about debunking contrails, and now all the have to do is press that "forums" tab and jump right in and join the debate with their newly found "knowledge". personally I think this site is a scam, but thats just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

You should read the politness policy here, as it's more up-to-date, and explains exactly HOW it is lopsided:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/politeness-policy.1224/
It will not be applied evenhandedly. Since censoring the bunk believers is often viewed as impolite and is hence counterproductive, then they will be given more leeway. Debunkers generally have far thicker skins. The bunk believers' insults do not help their case, and so it's not so important to remove them. I will still remove more extreme insults that would derail the conversation.
Click to expand...

However, let's (politely) focus on the questions at hand. Are these contrails you are seeing in any way unusual?
 
Hama Neggs said:
Excuse me? You spoke about "moving the goalposts" being an unfair type of argument. Here is your PREVIOUS statement about what constitutes a "normal" contrail: Quote you: "Contrail would dissipate with in seconds. every single time. No exceptions." Compare that to your latest statement. Which are you NOW standing by?
Click to expand...
Touche. the latter
 
Vindog said:
I do have to say, and this is off topic, so maybe it could be moved to another thread, but, I caught onto the scam Mick runs here. Its all set up in one nice neat little package. Someone who is trying to debate a "theorist" will find this site on google, think because it says "contrailscience.com" that its legit and authoritative, and drink up all the cool aid presented on the main page. The main page ostensibly gives you everything a begginer needs to know on "how to debunk chemtrails" and then the second tab tells them how to be polite on the forums. It NEEDS to be noted that this is a disclaimer on the politeness policy tab: "P.S. Because the intent of this policy is to facilitate communication and debunking, it will be applied somewhat lopsidedly."

So, now a chemtrail skeptic knows "everything" they need to know about debunking contrails, and now all the have to do is press that "forums" tab and jump right in and join the debate with their newly found "knowledge". personally I think this site is a scam, but thats just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I came here over a year ago and didn't agree with some of the discussions and still don't. As long as one uses logical, polite debates with reasonable, verifiable evidence to support your position you will be fine.
 
George B said:
I disagree. I came here over a year ago and didn't agree with some of the discussions and still don't. As long as one uses logical, polite debates with reasonable, verifiable evidence to support your position you will be fine.
Click to expand...
You came here as a non believer only 1 year ago, yet you are a forgotten staff member? explain.
 
Vindog said:
This picture shows a contrail. In boston. I never said that there werent Condensation trails. This does not show a persistent Trail.
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert in contrails, but I would imagine that these contrails are a mix of new and persistant contrails from WWII.
 
Vindog said:
Well what im finding, and Im sure it goes both ways, is that if you are going to try to present this kind of evidence, it would be best to have a video or at least a time lapse with time stamps, to be able to tell how long it persisted. That is why I want to try to make a video or time lapse myself, because like I said, I can see where 1 picture is kind of hard to judge.
Click to expand...

There is NO valid reason to believe that a trail which has persisted a certain length of time is anything other than a normal contrail. None. Long, persistent contrails have been known, studied and understood since WW2 and even before that.
 
Last edited:
Mick West said:
You should read the politness policy here, as it's more up-to-date, and explains exactly HOW it is lopsided:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/politeness-policy.1224/


However, let's (politely) focus on the questions at hand. Are these contrails you are seeing in any way unusual?
Click to expand...
Interesting that you only disagree with the Politeness policy part...no comment on the rest of your little set up?

Your disclaimer may claim to be lopsided in my favor, but in my own experience that is a bold face lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mick West
Dark Vertical Lines in Folkestone, Kent — Contrail Volumetric Edge Shadow
Replies
7
Views
9K
tonyj154
T
M
orb filmed in the daytime
Replies
14
Views
2K
manxmac
M
S
Can Someone help me figure out what these lights were in the sky over CO?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Mendel
Mendel
A
Trying to identify an object with a contrail
Replies
18
Views
2K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
2pint
Robert Lazar's implied 1989 Gravity-B Wave Frequency Claim of 7.46 (Hz)
Replies
38
Views
4K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave

Latest posts

Back
Top