January 7, 2006
New York Skies Are the Busiest Skies (Striped Too!)
Well, along with the news today that New York's airways have surpassed Chicago's to become the busiest in the nation (nearly 100 million travelers!), comes this crazy e-mail into the Gothamist mailbox:
Has anyone looked up at the new york sky lately, say since october. Well if you have then you must have noticed the strange clouds. Linear parallel clouds that some times intersect at right angles. Seems too unnatural to be created from nature. But if you actually look up and watch you will notice that these clouds are created from planes. They do not dissipate, as does the trails from commercial passenger jets. In October there have been a total of 99,427 flights in and out of JFK, LGA and EWR. Imagine what the sky would look like if every jet produced this kind of trail, We would
never see the blue of day. I am surprised that the media has not reported these strange clouds. For the sake of our health whether ours, our children's or
the environments there must be an explanation. If these trails are created for our benefit then we should know. Are they Vitamins?, are they pesticides for the west nile virus? or is it something else? Why are you sitting idle. Report something!
So, there, we've reported something. Anyone got something to add about those crazy exhaust clouds? Personally, we're not too worried, should we be?
Photograph of clouds provided as evidence with the above e-mail.
|
Advertisement: Gothamist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
No, that's still not "reporting". More like, "relaying".
Gothamist is a blog, anyway. No one expects most blogs to do reporting, except if a reporter runs it for the purpose of journalism. Otherwise, it's assumed by all that you, like all the other blogs, are just talking about things you've heard from the media.
And that's fine. Blogs don't have to engage in journalism for content to be entertaining or respectable. It's silly to claim to be journalists when you're not, and you don't need to be. It feeds the trolls. Ignore journalism - just be happy and successful bloggers!
Contrails are caused from the condensation jet planes generate. You can find a a detailed technical explanation here. Oh, to the e-mailer of that: The sun going away for a few hours is normal. The penomenon is called "night" and has been going on for millennia. There is no reason to panic about the "night".
Does the person (let alone Gothamist) really not know that all jet planes, commercial or otherwise, can and do produce con(densation)trails? I grew up in Chicago and have seen them all my life, driving on interstates in the counrty side you see them, anywhere planes fly you see them. Just because this is the internet doesn't mean Gothamist (a site I suppose wants to respected and trusted) should give airtime to idiots.
Yes, they are contrails, caused when water vapor in jet exhaust condenses in cold air. There's no shortage of people who think there is more to the story.
Nutbags have been freaking about these things for years. Google "chemtrails" for oodles of whackmobile fun.
a senator mentioned the
"whacky" chemtrails in a house bill earlier this year when citing operations the government is doing without public knowledge that are absurdly hazardous to the health of the public. if only i had kept the text of the bill but alas im off the political scene...you can go to the house bill on the .gov website and search for it though..i believe it was put forth in the month of october.
first of all, jonathan, it's saturday, so relax a little-- if you didn't notice, we often clown around a little more on the weekends.
and to brian van: fuck that. we report all the time. we generate at least two or three stories a week that get picked up by the main stream media, and every day we add detail and information to stories that are already being reported by the MSM. don't assume that blogs can't report, and don't assume that gothamist is merely a meta-site. if that's all we did, we wouldn't be as widely read as we are.
talking about stuff that we heard from the media? that's what you think bloggers do? that's idiotic-- and if it didn't violate our comment policy, i'd go as far as to suggest the person who made the comment was an idiot.
jake--your comment violates gothamist's own comment policy. it includes profanity and denigrates others. shame. shame.
Some meteorological (sp?) folks at some university did some research into the effects of contrails on our climate recently. After 9/11, there was almost no commercial air traffic in the US (Bin Laden Family Express excluded) for the first time in over 50 years, and so they took some data and then did some analysis. Read the story below if you're interested.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate/
sorry, john-- i guess brian's thoughtless comment really pissed me off. i'll try to convey that in a more civilized way the next time that happens.
Seriously - Gothamist is indeed a meta-site for the most part, and "reporting" comes rarely. Detail that's added, as you've noted, typically comes from user comments and submissions, which you're selfish not to give credit for.
My commment was not thoughtless. It just contradicts an idea that you clearly want the world to believe.
What's sad is that Gothamist is your site, but you're not satisfied with this site for what it actually is - even though it's extremely popular and loved. You feel like you have to prove it's something beyond that. Is this site more credible if people think of you as "reporters" and not "bloggers"? I think it's indeed more credible if you don't call people idiots in the comments - including people who have contributed to and written for Gothamist in the past.
Not that you'd remember any of that stuff.
(then again, I'm used to the "fuck that" messages coming from Jake. It's the invariable result of something we disagree upon... whether or not he can back it up. *yawn*)
For the record, Brian has offered to write for Gothamist a bunch of times, and we've turned him down each time-- that rejection may explain some of his attitude. He has not, to my knowledge, ever "contributed to" or "written for" Gothamist in the past. I'm not sure if it explains his comments, but it's important to recognize the backstory.
To say that Gothamist offers nothing but meta-coverage is an insult to our staff of hard working writers who come up with original stuff every single day. Insulting the staff in this way (as Brian has done before), and then asking for a job writing for the site-- well, that does strike me as being very weird.
guys, guys, guys...alright already. I wish jake and brianvan would just make out and make up already cause you're both giving me a headache.
Jake, if you maintain a "staff of hard working writers," then why don't you pay them? Surely that's an insult given what Gothamist pulls in these days, no?
That's what I thought.
This may come as a terrible hurtful surprise to you, TruthHurts, but in NYC we do pay our writers. Our editorial expense is about $8k per month and rising quickly.
Jake, you are VERY VERY mistaken here. There are three articles on Gothamist with my byline on them (which I've saved for posterity).
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/10/26/make_yourself_a_spanglish_sandwich.php
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/11/16/24_prince.php
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/11/29/post_8.php
And, of course, there were the many times my photos were linked on Gothamist. I was, and still are, more than glad to share them.
Your staff does a very good job of making cultural recommendations and organizing content for readers. Unfortunately, I see we're getting lost in the semantic definition of "reporting" here. Columnists aren't reporters. Commentary isn't reporting. But I don't think any of your writers mind the distinction. I certainly wouldn't write this if that were the case, as a bunch of current and former Gothamist contributors are friends of mine.
I'll beg to differ, there, Jakester. When my gf used to blog for you, the cost of all the meals at restaurants she reviewed came out of OUR pockets. So, not only did she never see a red cent for the weekly reviews she provided, but blogging for you actually cost us money.
Now, we didn't mind this - we would dine out regardless of the requirement for weekly content at Gothamist. But don't claim to be paying your writers for their work or their expenses.
Also, I won't hold my breath waiting for the invite to watch that Little League team play a game using the equipment my $100 donation supposedly helped finance about a year-and-a-half ago.
Then again, pilfering and fibbing do go hand in hand, don't they?
I actually have written for Gothamist before. Three articles, actually. I'd tried to post the links earlier, but the "moderator" won't approve the posts.
$8,000/mth and still no proofreader?
To L'Ems point, I should have been more specific. Starting last year, we began paying the top six contributors on the site (by posting volume). This accounts for 75-85% of the posts on Gothamist. Starting on January 1, we are paying all of our writers by the post (including the remaining 25-15% -- this news hasn't been announced to everyone yet, but it will trickle out by the end of the month). So, L'Em, if your "girlfriend" did write for us, she likely did it before we instituted our paying policy (that is, when we were small and made no money), or she was not one of our major posters last year.
Re: the Little League, Jen gave every cent of that money to the team (as well as a sizeable additional donation of her own money), and if you need proof, email her-- we took plenty of pictures of the kids in uniform.
Brian Van: I cannot recall these three articles, or imagine how you managed to get them on to our site. I was quite clear in rejecting you each time you applied. My reasons were straightforward: you talk a lot of shit about Gothamist, and you freak some of our writers out. Re: Moderator issues, I think Garth is off during the week, so he's likely not getting the email alerts.
To YSGB: we will never have a proofreader! Never! We feel that spelling and grammar are best taken as "guidelines" and that improvisation in these areas, like in Jazz, produces a more authentic product.
I'm really starting to get confused. For everyone's reference, the articles are here:
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/10/26/make_yourself_a_spanglish_sandwich.php
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/11/16/24_prince.php
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/11/29/post_8.php
They've been live for 1-2 months now. Laren approved and posted them. I don't know if you wish to keep these active or delete them, but I was happy to have the chance to contribute. And I've saved them just in case something happens to Gothamist's copy.
As far as getting rejected... that's never happened. I've never offered to write anything for Gothamist that was turned down. I've never written to you asking to write anything for Gothamist, and you've never written a refusal addressed to me.
As a matter of fact, Laren had offered me a position writing for Gothamist 2 months ago - I'd never even thought to ask, as she contacted me first. I was quite flattered by the request, and accepted. She even sent you an email requesting a MT login for me here on Gothamist so I could begin posting under my own name - after I'd already submitted the above articles. I have a copy of that e-mail on hand, by the way. The request, though, was never processed for some odd reason...
I'll also note that Gothamist, until recently, has had no objection to posting appropriate and relevant photos from my Flickr photostream when I've directed your editors to them. Which I totally approve of.
As for the talking shit, I might as well get it out of my system: DOBKIN HOLY FUCK YOU SHOULD HAVE COPYEDITORS SO NO ONE MISSPELLS "THE" ANYMORE! AND ALL THE FOOD POSTS AND PANDAS, TOO MUCH! IT'S SO AWFUL! YOU DON'T PAY YOUR REPORTERS, WORSE THAN BUSH AND CHENEY COMBINED! PLUS MY INTERNET CONNECTION IS SLOW, I THINK I SPILLED COFFEE ON MY KEYBOARD BECAUSE THE PGDN KEY IS STICKY AND IT'S ALL JAKE'S FAULT! I GOT RIPPED OFF BY A CAB DURING THE TRANSIT STRIKE! THERE'S NO MORE BLACK TABLE! I JUST GOT A $20K BILL FOR A COLLAPSED RETAINING WALL! IT'S ALL JAKE'S FAULT!
(Point being: I don't have anything seriously bad to say about any part of Gothamist that isn't happening in this thread right now. K?)
And once again, just in case nothing else goes through:
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/10/26/make_yourself_a_spanglish_sandwich.php
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/11/16/24_prince.php
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/11/29/post_8.php
Meh - 8,000,000 pictures of bloody pandas, and not one showing the good you did for that team. Riiiight...
As for paying your writers, this is all new. Please don't take credit for it retroactively.
L'Em-- you're quite wrong-- we've been paying people for almost a year. I'm only stating the facts. If we had the money to pay everyone a year ago, we would have-- but we didn't, and we had to start with the people that produced the most posts and work our way down the list. Although I believe there are intangible benefits to working for Goth (having your stuff widely read, the pride in the work, the fun of it, etc,) I believe everyone on our staff deserves to be paid, and now the less-frequent contributors will be.
Bottom line is that we've always tried to do the right thing with limited resources, and we're continuing to do that.
bah, I keep having moderator issues. I'll try again:
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/10/26/make_yourself_a_spanglish_sandwich.php
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/11/16/24_prince.php
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/11/29/post_8.php
Do you believe I should be paid? heheheh.
I've gone ahead and approve all five or six of BV's comments that got caught in our comment filter-- it looks like they were getting flagged because of all the links.
I didn't realize Laren had published posts by Brian under her login-- that's not something I would have approved, but I wasn't consulted about it. Not her fault-- normally I don't get told until someone becomes a contributor with their own login. When this happened with Brian, I told Laren I wasn't comfortable with him writing for us (because of his opinions about Gothamist, and because his behavior freaks out some of our staff,) and she passed that on to him.
Bottom line is that Brian Van has never been a contributor at Gothamist, and as far as I'm concerned, will never be a contributor here. Why would we hire someone who talks trash about the site?
Jake, even if I yawn at a certain small portion of your overall product, your ability to amass a functional clubhouse publishing empire around you is impressive. You've got your own masthead, style, editors, etc.
But, no matter how hard you try, you just can't make your own Peter Braunstein.
Really man, you sound more cracked out than BV by like three baggies.
Jake take the 5th.
Wow. Perhaps the media I read are too stodgy, but I've NEVER seen a public exchange anything like this between a publisher, his readers, and his potential/past contributors.
Here's to reminding us that the high road ain't the only road.....cheers!!!!!
I didn't realize that clouds could be such a source of controversy. I always thought the weather posts were dull so I didn't bother reading them, but will now as they appear to be where the comment cage matches are. For the record I would like to say that I heartily endorse jen chung's poor grammar. The internet has freed people up from strict grammar rules except for the first rule of writing which is to get across your point.
Gothamist's primary use is to consolidate folks' surfing -- collecting links and images in one place of what's interesting out there any given day.
If any reporting comes in it's usually NOT by the 'contributors' but tipsters who pass along their information (Psst. A hipster has been spat on by some dirty gangbanger from the SoBro - Ludlow nr. Rivington - there are FUN BARS in the area! It's scary. It's not fun!)
Seconds later, it gets a BREAKING headline on Gothamist.
Also, folks will email photos of things like the 2nd Avenue Diner being dismantled. Gothamist is good as a clearing house for stuff like that.
But is it reporting? No. It's relaying. Which is very useful (and at times entertaining), and can lead to reporting, but doesn't replace it.
-z
You know how Lost started out being about a plane wreck, and now it's something totally different?
I'm still waiting to find out that this whole joint is a giant PR stunt for tinyfactory.
I think the idea was that the plane clouds are making people go crazy, and that idea appears to have been confirmed.
God I love Gawker for making my evening!
wow, i haven't seen back and forth shit flinging like this since i stopped reading missed connections.
time for cute overload. i need a happy pill.
i'd like the past five minutes of my life back.
Leaving aside issues of contention that have resulted in a parting of the ways between Gothamist and myself, issues that will remain between myself and management, I just want to weigh in on the whole metasite issue. Gothamist has produced significant original content in the past couple years. That's a statement of fact.
Lest anyone doubt this, just read a sampling of the three hundred plus interviews conducted over the past two years. Take a gander at the Ask Gothamist section or the countless theater, restaurant and film reviews, etc. etc.. Even the posts relating to current news contain a hefty dose of editorial content. Now does all this qualify as "reporting"? I guess that depends on one's descriptive understanding of the term. In my book it certainly counts as "journalism."
To suggest otherwise (to make the distinction between "reporting" and "commentary" seems somewhat arcane if the issue is meta- vs. not-meta-site) is to radically diminish the efforts of an overall pretty talented corp of writers, many, myself included, whose only collective payment for, literally thousands of hours of unpaid labor, was the quality of our work and the chance to bring that work to an increasingly large and diverse audience. Jake is right on the count of "intangible" benefits that writers have received.
As for the issue of paying writers, the writers who wrote for Gothamist in the past knew the terms of the engagement and agreed to those terms willingly. Again, myself included. I did interviews for Gothamist because I loved doing them. I loved telling stories about interesting New Yorkers, especially those at the edges of society’s peripheral vision. Tell the story just right and you might even be able to shift society’s gaze the slightest bit. That was a hell of an adrenalin pump and with or without money the experience was well worth it both professionally and personally.
That said, I think it's GREAT that Gothamist is going to start paying all of it's writers because a lot of hard work DOES go into it. The issue of whether or not this was communicated to the staff in the past is now moot. It's time to look ahead, not behind.
The bottom line is this: Gothamist, obviously, is going through unavoidable growing pains as a pioneer in an entirely new industry, and the transition to a monetized staffing model is rife with complexity and a hell of a balancing act. Personally, I believe mistakes have been made, but, again, that is an issue best left between myself and management. From where I'm sitting right now, it seems that Gothamist is heading in a really positive, constructive direction.
I would only offer up to Gothamist for consideration the notion that not all posts represent an equal amount of labor. An interview, for instance, requires significantly more effort than an "Ask Gothamist" post, which is not to diminish in any way anyone's contribution, but only to note the obvious. Perhaps this is already being addressed internally. I can't speak to that because I'm not in the Gothamist loop these days.
In any case, that's my 222 cents. Apologies to anyone who feels this comment post to be overly long. Hopefully, though, it has added an alternative perspective to the discussion.
Now you know how us gypsy freelance designers feel..no insurance..no pay..and image theifs..those plane clouds are like a mix of fuel and possible human waste raining down on us daily..whee!
i love that song 'vapour trail'.
Lovin' the flow of ideas! and especially happy to see someone usilng the handle "L'Emmerdeur", as i thought i might be the only human to have devoured Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cyle. Cheers to you, Jack Shaftoe!
First rule of Gothamist Fight Club: You don't talk about Gothamist Fight Club.
Second rule of Gothamist Fight Club: You don't talk about Gothamist Fight Club.
With regards to the original point of this post, and the naive and ignorant people who mocked the person posting, let me educate y'all a little here.
First of all, these are NOT contrails. Contrails are produced by condensation from jet exhaust, what is depicted in this photo are indeed 'Chemtrails'. What's the difference? Chemtrails are the result of some substance or agent being released purposefully by the plane to be dispersed over a populated area.
Now to explain why I know this for a fact I have only to realte the events of this day, Friday, Jan 20, 2006.
This morning I went to work at 8:45 AM - took the train at Union Square in Manhattan and saw 2 Chemtrails over head. By the time I got to work and looked out the 25th floor window I could see DOZENS of them all across the Manhattan sky.
I could see at least 5 or more planes leaving these trails and they went back and forth in deliberate patterns over the next 5 or more hours creating long parralel lines of trails and then criss crossing them until they created a grid that when dissipated began to form a complete canopy covering all of Manhattan.
A bright sunny day turned into overcast as the gasses dispersed. I caould see planes running these trails from Hoboken and Jersey City, over Manhattan and into Brooklyn.
This happened today!
The fact that these planes were NOT travelling anywhere but instead going back and forth over the same area over a 5-6 hour period is evidence that they were carrying out a spraying operation.
If you don't believe me watch for yourself as this is occuring quite often lately.
And if this doesn't bother you, it should. This was brought up in Congress and the government is not acknowledging it which should reassure you that it is quite sinister
Not only is it the busiest because of the planes but because of the helicopters as well.
Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I haven't been up to much these days. I just don't have much to say right now. I can't be bothered with anything , but whatever.
I can't be bothered with anything these days, but shrug. I just don't have anything to say recently. I haven't gotten much done recently. Nothing seems worth thinking about.
I haven't been up to anything today. I don't care. I've just been staying at home not getting anything done. Basically not much happening right now. Maybe tomorrow. I guess it doesn't bother me.
I've just been staying at home not getting anything done. I've basically been doing nothing worth mentioning. My life's been pretty unremarkable these days. Eh.
I've just been staying at home waiting for something to happen. Whatever. Not much on my mind lately. I guess it doesn't bother me.
I just don't have anything to say , but shrug. So it goes. Not much on my mind recently. I can't be bothered with anything recently.
dasf grsegtserhgserg esrg es geasrges
Basically nothing noteworthy happening right now, but eh. Today was a complete loss. I haven't been up to much recently. I've pretty much been doing nothing worth mentioning.
I've just been hanging out not getting anything done. What can I say? I've basically been doing nothing worth mentioning, but pfft. Not that it matters. Pretty much nothing exciting happening to speak of. I haven't been up to much these days.