-
- Dear Mr. Rense,
-
- First and foremost, I wish my identity to remain concealed,
as I'm not sure if the information contained in this letter is still classified
or not. Should mine or my families names get out, we could possibly lose
our clearances and Jobs, among other things. This goes for my E-mail address
as well. Please don't publish anything that will compromise me or my family.
-
- Their has been an inordinate amount of people around
the web and in the press that have talking about disappearing air craft.
From military planes large and small, to the huge "Commercial looking
Chemtrail Air craft", from fighters to large bombers, to weather/recon
balloons.
-
- For some reason people tend to believe that if this technology
exists, it has to be extraterrestrial in origin. Well they could not be
further from the truth. The technology dose exist, and it is nothing more
than common sense engineering. It is known to those that have privy to
it as "Active camouflage".
-
- I'm not exactly sure when the military/contractors first
started experimenting with it or exactly when it was invented, but to my
knowledge it was being implemented into the field from the mid Eighties
and throughout the Nineties. I was in the military at that time, and was
doing field modifications on certain missile systems that uses the technology.
It is currently in use in civilian sectors as well...mainly in Law Enforcement
SWAT teams. Though not widely spread yet as the cost is considered to be
prohibitively expensive.
-
- At one time, not to long ago, you could find the patent
numbers for it and variations thereof on the GOV. Patent Office on-line
belonging to several different companies, under different names. All were
mysteriously bought out by Raytheon Defense Systems about 5 years ago.
Hughes, Texas Instruments, and E-Systems just to name a few.
-
- When I checked today they were no longer listed, which
means the government still considers it technology of possible intelligence
value, though already in use in the civilian sectors, and had the listings
yanked under the cloak of National Security.
-
- Here is a basic technical overview of Active Camouflage
from my experiences working with it. I was not privy to the engineering
of it, just to the implementation and fabrication of it. So, I only have
a general understanding of how it works.
-
- Active Camouflage, the term I know it by, is the technology
marriage of fiber optics, TTF Active Liquid Crystal Display, and microprocessors.
-
- The general premise of which is imaging data is received
by the fiber optics, sent to the microprocessor control unit, then is sent
back out to the TTF ALCD skin, or material. Effectively projecting, and
displaying the imaging data (or surroundings) through out the Active Matrix
LCD material. Being the Active Matrix type LCD, it can be viewed at any
angle without distortion or loss of imaging detail. Some of the other advantages
of this LCD material is that it is just like cloth, it can be sewn as a
suite of clothes, (in the case of SWAT team snipers or military recon teams.)
Or, it can be bonded to any surface that will take a bonding agent...like
aircraft and certain guided munitions/missiles. It is very durable and
light and has the ability to stand up to a fair amount of punishment and
atmospheric friction without adding any measurable amount of weight (performance
wise) to whatever it is being used with. It also requires very little electrical
current to power it. A stealth suite of clothes like the police SWAT team
snipers use, requires a nine volt battery in the microprocessor box. Which
is about the size of a pack of cigarettes. I don't have any information
on the power requirements that something as big as a plane may need, though
I doubt if it would be more than 28 volts. LCD is very energy efficient.
-
- This is about all that I know off the top of my head,
however if you have more questions on Active Camouflage, I can try to answer
them. Now you know how something as big as a plane can seem to disappear
in the blink of an eye.
-
- All it takes is a flip of a switch.
Comment
-
- Hi,
-
- With regard to the 'Explanation' for vanishing aircraft
posted anonymously, I would add the following;
-
- The author describes a material used to 'cloak' aircraft
and people, composed of fibre optic receptors, and LCD panels. He describes
the LCD type used as 'TTF' active matrix. Firstly, the correct term is
TFT (Thin Film Transistor), Secondly, Fibre optic cables required to feed
a TFT matrix an all-over camouflage would in themselves be very bulky and
highly unsuitable for use by active SWAT teams or military personnel. They
would require some manner of lens on each tip, and would need to be distributed
across the entire girth of the object being cloaked. Not very practical.
TFT LCD displays, as with all LCD systems, are fragile and sensitive to
heat and pressure - further making them highly unsuitable for aircraft,
and completely unsuitable for clothing. LCD is, furthermore, a monochrome
system - Black & White - requiring a matrix of Red, Green and Blue
panels to acheive a colour image. It requires a layer of Polarising material
for it's image to be visible - the enemy could just slap on a pair of polaroids
and see you! It is also a non-reflective material, so a 'cloaking' system
would not function unless there was a powerful light emission under the
LCD - an aircraft would require enormous and consistent light output over
it's entire body for the system to work. Needless to say, the additional
weight considerations, never mind the additional heat signature, would
render any 'invisibility' advantage futile.
-
- I doubt if the author has had any hands on experience
of the system as described, although techniques for variable camouflage
like this have undoubtedly been tested. LCD, TFT or not, is highly unlikely
to be involved.
-
- I forgot to mention that;
- A) TFT LCD, and flexible LCD of any description, didn't
exist in the '80s
- B) The author states that LCD is very energy efficient
- yes, but the light source behind it isn't!
- C) The notion that it can be 'woven' like fabric is nonsense,
if you puncture or pressurise an LCD panel or film you will destroy the
area damaged. If the LCD is to be adressed correctly to generate an image,
it would have to be arranged in consistent striped or diagonal rows, a
difficult feat to acheive on clothing, even if weaving it were possible.
-
- Again, I am not disputing the existence of such a technology,
just that it is LCD based, and therefore that the anonymous author did
not have the close experience or correct information that he claims.
-
- Thanks,
- Aonghus de Barra
-
-
- Disappearing Chemtrails & High Tech Explanations
-
- Comment
-
- From Brenda Livingston
8-5-00
-
-
- Dear Jeff~
-
- Regarding Disappearing Aircraft And Human Technology...
-
- While I think it is very probable that our government
has developed much stealth and camouflage technology, there are a few things
that this explanation of disappearing aircraft does not take into account...
"aircraft" which apparently disappear along with their persistent
contrails being one of them.
-
- Myself and others have witnessed not only something looking
like an aircraft suddenly and inexplicably vanish before our eyes...but
have witnessed the craft and its miles-long persistent contrail vanish
simultaneously.
-
- One of these startling events took place on 12/23/99
at 8:10am CST near Lake Lewisville, TX just north of Dallas. My account
is as follows.
-
- The Not So Persistent Contrail...
-
- During the last part of December 1999, I decided to go
out into my unfenced yard which ajoins a wooded area and lake to do a bit
of skywatching. The day before this particular day I had seen many persistent
contrails...as well as some very peculiar looking multiple contrails with
no apparent craft in front of them.
-
- It was a cool morning with a few clouds to the southeast--otherwise
a fairly clear sky. As I watched to the east, I spotted an aircraft flying
east just south of my position creating a broad white persistent contrail
at about 15,000 feet. I noted a very slight haze in that area of the sky
but had no trouble seeing this craft clearly through my 10x50 binoculars.
-
- Just as this aircraft moved out of view into the cloud
bank to the southeast -- I spotted what I thought was another aircraft
spewing out a persistent contrail moving from the southeast toward me taking
a NW heading. The contrail behind this apparent aircraft was broad but
fairly thin as compared with the other one just formed and seemed to be
on an upward incline.
-
- What I saw in front of this persistent contrail appeared
to be oblong but had no distinct shape, no glints from the sun and looked
more dusky pink than white or silver. I watched this object intently through
my binoculars noting that the persistent contrail "cut out" on
occasion leaving a blank space a couple of times in the clear blue sky.
-
- I kept thinking that it would "clarify" as
it got closer. This one was higher by 10,000 feet but I had seen other
aircraft that morning in the same area which were very distinguishable
and identifiable.
-
- As this object was to the ESE moving within range for
identification, its contrail stopped and started repeatedly. It looked
much like the following:
-
-
-
- This particular contrail had to be many miles in length
with breaks.
-
- Suddenly, while I had the object and part of the persistent
contrail in sight with my binoculars -- the object or aircraft inexplicably
disappeared-- blinked out totally not to return.
-
- This was mind-blowing enough to absorb -- but what was
really beyond my ability to explain with either a prosaic or exotic explanation
was the fact that the entire persistent contrail "blinked out"
along with the craft. I am sorry to say that I was not taking a video or
photos at the time.
-
- I searched the clear blue sky for a possible reappearance
of the strange object or aircraft and saw nothing but the slowly spreading
previously laid contrail to my right and clear blue sky where the object
and its not-so-persistent contrail had been.
-
- While I have seen various "camouflaging" effects
of aircraft creating persistent contrails and the contrail related "haze"
-- white aircraft becoming darker in different lighting conditions, aircraft
moving through a thin haze becoming white then blue and back again, even
contrail shadows bouncing in front of aircraft.
-
- Although I have not witnessed the complete disappearance
of an aircraft/object with its persistent contrail since--I have witnessed
a very long persistent contrail across a clear southern sky no longer there
having looked away for only a few seconds.
-
-
- I have two questions for cosideration:
-
- 1) How is active camouflage technology applied to persistent
contrails to make them disappear simultaneously with the "aircraft"?
-
- 2) What purpose would it serve to be visible then suddenly
become invisible during a PC run (in supposedly non-combat, non-experimental
situations)? From whom are they hiding?
-
- If one takes into consideration that some rather odd-shaped
"aircraft" (eg. oval, teardrop, spherical) might themselves be
creating persistent contrails (see http://tracers.8m.com/UCC.htm) -- then
the reports of anomalous objects appearing in front of persistent contrails
would certainly provide an explanation for disappearing "aircraft"
and their persistent contrails... and also provide a reason for the necessity
of military aircraft or extraterrestrial craft to suddenly camouflage themselves
in the open skies.
-
-
- Brenda Livingston
Living-Tracer Enterprises http://tracers.8m.com
-
-
-
- Comment
-
-
- From Amy Hebert yelorose@swbell.net
8-7-00
-
- Dear Mr. Rense
-
- Below is a brief article I wrote about the various claims
being made in reference to contrail phenomena (see article at the end of
this letter).
-
- Much study needs to be completed before reaching conclusions
and few, if any, have ever done any real studies. People have begun taking
pictures of contrails on a regular basis and any unidentified objects they
find in their photos are being labeled "UFO's". Rarely are any
photographs and/or video footage submitted for professional analysis.
Instead, individuals are posting them to the internet calling them UFO's
which imply they are possible unidentified flying objects of a more exotic
nature and "CYA" by alledging they make no claims about their
materials. Their implications are clear simply by labeling them "UFO's",
"Unknowns" or other similar names.
-
- I have found dozens and dozens of similar objects in
my own photographs and video tapes of contrail phenomena over the last
10 months but most are identified at the time I took the photos and video
footage or can be clearly identified by comparing the images to IFO's (Identified
Flying Objects) in other photographs/video footage or by their behaviors
within the context of video footage. I would never present such materials
to the public calling them "Unknowns" or "UFO's" without
first submitting the photographs, negatives and video footage for professional
analysis yet many people are doing just this.
-
- I have found that just about any time you point a camera
at the sky and snap the shutter or video tape, you will capture all kinds
of objects from birds and bugs to conventional aircraft and debris. It
is really quite easy to capture all kinds of pictures of alleged "UFO's"
as there are birds, bugs, planes, helicopters and debris (from spider webs
to seeds) in the sky all the time. In photographs, these objects can take
on all kinds of shapes and may not be recognized clearly because they are
frozen in space and time. In video footage, a bug or bird whizzing past
the camera can be mistaken for a UFO flying at supersonic speed but it
is still a bug or bird. Debris tend to reflect sunlight and seemingly
become self-luminating. Even planes and jets can appear as "glowing
discs" if photographed at certain distances and angles as they reflect
the sunlight. I have collected quite a number of these photographs and
video stills and have begun placing them on an "IFO" web site
currently under construction for use by other researchers for comparative
pirposes.
-
- Since you are inviting these individuals to come on your
show and talk about the "UFO's" they have photographed in "chemtrails",
I thought you might want to know what I have found through my studies.
It may be more interesting to interview those who claim to have photographed
all those "UFO's" especially in the context of alleged "chemtrails"
but it is not necessarily the truth.
-
- Sincerely,
-
- Amy Hebert
-
- ************************************ CON-TALES By A.
Hebert
-
- I first began looking up and noticing contrails forming
over my town in October, 1999. Like many others, I became alarmed and
concerned due to all the claims of "spraying", illnesses related
to "chemtrails" and chemical/biological attacks on human populations.
I felt the issue warranted intense and immediate study and began researching
the phenomenon.
-
- Every time I saw contrails forming overhead I photographed
and/or video taped the trails throughout the day. I began tracking illnesses
among school children in my town by obtaining absentee reports from numerous
schools in an attempt to study any correlations between absenteeism and
days with heavy contrail activity (found no apparent correlations). I
spent many hours observing, photographing, filming and researching contrail
activity in my area as well as around the world (I became somewhat of an
"expert" at spotting contrail activity in satellite images because
I needed the information to track this phenomenon).
-
- In addition to research, I opened a discussion list and
reporting center called "Contrail Center". People reported contrail
activity in their area and I began matching satellite images and photographic
materials with their reports. Subscribers to the discussion list shared
their sightings, theories and photographs with others on the list.
-
- The more I learned, the more I began to notice how the
"chemtrail" theories were actively promoted and defended with
such vehemence that it has begun to take on the characteristics of a cult.
When I suggested, to those studying the phenomenon, that perhaps there
were other possible explanations for what we were witnessing, I was accused
of working for the government (well, I'm still waiting for my paycheck!).
People I once considered friends turned against me all because I stressed
the need for objective and thorough research and analysis.
-
- Then came those claiming they were video taping and photographing
UFO's in the contrails (claiming they were capturing many images of UFO's
in photographs and on video tape almost every time they aimed their cameras).
I had 9 months worth of video tapes and photographs and not once had I
seen a UFO in the contrails nor in my photographs and video tapes. As
I began reviewing the images presented by Mr. Avery and others as posted
on various web sites on the internet, I recognized similar images from
my own photographs and video tapes of contrails. I had carefully noted
what each image was while I photographed and video taped so I immediately
recognized images of birds, bugs, emulsion defects, planes and debris in
the photographs and video footage of others because I had photographed
and video taped them as well.
-
- I posted a small sample of the images I obtained on a
web site- "http://Yellowrose_4.tripod.com" - and informed MUFON
of my analysis and where they could view the images for comparison with
other photographic images of a similar nature. Mr. Jeff Sainio, MUFON
staff photoanalyst, responded to my letter saying: (caps his)
-
- "AT THE 2000 MUFON SYMPOSIUM, AVERY'S PRESENTATION
SHOWED NO UFOS THAT I COULD SEE, ONLY INSECTS. HE SAID SOMETHING TO THE
EFFECT THAT "PEOPLE LIKE MACCABEE & SAINIO (MUFON'S PHOTO AND
VIDEOANALYSTS) SHOULD ANALYZE THIS STUFF" WHICH IMPLIED THAT WE HAD
NOT. THIS IS FALSE; HE HAD SENT ME SEVERAL CLIPS; ALL I FOUND WERE INSECTS.
ONE CLIP HE ADMITTED AS INSECTS; I COULD FIND NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IT
AND A 'UFO' CLIP FROM THE SAME VIDEO SEGMENT. I DO NOT KNOW IF BRUCE MACCABEE
DID ANY WORK ON THEM.
-
- AVERY'S WORK ON 'CHEMTRAILS' HAS NO APPARENT CONNECTION
TO UFOS, AND IS THEREFORE NOT WITHIN MY FIELD OF STUDY (OR MUFON'S, FOR
ALL I CAN TELL.)
-
- HEBERT IS TO BE COMMENDED FOR TAKING THE SCIENTIFIC DUTY
OF INDEPENDENT DUPLICATION, A STEP WHICH IS USUALLY BORING, TEDIOUS, AND
LEFT OUT OF AMATEUR SCIENCE.
-
- A GUIDE I FIND USEFUL (NOT SCIENCE, JUST EXPERIENCE)
IS 'ANYBODY WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE HUNDREDS OF HOURS/PHOTOS OF UFOS ACTUALLY
HAS A VERY POOR ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE ORDINARY THINGS IN THE SKY.' I'VE
GOTTEN A VIDEOTAPE WITH 46 UFOS, ALL AIRPLANES, SEVERAL EXTREMELY OBVIOUS;
2 FULL HOURS OF LEAVES BLOWING PAST THE CAMERA; PICTURES OF CLOUDS, WHICH
ANY CHILD CAN IMAGINE AS NEARLY ANYTHING; DOZENS OF DISTANT UFOS LEAVING
CONTRAILS (THOSE ARE CALLED JETS);AND GAZILLIONS OF SHOTS OF VENUS. UFOS
ARE RARE, SO LOOKING FOR THEM IS FRUSTRATING. THIS IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO
MIS-RECOGNIZE OTHER THINGS IN THE SKY.
-
- HEBERT MENTIONS CONFIDENTIALITY; HOWEVER MY VIEWS MAY
BE MADE PUBLIC IF ANYBODY DESIRES."
-
- Through my studies of contrail activity I have found
the phenomenon more likely a result of the effects of pollution and other
events than some government or alien conspiracy to kill us off. If one
is serious about learning all sides of the issue, go to the web sites listed
below and carefully review and consider the other explanations presented.
Don't just jump on the "chemtrail" bandwagon and let others
do the thinking for you. Check out all the information.
-
- As for "chemtrails"/contrails making people
sick, I have spent many hours directly beneath these trails as have my
children and others and have not become sick or suffered any ill effects.
If you spread the idea that something in the sky, the air or the water
is making people sick, you will find people reporting all kinds of illnesses
just by believing they may have been "exposed". It's much like
the old medical student syndrome where those studying about disease begin
to imagine they have the same symptoms as the disease studied.
-
- The power of suggestion can be amazingly subtle and effective.
If I went around saying "chemtrails"/contrails make people thirsty,
dozens of others would begin making the same claims. If someone said "chemtrails"/contrails
make cats lick their tails, people would be reporting an increased occurance
of tail-licking in felines. But where are the verified data to support
these claims? How do we know anything in the sky is actually connected
with events occurring on the ground? Why do so many refer to contrail
makers as "spraying" when they don't really know if anyone is
actually "spraying" anything? Referring to these events as "spraying"
indicates a biased perception and lack of objectivity. No one has yet
proven what those contrails contain therefore labeling it as "spraying"
or "chemtrails" is actually assumption rather than fact. I often
wonder if chemtales function more to dis-inform than inform and divert
attention AWAY from truths we might otherwise explore.
-
- In reference to aircraft that seem to suddenly "disappear",
I also have footage of this phenomenon. The plane/jet leaving a contrail
may make numerous "dashes" of contrails in the sky seemingly
turning the trail "on and off" and/or seem to disappear from
view. I have observed this occur numerous times while filming and photographing
contrails. One of the web sites listed below addresses this phenomenon.
I have found that I am seeing the plane/jet initially because it is reflecting
the sunlight and seemingly "disappears" from view because it
stops reflecting the sunlight and fades into the haze and/or distance.
Sometimes the plane/jet will re-appear if you wait and watch long enough.
Anything that high up and that far away is difficult to see with or without
binoculars so it should be no surprise that planes/jets disappear from
view. These "disappearing" craft have been doing this for years
but only recently have people become sensitized to the contrail/"chemtrail"
controversy and associate any unfamiliar events with contrail phenomena.
-
- We must keep our wits about us and study ALL the information
available as objectively as possible. You won't find alternate explanations
about contrails in magazines, on TV or the radio programs because they
are boring and mundane. Sensationalism sells, truth does not. Try not
to let sensational claims influence your reason and perceptions. Examine
all the claims, all the information, all the evidence - over and over.
Compare and reason. Above all, use common sense and don't let anyone use
your fears against you.
-
- Check it out: "http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/swallowtail/619/index.html"
"http://users.erols.com/igoddard/contral2.htm" "http://www.nmsr.org/chemtrls.htm"
-
-
- Home Page: "http://TheVanguard.tripod.com"
-
- MainPage
http://www.rense.com
-
-
-
- This
Site Served by TheHostPros
|