Disappearing Planes - Not An Off-The-Shelf Technology
By Gordon Scott <>
Dear Mr. Rense,
A few days ago on your website you listed an article called "Disappearing Aircraft - The Answer" by an anonymous author. The author claimed that these disappearing planes were not due to alien technology, just an application of presently available LCD material, fibre optics, and microprocessor technology. I have been suprised that no one so far has wrote in to challenge the statements in that article. Anytime an article is published which gives no sources, no names and claims they need anonymity because they are revealing secrets, we need to keep an open mind but be diligent to examine the claims.
I am not an expert in LCD technology but I have an engineering background and it is my opinion that the cloaking system described is not "common sense engineering" and could not be implemented with present "off the shelf " technology.
There are two types of LCDs (liquid crystal displays) - a reflective kind which reflects ambient light, and requires little power, because they don't emit any light on their own. However their ability to mimic surroundings is limited. Place a piece of white paper beside that type of display and you'll see that the background actually appears grey not white. This occurs because the LCD reflects less than 50% of the light falling on it. Thus it is not a suitable technology for stealth applications. These small displays are found in watches, calculators etc. The second kind of LCD is the transmissive type as used in laptop computers. These selectively block or allow light passing through them. They require a backlight to be seen. The LCD itself doesn't require much power but the backlight does, that is one reason the typical laptop battery only lasts a few hours due to the high power consumption of the light behind the LCD panel. Such panels work great indoors but the display gets "washed out looking" when used outdoors in bright sunlight.
First look at the actual claim of the author:
..."There has been an inordinate amount of people around the web and in the press that have been talking about disappearing air craft ... 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 does exist, and it is nothing more than common sense engineering. It is known to those that have privy to it as "Active camouflage"....
Examine another claim:
..."Some of the other advantages of this LCD material is that it is just like cloth, it can be sewn as a suit 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 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 suit 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 a mixture of truth and fantasy so it sounds like maybe it could be true, and it's just an extension of technology we already have so it's likely possible. However look at the details and it quickly falls apart. In reality this falls into the category of "Star Trek" science fiction. Here's an example of "looking at the details".
We all love the Star Trek replicator but take a look at what it would actually require based upon our present understanding of science. How much does a cup of coffee weigh? . Now use the energy equation E=MC squared to calculate how much energy you need. It takes 3 seconds to materialise it, now calculate the rate of energy flow. Now assume the replicator is powered by electricity. If we have a 1000 volt supply how much current does the unit draw? Do the math and it is absolutely astronomical! The wires would vaporise in a flash. Suppose we have room temperature super conductors. The current is so astronomical that the magnetic field around the conductors would warp any ferrous metal around it, instantly destroying itself. If you ever invented a replicator, how would you power it? - Not with any power source we know of.
So going back to this "active camouflage" as described by our secret author, let's examine just the energy requirements alone. If a plane is flying directly overhead of our position, it blocks a portion of the sunlight coming from above and we see it as a darker "shadow"as it blocks out part of the sky. To become invisible to us at our position below, the camouflage technology has to replace the missing light in exactly the right colour and intensity. It also has to mimic dynamically the exact pattern, colour and light intensity of any clouds above the plane as it flies over. Take up any solar power book and look up the energy density of direct sunlight. It varies from region to region, the seasons, and the time of day, but an average figure for summer sun about 2 PM is about 1/10th watt per square centimetre or about 65 watts per square foot. (I'm going by memory on this one, if anyone has the exact figure feel free to correct me if I am out a bit.)
To replace the missing sunlight you have to output 65 watts of light energy per square foot. The active matrix panels the author described do not emit light on their own, they have to be powered by a light behind the panel. However, nothing is 100% efficient, each part of the technology involves some energy loss. The LCD panels are built using Polaroid material which absorbs some light, likewise with the backlight that powers the panel, you wouldn't be able to use an off the shelf technology like a fluorescent lamp for the back light, as it isn't bright enough, nor is the efficiency high enough either. You might be able to use HID lamp technology. In any case because of the various conversion losses you would need an electrical input energy of about 300 watts of power per square foot. How many square feet of surface area do you have to cover on a large jet? I didn't look up the figures on this but I'd guess you need at least 1000 square feet to cover the underside alone, so you need 300, 000 watts minimum of power to operate in stealth mode. An off the shelf technology? - I don't think so!
If we were to examine the other claim of LCD's being sewn into clothes and powered by a standard nine volt battery it becomes impossible with that technology. LCDs have to mounted on a rigid , yet transparent surface such as glass. Even if a flexible LCD skin were invented, look at the energy needed. The average reflectively of an outdoor scene is about 20%. (Photographers use an 18% grey scale to set their meters for exposure.) However some elements such as white clothing, paper etc. can reflect up to 90% of sunlight. To achieve true camouflage while walking in front of a white billboard, or mirror, etc. it would again require up to 60 watts per square foot of light energy being emitted. The power supply would need to provide over 300watts per square foot to overcome the losses. How much area of clothing would there be? - 7 to 10 square feet at least. Our swat team member needs to carry a power supply capable of producing 3000 watts.
Compare the energy requirements with present off the shelf batteries. The author stated a 9 Volt battery could power the active LCD camouflage clothing. A standard 9 Volt alkaline battery has an energy storage of about 4 to 5 watt-hours which is attainable only with a very slow discharge. It can produce a brief output of 6 amps short circuit, internal resistance is about 1.5 ohms and so the absolute maximum possible peak output power is about 13 watts and the battery would be dead in minutes. (peak power occurs when the impedance of source and load are matched).
However don't just take my word for it. I invite others with more technical expertise in this area to either refute or confirm my basic analysis.
Here's another claim of the author:
"It is currently in use in civilian sectors as well...mainly in Law Enforcement SWAT teams..."
The claim is that it is actually in use in civilian SWAT teams - so someone out there surely must be familiar with it. Anyone care to verify that their police department actually has such a set of "clothes" and wishes to put their name and address on the letter? Anyone who is up on the latest SWAT technology should be able to say if this either does or doesn't exist.
If anyone has any doubts about this I suggest they do an experiment on their own. Take your 35mm SLR camera and measure the light level of a clear blue sky at 2 PM. Now take your laptop computer and use an imaging program to display a full screen, blue-sky colour, and meter that with your camera - is it anywhere near as bright? It doesn't even come close.
On a general note, a caution is in order. Most of us assume that the people participating in the chemtrail debate have the discovery of the truth as their basic motive. Anyone who has followed the UFO area can tell you, that is a bad assumption. The author of the letter was either doing it as a joke or it may be an attempt by the powers that be to confuse the issue and test the waters to see if such misinformation would be accepted by the masses or would be challenged. Thus it is important that those who have an interest and some relevant knowledge be willing to take the time to contribute their point of view. You don't have to be an expert, just write in and raise a question, ask for an explanation by someone else who might know. Be ready to question and doubt. Ask for the details. Ask for a second opinion.
One thing that will happen based on my study of the UFO area, is that if anyone does get too close to the truth on the chemtrail issue, if anything too important or revealing does leak out, then the powers that be will go into damage control and try to contain the truth by a campaign of deliberate misinformation. If too many of the pieces to the jigsaw puzzle start to come together, you can be guaranteed that some one, or some agency will dump all kinds of new jigsaw pieces in your lap, none of which correct, and are only designed to confuse you and prevent you from getting too close to finishing the picture. They would probably be from "an unnamed source, an important leak" etc.
As to my ideas on the disappearing planes here's a few of my thoughts - First it is very important to be careful and precise in out speech, so that we make statements that accurately describe our observations. If we are watching a plane, look away and then look back and can't find it, a proper and accurate description is that we can no longer locate it. To say it disappeared is a conclusion and not a direct observation. I have been following the various reports of the disappearing planes and have yet to find an observer who said "I was watching it with binoculars, never took my eyes off it for a moment, and it just blinked out and is totally gone". Until we get a sufficient number of independent observers saying such, it is not a verified phenomena. If it is a real event then we should expect people to be posting camcorder video on this very soon. For the time being I prefer to neither believe nor disbelieve but to watch and keep informed either way. We need to see verified video posted by independent sources. Until we do it is not a verified phenomena.
I myself thought I might have seen one of these incidences a few days ago. I noticed 3 planes flying over, one with a longer contrail than the others. I took some photos and then wrote down some notes and looked up again and one plane had "disappeared". I searched for some time with binoculars but could not see it. I looked all over. I then decided to assume it was still travelling the same speed and heading, estimated its' position horizontally, and began searching vertically. I eventually found the plane - it had dropped to a lower altitude where there was no contrail at all (perhaps preparing to land?). I then tried to see it with the unaided eye but could not. When I went back to binoculars I had trouble finding it again; it took a while to locate it. 10X Binoculars only cover a very small portion of the sky. Just because you can't find the needle in a haystack it doesn't automatically follow that the said needle has dematerialised.
Planes can "disappear" using simple deception. They can go to a lower altitude where a contrail doesn't form. They can already be at a lower altitude where contrails don't form and simply switch off the spray. They can ascend and double back on their path using the chemtrail they just sprayed as a cover. The plane may still be there - you just can't see it above or through the chemtrail. (You may recall a classic movie plot device where the outlaw is being tracked to a river and the tracks no longer appear on the other side. The crafty criminal stopped at the river then walked backwards over his own previous tracks, throwing off the search team.) Another possibility can occur if there are already multiple chemtrails in the sky. The plane simply ascends, changes heading a bit, and travels just above another chemtrail. The chemtrail then obscures the visibility of the plane.
The opposite can also occur. I had an unexpected experience where a plane just suddenly appeared "out of nowhere". I was on a fishing trip not really expecting to see chemtrails out of town when "out of the blue" (excuse the pun ..) a contrail started to form in the middle of the sky directly above, then it suddenly stopped. It was being spraying in bursts. I got out the binoculars and looked and I saw two planes! The second plane was identical to the other - unmarked plain grey, same altitude, same heading, same speed, flying in parallel formation, about 10 wingtip lengths to the left of the other plane. As I watched, the left plane NEVER had a contrail of anykind, while the right had a large contrail which went on and off, just like a switch being turned on and off. Alas I did not have my camera, but I passed the binoculars to my brother so I at least had a second witness. That was what finally convinced me that the chemtrails were not ordinary contrails by any stretch of the imagination. The two planes were not visible to the unaided eye, but clearly visible in the binoculars.
I have taken quite a few pictures of the chemtrails in the Thunder Bay area. Jeff, there are now so many pictures documented on your website that I didn't feel the need to post them, but if you are interested let me know your mailing address and I'll send a CD of them. One day was quite dramatic actually, as the day started as a clear blue sky with no wind at all. It is still amazing to me how much artificial cloud cover a few planes could produce in such a short time. The trails expanded so wide that it couldn't have been due to any wind. They must spray an expanding agent along with the powder. One of the patent documents referenced on your website mentioned using liquid nitrogen as the propellant. This would certainly expand once it hit the atmosphere, not unlike a technology similar to the common spray paint can we are all familiar with.
Regarding the spraying in the Thunder Bay area, like everyone else I have had no luck so far in getting any information from local authorities.
In conclusion, I am not saying that disappearing planes do not exist, and that we don't have such technology. I am saying that the anonymous letter doesn't make sense to me. The technology for visible cloaking may be possible, but such discussions are very much out on a limb as far as known science.
There was a small report many years ago in the Spotlight (newspaper) that claimed that Britain was working on a technology that made a plane invisible (both radar and visual) but the equipment was so heavy it occupied the entire payload of the plane. This may have been a continuation of the "Philadelphia Experiment" with updated equipment, based on Teslas work. Some of the tesla researchers claimed he was working on a method to "bend the space" around the local area using special magnetic pulsed fields and high voltage rf fields. Light would bend around the object and not reflect off of it. Such a cloaking technology if it existed would have a significant downside. The problem would be that with no light (or any other electromagnetic fields) coming in from your surroundings, how do you navigate, how do know your position?
The closest verification I recall that this technology might be possible was by Dr. Beter - who did develop some credibility with his intelligence reports (DR. Beter Audio Letters). So cloaking might be possible with an advanced science, but implementing it with present off the shelf LCD/lamp/battery technology is definitely a fantasy. If these planes do in fact "blink out" and disappear in a flash, then we are talking secret, very advanced technology and the chemtrail issue then becomes intermeshed with the UFO phenomena and complicates the whole issue considerably.
That' s why I feel this disappearing plane issue must be very carefully observed, documented, and debated. If we get off on to the limb of UFO behaviour and into unverifiable reports then we lose what little creditability that has been built up. Having the press take us seriously is enough of a problem already!
Anyway sorry for the long letter, hope it was of value. I encourage anyone who has any doubts, or any relevant expertise to contribute to the debate. We must not become complacent and believe everything we read.
Gordon Scott

From Nick Juhasz
This e-mail is in response to the rebuttal on disappearing chemtrail planes. In esscence a rebuttal to the rebuttal. Fiber optic technology is an amazing thing. Bendable glass fibers can transmit light without any added energy, needing only the source such as a light bulb or sunlight.
Can fiber optics alone be used on aircraft to mask their presence. I beleive they can. Here is the reason why. Their is a common device known as a phototherapy unit used on premature babies to assist their underdeveloped bodies to conjugate bilirubin. This simple device consists of a source (full spectrum lamp), a fiber optic cable (about an inch in diameter) and a light paddle (roughly 4" by 12"). The light from the source is transmitted via the fiber optic cable . Only light is transmitted as fiber optics are very poor heat conducters but great light conductors. This keeps the baby from over exposure to heat and yet supplies the very needed full spectrum light to help the baby conjugate billirubin. The paddle end of the fiber optic cable spreads the individual fibers of the cable over a wide flat area. In this manner the surface area of the fiber optic cable near the source is roughly one square inch and is transmitted to a surface area that covers forty eight square inchs! What a great input surface to output surface ratio.
Considering the qualities of fiber optics being light weight, bendable, excellent light transmittance and requires no power it would be an excellent choice for camouflage of aircraft at high altitude.
Nick Juhasz
AAS Medical Laboratory Science
AAS Biomedical Electronics

From David Hanson
Dear Mr. Rense,
I remember in the last few years reading in one of my dad's magazines (it was either Popular Mechanics or Popular Science) about a similar technology that was being developed. The object/vehicle would be covered in little cameras/sensors as well as little displays. (I believe the example used was a blimp.) The cameras on one side of the blimp would record what they saw (sky, clouds, whatever) and the displays on the opposite side of the blimp would display those same images. So, from the ground it would seem like you were looking at sky and clouds, and not a blimp. I don't think it would be practical to use in most cases (especially not on a human's clothing), but who knows where this technology might lead.
I suggest you have someone look into the back issues of those magazines and read the article for yourself. It might shed some light on the subject.
From Brenda Livingston
Dear Jeff,
I was very impressed with Gordon Scott's article "Disappearing Planes - Not An Off-The-Shelf Technology". He is to be commended for his analytical approach to this subject of LCDs and their potential use for "cloaking".
It may be interesting to consider cloaking research regarding the use of electrochromatic panels:
Norio Hawakawa reports:
"The electrochromatic panels are comprised of thousands of tiny sensors that function as video-cameras that take images of background scenaries, transferring them to the other panelson the other side of the aircraft. This gives the illusion that the aircraft is almost transparent. What the ground observer sees is whatever background images behind (or above) the body of the aircraft that are transposed to the "observer's" side of the body of the aircraft."
It might be enlightening to visit the Project Chameleo/Richard N. Schowengerdt's website:
and take a look at the following patent:
Cloaking Using Electro-Optical Camouflage Patent No. 5,307,162 issued 26 April 1994 Patent Renewed in 1997 - Next Maintenance Fee Due 26 April 2001
In addition see the follwing articles on Camouflaging as stealth tech:
Electrochromatic Panels in May, 1997 POPULAR SCIENCE article)
GROOM LAKE TESTS TARGET STEALTH (Aviation Week of February 5, 1996, pp 26-27, by David A. Fulghum/Washington).
As I posed questions in the article below: What would be the purpose of using such stealth tech if economically and technologically feasible in non-combat situations in the skies above populated areas? If it is feasible, why would it be necessary? Who are they hiding from?
And if it is indeed human-made technology in use and in some way connected with the creation of persistent contrails, why cloak the aircraft and forget about the billowing emissions stretching out for miles behind?
Perhaps one explanation for my sighting of a blinking out "craft" and its persistent contrail is the experimentation of emissions cloaking along with aircraft camouflage. But why would our military be testing or using such cloaking devices over a populated area?
Again: Who are they hiding from?
I also wanted to address a comment Gordon made regarding sightings of disappearing planes:
"I have been following the various reports of the disappearing planes and have yet to find an observer who said "I was watching it with binoculars, never took my eyes off it for a moment, and it just blinked out and is totally gone".
I guess Gordon has not seen my report on a "craft" and its miles-long persistent contrail that winked out as I was watching it through binoculars last December. Perhaps it would be appropriate to attach my report as a comment to this article.
Certainly it is most important that observers who feel they have witnessed a disappearing aircraft to consider that aircraft can make sudden moves --shifting in altitude and direction. In addition, clouds or obscuring haze (particularly what we are seeing out there now apparently resulting from persistent contrails) and lighting conditions can appear to change the color and reflectivity of craft traveling through the atmosphere.
What I witnessed was in a clear blue sky and I was intensely watching this "craft" and its dashing persistent contrail through binoculars coming toward me.
Though I feel that witnessing this event is a rare occurence (I have spend hundreds of hours skywatching over the last year and a half and have only witnessed a 'wink out' of a PC aircraft before me one time) -- I certainly will be out watching with video camera in hand in hopes to capture this event on video. And I encourage other researchers and the public to do the same.
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 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 -- 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
Alan C Eichstaedt <>
Subject: Adaptive Camouflage
Recent article posted on your site in an attempt to discribe "Missing" or "disappearing " planes using LCDs on surfaces can more clearly or techincally be discribed in NASA's publication "NASA Tech Briefs". This is a publication not classified. A one page article can be found in this months publication. -- 
Alan Eichstaedt
Hi, Jeff!
This is to confirm an e-mail I read earlier this week on your site, re: the "disappearance" of chemtrail planes. This technology not only exists, but is now ready for commercialization. That means that prototypes have certainly been constructed, and almost as certainly, "small" quantities of the material have been in use for at least a few years.
There is an article in the August 2000 issue of NASA Tech Briefs, describing the technology, and offering it in a partnering agreement to potential mass manufacturers. Any American citizen can register on their web site, and download the complete Technical Support Package (as I have done) at this URL:
After registering, click on the "Electronic Systems" category, and look for document NPO-20706. It is downloadable as a 1985K byte PDF file. It features the complete text of the magazine article, as well as more technical details of the technology.
(The Adobe Acrobat viewer is needed for opening the file. I won't attach the PDF to this e-mail, but can forward it to you, if you request. Obviously, there is an issue of "national security" here, so that I am not about to risk openly distributing the document.)
The article and the TSP document both describe the technology as "light weight", and consuming small amounts of vehicle power, just as your earlier source had indicated. The work is credited to Philip Moynihan of Caltech and Maurice Langevin of Tracer Round Associates, and was published under the auspices of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena.
Hope this helps to "clear the air".... sorry - I couldn't resist. <grin Please use this e-mail if you "publish" on your site: Thanks, and keep up the good work! --

Disappearing Chemplanes - Further Comments
From Gordon Scott
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for publishing my letter regarding active camouflage and disappearing planes. I received a number of e-mails in response, mostly of the type "... maybe this kind of technology would work ..." I can't respond to all the e-mails individually, so I thought I would thank everyone via a second letter and add some additional information.
Yes, with present technology it could be possible to build some sort of active camoflage for an aircraft but it would have a limited effectiveness. However, a suit of active camoflage clothes for a swat team still remains a pipe dream. It's not a matter of advanced displays or power supplies being invented, it is a matter of simple optical laws, like "light in travels in a straight line". Other laws involving depth of fieild, depth perspective, 3D perspective, etc. all come into play. Military engineers maybe do have access to advanced technology but they can't repeal the laws of optics any more than a civilian engineer can repeal the law of gravity.
First examine the airplane problem. There are two kinds of camoflage - static camoflage and active camoflage. Static camoflage involves a stationary observer in a known position, a simple, stationary background and a stationary (or slow moving object). Here's how to make a small plane dissapear using static camoflage for under $200. Take picture of a clear blue sky and then go to the paint store. Have them mix up the exact shade of blue, also buy a gallon of fluorescent orange paint. Now paint a small plane like a Cessna with the left side orange and the right side a sky blue. Have it fly low enough to the ground so you see it mostly from a side view. Bright orange against a blue sky makes it highly visible. Now have the plane reverse and fly back the other way - Viola! blue against blue and it dissapears, that is until the plane goes by a white cloud and the blue plane becomes clearly visible. To solve that problem you need an active camoflage - the colour has to change on the fly (excuse the pun ...) to match the background.
Here's a way to do that with off the shelf technology. First forget active matrix LCD panels. That's overkill. You don't need a pixel resolution of 0.22 mm, probably a large pixel size of 6" to 1 foot is good enough. One person suggested using light emitting diodes (LEDs), yes, it is a proven off the shelf technology, but blue LEDs are still very expensive, so lets go cheap and use old technology style light bulbs.
Receipe for active comoflage:
Take your large jet (remember we are talking chemtrail planes here ) and mark a screen grid over the whole plane of 1 foot sized squares. Inside each square mount a 200 watt blue bulb and a 200 watt white bulb. Cover the aircraft with a translucent plastic film. What colour? Well it can't be pure white, that would make the plane too visible when flying under overcast skies, use a neutral grey. This dims the final light ouput from the lamps, so maybe you need to up the power level a bit. Install a big generator in the cargo bay. Buy six cameras and place them to read the surroundings (up/down, left/right, front/back). Install a computer to convert that camera data into the individual light levels needed at each light (pixel). Install a specially engineered power control system (basically light dimmers) to adjust each of the thousand lamps as needed. Great! We just flip a switch and the plane then blends perfectly into the background of the sky - whatever colour it may be. Unfortunately it is not that simple.
Look at the picture below. We have 3 observers, in 3 different locations each having binoculars. Above observer #1 on the left is a dark grey cloud. Above #2 is clear blue sky and above observer #3 is a very white looking cloud - a faded chemtrail no less! All three observers are watching the plane coming in. At one point the plane is directly overhead of observer #2 and he sees it very clearly as a shadow in the sky. To have the plane now "suddenly dissapear" we would have to light up the bottom surface of the plane with enough bright blue light to have it blend into the clear blue sky. We flip the switch and viola, it works! However what does observer #1 see from his perspective - a bright blue plane against the white background of the cloud. What about observer #3? If we want the plane to blend into the background of a dark grey cloud we have to shut off all the lights to make the plane grey. The net result is that the active camoflage is only perfectly effective for a specfic observer. The plane cannot be silmutaneously blue, white and grey, independently to each observer. The problem is that "light travels in straight lines". No fancy LCDs will change that.
The same optical problems would occur with "active camoflage clothes" for a swat team but it becomes even more complicated. Suppose you have 3 swat team members chasing 3 criminals. The background is much more complex - a city street with all different coloured buildings with different patterns, like brick, siding etc., there are different coloured cars, some moving, there are trees, signs, billboards, , etc. and the swat team and the criminals are all moving, changing positions. The best you could hope for would be that a momentary chamelion effect might occur, when a swat team member stands in front of large, even coloured surface like a white wall, or large green tree, etc. They would then blend in, but as soon as they moved out into the open they would produce a most curious optical object - a projection of a distorted mismatch of colours and patterns. Remember, the presently available LCD panels produce 2D images, where-as our eyes and brain are very adept at perceiving the world in 3D terms. To really blend in with the moving surroundings and fool multiple moving observers would require projecting a high speed 3D hologram. However as previously mentioned in my last letter, even thin film flexible 2D LCD panels do not exist on the market, yet alone 3D projectors. Enough said.
So the bottom line is that some active camoflage for an airplane is possible but the cost/benefit for chemplane applications doesn't make any sense to me. It's expensive, power hungry, the generators take up a lot of your payload weight capacity, the camoflage has limited effectiveness in cloudy skies and for what? - To hide a plane which is laying down a huge white cloud behind it for all to see for miles around?
If you want to hide the plane and the chemtrail, there is much cheaper way, just fly at night! I've seen this in Thunder Bay on a couple of occassions. Or if you want the chemicals over the city at say 1PM but want to fly unnoticed in daylight hours, spray outside the city at 10 AM and allow the wind to just drift the chemtrails over the city. What do you think the X patterns are for? They are building up a database of distribution patterns, tracking with sattelite and correlating that to wind and weather conditions. Once the computer program is fine tuned with enough data and modelling, they can simply plug in the desired result "we want trails over Thunder Bay at 1 PM", they input the local weather conditions and it tells them exactly when and where to spray outside the city. I would expect that this type of activity will become more fine-tuned over time and we'll see less chemplanes over the city, and yet still have odd looking clouds. The overt spraying may subside but that doesn't mean they've cut down. By then it will be harder to know how much of it is really going on. That is why now is the best opportunity we have to get others to notice what is going on. Disappearing planes may be an interesting topic, but it is not going to increase our creditability unless it is fully doumented.
At this point I do admit my bias that Iam skeptical, based on my knowlegde of present technology; the most reseasonable explantion to me remains that planes disappear from view simply because they ascended, and have turned and are now flying above another chemtrail, or the one they just sprayed. However I like to keep an open mind, and am always ready to accept new evidence, so if someone has camcorder video showing a plane just "blinking out" of view instantly, then post it for all of us to see.
There are lots of others out there with much greater expertise than me in this area, feel free to add to contribute and post your opinion.
Gordon Scott
This Site Served by TheHostPros