-
- 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 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 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.
-
- Regards,
- Gordon Scott
- Comment
-
- From Nick Juhasz NJUHASZ@aol.com
- 8-10-00
-
- 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.
-
- Thanks,
- Nick Juhasz
- AAS Medical Laboratory Science
- AAS Biomedical Electronics
- Comment
-
- From David Hanson dhanson@spiderdirect.com
- 8-10-00
-
-
- 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 living@airmail.net
- 8-10-00
-
-
- 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:
-
- http://members.aol.com/rschowe173/chameleo.html
-
- 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
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
-
- Alan C Eichstaedt <alane@soco.agilent.com>
- 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
-
-
- Comment
-
- 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:
-
- http://www.nasatech.com/TSP/index.html
-
- 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: dave2k@excite.com Thanks, and keep up the good work! --
-
-
- Disappearing Chemplanes - Further Comments
-
- From Gordon Scott gscott@tbaytel.net
8-11-00
-
-
- 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.
-
|