Rense.com



Disappearing Aircraft
- The Answer
Author requests anonymity
8-4-00
 
 
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