ATS News 04: US Defense Contractor Owns Chemtrail Patent!

Another great video. I find myself checking the top part of the screen pretty much every day to see if there's a new episode out :-). Nice to know that Johnny is not just the newscaster for the show but also a moderator at ATS. For those of us, such as myself, who have become so bored and/or distrustful of the mass media, it's so nice to be able to actually see a video presenting alternative possibilities to what they tell us on T.V., and then being able to go to the source material in the threads :-).

I wondered why a Defence Contractor would buy the patent for metal oxides which are a mixture of 'heavy' and 'light' metals? Do they want to cash in on the Global Warming bandwagon? Have they suddenly had an attack of conscience and want to help humanity? Then I considered what else these guys are making, and these devices are in their catalogues-

Raytheon, UK

They have the Active Denial System www.raytheon.com...;

Through-Wall Technologies www.justnet.org... ;

and much, much more besides, including the global warming sensor raytheon.mediaroom.com...

The last item will be used to monitor aerosols from space from a perfunctory glance. However, defence is their business and the best defence is to shoot the ass off anybody that even looks at you with a sideways glance, so the biggest earning is from the US, who want to kick foreign ass anywhere in the world. That being the case, IMHO, the use of Chemtrails would be to use as possible reflectors/focusers for non-lethal weaponry or for other terrestrial location devices rather than the nicey nicey approach to save us from the apparent dangers of Global Warming.





[edit on 30/10/2009 by Heronumber0]

THis thread is for the discussion of the ATS Videos, NOT the topics covered in the video, PLEASE go to the threads discussed in the video fpr further discussion on the topics.

Springer...

[edit on 10-31-2009 by Springer]

Just a reminder...

Please focus further responses on the Actual topic of discussion and Not on each other ... Nor individual perceptions thereof.

Thank you.

» ATS Videos » ATS News 04: US Defense Contractor Owns Chemtrail Patent! » Post Reply

Pg 8-Chemtrail Thread

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by AllSeeingI

 

I have only seen Chemtrails for sure twice in my life.

Um...that is quite the claim. HOW do you know they were "chemtrails"? Air samples? Please provide your evidence.

I was wondering the same thing. How do you know those two were chemtrails, and not merely contrails that were more pronounced or persistent due to atmospheric conditions?

The only things I have seen that might be called "chemtrails" are once I saw cropduster plane dusting crops with some kind of chemicals or fertilizer, and another time I saw a plane dropping fire retardant onto a fire. I don't know if you call those chemtrails or not but from what I've read, what many people call "chemtrails" sound a lot like "contrails" to me. Even the alleged photographs of chemtrails look like contrails.

Because I do not have air samples, or photos, or a signed confession by the perpetrators DOES NOT end the debate.

If I witnessed a murder yet did not have photos, or blood samples, or a signed confession DOES NOT mean I did not witness a murder.

Crop dusters and fire-fighting aircraft are a completely different sort. They operate within 1,000 ft of the ground and are completely irrelevant to this debate. I expect even a lay-person to be able to identify the difference between crop dusting, firefighting, and high flying airliners producing contrails or Chemtrails as easily as we can tell the difference between a Cardinal and an Eagle (Size, shape, color, and most importantly: behavior).

When I saw the Chemtrail activity with my own eyes I KNEW it was suspicious because of the behavior of the aircraft(s) and the behavior of the clouds.

Let me explain my eye-witness account:
I was out of town for the weekend at a friend's cabin. In the north USA. I am reluctant to give out to much personal details due to my paranoia and ATS rules.

Anyways... I was outdoors all day on a Saturday on the lake. I was in observance of the same sky all day from 9am to sundown.

The morning began crystal clear. It was a hot mid-summer day about 2 years ago. When we headed out for morning fishing and lunch on the pontoon boat I remember seeing the occasional airliner cruising on by leaving no trails. Around 10am a white four-engine aircraft (I believe to have been a KC-135) at cruising altitude leaving a thick white billowing cloud behind it.

Now with regards to my visual acuity and perception. I have perfect vision and during college was a member of the competitive aviation team, one event is called ACID: Aircraft Identification.

Back to the eye-witness account: I saw this aircraft fly from sky's edge to sky's edge carving a single cloud into the sky. Withing a few minutes a second IDENTICAL aircraft about 5 miles parallel to the original entered and flew a direct parallel to the first trail. Both aircraft were present in the same sky for a few minutes.

As I watched closely I witnessed a suspiciously large cloud being put out DIRECTLY behind the aircraft. It appeared to be trailing from many points along the aircraft wing INCLUDING the wing tips.

I watched the clouds themselves closely as I became increasingly suspicious. The cloud did not appear to behave like a normal cloud. It seemed to spread and expand with unusually strong intent.

The clouds hung in the sky without moving much. But they did spread. They grew thick and seemed to increase with depth and size overtime without the slightest amount of dissipation.

Around 11am I witnessed a similar, or the same, aircraft enter the sky from the opposite direction 180 degrees from where the first trails were initiated. This aircraft flew another parallel to the first two lines. Creating three thick parallel lines in the sky with not another single cloud in the sky.

A few minutes later another similar aircraft proceeded along side the 3rd trail creating a total of 4 parallel trails in the sky by around 12pm.

During this period I witnessed a number of other aircraft in the sky at various altitudes. Including airliners of similar altitude to the spray aircraft leaving NO TRAILS. The other aircraft which I witnessed varied from small 2 engine commercial airliners to the occasional larger 4-engine types at cruising altitudes.

This spraying behavior continued through the afternoon until by 4pm there were 10 parallel trails laid out across the sky as if in a search pattern or lawn-mowing pattern. The trails increased in size as the day went on. The first clouds spread out and by 4 pm the original trails were unnoticeable. What remained was and evenly dispersed haze the blanketed the sky.

The last time I saw the aircraft was around 3 or 4pm. By around 6pm all but the last made trails had spread out completely creating a FULL SKY BLANKET of haze. Still no other clouds or contrails were created this day from any other aircraft and various altitudes.

Were it not for this pattern of parallel trails the sky would have been clear and blue all day and into the evening.

Now before the obvious questions arise I will address them.

Q. Why did I not take video or photos of this?
A. This event which I describe was my awakening to the Chemtrail question. As the event unfolded above me I did not begin to pay close attention until about the 3 or 4th waves of aircraft. I saw the whole thing unfold above me. But was not seriously suspicious until late in the day. At which point I did seek a camera but there was none on the boat. (I didnt head out that day hunting for Chemtrails.) By the time I got back to the cabin it was 5pm and the clouds were entirely a haze but the last two and the aircraft were gone. The photos would have been meaningless.

Q. That is a convenient story about having no camera.
A. Considering that now I realize how important this day was to awakening me to the suspicious activity I am remorseful to say the least that a camera was not on hand. I believe a daylong time lapse video of this event would be shocking to most people. Like Andrew Dufrense said in Shawshank Redemption when asked to provide proof of his story "I find it decidedly INCONVENIENT that I cannot".

I have seen plenty of regular contrails. In fact I suspect that about 99% of the trails left by aircraft seen are normal contrails put out by regular everyday airliners. These clouds mimic car exhaust. More visible the colder it gets. Also how fast they dissipate depends on the temperature.

A normal contrail will dissipate with some degree over time. They may spread but they will dissipate in intensity to some degree.

More than this though I propose that the BEHAVIOR of the clouds and the aircraft is more usable proof of some artificial cloud forming activity. Patterns of similar aircraft creating cloud patterns which would be logical if ones intent was to FILL THE SKY with a haze.

This debate is constantly derailed and overgeneralized by the uninformed who take photos of regular contrails and post them as proof of Chemtrails. Often these attempts are easily debunked by the avid debunker.

These debunkings serve the purpose of generalizing that the ENTIRE Chemtrail question is debunked. When, of course, this is an ignorant over generalization.

I am hoping this thread will encourage others TO HELP ME continue to search for the truth about these activities. To say ANYONE can prove that a secret program DOES NOT exist is preposterous. This thread is about a search for truth. If this patent turns out to not be attached to the actual suspicious activity; it will not close the debate or prove to me that Chemtrails do not exist.

reply to post by AllSeeingI


ASI - the truth is probably indirectly out there.... A patent is not proof of use of this technology but a patent owned by a Defence Contractor!? In my previous post, I indicated that Raytheon sell microwave-based weapons systems, for example the Active Denial System which sends out microwaves at the speed of light to burn specific targets, without causing permanent damage. Apart from non-lethal weapons, they also have lethal weapons in their extensive catalogue.

Some of the space or satellite systems may need certain atmospheric conditions to work, for example, the presence of metallo-oxides in the atmosphere to create a charge distribution. All of these points are speculation but speculation based on solid observation and based upon facts, is on far firmer ground than pure observation. I applaud your efforts, although I am a bit suspicious about your handle, in case you are a disinfo agent.
Peace.

Some more information about Hughes Aircraft:

6123 listed patents for Hughes Aircraft

Another interesting find, a court case between the US government and Hughes Aircraft regarding a patent infringement lawsuit:

Hughes motion requests court to reaffirm earlier decision; $114 million judgement against U.S. Government still in force.

Dunno what it all means but that is a lot of patents and that is a long and expensive court case for a company supposedly "in bed" with the US government.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE


VIDEO NEWS SHOW



Not the place to debate the topics in the show, GO TO THE THREADS MENTIONED in the program. (the links are in the OP of this thread and every news show thread)

ALL off topic posts will be deleted from this moment forward.

Springer...

[edit on 10-31-2009 by Springer]

[edit on 10-31-2009 by Springer]

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
I am not trying to sound rude, nor am I trying to take anything away from Johnny..

Nice disclaimer. Sort of like, "No offense, but your child is really homely".

I understand constructive criticism, but I'm embarrassed for you that you'd slam someone in such a personal way who's not only doing a bangup job, but is sticking his neck out there to do it.

I look forward to each installment of ATS News and think it provides a real enhancement overall to the site. I don't expect everyone to agree, but dude, that was over the top.

reply to post by MrDesolate


My observation was valid, and it's pretty silly that it was removed.

It's unfortunate that people cannot appreciate constructive criticism, regardless of whether or not it is of such a fundamentally personal nature.

Commenting on the physical appearance of someone should not be taboo, especially when said person is putting his face on a product in a semi-professional manner.