Welcome
Welcome to All Aircraft Are Not Involved.

Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, make your voice heard!

Will Thomas, Lou Aubuchont, and S.T. Brendt.

tinfoil by association

Upper Atmosphere Soundings Data

Unread postby NatureisMad » Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:50 am

Speaking on this "Lou Abuchont",
The legitimacy of this Lou character remains to be seen. But, I remember this Lou posting many times, on many different websites, some Upper Atmosphere Soundings Data>primarily this one link. This particular website hails from the University of Wyoming-College of Engineering-Department of Atmospheric Science. Here is the link:

weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html

I've been to this site many times, and it seems pretty legitimate. What do you, this site's members/anybody out there, think about it? Is it just one (of many!) ways to prove that these are more than just regular "contrails"?

Any thoughts?
Born into...& trying to survive this science fiction world
User avatar
NatureisMad
solid chemmie
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:55 am
Location: Colorado

Unread postby socrates » Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:12 pm

Don Smith wrote:many people in radio/ teevee, etc change their names, some of them do it a lot!


Possibly Don, but when added in with all the
other glaring mistakes and Aubuchont's forum
history, I am less likely to think some small
town personality was just changing names.

Please look at the Will Thomas busted thread closely.
It shouldn't take too long. There are just too many
mistakes, too many changes in the story. I never
realised how integral to the book this "Deep Sky,"
Aubuchont, and Brendt stuff was.

Also, the WMWV staff went outside and counted 370 trails.
Does that sound reasonable? I am thinking maybe 100,
maybe 150 tops, but 370? From just going outside a building
and observing?


NatureisMad wrote:I, myself, am not so sure anymore about that dude.


I don't understand how the "Deep Sky" narrative changed
so much. Again, I ask people to look at the will thomas
busted thread.

"street theatrics"


Sounds good, especially if it could be done well enough
to get some network affiliate news coverage.

As for people not having the time or resources, we could
really use the college kids. Every once in a while you hear
of students in France having profound impacts on the French
politics. We could use more student movements. They have
the time and energy.

As for Aubuchont providing some good info, imho, he has to,
or else he would sound no different than a "BrassRat/Viking"
or a "Visual Ray Wizard."

I've been to this site many times, and it seems pretty legitimate.


Yes, basic atmospheric science says that for contrails to be
persistent, they need the high humidity, the right altitude,
and the frigid temperature. So that is a legitemate undertaking,
imho again.

NatureisMad, you have mentioned using binoculars to look
at the spray planes. You mention how the aircraft are
unmarked and with the air force colours.

One last idea, maybe I need to take a few days off from
posting, but I am thinking about how the chemtrails are
being astroturfed as being contrails, i.e., more air traffic.
Another good method to prove chemtrails might be to
show where and when the trails start from the aircraft.
With contrails, there is always a gap before the hot exhaust
interacts with the cold, humid ambient air, then the trails form.
But with chemtrails, the stuff just seems to pour directly out
from the planes.

Also curious here about the "370" lines counted by
Dean Luttrell and other WMWV staff members.
Does that sound at all odd to yourself, anyone?
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

BUSTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unread postby socrates » Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 pm

From S.T. Brendt posting as herself at Chemtrail Central:
March 25th, 2006
About Jay Reynolds

Oh, NO -- "Tiff" KNOWS!!!
Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:45 pm

I am not Lou’s “girlfriend” or “domestic partner.” We are partners in a business venture and we sometimes work together on chemtrail issues, for which, I might add, WE’VE never asked to be or been paid. Lou is also a “housemate” at the farm, where three of us share living expenses, chores and, occasionally, meals – nothing else. Reynolds is leaving himself open to a lawsuit as Mr. Ennis from the Blue Ridge Gazette so aptly stated in his posting at the abovementioned site. See below:
_____________________________________________________
“Mr. Reynolds, the above quote, that you made, is borderline slander; I suggest that you grow up and quell your obnoxious habits! Your behavior is going to land you in the middle of a lawsuit someday if not.

Also Mr. Reynolds, If you would have read my article you would know that the closes I come to saying when dogwood blooms is in the "spring" I did not specify a date with the exception of what I just said ‘spring.’” -- D L Ennis





THIS IS TOO STUPID TO HAVE BEEN A REAL, INTERNET SQUABBLE.
THIS HAD TO HAVE BEEN A SCRIPT, RIGHT?

WHAT MORE DOES ONE NEED TO SEE TO UNDERSTAND?
JAY REYNOLDS AND LOUIS AUBUCHONT HAVE BOTH BEEN PORTRAYING CHARACTERS IN SOME INSIDIOUS CHEMTRAILS ARE KOOKY SCRIPT!

All of the following comments from D.L. Ennis were made the day before S.T. Brendt's at CTC.

Chemmies, blind leading the blind


D.L. Ennis wrote:Hi Josh...would you like to see my credentials? Image
Visit the Blue Ridge Gazette!


Jay Reynolds wrote:oops!


Ennis wrote:lol, it's okay...lets just be cool about all of this! What ever is blooming at what ever time it is all beautiful. Thanks for visiting the BRG!


Ennis wrote:Hey, great site you've got there Jay...very interesting!


Reynolds wrote:DL, this forum is full of hoaxers and posers.
Take this "Arcturus". Yesterday he was caught out and exposed as a fellow who posts elsewhere as 'Swampgas', and then(sort of) denied it.
The problem is that people usually tend to "return to the well", that is, they unconsciously yet habitually repeat the same figures of speech. Thanks to new search technology, this habit makes posers pretty easy to spot, sometimes...


Swamp actually admitted to me that he was "Arcturus."

Ennis wrote:Not mine. There is a lot of this type of thing going around the net. I use my real name and i put my image on my blog because I have nothing to hide. No poser here!


Halva wrote:Are you interested in the things that people have been talking about on these threads Dlennis?


Ennis wrote:Not really sure yet, I just followed Josh, or Jay here to see what he what he was up to.

Why do you ask? ...


Hi halva, I guess I have seen enough; I really have no desire to get caught up in a bickering thread on a message board; No offence intended! I think that I will just leave. Good luck to you all!





Jay Reynolds wrote:It's time to face the facts, chemmies.
'Tracker' lied to you when he said:
tracker wrote:
I have been absent over the course of this past week due to work related travel, meetings and a lecture in Washington DC. - Washington DC was very pleasant with the dogwood trees starting to bloom, spring is definitely in the air there.

Although I was the one who was actually in Washington DC. and Virginia last week, John Boyd Reynolds,Jr. being a woodsman among his other many attributes claims that I am somehow lying with regard to seeing dogwood trees starting to bloom in these areas, what can I possibly say to defend myself from such all knowing truth as comes from the lips of John Boyd Reynolds,Jr.?

Granted, I am no expert on trees but I do know the Virginia dogwoods very well as I spent many years living in that area and I am very familiar with the time they bloom.


As the net closed in about him, "Tracker' quoted a post which suddenly appeared at a southern Virginia blog which purported to support his claim, yet the reporter at the blog stated that even at that southerly part of the state, 'Tracker's dogwoods hadn't bloomed. The moderator of the blog even came here , evidently following the hits on his blog, wondering what was going on.

It's pretty clear the posting by "Josh Peters" at the blog was just a 'planted' story trying to bolster the unsupportable lie. Pathetic, really.

Now, a definitive answer has come from the US National Arboretum showing that 'Tracker's claim was bogus, dogwoods will not bloom for at least another month, even to the west of the District of Columbia.

Lou Aubuchont, you have just learned a good lesson. The "Law of Diminishing Returns" has caught up with your hoax. You tried to attack the wrong man, and armed with nothing but lies, you failed.

You have been exposed as a liar.

Your buddy swampgas has also had a lesson. He was also shown to be a liar afraid to even use his real anonymous name, then even publicly denying it to his own friends.

Let this be a lesson to all you chemmies.

Just tell the truth, don't lie, and everything will go just fine. Ever wonder why I never have the problems your people have?

If you are wrong, or if you lie, you will fail as miserably as Lou Aubuchont and 'Swampgas/Arcturus' have. Stop doing it.

Oh, and one last lesson:

Don't mess with Jay Reynolds.



Ennis wrote:"It's pretty clear the posting at the blog was just a 'planted' story trying to bolster the unsupportable lie. Pathetic, really."

Mr. Reynolds, the above quote, that you made, is borderline slander; I suggest that you grow up and quell your obnoxious habits! Your behavior is going to land you in the middle of a lawsuit someday if not.

Also Mr. Reynolds, If you would have read my article you would know that the closes I come to saying when dogwood blooms is in the "spring" I did not specify a date with the exception of what I just said "spring."

D L Ennis Image



D.L. Ennis was just someone like one of us, just caught in the middle of some convoluted script.


Jay Reynolds wrote:I thought I was pretty clear, but perhaps I wasn't specific enough, dlennis. Your blog itself is entirely accurate and agrees with the facts, to the best of my knowledge, with the exception of the 'planted' comment by "Josh Peters". I have no issue with your blog itself, at least not the portion written by dlennis, just the posted comment regarding dogwoods blooming in Leesburg, VA, which has been shown to be false, according to the National Arboretum.

However, if you would like to file a lawsuit over the matter, you should investigate who this "Josh Peters" is, who planted the false comment in the first place. Many of us would like to know who he is! It certainly wasn't right to abuse your facility by posting false information, using it as a 'prop' for a hoax, was it?

I hope this involvement with the "chemtrails" hoax hasn't caused you any problems, but you should consider who brought you into it, and why.

NOTE: I just returned and have modified my statement for clarification.
If "Josh Peters" would like to file a lawsuit, I would welcome the oppportunity to see him in court!
{emphasis Reynolds}






More from "S.T. Brendt" at Chemtrail Central.
Back to “Dinner with Tracker” – what a hoot! I’d never met him or spoken with him in the past, but Lou and he have been email buddies for a short while. They hit it off almost immediately, and so did we all when we finally got to meet him yesterday. As my grandmother often stated “I am not the chief cook and bottle washer just by virtue of being female,” so the four of us went to dinner at a nearby restaurant shortly after Tracker arrived. We all had a more than a few good laughs, some of them at Reynolds expense, I must admit. We had a long discussion about Reynolds and his use of other people; their comments, and the twisting, spinning or taking out of context thereof. We spoke of how Reynolds convolutes or tailors information to his liking - which tends, by the way , to have little or nothing to do with the truth. We spoke a little about criminology; some about what I call “Hot Topics” – oh, yes, and even Chemtrails. I am the only one who didn’t have “a little Captain in ‘em,” but none of us was “falling down drunk.” I will say that I am the only one who did not get back to the farm looking like this: Image or this: Image I can verify that Tracker is, indeed, a separate being from Louis Aubuchont. Although they have much in common, they are dissimilar in body type, coloring, and many other ways. Therefore, no one can claim that I was just seeing double, i.e. two "Lous" from too much Captain. Remember, also, I was, and usually am, the DD – especially when I go out with friends celebrating birthdays and the like. The next thing Reynolds will claim is that Tracker, Halva/Wayne, Ruben, and so many others are all ME! Oh - that's right - he can't. He's already admitted to phone stalking me. So Tracker is real. As serious as he can be, he is also extremely knowledgeable about his specific line of work and very funny, with a touch of the ironic. I like him. Lou likes him, and roommate #2 likes him.

I have little time to post because I have family and friends to see, deadlines to meet, renovations in progress, and a business to run. I’d just like to know one thing – with everything that Reynolds has claimed to have done in the past; claims to be in the present, i.e. farmer; journalist, etc., how the heck does he find so much time to rant and rave, twist and turn, convolute and distort his “journalistic” postings. And please, would someone tell me just where he practices his “investigative journalism” – any magazines, newspapers, radio or TV outlets? Is HE a paid journalist?
_________________
S.T. Brendt



Ok, waiting here for the cavalry to help pile it on.
Is this not all about planned convolution????

Hello?
Anyone?
Was this a stupid psy-op that we just haven't had the space or time needed to figure out?
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Will Thomas' "story">370 trails

Unread postby NatureisMad » Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:14 am

posted by socrates
Also curious here about the "370" lines counted by
Dean Luttrell and other WMWV staff members.
Does that sound at all odd to yourself, anyone?


Yes, it says they counted 370 trails. In one day? In one area? What in the world is all that about? Did he/they completely error in counting? Is this a misprint? What did they consider a "line"? That is completely ridiculous sounding.

Personally, I can't say that I have ever seen that many trails in the sky at one time. Ever. Even throughout an entire day of observation/tracking.

Sure doesn't help with the credibility factor, does it?
Born into...& trying to survive this science fiction world
User avatar
NatureisMad
solid chemmie
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:55 am
Location: Colorado

Hey socrates, a misquote, I hope?

Unread postby NatureisMad » Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:43 am

posted by socrates
NatureisMad, you have mentioned using binoculars to look
at the spray planes. You mention how the aircraft are
unmarked and with the air force colours.


Yes, I've mentioned using solid binoculars to look at the spray planes. But mentioning how the aircraft have "the air force colours"? Not sure what that exactly means.

But what I have written is that most times, the spray planes are pure white (must be painted over) w/no visible markings as far as I can tell. But on just a handful of occasions, the spray planes are a pure red-orangeish color also w/no visible markings as far as I can tell.

Just who these planes belong to, I have absolutely no idea. Felt like I had to clear that up.
Born into...& trying to survive this science fiction world
User avatar
NatureisMad
solid chemmie
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:55 am
Location: Colorado

Re: Hey socrates, a misquote, I hope?

Unread postby socrates » Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:21 pm

[quote="NatureisMad"]posted by socrates
NatureisMad, you have mentioned using binoculars to look
at the spray planes. You mention how the aircraft are
unmarked and with the air force colours.


Yes, I've mentioned using solid binoculars to look at the spray planes. But mentioning how the aircraft have "the air force colours"? Not sure what that exactly means.


I think I was confused from reading all about "Lou Aubuchont" and the "invasion."

Thanks for clearing that up, my mistake.

But what I have written is that most times, the spray planes are pure white (must be painted over) w/no visible markings as far as I can tell. But on just a handful of occasions, the spray planes are a pure red-orangeish color also w/no visible markings as far as I can tell.


Do you think that means they don't exist to the FAA? Or maybe they clear it with FAA higher ups that they will be targeting some areas.

I think this is NOAA. Any thoughts on that?
I mean, stuff isn't gonna be going on in this country without the higher ups aware of it. Of course, this **** must be coordinated somehow with the FAA,

Just who these planes belong to, I have absolutely no idea. Felt like I had to clear that up.


good job. obviously my mind had turned to sludge after going through that Will Thomas stuff, ugh, not looking for a Pulitzer Prize, but WTF?????

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:



One other thing, here is my aerosol report from today.
It looked like an insidious half-time day for the chemplanes.
They were dropping small strips down earlier in the day.

It was hot, clear blue sky for the most part.
Some clouds did arrive in the afternoon.

Today was insidious.
It was as if they were trying to soften up the puffy clouds.

Then as M.A. Basher says, they like to spray later here, they went with a limited operation after 6 pm in just the location in front and around the sun.

It wasn't the fat, obvious **** that we have seen on videos and with photos.
But I borrowed M.A. Basher's camera, took about 60 photos.

Wasn't an obvious operation. But if u look at the photos away from the sun and where the 10-20 planes dropped off **** between 6- 8 pm, one side was still blue, by the sun it slowly started turning into the white/blue haze.

I am no photographer, but hopefully some of the photos came out good and can help to fill in the pieces to what I just posted.

I also saw some crazy looking aircraft flying around. Some looked like the Hiaper. On a different day, I actually saw a US army plane flying by, a small one, then the aerosol attack commenced soon after. This might not just be about the spray planes, but maybe the others, those perhaps taking readings and whatnot.

It might not be the best camera, so I can't make any promises, but something was up today, even if it wasn't the typical nonsense.

I actually think since they are often so insidious about it, the filling in the gaps, or the turn on, turn off ****, that these fockers are still scrambling for credibility.

I think we need to keep an eye out for the NOAA/Military trying to pass on the sly those weather modification bills.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Piling on Aubuchont

Unread postby socrates » Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:48 pm

May41970 and myself left these posts at CTC.

Lou can only echo that may41970 is my sock puppet just like Swampgas says I am Ed Snell with 24 personalities. We'll crosspost here just in case they decide to delete or ban us. They deleted a post of mine a week ago giving links to the stuff here on "Lieutenant Aubuchont."



chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread12406-15.html
[quote="may41970"]Just want to tell you, Lt. Aubuchont, that it's courageous and admirable for you to be writing so many hundreds of chemtrail posts over the years; to be undertaking a rewardless and self-imposed lead role in the chemtrails awareness movment. Day by day, you endlessly remind us about how hard you work and how tired you are. Yet still, you manage to find the energy to make your posts onto the chemtrails forums at the end of the day. You're a born warrior, and I mean that. Makes us appreciate these "chemtrail sacrifices" from you all the more, Sir.

You are an amazing man, Lt. Aubuchont. Not only are you perhaps THE FIRST PERSON IN THE WORLD publically acknowledged with having witnessed chemtrails, but you also happen to be an ex-employee of UNITED STATES NAVAL INTELLIGENCE.

-- is that a coincidence or what? US NAVAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER IS FIRST PERSON IN THE WORLD TO SEE CHEMTRAILS?

It's brave of you, Lt. Aubuchont (sorry, I don't know your actual rank) to be risking the disdain of your superiors at US NAVAL INTELLIGENCE by coming out publically about these chemtrails and striving to be a lead voice in the awareness movement.

You see....some people in the chemtrails awareness movement suspect that you GOV'T INTELLIGENCE folks might try to post nutty stuff about chemtrails for the purpose of convincing others that chemtrails are "kooky." You know - like trying to put down the "chemtrails conspiracy" as something that only nutcases would believe in (with lots of talk about Nostradamus, angels, telekinesis, etc.)

Don't worry, Lt. Aubuchont; I am not referring to you. But considering that you WERE an employee of US NAVAL INTELLIGENCE, it might be prudent to put our worries to rest.

And speaking of telekinesis....

Lt. Aubuchont, you said something a few days ago that really interested me...you publically asserted that you are able to dssolve clouds with the power of your mind.

To quote you:

__________

"It is a most startling revelation when one discovers for the first time that small clouds, very small (Scuds) can be dissipated quite easily by just the "Visual Ray", I believe my first words after doing it myself for the first time was, "No,..WTF was that?" as I could not grasp mentally what had happened but amazingly the small cloud had vanished right before my eyes as I watched it get smaller, smaller and then just wink out of existence.

- Lou Aubuchont

chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread12288-15.html

_______

Please tell us more, Lt. Aubuchont, about how we can dissolve the clouds in the sky with the power of our minds. Convince us, Lt. Aubuchont, that we should trust you as a leading voice (or any kind of sane voice at all) in the chemtrails awareness movment.

Thanks very much, in advance


may41970


allaircraftarenotinvolved.freeforums.org



This is an abridged version of a post made here, cleaned up a bit too. 8)

[quote="FUIwon'tDoWhatUTellMe"]We will call this link source#1:
Stolen Skies: The Chemtrail Mystery



We will call this link source#2:
Chemtrails Confirmed




Source #1:
*** around noon, Brendt wakes up, goes in kitchen, Lou is in there pondering chemtrails he witnessed 30 minutes earlier. Lou has seen big fat plumes spreading out and blending together. He had also seen "an oil and water mixture" with an array of different colours.

*** Late 1997, Lou started witnessing such large plumes. He witnessed unmarked air force jets laying down these trails.

*** Brendt looked out window. A gorgeous clear sky. But then she saw two jets to the North spraying trails. She turned to the west- saw two more chemtrails. She called Lou over. In 45 minutes they count 30 jets. She said it didn't look right, that they don't get that kind of air traffic. Lou continued to observe while Brendt got on the phone to airports and to "Richard Dean," who we now know is Dean Luttrell.

*** Richard Dean and staff from WMWV go outside and count 370 trails.

*** Brendt finally speaks with "Deep Sky" who told her that she and Lou should have only been able to see one plane. He also allegedly informed her "off-the-record" that "by higher civil authority" he re-routed European inbound flights because there was a military exercise being conducted.

*** "Deep Sky's" account would later be retold on tape in front of witnesses at WMWV.

Source #2 allows the reader to see the first six pages of his book being sold through Amazon. Yeah, chapter one, the beginning, it jumps right into the beginnings of the "Deep Sky" nonsense. {e.g. "Richard Dean," 370 chemtrails, etc.}

One last item from this first source, however. Both Lou and "Tracker" have gone out of their way to make sure everyone knows that Lou and Tiff are not an item, that they are partners and housemates. But from souce #1 we saw this:

Within 45 minutes, the couple counted 30 jets.


I think that the relationship clarifications by Lou and his sock puppet weren't made because Aubuchont was worried that the reader would get the wrong idea about himself and "Tiff." I now believe that those statements were thrown in to try to gloss over, to put to rest any inclinations amateur sleuths might have to investigate the "Deep Sky" hoax.

These were simply psy-op directives, same as how "Lou" has recently posted at DBS that Will might have made some minor errors, but that they were still inconsequential to the overall story. This was all about "Lou" in action with his idiotic troll linguistics.

But it has backfired on him. The more the astroturfers have pushed us, the more we have pressed forward to investigate their insidious, internet presence.

What has been uncovered here is simply shocking.
I now truly believe that this ******** script has been completely revealed, and this is why Thomas has pulled his website. This is why Lou has been going nuts lately with his frothings

Source #2- the book:
*** yup, she enters the kitchen. Lou had seen chemtrails a half hour earlier
*** yup, Lou started seeing such chemtrails in late 1997, and they appeared to be unmarked air force aircraft. {This contradicts his previous claims that he first witnessed chemtrails in 1996.}
*** yeah again, Brendt looks out the window at a glorious sky. But then sees some "chalk marks." She jokingly asked Lou if they were chems or cons. He said he wasn't sure. According to Thomas in this version, she stopped smiling and went outside.


She spots the first jet by the southeast. Then a second jet to the north. She looked due west and saw two more chemtrails. This is different from the other account. Hmmm. Was this a strawman made up story to make Jay Reynolds look good? Can anyone else envision that Lou and Jay have been actors working together in some goofy, cointelpro-like script?

Brendt called Lou to come outside and take a looksie. The two went on to count 30 jets in 45 minutes.

She thought to herself how it was strange to see such air traffic. Lou stayed outside counting, she went to the phones. One air traffic official was nice but "guarded," had family living in the area. He said it was unusual. said they only should have seen one plane.

Then off the record, he told Brendt that he was instructed to re-route some European planes, how there was a military exercise being conducted. He said he was informed to do so "by higher civil authority." According to Thomas' book, the FAA official said to Brendt, "Of course they wouldn't give me any particulars, and I don't ask. I just do my job."

Lou and tiff go off driving. If they looked in any direction, supposedly they coul see "5 or 6" jets. Lou said, "It looked like an invasion." Another driver almost hurt himself trying to look up. Lou said he nodded to the other driver.

Looking towards the sun, Aubuchont saw what looked like "an oil and water mixture" reflecting a prismatic band of colors.


They returned to Parsonsfield at 4 o'clock.

On page 3, it says "Richard Dean" called them back. But I don't see any mention of "Richard Dean" in the previous pages. What kind of a hatchet job is this? May41970, anyone, please look at these two sources and join in. This is almost too easy. It does appear that two nobodies have figured out this ****, three if we count NatureisMad. Oh my friggin god.

Where does it say that S.T. Brendt ever made a call to "Dean?"

But anyway, "Richard Dean" called or had called back and said that he and some of the staff witnessed 370 "lines in the sky."

She called back the "FAA official." This person said he never heard of chemtrails, but that had also become aware of other U.S. Air Force tankers flying into Canada.

Then the book seems to carry on into another direction. If one wants to, there is more on Brendt and "Deep Sky," but money talks for that. Interesting to me is how there is no mention of any "Deep Sky" with the chapter one materials I just paraphrased.

Here's what the search engine gives for "Deep Sky."
1-8 of 8 pages with references to deep sky:

Return to book
1. on Page 194:
"... William Thomas black helicopters (my first), a round deep black object, station- ary for a while, and an ovoid silvery `drone', spinning around its axis, traversing the sky cast to west at the height of the spraying. ..."
2. on Page 227:
"... Brendt's "Deep Sky" source later agreed to go on record. In three interviews with the radio reporter, the senior Air Traffic Control man- ..."
3. on Page 229:
"... When Brendt questioned Deep Sky again regarding the purpose of the spray planes, he agreed that "climate" modification was the word used by higher authorities ..."
4. on Page 254:
"... and wanting to fill my trimaran's water tanks for whatever came next, I sailed to Deep Bay - only to be assailed by chemtrails crisscrossing the sky. Given the circumstances, it seemed especially obscene. ..."
5. on Page 261:
"... drawing cold air out of Canada to help cool the rapidly warming continental USA. MORE DEEP SKIES Less than three months after the traumatic events of Sept. 11, the senior Air Traffic Control manager known to S.T. ..."
6. on Page 262:
"... So Deep Sky began calling his colleagues at FAA flight centers across the United States to ask them if they were seeing what ..."
7. on Page 263:
"... In their talks with Deep Sky and Brendt, concerned controllers across the country independently confirmed that the only further expla- nation from their superiors ..."
8. on Page 271:
"... " A year after we went to the media with the Deep Sky tapes, the spraying had not let up over Maine. "We have been getting sprayed on average of three times per ..."

Return to book


If you want to read any of that, you have to become a "customer."




This is clear, concrete proof that "Deep Sky" was a fabrication to promote some kind of chemtrails are kooky scam. Why aren't there any video and photographs of "the invasion?" There are just too many blatant differences between the two accounts. There are just too many things that are not organic. Look at the quote about Lou seeing the oily-water sky. Look at where it is located in the first source and where it is located in the book.

Can you see the many differences in the stories?
Can you see how none of this adds up?

Enough is enough with this ********.
We have to get this out to as many people as we can.
We cannot allow this to become buried like with what happened to the "CTC Changes" threads.

They have been totally busted.
The time to research our hunches seems to be over.
Is this not the final proof we have been seeking?
It is now the time to whistleblow on these creeps.

I am hopeful that all truthseekers across the internet will help us to publicize these disgusting discoveries.

Stuff like this is making it near impossible for the chemtrails awareness movement to get off the ground.


Again, just look at this. From the first source:
It was around noon on March 12, 2000 when S.T. Brendt, the late night reporter for WMWV Radio, entered the kitchen of her country home in Parsonsfield, Maine. Her partner, Lou Aubuchont, was puzzling over what he had seen in the sky a half-hour before. The fat puffy plumes arching up over the horizon were unlike any aircraft condensation trails ("contrails") he had ever seen.

Instead of dissipating like normal contrails, these intersecting sky trails grew wider and began to merge. Looking towards the sun, Aubuchont saw what appeared like "an oil and water mixture" reflecting a prismatic band of colors.


And then look at the book excerpt:
Looking towards the sun, Aubuchont saw what looked like "an oil and water mixture" reflecting a prismatic band of colors.


They are the exact words but coming at completely different times in the story.



This stupid, little psy-op might have worked for many years, but the gig is now up.

Since it has now been proven that there has been this extensive, cointelpro-like activity to portray chemtrails as kooky, this shows probable cause that chemtrails are real!

Remember when Jay Reynolds said that the Kucinich draft bill was a classic bait and switch to discourage chemmies? Think about that. If chemtrails were such a crazy hoax, why would there ever have to be a bait and switch to discourage the sky watchers?

The insidious astroturfers might as well be up there in those NOAA, Military, Frankenscientific aircraft.


:lol: if this situation wasn't so pitiful, and chemtrails weren't that harmful.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Top

What What What What What What What What What What What What

Unread postby socrates » Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:56 pm

omg, it gets even worse for will thomas.
even Jeff Rense had to hold his nose and
make a disclaimer about crazy errors.

Chemtrails - FAA Official Confirms Ongoing
East Coast 'Military Operation'

Lifeboat News Service
lifeboatnews.com
4-3-1

PORTLAND, ME - An FAA official in charge of air traffic control over the northeastern United States has confirmed an ongoing military operation in America,s skies. In an exclusive taped interview with freelance radio reporter S. T. Brendt, the Air Traffic Control (ATC) manager said he was told on as many as four occasions in March, 2001 to re-route commercial air traffic around military aircraft taking part in an undisclosed aerial operation over the northeastern seaboard.

On her way to the interview location, Brendt observed six big jets laying brilliant white lines above a broken cloud layer. Instead of dissipating like normal condensation trails, these lingering plumes grew wider and wider, intersecting and merging.

Speaking on condition of strict anonymity as intense chemtrail activity continued overhead, this Deep Sky federal aviation source expressed concern over the classified nature of military operations repeatedly conducted at altitudes between 37,000 and 40,000 feet. While air traffic controllers normally ignore air traffic above 10,000 feet, the ATC manager said he was ordered to divert incoming European air traffic away from the military planes.

When asked why, he said, "I was told there was a military exercise in the area. Of course, they wouldn't give me any of the particulars."

The initial FAA disclosure came on March 12, as mass aerial maneuvers saturated northeastern U.S. skies with Xs, circular patterns and parallel lines characteristic of chemtrail activity reported by pilots, police officers and former military personnel across the United States.

Brendt contacted the FAA official after counting more than 30 big jets spreading persistent plumes within 45 minutes. Lou Aubuchont confirmed Brendt's count, noting that during his stint in U.S. Navy intelligence he had never seen a military exercise of such magnitude.

After Brendt called in her sightings, assistant WMWV news director Richard Dean counted 370 chemical trails criss-crossing his nearby location for six-and-a-half hours. But local Air Traffic Controllers reported only nine commercial jets on their radars at the time....


I thought the nine planes on the radar were from the earlier count of 30 planes. The 370 count from Dean Luttrell {S.T.'s ex-husband!}, not Richard Dean, and the co-workers were allegedly made over six and a half hours. There is no such thing as journalistic license. There is literary license.

And what is up with having to pay to listen to this alleged audiotaped history. What's up with Brendt and these new six trails she saw on the way to the "interview?"


On Nov. 20,1999, Brendt was admitted to hospital with a gushing nosebleed and pains in her chest after inadvertently photographing dozens of chemtrails over Parsonsfield, Maine. Nosebleeds are a common symptom of chemtrail exposure. "Now I know what this is," Brendt says. "I never get nosebleeds."


wow, Brendt who was supposedly unaware of chemtrails was filming them in 1999 and got a bad nosebleed. But it isn't until the "invasion" that she finally witnesses them, even with living with Aubuchont, perhaps the first person to ever witness them in 1996, yet Thomas writes he saw them in 1997.

I bet there are tons of other "mistakes" but who's gonna fork up the cash to prove what has already been shown? How many times can we hammer in the nail?

If someone lies in court, that is perjury. If someone on the stand is shown in any way to be less than neat with the facts, their whole testimony comes under greater scrutiny.


Here is yet another source. Let's take a looksie.
Spray Tankers Tracked by Radar, Lab Tests Raise Concerns

By
William Thomas
Jan. 28, 2003
...DEEP SKIES II

But in late December 2001, just three months after the traumatic events of Sept. 11 left air force tankers gridding skies emptied of commercial aircraft, an increasingly worried "Deep Sky" began calling his colleagues at FAA flight centers across the United States to ask them if they were seeing what he was seeing on his own radar scopes.

They were.

Controllers at Chicago's O'Hare (still the busiest airport in America), all three New York City area airports, LA's LAX, San Francisco, Jacksonville, Cleveland, San Diego, Dulles, Washington DC and the nation's biggest airport in Atlanta all reported tracking unusual formations of particle-emitting Air Force tankers on their scopes. So were controllers at smaller municipal airports.

Every controller contacted by Deep Sky said they were being told to divert commercial traffic below formations of tankers flying strange patterns they were told were "routine".

But instead of enhancing radar coverage, initial explanations from their superiors warned controllers that unspecified "experiments with radar" could degrade their own displays. The controllers confirmed to Deep Sky that they had never seen so much "clutter" or artificial "cloudiness" obscuring their radars.

By then, a growing number of informally networked Air Traffic Controllers were aware of the "chemtrails" controversy. Some cited the short-lived House Resolution 2977 sponsored by Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich, which sought to ban space warfare and other exotic weapons, including "chemtrails".

But concerned controllers across America told S.T. Brendt that whatever was going on, flight safety was a consideration. Even more worrisome was the fallout they were seeing on their scopes. They knew from their professional studies in meteorology, that "this stuff falls to the ground." And they wondered about what they termed, potential health hazards.

As federal employees, the FAA radar operators were afraid to come forward with their concerns. But at least one controller working in America's heartland visited a local hospital after heavy tanker activity - to find the emergency room jammed with acute respiratory cases.

"They want to know what the heck is in there," Brendt reported. "One of them said - al or barium - that's not something you want to be breathing." [Al is the chemical abbreviation for aluminum.]

Corroborating Deep Sky's allegations, controllers across the USA confirmed that the word "climate" is still being mentioned by their superiors in explaining the ongoing aerial experiments. At the time of Brendt's follow-up interviews, at least six Air Traffic Controllers were told that the air force tankers were engaged in "climate experiments".



Just found another claim made by Will Thomas.
I wonder if it is true.

Evidently Will Thomas broke the Gulf War Illness story.
If true, good job.
Based on what we now know, gotta wonder.

rense.com/general38/update.htm
Will Thomas: ...About eleven years ago or so, '92, I had a book published as you said at the top of the show, Bringing the War Home. Documented, fully attributed to US Marine Corps, other armed forces, government documents, several congressional hearings by Shays and Rigel [sp?]. It got no reviews. It broke the story of Gulf War illness. It took ten years for the US media to begin to indicate that these stories and this information was true. We certainly don't have ten years to find out what's really behind and happening in Iraq. And we certainly don't have another six years to go on chemtrails - I hope....


Why'd he take his website down?
What is he trying to hide?

No one just shuts their website down
The only way to get to his stuff is through cache
and other websites cross-posting.

This is why Aubuchont is frothing and making up new characters who
allegedly e-mail him and "Tiff."

Is "Lou Aubuchont" a real person?
He is either cointelpro or the most useful of idiots.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Unread postby Don Smith » Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:54 am

Good work.
I tend to take this sort of stuff "as is", if one goes chasing after many of these willow-the-wisps, one cannot find time for real research.
Odds are, there is some solid information in the mix, with a dose of sour owl **** to make anyone look foolish when, later, part, or all, of the information is exposed as tinfoil hat.
Remember the "deathray" that brought down the W.T.C. One of many BS disinfo things to make most simply look the other way.
Don Smith
 

Unread postby socrates » Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:55 pm

[quote="Don Smith"]Good work.


thanks, the Rivero, what really happened stuff was already out there.
sure, may41970 was the one to expose the wrh "unofficial forum.

this will thomas/Lou aubuchont thing is so disturbing because they
are perhaps the two most visible names newbies are gonna run across,
if they try to use the internet to figure out chemtrails.

I tend to take this sort of stuff "as is", if one goes chasing after
many of these willow-the-wisps, one cannot find time for real research.


There is even more out there.
But I refuse to overload.
There comes a point when it is up to the reader to decide.

I will just say once more, that this "Deep Sky" thing has been hyped
to the hills as being a key event in chemtrail history. It has been
copied and pasted to the yin-yang how atc controllers have been
whistle blowing. But all this now appears as being a strawman.

Then seeing Lou Aubuchont/Jay Reynolds as being the two sides of
the debate, ugh. But it is well documented on this website a lot of the
bs. so no need to go over it again.

Just saying, if that was such a historic event, there should not be so
many discrepancies. And where is there any evidence for these 370
chemtrails? Why does one have to pay to listen to audiotapes to find
out more about this alleged history? Why haven't Aubuchont and
Brendt simply retold their story on the forums? They have had
endless amounts of time to complain about Jay Reynolds, so why
nothing on "Deep Sky" and their "fateful" day? Why has Thomas pulled
his website?

see. there i go again. sorry.


Odds are, there is some solid information in the mix,
with a dose of sour owl **** to make anyone look foolish when,
later, part, or all, of the information is exposed as tinfoil hat.


The problem is people really do have to make an effort, look at
old threads, google around for Will Thomas. Just cause myself,
may41970, or NatureisMad haver wondered aloud about the true
intentions of the major chemtrail boards, we are just three amigos.
Maybe most folks just simply turn it all off. I am grateful that you
have looked into some of the **** posted here.

I think people like myself had cognitive dissonance. Since it was
Jay Reynolds saying Thomas was a charlatan, and since he did such
a bad job at that, I just never figured it could be true that there were
these fundamental problems with Thomas' work. And the only stuff I
had read from Thomas sounded quite good. I liked his article on Neil
Finley from a year or so ago. It made a lot of sense.

When I found that link where Will Thomas interviewed ST Brendt on
the night of 9/11, and then I saw how it was surrounded by tinfoil,
oh well.....

This Will Thomas is pissing me off now more than anyone else.

Remember the "deathray" that brought down the W.T.C.
One of many BS disinfo things to make most simply look
the other way.


The funny thing about Chemtrail Central is that it really makes
no effort to sound rational anymore. Some of the old threads
are very interesting, The new stuff is totally insane.

Lou Aubuchont, a key witness for Will Thomas and his book, now
says he can wipe out chemtrails with his own mind. He backs a
poster named Weatherman714 who has made many an outrageous
claim. The only question left is whether these are planned implosions
or just the inevitable result whenever the foundation of a scam is based
on the owl ****.

cojoweb.com/attack-on-americaCDs.html

Some "tinfoil" can be true. I get nervous when sources don't seem
to mind how outlandish they appear.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Chemtrails Are Not Kooky!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred