posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 03:15 PM
Hi, my name is Jani, I'm from Sweden and I'm somewhat of the UFO camouflage expert of this board. I myself have encountered two camouflaged UFOs and
have read several witness stories wich have helped me put together a fairly accurate view of how UFO camouflage works.
What you're describing is very typical UFO camouflage system in full action. Depending on the circumstances, the camouflage may appear to be
flickering, may look like a dark cloud and the ever popular 'wave' or 'whisking light' type that was my first encounter. The second encounter,
though, fits what you described.
To the best of my understanding the UFO camouflage system works like this:
A craft, composed of higly, if not perfectly (we humans have created mirrors capable of reflecting 99.9% of the light after all) reflective surface
has some sort of field generated around it. This is to make the 'blend' not mix with the potential colors of the craft. This field is a light, and
possibly other kinds of radiation rerouter of some sorts. It takes light (radiation) from one direction, bends it around the craft itself, and spits
it out in generally the same direction as it came from, making the craft itself 'invisible' from all angles, or atleast as invisible as
technology can make it. The camouflage seems to work better and better the more light it has to go around so to speak. I say this becasue there's
virtually (meaning almost) no such thing as a daylight UFO spotting, more on this later.
To get back to the 'blend' I was talking about. It's really quite ingenious. If you (as a species) somehow invented a way to divert light around an
object, the obvious way to make the object completely invisible, is to make the object completely reflective. You see, the field around the craft is
only designed to absorb light from one direction, and spit it out in generally the same direction, right? If you introduce another source of color
into that blend it'll instantly mix, like and water based color you used to play with in kindergarden. It's just that simple and thus the best
Though, this camouflage system is physically inhibited, by, well, physics. Think of it as this; Even though the camouflage system is ingenious, and
the technology behind it is beyond comprehension, even if it is perfect in every conceivable way, physics will limit it's perfectness. A statistical
incoherence in the UFO camouflage cases proves this. This incoherence is namely that all the cases I've read about has been of UFOs,
camouflaged, but viewed from close quarters and during less than desirable light conditions. That is; During a crystal clear, star struck night,
during dawn and looking down on it, from an airplane, and seeing it against the darker ground. Any background texture that is too 'random', too
unsmooth, like a shifty cloud, stars or even a colorfully uneven sky in combination with a person being fairly close, making the actual camouflage
field take up a too large amount of the persons view will eventually spawn into a typical camouflaged UFO spotting like you just had. Consider
To summarize, this also fits your description. You saw it up close, and the camouflage system didn't have a lot of light to go around. This caused
the system to flaw and actually show somewhat distorted stars. I have no doubt in my mind that what you saw was a 'cloaked' UFO, and that it was
never intended that anyone would see it.
I have a couple of very important questions that are crucial to my research though. Now, I've made some qualified guesses is this thread, like there
being actual stars behind the craft itself, and that they were infact processed by the camouflage system and spitted out in your direction, causing
the background stars to appear a little wierd. Now, would you say that the stars in the camouflage system (the craft) were bigger or smaller than the
background stars? Would you say that when they passed 'through' the craft, they wen't smoothly, like looking at a computer animation, or a crystal
ball against the stars (excluding the edges of the ball that is). Or would you say the went 'wobbly', or 'distorted' when they passed?
Any piece of information about this is greatly appreciated and will ofcourse contribute to an 'ATS model' UFO camouflage theory that'll one day
hopefully become famous.
If you have any questions, go right ahead and ask them. I have nothing to hide, and I have numerous posts and threads on this board covering this
matter. I suggest you look 'em up if you want the reasoning behind this post. Ofcourse you'll find my posts in other people just like you, having
watched a camouflaged UFO, might be an interesting read. Looking forward to your reply!