It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My current theory on UFO camouflaging summarized into one post

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Sorry to make a new thread in this way, but I feel I need to create a thread about my current theory on UFO camouflage as it seems I'm the person most interested in this phenomena on this board. I felt the post I did in the thread 'Anyone ever seen a UFO like this?' by nataylor pretty much perfectly summarized what I have to say on the matter and that it required a thread of it's own since I haven't done any threads in the past on the subject.

This theory is subject to change ofcourse, actually I'm pretty sure I'm going to refine it once nataylor answers my questions. Anyways, here goes:

"
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 explanation.

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 yourself lucky.

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!
"

This is more or less the standard reply I will give to people that has seen a camouflaged UFO from this point on. As I said I'll probably refine it from time to time, but as it stands now I feel this is the best theory on the subject that atleast I've come across.

If you have any questions or think you can help out with the refining, please go ahead and make your post. I'm a resonable man and I'm open to discussion.




posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I think youre generally talking about starlite camo, which has been used on some US black project craft. (allegedly, if it exists)

I know my wife has seen slow moving craft with such camo on it, however the camo she said looked to be "obviously malfunctioning". The craft was large and triangular, with a slight rounded back edge. It was black except for the camo malfunctions.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Well, ever wondered why these slow moving, gravity defying, 'American' UFOs were doing in a peace loving country like Sweden? And especially in northern Sweden, wich is known for it's ~4 towns? I'm being sarcastic ofcourse, but at the same time I'm being serious. If this is human technology it's come a very long way without the general public knowing anything about it.

Now, I know most of you people are thinking in a manner of Occam's razor. That is, what is more probable, human origin or alien origin. Well, I have to say that with the extreme advances in technology and science we've seen the past 100 years or so, we're almost forced to accept that 'the sky's the limit' when it comes to technology, and it really Is possible to travel the incredible distances that star to star travel requires, in no time at all.

So in a way, I'd have to say that the Occam's razor theory is flawed in the way that it forces poeple to go by instinct in their decision making.

Edit: Going to bed. [Arnold] I'll be back.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by Drexon]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drexon

Now, I know most of you people are thinking in a manner of Occam's razor. That is, what is more probable, human origin or alien origin.


So in a way, I'd have to say that the Occam's razor theory is flawed in the way that it forces people to go by instinct in their decision making.


Most people misuse and abuse Occam's razor. Occam's razor doesn't dictate anything to Science , it just simply states that you should avoid adding unnecessary causes to explain observations. In other words the simplest explanation that explains all the facts and observations is usually the correct explanation.

But it is just a guideline not a scientific law as some people would tend to believe.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drexon And especially in northern Sweden, wich is known for it's ~4 towns? I'm being sarcastic ofcourse, but at the same time I'm being serious. If this is human technology it's come a very long way without the general public knowing anything about it.


You answered your own question. 4 towns. If thats true then there's alot of room withour prying eyes. Sweden is also not a country prone to attack any other country for unvarified aircraft in their skies. They might not have even know it was there to begin with.

The technology has come quite far without the general public knowing it? Well, thats sort of the point. Right?



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

You answered your own question. 4 towns. If thats true then there's alot of room withour prying eyes. Sweden is also not a country prone to attack any other country for unvarified aircraft in their skies. They might not have even know it was there to begin with.


Haha, sure, the upper half of Sweden, 50% of it infact, is nothing but woods and a couple of towns along the coast. The city I live in is called the 'capital' of northern Sweden with it's ~110.000 inhabitants, not really mindblowing. BUT what you're forgetting (to look up) is that the Swedish military has been degrading for the last ~50 years. It's now such a non-matter in 'riksdagen' (basically congress) that it barely recieces any money at all. We haven't been to a war in.. well, we inhabit the world record, that's saying something, no? To extend the 'BUT', Sweden has no money to spend on black technology, let alone camouflaged, 'triangle' (I didn't see the shape, but that's what you're suggesting, no?) crafts that run on something that couldn't be classified as an 'air lift' type of craft. Furthermore, what was this supposed human craft doing above a town of 110.000 inhabitants in the middle of the woods the first place? There's nothing 'interesting' here, only humans. And if it was indeed a human controlled craft you'd think it could be better at avoiding large, mapped towns.

There are more matters to attend, like where to get fuel in the middle of the woods, and the strategical value of testflying a technologically superior craft anywhere Near population, but I won't attend them, I think I've made my point.



The technology has come quite far without the general public knowing it? Well, thats sort of the point. Right?


Hate to say it, but same crap, different package. This is the old, old, very old "argument" of 'If god doesn't exist, prove it." that, well, stupid people use. You just did the same thing with your black technology statement, you more or less 'imagined' up a thing that supposedly most people in the world doesn't know about and 'back it' with the the old 'trick' of 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense' or 'If you can't prove that it doesn't exist you can't be entirely sure, now can you?'. Non-argument. Sorry.

[edit on 1-9-2005 by Drexon]



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I've heard of the US government testing a type of camo just recently where an object had several small cameras placed on one side, and a type of material (sorry I can't remember the name of it) on the opposite side. The cameras fed images to the material on the opposite side which displayed them making it appear to blend in to the background.

Mabey what you have seen is a more sophisticated form of this test. Rather than having cameras, the material itself acts as a reciever/display in all directions.

Nothing with any shape could ever (as we know) be totally cloaked. Even if it had a perfectly smooth, flat surface it would still stand out from the background. Even with a light refracting field surrounding an object, you still wouldn't be able to see the objects behind it.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but this thread was initially reserved for debating my current theory, wich is only based on: First hand experience, witness testimonies and questioning and hard logic, nothing else.

If you want to discuss my initial sightings, please look up my old threads and bump them.

Twice Fooled> What's the purpose of your post?



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
If UFO's can bend space-time to effect gravity for their propulsion then I think they can surely bend light around themselves as well. I remember seeing an early UFO film of, I think a captured UFO, and there were 2 images of the UFo, the other being some kind of "reflection".



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Although I have to say we're further from knowing what kind of propulsion they're using than realising they're bending light radiation around the craft, I have to say you make a lot of sense. Since we've more or less fully concluded that they (the crafts) are not flying through the 'air lift' type, yes, we can also conclude that they're more or less magicians through our eyes when it comes to technology.

Nice name, too.

[edit on 1-9-2005 by Drexon]



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drexon

You answered your own question. 4 towns. If thats true then there's alot of room withour prying eyes. Sweden is also not a country prone to attack any other country for unvarified aircraft in their skies. They might not have even know it was there to begin with.


Haha, sure, the upper half of Sweden, 50% of it infact, is nothing but woods and a couple of towns along the coast. The city I live in is called the 'capital' of northern Sweden with it's ~110.000 inhabitants, not really mindblowing. BUT what you're forgetting (to look up) is that the Swedish military has been degrading for the last ~50 years. It's now such a non-matter in 'riksdagen' (basically congress) that it barely recieces any money at all. We haven't been to a war in.. well, we inhabit the world record, that's saying something, no? To extend the 'BUT', Sweden has no money to spend on black technology, let alone camouflaged, 'triangle' (I didn't see the shape, but that's what you're suggesting, no?) crafts that run on something that couldn't be classified as an 'air lift' type of craft. Furthermore, what was this supposed human craft doing above a town of 110.000 inhabitants in the middle of the woods the first place? There's nothing 'interesting' here, only humans. And if it was indeed a human controlled craft you'd think it could be better at avoiding large, mapped towns.

There are more matters to attend, like where to get fuel in the middle of the woods, and the strategical value of testflying a technologically superior craft anywhere Near population, but I won't attend them, I think I've made my point.



The technology has come quite far without the general public knowing it? Well, thats sort of the point. Right?


Hate to say it, but same crap, different package. This is the old, old, very old "argument" of 'If god doesn't exist, prove it." that, well, stupid people use. You just did the same thing with your black technology statement, you more or less 'imagined' up a thing that supposedly most people in the world doesn't know about and 'back it' with the the old 'trick' of 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense' or 'If you can't prove that it doesn't exist you can't be entirely sure, now can you?'. Non-argument. Sorry.

[edit on 1-9-2005 by Drexon]


How am I supposed to know why it's there? All I can tell you is starlite camo is a technology being used. Please, dont ever accuse me of being stupid, or being "one of those people". You honestly believe that Black projects of other countries dont fly into a neutral land? C'mon. I've personally seen what I believe to be a TR3 in a rural county near here...why was it there?

I'm not making any excuse, the technology that is secret, by any country, isnt going to be known to the general public. Thats all I'm saying. And the fuel comment is really kind of ridiculous. It was widely rumoured that aurora did flights from NV to NY. No refuel. So we cant assume to know what kind of fuel is used, nor how often.

It's not like the starlite camo is going to accoutn for what youre taking about as a whole, but it might account for some sightings.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Twice Fooled
I've heard of the US government testing a type of camo just recently where an object had several small cameras placed on one side, and a type of material (sorry I can't remember the name of it) on the opposite side. The cameras fed images to the material on the opposite side which displayed them making it appear to blend in to the background.

Mabey what you have seen is a more sophisticated form of this test. Rather than having cameras, the material itself acts as a reciever/display in all directions.

Nothing with any shape could ever (as we know) be totally cloaked. Even if it had a perfectly smooth, flat surface it would still stand out from the background. Even with a light refracting field surrounding an object, you still wouldn't be able to see the objects behind it.


I read that too Twice, fiber optic could have been used. I wouldnt want the job of installing that.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drexon
I'm sorry, but this thread was initially reserved for debating my current theory, wich is only based on: First hand experience, witness testimonies and questioning and hard logic, nothing else.

If you want to discuss my initial sightings, please look up my old threads and bump them.

Twice Fooled> What's the purpose of your post?


Sorry. I was just trying to give some input on the subject, and trying to join the conversation.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
jritzmann> I haven't said, or tried to make you look stupid in any way. The way I see it is someone trying to debunk a pretty solid theory and having it's attack just bounce off. As for starlite camo, please tell me more, I'm intruiged by a theory wich is supposed to counteract my theory, with a more logical, human 'black' technology approach.

You honestly believe that Black projects of other countries dont fly into a neutral land? C'mon.


As I said, this is a little bush society, and if this is indeed human operated, it's beyond comprehension that such a high tech craft wouldn't have an accurate map of Sweden, and now when the heck it's flying in over a town. Besides, the camouflage I saw, wich you really haven't asked that much about, is more of a field surrounding the craft, bending all light from all directions around the craft. I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned we humans are lightyears away from that kind of technology. "You honestly believe that humans could device such a thing? C'mon."

I don't know anything about an 'aurora', or it's wild roumors. And really you shouldn't try to make a point of that. I've said it before that my theory is based on first hand experience, witness testemonies and questioning, and logic, just logical reasoning. I've not added anything into the formula, such as roumored information from a suspicious website, not anything about 'greys', or even aliens for that matter, although I have to admit my theory points in that direction. For as long as I've done this, conductiong this theory for the past 1½ years, I've realized that my theory covers more and more sightings.
For instance; Often UFOs appear as 'blurry orbs', my theory would actually contain that particular sighting. As I've mentioned in my first post, I've talked about a 'blend' of colors, and that introducing another color, or even light source into that blend will cause trouble for the camouflage system. If you introduce a 'star light' (supposed to make it look like a star) or a theory I'm working on, an engine 'light pollution' into the blend, by maybe accidently making the camouflage field surrounding the ship too large, engulfing the source of the star light, the blend will mix it in, making that part of the camouflage field a blurry mess, making the light you're supposed to see mix with the star/engine light source.

Also, this is not something that I've thought about in advance and modeled my theory from, but something that came naturally as the theory developed. As I mentioned I'm also working on a theory that the light source often seen on UFOs are actually 'light pollution' of some sort, that the UFO needs to propel itself. The only thing I'm waiting for is confirmation in the form of witness statements saying so. The moving 'starlite' UFO might be common, but I've yet to manage asking one person if they thought the light(s?) in some manner had to do with it's propulsion. Call it a hunch.

In conclusion, I have yet to see any actual arguments talking against my theory except for another one dealing with black technology, and a rather seemingly undeveloped theory of 'starlite' camouflage, that is supposed to account for (all?) UFOs with 'star lights' on them. In a forum such as this, were the majority believes in atleast UFOs being present I believe I can put you in a position were I have the upper hand by saying that these are cloaked, alien, UFOs and not human technology.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   
It doesnt surprise me one bit.
I've had a helicopter fly directly over my neighborhood, with such "camo".
All that could be seen was a single light on it, no sound, nothing, but the trees all swayed when it passed over.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drexon
jritzmann> I haven't said, or tried to make you look stupid in any way. The way I see it is someone trying to debunk a pretty solid theory and having it's attack just bounce off. As for starlite camo, please tell me more, I'm intruiged by a theory wich is supposed to counteract my theory, with a more logical, human 'black' technology approach.

You honestly believe that Black projects of other countries dont fly into a neutral land? C'mon.


As I said, this is a little bush society, and if this is indeed human operated, it's beyond comprehension that such a high tech craft wouldn't have an accurate map of Sweden, and now when the heck it's flying in over a town. Besides, the camouflage I saw, wich you really haven't asked that much about, is more of a field surrounding the craft, bending all light from all directions around the craft. I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned we humans are lightyears away from that kind of technology. "You honestly believe that humans could device such a thing? C'mon."

I don't know anything about an 'aurora', or it's wild roumors. And really you shouldn't try to make a point of that. I've said it before that my theory is based on first hand experience, witness testemonies and questioning, and logic, just logical reasoning. I've not added anything into the formula, such as roumored information from a suspicious website, not anything about 'greys', or even aliens for that matter, although I have to admit my theory points in that direction. For as long as I've done this, conductiong this theory for the past 1½ years, I've realized that my theory covers more and more sightings.
For instance; Often UFOs appear as 'blurry orbs', my theory would actually contain that particular sighting. As I've mentioned in my first post, I've talked about a 'blend' of colors, and that introducing another color, or even light source into that blend will cause trouble for the camouflage system. If you introduce a 'star light' (supposed to make it look like a star) or a theory I'm working on, an engine 'light pollution' into the blend, by maybe accidently making the camouflage field surrounding the ship too large, engulfing the source of the star light, the blend will mix it in, making that part of the camouflage field a blurry mess, making the light you're supposed to see mix with the star/engine light source.

Also, this is not something that I've thought about in advance and modeled my theory from, but something that came naturally as the theory developed. As I mentioned I'm also working on a theory that the light source often seen on UFOs are actually 'light pollution' of some sort, that the UFO needs to propel itself. The only thing I'm waiting for is confirmation in the form of witness statements saying so. The moving 'starlite' UFO might be common, but I've yet to manage asking one person if they thought the light(s?) in some manner had to do with it's propulsion. Call it a hunch.

In conclusion, I have yet to see any actual arguments talking against my theory except for another one dealing with black technology, and a rather seemingly undeveloped theory of 'starlite' camouflage, that is supposed to account for (all?) UFOs with 'star lights' on them. In a forum such as this, were the majority believes in atleast UFOs being present I believe I can put you in a position were I have the upper hand by saying that these are cloaked, alien, UFOs and not human technology.



I think you wrongly assume my statements are based of not seeing anything. I've seen more then my share of UFOs, however the technology you speak of isnt that far away from us. Do some looking into fiber optic, and starlite camo. Thats all I'm saying, I'm not trying to start any argument, as your theory of camo really is as viable as any other. The bottom line is *any* theory is viable, because it depends that such objects are physically real to begin with...and no one knows if they are or not.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I don't really know what you think I saw, but there was a camouflage field around it and it flew slower than an airplane could. I don't think we're as close to that as you think.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I have no idea what you saw, however lighter then air craft and negative cell craft have been known to use night camo, and it's definitely not out of the realm of fiber optic (or some advanced form of it) to be used on such a thing.

But thats not saying thats what you saw nor is it an attempt to explain it. Just an observation.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join