I saw an invisible airplane!

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I have been interested in this area for many years and if I was to attempt to build an invisibility field I would probably start with manipulation of the visible spectrum. My thoughts on this always converge on frequencies. Maybe it would be a cheaper alternative with regards to cost and life-cycle.




posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I saw one in Texas (Fort Worth) a few years ago. It was a passenger or cargo plane and flew under a bank of clouds. It looked like that "invisibility cloak" video of that guy standing in front of traffic and you can see the cars behind him projected on the front of the cloak. Except in this case it was clouds. It was mid-day, bright out, and I had my perscription glasses on which reduce glare and let me see into clouds more clearly. It flew low enough to tell what type of plane it was, but I was inside a building looking through the window and don't remember hearing an airplane noise.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
There was a video floating around that had a Soldier in Iraq wearing some sort of cloaking clothing. A tank rolled up and this guy ran up, climbed and entered the tank. I can't find it now but maybe it jogs someones memory. Maybe another tank was hit and this tank was the first to respond.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   

By ninemsn staff

It is the military version of Harry Potter's invisible cloak.

British researchers have unveiled new technology that renders army tanks invisible to observers in the battle field, a British newspaper reports.

At top secret trials last week the Ministry of Defence demonstrated how the clever use of cameras and projectors can beam images of the surrounding landscape onto a tank.

Observers at the trial said the vehicle completely disappeared into the surrounding countryside.

One soldier described the optical camouflage as "incredible".

"If I hadn't been present I wouldn't have believed it," he told the Daily Mail.

"I looked across the fields and just saw grass and trees — but in reality I was staring down the barrel of a tank gun."

The British Army predicted that invisible tanks would be in use by 2012, although how it works in combat is very sensitive.

The Army is also believed to be testing the technology on military jackets for its soldiers.

The researcher who helped invent the technology, Professor Sir John Pendry, of Imperial College London, said the next step is to make the tanks invisible without the use of cameras and projectors.

"(It) is intricate and complicated, but possible".

link to above



This looks like something similar to your plane?



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


exactly what was going to say.If you could not see it, then there would not have been anything for you to see the shadow.But i too have experianced this phenomenon. I think there are Top Secret Gov PLanes that are able to fly as such



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Your reference to how big it's shadow was on the ground and how big, in inches, you've see other aircraft in the sky, needs some clarification.

First, you must be made aware that an aircraft, with a 55 foot wingspan and flying directly overhead is going to cast a shadow of its wings exactly 55 feet long on the ground. A very small plane with a 30 foot wingspan will cast a shadow of 30 feet long and a large plane with a 150 foot wingspan, a shadow of 150 feet long.

Altitude of the aircraft has no bearing on the shadow of its wings, whether it's 10 feet or 1000 feet high, it's still going to cast the same length shadow on the ground as is the wingspan on the aircraft itself.

Secondly, you cannot identify the length of an aircraft in inches, flying above you, unless you possess four specifics: (1) the altitude and (2) the length of the plane, (3) an accurate measuring device and (4) the distance that device is located in relation to your eye when measuring.

For instance, a plane's wingspan, directly about you, could measure 4 inches long on a measuring device only if (1) its altitude was 135 feet, (2) its wingspan was 30 feet and (3) a measuring device was held (4) 18 inches from your eye.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
To above post

I think your taking things far too literally i read the OP's description as an estimate.
And explain why my own shadow sometimes stretch's several meter's (i think it's all to do with angle's)

If your going to post what seem to be fact's like that then please provide some evidence.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Stating facts as they exist, Sven, is not being 'too literal'. It's being correct and right on the money.

You'll notice that in my post, that I did specify that my facts were based on the aircraft being being directly overhead, assuming that in order for a shadow of the aircraft to appear on the ground, the Sun had to be in the same general area as the aircraft was, directly overhead.

You stated that, if I post what seems to be fact, I should please provide evidence of that, which I have properly done with the numbers presented for all to see.

I you doubt me, and I'm sure you do, do the following simple test:

1. Get an ordinary 12 inch scale.
2. Place two items on the ground, 30 feet apart.
3. Walk a distance of 135 feet away from these two items.
4. Hold the 12 inch scale, 18 inches from your eye, and line up the two
items on the scale. Now mark the distance between the two items
as shown on the scale. 4 inches, correct?



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


Actualy if you have seen the news recently there has been technology in developing per say "invisibility" using mirrors and scensors so this is a high possibilit....



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


You just quoted two different posters there. Nobody is changing their story.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
there are many things we dont know about. I will tell you this though. During the cold war the USA and the Soviet Union were constantly researching all types of technologies for use in military applications..so dont be surprised if the two countries dont tell us anything that shouldnt be known.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SvenTheBerserK

By ninemsn staff

It is the military version of Harry Potter's invisible cloak.

British researchers have unveiled new technology that renders army tanks invisible to observers in the battle field, a British newspaper reports.

At top secret trials last week the Ministry of Defence demonstrated how the clever use of cameras and projectors can beam images of the surrounding landscape onto a tank.

Observers at the trial said the vehicle completely disappeared into the surrounding countryside.

One soldier described the optical camouflage as "incredible".

"If I hadn't been present I wouldn't have believed it," he told the Daily Mail.

"I looked across the fields and just saw grass and trees — but in reality I was staring down the barrel of a tank gun."

The British Army predicted that invisible tanks would be in use by 2012, although how it works in combat is very sensitive.

The Army is also believed to be testing the technology on military jackets for its soldiers.

The researcher who helped invent the technology, Professor Sir John Pendry, of Imperial College London, said the next step is to make the tanks invisible without the use of cameras and projectors.

"(It) is intricate and complicated, but possible".

link to above



This looks like something similar to your plane?




interesting i might say. But its counter measures are still out there meaning shooting at the tank to see if its real or not lol. im sure it will make a clank noise if it is real.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
That can be true cause it's not that hard to make, it is complex, u can use for example screens all over the plane that project what's on top. there are many other ways to do so, so he could be right.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Does nobody else see the glaringly retarded flaw in this invisibility system?

To project the image filmed from behind the tank onto it's front, the projector is going to have to be either: a: Between the tank and the enemy, or b: Behind the enemy.

Which idiot gets the job of putting it there?

Oh and as anyone who owns a projector knows, it is an arse to get the damn projection square and even, even if the projector is as near as dammit perpendicular and in front of the screen anyway.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
In my opinion you saw a regular plane shadow. Just because a plane is overhead doesn't mean it's going to cast a shadow directly below it... likewise, just because you see a plane's shadow on the ground doesn't mean the plane is directly above you. Even a slight angle to the sun can displace the shadow by hundreds of meters, or a mile, or more... and that's to say nothing of a sun that might be lower to the horizon.

I've ridden on passenger planes and watched the shadow as the plane took off, and on a sunny day, I could still see the shadow on the ground even at a good 5000 feet or so. At this height, all it takes is the wind blowing in the right direction to mute the sound of the plane, not to mention that the moment you see the shadow and the moment you'd hear the plane's engines wouldn't happen at the same time, anyway, due to the speed of sound traveling through air.

Additionally, an invisible plane would not cast a shadow in the first place. If it were truly invisible than that means all light is passing right through it (or around it). If little or no light is actually bouncing off of the plane or being absorbed by it, then there is no reason why a shadow would be produced.

I've had this happen to me before. I simply wasn't able to locate the plane. That doesn't mean the plane wasn't there.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I read only the OP, so ignore if it has been said before.

I think you saw a pretty high flying plane, that was right between you and Sun. That explains everything: the shadow was large, you couldn't see it (because of the Sun) and hear it (because of height), or it could be flying on low power.

My theory.

And I deeply doubt that visual stealth exists today on any prototype, or operational plane (in area51). It will probably be developed in a decade or so, but not now. Even if it does exist... Military is stupid, but not that stupid, they would fly (probably most) highly classified plane, that is not completely developed yet (if you saw the shadow) over a populated area. Also with visual stealth you probably wouldn't see the shadow at all, or a very bad one (I don't think you would recognize it as a plane, even if you know planes very good).


My humble opinion.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by earthman4
 


easy to explain. what you saw is know by secret agents a daytime stealth. some may refer to it as eletrochromatic panels. this tech, is put on recon spy planes and has not been released to the public. i cant tell you how i know just what i know. the way it works is hundreds of high resoulotion cameras are mounted on top of the aircraft and the sent to projecters on the bottom. this makes the plane invisable to anyone on the ground and would still cast a shadow if flying low enough. your not crazy. welcome to the new genaration of stealth!
ill be suprized if this gets posted and should expect a knock at my door.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by sovietman
And I deeply doubt that visual stealth exists today on any prototype, or operational plane (in area51). It will probably be developed in a decade or so, but not now. Even if it does exist... Military is stupid, but not that stupid, they would fly (probably most) highly classified plane, that is not completely developed yet (if you saw the shadow) over a populated area. Also with visual stealth you probably wouldn't see the shadow at all, or a very bad one (I don't think you would recognize it as a plane, even if you know planes very good).
My humble opinion.


Visual stealth does exist. The University of Kentucky is working on it and have even released pictures of it on Flight. They're currently working on the next level, which includes all aspect stealth. It's actually very good, and they say that they're much farther along than people realize.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
If the aircraft was invisible it could not have cast a shadow due to the physics of light.

If you saw a shadow, you could have seen the plane. If you didn't see it, then either the shadow was from something else, or you merely weren't looking in the right direction.

It is possible that if the aircraft existed, the second it flew over you it activated its cloaking mechanism, but why would such a valuable technology be used in plain sight?

Actually your wrong in the sense that you assume you know how it would work.

There are many possibilities, one way is to project what's on the other side by using cameras, making it appear invisible, but the sun light would not be able to go through it, still causing a shadow. This would be HIGHLY effective with nanotechnology thou.

Edit: oops long thread, and what I have said has already been mentioned a few times, haha.



[edit on 13-11-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Here's a hint. If it was invisible, it would not have created a shadow


Hi JFJ,

You may not have seen it but I edited the OP to say that I thought it might have used fiber-optic technology which makes it appear to be invisible by mimiking what is beyond it on the side you are looking at.

The plane is still physically there, so it would indeed have cast a shadow.


Agreed. Invisible doesn't mean it's not there it mean it can't be seen with the naked eye. Just from this thread alone you can see there are a multitude of ways to achieve this.

Fiber optics having a camera project onto a surface, even in a 360 degree angle covering the entire object, still casts a shadow (one of the problems with this technology) while on or close to the ground. This will also produce a shimmer effect while the object is moving. Reason is it produces for lack of a better term an optical illusion. If you use mirrors to produce the same style effect on an object, like magicians often do, you will still get a shadow from the object assuming the sun isn't directly over head, on an item sitting on the ground.

edit: Dang it lol too many replies on this at once you all are too quick for me I guess lol

[edit on 13-11-2008 by Darthorious]





top topics
 
10
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join