Stealth Technology (Military craft which cannot be filmed)

reply to post by radarloveguy


What deficit? They have all the money the need. I mean how else can the Federal Reserve misplace 9 TRILLION dollars in one year alone?

An aircraft which cannot be filmed. Imagine that sales pitch. Sorry but we cannot make a demonstration video for you to decide whether to fund this or not; or just show an empty sky shot and point excitedly.

Originally posted by Shamatt
I like the way you think, your explanations make a lot of sence.

What if the pictures were normal except the lack of a copter which you could see with your eyes? This is the clame, I think, and I dispute it as being impossible.

You talk about the above technologies as theugh they are real and you have working knowlege of them - care to share? I am fascinated. Been an amateur photographer to over 20 years and love everything to do with the subject. Your post therefore is right up my street! Share any info you have on this please?

I don't buy the inviso-copter thing either. But if "won't take a photo" means it came out black, white, or fuzzed, yeah, I could buy that.

I've worked on a couple of projects to mess up other optics that work sort of similar to a digital camera, sort of, hence the comment about screwing with the light metering. And the optical glint detector started off life as a pre-treaty anti-personnel sort of weapon.

The SF and Marines were using target designators on suspected sniper positions - they're basically IR lasers - and if you're skulking in a building looking at the team with binoculars or a rifle scope, it's bad karma to catch a nice IR laser in the eye through them - sort of like looking through a telescope at the sun. It was effective enough that a project was fired off to develop something more automated, it turned out you can spot lensing systems pretty well at a distance with some clever optics and processing, and you can find anything from people's eyeballs to rifle scopes. So you tote this thing near the point, and anyone looking at you, photographing you, or using a scope or binocs on you, gets it, right in the eye.

So, in 1995, just about the time the first cut of the system made it to field testing, they passed Protocol IV which banned intentional laser blinders.

However, it's not against treaty stipulations to target optical systems without eyeballs, and legend has it that you can generally distinguish eyes from CCDs. Since the treaty doesn't ban the occasional 'whoopsie' blinding as long as the intention was not to blind a human, it's ok if you mess up.

Incidentally, IIRC, there was a trial or two of a de-tuned civilian version for use in theaters to prevent recording of movies with camcorders. Spot the CCD, tap at the camera with a low power IR laser, it either whites out or closes its iris. No movie.

ETA: Don't say military tech never brought you any practical applications. Your tax dollars at work!

Originally posted by balanc3
total bone head moment for me, I apologoize for saying part 90, its Part 15, i just looked at the bottom of my cordless phone and there it is, molded into the plastic part 15 and its terminology

OK - thanks.

Here's the index to part 15

Part 15 requirements for cordless phones doesnt' seem to have anything odd in it tho.

Subpart D of Pt 15 might apply to cell phones - are they "UNLICENSED PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE DEVICES"??

Again they are long parts & I don't really have the technical knowledge to parse them & understand everything - but if you could identify which subpart has these provisions I can probably understand enough to agree or disagree.....

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Shamatt
I like the way you think, your explanations make a lot of sence.

What if the pictures were normal except the lack of a copter which you could see with your eyes? This is the clame, I think, and I dispute it as being impossible.

You talk about the above technologies as theugh they are real and you have working knowlege of them - care to share? I am fascinated. Been an amateur photographer to over 20 years and love everything to do with the subject. Your post therefore is right up my street! Share any info you have on this please?

I don't buy the inviso-copter thing either. But if "won't take a photo" means it came out black, white, or fuzzed, yeah, I could buy that.

I've worked on a couple of projects to mess up other optics that work sort of similar to a digital camera, sort of, hence the comment about screwing with the light metering. And the optical glint detector started off life as a pre-treaty anti-personnel sort of weapon.

The SF and Marines were using target designators on suspected sniper positions - they're basically IR lasers - and if you're skulking in a building looking at the team with binoculars or a rifle scope, it's bad karma to catch a nice IR laser in the eye through them - sort of like looking through a telescope at the sun. It was effective enough that a project was fired off to develop something more automated, it turned out you can spot lensing systems pretty well at a distance with some clever optics and processing, and you can find anything from people's eyeballs to rifle scopes. So you tote this thing near the point, and anyone looking at you, photographing you, or using a scope or binocs on you, gets it, right in the eye.

So, in 1995, just about the time the first cut of the system made it to field testing, they passed Protocol IV which banned intentional laser blinders.

However, it's not against treaty stipulations to target optical systems without eyeballs, and legend has it that you can generally distinguish eyes from CCDs. Since the treaty doesn't ban the occasional 'whoopsie' blinding as long as the intention was not to blind a human, it's ok if you mess up.

Incidentally, IIRC, there was a trial or two of a de-tuned civilian version for use in theaters to prevent recording of movies with camcorders. Spot the CCD, tap at the camera with a low power IR laser, it either whites out or closes its iris. No movie.

ETA: Don't say military tech never brought you any practical applications. Your tax dollars at work!

edit on 14-7-2011 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

Thanks Bedlam, that was fascinating!

I remember a conversation I had in the mid to late 90's with a friend talking abbout how they had banned laser blinding wepons. Finally I get the story behind that, which is really interesting.

Brings up an interesting moral issue though, this protocol IV - Are we to understand that it is somehow more acceptable to shoot someone in the face with a rifle than with a lazer? That it is best for them to go home in a body back than just blind? Interesting.

Although such a weapon would be horrible, I can see it;s battle field potential - for every soldier you wound you take 2 more out of the fight to carry him back to safety.

Also, Why not just replace the lazers with firearms and use the same detection and targeting systems to shoot at the Lenses?

Back on topic for a moment though: It will be interesting to see if the OP get get any further information as to the nature of the problems encountered - a few choice questions on this other forum or wherever it is being discussed should be enough to give us a clearer picture (Haaaa!!!!!)

Originally posted by zorgon
Now to see it in action...

TOP SECRET Stealth INVISIBILITY Suit - Caught On Tape

As you can see the 'coating' applied to a person is not quite 100% in this case

I doubt it's 100% effective in any case yet. But I have no doubt they are working on it.

I'm not convinced of what that video shows. It could just as easily be a crappy compression as a stealth suit, the video quality is terrible.

Interesting post though, starred!

There are no invisibility suits, no invisible aircraft etc. The Youtube video is a hoax.

The idea seems simple, just film to the right of the aircraft and display the footage on the left.

The problem is that in order for this to be effective, it has to be aligned exactly to the line of sight of the onlooker. the issue that kills the project, is that in order to do that, you need to know who is looking and where they are, and if more than one person is looking towards the craft, then you can only project one film at a time.

If you want to get real you need to look at the research from the 60's and the conclusion was that chrominance is unnessesary and infact a disturbing element to our perception. Only luminance needs to be modelled. If luminance is modelled(the lightintensity) then it can get to half the usual distance before being noticed.

This research was done using tanks and aircraft in the 60's, by the british army. The craft had light sensors and lanterns on both sides. The control was very simple and didn't need a computer, but was not adopted, as it wasn't very reliable.