reply to post by gariac
Just my own personal 2 cents of off topic commentary, as this thread seems to have stalled at an impasse a few pages ago.
Perhaps its the sterility of communication via this format however my functional command of the sciences is perfectly adequate to comment on this
subject matter amongst this pier group.
If you will indulge one last offtopic response.
Electromagnetic Stealth is by no means invulnerable, Col. Zoltán Dani made the point by killing F-117 #82-0806 over Serbia in 1999 with a 40 year old
It is a given that any defense or offense can be foiled if the willpower exits to commit the necessary resources. The reality is that the problem of
reducing RCS (Radar cross-section
) is as old as the radar it spoofs and the world has
known first hand for twenty years what the combination of low observability and precision guided munitions means in terms of a force multiplier.
Every nation with a modern defense industry has studied the problem at length, the Soviet emphasis on IRST
(Infra-red search and track
) development for its 4th generation fighters was
reactionary to a specific threat, i.e. stealth.
However at this juncture stealth still works, how long until Russian or Chinese develop a low band radar that completley negates its advantage or
abandons radar to develop a refined passive countermeasure is the big unknown. Even if electromagnetic stealth remains effective , in the future
stealth will be complemented by much more sophisticated attempts to reduce IR emissions and visibility as search/targeting technologies guided by
image analysis rather than radar beams are fielded.
Stealth works because it makes something harder to detect, not impossible. The same applies to active camouflage, tests of "Yehudi" light systems in
the 1940's proved that simple counter illumination significantly reduced detection ranges, reportedly the Have Blue demonstrators were to have
included a counter illumination system and the Boeing Bird of Prey allegedly put something a lot more sophisticated to the test.
Obviously the U.S. aerospace community see's some value in the technology, whether the tech has matured to where it is both economically feasible and
robust enough to withstand the thermal and dynamic stress imposed by a high performance aircraft and still be serviced by a board 19 year old airmen
as required is the better question.
If you take a moment to read the links I posted you would note that BAE Systems specifically spoofs IR sensors extraordinarily well and is being
shopped as a developed system (as the fact that it is being demonstrated on a moving
CV90 Armadillo in the link attests to.)
In the context of infra-red search and track, weapons sights and munitions guidance seekers , modern thermal optics are passive. Active IR using
augmented illumination like the T-72's L2G projector or the M60's IR/white light search-light have been obsolete systems for 30+ years.
I am sure there is no need to point out that wavelengths of visible light lie in-between the ultraviolet and infrared and shares similar properties
with both implying that if the physics work to spoof IR in 3 dimensions from multiple perspectives, they must also be applicable to the visible
spectrum as well.
Furthermore OELD is not LED or LCD. OELD are broadband, they can be made to reproduce the complete visible spectrum into the near IR.The next time you
are in an electronics store go out of your way to check out one of Sony or Samsungs OELD flatscreens and take note how far you can move off center
without losing any image quality. OLED panels are thin and lightweight, Consumer off the shelf OLED technology available today would allow for
engineering into a topical skin and the hope is to develop bulk coatings applied in the same manner as typical a paint film.
Adaptive camouflage doesn't need to provide a perfect representation of its background environment, it just needs to reasonably match the hue and
radiance of its environment.
Back on topic
Gariac, the believers have you cornered in that nobody can say with absolute conviction what Bob & Co. filmed (in truth neither can Bob, another light
in the sky being touted as proof of extraterrestrial contact.)
Out of curiosity, have you tried to find a Janet schedule for March 29th of 1989? I suspect you are correct, he knew the Janet flight times and the
scheduled "saucer" test was the Groom night shift reporting to work.
As you alluded in your last post, it sounds great unless you have a basic understanding of the science. Barring the inconvenient truth that a lot of
bonafide, vetted ex Groom employees are beginning to share their histories and information and are emphatic that they never heard anything about
extraterrestrial spacecraft, it is the mechanics of his story that wrecks it for him. Specific parts of his explanation regarding the physics are
ridiculous and prove beyond doubt that his fantastic story is a lie.
If he had kept quiet about things but he shot himself in the foot with nonsense like gravity a and gravity b waves, %100 efficient energy transfers or
the chunks of 115 Uup he carried around in his lunchbox for a week.
edit on 9-3-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: syntax