It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


US Military Optical Camo "Cloak" Captured on Video

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link was looking through the thread on the video link of the methane explosion was another video, US Army Optical Camoflauge Captured on video in Iraq I have heard about this for years, i knew this was going to be implimented on aircraft but had no idea this was this far along in development. Pay close attention to every detail of the video, this is a video of a IED attack in Iraq taken in 2009, there is the IED detonation under an Abrams Tank, the Tank rolls off the screen to the left,you then see the 3 scumbags running for cover as the rest of the unit arrives. When the Humvees soilders dismount is when The figure will appear at 3:29 seconds of the video, it moves from right to left, climbs the tank and appears to speak to the tank commander to gain accsess to the tank, also it appears that he speaks to one of the dismounted soilders to point them in the correct direction to engage the attackers. This is a great video, i discoverd it here on ATS in another video, I am convinced this is authentic the motion of the figure as it climbs the tank, and the obvious interaction between it and the dismounted soilders just screams real to me, please tell me what you think.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by 1947flxible]

[edit on 26-6-2010 by 1947flxible]

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:27 PM

There ya go OP.

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:28 PM
reply to post by Raustin

My first post, Gracias

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:34 PM
Yeah I remember this one.

Had me intrigued for ages!

If real, then the guy wearing the suit has some balls!

No armour, no weapons.

Just a not quite so good stealth suit, going by the video.

Maybe the batteries were running flat and if so, where does he keep the batteries??

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:36 PM
reply to post by 1947flxible

When the figure pops into frame on the right notice the guy dismounting looks like he pops out of nowhere. Also notice that the figure who appears to have 'invisibility' is moving pretty fast. Then pay attention to the fact that the other soldiers look pretty blurry, but are only moving about half the speed as the guy going from right to left. I think if they were moving faster, they would appear to be translucent too. It looks like a faulty camera, possibly damaged by the blast. I have a feeling if that tank or anything else for that matter was moving faster it would look like they were appearing out of nowhere too. Interesting find but to me it seems likely the camera is damaged. I don't know a heck of a lot about cameras but I'm sure someone here will be able to explain it. Nice first post.

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:40 PM
At times parts of the other vehicles seem to disappear as well.

I'm thinking really bad video compression.

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:47 PM
I am wondering about the way he scooted up the tank and immediately laid down, like he was trying to maintain invisibility to the troops walking around maybe, but those guys are on the same team as the tank and it's crew so....?
More likely he is moving swift and staying low to avoid any enemy fire.
The figure seemed to not have on standard equipment/gear like the others. Just the camo suit I guess.
Vid Res is in question, but what an advantage a suit like this would have in the field

[edit on 26-6-2010 by speculativeoptimist]

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:58 PM
reply to post by 1947flxible

I think his suit goes dead cuz the second tank is emitting a anti IED pulse that disrupted the suit. Notice as he gets closer to the tank?

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:26 PM

This picture is real, I saw it in popular mechanics! looks like they've possibly perfected it!

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:36 PM
That is most intriguing!

But after watching it 4 or 5 times,
I also think it is probably just poor quality video.
Raustin put down my thoughts before I even read his,
and going by all that, I do think that's what it most likely is.

though a small part of me still thinks that we might really be seeing this technology in action here.. lol

It's very possible...
even quite probable.

thanks OP.
welcome here.

edit: I remember some time ago, before I signed up here,
Zorgon posted a couple pics of this technology in use, with an older man standing in a field..
and he (the man in the pic) is the one who created what we were seeing (and not seeing) in the photos.
The military got into contact with him I believe.

So Im pretty sure this stuff is already in use in some areas..
it would be cool if that was what we were actually seeing here!

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Ahmose]

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:41 PM
My son is in a graphics arts and animations course and tells me this can easily be done with Adobe After Effects. I am quite sure they can get copies of this program in Iraq or wherever the video was "handled."

Does anyone here understand the optics and projection system required to power something that would create "optical invisibility?" There are resolution issues as well that have to be addressed, like the mean distance from observer to "suit."

Assuming the area of a 6' person is roughly 18 square feet plus 2 square feet for vertical viewing with a resolution of say 1/8", that would be 64 combination projector/cameras per square inch. For the entire suit, that would be 184,320 combination projector/cameras. Since these projectors have to be resolvable by an observer, I would think that 1 watt PRF should be sufficient for the projectors, half of that or about 90,000 watts for the cameras and control systems. Then throw in another 100,000 watts for cooling. I guess we are looking at about 375,000 watts or 375kw.

Oh, and remember this is a battle recon suit, it has to be light and flexible!

Someone asked "where they kept the batteries?" I would expect the suit wearer would have something like a small nuclear reactor stuffed up... you know where I am going with this.

Let's be realistic here, it's either sloppy cameras or after effects.

Cheers - Dave

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:51 PM
I have already seen invisibility technology demonstrated on TV and stuff but never any that worked that well. If the video is real and not just how it came out, then that is awesome and I want that camouflage outfit now!

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:16 AM
It’s called “compression artifacts” from a very low bit rate video stream.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:27 AM
Poor video quality is most likely the cause...

If real, then I want one. We are truly entering the age of the whole 'thermoptic camouflage', though. And I promise you all that, one way or another, I will acquire it for my own personal use.

Too many games with it, too much Japanese animation, all of which have fueled my unyielding desire to posses it. I'll get a hold of it when it's actually somewhat popular in the military. Mark my words.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:23 AM
I am a complete video noob so would someone give me one legitimate reason as to how this could be attributed to compression of the original video stream?

What happened? Was the desert camo so close to the surroundings when compressing the video down in quality the program compressing just made the guys suit and the surrondings all the same?

I question this simply for the fact that the guy comes running full speed from off the screen away from where reinforcements have come. It is as if he was hiding there til backup got there and then bam made a break for the tank.

Let us assume for argument that this is indeed an invisibility device. What good would this do? Although I am not sure what you can gleam from having these reconnaissance men on the ground that one could not from drone surveillance.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:07 AM
check out this video

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by plopunisher
I am a complete video noob so would someone give me one legitimate reason as to how this could be attributed to compression of the original video stream?

There's a lot of different parts of video compression. But one important one is "don't transmit parts of images that haven't really changed". This is what we call "intraframe compression", as opposed to taking out the more redundant bits of a single frame.

In intraframe compression, the sender provides a basic description frame that contains everything, generally called an i-frame. An i-frame is like a snapshot. From there, the compression engine will look at the next frames coming in, and try to find parts that haven't changed, and just send the chunks that have, in what's called a p-frame or b-frame, which one gets sent depending on what's going on in the picture and how good the compression engine is.

In images where the engine is going for maximum compression, and maybe it's not that good to begin with, it may have trouble separating out the parts of the picture that are changing from the parts that are static, especially if the moving and static parts look a lot alike, like guys in camo in a pretty well matched low-res background, as you see in the video. When that happens, you get things that look like what you see until the compression engine catches up and sends an i-frame to correct its mistake. It looks just like this.

If you notice the vehicles in the background, I believe you'll see one of them has a big chunk missing at one point, same thing.

edit to add: That i-frame/p-frame thing is why, when you watch digital video from your cable company, directv or dish network, when you see a lightning flash or camera strobe go off, the entire picture breaks up into pixellation for a second. The "flash" looks like a complete picture change to the compression engine. It therefore sends a full i-frame at the beginning of the flash, and another at the end. But there's not enough bandwidth in the channel to do this, so what happens is it sends as much as it can - the intraframe compression (that's the one that works on single frames) then has to cope with not having enough data to make a good image, and you can see the compression blocks until it catches up. That doesn't happen on well-authored DVDs because the authoring company takes time around the flashes to send 'catchup' b-frames before the flash, or they encode the blink as a moving object instead of a background image change. The DTV/cable people can't do that in real time.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Bedlam]

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:25 PM

Originally posted by boondock-saint
check out this video

You know that's totally bogus, right? The guy is wearing a cloak made out of projection screen material, in the foreground under the camera is a DLP projector shining an image of the background on the "cloak" that was taken before the guy stepped into the picture.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:59 PM
This is old and has been discussed many times before.

Here is an ATS link from 2008 discussing this video. The link from this thread also has audio.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:06 PM
this has been explained on so many websites, anyhow the cam's quality is very low, also it took a shockwave from the blast as you can see it shake you add in extreme low quality + the massive compression used uploading it which when full screened you can see square pixel artifacting all over the video throughout the entire duration it's just a crappy vid.

hell take any crappy video upload it using the highest compression possible in windows movie maker, now move very fast in the video it will look just like you "cloaked" thanks to artifact from the compression.

this is just more hype and sensationalism one would find in mainstream media

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in