Stealth Technology (Military craft which cannot be filmed)

Not sure if the philadelphia experiment has been mentioned. Look it up. Is still open to debate whether the story is true, but if it is I'm sure they can cloak an aircraft by now...

Originally posted by zorgon

Plasma-electrolysis synthesis of TiO2 nano/microspheres with optical absorption extended into the infra-red region

Optical absorption means that it appears black at that color.

Not invisible.

reply to post by J.Son79


Well, if you want to get into government contracting, here we go!

Technically, private industry will develop technologies for very specific applications. Usually under the guise of a separate private company/corporation. Let's say a company recieves a grant from DARPA or some other government source to develop a new portable shelter for the military but they don't necessarily have the resources, designs, or engineers to make it happen. They can farm it out to a specialized company that already has designs and prototypes built.

The design team refines the design by working with the engineers and the company develops "their baby" for the other company.

Alot of money changes hands this way. It sounds kinda wierd but it happens all the time.

I used to work for a company here in Alaska that developed portable carbon composite shelters for use by the Army, Air Force, CIA, etc.. The same thing happened to us. We worked closely with engineers and experts from other companies (most of those guys ex-military like we were). We worked around several design issues and came down with a prototype design that really fit into what the other company was needing.

On occasion, it is possible that a company develops the engineering know how and specialization in their fields to recieve contracts directly from the government. But usually this doesn't happen. At least not right away.

With regards to invisibility, you can imagine how specialized the field of research is. There are scientific discoveries being made in back rooms and warehouses as we speak. Some of them we'll never hear about. Some of them we will.

This whole discussion reminds me of a recent story in "Livescience". Scientists were able to discovery a protein in the human retina that reacts directly to the influence of magnetic fields.

Given everything we ever see in life is just holographic in that sense (we are seeing electromagnetic energy) manipulating that energy is the logical way to produce the effect of invisilibity from a biological perspective.

-ChriS

I just got my hands on a picture of the new stealth plane

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6013cd7c7dd9.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
If this video is real, it'll be pretty revolutionary if the Military are secretly using invisible suits while contemporary scientists are barely able to make a couple of atoms invisible!

the video has been discussed before - www.abovetopsecret.com... and is apparently a poor fake job.

Optical campuflage is so secret it has a wiki page en.wikipedia.org...

And another on meta material cloaking - en.wikipedia.org...

And plenty of articles on MSM - eg see these BBC search results for "meta materials" - www.bbc.co.uk...

I'm sure ppl are working on it - but to say it is done and deployed seems somewhat premature given the available evidence.

The thread title is a little misleading in that there was no actual Film involved, shouldda been phrased as " stealth aircraft which cannot be PHOTOGRAPHED. I'd bet very much that an old point and shoot disposable 35mm film camera would have captured what the person saw with their own eyes.

Second point is that all communication devices such as cell phones are FCC compliant meaning they must not emit harmful interference And.... They MUST also Accept Harmful Interference. Please factor that into following comments....

There's a jammer for nearly everything....and you bet the military's got it!

I am calling this out as a fake. A con. Rubish

No questions answered. No links to origonal material, just heaps of wild speculation with no basis in scientific fact.

Again, what did "can't be captured on a digital camera" mean to the OP?

I guarantee you that you can keep a modern digital camera from getting a good picture, or at times from firing at all. Like a poster one or two above stated, it's different if you use an old match needle 35mm. But a modern digital camera has a number of weaknesses you can exploit.

Originally posted by balanc3
Second point is that all communication devices such as cell phones are FCC compliant meaning they must not emit harmful interference And.... They MUST also Accept Harmful Interference. Please factor that into following comments....

Where is that requirement published?

There's a jammer for nearly everything....and you bet the military's got it!

So what is the jammer for a digital camera? And how are the military getting around it themselves with their optical tracking systems?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by balanc3
Second point is that all communication devices such as cell phones are FCC compliant meaning they must not emit harmful interference And.... They MUST also Accept Harmful Interference. Please factor that into following comments....

Where is that requirement published?

There's a jammer for nearly everything....and you bet the military's got it!

So what is the jammer for a digital camera? And how are the military getting around it themselves with their optical tracking systems?

Maybe this will help
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


The requirement can be found in FCC part 90. just look at your cell phones manual or on the bottom of a cordless phone base.

Harmful interference can be a variety of things, including some signal that prevents your cell phone from taking a digital picture

reply to post by balanc3


FCC 90 is almost 300 pages long - at least have the decency to give a chapter and section number!!

Here's a pdf of it to halp you remember - www.repeater-builder.com...

Originally posted by fixer1967

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by balanc3

There's a jammer for nearly everything....and you bet the military's got it!

So what is the jammer for a digital camera? And how are the military getting around it themselves with their optical tracking systems?

Maybe this will help
www.abovetopsecret.com...

not really - while iPhones do have cameras on them, there are plenty of digital cameras that are not part of an iphones.

And the system you link to is not a jammer per se.

reply to post by fixer1967


I have also experienced an occasion where my cell phone camera, my watch camera, and my DSLR all were unable to take photos of a situation where there were a bunch of Feds raiding some housing units, I thought it would be cool to snap pics of FBI and DHS and ATF their shields and armored vehicles and machine guns, but all my equipment ( fully functional ) failed to capture any images. The shutter didnt release in the DSLR , cell phone froze, as well as the watch camera. Only in that one single incident, in close proximity to what may have been a sensitive operation, have any of my cameras failed to operate.

I like anomalies, you can learn from them, If i had a film camera malfunction that day I wouldda been at a loss. The common factor between the devices is that they were all digital cameras, both CCD and CMOS sensors. The lesson, two digital cams, two film cams( one mechanincal shutter and the other a Polaroid) can help validate and ensure any images I capture (or try to) in the future

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

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
So what is the jammer for a digital camera? And how are the military getting around it themselves with their optical tracking systems?

The two basic ways of foxing a digital camera is to confuse its exposure metering by emitting very bright wide-field pulses of near IR. The human eye doesn't see it, but the camera's brightness metering is often sensitive to IR and will stop the lens down, resulting in a black photo.

You can also pick up focusing pulses from cameras that use IR strobes to do this and "reply" with pulses that he camera will pick up as faux reflections, that throws off the autofocus and gives you blurred images.

A more in-depth, yet field implemented system spots the cameras in its field of vision by looking for "optical glint", the old blinding system just spotted any lensing system and attacked it, the newer post-treaty ones can distinguish between retinae and camera lenses (usually) and pop IR laser pulses at the cameras in range, resulting in whited-out images.

Depending on whether the camera's getting white, black, or defocused images, you can tell what sort of exploit the system used.

Originally posted by balanc3
The thread title is a little misleading in that there was no actual Film involved, shouldda been phrased as " stealth aircraft which cannot be PHOTOGRAPHED. I'd bet very much that an old point and shoot disposable 35mm film camera would have captured what the person saw with their own eyes.

Second point is that all communication devices such as cell phones are FCC compliant meaning they must not emit harmful interference And.... They MUST also Accept Harmful Interference. Please factor that into following comments....

There's a jammer for nearly everything....and you bet the military's got it!

Wow..my thread really took off....

I only re-posted someone's else account on another forum which i deemed interesting. I don't have any more details than what this person said, eg. how they tried to zoom/focus etc. but the plane/copter would simply not show up. There were more persons involved, including other persons "running out from a store" trying to catch it with their phones but also did not succeed in getting a picture.

I was also IMMEDIATELY thinking that it could in theory be the case if we talk digital cameras - i personally do not think the cloaking effect would be working using "analog" "film" cameras since an optical camera REALLY is so close in functionality as our eye. (Short: UNLIKELY that you can SEE it and an old-fashioned camera would not be able to catch it on film, IMO)

But...we have tech which interferes with radar etc....so there is somewhat a likehood that it would also affect CCD or CMOS sensors similar as it works for disguising from radar. While the story at first glance DOES indeed read fantastic.....the irony is that on a certain level i would actually believe that such tech exists.

(Its actually almost as interesting to ask why this "copter" was around in what appeared to be a residential area in/around LV....maybe they forgot to turn off their cloaking or activated it by mistake which they really should not have done for everyone to "see" (no pun intended) ). One interpretation.

reply to post by flexy123


I think you are being told untruths.

Take a CCD - Charge Coupled Device - look at one of the "pixels". A single are on the surface of the chip which is excited by the presence of a photon. The more photons, the more excitement, thus making a measurment of luminensence at that point of the picture.

In the Eye - Rods and cones on the retina are excited by photons sending signals to the brain.

They are more similar than you think.

So if photons can get to your eye from the copter, they can get to the CCD too.

If you think that the copter was using some sort of stealth ray to dissable the camers, then why were they even working? There must have been something on the screens of the cameras - you said they tried to use zoom etc, so they must have been functioning.

So I do not beleive a word of this story. Not attacking you, but I do not beleive your source.

ETA Film is most unlike the human eye, using silver oxide and other chemicals which react to light on a strip of celulose.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
So what is the jammer for a digital camera? And how are the military getting around it themselves with their optical tracking systems?

The two basic ways of foxing a digital camera is to confuse its exposure metering by emitting very bright wide-field pulses of near IR. The human eye doesn't see it, but the camera's brightness metering is often sensitive to IR and will stop the lens down, resulting in a black photo.

You can also pick up focusing pulses from cameras that use IR strobes to do this and "reply" with pulses that he camera will pick up as faux reflections, that throws off the autofocus and gives you blurred images.

A more in-depth, yet field implemented system spots the cameras in its field of vision by looking for "optical glint", the old blinding system just spotted any lensing system and attacked it, the newer post-treaty ones can distinguish between retinae and camera lenses (usually) and pop IR laser pulses at the cameras in range, resulting in whited-out images.

Depending on whether the camera's getting white, black, or defocused images, you can tell what sort of exploit the system used.

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?

.... a bit off topic ,

but couldn't some of you techie types ,

spray some of those cloaky/daggery

titanium oxide baubles ,

on the budget deficit ?