Next Generation Stealth Technology As UFOs
Boeing’s “Bird of Prey” stealth aircraft
Every year, there seems to be less wiggle room for sightings of unidentified flying objects that are truly unidentifiable, because humans keep coming up with more new and amazing stuff.
Based on a recent comment by reader “euphemystic” on another post, I started looking up information on aircraft stealth technology and Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (OLEDs.)
OLEDs are a new type of LED displays that are actually printed on a thin, flexible polymer medium. This type of display is already used in some cel phones and rumored to be coming on the new ipod nano. Sony has just released an 11-inch OLED video monitor that is 3 millimeters thick.
There seems to be no reason why this material could not have been adapted to use for visual stealth applications. By “visual stealth,” I am implying the forbidden-as-wacko-if-you-mention-it word “invisibility.” There have of course been reports on “active camoufage” for ground troops using OLED-printed fabrics, but it would seem easier to apply this technology to airframes.
A Jane’s Defence Weekly article published in 2002 describes the development of the McDonnell-Douglas (later Boeing) project dubbed the “Bird Of Prey,” which was built by Douglas and tested at “Area 51″ from 1992 to 1999. It’s first actual flight was in 1996. This very strange-looking craft was designed as a prototype to test radar, acoustic, and visual stealth theories. Significantly, Boeing officials admitted that the craft’s overall goal was “to achieve daylight stealth.” The unnamed Jane’s writer also added that “The shape of the aircraft, too, is – accidentally or intentionally – laid out to avoid shadows.” I don’t know if that means shadows on the ground, or shadows on the craft itself.
In the early 1980s, Air Force Intelligence and security personnel told ill-fated UFO researcher Paul Bennewitz about an aircraft which rendered itself virtually invisible by projecting whatever was behind it (from the observer’s viewpoint) onto the skin of the aircraft itself. What was described bears a close resemblance to OLED technology. While this may have been disinfo designed to bring spies out of the woodwork, the resemblance may be too close to ignore.
Coupled with the fact that much defense tech is about 10-20 years ahead of where much of the public thinks it is, we can see that one of the very first applications of ultra-thin polymers coated with a bright, light emitting substance would have found its home in the world of black projects.
This of course does not explain UFOs that make very non-aircraft-like maneuvers.
This entry was posted
on Friday, December 7th, 2007 at 2:03 pm and is filed under Conspiracies, Government Projects, UFOlogy, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Ma.gnolia Technorati Help
- Related News Stories:
- Unconventional Aircraft And UFOs »
- UFOs: Us or Them? »
- The Dorito UFO »
- Area 51 Has A New Name »
- The UFO Hunter »
|
Dec 07 2007 
December 7th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Kudos to euphemistic for bringing OLEDS to our attention.
You know? since we know that slowly classified technology leaks to mainstream industry, it would be interesting to research if some major share-holders of Sony happen to be retired USAF officers
PS: Taking a closer look to that photo you pasted, it is interesting to notice how much of the blue of the sky the craft’s skin is absorbing. I don’t know if the photo is retouched, but it would be interesting to see another picture of this bird taken from below.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
I actually think I have seen one of those and that it suddenly disappeared from the sky in the blink of an eye. I could still follow the trails, but I could no longer see the plane making them. Maybe it wasn’t that exact plane, but for the few moments I saw it, it was the same basic shape although I couldn’t make out any wings at all so it gave the impression of a rocket.
I know another of Lesley’s weird stories.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
RPJ,
I should have credited euphemistic for the heads-up. I’ll change that now.
Do you mean the blue that the craft is reflecting? It would seem that the blue should be transfered to the bottom of the craft to make it less visible from the ground, as you imply.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Lesley,
There are supposed to be weird stories on this site! Perhaps you did see one, considering where you live.
Who did you get to give you so many votes on the Other Side Of Truth poll?!
December 8th, 2007 at 4:39 am
I think some fan or fans are cheating for me using a cell phone, which is what the kids do according to Jeremy Vaeni. Although I believed it for a while, it just kept going up too fast. That is the problem with using pollhost. It is also kind of hard to get angry about people cheating for you even though it is wrong. Although, I don’t think I am the only one, the daily grail has over 1000 votes and I don’t believe that many people have voted.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:40 am
Hi Greg et al
I’m in the middle of packing up my flat into boxes so can’t find the references, but at least a decade ago, probably more like 15 years ago, the RAF here in Blighty were showing off plasma-type screens that could be rolled up like paper. I often wondered if these went on to be used in optical stealth coatings, or at least trials of such, in aircraft.
And regarding the ‘Bird of Prey’ - the Star Trek reference in the name seems to me redolent of military -wink wink nudge nudge - humour?
Cheers
Mark
December 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
While everyone’s excited about stealth aircraft, IMHO unidentified man-made aircraft are easily distinguishable from true unconventional aerial phenomena(UAP). They fly at subsonic speeds, in relatively straight lines, and leave vapor trails at higher altitude. UAP’s often perform manuevers that no human could withstand. I’m not terribly worried about stealth aircraft programs as I am about stealth weapons programs. One particular program that was proposed in the ’80’s was a hypervelocity(10x the speed of sound) kinetic weapon the simply pulververizes anything it comes into contact with. Given the right construction, mass, density and velocity it will be quite simple to create a weapon with the same energy output as nuclear weapon without its radiactive fallout. All these programs that talk about comet and asteroids strikes give me the creeps knowing that our gov’t has been interested in kinetic energy weapons for nearly 20 years.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Lesley wrote:
“Although, I don’t think I am the only one, the daily grail has over 1000 votes and I don’t believe that many people have voted.”
Hi Lesley,
I take issue with that statement. While I can’t say for a fact that nobody has done some extra voting for TDG, the fact that we receive between 10,000 and 17,000 individual visitors per day suggests that we are more than capable of convincing 1050 of them to go and vote on the poll.
Kind regards,
Greg
December 8th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Greg I know that you receive zillions of visitors, but it is still likely that a few have done some cheating and I am sure that is the same in all the categories. I was certainly not implying that you are winning because of cheaters. Although, it would be nice if more of them voted in other categories too because it might offset the cheaters.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:15 am
Hi Lesley,
No problems, I was just wondering why you singled out the Daily Grail. I agree, it would have been good for more people from TDG to vote in the other categories…I think though that much of our audience are either ‘casually’ interested in fringe topics, or interested in one specific field - so they may not personally identify with a lot of the UFO-oriented blogs/podcasts etc (which the Zorgy Awards definitely lean towards.) I kicked myself for not nominating Michael Prescott’s blog in the ‘paranormal blog’ section, as I think it’s one of the best when it comes to topics of psychical and afterlife research, which fits under the ‘paranormal’ rubric…though most of Paul’s website visitors probably don’t know a thing about it.
BTW, thanks for mentioning Darklore on your blog, I meant to send you a thank you note but (as with most everything in my life currently) it got lost in the mix.
Kind regards,
Greg
December 9th, 2007 at 4:19 am
Hey Greg,
Sorry about that, but you were the first that came to mind with your whooping 1000 votes and I was too lazy to go see who else was winning. Really a mistake on my part because cheating doesn’t really effect that category since whatever cheating has gone on is just a small part of your 1000 votes.
I am still hoping that there is very little cheating and that my votes are due to the fact that I advertise to vote for TDF on almost all my sites with a direct link. I would like to think I am honestly winning.
I love Darklore, even though I still haven’t had time to read the entire thing. I read all the articles written by my favorites though and they were awesome!
December 9th, 2007 at 5:25 am
Lesley wrote:
“I love Darklore, even though I still haven’t had time to read the entire thing. I read all the articles written by my favorites though and they were awesome!”
Read mine, read mine! Heh.
Sorry for hijacking your blog posting Greg (Bishop). No more off-topic chatting from me.
Kind regards,
Greg
December 9th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Re: “The shape of the aircraft, too, is – accidentally or intentionally – laid out to avoid shadows.” I don’t know if that means shadows on the ground, or shadows on the craft itself.”
Generally, the ultimate goal in camoflage of vehicles, aircraft etc… is to break up all traces of shadows. both on the ground and on the vehicle itself.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Rob,
Welcome, new commenter!
I can understand how shadows might be broken on vehicles, airframes, etc, but how do you reduce or eliminate a ground shadow?
December 11th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Hi Greg,
Well, back in my military days when I was doing it (with vehicles) we couldn’t. So we had to do our best to break up the shadow. The same principals would apply to ships and aircraft.
All I was trying to say, I guess was that total elimination of shadows, silouette, shape and shine are the ultimate goals in cam and concealment.
Also, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that they’ve even managed to eliminate that worry in the new generation of stealth aircraft. How? I couldn’t begin to guess; well I’ll make a guess — special light bending paint? Maybe. Or not.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Greg wrote:
“I can understand how shadows might be broken on vehicles, airframes, etc, but how do you reduce or eliminate a ground shadow?”
Hi Greg,
I’d imagine some principles of refraction, or use of specially placed materials with refracting/reflecting properties, would help do the job.
Not that I’m an expert in the topic!
Kind regards,
Greg
December 12th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
That youtube video of supposed camouflage is almost certainly a simple projection on a reflective jacket. Look at the white lettering at the bottom left, and the white arrow at the bottom right as the person moves back and forth. The size, brightness, and position changes as it would if the image was just projected onto the person.
However, there really is OLED clothing. Scroll down this page, http://www.bimbambanana.com to a t-shirt with an OLED graphic equalizer sewn onto the chest. Don’t throw it into the washing machine. A real OLED invisibility suit would be as cumbersome as armor, and need cameras and computing power to project its surroundings. A tube shape around a person would be easiest but even then, how effective would it be? I also think that luminescent or electroluminescent coatings are better candidates for aircraft to reduce shadows.