I find that hard to believe...
Scoates, ebrown_p veracity is known far and wide on A2K. If he says it has not been altered, then it has not been altered one pixtal. What you see is what you get...or don't get.
I've been staring at that thing for half an hour now, and I don't see one trace of a person. Not even an outline, or a blur. I say he doctored the image... perhaps it just not digitally. He could have painted over himself.
I've seen the footage of that on my friends computer. It's not a still image but a screen capture.
The dude walks around and everything. There's also bowling ball looking things and the like too.
Doesn't mean the footage wasn't altered but that'd be harder to do I'd imagine.
With Nano technology it might just be do-able. Adaptive, active camouflage. Trouble is light propogates by 4 different mechanisms and diffuse lighting might present a trouble.
Along another vein the US had discovered a extremely dark paint with phorosus mixed in - it reflects only 0.16% of all light shone on it. A totally black shape would be very hard to target - especially if its against a black background.
Invisibility
Full invisibilty would be impossible because the rendered wearer would become bling because the light waves are going around them.
That's pure bullshit if you don't mind my using scientific debating techniques.
I have no empirical evidence to support my assertion but it has been peer reviewed and that's good enough for me.
