Of course, then the other guys are going to be able to see the top.
“Admiral, forward scouts have observed what appears to be a huge stretch of floating concrete approaching us over the Black Sea!!”
“I was afraid of this. Must be their new stealth carrier.”
I think the guy is confused. It’s not that they couldn’t SEE Columbus’s ships, they couldn’t HEAR it coming…
bacause all of Columbus’s shipbaord ducks were quacking, and the sound didn’t echo.
OK, so paint it to look exactly like a USAF base in somewhere like Arizona. They’ll never have seen that.
I am unable to conceive a claim that is so outrageous. Therefore the OP does not exist, and neither does the movie that is not mentioned in it.
That would be Operation Petticoat .
Never saw it. 
I know you are just joking around, but during WWII the Allies did experiment with a very bizarre camouflage scheme called “Dazzle” that was suposed to confuse observers and make it difficult to determine the identity of the ship and it’s speed and heading. They painted them in giant geometric patterns and, occasionally, bright colors. You can see pictures of Dazzle ships here
How do you know they haven’t already?
Regards,
Shodan
Whoa.
Did it work?
After a hard training of several years during which your pilots get gradually accustomed to your yellow-pink carriers, they might be able to land there.
[sub]And those Dazzle ships surely look like 1910s-style stealth vessels…[/sub]
A couple decades ago, I lived in San Diego. One evening I saw a plane landing at Miramar NAS that the news had told me, only a matter of days before, did not exist. Wouldn’t be built and that was that.
BUT I STILL SAW IT! (It was the Stealth Bomber)
Well, it appears to work pretty good in a black-and-white two-dimensional photograph. I wonder how it worked in real life?
I’ve heard about this sort of camouflage for years, but I never heard that they were painted in bright colors. Black and white patterns that confuse the eye about the silhouette is one thing, but I think you’d have to be insane to use, say, Day-Glo colors on your ship. They’d draw the eye to something not otherwise noticed, ratrher than confusing the eye about the shape of something you know is there.
If the movie’s point is taken at face value, our entire notion of camouflage is entirely wrong! We shouldn’t be hiding by disguising ourselves as familar trees and bushes. We should wear shocking pink and have iridescent green Mohawks! We could make entire populations disappear by acting like pro-Bush liberals and Kerry-voting Reublicans! The mind simply cannot conceive of such entities existing!
Actually it was started in WW-I and the point was that ships and subs of the time used primitive rangefinders through which the sight picture would indeed look two-dimensional – you would compute distance/velocity by observing how large a ship looked in your rangefinder’s field of vision and how long it took to cross a particular arc thereof, and this in turn depended on his quickly determining the relative size of the ship and angle of motion, and seeing it silhouetted against the horizon before they noticed you. Dazzle would make it harder work for the observer to tell where the ship began and ended, which end was fore or aft, if it was coming or going at an angle, and what configuration of ship it was.
By a couple of years into WW2, most navies had gone back to flat haze-grey paintjobs, since now enemies had more sophisticated rangefinders and targeting computers, plus radar and spotter aircraft, so targets could be acquired at much longer distances.
Just one? I haven’t seen the movie, but from what I know about it, it should be one big false factoid after another for the entire length of the film. The movie was done by the followers of JZ Knight, the lady who for the last 20 or 30 years puts on a show where she claims that she is channeling some 35000 year old entity named Ramtha.
To drag this thread even further off topic …
I’ve used a primitive Navy rangefinder and they work stereoscopically. That is to say, the sight picture doesn’t matter a hoot. In the viewfinder, you line up a vertical surface on the target ( say, the mast) in the top of the sightpicture (which corresponds to the viewpoint of the right-side lens) with the same vertical surface in the bottom half of the sight picture ( from the viewpoint of the left-side lens) and then read off the distance in scale at the very bottom of the viewfinder. Dazzle might confuse the viewer as to the type of ship it is, but it isn’t going to stop the spotter from dropping a shell on you.
Actually, that would be a UFO. Unidentified Floating Object.
Gah. Do people just sit in waiting until they can pop up with an accusation of racism on even the most ridiculous grounds?
It’s a crackpot theory. Native Americans were used because they were a culture that wasn’t familiar with large ships, to demonstrate a point. Not because they were an inferior race and therefore couldn’t see the ships. Gah.
Dazzle was designed primarily to counter subs, which did not use stereoscopic rangefinders.
The implication of the tale is that native Americans (a) couldn’t conceive of a large boat, and (b) were too stupid to figure out what it was even when they saw it. It certainly reeks of racism to me.