From DISBELIEF to "I AM NOT IMPRESSED"...

The Duke Has No Cloak . . . About Marshall Barnes Community Support From DISBELIEF to "I AM NOT IMPRESSED"... News & Announcements Guest Book The Official History of The Santa Maria Experiment: The World's First Demonstration of a Working Invisibility Cloak! Welcome To The Santa Maria Experiment! Intl-media The Invisible ComputeVision The Santa Maria Experiment Exhibit Library PHYSICS IN TROUBLE... Blog

Answering the Skeptics and Know-It-Alls

"Despite skeptics who thought it could not be accomplished, Kennedy's dream became a reality on July 20, 1969, when Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong took a small step for himself and a giant step for humanity, leaving a dusty trail of footprints on the moon."

- CNN.com, May 25, 2001

Skepticism is no virtue. To not think something is possible is one thing, but to turn doubt into an "ism", or belief system, is sheer folly and for the most obvious and now demonstrable reason - it will attract those who have no talent, education, or intelligence who desire to uplift themselves by deriding others and can do so by simply saying "I don't believe it!", "Impossible!", "That's crazy!" etc. If skepticism, as it is practiced today, had been the rule centuries ago, we would all still be living in a primitive culture with no technological advancements.

Despite previous transparent presentations of the facts surrounding the type of invisibility demonstrated in our exhibit, there have been those who don't seem able to wrap their minds around it. Conversely, there have been a few remarks claiming to have known all about it before, insisting that it's "no big deal" or that they had seen the same thing before with camera "filters", yet there's no literature published on it before 1994 and the vast majority of people, including PhD physicists seem completely ignorant of it. Certainly, even if a few individuals did see a similar effect through other means, the obvious implications were lost on them or they would have developed it. There's a name for this too - "shoulda, coulda, woulda". Here's our attempt to deal with it once and for all.

This is all just Photoshop...

Wrong. Many of the images here and at the exhibit site are from live action video footage shot to reveal exactly what is happening. Marshall Barnes, the discoverer and developer of this type of invisibility, is a known special effect expert. That being the case, he went through specific steps to show that the effect was not chroma key, Ultimatte, luminous key, or any other type of video special effect. As for the photo stills of the Santa Maria, the subtle beauty of the effects in the various shots (many not on this web site) are beyond anything that Photoshop was capable of in 1994. The 1994 date is authenticated by the fact that there were at least two published articles that featured this approach that year and at least one radio report (see Official History Of... page ).

Anymore, anyone claiming that a photo anywhere was done with "Photoshop" can be written off as another crank "know-it-all" looking for attention. The sure sign that such is the case is when they fail to follow-up that claim with an explanation as to how it would have been created with Photoshop in order to achieve the various visual qualities that may be in the shot. There are of course many special effect photos, and even hoax pics, on the World Wide Web, to be sure, which is why careful consideration and analysis should be taken when viewing anything of an unusual nature. That said, it does not mean that unbridled skepticism is warranted nor ignoring the facts that, in this case, there have been repeated demonstrations of the optical phenomena being described at the exhibit as well as the obvious fact that if the effect wasn't real the exhibit would never have been allowed to be created at the Santa Maria Visitor Education Center site in the first place.

THIS ISN'T INVISIBILITY

Although it is true that the exhibit doesn’t feature the type of invisibility made popular in movies like the Invisible Man and Harry Potter, that type of invisibility is not possible. We are planning a physics section to our site that will continue this discussion in much more detail, however, the type of invisibility that is demonstrated here is beyond anything that anyone else had in 1994, when it was first demonstrated, and with the proprietary knowledge that Marshall has obtained, it is beyond anything currently available today. A most dramatic example of this took place at the state capital building in Columbus when a suspicious package was noticed and treated as a bomb threat. With the proprietary knowledge of the process exhibited here, such a thing could have been made invisible so that it would not have been noticed. Fortunately, in this real life case, the suspicious package was merely filled with clothes; however, Marshall takes the possibility of invisible ordnance scenarios serious enough that he will in no way reveal how to achieve more advanced invisibility modes just to satisfy the skeptical.

THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER INVISIBILITY DEMONSTRATIONS BEFORE...

Yes. The guy in in helmet and gloves in the chamber and the bat in the vat. There have been alleged demonstrations of optical invisibility before and that's just the problem - they are more alleged than documented. In fact, before making the claim of the first working demonstration of invisibility cloaking, Marshall considered these two other cases and came to the conclusion that since neither were documented by more than one source, and neither were explained, that they didn't qualify as actual demonstrations because they couldn't be identified as anything more than urban legend.

As you will read here, the case with the man vanishing in the glass chamber is not explained from any technical viewpoint by the demonstrator, so there is no way to determine whether it was some kind of stage trick or not. The bat in the glass jar with the fluid doesn't count specifically because, even if the chemical descriptions are accurate, it is not a form of cloaking and it seems to merely make the bat's "tissue" look transparent. Notice that the result seems to be like an X-ray which doesn't explain why internal organs aren't visible if the solution is merely making the outside tissue of the bat transparent. Marshall has a copy of the article as well and this so-called photo is a poorly made photocopy, just as described in the article. The chemical cocktail that supposedly acheived this effect is supposed to make tissue transparent, but there is nothing about any other kind of matter. That said, there is then great restriction on practical application, again, if it is even real to begin with.

A rather common science class experiment that is similar to that with the transparent bat involves a Pyrex beaker filled with Wesson oil and some other liquid (not water) that then makes a slide or test tube placed in it invisible. It does not produce the same effect as the bat example but it's actually better. There is no known originator of this discovery. In any case, the practicality of either approach is nil.

In order for a claim to be considered valid, there has to be some documented record, technical explanation as well as evidence that it has actually been demonstrated to work, as advertised. None of these cases has all three. At least the Duke case has two of the three, but of course the one it lacks - working as advertised, is the biggest reason why it doesn't qualify as a legitimate claim. That, and the fact that it's 14 years too late and there's a 30 year ETA for it to meet those hyped expectations...

UPDATE! - 11/2/2007

Marshall has pointed out that the beaker with Wesson oil invisibility effect is more limited than we first mentioned, due to the fact that the test tube or slide that becomes invisible was already transparent to begin with. We've found no examples so far where opaque objects have been used with the same success. Certainly not approaching the success of the SME tests.

"THIS IS NOT ENOUGH!"

Pictured above: Testing area for a green marker cap to be rendered invisible. Cap is already in place and 98% invisible.

"A fuzzy photograph and some anecdotal claims is not sufficient evidence. Where did Marshal (sic) publish his findings so we might scrutinize his work? What were the details of his experiment? Who manufactures the "diffractive film" he used? What is the nature of the film (ie. is it a thin, thick, molded, extruded, etc.. )? How about a diagram demonstrating how the film was used in each experiment? ... Anything?"

- Quartermain, August 30, 2004

The above comment is typical of those who don't want to accept the reality of the existence of things that they feel threaten them. The photos aren't "fuzzy". In fact, some optical artifacts were left intentionally so that claims of double exposures or, in the case of video footage, chroma key and other video special effects, could not be made. Video matting techniques do not create the types of optical artifacts in the image that are sometimes present. Also, as in the case of the spool of thread, it is clear that the pen that appears visible from behind the spool is also effected somewhat by the diffraction process. A key or matte effect would not produce such results.

Marshall did not take findings originally to have them published in a journal because his intention was to prove that the information in the interview with the anonymous scientist was valid (see History). Though there is a diagram at the physical exhibit site at the Santa Maria Visitor Education Center of how the film was used, Marshall has no intention of publishing his findings now, or revealing "who manufactures the 'diffractive film', ... the nature of the film (ie. is it a thin, thick, molded, extruded, etc.." or any other technical details because of the now proprietary nature of them as well as concerns for public safety and National Security which supersede satisfying the skeptical whims of anyone who feels they have an axe to grind. It is also worthy of note that the absence of the information that Quartermain was demanding doesn't change the fact that the process works. That's like saying that because the information concerning the engine, transmission and tires on a car are not known, it is impossible for that car to win a race, even if it already has.

The fact remains that Marshall's development has been reported on by journalists who have seen it first hand, it has been documented in live action footage so as to disprove claims of trick photography, appeared on television, and it is now weaponized. Deal with it, Mr. Quartermain.

ISN'T THIS JUST THE SAME AS THOSE X-RAY SPECS?

No. There have been a few people who have asked about the connection between the infamous X-ray glasses from comic book advertising and the approach to invisibility cloaking that Marshall has pursued. In fact, Marshall made a trip to a novelty store himself to see if by chance there was anything to the idea, and there isn't. This article explains in detail how x-ray glasses or "specs" as they are sometimes called, work and the description it gives clearly differentiates the operational nature of the x-ray glasses from the material that Marshall has employed in the past. The key factor is that the x-ray glasses maintain a dark center to the image while making the edges of the image appear to be transparent. It is very obvious, from the extensive photography displayed on this site and at the SME physical exhibit, that the objects in question have transparent appearing centers, in those cases when the centers haven't completely vanished to begin with.

Image:X-ray specs hand.jpg Image courtesy Herostratus at en.wikipedia

"Has anyone ever heard of this 'diffraction film' stuff before?

The above is a quote from some guy named "Steve" from a photography firm called Digital Fusion, commenting on the fringe science list of Keelynet.com in October of 1999 (another indicator that Marshall's work was established years before the Duke claim). So we have, in direct contrast to the previous comment about invisibility through diffraction being no big deal and well known from camera filters, another photo professional claiming to have never heard of such a thing but that it could be "easily faked".

Slavek Krepelka ( slavek.krepelka@sympatico.ca ), posting during the same thread said, "Hello all.
The strange fact is that the table is not semi-transparent as well. Why?" to which he got no response from the list. So much for Steve's photo expertise in this area, huh? We'll help poor Slavek out - the table is reflecting light back brighter than anything else in the shot. In contrast, the black spool of thread is not reflecting light back as brightly and so it is fading out visually, the light from the table and the pen being folded in front of it, cloaking it and, we might add, without light moving around the spool, which is the model of invisibility cloaking that Duke is stuck on.

Jerry Decker, who started the thread had the odd comment -

"Well, having worked in photography and electronics for 22 years, I have
to say the photo could be faked...its more a blur/streak of brown
similar to the table top."

to which Marshall responds that "Jerry may or may not have worked in photography and electronics for all those years but he needs glasses for sure since there's no 'blur/streak of brown similar to the table' - there's nothing but light reflecting back from the table top. Even the grain pattern from the table is visible in the portion cloaking the spool".

We might also add that Mr. Decker seems to have completely ignored the more obvious fact that there's a pen that seems clearly visible through the spool, for crying out loud...

There will always be naysayers...But they don't have to be tolerated.

"In order to be responsible and useful, skepticism must respect the basic scientific process, rather than seeking to undermine it. It's one thing to doubt. But it's something else altogether to undermine the best mechanism we have at our disposal for knowing anything."

- Chris Mooney, columnist for CSICOP

The above quote is from a column from the infamous skeptical group, the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). We quote it here for ironic reasons. To shrug off those who are skeptical of something that is already documented and a demonstrated reality. Just because all aspects of something aren't known by every Tom, Dick or Harry that demands to know them, doesn't void the fact that that something is real. Likewise, simply because something may not seem novel enough doesn't mean it isn't a breakthrough. After all, if it weren't, everybody would already know everything about it.