Funny T-Shirts

Secretly control the TV,
anywhere, any time!

The "ray" is probably a simple light projector with a camera on the other side of the object being "seen through" sending a signal. This is how that Japanese scientist is demonstrating a "cloaking device". Probably a copycat of the method.

http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume02/diatribes002/images/invisibilitycloak.jpg

http://projects.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDIA/xv/oc.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3791795.stm

There's a pretty quick way to debunk this article:

Note that all we see is a picture of the device, but we never actually see it working. Like, if it's so amazing, old Troy-boy shoulda turned it on and let the reporter snap a pic of it working (not like it couldn't be faked, but still).

This is the WORST piece of "journalism" I've ever seen. The writer should be ashamed. No attempt to do even the most preliminary vetting. No discussions with an actual physicist who could have shot holes in the description from now 'til Domesday.

Be very ashamed of what you have wroght.

At least the journalist knows how to spell.

From the description, it sounds as if he's in part built a very high-powered wide spectrum EMF generator which goes up into the X-ray range. In that case, he probably has only a few years to live.

An unshielded X-ray source is supposed to be pretty easy to build - in the '30s a lot of home science magazines and small presses published plans for them. You can find some of them in reprint presses. The big problem with them is that in the space of a few days of operation they can generate enough stray X-ray radiation to give leukemia to pretty much everyone within a few hundred feet of the machine.

Whether or not this guy is a schmuck, and I believe he probably is, Ultra-Wideband sensing is on the horizon, and is being actively researched in Universities and Startup and R&D companies.

Basically the technology is based on using a wider range of elecromagnetic Frequencies than just light, many of which traval through walls. For instance, infared and microwave radiation can be used alongside visible light to flesh out a person's knowledge of their environment, including areas and things that are visibly obscured by other objects.

So I may not be able to "see" through the garage door, but I may be able to "sense" that there is a large mass in the shape of a car. I may also be able to distinguish, for instance, concrete from metal from flesh. You can imagine how useful this could be.

Stay tuned folks, we're in for an interesting future.

Im going to have to come to the conclusion that the story is bunk and I am ashamed of the journalism (or lack there of) that went into it.

Furthermore... C Royston has one hell of a point! Though I do not wish for the mans death by any means; the article seems to indicate that he will be having a rough time in the near future!

Several comments back someone called Realtronics' website shoddy. Hate to say it, but most small defense contractors websites are shoddy (take a look at ours, http://www.cambertx.com, for example).
I think what Hurtubise has done is use T-wave (terahertz wave) radar. Probably the same thing that Ben W. is referring to. It's legit. Not sure how the EMP effect falls out of it, however.

Lawson

Hrumph...well, I expressed an *opinion* about the likelihood of the existence of a "Discovery Channel documentary" about the Light Infrantry Military Blast Custions...and was taken to task about my *fact* checking. As if I have the same level of responsibility for checking my *opinions* as Reporters have for checking claims they represent as facts.

That being said, I still question the validity of this piece as a "documentary." In this "documentary" there is only *one* person speaking to the properties of the LIMBC: the same guy who "invented" them and is very obviously trying to *sell* them.

There is no comment from any outside, neutral person as to the validity of the test itself, the uniqueness of the cusions, etc. The only quote from the "Canadian military representative" is given to us from...you guessed it...our man the inventor!

Here's the "quote:"
"'He looked at me more than once and said, 'I'm impressed'. I mean, you can't say much more than that.'" Well I must say, I'm convinced!

He also beefs it up with his own opinions. In the reporter's words:

(He's sure he's made) "a big step toward convincing the canadian military" (of the value of the cushions). Golly!

"He's pretty sure (captn. wyonzak) is going to leave impressed." Naturally, according to the reporter the Captain "...isn't permitted to say what he thought of the demonstration." Gee Willikers!

No interviews with anyone else in this "documentary." No materials engineers, no outside expert opinions, nothing.

Anyone who buys into this kind of "proof" of the man's validity needs to look into the herd of Invisible Pink Unicorns I have for sale.

Then, onto the now-familiar over-inflation of his accomplishents: witness our man shouting, "I'M THE KING OF THE MOUNTAIN!" while jumping madly about.

Well, at least now the good folks at baytoday.ca can say they weren't the only ones hoodwinked by this guy. Looks to me like he snowed the Daily Planet as well.

I'm interested in a pink unicorn. How much are they going for?

Hey Intjudo...do you happen to have any Invisible Purple Unicorns with gold horns? I would like to buy one!

There was this lunatic Canadian 'scientist' that was so stupid that he had to work in a rickety shack, with no fancy equipment or facilities. He though that he could cure diabetes! The AIDS of 1900, and he thought he could cure it! It kills 5-10% of all people, is 100% deadly, and the best minds in the world knew it was impossible to cure. He was granted one assistant, and wastes his time taking pancreas from dogs nad mixing them with alcohol in a blender!!!!! Then when his boss stole his idea he didn't get beat him up, and when his boss couldn't remember the recipe the inventor proved it was his idea, but his boss still gets credited with co-inventing. To prove this guy needs to be locked away in an insane asylum, he held the drug that would save millions of people's lives, a drug that could be sold at ANY price, and he gave it away for free! WHAT A LUNATIC.

Name was Frederick Banting, and he's a world hero.

Don't be so quick to dismiss Canadians inventing, against the rules, in garages or shacks - some of you probably owe your lives to it.

Mr. Tesla....Nicola Tesla....You are wanted at the service desk...Please come to the customer service department...Mr. Tesla, please?!

Wow, I just found out about this discussion.

First, I'm not a real person, I'm just a made-up quote by the reporter Phil Novak from North Bay, Ontario. Good sleuthing.

A couple of points:

1) Nowhere in the quotes by me do I say that the device is for real. (I'm not inclined to think it is, and would only be convinced otherwise by a demonstration.) I assured Phil Novak that IF the device worked as described, THEN it would be a truly revolutionary breakthrough beyond all current expectation. That kind of statement is called an "implication" (hands up if you've studied logic) and an implication does not assert the truth of its conditional part. What he specifically asked me was IF it were the case that it worked, how unusual and how significant would that be. Does anybody think that a real working "angel light" if such really existed *would not* be significant?

Let me be clear, it is precisely because the angel light would do such an unusual thing, and have such wide implications, that any claims that it works must be rigorously tested. I was *raising* the bar for acceptance of reports that it worked, trying to get the reporter to challenge more strongly any second-hand reports about the device.

2) To the fella who looked for me in the MIT alumni pages and didn't find me -- yup that proves I don't exist. I'm pretty sure the article didn't say I was a graduate of that fine place. I'm not. But I did work as an instructor/consultant for the IS department for 17 year, which is what the article said.

I'm not a physicist and I don't think the article identified me as one. I have repeatedly advised Troy to contact a reputable university physics lab and to get their help in designing and conducting the fairly simple preliminary tests that would establish whether anyone should spend even another minute looking at his angel light project. I told Mr. Novak of the BayToday website the same thing, and asked him to help Troy make those contacts and set up those tests. That Mr. Novak did not choose to include those remarks is obviously none of my doing.

I like Troy and I like Phil, but their opinions and actions are their own. And to the Christmas Fish who thinks Phil and I look alike -- can I have some of your drugs, please?

If you want to make a useful contribution towards getting to the bottom of all this, write to Mr. Novak at the BayToday website and encourage him to help make clear to Troy that without proper testing, Troy can't expect reasonable people to regard his claims as more than mooonshine.

Finally, believing that the angel light works, and believing that the angel light can't work are both beliefs. I don't take my science "faith-based" either way. Until I see it work or not work, I'm leaving the idea of it filed under "maybe". How about you?

The fact that he says the French gave him $40,000 in "CASH" is a dead giveaway. Either they really did and they want to be able to deny any association to this whack-job, or he is just grasping for some untraceable credibility.
Regardless who would believe a guy with that haircut and Neanderthall head.

When Enrico Fermi and a fellow nuclear researcher tried to explain to an air-force officer the implications of a nuclear fission device the officers nodded along politely, and when Fermi left the room a lieutenant said "That's one crazy wop!".

Let us reserve judgement. I think that such a device would be a godsend, it could disable nuclear warheads in flight! Human annihilation would be averted, for a while.

Mr Dryfoos, I understand that you would not want to discuss this device for reasons of uncertainty, confidentiality and whatever else - but - could you say if it utilizes neutrinos at all?

Dear Lucky,

Yeah, the devices uses neutrinos, very special
trained neutrinos that penetrate your brain and teach you to read.

- I never saw the device fully assembled.

- I never saw the device in operation.

- I don't know if it works.

- I don't have a fixed opinion on whether or not it works.

IF (I keep using that word "if" -- you should look it up) the device were shown to really work, do you know any process in real-world non-looney-bird physics that could explain it? Me neither.

Yo, G. L. Doofus. IF I had an invisible gremlin living under my bed that could violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that would be pretty revolutionary, right? Now, I'm not going to give you any proof he exists, but you don't have any proof he doesn't exist, so we should keep an open mind and file it under "maybe", right?

No we shouldn't. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Invisible entropy-violating gremlins, pink unicorns, astrology, homeopathy, and devices with a bunch of lasers that let you see through walls that are constructed by backwoods unsophisticates of questionable mental competence are all on exactly the same footing. They're so incredibly improbable that it simply isn't necessary to keep an open mind. One would have to provide an EXTRAORDINARY amount of proof to get a real scientist to wake up and take notice. If Troy demonstrated the device and it seemed to work, the most logical conclusion is that it's a hoax (maybe a projector like the other fellow suggested). Troy would have to come up with a pretty fantastic demonstration that would eliminate nearly all possible means of cheating (and I can think of five entirely different methods I could use to build a device--only one of which would cost anywhere close to $40k--that would appear to do the same thing but is really a hoax) for a real scientist to even THINK about testing the device.

This device is a load of moose puckey, pure and simple.

Well, if we assume it works for the purpose of theorizing:

You are not removing the wall, you are simply allowing the light from behind the wall to travel through. The light-bulb which lights up your room does not reflect off the section of wall in question, however. So light travels through the wall in a direction towards you. However it either:
A)does not travel towards that wall Away from you, or
B) does not reflect off that wall, or
C)reflects off the wall but is cancelled out by a wave equal in amplitude but opposite in fequency, or
D)is increased or decreased in frequency beyond our eye's ability to detect. Or
E)something else, or FGHIJK...

Or maybe the angel-light shoots anti-quarks that hit the molecules as anti-colours, so that every colour you would see is cancelled out. When every anti-quark is spent, then the range of the angel-light is reached.

There is all sorts of crazy stuff, crazy stuff in particle physics. Crazy stuff. And I just skimmed wikipedia.

Occam's Razor. Which is more likely? This hick dreamed up some funky particle physics weapon (And antiquarks aren't that exotic. They're pretty common. Also "color" in particle physics terms has nothing to do with "color" in the pedestrian sense of what color the wall is.) that makes walls invisible, or he's cheating.

I actually saw the "Discovery Channel Documentary"...it was a show about military technology or something that had a brief bit with this guy demonstrating his "blast cushions" for a military rep. (The rep himself *never* commented on screen, btw, he just watched.)

The fired all sorts of things at these uber-thick cushions, and they seemed to survive, but it was a big "secret" as to what they were made of, so for all I know they could have had a layer or two of Kevlar sandwiched in them.

But all this proves is how gullible the Discovery Channel is...