Angel Light Sees Through Walls
Troy Hurtubise claims that he's invented a machine, dubbed the Angel Light, that can see through walls. It doesn't really matter what the wall is made of: wood, ceramic, steel, tin, titanium, even lead. The Angel Light can see right through it, just as if a window had opened up in the wall. Of course, he built this thing in his garage (where else?). The idea for the invention came to him in a dream, and he built it without the aid of any blueprints, drawings or schematics. Although Troy may hope to one day be known throughout the world as the inventor of the Angel Light, he's already well known as the inventor of the URSUS MARK VII, a suit that can help a man withstand the attack of a Grizzly Bear (see that suit in the right corner of the thumbnail? That's the Grizzly suit). So from Grizzly Bear suits to Machines That Can See Through Walls. No one can accuse him of not having an interesting resume.
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 13 of 20 pages « First < 11 12 13 14 15 > Last »
Blondin,
Speaking for myself and all the other Troy junkies on this forum: yes PLEASE DO let us know anything you hear about the Angel Light! Especially if you hear that he's going to demonstrate it. What this thread really needs is someone on the scene!
Maybe we can report any activity on a bogus "news" site and see if we can get Fox to pick it up...
Posted by intjudo on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:10 PM
Speaking for myself and all the other Troy junkies on this forum: yes PLEASE DO let us know anything you hear about the Angel Light! Especially if you hear that he's going to demonstrate it. What this thread really needs is someone on the scene!
Maybe we can report any activity on a bogus "news" site and see if we can get Fox to pick it up...
sweetbabyjebus said,
>>The basic statement of the ruling was that FOX news didn't have to 'tell the truth'. <<
To quote the article you pointed to:
"In reality, the FCC has never adopted a formal rule on news distortion. For the FCC to Monday-morning quarterback news decisions would be an obvious violation of news organizations' First Amendment rights. Court decisions are clear, as with a 1985 opinion that concluded the FCC will not 'inquire why a particular piece of information was reported or not reported.'"
Apparently, in theory the FCC can pull the license of a news organization convicted of purposely distorting the truth. However, in practice it seems this power isn't exercised for fear of stomping on First Amendment rights. So, in practice news outlets aren't required to report the truth, and may even get away with deliberate distortion (at least from the FCC's point of view - I know nothing about the body of law governing news reporting). We certainly know they routinely get away with "spinning" the news to Conservative, Liberal etc. viewpoints.
Personally, I can't see how you'd go about enforcing a law forbidding inaccurate/misleading news reporting. It's a classic problem of where-do-you-draw-the-line.
Instead, we're all hoping that Joe Q. Public places a monetary value on accuracy in news reporting, and will take his dollars away from news organizations who don't provide it.
Of course, we've also seen that Joe Q. Liberal will pay for liberally-slanted news that's not neccessarily 100% accurate, and Joe Q. Conservative will pay for his Conservative-slant news...
Ultimately, with freedom comes responsibility. We have the right to pretty much report anything in any way we want, and we have the right to read pretty much any news report we want. Collectively, then, we have the responsibility to weed out the accurate from the inaccurate without Uncle Sam providing any kind of guarantee of accuracy in news reporting.
The ruling was nothing more than our government saying, "we trust Joe Q. Public to make his own decisions about the accuracy of specific news reports, and feel no need to regulate this on his behalf."
One thing that does scare me is when Joe Q. Public mistakes a source of entertainment/opinion as a "news source" e.g. Rush Limbaugh, "Dr." Laura etc. These people are nothing but passionate opinion-providers, they have no journalistic credentials, belong to no journalistic organizations, and have zero journalistic responsibility. Yet they state their opinions, assumptions and guesses as real news, and unfortunately a lot of their audience accepts what they say is "news" as 100%-bona-fide-accurate NEWS.
Next thing you know someone will consider Dave Barry a reliable source of news.
Posted by intjudo on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 06:26 PM
>>The basic statement of the ruling was that FOX news didn't have to 'tell the truth'. <<
To quote the article you pointed to:
"In reality, the FCC has never adopted a formal rule on news distortion. For the FCC to Monday-morning quarterback news decisions would be an obvious violation of news organizations' First Amendment rights. Court decisions are clear, as with a 1985 opinion that concluded the FCC will not 'inquire why a particular piece of information was reported or not reported.'"
Apparently, in theory the FCC can pull the license of a news organization convicted of purposely distorting the truth. However, in practice it seems this power isn't exercised for fear of stomping on First Amendment rights. So, in practice news outlets aren't required to report the truth, and may even get away with deliberate distortion (at least from the FCC's point of view - I know nothing about the body of law governing news reporting). We certainly know they routinely get away with "spinning" the news to Conservative, Liberal etc. viewpoints.
Personally, I can't see how you'd go about enforcing a law forbidding inaccurate/misleading news reporting. It's a classic problem of where-do-you-draw-the-line.
Instead, we're all hoping that Joe Q. Public places a monetary value on accuracy in news reporting, and will take his dollars away from news organizations who don't provide it.
Of course, we've also seen that Joe Q. Liberal will pay for liberally-slanted news that's not neccessarily 100% accurate, and Joe Q. Conservative will pay for his Conservative-slant news...
Ultimately, with freedom comes responsibility. We have the right to pretty much report anything in any way we want, and we have the right to read pretty much any news report we want. Collectively, then, we have the responsibility to weed out the accurate from the inaccurate without Uncle Sam providing any kind of guarantee of accuracy in news reporting.
The ruling was nothing more than our government saying, "we trust Joe Q. Public to make his own decisions about the accuracy of specific news reports, and feel no need to regulate this on his behalf."
One thing that does scare me is when Joe Q. Public mistakes a source of entertainment/opinion as a "news source" e.g. Rush Limbaugh, "Dr." Laura etc. These people are nothing but passionate opinion-providers, they have no journalistic credentials, belong to no journalistic organizations, and have zero journalistic responsibility. Yet they state their opinions, assumptions and guesses as real news, and unfortunately a lot of their audience accepts what they say is "news" as 100%-bona-fide-accurate NEWS.
Next thing you know someone will consider Dave Barry a reliable source of news.
Posted by intjudo on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 06:26 PM:
'The ruling was nothing more than our government saying, "we trust Joe Q. Public to make his own decisions about the accuracy of specific news reports, and feel no need to regulate this on his behalf."'
The case wasn't really about news distortion. It was about firing of two reporters. The jury found only one whistle-blower discrimination, but it was overturned on appeal (because the sacking was based on a threat to complain to the FCC, which was not considered to fall under the whistle-blower law).
There was obviously no court decission to say that you can distort news at will. There was no decission to say that any distortion happened.
The "news distortion" claims in the BGH case have not been properly investigated by the authority under which such claims fall (the FCC). You can only wonder why (maybe there is no case to prove?).
In addition to complaints to the FCC under their news distortion investigation procedure, you also have the option of suing over any damages as a civil complaint (for example bad investment decissions due to false reporting). All you need to do is to have proof that satisfies court/FCC.
The burden of proof varies between those. If you can prove damages, it will be easier to get a favorable ruling about the news itself, because you only need to show negligence (checking facts is part of a reporter's job). With the FCC option you need to prove intentional distortion (they knew the facts but reported something else) but not actual damages.
Posted by Codemonger on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:38 PM
'The ruling was nothing more than our government saying, "we trust Joe Q. Public to make his own decisions about the accuracy of specific news reports, and feel no need to regulate this on his behalf."'
The case wasn't really about news distortion. It was about firing of two reporters. The jury found only one whistle-blower discrimination, but it was overturned on appeal (because the sacking was based on a threat to complain to the FCC, which was not considered to fall under the whistle-blower law).
There was obviously no court decission to say that you can distort news at will. There was no decission to say that any distortion happened.
The "news distortion" claims in the BGH case have not been properly investigated by the authority under which such claims fall (the FCC). You can only wonder why (maybe there is no case to prove?).
In addition to complaints to the FCC under their news distortion investigation procedure, you also have the option of suing over any damages as a civil complaint (for example bad investment decissions due to false reporting). All you need to do is to have proof that satisfies court/FCC.
The burden of proof varies between those. If you can prove damages, it will be easier to get a favorable ruling about the news itself, because you only need to show negligence (checking facts is part of a reporter's job). With the FCC option you need to prove intentional distortion (they knew the facts but reported something else) but not actual damages.
why is this artical even on this site? O_o
Its not a hoax!
Wow there are a lot of Ignorant people here.... >_>
Posted by spaceman on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 03:41 PM
Its not a hoax!
Wow there are a lot of Ignorant people here.... >_>
Spaceman said:
"why is this artical even on this site? O_o
Its not a hoax!
Wow there are a lot of Ignorant people here.... >_>"
Well, if misspelling "article" and insulting people doesn't prove that Angle Light is for real, what COULD?
Facts? Ha! I spit on your "facts."
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 04:00 PM
"why is this artical even on this site? O_o
Its not a hoax!
Wow there are a lot of Ignorant people here.... >_>"
Well, if misspelling "article" and insulting people doesn't prove that Angle Light is for real, what COULD?
Facts? Ha! I spit on your "facts."
Spaceman said...
"Wow there are a lot of Ignorant people here.... >_>"
As evidenced by your being here, saying something so incredibly stupid, and then signing your moniker to it...
Gullible ass people... I suppose you've have your DNA perfected as well Spaceman.
Posted by Mark-N-Isa in Midwest USA on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 04:17 PM
"Wow there are a lot of Ignorant people here.... >_>"
As evidenced by your being here, saying something so incredibly stupid, and then signing your moniker to it...
Gullible ass people... I suppose you've have your DNA perfected as well Spaceman.
Fact: Troy is a real inventor, thats made some amazingly important inventions over the years. Some crazy, some just plain amazing.
I just saw him on Discoveries this week again, talking about Angel Light and also demonstrating his blast pillows to the military.
Angel Light is still a relitivly new invention of his... and as with his other inventions, it will take some time before we see it in action...
But for sure we will see it, and probably on Discovery, or at least some news channel.
Franly, I don't believe that this article should be on this site either. Cause once it is proven to be real, it will defeat the purpose of this sites name!
And Troy isn't even the only person working on such a device, there are other projects done by universities and military that have extreamly simmilar results.
I know that just by posting here, I'm gonna have my post shot at and flamed... just because I'm willing to give trust Troy for as long as it takes for him to prove this one.
Posted by whatstaters on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:35 AM
I just saw him on Discoveries this week again, talking about Angel Light and also demonstrating his blast pillows to the military.
Angel Light is still a relitivly new invention of his... and as with his other inventions, it will take some time before we see it in action...
But for sure we will see it, and probably on Discovery, or at least some news channel.
Franly, I don't believe that this article should be on this site either. Cause once it is proven to be real, it will defeat the purpose of this sites name!
And Troy isn't even the only person working on such a device, there are other projects done by universities and military that have extreamly simmilar results.
I know that just by posting here, I'm gonna have my post shot at and flamed... just because I'm willing to give trust Troy for as long as it takes for him to prove this one.
"Yes, and if we just give time to the moon hoaxers I'm sure they'll be proven right also!!"
Sarcasm, just in case anyone thought I was serious.
Posted by elementc on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 12:42 PM
Sarcasm, just in case anyone thought I was serious.
So, Has anyone heard anymore of this "angel light" project? Im late in the game on this one. I could use a death ray right now.
Posted by Balti-moron in Baltimore on Mon May 09, 2005 at 05:33 AM
Nah, you're only late by a couple of months. :D
Anyhow, this topic is dead for the most part.
Posted by elementc on Mon May 09, 2005 at 12:27 PM
Anyhow, this topic is dead for the most part.
i think you should all wash the cheeto crumbs off your fingers and faces and go talk to real people. outside. you need some sun.
Posted by JS in US on Tue May 10, 2005 at 11:51 AM
listen - troy is a national treasure whether or not the angle light doesnt work (and yes i have SERIOUS doubts that it does) but personally i am rooting for him - it would be awesome. he would show up at the nobel prize ceremony with a box of tim hortons donuts. if you havent seen the documentary project grizzly - you should go and get it right now.
its brilliant.
go troy !
Posted by mim lim in vancouver bc on Thu May 12, 2005 at 12:22 PM
its brilliant.
go troy !
This guy is really messed up. He is now claiming his light can treat cancer. Now it is called the "God Light" This is the best part of this article:
“The only problem is, he told me, is that in removing the Hyde effect we might also remove the Angel Light’s ability to see through walls,”
Wasn't the whole purpose of the light to see through walls?
http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/details.asp?c=8271
Posted by Slick in Boston on Sat May 14, 2005 at 05:55 PM
“The only problem is, he told me, is that in removing the Hyde effect we might also remove the Angel Light’s ability to see through walls,”
Wasn't the whole purpose of the light to see through walls?
http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/details.asp?c=8271
Our friends Troy and Phil Novak strike again with their madcap, wacky and otherwise comedic versions of "Inventing" and "Journalism!" This time in a two-part series!
HILARIOUS!
Part One:
http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/details.asp?c=8267
Part Two:
http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/details.asp?c=8271
More of the same formula, which by now is familiar to anyone who's followed this thread: a bunch of earth-shaking, unsubstantiated claims, a bunch of anonymouse "experts" etc. All spoon-fed to the credulous and would-be scooper Phil Novak.
Phil BTW is either part of an elaborate and sustained hoax or is the world's dumbest journalist working for the world's dumbest editor working for the worst "news"paper ever. The fact that they keep printing this junk is either hilarious or outrageous.
I'm endlessly amused by Troy, but as far as baytoday.ca goes I'm either amused to the point of hilarity or incensed, pending further facts in the matter.
In other related news, I saw Troy in yet another "documentary:" the Max-X TV show of the world's all-time dumbest dudes. Guess who placed in the #1 spot? Right! Our man Troy! World's #1 dumbest dude according to the experts at Max-X! Admittedly this doesn't constitute any kind of proof, but then again neither do the Discovery Channel "documentaries."
Posted by intjudo on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:24 PM
HILARIOUS!
Part One:
http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/details.asp?c=8267
Part Two:
http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/details.asp?c=8271
More of the same formula, which by now is familiar to anyone who's followed this thread: a bunch of earth-shaking, unsubstantiated claims, a bunch of anonymouse "experts" etc. All spoon-fed to the credulous and would-be scooper Phil Novak.
Phil BTW is either part of an elaborate and sustained hoax or is the world's dumbest journalist working for the world's dumbest editor working for the worst "news"paper ever. The fact that they keep printing this junk is either hilarious or outrageous.
I'm endlessly amused by Troy, but as far as baytoday.ca goes I'm either amused to the point of hilarity or incensed, pending further facts in the matter.
In other related news, I saw Troy in yet another "documentary:" the Max-X TV show of the world's all-time dumbest dudes. Guess who placed in the #1 spot? Right! Our man Troy! World's #1 dumbest dude according to the experts at Max-X! Admittedly this doesn't constitute any kind of proof, but then again neither do the Discovery Channel "documentaries."
Here's a "God Light" radio interview:
http://www.intalek.com/AV/Troy-Hurtubise-Interview2.wma
Here's good one-stop-shopping for the Hurtubise junkie:
http://www.americanantigravity.com/hurtubise.shtml
Posted by intjudo on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:44 PM
http://www.intalek.com/AV/Troy-Hurtubise-Interview2.wma
Here's good one-stop-shopping for the Hurtubise junkie:
http://www.americanantigravity.com/hurtubise.shtml
If one thinks this site is a hoax, then write it up on one's personal web blog and drop it. Why one sits here day after day defending their stance on something they do not believe to be real and continues to spew negative remarks on everything written should boggles anyone's mind beyond reason. This creator has done some extravagant things in the past, and will most likely do even more grand things in the future.
As for the whole 'Angel Light' topic, maybe Troy has his reasons for not reassembling the device and demonstrating it. He might have foreseen a use of the device for which it was not intended, and the moral cost was too high for him to pay.
In theory, if Einstein had foreseen the actual destructive force his atom bomb would create, including forces that weren't detected until much later(ex. Fallout), would he have proceeded with the project?
Thou the fundamental difference between the A-bomb and the light was it's intended application. The A-bomb was designed for war, but the science behind it provided numerous technologies we use today such as the nuclear reactor for power, showing multiple applications for the same technology in ways that help advance humanity as a whole. The light however, doesn't have a determined function and could possibly be used in any way the operator of the device could see fit. It should make one stop and consider all the possible applications of the invention, and the moral weight that would be carried caused by the applications of the invention. This might be the reason Troy doesn't push forward. Notice his tendencies towards protective/defensive inventions yet?
Yes, I saw the ~4 days since the previous posting.
Posted by Overstreet on Fri May 20, 2005 at 05:08 AM
As for the whole 'Angel Light' topic, maybe Troy has his reasons for not reassembling the device and demonstrating it. He might have foreseen a use of the device for which it was not intended, and the moral cost was too high for him to pay.
In theory, if Einstein had foreseen the actual destructive force his atom bomb would create, including forces that weren't detected until much later(ex. Fallout), would he have proceeded with the project?
Thou the fundamental difference between the A-bomb and the light was it's intended application. The A-bomb was designed for war, but the science behind it provided numerous technologies we use today such as the nuclear reactor for power, showing multiple applications for the same technology in ways that help advance humanity as a whole. The light however, doesn't have a determined function and could possibly be used in any way the operator of the device could see fit. It should make one stop and consider all the possible applications of the invention, and the moral weight that would be carried caused by the applications of the invention. This might be the reason Troy doesn't push forward. Notice his tendencies towards protective/defensive inventions yet?
Yes, I saw the ~4 days since the previous posting.
Wow, just wow. As much as I find your attempts at mockery thoroughly amusing, I also have to wonder when during your infancy you were dropped on your head. Although there are a few minor errors in some articles, there's no reason to try and pick them apart. Also, I've seen the Daily Planet segments on his inventions and read that they were thoroughly monitered by the Discovery Channel- Troy Hurtubise is not a fake. In fact, I'd say he's a bona fide genius.
Please, take your prepubescent insecurities elsewhere and pull your heads out of your respective asses.
Posted by You've Gotta Be Kidding Me on Thu May 26, 2005 at 11:23 PM
Please, take your prepubescent insecurities elsewhere and pull your heads out of your respective asses.
You've Gotta Be Kidding Me said:
"Wow, just wow. As much as I find your attempts at mockery thoroughly amusing, I also have to wonder when during your infancy you were dropped on your head."
Your silly attempts at insulting us prove NOTHING about Troy's fake "invention." The thing either works or it doesn't. Period. What you think of us is completely irrelevant. Prove that it works as claimed and Troy Hurtubise is a certified genius. If it doesn't, he's just an asshole who is desperate to be CONSIDERED a genius with nothing to back that assessment up.
"Although there are a few minor errors in some articles, there's no reason to try and pick them apart."
By "a few minor errors," do you mean that they seem to uncritically accept Troy's claims of having invented a device that defies the known laws of physics without providing any evidence? I'd call that a "LARGE error."
"Also, I've seen the Daily Planet segments on his inventions and read that they were thoroughly monitered by the Discovery Channel- Troy Hurtubise is not a fake. In fact, I'd say he's a bona fide genius."
What does "thoroughly monitored" mean? They AIRED stories on it, sure, but you seem to be trying to imply that they somehow ran actual TESTING on it. Can you back that up?
"Please, take your prepubescent insecurities elsewhere and pull your heads out of your respective asses."
How long should we wait for proof that Troy's device can see through walls, cure cancer or do any of the other things he claims it can do before we're allowed to laugh out loud?
Posted by crankymediaguy on Fri May 27, 2005 at 11:12 PM
"Wow, just wow. As much as I find your attempts at mockery thoroughly amusing, I also have to wonder when during your infancy you were dropped on your head."
Your silly attempts at insulting us prove NOTHING about Troy's fake "invention." The thing either works or it doesn't. Period. What you think of us is completely irrelevant. Prove that it works as claimed and Troy Hurtubise is a certified genius. If it doesn't, he's just an asshole who is desperate to be CONSIDERED a genius with nothing to back that assessment up.
"Although there are a few minor errors in some articles, there's no reason to try and pick them apart."
By "a few minor errors," do you mean that they seem to uncritically accept Troy's claims of having invented a device that defies the known laws of physics without providing any evidence? I'd call that a "LARGE error."
"Also, I've seen the Daily Planet segments on his inventions and read that they were thoroughly monitered by the Discovery Channel- Troy Hurtubise is not a fake. In fact, I'd say he's a bona fide genius."
What does "thoroughly monitored" mean? They AIRED stories on it, sure, but you seem to be trying to imply that they somehow ran actual TESTING on it. Can you back that up?
"Please, take your prepubescent insecurities elsewhere and pull your heads out of your respective asses."
How long should we wait for proof that Troy's device can see through walls, cure cancer or do any of the other things he claims it can do before we're allowed to laugh out loud?
OMG awesome!! Now its called God Light, and it cures deseases and helps heal faster!!!
This guy Troy is amazing!
http://www.intalek.com/AV/Troy-Hurtubise-Interview2.wma
Posted by Shalay XZealese on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:51 PM
This guy Troy is amazing!
http://www.intalek.com/AV/Troy-Hurtubise-Interview2.wma
I woudl like to point out his history of mental breakdowns and drug abuse. As well as the fact that many of his inventions are common sence. If you put a 5inch thick bag of concrete like material on a car, a bullet wont go through it. His actual knowlage of science is minimal at best.
Posted by Nik on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 07:52 PM
Page 13 of 20 pages « First < 11 12 13 14 15 > Last »