Hoax Museum Archives
Hoax Museum Hall of Fame
|
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 16 of 20 pages « First < 14 15 16 17 18 > Last »
Actually the term crack heads refered back to my comment above (The crack about..).
That's called a double entendre. I learned about those in high school english. That and generalizations.
Hmm, maybe you should try a high school english class yourself.
As regards the abstractions,
The one we are referencing is his use of the term "Japan" from the article:
"Japan," he says, "has the foresight to say, 'Give this man a half a million dollars, let him build the Mark VII. All we want from it is the blueprints."
I don't see an internal conversation there. Point it out to me, why don't you?
Maybe that's one of those seemingly asserted things you were going on about, huh? (Like the way I seem to have asserted that someone buying an invention is proof that the invention works?)
In answer to that, go back and look at the literal, (as opposed to seemingly asserted) meaning of my statement. It has nothing to do with the feasability of the invention, but merely states that this guy appears to have a positive cash flow NOW, whereas he was $37,000 in debt before. (In fact the bear suit was being auctioned off by bankruptcy trustees.)
I merely took the information given in the article and hypothesized that, somehow, he had gotten far enough out of debt to go and dump another sizeable chunk of cash into his new "Angel Light" project.
I don't have someone "with high-school reading/comprehension skills" right at hand, but if I did, he or she would probably notice the flaw in your whole "mobility" argument, as referenced to the article. Go back and read it, I'll wait.....
You see? He wasn't talking about "Japan" buying the Mark VI. He was refering to investment capital for the Mark VII.
"This suit will have 90 percent flexibility. I can sit down and have a cup of coffee with it on."
We know he built the Mark VI to be able to withstand a beating, and now (according to the article) he has the mobility issue resolved (at least on paper).
That's from the article. And then zip forward to NOW. And he's gone and put a big chunk of money into the "Angel Light". Where did he get it?
I can't believe the "scrap business" is that lucrative, to allow him the finances AND the time to put into his inventions. Again, he was in debt to the tune of $37000 before, where was that "comfortable living" then? (Hi Geebs!)
Really, seriously, WHERE DID HE GET THE MONEY???
You're welcome.
P.S. Grown ups who giggle are often insane. You should have that checked out.
Posted by John on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 10:14 PM
That's called a double entendre. I learned about those in high school english. That and generalizations.
Hmm, maybe you should try a high school english class yourself.
As regards the abstractions,
The one we are referencing is his use of the term "Japan" from the article:
"Japan," he says, "has the foresight to say, 'Give this man a half a million dollars, let him build the Mark VII. All we want from it is the blueprints."
I don't see an internal conversation there. Point it out to me, why don't you?
Maybe that's one of those seemingly asserted things you were going on about, huh? (Like the way I seem to have asserted that someone buying an invention is proof that the invention works?)
In answer to that, go back and look at the literal, (as opposed to seemingly asserted) meaning of my statement. It has nothing to do with the feasability of the invention, but merely states that this guy appears to have a positive cash flow NOW, whereas he was $37,000 in debt before. (In fact the bear suit was being auctioned off by bankruptcy trustees.)
I merely took the information given in the article and hypothesized that, somehow, he had gotten far enough out of debt to go and dump another sizeable chunk of cash into his new "Angel Light" project.
I don't have someone "with high-school reading/comprehension skills" right at hand, but if I did, he or she would probably notice the flaw in your whole "mobility" argument, as referenced to the article. Go back and read it, I'll wait.....
You see? He wasn't talking about "Japan" buying the Mark VI. He was refering to investment capital for the Mark VII.
"This suit will have 90 percent flexibility. I can sit down and have a cup of coffee with it on."
We know he built the Mark VI to be able to withstand a beating, and now (according to the article) he has the mobility issue resolved (at least on paper).
That's from the article. And then zip forward to NOW. And he's gone and put a big chunk of money into the "Angel Light". Where did he get it?
I can't believe the "scrap business" is that lucrative, to allow him the finances AND the time to put into his inventions. Again, he was in debt to the tune of $37000 before, where was that "comfortable living" then? (Hi Geebs!)
Really, seriously, WHERE DID HE GET THE MONEY???
You're welcome.
P.S. Grown ups who giggle are often insane. You should have that checked out.
John:
From wikipedia.org:
"A double entendre is a figure of speech similar to the pun, in which a spoken phrase can be understood in either of two ways. The first, literal meaning is an innocent one, while the second meaning is often risqué and requires the hearer to have some additional knowledge....
"The risqué, generally sexual, element is central to most people's understanding of what a double entendre is; indeed the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as 'A double meaning; a word or phrase having a double sense, especially as used to convey an indelicate meaning'."
Your play on the word "crack" was a simple reference or perhaps a pun (and too obtuse for me, sorry but I missed it), but certainly not a double entendre. Unless you can explain the risque overtones of the word "crack heads."
As for Troy's internal conversation, it goes like this:
Troy: Hi, Japan!
Japan: Hi, Troy!
Troy: Wanna buy my bear suit technology?
Japan to Japan: Give this man a half a million dollars, let him build the Mark VII. All we want from it is the blueprints.
It's pretty clear from the article that he's fantasized about this scenario: "And he fully expects a corporate backer, probably Japanese, to front him the $500,000 he needs for the Mark VII, the ultimate Ursus suit." He's even worked out the dialogue.
Don't you think it's funny that Troy thinks he has a chance in hell of "Japan" forking over a half a mil so he continue this travesty?
You hypothesized that Troy made money by selling his inventions, and I admit you never asserted that means they work. So I have to ask you: are you hypothesizing that Troy made a bunch of bucks selling inventions that *don't* work, or *might* work? I'm asking because in general people don't spend significant sums of money on stuff that doesn't work as advertised.
As for the mobility thing...I was debunking your admiration for the suit's impregnable characteristics. I merely pointed out that an impregnable suit that can't be manuvered is useless. As for his claims that the *next* suit will have more flexibility, I think taking those with a grain of salt is a safe bet. Besides, the phrase "90% flexibility" is hilarious!
Where did he get the money? Who *cares?* However, if you have any evidence that Troy has made money selling *any* invention please do tell, because there are a lot of web searches wrapped up in the 16 pages of this conversation and so far we've found precisely one reference to Troy selling an invention. The reference comes from...big surprise! Troy himself! Oh, and he can't actually name the person or entity who bought it. Or where that person/entity is. Or how they're using his invention.
I'm sorry if you felt insulted by my response to your post, but where I come from you ought to expect 'em if you dish 'em out. Please note there are no insults in *this* post.
One thing we agree on: the guy is completely sideways.
Still laughing, --intjudo
Posted by intjudo on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 05:41 PM
From wikipedia.org:
"A double entendre is a figure of speech similar to the pun, in which a spoken phrase can be understood in either of two ways. The first, literal meaning is an innocent one, while the second meaning is often risqué and requires the hearer to have some additional knowledge....
"The risqué, generally sexual, element is central to most people's understanding of what a double entendre is; indeed the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as 'A double meaning; a word or phrase having a double sense, especially as used to convey an indelicate meaning'."
Your play on the word "crack" was a simple reference or perhaps a pun (and too obtuse for me, sorry but I missed it), but certainly not a double entendre. Unless you can explain the risque overtones of the word "crack heads."
As for Troy's internal conversation, it goes like this:
Troy: Hi, Japan!
Japan: Hi, Troy!
Troy: Wanna buy my bear suit technology?
Japan to Japan: Give this man a half a million dollars, let him build the Mark VII. All we want from it is the blueprints.
It's pretty clear from the article that he's fantasized about this scenario: "And he fully expects a corporate backer, probably Japanese, to front him the $500,000 he needs for the Mark VII, the ultimate Ursus suit." He's even worked out the dialogue.
Don't you think it's funny that Troy thinks he has a chance in hell of "Japan" forking over a half a mil so he continue this travesty?
You hypothesized that Troy made money by selling his inventions, and I admit you never asserted that means they work. So I have to ask you: are you hypothesizing that Troy made a bunch of bucks selling inventions that *don't* work, or *might* work? I'm asking because in general people don't spend significant sums of money on stuff that doesn't work as advertised.
As for the mobility thing...I was debunking your admiration for the suit's impregnable characteristics. I merely pointed out that an impregnable suit that can't be manuvered is useless. As for his claims that the *next* suit will have more flexibility, I think taking those with a grain of salt is a safe bet. Besides, the phrase "90% flexibility" is hilarious!
Where did he get the money? Who *cares?* However, if you have any evidence that Troy has made money selling *any* invention please do tell, because there are a lot of web searches wrapped up in the 16 pages of this conversation and so far we've found precisely one reference to Troy selling an invention. The reference comes from...big surprise! Troy himself! Oh, and he can't actually name the person or entity who bought it. Or where that person/entity is. Or how they're using his invention.
I'm sorry if you felt insulted by my response to your post, but where I come from you ought to expect 'em if you dish 'em out. Please note there are no insults in *this* post.
One thing we agree on: the guy is completely sideways.
Still laughing, --intjudo
OOO,
I got burned!
No really, why don't you even pay attention to your own posts? The Wikipedia reference states "the second meaning is often risqué".... often risqué...
"often" Compact Oxford English Dictionary
adverb (oftener, oftenest) 1 frequently. 2 in many instances
Does that mean "always" where you come from?
Where did you get the idea that "in general people don't spend significant sums of money on stuff that doesn't work as advertised."
Don't you pay attention to this website and others like it? People throughout history have "often" (second meaning) done just that!
I suffered a repetitive motion back injury some years ago and after a year of therapy I was told by my chiropractor that I would never regain more than 93% of my original flexibility. Hilarious.
Posted by john on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:10 PM
I got burned!
No really, why don't you even pay attention to your own posts? The Wikipedia reference states "the second meaning is often risqué".... often risqué...
"often" Compact Oxford English Dictionary
adverb (oftener, oftenest) 1 frequently. 2 in many instances
Does that mean "always" where you come from?
Where did you get the idea that "in general people don't spend significant sums of money on stuff that doesn't work as advertised."
Don't you pay attention to this website and others like it? People throughout history have "often" (second meaning) done just that!
I suffered a repetitive motion back injury some years ago and after a year of therapy I was told by my chiropractor that I would never regain more than 93% of my original flexibility. Hilarious.
I have no solid opinion on the validity of this matter (even though it does sound fairly far fetched). I was interested to check out the realtronics website on internic whois.
Domain Name: REALTRONICS.COM
Registrar: GKG.NET, INC.
Whois Server: whois.gkg.net
Referral URL: http://www.gkg.net
Name Server: NS.BHFC.NET
Name Server: NS2.BHFC.NET
Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
Updated Date: 16-oct-2004
Creation Date: 29-sep-1999
Expiration Date: 29-sep-2013
How long has this "hoax" been going on? Since '99?
Posted by Neosalvo on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 05:38 AM
Domain Name: REALTRONICS.COM
Registrar: GKG.NET, INC.
Whois Server: whois.gkg.net
Referral URL: http://www.gkg.net
Name Server: NS.BHFC.NET
Name Server: NS2.BHFC.NET
Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
Updated Date: 16-oct-2004
Creation Date: 29-sep-1999
Expiration Date: 29-sep-2013
How long has this "hoax" been going on? Since '99?
I've seen the discovery channel show on this Angel Light. It looked real. I also heard the fellow talk on coasttocoastam. I don't think it's a hoax unlike a lot of other topics on "coast." You call it a hoax when you don't know anyting about it. People thought the lazer beem was science fiction when it was first built. Who's laughing now on that one? People laughed at Galileo and said he was a nut when he said a bb would fall at the same speed as a cannon ball. That's why Galileo is well read nowadays and his doubters have drowned in obscurity. I'd would rather be a nut myself. this fellow will be laughing all the way to the bank while you laugh at him.
Posted by portamenteff on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 11:32 PM
portamenteff, your logic is flawed. Basically you said that because people laughed at claims made by other people in the past, the fact that people laugh at Troy's claims may mean that his "invention" is legitimate.
That, of course, is nonsense. The reaction of other people has no bearing on whether or not Troy's "invention" is real or not. Either it works or it doesn't. No one has suggested that people's reaction to it is proof that it doesn't work. I'll repeat: either it works or it doesn't. So far, Troy has provided NO proof that it does, so there is simply no evidence that it is legitimate. Period.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Mon Oct 24, 2005 at 12:21 PM
That, of course, is nonsense. The reaction of other people has no bearing on whether or not Troy's "invention" is real or not. Either it works or it doesn't. No one has suggested that people's reaction to it is proof that it doesn't work. I'll repeat: either it works or it doesn't. So far, Troy has provided NO proof that it does, so there is simply no evidence that it is legitimate. Period.
portamenteff,
Did you see the Discovery Channel/Angel Light show on TV or on the Web? Can you post a Web link?
Posted by anon on Mon Oct 24, 2005 at 06:46 PM
Did you see the Discovery Channel/Angel Light show on TV or on the Web? Can you post a Web link?
this guy lives just outside of where i live. he is a nut. look at his hairdo. and the baytoday is just a little web publication. they were probably just looking for something to write. he is not an MIT alumni, and who said he was? this guy is a weirdo. end of story.
i could not take him seriously when he came in to the store where i used to work. and he's a bit of a dick too.
Posted by paolo on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 11:50 AM
i could not take him seriously when he came in to the store where i used to work. and he's a bit of a dick too.
Hey Fellas,
I/ve know about this guy for years. This Angel light thing sounds crazy, but so has everything else he's done, and he has done them. Haven't you seen when he chucks himself down the cliff? It is f-ing crazy, How about when he paints a hockey helmet with his paste and does an interview while some blasts his head with a 2000 degree celsius blowtorch. That's been on discovery channel and they shot the footage - it wasn't supplie by Hurtubise. They also did a show on his armoured bag that talkes the equivilant of a RPG strike in dynamite strapped to the outside, and leaves a car door intact behind it. I hear there is third party footage, but havent seen it where he demos his paint that stops the most powerful bullets around 30-06, or 303s or something. As to it not being bought, the government is sitting on armour it has in warehouses in the states (AP, Reuters) instead of sending it to Iraq, so it isn't surprising that they don't wan't this stuff. In fact it seems they only by from themselves - haliburton, Tamiflu. You guys sound like a bunch of bitter sissies who have never created anything, and try to make yourselves feel better by trashing weirdos, like Hurtubise. It's dinks like you who would have us back in the stone-age just to save your fragile illusions about your importance and place in the world. Contribute or Shut the F-Up
Posted by believer in canada on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 09:46 PM
I/ve know about this guy for years. This Angel light thing sounds crazy, but so has everything else he's done, and he has done them. Haven't you seen when he chucks himself down the cliff? It is f-ing crazy, How about when he paints a hockey helmet with his paste and does an interview while some blasts his head with a 2000 degree celsius blowtorch. That's been on discovery channel and they shot the footage - it wasn't supplie by Hurtubise. They also did a show on his armoured bag that talkes the equivilant of a RPG strike in dynamite strapped to the outside, and leaves a car door intact behind it. I hear there is third party footage, but havent seen it where he demos his paint that stops the most powerful bullets around 30-06, or 303s or something. As to it not being bought, the government is sitting on armour it has in warehouses in the states (AP, Reuters) instead of sending it to Iraq, so it isn't surprising that they don't wan't this stuff. In fact it seems they only by from themselves - haliburton, Tamiflu. You guys sound like a bunch of bitter sissies who have never created anything, and try to make yourselves feel better by trashing weirdos, like Hurtubise. It's dinks like you who would have us back in the stone-age just to save your fragile illusions about your importance and place in the world. Contribute or Shut the F-Up
I'll say it again. If it worked, which the fire paste does, he would have called Discovery Channel and had them come back to do a story on his latest invention.
He hasn't because it doesn't. End of story. Case closed.
Posted by boredom on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 05:24 AM
He hasn't because it doesn't. End of story. Case closed.
look... this guy may be crazy. but i know one thing for sure.. he is not good at marketing. if he built a lighter suit with less armor which was thought for self defense for civilians or even soldiers against enemy attack lots of people would support him. i know that this grizzly suit is pretty heavy and hard to carry but the blast cushion pad impressed me alot. Its somehow stronger and more durable than metal yet its lighter. why doesnt the army build helicopters protected with this stuff??? then some arab would not shoot down your (i say your cause im not american) apaches with pneumatic air guns 
))) i am very impressed and dont know why the army doesnt use these stuff on their vehicles... it would be impossible to destroy them with bombs. i think you should not make fun of this guy. he may not be a real scientist but the stuff he invents impressed me so far.
Posted by someone in in the middle of nowhere on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 07:08 AM
))) i am very impressed and dont know why the army doesnt use these stuff on their vehicles... it would be impossible to destroy them with bombs. i think you should not make fun of this guy. he may not be a real scientist but the stuff he invents impressed me so far.You're trying to tell me that some random guy from Canada who has spoken with, if you can believe him, "Japan" is incapable of saying, "Discovery channel, it's me again. Come up here and I'll show you something I built that lets you see through walls with the naked eye."
Second, don't overstate his "armor". It is durable, but it isn't indestructible. It is not "impossible to destroy with bombs".
Third, the reason you can shoot down a helicopter with, as you said, an "air gun" is because helicopters have fragile points that cannot be armored. Most notably, the rotors.
Posted by boredom on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 07:48 AM
Second, don't overstate his "armor". It is durable, but it isn't indestructible. It is not "impossible to destroy with bombs".
Third, the reason you can shoot down a helicopter with, as you said, an "air gun" is because helicopters have fragile points that cannot be armored. Most notably, the rotors.
believer said:
"It's dinks like you who would have us back in the stone-age just to save your fragile illusions about your importance and place in the world. Contribute or Shut the F-Up"
Personal attacks are irrelevant. Either the thing works or it doesn't. Period. The burden of proof is on Troy and so far, he hasn't met it. Weren't we supposed to have seen some sort of definitive evidence of this thing's ability to see through solid objects by now?
The fact is that we skeptics do not believe Troy's claims for this device because:
1: The claims appear to defy the known laws of physics.
2: He hasn't demonstrated that the thing works.
If and when he can prove that he has invented a machine which can see through solids (not using X-rays, obviously) then the world will have to acknowledge that he is a genius. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though.
If you'd care to discuss this further without the insults, have at it. If the crux of your "arguments" is that skeptics are doodyheads, well, why should we take your seriously?
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:21 PM
"It's dinks like you who would have us back in the stone-age just to save your fragile illusions about your importance and place in the world. Contribute or Shut the F-Up"
Personal attacks are irrelevant. Either the thing works or it doesn't. Period. The burden of proof is on Troy and so far, he hasn't met it. Weren't we supposed to have seen some sort of definitive evidence of this thing's ability to see through solid objects by now?
The fact is that we skeptics do not believe Troy's claims for this device because:
1: The claims appear to defy the known laws of physics.
2: He hasn't demonstrated that the thing works.
If and when he can prove that he has invented a machine which can see through solids (not using X-rays, obviously) then the world will have to acknowledge that he is a genius. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though.
If you'd care to discuss this further without the insults, have at it. If the crux of your "arguments" is that skeptics are doodyheads, well, why should we take your seriously?
Bra*VO* to Believer...what a *spectacular* rant!
Let's break it down for full enjoyment:
Contents:
1. Irrelevant, anecdotal "evidence"
2. Inconclusive "evidence"
3. Speculation
4. Hearsay
5. Personal Insults
6. Profanities
Added Bonus: an implication that folks like himself, presumably by employing the above tactics, are responsible for bringing the human race out of the Stone Age. Well thank you Mr. Believer for being the ballast of common sense that keeps this crazy ship of humanity from sinking!
It seems that in Mr. Believer's view, repeatable and measurable observations, testable hypothesis, experimental proof and outside verification of results had nothing to do with the human race's advancement past the Stone Age.
He then wraps it all up by proposing, and simultaneously breaking, the following (brilliantly inane) rule: "Contribute or shut the F-Up".
I guess the name says it all: "Believer."
Believer: I know it's too much to ask, since you've already been kind enough to provide all this free entertainment, but if you could respond with another reckless, uninformed rant we'd all love a few more chuckles.
Forgive me for indulging in my own bit of pure speculation but *you* sound like someone who's rhetorical toolbox is limited to insults, intimidation and emotional appeals.
Posted by intjudo on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 02:15 AM
Let's break it down for full enjoyment:
Contents:
1. Irrelevant, anecdotal "evidence"
2. Inconclusive "evidence"
3. Speculation
4. Hearsay
5. Personal Insults
6. Profanities
Added Bonus: an implication that folks like himself, presumably by employing the above tactics, are responsible for bringing the human race out of the Stone Age. Well thank you Mr. Believer for being the ballast of common sense that keeps this crazy ship of humanity from sinking!
It seems that in Mr. Believer's view, repeatable and measurable observations, testable hypothesis, experimental proof and outside verification of results had nothing to do with the human race's advancement past the Stone Age.
He then wraps it all up by proposing, and simultaneously breaking, the following (brilliantly inane) rule: "Contribute or shut the F-Up".
I guess the name says it all: "Believer."
Believer: I know it's too much to ask, since you've already been kind enough to provide all this free entertainment, but if you could respond with another reckless, uninformed rant we'd all love a few more chuckles.
Forgive me for indulging in my own bit of pure speculation but *you* sound like someone who's rhetorical toolbox is limited to insults, intimidation and emotional appeals.
I can't believe they would put an entire show on television about some guy who spends alot of time and money building a huge bulky, totally impractical and basically useless so called "Bear Suit". This should have been nothing more that a silly clip on Saturday night live or SCTV or something. And as for this "Angel LIght", all the claims on how he could see through the garage wall.....Why no Photos of this event????? Duh....
Sniffff Snifff, I smell alot of BS.
Posted by RJW in Canada on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 12:57 AM
Sniffff Snifff, I smell alot of BS.
Well I finally saw "Project Grizzly" and hoo boy it's a hoot and a holler!
My personal favorite highlights:
1. Troy's failed attempt to walk through a muddy parking lot wearing the suit. Didn't make it three steps, even with two people trying to support him!
2. The opening shot, with the suit suspended underneath a helicopter. Looked like the opening scene of a MST3K-worthy B-grade sci fi flick!
3. Watching Troy hopping around in that thing. He'd have more mobility if he had hobbled feet, was wearing stiletto heels and had his ankles tied with a 5" length of chain.
4. Watching him fall down...and fall down...and fall down...and stay down...and stay down...and stay down...
5. One thing I'll say for Troy...he has a sweet collection of jackets in his wardrobe! He's pretty and stylin' in a sort of glam-rock, small-town robocop wannabe kind of way.
6. Speaking of robocop, I wonder how much trouble they went through to get that shot of him, in the suit, with the Robocop scene playing on the drive-in scene?
7. Troy waxing sociopolitical on the subject of Ph.D's. Apparently all educated people, and all systems of higher education, are inflexible beurocratic behemoths that can't get anything done. So screw 'em all and let's go hack around with some Diet Coke! Only it's funny how he's always quoting authority to back his claims...*scientific* authority from guess who...a bunch of unnamed "Ph.d's!"
8. Troy has some incredibly powerful insights about "angels." Apparently they're not human-sized, like all the rest of those other lunatics who believe in angels think. In actuality they're *15 feet tall*!
9. Troy shaving with a Bowie knife! I noticed he was avoiding the hard parts (chin, under the nose etc.) Apparently there was no room for a razor blade in the packs of the 4 horses they had. Maybe next time he can squeeze one onboard the helicopter.
And...I wonder what the wives of his posse think about their husbands burning their vacation on a travesty that's designed for maximum drama and hoopla with absolutely zero chance of success?
Too much to itemize...absolutely a scream...if you haven't seen it my advice is, go rent it right now!
--intjudo
Posted by intjudo on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 11:45 AM
My personal favorite highlights:
1. Troy's failed attempt to walk through a muddy parking lot wearing the suit. Didn't make it three steps, even with two people trying to support him!
2. The opening shot, with the suit suspended underneath a helicopter. Looked like the opening scene of a MST3K-worthy B-grade sci fi flick!
3. Watching Troy hopping around in that thing. He'd have more mobility if he had hobbled feet, was wearing stiletto heels and had his ankles tied with a 5" length of chain.
4. Watching him fall down...and fall down...and fall down...and stay down...and stay down...and stay down...
5. One thing I'll say for Troy...he has a sweet collection of jackets in his wardrobe! He's pretty and stylin' in a sort of glam-rock, small-town robocop wannabe kind of way.
6. Speaking of robocop, I wonder how much trouble they went through to get that shot of him, in the suit, with the Robocop scene playing on the drive-in scene?
7. Troy waxing sociopolitical on the subject of Ph.D's. Apparently all educated people, and all systems of higher education, are inflexible beurocratic behemoths that can't get anything done. So screw 'em all and let's go hack around with some Diet Coke! Only it's funny how he's always quoting authority to back his claims...*scientific* authority from guess who...a bunch of unnamed "Ph.d's!"
8. Troy has some incredibly powerful insights about "angels." Apparently they're not human-sized, like all the rest of those other lunatics who believe in angels think. In actuality they're *15 feet tall*!
9. Troy shaving with a Bowie knife! I noticed he was avoiding the hard parts (chin, under the nose etc.) Apparently there was no room for a razor blade in the packs of the 4 horses they had. Maybe next time he can squeeze one onboard the helicopter.
And...I wonder what the wives of his posse think about their husbands burning their vacation on a travesty that's designed for maximum drama and hoopla with absolutely zero chance of success?
Too much to itemize...absolutely a scream...if you haven't seen it my advice is, go rent it right now!
--intjudo
But what about the GOD LIGHT people, the GOD LIGHT !!!!!
All hail prophet Troy !!
;-o
Posted by kensiko on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 04:07 PM
All hail prophet Troy !!
;-o
kensico said:
"But what about the GOD LIGHT people, the GOD LIGHT !!!!!"
Hey, could we use the God Light to look through the exterior of the bear suit to watch Troy squirming and sweating inside it? Now THAT would be entertainment!
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 11:18 PM
"But what about the GOD LIGHT people, the GOD LIGHT !!!!!"
Hey, could we use the God Light to look through the exterior of the bear suit to watch Troy squirming and sweating inside it? Now THAT would be entertainment!
yeah, he's a bit off the wall... but his blast cushions, armour, etc do work. This isnt exactly a large company here... its one guy... pretty impressive for your modern "inventor" if you ask me.
As for the angel/god light... seems to be a pretty big technological leap for it to do what he says it does. Something that incredible deserves its fair share of criticism. But i've sat through lectures at university regarding magnetism, light, energy, etc... and we really dont know what's going on, all the "laws" and the "theories" are nothing more than commonalities found from experimental evidence. Sure it can be used to explain things... but what happens when new effects and anomalies appear? Thats when its time to change what we think to be true.
Posted by jimmy on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 05:25 PM
As for the angel/god light... seems to be a pretty big technological leap for it to do what he says it does. Something that incredible deserves its fair share of criticism. But i've sat through lectures at university regarding magnetism, light, energy, etc... and we really dont know what's going on, all the "laws" and the "theories" are nothing more than commonalities found from experimental evidence. Sure it can be used to explain things... but what happens when new effects and anomalies appear? Thats when its time to change what we think to be true.
btw... all you guys arguing with each other over the grammatical structure of your posts, just shut it.
And im a 4th year electrical engineering student... i've been to lectures on all sorts of quantum physics, energy transfer, thermodynamics, blah blah blah.... you name it... most of it is boring as hell. Primarily because the "experts" ramble on about the laws of this, or the theory of that, without actually knowing what is happening... truthfully... there is no way to REALLY "know"... all we have is experimental evidence. But to talk of it as if it were set in stone is stupid. A good engineer tries to make what is possible... work, a great engineer tries to make what is impossible possible.
And as for my spelling and english skills, a really great english prof once told me, forget everything you know about grammar, it's meaningless, the english language is dynamic, it's always changing... just try to get your thoughts and ideas across.
hmm... somethings seems to be missing in this post.... what is it.... something doesnt quite fit with the majority of other posts... ah, yes... the childishness
there we go... all is right with the world.
Posted by jimmy on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 05:49 PM
And im a 4th year electrical engineering student... i've been to lectures on all sorts of quantum physics, energy transfer, thermodynamics, blah blah blah.... you name it... most of it is boring as hell. Primarily because the "experts" ramble on about the laws of this, or the theory of that, without actually knowing what is happening... truthfully... there is no way to REALLY "know"... all we have is experimental evidence. But to talk of it as if it were set in stone is stupid. A good engineer tries to make what is possible... work, a great engineer tries to make what is impossible possible.
And as for my spelling and english skills, a really great english prof once told me, forget everything you know about grammar, it's meaningless, the english language is dynamic, it's always changing... just try to get your thoughts and ideas across.
hmm... somethings seems to be missing in this post.... what is it.... something doesnt quite fit with the majority of other posts... ah, yes... the childishness
there we go... all is right with the world.
Page 16 of 20 pages « First < 14 15 16 17 18 > Last »