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 19 of 20 pages « First < 17 18 19 20 >
If the angel light works as advertised, why doesn't the military use it to build vehicles from blast resistant materials and use the light to see outside the solid vehicle? Further, why not fix a duplicate light outside the vehicle to "destroy" anything that represents a threat to them in combat?
Just wondering.
Posted by Bob Fraples on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 05:27 PM
Just wondering.
"If the angel light works as advertised, why doesn't the military use it to build vehicles from blast resistant materials and use the light to see outside the solid vehicle? Further, why not fix a duplicate light outside the vehicle to "destroy" anything that represents a threat to them in combat?
Just wondering.
Posted by Bob Fraples on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 05:27 PM"
The military already does built vehicles from blast-resistant materials. But the problem is that the angel light supposedly messes up electronic equipment, and in a tight space like a tank you can't really afford to clear space out for a possibly dangerous, undeveloped angel light when you need as much space as you can get for complex electronics. You also run the risk of power failure, and in such a situation you find yourself in a locked box with no way to see what's outside.
If you have a duplicate light that "destroys" stuff outside, that immediately implies that the light inside would do the same. To your stuff.
And then there's the question of switching it on and off; if you have an angel light continually turned on, and it poses a danger to people, you could harm civilians really easily in a combat situation, and friendly fire isn't out of the question if things get messy. Something that is supposedly as innovative and new as the angel light must be handled with a lot of caution.
I can understand a lot of the doubt here but some of it is coming off as snotty, whiny remarks made by jerks who feel that they can pass judgement on something that they know relatively little about. It's okay to doubt, but it's not okay to say, "Clearly this is absolutely without a doubt impossible." You just can't know one way or the other.
Posted by Katie on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 11:29 AM
Just wondering.
Posted by Bob Fraples on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 05:27 PM"
The military already does built vehicles from blast-resistant materials. But the problem is that the angel light supposedly messes up electronic equipment, and in a tight space like a tank you can't really afford to clear space out for a possibly dangerous, undeveloped angel light when you need as much space as you can get for complex electronics. You also run the risk of power failure, and in such a situation you find yourself in a locked box with no way to see what's outside.
If you have a duplicate light that "destroys" stuff outside, that immediately implies that the light inside would do the same. To your stuff.
And then there's the question of switching it on and off; if you have an angel light continually turned on, and it poses a danger to people, you could harm civilians really easily in a combat situation, and friendly fire isn't out of the question if things get messy. Something that is supposedly as innovative and new as the angel light must be handled with a lot of caution.
I can understand a lot of the doubt here but some of it is coming off as snotty, whiny remarks made by jerks who feel that they can pass judgement on something that they know relatively little about. It's okay to doubt, but it's not okay to say, "Clearly this is absolutely without a doubt impossible." You just can't know one way or the other.
OK, how does the angel light know how far into or through an object it is supposed to "see".
Posted by Bob Fraples on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 11:52 AM
Katie said:
"It's okay to doubt, but it's not okay to say, "Clearly this is absolutely without a doubt impossible." You just can't know one way or the other."
That's not correct. We absolutely CAN know if the thing works. The "inventor" just has to submit his "invention" to proper scientific testing. As has been said several times, if it works, Troy Hurtubise will be hailed as one of the greatest inventors of all time and mankind's knowledge base will be advanced.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 02:59 PM
"It's okay to doubt, but it's not okay to say, "Clearly this is absolutely without a doubt impossible." You just can't know one way or the other."
That's not correct. We absolutely CAN know if the thing works. The "inventor" just has to submit his "invention" to proper scientific testing. As has been said several times, if it works, Troy Hurtubise will be hailed as one of the greatest inventors of all time and mankind's knowledge base will be advanced.
To Cranky Media Guy and JoeSixPack (and all other ppl with narrow mindsets and nothing better to do than flame the sh!t out of this board):
*Please* try to adhere to the following list (I'll kinda understand it if you can't, though):
1. STFU
2. Get a life
3. Let the dreamers dream, already!
I, for one, no longer care what happens with Angel Light anymore. You guys killed it for me. Congrats.
Oh, and Happy New Year y'all!
Posted by bored spectator on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 12:30 AM
*Please* try to adhere to the following list (I'll kinda understand it if you can't, though):
1. STFU
2. Get a life
3. Let the dreamers dream, already!
I, for one, no longer care what happens with Angel Light anymore. You guys killed it for me. Congrats.
Oh, and Happy New Year y'all!
bored spectator said:
"*Please* try to adhere to the following list (I'll kinda understand it if you can't, though):
1. STFU
2. Get a life
3. Let the dreamers dream, already!"
So, this board is all about YOU? Sorry, Dude, you don't have the power or authority to tell me or anyone else here what they can or can't do.
I'm flattered that you think I have the ability to stop dreamers from dreaming, but that isn't what this about at all. The discussion is about whether or not Hurtubise's invention can or can't do what he claims it can.
If your little balloon was punctured by REALITY, it's YOUR problem, not mine.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 05:43 AM
"*Please* try to adhere to the following list (I'll kinda understand it if you can't, though):
1. STFU
2. Get a life
3. Let the dreamers dream, already!"
So, this board is all about YOU? Sorry, Dude, you don't have the power or authority to tell me or anyone else here what they can or can't do.
I'm flattered that you think I have the ability to stop dreamers from dreaming, but that isn't what this about at all. The discussion is about whether or not Hurtubise's invention can or can't do what he claims it can.
If your little balloon was punctured by REALITY, it's YOUR problem, not mine.
I think you revealed a lot more about yourself than you intended to. You want to live in a world in which the things you fantasize about exist, even when all the available FACTS indicate that they don't.
I used to be like that too. Then I grew up.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 05:44 AM
I used to be like that too. Then I grew up.
Heyy easy, stay on topic. This isnt about who killed what for who, or who is being a stupid twat about what.
Posted by Easy in USA on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 03:01 AM
Wow! 360 pages and counting! And to think I only read the first 9..
Cranky Media Guy, glad to see you're still posting.. As for your 2 responses to bored spectator, I invite you to consider the possibility that you may be held in the same view.
I came here to read intelligent discussion & found what I considered to be mainly bashing.
OK, so people don't believe him. OK, so some may.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but when I do not believe someone I simply say I do not believe and give my points (no need to shout). I do not go calling the man a liar because he hasn't proved himself.
I agree in principle to the indisputable proof of demonstration and its need in science, but to gain a direction in research you must either have a known technology to evolve from or (and this is the point) an idea to theorise.
Troy may believe that he has something groundbreaking.
He may believe he's onto something, but can't fully turn theory into fact.
Or maybe it is a complete hoax.
Maybe he once thought he had it working, shot his mouth off then found it didn't work like he thought and has to bluff..
To justify himself, I agree that proof it currently works is required.
On the other hand, to justify calling him a liar I say prove that it doesn't.
Absense of evidence is not evidense of absence.
I personally believe that Troy has a passion for inventing, probably nothing more. But to brand him a hoax without disproving him is wrong.
There is precious little proof either way at this time. Maybe in 200 years someone will pick up his failed work and apply it to science currently out of our grasp, who knows? The concept is already being explored more widely than one lone "cracked-pot"
Correct me if I'm out of line, but 360 pages is a bit excessive to say (and shout) "show me proof"
And to have the stamina to wade through such a massive post implies a need for proof, or at least affirmation of some kind
Contact him directly and demand he demonstrates the device to you if so vehemently skeptical.
To believe something is possible is not the same as know it is fact.
As for Troys claims, I do not currently believe his gun works as he says but I feel he believes it could.
At least he is applying himself and highlighting the concept, albeit if only met with derision.
Posted by Captain Moose in UK on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 07:26 PM
Cranky Media Guy, glad to see you're still posting.. As for your 2 responses to bored spectator, I invite you to consider the possibility that you may be held in the same view.
I came here to read intelligent discussion & found what I considered to be mainly bashing.
OK, so people don't believe him. OK, so some may.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but when I do not believe someone I simply say I do not believe and give my points (no need to shout). I do not go calling the man a liar because he hasn't proved himself.
I agree in principle to the indisputable proof of demonstration and its need in science, but to gain a direction in research you must either have a known technology to evolve from or (and this is the point) an idea to theorise.
Troy may believe that he has something groundbreaking.
He may believe he's onto something, but can't fully turn theory into fact.
Or maybe it is a complete hoax.
Maybe he once thought he had it working, shot his mouth off then found it didn't work like he thought and has to bluff..
To justify himself, I agree that proof it currently works is required.
On the other hand, to justify calling him a liar I say prove that it doesn't.
Absense of evidence is not evidense of absence.
I personally believe that Troy has a passion for inventing, probably nothing more. But to brand him a hoax without disproving him is wrong.
There is precious little proof either way at this time. Maybe in 200 years someone will pick up his failed work and apply it to science currently out of our grasp, who knows? The concept is already being explored more widely than one lone "cracked-pot"
Correct me if I'm out of line, but 360 pages is a bit excessive to say (and shout) "show me proof"
And to have the stamina to wade through such a massive post implies a need for proof, or at least affirmation of some kind
Contact him directly and demand he demonstrates the device to you if so vehemently skeptical.
To believe something is possible is not the same as know it is fact.
As for Troys claims, I do not currently believe his gun works as he says but I feel he believes it could.
At least he is applying himself and highlighting the concept, albeit if only met with derision.
Every night I am visited via my dreams by an Invisible Pink Unicorn who has given me precise instructions for bringing perfect happiness to every single person on earth forever.
Unfortunately I cannot remember the precise instructions once I wake up.
I have been in touch with "Japan" and the French Government and they understand the importance of obtaining the contents of my dreams. They are working on technology to implant into my brain to record the dreams. Unfortunately the current version of the dream recording technology will destroy my precious brain in the process.
I can't say anything more about it except that "Japan" and the French Government have put the technology behind closed doors, and they're trying to find a way to record my world-saving dreams without destroying my amazing brain.
One day, when the technology is perfected, my dreams will be recorded, we'll get the instructions from the Invisible Pink Unicorn and I will thus save the world.
Until then, I'm simply going to ask all y'all to take everything I say at face value. You can't disprove me, so if you have any doubts about my story you are obligated to withhold judgement until someone proves me right or wrong.
NO FAIR MAKING FUN OF ME!!! If you do you're a negative, defeatist, cynical party-pooping poop-head.
And to all the hopers, dreamers and positive thinkers out there with the "can do" attitudes and the open minds: speculate away, and stay tuned! The instructions from the IPU may someday make all of your hopes and dreams come true.
Posted by intjudo on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 02:06 PM
Unfortunately I cannot remember the precise instructions once I wake up.
I have been in touch with "Japan" and the French Government and they understand the importance of obtaining the contents of my dreams. They are working on technology to implant into my brain to record the dreams. Unfortunately the current version of the dream recording technology will destroy my precious brain in the process.
I can't say anything more about it except that "Japan" and the French Government have put the technology behind closed doors, and they're trying to find a way to record my world-saving dreams without destroying my amazing brain.
One day, when the technology is perfected, my dreams will be recorded, we'll get the instructions from the Invisible Pink Unicorn and I will thus save the world.
Until then, I'm simply going to ask all y'all to take everything I say at face value. You can't disprove me, so if you have any doubts about my story you are obligated to withhold judgement until someone proves me right or wrong.
NO FAIR MAKING FUN OF ME!!! If you do you're a negative, defeatist, cynical party-pooping poop-head.
And to all the hopers, dreamers and positive thinkers out there with the "can do" attitudes and the open minds: speculate away, and stay tuned! The instructions from the IPU may someday make all of your hopes and dreams come true.
I believe you, intjudo. After all, no one EVER just makes up a story about something as fantastic as that.
You are correct. You don't have to prove anything; your word should be enough. It's up to the skeptics to DISPROVE your claims.
Since it's virtually impossible to completely disprove the existance of something, you win by default. It's SO obvious!
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:35 PM
You are correct. You don't have to prove anything; your word should be enough. It's up to the skeptics to DISPROVE your claims.
Since it's virtually impossible to completely disprove the existance of something, you win by default. It's SO obvious!
lol!
Now that's what I call a post!
Making fun don't have to be slander..
These IPUs intjudo, you've spoke of them before..
You never said how big they are, or exacly how pink?
If they're real, can I buy one?
If they're not, can I help fund you anyway? All I want is one when you finally remember the rest of the dream. Oh, and a sliver of the percentage?
I remember a dream about purple rhinos once and I get a gut feeling when I think "silly putty", but then again I have a thing about putty..
Posted by Captain Moose in UK on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:31 PM
Now that's what I call a post!
Making fun don't have to be slander..
These IPUs intjudo, you've spoke of them before..
You never said how big they are, or exacly how pink?
If they're real, can I buy one?
If they're not, can I help fund you anyway? All I want is one when you finally remember the rest of the dream. Oh, and a sliver of the percentage?
I remember a dream about purple rhinos once and I get a gut feeling when I think "silly putty", but then again I have a thing about putty..
Oh, and err.. Don't tell my wife about the putty fetish, she'll kill me (again)
Posted by Captain Moose in UK on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:34 PM
I only read the first 6 pages of comments and this last one. Has anyone posted this link to an old scoop Phil Novak was working on? I'm sure it was a very compelling article.
http://www.ufologie.net/press2/northbaynews14feb2004.htm
Posted by malkms in PDX on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 03:36 AM
http://www.ufologie.net/press2/northbaynews14feb2004.htm
It never happened.
No one saw anything.
I don't exist.
lol, what's new?
Posted by Captain Moose in UK on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 10:51 AM
No one saw anything.
I don't exist.
lol, what's new?
*How* pink? Well lemme just meta-quote this quote from http://www.geocities.com/ipu_temple/
""I quote from Hoofprints 4:14 (by the prophet Ixian):
Yea, and I was given by inspiration that She was
next to me, and I could touch Her, being the loyal
servant, and I laid my hand upon Her mane, and
She *was* Pink. She was not pink, She was not
colourless, but She *felt* Pink, and I was thus
overcome. I awoke later with a hangover, but I
knew She was *yet* Pink, but invisible.""
No, you can't buy one, and it turns out there is only one IPU...alas for my naiveté. Again I meta-quote from the same site:
""The Invisible Pink Unicorns is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time... We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that she is invisible because we can't see her.""
Check out geocities dot com slash ipu_temple
Posted by intjudo on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 10:21 PM
""I quote from Hoofprints 4:14 (by the prophet Ixian):
Yea, and I was given by inspiration that She was
next to me, and I could touch Her, being the loyal
servant, and I laid my hand upon Her mane, and
She *was* Pink. She was not pink, She was not
colourless, but She *felt* Pink, and I was thus
overcome. I awoke later with a hangover, but I
knew She was *yet* Pink, but invisible.""
No, you can't buy one, and it turns out there is only one IPU...alas for my naiveté. Again I meta-quote from the same site:
""The Invisible Pink Unicorns is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time...
Check out geocities dot com slash ipu_temple
I was researching Ground Penetrating Radar when I stumbled onto this thread last year (I forgot what name I was using -- maybe this one?) Anyway, having also a hobby for events in quantum physics -- and it's absolute wierdness -- allowed me to at least consider the topic here. That lead me to the EIT phenomena (electromagnetically induced transparency re: http://www.uark.edu/depts/physics/faculty/index.php?name=xiao ) Without this thread I wouldn't have ever known about it. I hope others have found this thread equally stimulating.
Angel Light has had some effect after-all eh? Also, what-with 11-D string-theory, parallel universes, Universal Branes -- I now know that We don't know much of anything at-all. Only 4.5% of the Universe is what we know as matter (95% is currently undetectable and unknown stuff!) The list goes on.
Still, We feeble humans can't progress without some means of sharing and verifying our discoveries. That's currently called "The Scientific Method" -- and Troy refuses to play that game -- so we'll never know if he stumbled onto anything. Still I'm too humbled by real science to mock even fake science. Troy caused me to explore a bit more.
Posted by Ronpin on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 04:04 AM
Angel Light has had some effect after-all eh? Also, what-with 11-D string-theory, parallel universes, Universal Branes -- I now know that We don't know much of anything at-all. Only 4.5% of the Universe is what we know as matter (95% is currently undetectable and unknown stuff!) The list goes on.
Still, We feeble humans can't progress without some means of sharing and verifying our discoveries. That's currently called "The Scientific Method" -- and Troy refuses to play that game -- so we'll never know if he stumbled onto anything. Still I'm too humbled by real science to mock even fake science. Troy caused me to explore a bit more.
Glad someone spoke of the Universe. There's a lot of stuff being learned & discovered, but rarely applied to terrestrial science. It is brainmelting tho for the uninitiated (like me)
IPU.. Faith & Logic beautifully balanced.
It does seem that IPU does slip into the plural sometimes. Are these translation errors from the first writings?
I Saw Her. I Kinda Saw Her. I Definitely Saw Something. I Believe.
Posted by Captain Moose in UK on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 06:10 AM
IPU.. Faith & Logic beautifully balanced.
It does seem that IPU does slip into the plural sometimes. Are these translation errors from the first writings?
I Saw Her. I Kinda Saw Her. I Definitely Saw Something. I Believe.
Here's the latest on Troy Hurtubise:
http://crunchgear.com/2007/02/06/grizzly-man-in-financial-ruin-selling-halo-suit/
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 12:32 AM
http://crunchgear.com/2007/02/06/grizzly-man-in-financial-ruin-selling-halo-suit/
History is full of inventions of all kinds (arts and science) where the source of the knowledge is sudden and complete and mysterious. He would not be the first inventor laughed at. He is in very good company.
Posted by maria griffin in Toronto on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Page 19 of 20 pages « First < 17 18 19 20 >