The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
Boy floats away in balloon, 2009
Taco Bells buys the Liberty Bell, 1996
Lord Gordon-Gordon, robber of the robber barons, 1871
Did Paul McCartney die on Nov. 9, 1966?
Paul Krassner's Stereophonic Hoax, 1960
The Crown Prince Regent of Thulia, 1954
September Morn, the painting that shocked the censor, 1913
The Cradle of the Deep, a literary hoax, 1929
Rare planetary alignment decreases gravity, 1976
Prof. Wingard's Death Ray Hoax, 1876
Angel Light Sees Through Walls
image 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.
Categories: Technology
Posted by The Curator on Wed Jan 19, 2005
Comments (401)
The bear suit is to watch a Grizzly be born in the wild. Not to walk around and fight bears.
Posted by Joe  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  06:20 PM
I've read the ramblings of much worse "inventors." MIT has a great archive of foolishness. Frankly I don't laugh at this guy.

I saw the footage of the LIMBC armor. It is apparently lightweght and could be put on Humvees without the disadvantages of steel plating, So he is not in the realm of insane. The bear suit also technically works, so that is also not insane - impractical, maybe. The 'angel light' thing sounds unrealistic, but who can say. Maybe he stumbled on something interesting. I'm actually curious about the details of this thing. I'd like to see a breakdown of the device.

Also, the guy is not fall on the floor funny. And the people that are laughing must be easily amused. I'm glad there are some people actually out there making things as opposed to sitting on their butts all day on this website.

I am mostly skeptical - but not so closed minded as to be blind.
Posted by neutral  in  NYC  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  09:22 PM
re " The bear suit is to watch a Grizzly be born in the wild. Not to walk around and fight bears."

hey Jo, grizzly cubs are born during hibernation while the mother is denned up. troy should have invented a remote camera, but that's already been done. here's my take on troy and the grizzly suit:
while in the rockys, troy had a rare and understandably emotional encounter with a grizzly. it cuffed him to the ground. this gave him such a rush that he became fixated on repeating the experience. (think shark-cage). but how, without getting killed? many years and hours of work later he had completed his suit. but it is so cumbersome that one can hardly move in it. the only way it could be used to get close to a grizzly and repeat the near-death experience would be to have the wearer sit on the rotting carcass of a large animal in grizzly country and wait. unfortunatly that would constitue harrasment of wildlife and the authorities would be on him. troy could have pulled this stunt off undercover but then the world could never share in the fun (and troy is definatly into sharing the fun). stuck with a useless invention, he then had to come up with an after-the-fact purpose. thus the suit became a "bear research" suit. unfortunatly a bear-suit garbed researcher could hardly take 3 steps forward on a paved parking lot much less crawl into a grizzly hole and withdraw blood samples. god bless the man for following his dreams.
Posted by Geebs  in  north bay, ontario  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  10:54 PM
Sykoi said:

"Angel Light may or may not be possible - until we see proof, not one of us can say otherwise."

So far as science knows, it IS impossible. If in fact, Mr. Bear-proof Suit has come up with something that can see through solid objects, then all he has to do is DEMONSTRATE it, under controlled conditions. The fact that he hasn't and makes what seem to me like rather lame excuses for not doing so calls his "invention" into question.

As the "inventor" of a device that *appears* to defy the laws of physics, the ball is in his court, so to speak. If there is skepticism (and there is) he could dispel it with one decent demo of the machine. If he can change our understanding of our universe and he is being met with skepticism, it's his own fault. As I've said before, put up or shut up. No one should accept his word until they see the device in action.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  11:31 PM
Ok guys, I have indisputable proof that this device does not work. Check the link below or the 3rd picture in the gallery from http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/details.asp?c=6657

http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/gallery.asp?Page=3&c=6657&Title;=<b>Hurtubise+says+invention+sees+through+walls-BayToday.ca+exclusive</b>


P.S. please also note
1 there is a drawing of a "hellfire robo-boot" and what looks like a "ratmobile" on a piece of paper to left of his right shoulder
2 there seems to be some kind of plastered up hole in the wall to the right of his left temple. This "mysterious" hole may just be the key to his new devices ability to "see through walls". The red wire may actually be some firepaste he had left over that he has decided for no apparent reason to incorporate into the design of the "angeloscope", but, guess what, it has helped what he calls the "centrifuge" to "see" through the "wall"
3 however it is "slightly" more probable that that this poor caveman, who has learnt to use tools, has been banging his head against the wall for a very long time trying to emulate the doc from his favourite movie trilogy (back to the future) in order to "kick" and "start" his "brain". The result is a hole a in the wall, which he has learnt to fill with plaster, with a red line coming out of it that he has drawn with something his MIT "contacts" have confirmed to him as a "crayon" (which represents the pain caveman felt while bashing his low forehead against that spot), a few silly pictures, and a haircut that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this guy is incapable of having produced anything like what this articles' author thinks he might have.

Any of you monkeys doubting the complete and utter impossibility of this guy inventing anything worthwhile, let alone groundbreaking, please continue to disregard the scientific method and continue reading your horoscope/book of spells/colonic irrigation manual with your friendly ghost/alien/illuminatus...
Posted by Proof  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  11:32 PM
Troy may have managed to fuse light, something way beyond the scope of comprehension of the average idiot lay person on this site.

As a working physicist, I applaud him.
Posted by Fizzicyst  on  Mon Jan 24, 2005  at  01:12 AM
A cross between Doc Brown and Philo T. Farnsworth pumping out Rube Goldberg Machines. Lets see...

We have a bear-proof suit, anti-ballistic armor, fire resistant paste and an electromagnetic terror beam that can see through concrete and apparently neutralize electric impulses... put them together and slap on a military grade strength enhancing exo-skelleton and you have something that can terrorize a city. It should be called the Grizzlor 9000. heh

These two should get together. They'd be unstoppable

http://www.adn.com/front/story/5972983p-5874205c.html
Posted by Shazbot!  in  Lakeland FL  on  Tue Jan 25, 2005  at  03:45 AM
Fizzycist said:

"Troy may have managed to fuse light, something way beyond the scope of comprehension of the average idiot lay person on this site.

"As a working physicist, I applaud him."

What a piss-poor scientist you must be (assuming that you are one at all, which I doubt).

Let's see--a guy makes an extraordinary claim about having invented a device which violates the known laws of physics and instead of demanding that he demonstrate it under controlled conditions, you insult those who question his claims. Interesting approach to science, "Doc."

I'll bet you're just astounded by David Blaine. Why, just today, I saw video of him taking an empty, semi-crushed beer can and "restoring" it and drinking out of it. It MUST be true!

Yes, I know there are websites owned by magic stores that claim to sell that very trick, but obviously they are idiot lay people who don't understand REAL magic when they see it! I mean, people never LIE about extraordinary things, do they?
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Tue Jan 25, 2005  at  03:52 AM
"As a working physicist, I applaud him."

Working on what? A perpetual motion machine?
Posted by Carl  on  Tue Jan 25, 2005  at  08:31 AM
Search google for "terahertz imaging" for a real-world version of "x-ray vision". They can see through thin objects pretty well, in a reflective mode instead of a transmission mode. (We see reflected light; x-rays see transmitted light and need an x-ray source behind them.) Terahertz waves are in between microwaves and infrared.
Posted by A random passer-by  on  Tue Jan 25, 2005  at  10:14 AM
Terahertz Imaging is NOT what this guy is claiming to do. He claims that his device allows him to see through walls as if they weren't there. Here's the description in the article...

"Hurtubise said he could see into the garage behind his lab wall, and read the licence plate on his wife's car and even see the salt on it.

"I almost broke my knuckles three or four times, because it was almost like you could step through the wall," Hurtubise said.

"You could be fooled into believing that you could actually walk through the wall and go touch the car." "

This sounds nothing like terahertz imaging or x-ray imaging. What it DOES sound like is fertelizer for gullible reporters to print.

Incidently, Mr. Novac, the writer of this article, probably doesn't even believe the claims himself, but wanted a good story. I wonder why people hold journalists in such low esteem?
Posted by Carl  on  Tue Jan 25, 2005  at  01:33 PM
Hurtubise "says"
Hurtubise "adds"

There's no "Hurtubise Demonstrates"

And there you have the fundamental flaw in the article.

I'm not saying that this gentleman is a crackpot. Quite the contrary. If we're attacked by a master race of space bears the Ursus MK VII will be a God-send. It's just that an inventor needs more than a shining self-endorsement to to be taken seriously by the scientific and commercial sector. One must remember that ambiguity is no way to allay suspicion of fraud.

But who knows, maybe he didn't demonstrate it's un-holy powers because it's too dangerous and may make his hand fall off this time.

Or maybe it's just a telescope that has a bunch of Flash Gordon-esqe doo-dads glued on it to make it look cool with a laser-pointer inside it.

Your call.
Posted by Shazbot  in  Lakeland FL  on  Tue Jan 25, 2005  at  05:55 PM
Shazbot, Shazbot, Shazbot. Sheesh. If you can't believe the inventor of the revolutionary bear-proof suit when he says he has changed the laws of physics with his new Amazing Magical See-through Walls Thingie, who CAN you believe?

After all, in the history of humanity, no one has EVER lied about something that they hope will make them a lot of money. I mean, what could their motivation possibly be?? You're just...why, you're a SKEPTIC, that's what you are!
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Jan 26, 2005  at  03:43 AM
Judging only by your posts, I have to say that SOME of you seem like assholes. The exact kind of assoles who, if you were alive prior to the 15th century in Europe would have laughed and guffawed when told someone had discovered that the world wasn't flat.

I'm not saying that there aren't hoaxes, but just because someone doesn't have an academic background doesn't mean that their inventions won't work. I heard this Hurtubise guy on coast to coast and while he did sound a little kooky, he freely admits that he doesn't understand the principles behind his inventions and has people with scientific background explain stuff to him.

He has been on the discovery channel, and unless they are doing a show on curiosities or hoaxes then I would think they would clearly check these things out and consider them worthy of at least showing.

As far as his Angel Light, I think that it is possible, although I too am kind of skeptical. He claims the french govt is buying his "Angel Light" and it does sound incredibly dangerous. If it does everything he says it does, then I hope it's not true because the implications for abuse by many governments of the world are staggering.

Oh, and I also have to add: just because a company doesn't have a slick website doesn't mean that it;s not a legitimate company.....
Posted by mox  on  Wed Jan 26, 2005  at  01:37 PM
Mox, Just because many of us believe this guy is a liar doesn't mean we're assholes.

"Judging only by your posts, I have to say that SOME of you seem like assholes. The exact kind of assoles who, if you were alive prior to the 15th century in Europe would have laughed and guffawed when told someone had discovered that the world wasn't flat. "

And just FYI, a guy named Erotosthenes showed the earth was round about 1700 years before Columbus was born. Most sailors, all navigators, and any educated person alive in 1500 knew it too.

If you read the article carefully, you will note that there is not one single source of information regarding the invention that isn't the inventor. He makes a lot of claims about it working, yet there aren't any impartial witnesses to back him up. He claims the French government is interested in it, but did the reporter speak with any one in the French Govt.? Did the reporter even bother to drive out to see this thing work? No and no.

I don't know about you, but I think I'll play the odds on this one. Number of times I've seen inventions that defied the laws of physics = 0, number of liars I've met = MANY. Odds are, the guy's a liar.
Posted by JoeSixpack  on  Wed Jan 26, 2005  at  02:38 PM
Tell you what mox, I probably am the kind of guy YOU would call an asshole. You are the kind of guy I would call an asshole.

1) "Judging only by your posts" - dont judge, and definetely not just from posts.
2)"The exact kind of assoles who, if you were alive prior to the 15th... blah blah" - My, my you must be very clever. Maybe you would also have been one of us asshole in the 15th century. In fact maybe you would have been king ahole and we would have all been great people. That sentence is pure bs, nonsense, just a set of words with no meaning, speculation, with no proof... only idiots think of things like that to say to try and prove to themselves they are clever (which you are not).
3)"I'm not saying that there aren't hoaxes, but just because someone doesn't have an academic background doesn't mean that their inventions won't work" - really? thanks for clearing that up for us assholes, we could never have even contemplated such a possibilty. All we are saying is that grizzly-chimp has not invented what the article says he claims he has.
4) "He has been on the discovery channel, and unless they are doing a show on curiosities or hoaxes then I would think they would clearly ..." you are right - YOU WOULD THINK. I'm sure you really would think that. Let me tell you - YOU THINK WRONG. You are ass-u-ming. You being the ming.
5) "I hope it's not true because the implications for abuse by many governments of the world are staggering". All I am gonna say about this is that the fact you would state that, says an awful lot about your intellect.
6) "Oh, and I also have to add: just because a company doesn't have a slick website doesn't mean that it;s not a legitimate company.." You must be some kind of genius.

You're a not genius... you're an asshole...
Posted by Proof  on  Wed Jan 26, 2005  at  03:33 PM
I may also add that even though this machine seems impossible to most people, I look at his "fire paste" and that also seems impossible until you see him demonstrate it.
(1st vid on page)
http://patty.exn.ca/dailyplanet/view.asp?date=9/2/2003

Do I want to see the "Angel Light" in action? Of course - but I give him the benefit of the doubt simply because he doesn't seem like the type to make a false claim about something simply for the fact he seems so jazzed to actually demonstrate his stuff.

I happen to be a mechanical designer myself and I can see he wants you to know that something works beyond any doubt.

I'll tell you what, the grizzly suit may seem silly but he "literally" threw himself into that project and the punishment he took during the testing of that got my respect. It looks funny because it's a working PROTOTYPE. Everything looks ugly in the development stage, it's a normal progression.

He can barely walk in that thing they say (among other things). I'll tell you what, why don't YOU design a suit to completely protect yourself that will allow me to slam you into a brick wall with a front end loader or ram you with a truck or drop you off a cliff or crack you with a baseball bat or set you on fire without you getting hurt. If you can move off your original spot I'll give you $20,000.

Your first test:
"Clad in the Ursus Mark VI, Hurtubise was struck by a pendulum-suspended BMW for the Ripley's Believe or Not television program in August 2000." -Yeah but what good is it if it looks funny, right?

So if your using the "bear suit" to discredit the guy.....

Some of Troy's inventions involve stuff that companies have entire R&D departments for that spend millions of dollars and have years of development work in. Suddenly here comes a guy who says, "Hey, look what I invented in my garage. Not only does it defy the laws of physics, it only costs pennies to make!"

That doesn't sit well with companies, especially one's with huge government contracts. If Troy's x-ray machine turns out to be true, imagine what happens to devices like these and others like it. http://www.primidi.com/2004/07/02.html#a892 http://unisci.com/stories/20012/0416015.htm

Imagine gearing up for production of BREAKTHROUGH technology following years of development work that is already obsolete. It ends up creating more problems then it solves. Technology suppression is very real for good and not so good reasons when it ruins the structured order of progress. Think about it.

Here's another of Troy's inventions, is it hard to see why this wouldn't be made public?
http://www.improb.com/news/2002/jan/troy-bear3.html

If you want proof of what I'm saying, go do some research on Tesla and see what he was DOING and working on 100 years ago and you'll understand why today most people only know him as the guy who invented that "thingy" that makes lightning.
Posted by JTF  on  Wed Jan 26, 2005  at  05:57 PM
mox said:

"I'm not saying that there aren't hoaxes, but just because someone doesn't have an academic background doesn't mean that their inventions won't work."

That is NOT the reason that we are saying that we don't believe him. We're saying it, as many of us have already articulated here, because he HASN'T DEMONSTRATED IT!!

Are you truly unfamiliar with the notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof? He is making an extraordinary claim--that he has invented a device that defies the known laws of physics and we are asking that he DEMONSTRATE proof of his claim before we accept it. Why do you--or anyone--have a problem with that?

If I were to say that I've invented a way for pigs to fly under their own power, would you automatically accept it despire not seeing ANY evidence for it being true? If not, why not? My claim is no more physics-defying than his.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Jan 26, 2005  at  09:25 PM
Sorry for a second post, but I just saw some more "points" by mox that I feel I should respond to.

mox said:

"I'm not saying that there aren't hoaxes, but just because someone doesn't have an academic background doesn't mean that their inventions won't work."

No, that in and of itself certainly does NOT prove that an invention doesn't work. It certainly does not prove that it DOES either, though. Know what WOULD prove (or disprove) it? A simple demonstration, under controlled conditions.

"I heard this Hurtubise guy on coast to coast and while he did sound a little kooky, he freely admits that he doesn't understand the principles behind his inventions and has people with scientific background explain stuff to him."

Am I wrong or isn't Coast To Coast one of those late-night UFO abductee shows? I spent many years in radio so perhaps I should know for sure, but I seem to remember that show as one of those Art Bell-type deals. Hardly the place for skeptical examination of extraordinary claims.

"He has been on the discovery channel, and unless they are doing a show on curiosities or hoaxes then I would think they would clearly check these things out and consider them worthy of at least showing."

Yeah, you might think that, but you'd be wrong. As has been extensively discussed on James Randi's website, randi.org, The Discovery Channel often runs shows that present "psychics" with little or no rebuttle from the skeptical side of the debate. While it also runs some informative programs, it is, ultimately, a venue for entertainment programming.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Jan 26, 2005  at  09:34 PM
jtf said:

"Do I want to see the "Angel Light" in action? Of course - but I give him the benefit of the doubt simply because he doesn't seem like the type to make a false claim about something simply for the fact he seems so jazzed to actually demonstrate his stuff."

And Enron was the sixth-largest company in America. They couldn't possibly have been involved in fraud like having a fake "selling floor" intended to make potential investors think that everything was going well. Nope, not possible. Appearances are never deceiving, you know.

"I happen to be a mechanical designer myself and I can see he wants you to know that something works beyond any doubt."

Explain to me then, please, why he doesn't simply demonstrate that the thing works? Wouldn't that be the best possible way to prove his claims? When you design a device, don't you eventually build it so that you can PROVE that it works? Why doesn't he?

"Some of Troy's inventions involve stuff that companies have entire R&D departments for that spend millions of dollars and have years of development work in. Suddenly here comes a guy who says, "Hey, look what I invented in my garage. Not only does it defy the laws of physics, it only costs pennies to make!"

That might be true IF the thing actually works. If YOU had invented a machine that defied the known laws of physics, wouldn't YOU want to prove that you had done that? I sure would, if only to show the world what a genius I was. If he has no intention of ever demonstrating the device, why did he bother to tell a REPORTER about it?

"That doesn't sit well with companies, especially one's with huge government contracts. If Troy's x-ray machine turns out to be true, imagine what happens to devices like these and others like it.

Yes, and the amazing anti-gravity machine that I have sitting out in my yard will put all the airlines of the world out of business. Now all I have to do is actually MAKE IT WORK. Gee, it's fun to imagine things, isn't it?
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Jan 26, 2005  at  09:43 PM
You know what? Nobody ever said they believed this. People said "That sounds interesting, let's discuss it."

Why can't you let people discuss it? Not only must you insist it is bullshit, you deny anyone else the ability to consider it. What nerve you have to interrupt other people conversing.

I understand that people will not believe it until they see a demonstration, who would? But why are you all so hostile and unbelieveably rude? This is unprecedented - you are the rudest bunch of doubters I have ever seen. It just makes me cringe, that anyone could think or write the things you say.

You made your point, you don't believe it, and you want proof. 1 sentence. Why are you still here posting? For the love of god go away! Some people actually want to learn and better themselves through intelligent discussion, you have no right to interfere with that, so be polite or fuck off!
Posted by Lucky  on  Thu Jan 27, 2005  at  12:07 PM
>>Here's another of Troy's inventions, is it hard to see why this wouldn't be made public?
http://www.improb.com/news/2002/jan/troy-bear3.html<< LOL

I hadn't seen this one yet. Add "Fire Suppressant Agent 333," the amazing sand/oil separater, to the list!

Score a hat trick for Troy; this is the third semi-credible news source he's slipped into. He and Phil and TDC sure have the formula down:

1. A claim that the world could be better off if only Troy's amazing "invention" was utilized,
often coupled with Troy's "anger" over this oversight and the revelation that he wants his
"invention" to protect someone intensely close to him.

2. A bunch of unsubstantiated claims by Troy and/or the "reporter" regarding the "invention."

3. A logically/semantically neutral statement by an authoritative (or not so authoritative) voice
that says Troy's "invention" *would* be amazing *if* it worked.

4. If the invention is liquid: the revelation that the "secret ingredient" is Diet Coke.

5. A bunch of unsubstantiated claims concerning powerful people purported to have an interest.

6. Wild speculation about the "invention's" possibilities.

I'd like to emphasize that though I do regard Troy H. as a source of entertainment and not of
scientific endeavor or inventions, I don't feel any animosity towards towards him for his
"inventing" or for his hilarious attempts to market his stuff.

However, irresponsible journalisn is another matter. Phil Novak, TDC, BayToday and The Nugget
ought to be ashamed.

That being said, I think the funniest part about this whole thing is that stories about Troy's
"inventions" ACTUALLY GET PUBLISHED!!! LOL

FYI. Phil defending Troy:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/tuber/1935/#54753

I hereby nominate Phil for a P-U-litzer prize for investigative reporting!
Posted by intjudo  on  Thu Jan 27, 2005  at  01:35 PM
I've just read about the Angel Light in the Guardian over here in the U.K, in quite a serious english broadsheet newspaper, the article being almost directly copied from the original website, and then from a google search I've ended up here reading all the intelligent (and not so intelligent) discussions and comments you guys have made.

So heres my two penneth (for what it's worth)

I think the general consensus that this is some sort of hoax is spot on, all the references to 'they laughed at edison' etc seems to have missed the point that in the 1800's there were no multi national companies spending billions of dollars on research and development, only amateur regular people experimenting with electro magnetism, heavier than air flight etc so I would suppose all of the innovations pre WWII were of this nature HOWEVER - post WWII governments in general (and by that I mean US and Soviet) have poured trillions of dollars into finding new ways of killing people. Remember remote viewing? Goat staring? So how come they haven't found this magic see through machine? Or at least the principle behind it. It is virtually impossible to imagine someone like Charles Babbage inventing the Mechanical Adding Machine (fore runner of the computer) in this day and age. You want cutting edge technology, look at the US Air force or NASA, not some hick who makes magic paste out of diet coke.
Posted by matzusdog  in  work  on  Thu Jan 27, 2005  at  07:06 PM
Lucky said:

"You know what? Nobody ever said they believed this. People said "That sounds interesting, let's discuss it."

Well, I guess that's why they call you "Lucky" rather than "Observant." Go back and check the posts if you seriously believe that no one has said that they believe in the device. I've quoted directly from posts that said just that several times now. I guess you just somehow managed to miss both the original postings AND my posts which directly quoted from them. Oops.

"Why can't you let people discuss it? Not only must you insist it is bullshit, you deny anyone else the ability to consider it. What nerve you have to interrupt other people conversing."

In what way am I, or anyone else for that matter, denying anyone the ability to discuss this matter? Please be specific. How can you "interrupt" people from conversing on a bulletin board?

"You made your point, you don't believe it, and you want proof. 1 sentence. Why are you still here posting? For the love of god go away! Some people actually want to learn and better themselves through intelligent discussion, you have no right to interfere with that, so be polite or fuck off!"

Well, if you're being silly, congratulations! If not, you have obviously contradicted yourself with your last remark. For the record, I believe that pointing out that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof IS contributing to intelligent discussion--as opposed to stupidity like people saying that even though there is NO evidence that this stupid "machine" can see through walls and the "inventor" refuses to provide such evidence, they believe in it anyway. Now THAT'S dumb!
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Fri Jan 28, 2005  at  04:35 AM
Right on, intjudo! Well said. The "journalistic coverage" of Hurtubise's "inventions" has been a shining example of piss-poor reportage.

When and if Hurtubise claims that he can fly under his own power (with the aid of Diet Coke, no doubt) will that, too, be reported without any requirement for proof of performance?

Maybe the guy's just a wacky conceptual artist and he's pulling our collective leg. In that case, I congratuate him and anxious await the press conference in which he reveals what he's been doing and shames the press in the process.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Fri Jan 28, 2005  at  04:39 AM
matzusdog:

Your argument that governments would use it if it worked are sort of false. Mitchell ruined a fine navy Career because he believed that Naval Aviation was the way of the future. Enrico Fermi tried to explain the significance of nuclear fission, and was laughed away as a 'crazy WOP'.

Besides, the article does claim that the French govt did witness a demonstration and are interested.smile Lol, I admit that without any corroborating evidence it's not to be believed.

You saw how rude and personally insulting people on this board became, to a person they never met! If one of these rude people works at the DOD and takes the phone call from this Troy person, they will not follow up on it, and they will put him on the 'crazy black-list' of people who's phone calls should be ignored in the future.

On this board the majority of posters are of the Rude and Angry ilk, but I don't know if that percentage is relevant in the real world. What is known is that military establishments are conservative, and resist new technologies by nature.
Posted by Lucky  on  Fri Jan 28, 2005  at  04:40 AM
Lucky said:

"Your argument that governments would use it if it worked are sort of false. Mitchell ruined a fine navy Career because he believed that Naval Aviation was the way of the future. Enrico Fermi tried to explain the significance of nuclear fission, and was laughed away as a 'crazy WOP'."

You are aware, are you not, Lucky, that governments all over the world use Naval Aviation and nuclear fission?

You may be correct that they weren't adopted immediately, but they ARE in use (and have been for decades now), so your "point" seems to be at least semi-moot at this point in history.

Getting past that, your argument seems to be a variation on "They laughed at the Wright Brothers" which has been made before.

As I pointed out at the time (go back and check), people STOPPED laughing at Orville and Wilbur when they actually FLEW THEIR PLANE. Claims prove precisely nothing; demonstrations under scientifically controlled conditions prove (or disprove) all. All we have from Hurtubise so far are claims.

Please explain, using logic if possible, why you are willing to believe the unproven claims of a man who says he has broken the known laws of physics (and who seems unwilling to back up those claims).
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Fri Jan 28, 2005  at  04:52 AM
Lucky, Billy Mitchel was in the Army, he didn't have a 'Navy career'. He was court martialed for disobeying orders during the bombing tests and insubordination. Essentialy, he was grandstanding.
Secondly, the story about Fermi is not so accurate, either. The US was already developing the Bomb when an uninformed and ignorant army officer made that assesment about the physicist. At that time, Fermi had already made a working reactor and demonstrated it to MANY other scientests, none of whome felt the need to "rewrite the laws of physics" after seeing it.
Thirdly, military establishments may be conservative, but all of the cutting edge technology that has been developed since the second world war was developed as a result of military spending. Nuclear power, advanced electronics, and avaition. Having worked on classified projects for defense contractors, I can tell you that the military is VERY interested in new ideas. I've worked on a few, and none of them "defied the known laws of physics".
And finally, many of the rude people on this list are Hurtibise BELIEVERS, not just the sceptics
Posted by JoeSixpack  on  Fri Jan 28, 2005  at  08:50 AM
Incidentally, I have had a working model of a device to see through walls for decades. I call it the patented Williams Inductive Non-Dynamic Optical Wonder, or WINDOW for short.

I hear the French Army is very interested so that they can look through the walls of their hidey holes and see who they are surrending to.

It is made from a revolutionary fire proof paste made only from SAND, that can also miraculously prevent water from passing through it yet allows all light through. I call it GLASS.

I have also invented a substance that makes OIL float to the top of water. I call it 'relative density'.

Any gullible reporters looking for a new story are more than welcome to contact me and bring envelopes full of shiny pound coins.
Posted by matzusdog  in  work  on  Fri Jan 28, 2005  at  10:59 AM
Cranky - How many people witnessed the flight? I'm 500 miles away and I 'hear' or 'read' that they flew and I'm supposed to believe it? Well obviously the fucking ugly barbarian lunk heads with blood trickling from their hollow skulls where they smash their heads against walls are lieing, and I won't believe it until they come to my house and knock on my door and prove they flew, and I know a magician who can do the same thing because it's a trick.

...Ooooorrrrrrr we could CONSIDER the possibility that they did what they clam, and possibly discuss the physics which might apply, maybe specuiate and have fun with it, and possibly learn a thing or two while we are at it.

What bothers me is that no educated and informed people are going to post here because it is just a bunch of kids who learned a few dirty words and like to use them. Thanks to them anyone who possibly would have posted substantial and interesting information won't bother with this sand-box.

Good point about Mitchell being in Army not Navy, my mistake and poor memory.


-Cranky and Matzus:
I think we are arguing the wrong thing. I don't want to argue whether we should believe this guy's claims, I admit over and over that no-one has to, or has much reason to. I post examples of 'fringe' science that were not accepted, solely to stimulate you to open your minds to *Consider* new possibilities. People debate Star Trek for Christ's sake, they know it's fake but they debate it! People write essays and critiques on all sorts of fiction, why can people not discuss this article which claims to be real? Why???

Unfortunately there is no point looking here for information or entertainment anymore, what scientist would waste their time. Any person who posts even speculation of how the machine MAY operate meets multiple replies that it cannot exist and cannot operate. This KILLS open discussion, it is unjust cencorship to serve the pusposes of your dogma. Furthermore I suspect it strokes your ego.

It seemed obvious to me (and I don't think I was alone) that this subject was unprovable. It, by nature, could not be proven true or false. If it is true then he sold it to France and won't disclose anything. If it's false he won't disclose anything because it is false.

What you fail to understand is that one can discuss something despite it not being provable. Well, it is possible, but not here, because you shout down anyone who tries.

Thanks for that. Maybe you should go to a bible-study website where they are debating the meaning of a passage, and shout them down, because they can't prove the passage ever happened.
Posted by Lucky  on  Fri Jan 28, 2005  at  05:31 PM
Comments: Page 3 of 14 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.