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.

Technology

Posted on Tue Jan 18, 2005



Comments

http://www.mit.edu/people/dryfoo/home.html
The MIT fellow who observed it doesn't seem too professional, somehow.
I don't know why, but I'm a bit hesitant to believe that this thing really works.
Posted by Citizen Premier  in  spite of public outcry  on  Tue Jan 18, 2005  at  11:46 PM
iFilm has the video in the Viral section.

-Dan
Posted by Dan  on  Wed Jan 19, 2005  at  08:29 AM
Why? And does he live near me?
Posted by artemys  on  Wed Jan 19, 2005  at  10:24 AM
Why, if it saw straight through his garage wall, did it not see straight through his car? Or is a car fundamentally different from, say, the metal wall that he also claims it can see through? What kind of focussing is he pretending it does? He didn't mention it once. It's one hell of a range, from being able to see through his skin to show up everything beneath as if he'd flayed his hand, all the way to seeing through a good few feet of wall.
Posted by Iain  on  Wed Jan 19, 2005  at  11:52 AM
Whoever does fact-checking at baytoday.ca is gonna get creamed over this. I'd bet a lot of money there never was any "Discovery Channel program about the LIMBC"...that's a brain-dead slam-dunk five-minute task for any fact-checker.

Then there's the fact that the whole story is hilarious from start to finish. "...covert help of scientists at the famed Massachusetts Institute of Technology..." :lol:

I'm also guessing there is no such person as "Gary Dryfoos, a consultant and former long-time instructor at MIT..."

This is particularly rich: "<my> MIT contacts... told me that I was playing with electromagnetism.
Posted by intjudo  on  Wed Jan 19, 2005  at  12:56 PM
Aparently there are reporters out there who will believe any and everything you tell them. I agree with intjudo. Ten minutes spent fact checking would have buried this story. The reporter obviously didn't bother to go and have the machine demonstrated for him, either. But, then, I guess there would have been no story.
Posted by Carl  on  Wed Jan 19, 2005  at  01:18 PM
Gary Dryfoos does indeed have a Web page on MIT's site but it has little or no content related to science and lots of content related to hoaxes and other fun stuff: the Daily Onion, Daily Howler etc. as well as links to comics, "legalize weed" stuff etc. It's listed in google as "The weirdest page on the web."

If you do an alumni search for him at http://web.mit.edu/bin/cgicso?query=Dryfoos he doesn't show up.

There are also comments on this at http://www.baytoday.ca/content/editorials/recent.asp,

or try the google cache at http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:DUT85yzFZNYJ:www.baytoday.ca/content/editorials/recent.asp?w=4++"Gary+Dryfoos+"+-mason+-masonry+-masonic&hl=en

*And* this isn't the first story baytoday.ca has published about this Troy Hurtubise! Check out their Oct 2003 story about his "fire paste:" http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/details.asp?c=63

The only "documentary" I can find him in involves his "bear suit:" http://www.nfb.ca/grizzly/

the reviews I found at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6305198152/104-8310545-7129567?v=glance don't give it too much credibility...

This guy looks like a "repeat offender" to me.
Posted by intjudo  on  Wed Jan 19, 2005  at  01:51 PM
This guy is a blast...help me I can't stop...

Check this out regarding his "blast cushion:" http://www.improbable.com/news/2004/troy-cushion-2004-06.html

He's the proud past recipient of the "IG-Nobel Prize" for his bear suit: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V118/N49/ignobel.49n.html

Here are pictures of him "lecturing at MIT:" http://projecttroy.com.nexx.com/website/photos.htm

Well...now I'm kinda starting to feel sad for the guy, he's making an ass out of himself...
Posted by intjudo  on  Wed Jan 19, 2005  at  02:13 PM
I've seen news coverage in the past about the bear-proof suit. Apparently it really is more or less impervious to bear attacks. However, it weighs as much as a load of bricks and it's impossible to move when you have it on. So the challenge will be to explain to potential buyers what advantage this suit gives them over just staying home (assuming their houses aren't infested with grizzly bears).

It seems the inventor was once attacked by a bear, and ever since then (many years ago now), he's devoted his life to perfecting bear-proof armor. As intjudo says, you can't help feeling sorry for the guy, even if he does keep making a jackass of himself.
Posted by Big Gary C  on  Wed Jan 19, 2005  at  04:09 PM
The guy sounds like he doesn't mind wasting money on useless endevours. Wonder where it comes from? The movie review which stated he was trying to escape his father's (also a lunatic inventor type I imagine) shadow. Most likely he's done that, but at the price of becoming an electromagnetic hoax magnet.
Posted by sbnature  on  Wed Jan 19, 2005  at  05:04 PM
Well I do remember seeing a show on the science channel, on which he showed off his invention fire paste. It was in fact, according to the show, real. Wether or not the show was duped, Im not sure, but the tests they put the paste through certainly seemed to prove that the fire paste, did in fact, operated as promised.
Posted by Jerry  on  Wed Jan 19, 2005  at  09:11 PM
http://www.exn.ca/dailyplanet/view.asp?date=9/15/2004

this is a link to a discovery channel video demonstration.

now maybe intjudo can STFU! and do 5 seconds of fact checking himself.
Posted by norton  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  01:32 AM
OK, I found the Discovery Channel "documentaries:"

fire paste:
http://www.exn.ca/dailyplanet/view.asp?date=4/23/2004

"1313" hardening compound with his fire-paste, metal sheets, kevlar & other materials-- "Light Infantry Military Glass Cushions."
http://www.exn.ca/dailyplanet/view.asp?date=10/12/2004

Here's a telling snip from
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/shared/print.jsp?content=20040301_58846_58846
"...But engulfed in flames, the <bear suit> proved permeable to fire.

Resolved to perfect his fireproof coating, Hurtubise started mixing. Within a few months, he fluked upon the winning formula (the secret ingredient is Diet Coke). 'I do things 30% intelligence and 70% luck,' says Hurtubise.

Apparently this guy's specialty is hacking around in the garage "inventing" things that withstand contrived "demonstrations" but are too cumbersome to apply in the real world, then talking them up too much. Starting with the "bear suit" which is too heavy and bulky to actually use. *And* is not fire-proof, which he learned the hard way. :lol: So he invents "fire paste" (to make his bear suit even more cumbersome?), but doesn't understand why it seems to work, and has to have some real scientists explain it to him.
Posted by intjudo  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  02:00 AM


Phil Novak



Gary Dryfoos

Same person. This has been cracked.
Posted by LePoissonDeNoel  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  02:43 AM
Gary Dryfoos and I are not the same person.

Troy isn't the only one working on technology that can "see" through walls.

I refer your readers to the company Realtronics, in Hermosa, South Dakota. They also say they have developed or are developing something which can penetrate walls or the inside of mountain caves.

Why don't you guys laugh at that company for a while?

As for the editing department, that's me!

Thanks for pointing out the missed word. It has since been corrected.
Posted by Phil Novak  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  08:53 AM
"I refer your readers to the company Realtronics, in Hermosa, South Dakota."

http://www.realtronics.com/

would you mean a company that produced this shoddy website that looks was thrown together in an hour to add depth the hoax you mean?

"Why don't you guys laugh at that company for a while?"

thanks i will, and you as well. ha ha.
Posted by corb  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  09:36 AM
Time Domain Corporation, among others, manufactures a device called ultra-wideband radio, among whose other properties include being able to image through walls. It's relatively new, but it is not Nobel prize stuff.

http://www.timedomain.com/

It uses extremely short pulses, around a picosecond or so, and senses the reflection time, just as does a normal non-Doppler radar.

Also, thermal imaging can provide information on what is behind walls, such as studs and wiring.

This 'garage inventor' most likely would not have the inherent smarts to deal with these issues, unless he had a fair amount of formal training, a large test equipment budget, and a lot of money to blow on state of the art hardware. It could be that he does have all of these.

The critical thing is to not dismiss the idea out of hand, even though anyone who claims 'New laws of physics need to be written' advertises something about their understanding of physics and physical laws that make my skeptic antenna emerge.
Posted by Forrest MacGregor  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  09:42 AM
Well it is no secret that there are tons of particles that penetrate solid materials. Its just that most of them are highly unstable and it does not explain what causes the light to bounce back to allow him to see things.

This guy has been on TV as few times (I have seen the shows). But his Bear suit is a joke now and the fire paste must have some problem or else it would have been bought by now.

He invents mostly by luck, however since he does not follow the usual paradigm of scientific progession he theoretically could stumble across something new.

However I doubt that this angel viewer does every thing he says. At any rate it sounds incredibly dangerous.
Posted by bks  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  09:44 AM
Project Grizzly is very funny, a must see for all lovers of those funny talk'in northeners.
Posted by jay  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  09:59 AM
This guy was a guest on Coast To Coast AM last night. WEEOOOWEEEOOOOWWWWEEEOOOO. Here comes the nice young men in their clean white coats.
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  10:12 AM
The "ray" is probably a simple light projector with a camera on the other side of the object being "seen through" sending a signal. This is how that Japanese scientist is demonstrating a "cloaking device". Probably a copycat of the method.



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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3791795.stm
Posted by -lc-  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  11:06 AM
There's a pretty quick way to debunk this article:

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

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

Be very ashamed of what you have wroght.
Posted by Skid Marky Mark  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  11:29 AM
At least the journalist knows how to spell.
Posted by Proofreader  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  11:41 AM
From the description, it sounds as if he's in part built a very high-powered wide spectrum EMF generator which goes up into the X-ray range. In that case, he probably has only a few years to live.

An unshielded X-ray source is supposed to be pretty easy to build - in the '30s a lot of home science magazines and small presses published plans for them. You can find some of them in reprint presses. The big problem with them is that in the space of a few days of operation they can generate enough stray X-ray radiation to give leukemia to pretty much everyone within a few hundred feet of the machine.
Posted by C Royston  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  01:49 PM
Whether or not this guy is a schmuck, and I believe he probably is, Ultra-Wideband sensing is on the horizon, and is being actively researched in Universities and Startup and R&D companies.

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

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

Stay tuned folks, we're in for an interesting future.
Posted by Ben W.  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  02:09 PM
Im going to have to come to the conclusion that the story is bunk and I am ashamed of the journalism (or lack there of) that went into it.

Furthermore... C Royston has one hell of a point! Though I do not wish for the mans death by any means; the article seems to indicate that he will be having a rough time in the near future!
Posted by egawn  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  03:14 PM
Several comments back someone called Realtronics' website shoddy. Hate to say it, but most small defense contractors websites are shoddy (take a look at ours, http://www.cambertx.com, for example).
I think what Hurtubise has done is use T-wave (terahertz wave) radar. Probably the same thing that Ben W. is referring to. It's legit. Not sure how the EMP effect falls out of it, however.

Lawson
Posted by Lawson Reilly  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  03:16 PM
Hrumph...well, I expressed an *opinion* about the likelihood of the existence of a "Discovery Channel documentary" about the Light Infrantry Military Blast Custions...and was taken to task about my *fact* checking. As if I have the same level of responsibility for checking my *opinions* as Reporters have for checking claims they represent as facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, at least now the good folks at baytoday.ca can say they weren't the only ones hoodwinked by this guy. Looks to me like he snowed the Daily Planet as well.
Posted by intjudo  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  03:39 PM
I'm interested in a pink unicorn. How much are they going for?
Posted by Justin Sharp  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  06:33 PM
Hey Intjudo...do you happen to have any Invisible Purple Unicorns with gold horns? I would like to buy one! 😊
Posted by Myst  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  07:11 PM
There was this lunatic Canadian 'scientist' that was so stupid that he had to work in a rickety shack, with no fancy equipment or facilities. He though that he could cure diabetes! The AIDS of 1900, and he thought he could cure it! It kills 5-10% of all people, is 100% deadly, and the best minds in the world knew it was impossible to cure. He was granted one assistant, and wastes his time taking pancreas from dogs nad mixing them with alcohol in a blender!!!!! Then when his boss stole his idea he didn't get beat him up, and when his boss couldn't remember the recipe the inventor proved it was his idea, but his boss still gets credited with co-inventing. To prove this guy needs to be locked away in an insane asylum, he held the drug that would save millions of people's lives, a drug that could be sold at ANY price, and he gave it away for free! WHAT A LUNATIC.

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

Don't be so quick to dismiss Canadians inventing, against the rules, in garages or shacks - some of you probably owe your lives to it.
Posted by Lucky  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  10:27 PM
Mr. Tesla....Nicola Tesla....You are wanted at the service desk...Please come to the customer service department...Mr. Tesla, please?!
Posted by stork  in  the spiracles of space  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  11:21 PM
Wow, I just found out about this discussion.

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

A couple of points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, believing that the angel light works, and believing that the angel light can't work are both beliefs. I don't take my science "faith-based" either way. Until I see it work or not work, I'm leaving the idea of it filed under "maybe". How about you?
Posted by G.L. Dryfoos  on  Thu Jan 20, 2005  at  11:24 PM
The fact that he says the French gave him $40,000 in "CASH" is a dead giveaway. Either they really did and they want to be able to deny any association to this whack-job, or he is just grasping for some untraceable credibility.
Regardless who would believe a guy with that haircut and Neanderthall head. 🙄
Posted by Tracy Eckels  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  02:47 AM
When Enrico Fermi and a fellow nuclear researcher tried to explain to an air-force officer the implications of a nuclear fission device the officers nodded along politely, and when Fermi left the room a lieutenant said "That's one crazy wop!".

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

Mr Dryfoos, I understand that you would not want to discuss this device for reasons of uncertainty, confidentiality and whatever else - but - could you say if it utilizes neutrinos at all?
Posted by Lucky  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  05:58 AM
Dear Lucky,

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

- I never saw the device fully assembled.

- I never saw the device in operation.

- I don't know if it works.

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

IF (I keep using that word "if" -- you should look it up) the device were shown to really work, do you know any process in real-world non-looney-bird physics that could explain it? Me neither.
Posted by G.L. Dryfoos  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  07:48 AM
Yo, G. L. Doofus. IF I had an invisible gremlin living under my bed that could violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that would be pretty revolutionary, right? Now, I'm not going to give you any proof he exists, but you don't have any proof he doesn't exist, so we should keep an open mind and file it under "maybe", right?

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

This device is a load of moose puckey, pure and simple.
Posted by Donkey Punch  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  08:48 AM
Well, if we assume it works for the purpose of theorizing:

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

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

There is all sorts of crazy stuff, crazy stuff in particle physics. Crazy stuff. And I just skimmed wikipedia.
Posted by Lucky  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  09:24 AM
Occam's Razor. Which is more likely? This hick dreamed up some funky particle physics weapon (And antiquarks aren't that exotic. They're pretty common. Also "color" in particle physics terms has nothing to do with "color" in the pedestrian sense of what color the wall is.) that makes walls invisible, or he's cheating.
Posted by Anonymous Coward  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  09:59 AM
I actually saw the "Discovery Channel Documentary"...it was a show about military technology or something that had a brief bit with this guy demonstrating his "blast cushions" for a military rep. (The rep himself *never* commented on screen, btw, he just watched.)

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

But all this proves is how gullible the Discovery Channel is...
Posted by wonkothesane  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  12:03 PM
i for one am willing to cut the baytoday reporter a whole lotta slack simply because any rational person could see that the baytoday article is much more a 'human interest' story, than a scientific article. i have always assumed that troy was simply a fascinating "cracked pot". what he's doing is sort of like performance art. it's great that there are troy hurtubises in our world to amuse the rest of us with their harmless pranks. let's hope troy gets over his "general malaise" soon and back into the garage, er, laboratory.
Posted by Geebs  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  12:07 PM
See I wasn't imagining it...scroll down to the second story on the page:

http://www.exn.ca/dailyplanet/view.asp?date=9/15/2004

or go straight here:

http://www.exn.ca/video/?video=exn20040915-firepaste3.asx
Posted by wonkothesane  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  12:29 PM
I remember now exactly where I saw this...it was on The (Discovery) Science Channel's "Discoveries This Week"...
Posted by wonkothesane  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  12:32 PM
>> IF I had an invisible gremlin living under my bed that could violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that would be pretty revolutionary, right? Now, I'm not going to give you any proof he exists, but you don't have any proof he doesn't exist, so we should keep an open mind and file it under "maybe", right? <<

...THANK YOU DONKEY PUNCH!!! I was about the post (pretty much) the EXACT SAME response to Dryfoos' post, but you saved me the trouble and showed there are rational people left out there.

>>it's great that there are troy hurtubises in our world to amuse the rest of us with their harmless pranks. let's hope troy gets over his "general malaise" soon and back into the garage, er, laboratory.<<

...Thanks, Geebs, I think that's the best way to look at it. Next time our man Troy pipes up you bet I'm all ears.
Posted by intjudo  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  01:07 PM
Uh, regarding the LIBM. Let's toss a grenade *near* that door and see what happens to it, the glass in it and the dummy behind it. Wouldn't be pretty. In order for those to work the entire surface of a vehicle would have to be covered with them. DUH! Does he have an invisible version for windows? Don't think so. They don't have any magical shrapnel or projectile attracting properties to make them effective in the way they're implimented there and they're pretty run of the mill in regards to balistics protection. Bottom line, he didn't invent anything in that respect, it's been done before.

Basically this guy is a crackpot looking for attention. Notice the accent Discovery Channel commentator? British. Now I'm of British ancestry so I have nothing in general against the British but the British have a real problem with journalistic integrity. How come in that DC piece they don't question him in regards to the issues about the unprotected areas not covered by the bags? Does he think that the ememy is just going to shoot directly at these bags? His behavior during the "demonstration" is something else too. He acts as if he just saved the world. If this bozo thinks so then I suggest he sit behind that door protected with his bags and I'll toss a few grenades in his direction. Better yet maybe he'd like to offer up his little brother. Nah, I'd hate to victimize his little brother for Troy's idiocy.

Regarding the "angel light", well, if it can see through the wall then why doesn't it see through everything behind that wall as well? He's not talking about infrared like "seeing" he's talking about it being like a window has opened there with detail about the object behind it, it just doesn't pan out.

Obviously Mr. Hurtubise needs a reality check. Now I'm not claiming he couldn't invent something worthwhile by stumbling upon it, but he needs to develop a little more professional attitude. From what it looks like to me this guy is like a child that mixes up some things and thinks he's got something new.

Mr. Novak, boy does BayToday have it right. "We do news differently." Yeah, as in very, very shoddy journalism.
Posted by RC  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  05:18 PM
Well RC, at least I have the guts to use my name.
Posted by Phil Novak  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  05:53 PM
from what ive seen, this guy is for real, at least with his other inventions. his fire paste can withstand enormous heat, and every fire insurance co. is interested. i saw him on techt.v. and the discovery channel. he had isreali army officials look at his blast cushions, and put a bunch of dynamite on them while they were attached to a car door. this little cushipn completely absorbed the explosion. the guy looks to me like a friggin genius. only time will tell if the angel light works. i hope it does, it would have a million applications.
Posted by rob  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  08:39 PM
"the British have a real problem with journalistic integrity."

Two words: Fox News

😉
Posted by Asimo  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  08:52 PM
"the British have a real problem with journalistic integrity. "

Irony?
2 Words: Fox News

😉
Posted by Asimo  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  08:55 PM
Helluva comeback there Phil. Unfortunately it misses the point. I'm not the "journalist" here, you're supposed to be. It's your *job* to *investigate* and *question* the things you report on. This seems to be something modern journalists forget. Look at the debacle over the Bush National Guard documents with CBS. In the end it probably had the exact opposite affect they were hoping for because they tried to railroad someone with unsubstantiated bs. Look at what happened with the reporter at the NY Times a couple years ago and his false stories that were never checked.

Rob, "from what you've seen this guy is for real." Yeah, he's for real. He's a for real crackpot that got some attention from his "bear suit" (which is practitally useless) and now he's trying to keep the attention. What you've seen is exactly what the sensationalists want you to see without taking him to task on proof of this "angel light." It makes an interesting story. It's one thing for a layman to "invent" some things that align with pretty basic established physics, it's another to claim you've just dreamt about some fantastical machine and you've built it from your dreams. Uh sure, and I know the secret to cold fusion. Better yet, maybe we should get Hurtubise to work on that, I'm sure it'd be childs play for him. If this guy is a friggin genius...

It's incredible how easily some yahoo gets attention just because he did something kinda useless and strange with a "bear suit" idea. There's no real invention behind the idea that if you made an armored suit it could be bear resistant. However it was fun watching him take a beating in that suit on Discovery. Also, I haven't seen him actually take on a grizzly bear in one of those bear suits. Has he? I did want to see him get hit by a vehicle that didn't have a big pad on the front of it though. There's also no revelation behind his balistic pillows, and I already pointed at the holes in that one in my previous post. Rob, you might want to read it. Sure, you could cover the entire surface of a vehicle with that but then how practical will that be and is it any better than any established form of armor?

The fact that he's been on TechTV and Discovery doesn't mean his inventions are all legit, or that he is in general legit and of genius, it means he has "entertainment value."

Now if he proves this "angel light" thing works as he says I'll happily eat my words, each carved in a block of wood. I don't expect to be chewing on any wooden alphabet very soon though. But hey, if so then there'd be a couple of interesting stories to report on. :lol:

BTW Phil, my name is RC. Maybe I should contend your name isn't Phil?
Posted by RC  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  10:44 PM
Comments: Page 1 of 9 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.