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.
Comments
"You would think that there would be some news one way or another"
I didn't expect there to be any news. Liars like to slink away quietly.
So, where are you Hurtubise apologizers now? What happened? Did Troy run out of Diet Coke to pour into his ray gun? Should I go fetch that discarded physics textbook from the trash?
In the words of Edward G. Robinson, "Where's your Messiah now?"
America and the world is about manufacture more terror finish their plan of creating a population reduction world wide of 80 % AKA The New World Order. The individuals who are in control of this world are not who they might seem. They are evil spirits set out to enslave other spiritual beings, us! I know it sounds as crazy as a beam that makes windows through anything it
tyrannybytes says,
Before you disbelieve Troy, and if the above documented FACTS are starting to pull some sheeple out of the Matrix I submit this - if most posts here would focus as much energy into stopping the satanic, numeric obsessed, wack jobs running all this evil crap, we might have a bit of hope.
Documented facts! Can't hardly stop laughing long enough to type. Jesus Christ... I'd hate to even know what your definition of those words are, together or singally for that matter. You watch WAY too many movies and smoke WAY too much dope there dopey! Also, we put quite a lot of energy into, as you put it... "if most posts here would focus as much energy into stopping the satanic, numeric obsessed, wack jobs running all this evil crap, we might have a bit of hope." Why do you think we repeatedly tell you, and others just like you, how full of shit you are even though we know you're not intelligent enough to ever learn.
In closing, I sure do hope you don't live anywhere near me. But if you do, and ever get too close... remember this. Deer season has been over for quite some time and I'm very bummed about it, but always up for some practice.
😉
I wrote this via email to the author of that article:
"Greetings,
Regarding your "Angelic visions" article by Mark Pilkington on Thursday January 27, 2005:
Do you have *any* process of fact-checking in your organization? Your article is a mere paraphrase of this one: http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/details.asp?c=6657
Your article consists entirely of:
1. Unsubstantiated claims by inventor and/or the reporter regarding the "invention."
2. Unsubstantiated claims concerning powerful people purported to have an interest in the "invention."
3. Unsubstantiated claims concerning credible people purported to speak for the "invention."
4. Wild speculation about the "invention's" possibilities.
I suggest a simple search on Google, at least, before publishing such rubbish. Here, I'll save you the trouble:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/2296/ "
Thanks for your email regarding my Guardian piece on Troy Hurtubise's "Angel Light" project.
You're correct to observe that my item was sourced from the Bay Today newspaper article, which was the only original piece written about the alleged invention at the time. My piece was also supplemented with material from past news items about Hurtubise and his previous inventions and discoveries. However, a 400-word column doesn't allow space for much more than laying out the claims made by an inventor which, if you take a look at other Far Out columns, is what I generally do. When we have the benefit of history and hindsight, then I'm able to detail any follow-up information, but in this case, as I say in the piece, all we can do is wait and see how it evolves. It also hardly seems necessary to add that, as the title suggests, the Far Out column is intended to document fringe and often outrageous scientific claims of exactly this sort.
Hurtubise is clearly something of an eccentric character, the archetypal backyard inventor of which there are many around the world, and who I feel are a valuable and unjustly negelcted part of the wider science culture. While he may not be a government, military or industrially funded scientist, there is no reason to believe that he is a deliberate hoaxer. As some of the commenters on the Museum of Hoaxes web site point out, there are several large companies and labs working on projects similar to Hurtubise's. No doubt their solutions will be more technologically sophisticated, and no doubt theirs, rather than urtubise's, will be picked up for use by the world's militaries. But why shouldn't a character like Hurtubise get there first? And he certainly wouldn't be the first scientist whose inventions or discoveries came to them in dreams.
While it is right to be cautious about his claims
All the best
Mark Pilkington
...thought this exchange may be of interest, especially when coupled with a review of Phil Novak's responses to those criticizing his coverage of Troy's stuff.
I think it's interesting and noteworthy that so far the only people defending Troy's "Inventions" are:
1. People who admit to a propensity towards "cheering for the underdog," and/or
2. Journalists taking a pot-shot at getting a major scoop for little-to-no actual work and/or
3. People who are clearly delusional and/or
4. People who think adherents to the Scientific Method are "narrow minded." As opposed to the "Let's-just-make-shit-up" methodology, which apparently qualifies anyone for a membership in the Brotherhood of Expansive Minds. AND/OR
5. People who have a chip on their shoulder concerning "garage" inventors. As if questioning Troy's claims means you give no credence to any invention that came out of a garage. AND/OR
6. People who have apparently been charmed by the guy.
I can't recall a single proponent of rational, verifiable, consesus-based approaches to validating claims defending this guy's "inventions."
Personally, all I ever wanted to do was have a good laugh at the original article, and share the humor with others. I thought it was pretty obvious humor. I still do. Heck, I reccommend re-reading the original article right now, and forget anything you've learned or discussed here.
It's...so...hilarious!! :lol: Seriously. It's hard to overstate my feelings about this article. It's just so...perfect.
Oh, never mind, he meant he had to FILL a 400 word colum. Fact checking would have actually reduced the article to five words "Nut makes claim. Can't demonstrate."
Good on yer', Plkington. Glad to see your higher education is paying off.
You see this exact conflict in the "intelligent design" versus evolution debate, for example. I believe it is also evident in the clash between supporters of George Bush's policies and those who oppose them.
I'm sure this kind of intellectual conflict has existed for a long time in human society, but I don't think I've ever seen it as heated in my lifetime as it appears to be at the moment.
As the kids say, wha' 'sup wit' dat?
Know what? I'd LOVE to find out that Troy Hurtubise has invented something that totally changes our understanding of the physical universe around us. I'm not "rooting against him."
The problem is that he has made an extraordinary claim. That alone is reason enough to demand very good proof of his claims. Then there's the teensy weensy fact that he doesn't seem to be able to back them up. Oopsie.
Under those circumstances, there seems to be little or no reason to believe what he has said about Angel Light.
Seriously, folks, you really DO have to be able to differentiate between what you wish were true and what IS true. Personally, I think the world would be MUCH more interesting if criminals had a "theme" like the bad guys in the Batman world. Wouldn't it be cool if bank robbers wore leotards with question marks all over them? I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though. Nor am I going to hold my breath waiting for Troy Hurtubise to actually demonstrate his amazing see-through-walls thingie.
Those who can't distinguish between fantasy and reality are in the Express Lane to Cuckoo Town and a society run by people like that doesn't have much of a future.
Before you disbelieve Troy, ... if most posts here would focus as much energy into stopping the ... numeric obsessed, wack jobs...we might have a bit of hope.
yes, tyrannybytes, let us know if you run into any of those "numeric obsessed whack jobs". some may be hiding under your bed but i suggest the first place to check is in the mirror.
this cat makes troy look like a Quaker librarian. let's take up a collection to get him into an Ursus V11 before he hits breakup velocity
I was going to contact the Guardian to 'vent my spleen' after I did some research myself and found out how ridiculous this thing was -
however I think you have missed what the journalist in question was trying to say when he replied. The column that he writes is a small section called 'Far Out' and does indeed generally cover issues which would not get any coverage in a serious broadsheet - recent columns have covered all sorts of topics that would not look out of place on these message boards - Scientology, million year old frogs etc. - the point he was making about this piece was that it is a 'science' story that, if true, would revolutionise how we look at physics. However, he doesn't say that it is true, and most Guardian readers (like myself) would have the sense to look into the story further - if they didn't, then they don't deserve to be reading a groovy liberal broadsheet like the Guardian.
I think the Guardians' journalistic integrity remains intact, and if the Science section hadn't got a 'wacky' corner, then it wouldn't be such a good read.
1. Granted the article was in the "far out" section but the reporter still didn't do enough to qualify the statements he was making. Furthermore, he did *nothing* to investigate them. Also, it's important to remember in this Web-enabled age that people who read your articles don't necessarily read your entire paper, and might not know the article is in the "far out" section.
2. The Guardian has another section in their paper that would have been more appropriate: the "bad science" section.
People like Hurtubise use institutions like The Guardian to transfer responsibility for the claims they make away from themselves and onto the institution. It's a simple, age-old process, and it works like this:
1. Wacko makes claim
2. Institution parrots wacko's claims, without sufficiently investigating and/or qualifying them.
3. Wacko proclaims to the world, "My claims are valid - see, <Institution> even says so."
4. The public believes wacko's claims, because they appear to be endorsed by <Institution>.
The Guardian can't be so naive as to be unaware of this dynamic, and putting the article in the "far out" section doesn't do enough to absolve them of bad journalism, in this case, in my opinion.
It's nice to see that the general democratic right, the freedom of speech, withers and falls to pieces under the weight of your critical thumb,intjudo.
People are going to believe whatever their little people hearts desire, despite your crusade for glaringly obvious truths. I for one couldn't give a rat's ass...without stupidity, we wouldn't have a relative measurement for genius.
I enjoyed the article for its' entertainment value, and was rather heartened that there's still backwoods Canadians tinkering away in their shops.
My question to you is this:
Why are you so threatened by Mr.Hurtubise? The amount of time, effort, and consideration you've put into this 'quack' is quite involved...nearly prolific.
Free speech and the right to give crackpots a stage to spread BS aside, news media that doesn't inform the public about the real world IS a real problem that has very negative consequences.
I know when I pick up the Sun, The Weekly World News, or Policeman's Gazzette, I'm not getting a reliable source of news. But when I pick up the Washington Post, the New York Times, or turn on CBS or CNN, I would assume that I am getting a reliable source of news. The problem is, all of those media outlets have been the victims of outright journalistic fraud over the last 20 years. In some of these cases, journalists have won Pulitzer prizes for stories that they simply made up.
People's understanding of the world effects how they vote and how they treat others, and people get that understanding of the world through the "non-fiction" section of the news stand. It would be nice if it really were non-fiction.
". I for one couldn't give a rat's ass...without stupidity, we wouldn't have a relative measurement for genius."
Does it make you feel better about yourself when you see people who are slow witted or crackpots?
>>It's nice to see that the general democratic right, the freedom of speech, withers and falls to pieces under the weight of your critical thumb,intjudo.<<
...Public discourse concerning the journalistic integrity of particular newspapers is no threat to free speech. If it was my intent to make and enforce laws concerning journalistic standards, that might (for example) be considered a threat to free speech, but that's a far cry from what I'm doing. Happily, The Guardian is free to publish whatever they want, however poorly researched or presented. *And* I'm free to exercise *my* right to free speech by criticizing it, even if my criticism is "overly" critical in someone else's opinion...and it's their right to say *that*...get it?
>>People are going to believe whatever their little people hearts desire, despite your crusade for glaringly obvious truths.<<
On this very thread we've had people decide their initial support of Hurtubise's claims was based on emotional desires, not rational analysis of the validity of Hurtubise's claims. And they've decided to think more rationally as a result. It's my observation that civil and rational discourse has a positive effect on the world. You seem to have adopted a more cynical outlook, but I'd encourage you to re-evaluate this outlook, taking into account the fact that people can and do change their minds for the better.
>>I for one couldn't give a rat's ass<<
Frankly I don't believe that. I think you do care about the world and about other people; most of us do. Sometimes it's hard to 'fess up to, I know I've been there.
>>I enjoyed the article for its' entertainment value, and was rather heartened that there's still backwoods Canadians tinkering away in their shops.<<
I absolutely agree. I've said this before, and I'll point it out once more: in my opinion the funniest part of this whole thing isn't Hurtubise. The funniest part of this whole fiasco is the fact that his fantastic claims have been published verbatim, with little or no qualification and absolutely no fact-checking, by otherwise reputable news sources. I think it is simply hilarious that this guy's stories made it into Bay Today, The Discovery Channel and The Guardian. Maybe Troy can't help it if he's a little deluded. But what a bunch of laughable bumbling "journalists!"
Again, the main issue here isn't Hurtubise, it's journalism. Another important issue is credulity. I don't feel threatened by Hurtubise the man. I absolutely *do* feel threatened by bad journalism. I think it's important to talk about bad journalism because of all the bad things bad journalism can accomplish in this world, especially when combined with credulity on the part of individuals and/or large populations of people.
Sometimes, for many people, the best way to release tension regarding things that threaten them is to laugh about them. I'm no different. The spectres of bad journalism and credulity are threatening to me, and I like to laugh. Thus my "prolific" participation in this thread. Plus, I just like talking to people. As long as someone is on this thread who wants to either have a laugh or a serious discussion, I'll keep the conversation going.
Please feel free to agree, disagree or post something funny related to this topic. I'm all ears.
"Does it make you feel better about yourself when you see people who are slow witted or crackpots?"
An obvious dig from Mr. SixPack, who can plainly see that I didn't claim as much, nor did I suggest that I was from either the 'stupid' or 'genius' groups. A dead argument best left alone.
As for journalistic integrity, I for one would rather read forteanic/psuedoscientific gibberish than have to digest the reams of finely spun news that regularly pelt dear Canada from our southern neighbor. That isn't to say that we don't have problems within our own border (i.e. the Asper fiasco involving rewrites of AP news releases), but there was a ruling in the US made last year that made me particularly skittish.
The basic statement of the ruling was that FOX news didn't have to 'tell the truth'. That is, there's no provision by the FCC that limits the distortion of the news media.
So, technically, the "Washington Post, the New York Times, ...CBS or CNN" don't HAVE to be accurate. The choose to be accurate, but don't have to adhere to the truth with all stories at all times.
That's my concern.
Here's some nice counterspin on the case that brought the FCC ruling to the forefront...
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/Link8.html
Call me Joe, please. And yes, it was a well earned dig too, I think. There could be only two possible reasons the Guardian ran that story;
1)They wanted to promote pseudoscience,
OR
2)They wanted to showcase a crackpot for public ridicule.
I think the first possibility is dishonest, and the second cruel. Both are immoral. Take your pick.
I read your comments and the article you posted with interest but can't respond just yet, too much going on...but I'll be back...
from nature.com:
Engineers devise invisibility shield
Philip Ball
Electron effects could stop objects from scattering light.
The idea of a cloak of invisibility that hides objects from view has long been confined to the more improbable reaches of science fiction. But electronic engineers have now come up with a way to make one.
Andrea Al
"There could be only two possible reasons the Guardian ran that story;
1)They wanted to promote pseudoscience,
OR
2)They wanted to showcase a crackpot for public ridicule."
I would like to refer the Honourable Gentleman to my previous response, and postulate a 3rd idea -
3) They wanted to fill the 'Far Out' column with a quirky science related story, to provoke interest and debate amongst the more intelligent readers.
The context of the article (as described by the author in his email) is that it is in a section of the paper called 'Far Out' and his reason for publishing the story was not to draw attention to the wonders of pseudo science, or indeed to give any undue publicity to the creator (even of an adverse type) but rather to fill a column with roughly 400 words of a science type story that could be considered 'Far Out'. now I agree with previous posters who have been upset by a serious paper giving black and white respectability to a junk of shit like this, and I also agree that the journalist in question could have spent 5 minutes researching the story and written about it from a more negative point of view.
But here is my point - If the article was in the Sun, or on Fox News, then it could have been read or seen by many more people, who due to the nature of their particular demograph would be more likely to believe it unquestioningly. As it appears in a serious newspaper, in the Far Out section I would be very surprised if anyone actually took this as a 100% accurate story.
Anyone, myself included, who read this and had any tiny nagging doubt would try to find out for themselves if there is any truth to this story, and then hopefully realise the story was ridiculous but think about the subject and even join a forum to discuss these hoaxes in good old fashioned debate.
Like I just have.
>>They wanted to fill the 'Far Out' column with a quirky science related story, to provoke interest and debate amongst the more intelligent readers.
<<
I can pretty much agree with everything in your post with the above quote, and well said.
It would have been absolutely *hilarious* if one of the magor news outlets had picked this up. Can you imagine the countless hours of credulous vs. rational debate?
There are plenty of historical examples of bad journalism from a minor outlet being picked up by a slightly bigger outlet, and on up the chain until it's reported by the majors...with no fact-checking, all the way up the chain.
It's interesting that this story started out in Bay Today and got as far as The Guardian (admittedly, in the "Far Out" section), but stopped there. Troy has also got as far as The Discovery Channel, Ripley's Believe It Or Not and his cult "Project Grizzly" pseudo-documentary.
So close, so many times, but he still hasn't scored a major media piece. I wonder if he's got another serious shot at the majors left in him?
Speaking for myself and all the other Troy junkies on this forum: yes PLEASE DO let us know anything you hear about the Angel Light! Especially if you hear that he's going to demonstrate it. What this thread really needs is someone on the scene!
Maybe we can report any activity on a bogus "news" site and see if we can get Fox to pick it up...
>>The basic statement of the ruling was that FOX news didn't have to 'tell the truth'. <<
To quote the article you pointed to:
"In reality, the FCC has never adopted a formal rule on news distortion. For the FCC to Monday-morning quarterback news decisions would be an obvious violation of news organizations' First Amendment rights. Court decisions are clear, as with a 1985 opinion that concluded the FCC will not 'inquire why a particular piece of information was reported or not reported.'"
Apparently, in theory the FCC can pull the license of a news organization convicted of purposely distorting the truth. However, in practice it seems this power isn't exercised for fear of stomping on First Amendment rights. So, in practice news outlets aren't required to report the truth, and may even get away with deliberate distortion (at least from the FCC's point of view - I know nothing about the body of law governing news reporting). We certainly know they routinely get away with "spinning" the news to Conservative, Liberal etc. viewpoints.
Personally, I can't see how you'd go about enforcing a law forbidding inaccurate/misleading news reporting. It's a classic problem of where-do-you-draw-the-line.
Instead, we're all hoping that Joe Q. Public places a monetary value on accuracy in news reporting, and will take his dollars away from news organizations who don't provide it.
Of course, we've also seen that Joe Q. Liberal will pay for liberally-slanted news that's not neccessarily 100% accurate, and Joe Q. Conservative will pay for his Conservative-slant news...
Ultimately, with freedom comes responsibility. We have the right to pretty much report anything in any way we want, and we have the right to read pretty much any news report we want. Collectively, then, we have the responsibility to weed out the accurate from the inaccurate without Uncle Sam providing any kind of guarantee of accuracy in news reporting.
The ruling was nothing more than our government saying, "we trust Joe Q. Public to make his own decisions about the accuracy of specific news reports, and feel no need to regulate this on his behalf."
One thing that does scare me is when Joe Q. Public mistakes a source of entertainment/opinion as a "news source" e.g. Rush Limbaugh, "Dr." Laura etc. These people are nothing but passionate opinion-providers, they have no journalistic credentials, belong to no journalistic organizations, and have zero journalistic responsibility. Yet they state their opinions, assumptions and guesses as real news, and unfortunately a lot of their audience accepts what they say is "news" as 100%-bona-fide-accurate NEWS.
Next thing you know someone will consider Dave Barry a reliable source of news.
'The ruling was nothing more than our government saying, "we trust Joe Q. Public to make his own decisions about the accuracy of specific news reports, and feel no need to regulate this on his behalf."'
The case wasn't really about news distortion. It was about firing of two reporters. The jury found only one whistle-blower discrimination, but it was overturned on appeal (because the sacking was based on a threat to complain to the FCC, which was not considered to fall under the whistle-blower law).
There was obviously no court decission to say that you can distort news at will. There was no decission to say that any distortion happened.
The "news distortion" claims in the BGH case have not been properly investigated by the authority under which such claims fall (the FCC). You can only wonder why (maybe there is no case to prove?).
In addition to complaints to the FCC under their news distortion investigation procedure, you also have the option of suing over any damages as a civil complaint (for example bad investment decissions due to false reporting). All you need to do is to have proof that satisfies court/FCC.
The burden of proof varies between those. If you can prove damages, it will be easier to get a favorable ruling about the news itself, because you only need to show negligence (checking facts is part of a reporter's job). With the FCC option you need to prove intentional distortion (they knew the facts but reported something else) but not actual damages.
Its not a hoax!
Wow there are a lot of Ignorant people here.... >_>
"why is this artical even on this site? O_o
Its not a hoax!
Wow there are a lot of Ignorant people here.... >_>"
Well, if misspelling "article" and insulting people doesn't prove that Angle Light is for real, what COULD?
Facts? Ha! I spit on your "facts."
"Wow there are a lot of Ignorant people here.... >_>"
As evidenced by your being here, saying something so incredibly stupid, and then signing your moniker to it...
😉
Gullible ass people... I suppose you've have your DNA perfected as well Spaceman.
I just saw him on Discoveries this week again, talking about Angel Light and also demonstrating his blast pillows to the military.
Angel Light is still a relitivly new invention of his... and as with his other inventions, it will take some time before we see it in action...
But for sure we will see it, and probably on Discovery, or at least some news channel.
Franly, I don't believe that this article should be on this site either. Cause once it is proven to be real, it will defeat the purpose of this sites name!
And Troy isn't even the only person working on such a device, there are other projects done by universities and military that have extreamly simmilar results.
I know that just by posting here, I'm gonna have my post shot at and flamed... just because I'm willing to give trust Troy for as long as it takes for him to prove this one.
Sarcasm, just in case anyone thought I was serious. 😊
Anyhow, this topic is dead for the most part.