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
>>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.
its brilliant.
go troy !
HILARIOUS!
Part One:
http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/details.asp?c=8267
Part Two:
http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/details.asp?c=8271
More of the same formula, which by now is familiar to anyone who's followed this thread: a bunch of earth-shaking, unsubstantiated claims, a bunch of anonymouse "experts" etc. All spoon-fed to the credulous and would-be scooper Phil Novak.
Phil BTW is either part of an elaborate and sustained hoax or is the world's dumbest journalist working for the world's dumbest editor working for the worst "news"paper ever. The fact that they keep printing this junk is either hilarious or outrageous.
I'm endlessly amused by Troy, but as far as baytoday.ca goes I'm either amused to the point of hilarity or incensed, pending further facts in the matter.
In other related news, I saw Troy in yet another "documentary:" the Max-X TV show of the world's all-time dumbest dudes. Guess who placed in the #1 spot? Right! Our man Troy! World's #1 dumbest dude according to the experts at Max-X! Admittedly this doesn't constitute any kind of proof, but then again neither do the Discovery Channel "documentaries."
http://www.intalek.com/AV/Troy-Hurtubise-Interview2.wma
Here's good one-stop-shopping for the Hurtubise junkie:
http://www.americanantigravity.com/hurtubise.shtml
As for the whole 'Angel Light' topic, maybe Troy has his reasons for not reassembling the device and demonstrating it. He might have foreseen a use of the device for which it was not intended, and the moral cost was too high for him to pay.
In theory, if Einstein had foreseen the actual destructive force his atom bomb would create, including forces that weren't detected until much later(ex. Fallout), would he have proceeded with the project?
Thou the fundamental difference between the A-bomb and the light was it's intended application. The A-bomb was designed for war, but the science behind it provided numerous technologies we use today such as the nuclear reactor for power, showing multiple applications for the same technology in ways that help advance humanity as a whole. The light however, doesn't have a determined function and could possibly be used in any way the operator of the device could see fit. It should make one stop and consider all the possible applications of the invention, and the moral weight that would be carried caused by the applications of the invention. This might be the reason Troy doesn't push forward. Notice his tendencies towards protective/defensive inventions yet?
Yes, I saw the ~4 days since the previous posting.
Please, take your prepubescent insecurities elsewhere and pull your heads out of your respective asses.
"Wow, just wow. As much as I find your attempts at mockery thoroughly amusing, I also have to wonder when during your infancy you were dropped on your head."
Your silly attempts at insulting us prove NOTHING about Troy's fake "invention." The thing either works or it doesn't. Period. What you think of us is completely irrelevant. Prove that it works as claimed and Troy Hurtubise is a certified genius. If it doesn't, he's just an asshole who is desperate to be CONSIDERED a genius with nothing to back that assessment up.
"Although there are a few minor errors in some articles, there's no reason to try and pick them apart."
By "a few minor errors," do you mean that they seem to uncritically accept Troy's claims of having invented a device that defies the known laws of physics without providing any evidence? I'd call that a "LARGE error."
"Also, I've seen the Daily Planet segments on his inventions and read that they were thoroughly monitered by the Discovery Channel- Troy Hurtubise is not a fake. In fact, I'd say he's a bona fide genius."
What does "thoroughly monitored" mean? They AIRED stories on it, sure, but you seem to be trying to imply that they somehow ran actual TESTING on it. Can you back that up?
"Please, take your prepubescent insecurities elsewhere and pull your heads out of your respective asses."
How long should we wait for proof that Troy's device can see through walls, cure cancer or do any of the other things he claims it can do before we're allowed to laugh out loud?
This guy Troy is amazing!
http://www.intalek.com/AV/Troy-Hurtubise-Interview2.wma
God Light is teh awesome!!! omg cure my rash!!! XD O_o...
to all you naysayers, look at the greatest inventors over history. all persecuted by modern science.
great inventors all have one thing in common, imaginations; and refusing to be constrained by conventional knowledge. the largest advances come from an unconcious understanding of complex ideas.
btw, nice video on his fire paste
http://patty.exn.ca/video/?video=exn20030903-firepaste.asx
"to all you naysayers, look at the greatest inventors over history. all persecuted by modern science.
"great inventors all have one thing in common, imaginations; and refusing to be constrained by conventional knowledge. the largest advances come from an unconcious understanding of complex ideas."
Your logic is flawed, Marcus. While it may be true that all great inventors have been ignored or even ridiculed by others initially, it is not also true that everyone who is ignored or ridiculed is necessarily a great inventor.
I worked outside the White House for three years in the 90's. I knew several people who hung around 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. who had, shall we say, "interesting" theories on various things. They were ignored and/or ridiculed by a LOT of people. While many of them were very nice people, I think they could have been diagnosed as schizophrenic; their ideas were not consistent with reality. Get my point?
The fact that Troy Hurtubise is ridiculed in no way "proves" that he has invented a revolutionary device.
"try and remember that this is not, in fact, a website for the greatest theoretical physicists of our time to hash out new ideas."
Finally a piece of truth. 8<]
Is there any way to contact Troy Hurtubise? If firepaste does even 1/4 of what that Discovery Channel video demonstrated, is reasonably cheap and stable, I've definitely got a requirement for it and would like to license.
And as for the bear suit, did you ever stop to think that most of his inventions are still in early devellopement due to lack of funds? The first "computers" would take up an entire room (a big one at that) and it took a long time before they became the desktops you use to write your stupiditys. So if i were you, I'd shut my pie hole before any one else makes a total ass out of you (well, makes it apparent anyway, your pretty good at making an ass out of yourself).
And for the record Jay, not all Canadians have such a thick accent, that is just stereotypical bull sh!t. Do i really have to remind you all of your less "develloped" states?... "dem der canadians talkin funny"
"LOL! The vast majority of u guys are morons. "
I'm guessing you're not in the diplomatic corps, huh? Seriously, starting off a posting in that way is just about guaranteed to get you not taken seriously.
"I'm not saying this as an insult, but more as to say that if u dont understand something, then sthu."
And just what exactly is it we "don't understand?" What YOU seem to fail to understand is the difference between "not understanding" something and being skeptical about the claims of its inventor.
"And as for the bear suit, did you ever stop to think that most of his inventions are still in early devellopement due to lack of funds?"
Well, that's a nice theory, but do you have any FACTS to back up the idea that Troy's things actually work as advertised? I have a time machine in my closet. All I need is $100 million to put the spit shine on it.
"The first "computers" would take up an entire room (a big one at that) and it took a long time before they became the desktops you use to write your stupiditys."
And this is relevant to the discussion of Troy's "inventions" how, exactly? This is really just a variation on the old "Many great inventors were laughed at in the beginning; Troy is laughed at, therefore he must be a great inventor" false logic.
If Troy's "inventions" work, all he has to do is DEMONSTRATE them. At that point, all criticism will cease. If he can't do that, he will continue to be laughed at. It's really just that simple.
"So if i were you, I'd shut my pie hole before any one else makes a total ass out of you (well, makes it apparent anyway, your pretty good at making an ass out of yourself)."
So when are you planning on starting to make asses of us, using LOGIC and FACTS?
"Well, what i meant to say (altho not in a very dipplomatic way as i should've) is that its not the invention as it is presently that should b judged but the potential of the invention itself."
Same goes for that time machine in my closet. Sure, it looks like it's made out of old paint cans and loose wires connected to random circuit boards NOW but it has great potential.
"The first planes (for example) werent as good as the ones today, but opended a doorway."
No, of course the early airplanes weren't as sophisticated as the ones of today, but they DID fly. When Troy can make his Angel Light thing "fly" so to speak, then the laughter will cease.
"Frankly, i doubt any of us could make something as elaborate in there own garage (im not saying you'd want to, its his passion not ours) but i dont think its fair to diss some 1 for their passion..."
Who has criticized him for his passion? The criticism is because he makes extravagant claims for devices which he then cannot back up with a simple demonstration. As I've said before, all he has to do to stop the laughter and criticism is show that his Angel Light thing WORKS. Until then, it has exactly as much credibility as the time machine in my closet: none.
"Just cause im not as good as say Van Halen, Steve Vai or Jason becker on the guitar, doesnt mean that i should be insulted for trying to open new frontiers in music. That jsut doesnt make sens to me... If this is the attide that we were all to adopt, man kind would not advance."
I don't see the relevance. He's not claiming to have a device which sees through walls better than anyone else's device can see through walls (that, of course, would be because such a device doesn't exist). He's claiming to be able to do that which seems to be impossible. All he has to do is back up his claims with FACTS. Why is this hard to understand?
I think it's because a lot of people identify with the romantic concept of the little guy against the system. Hey, I've said before that I'd be his biggest fan if he can just PROVE THAT THE THING WORKS! If he can't, he's not "the little guy fighting the system," he's just a blowhard.
Lets assume the device is real and actually works the way the inventor claims. In that case, I'd throw it on a flat bed truck and drive down to IBM, Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and every other large defense contracting company, and every company involved in creating medical diagnostic equipment and SHOW THEM the technology in action. I'd then introduce them to my lawyer and let them hammer out the details on where the bidding war would take place.
Following that? I'd work on my Nobel Prize acceptance speach.
What I wouldn't do is take my invention to the Discovery Channel... WTF. If it works, pimp that thing out and make some cash, get some recognition, and help kickstart a new field of physics.
Next he will capture the cure for clean air and say it was released from his anus....during a dream....in a flaming see through bearsuit.
The bottom line is that extraordinary claims must be met with extraordinary proof. This guy has made extraordinary claims, but has NOT provided the proof required to support his claims.
I'll repeat my earlier statement. If this thing were real, you WOULD know about it. Such an invention has applications in just about every industry and he would be marketing it to each of them to try and capitalize on his invention.
It wouldn't be hard to get an audience with major companies in each industry either. If his initial marketing attempts failed, all he would have to do is make a few phone calls to major media outlets (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc.) and get them to perform interviews where you can see the machine working.
And do you REALLY think that you would market something beyond your understanding? (many such things occured with medicin and caused a whoal hell of alot of trouble...)
As i said before (and nobody seems to read before posting), isnt it logical to thoroughly test something before it is used by Mr John Q. Public?...
Troy has made other inventions before, and has proved them. If you look around, there are videos of him testing his inventions... ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL!!!
So before you make a flaming idiot of yourself, google his inventions a bit, he's got more credibility than u.
"You guys are idiots."
Way to make friends, F.K.
"You think just cause this guy doesn't have a pHD he can't invent things?"
No one has said any such thing. Your "argument" is the type of thing that frauds like to use to bolster their claims (no, I'm NOT saying that YOU are a fraud. I AM saying that frauds use that "logic" to divert criticism).
"How do you think invention happens? It's guys in their garages, tinkering with stuff until they discover something amazing."
Actually, nowadays, most inventions are NOT created by the stereotypical guy working alone in his garage. I like that romantic notion as much as anyone, but the modern reality is that most things are invented by well-funded people working for large companies. I wish it wasn't like that, but it is.
"You think Edison went to school for 10 years to invent the light bulb? No! He sat in his shop and tried filament after filament until one worked."
Edison had a very large laboratory full of people who worked full-time on projects at his direction. I'm not entirely sure that the story about Edison working solo, trying thousands of different filiments, is true, but the electric light bulb does not violate the known laws of physics, unlike Troy's "Angel Light." You people who support Troy's claims keep ignoring that salient fact.
You also keep ignoring the question of why, if he has in fact invented something that would turn the scientific world on its ear, he doesn't simply DEMONSTRATE it? The day I invent a car that can drive coast-to-coast on a teacup full of water, you can bet your life I will tell everyone who will listen about it. What possible incentive would I have NOT to?
"30% Intellegence and 70% Luck describes pretty much every new invention."
As I said above, most inventions on the market today were created by large companies. If your percentages were ever accurate, I'd say they aren't any more.
"dood... if YOU dont believe that his invention works, do you really think that CNN will?"
I know that wasn't addressed to me, but I cannot figure out what you're trying to say.
"And do you REALLY think that you would market something beyond your understanding? (many such things occured with medicin and caused a whoal hell of alot of trouble...)"
Again, what are you trying to say? Are you saying that Troy doesn't understand his own invention? Medicine is not perfect, but before a medicine is allowed to go to market, it is tested on many animals and humans. Where's Troy's testing?
"As i said before (and nobody seems to read before posting), isnt it logical to thoroughly test something before it is used by Mr John Q. Public?..."
Yes, that makes sense. So, why did Troy talk to the media about Angel Light before, as you are apparently claiming, having tested it? Nobody twisted his arm to show it to the TV people, right? The reality seems to contradict your point here.
"Troy has made other inventions before, and has proved them. If you look around, there are videos of him testing his inventions... ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL!!!"
I'll keep making this point until you apologists understand it. His other inventions do NOT violate the known laws of physics, unlike Angel Light. If I told you I could fly under my own power, without the use of any mechanical devices, would you simply accept my word or would you ask me to demonstrate my alleged ability? Troy's claim is no less outrageous than that, so why don't you insist that he SHOW YOU??
"So before you make a flaming idiot of yourself, google his inventions a bit, he's got more credibility than u."
And if we were to Google Troy Hurtubise, would we see AN ACTUAL DEMONSTRATION of Angel Light or would we simply see the same stuff we've already seen? I think we all know the answer to that question.
The bottom line here is very simple: If he can't or won't demonstrate that his "invention" does what he says it can, why should anyone believe him? Because he invented a bear suit? Sorry, that just doesn't cut it.
I know that wasn't addressed to me, but I cannot figure out what you're trying to say.
Did you even bother to read other posts on this page?
Again, what are you trying to say? Are you saying that Troy doesn't understand his own invention? Medicine is not perfect, but before a medicine is allowed to go to market, it is tested on many animals and humans. Where's Troy's testing?
No, he doesnt understand his own invention. If it defys the laws of physics, who does understand it? lol
Yes, that makes sense. So, why did Troy talk to the media about Angel Light before, as you are apparently claiming, having tested it? Nobody twisted his arm to show it to the TV people, right? The reality seems to contradict your point here.
Angel light is the only 1 of his inventions without video recordings of it beeing tested. All (or all the good inventions anyway) have video footage of them beeing tested/prooved(there was a link to the discovery channel's site on 1 of the earlyer pages i think)
I'll keep making this point until you apologists understand it. His other inventions do NOT violate the known laws of physics, unlike Angel Light. If I told you I could fly under my own power, without the use of any mechanical devices, would you simply accept my word or would you ask me to demonstrate my alleged ability? Troy's claim is no less outrageous than that, so why don't you insist that he SHOW YOU??
i suggest taking a lil trip to india my friend...(ive seen it with my own eyes... find something a lil more perplexing next time 😛) With the magnetic field of the earth, and the energy stored in your electrolytes, it is theoretically possible to levitate or at the least, lower your weight significantly (depending on the atmospheric pressure/the strength of the earths magnetic field at that specific location/the charge in your electrolytes etc)
And if we were to Google Troy Hurtubise, would we see AN ACTUAL DEMONSTRATION of Angel Light or would we simply see the same stuff we've already seen? I think we all know the answer to that question.
No, you wont c a demonstration of Angel light. But if you actually stopped beeing so lazy and pressed the damn search button, you would find out that he dismantled it after the initial tests, and then sent the blueprints to engineers in europe for them to work on it. Also, you would c videos/info on his other inventions. NOBEL PRIZE winning inventions i might add!
So whom do you think i trust more? a NOBEL PRIZE winner with video footage of his tests or a lil media fanatic who has his head so far up his @$$ that he closes off his mind from anything that would bend the "laws" of physics?
"oooooo noooo! he burst my bubble!"
(its not THAT hard to read now is it?)