The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
   
Hoaxes Throughout History
Middle AgesEarly Modern1700s1800-1840s1850-1890s
1900s1910s1920s1930s1940s1950s1960s1970s1980s1990s21st Century2014
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 by The Curator on Wed Jan 19, 2005


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  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  12:27 AM
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  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  01:21 AM
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  in  Boston, MA  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  01:24 AM
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. oh oh
Posted by Tracy Eckels  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  04:47 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  07:58 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  in  Boston, MA  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  09:48 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  10:48 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  11:24 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  11:59 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  in  Florida  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  02:03 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  in  north bay, ontario  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  02:07 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  02:29 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  02:32 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  03:07 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  07:18 PM
Well RC, at least I have the guts to use my name.
Posted by Phil Novak  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  07:53 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  10:39 PM
"the British have a real problem with journalistic integrity."

Two words: Fox News

wink
Posted by Asimo  in  Ireland  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  10:52 PM
"the British have a real problem with journalistic integrity. "

Irony?
2 Words: Fox News

wink
Posted by Asimo  in  Ireland  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  10:55 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  Sat Jan 22, 2005  at  12:44 AM
RC, why would I lie about my name?
Anyway I have spoken to a nuclear physicist about the Angel Light and will be presenting his feedback, and that of others in the science field, in a follow-up article, along with new photos of the device.

Let me leave you with a quote from the English astronomer and cosmologist Fred Hoyle:

""I don't see the logic of rejecting data just because they seem incredible."
Posted by Phil Novak  on  Sat Jan 22, 2005  at  03:06 AM
Phil Novak good for you, don't let them get you down. I have no idea why RC and guys like him act like this. Is it because the invention is NIH (not invented here)? Is it because he is dealing with France (after rebuff by America)? Is it because he is not classically trained (I don't think RC is very 'professional')?

I think we are witnessing a spectacle to be remembered. If we forget about the 'angel light' for the moment, we are witnessing the mindset that laughed at the Wright Brothers and laughed at Copernicus and lynched Galileo. We are privledges to witness the even that history books refer to tritely as 'popular disbelief' or 'resistance to their ideas', in reference to inventors and innovators. I just wish I could send this Troy guy an e-mail telling him that regardless of the invention he has my support just for trying.
Posted by Lucky  on  Sat Jan 22, 2005  at  04:02 AM
Btw you guys are really sceptical. I really hope you are equally sceptical when it comes to religious beliefs. The pink unicorn bit can be applied to gods aswell wink

best regards
Posted by heiny  in  sweden  on  Sat Jan 22, 2005  at  09:30 AM
They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at Einstein. But you know what? They also laughed at Bozo the clown. Being laughed at is not a credential for anyone but comedians.

Mr. Novak, may I suggest that in addition to a physicist, you might also want to talk to a magician. I design illusions for magicians, and I can assure you, there's plenty of ways to pull of Troy's effect that don't require exotic physics, and could easily fool a scientist. Remember that scientists aren't necessarily trained to detect fraud.

In fact, this is giving me a new idea for an illusion....
Posted by Donkey Punch  on  Sat Jan 22, 2005  at  10:24 AM
correction donkey punch, in fact "they" (the better informed minds of the time) did not "laugh" at einstein, or copernicus for that matter. In each case it was more like shock and dismay. No shock and dismay here.
Posted by scarface  in  NYC  on  Sat Jan 22, 2005  at  02:00 PM
Phil, theres a real easy way to verify this thing works or not, go back to Troy and get video of it in action, post it on the baytoday website. Oh and one more thing, I'd definitely question Troy about his access to the piece of stealth material he said he used, if thats actual stealth coated RAM from the Comanche project then he could actually be in violation of some serious crimes along with the MIT person who gave him access to it.

Oh and for the record I'm going to bet hes either got a high powered microwave/x-ray emitter or something that throws out a really nasty EMP as a side effect.
Posted by Valentine  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  03:25 AM
It's amazing to me that the people who claim to be so intelligent are the most close minded and limited thinkers who can't expand their thoughts past their text book knowledge. As I read through the boards I hear mostly ridicule of this inventor because his inventions seem "wacky" or "bulky" or "impractible" or "defies the laws of physics".

I can see you guys standing on the beach at Kitty Hawk laughing at the Wright bros. "Ha Ha, big deal you flew a couple hundred yards in that giant contraption. Man can't fly, don't you know that?" Of course what is true is that YOU never would fly. "I'm so smart I wouldn't even try it because I know it wouldn't work."

Let me just pose this question: Which of these two people, being equivilent in ability & IQ are more likely to invent something that defies the laws of physics over their lifetime.... someone who is well schooled in the sciences and laws of physics or the guy who is kind of a "garage genius" who just does stuff without regard to KNOWN limitations?

You might consider asking yourself WHO it is that LETS US KNOW what those physical laws are. The more likely that this x-ray vision machine is real, the less likely you'll ever hear about it.

Of course since you don't hear much about it, that'll convince you that you were completely right all along, that it was a hoax..... "Ha, see I told you, my years of education told me right away this was impossible!"

"Besides, if things like this or say, anti-gravity vehicles that operate on free energy were invented and real, we would hear all about it. It would be the discovery of our lifetime, with free energy we would no longer have a need for fossil fuels".......... Hello, anybody home?

There is a reason why Nikola Tesla, one of the greatest inventors ever, is not a household name. If I say Edison, you say light bulb and phonograph. If I say Tesla you immediately see arching lightning in a labratory. Very few people will see, hydroelectric generator, electric motor, wireless technology, microwave, radio control, sonar, fluorescent bulb, neon lights, speedometer plus other stuff that would cause most of you guys to have an aneurysm.

So it would be kind of hard to claim certain technology doesn't exist today that Tesla already had a handle on 80 years ago. You should do some research on him.... you'll really have a good laugh.
Posted by JTF  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  04:04 AM
Phil Novak said:

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

No doubt MANY people are working on technology that can see through walls? So what? That does not prove that Mr. Bear-proof Suit has actually come up with it. If he really has it, why doesn't he just demonstrate it? Seems simple enough.

"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?"

So there's another bunch of people who CLAIM to have a device that can see through walls. Again, so what? Why don't THEY just demonstrate their miraculous machine or process or whatever it is?

Several posters have brought up the notion of people having laughed at the Wright Brothers. Yes, I'm sure that happened, but you know what happened next? Wilbur and Orville actually FLEW their plane and the laughter stopped. Bearsuit Boy needs to demonstrate his magical machine. If it can do what he claims it can, the laughter will stop immediately. AND we will have a revolution in science.

People are entitled to laugh at those who make fantastic claims and who refuse to prove them.
There's no reason to take this "Angel light" nonsense seriously until such time as it is scientifically proven to work. Put up or shut up (or, as we say in the Bronx, shit or get off the pot.)
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  07:25 AM
Angel Light may or may not be possible - until we see proof, not one of us can say otherwise. Every day scientists are finding that what we currently think of as the 'laws of physics', aren't as well founded as once believed; something like
Posted by Sykoi  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  09:15 AM
I have one question for Mr. Novac. Did he actually see a demonstration of the device? If not, then he really needs to reconsider his career choice.
Posted by Carl  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  12:44 PM
Comments: Page 2 of 14 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
Commenting is no longer available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.