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
Second, don't overstate his "armor". It is durable, but it isn't indestructible. It is not "impossible to destroy with bombs".
Third, the reason you can shoot down a helicopter with, as you said, an "air gun" is because helicopters have fragile points that cannot be armored. Most notably, the rotors.
"It's dinks like you who would have us back in the stone-age just to save your fragile illusions about your importance and place in the world. Contribute or Shut the F-Up"
Personal attacks are irrelevant. Either the thing works or it doesn't. Period. The burden of proof is on Troy and so far, he hasn't met it. Weren't we supposed to have seen some sort of definitive evidence of this thing's ability to see through solid objects by now?
The fact is that we skeptics do not believe Troy's claims for this device because:
1: The claims appear to defy the known laws of physics.
2: He hasn't demonstrated that the thing works.
If and when he can prove that he has invented a machine which can see through solids (not using X-rays, obviously) then the world will have to acknowledge that he is a genius. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though.
If you'd care to discuss this further without the insults, have at it. If the crux of your "arguments" is that skeptics are doodyheads, well, why should we take your seriously?
Let's break it down for full enjoyment:
Contents:
1. Irrelevant, anecdotal "evidence"
2. Inconclusive "evidence"
3. Speculation
4. Hearsay
5. Personal Insults
6. Profanities
Added Bonus: an implication that folks like himself, presumably by employing the above tactics, are responsible for bringing the human race out of the Stone Age. Well thank you Mr. Believer for being the ballast of common sense that keeps this crazy ship of humanity from sinking!
It seems that in Mr. Believer's view, repeatable and measurable observations, testable hypothesis, experimental proof and outside verification of results had nothing to do with the human race's advancement past the Stone Age.
He then wraps it all up by proposing, and simultaneously breaking, the following (brilliantly inane) rule: "Contribute or shut the F-Up".
I guess the name says it all: "Believer."
Believer: I know it's too much to ask, since you've already been kind enough to provide all this free entertainment, but if you could respond with another reckless, uninformed rant we'd all love a few more chuckles.
Forgive me for indulging in my own bit of pure speculation but *you* sound like someone who's rhetorical toolbox is limited to insults, intimidation and emotional appeals.
Sniffff Snifff, I smell alot of BS.
My personal favorite highlights:
1. Troy's failed attempt to walk through a muddy parking lot wearing the suit. Didn't make it three steps, even with two people trying to support him!
2. The opening shot, with the suit suspended underneath a helicopter. Looked like the opening scene of a MST3K-worthy B-grade sci fi flick!
3. Watching Troy hopping around in that thing. He'd have more mobility if he had hobbled feet, was wearing stiletto heels and had his ankles tied with a 5" length of chain.
4. Watching him fall down...and fall down...and fall down...and stay down...and stay down...and stay down...
5. One thing I'll say for Troy...he has a sweet collection of jackets in his wardrobe! He's pretty and stylin' in a sort of glam-rock, small-town robocop wannabe kind of way.
6. Speaking of robocop, I wonder how much trouble they went through to get that shot of him, in the suit, with the Robocop scene playing on the drive-in scene?
7. Troy waxing sociopolitical on the subject of Ph.D's. Apparently all educated people, and all systems of higher education, are inflexible beurocratic behemoths that can't get anything done. So screw 'em all and let's go hack around with some Diet Coke! Only it's funny how he's always quoting authority to back his claims...*scientific* authority from guess who...a bunch of unnamed "Ph.d's!"
8. Troy has some incredibly powerful insights about "angels." Apparently they're not human-sized, like all the rest of those other lunatics who believe in angels think. In actuality they're *15 feet tall*!
9. Troy shaving with a Bowie knife! I noticed he was avoiding the hard parts (chin, under the nose etc.) Apparently there was no room for a razor blade in the packs of the 4 horses they had. Maybe next time he can squeeze one onboard the helicopter.
And...I wonder what the wives of his posse think about their husbands burning their vacation on a travesty that's designed for maximum drama and hoopla with absolutely zero chance of success?
Too much to itemize...absolutely a scream...if you haven't seen it my advice is, go rent it right now!
--intjudo
All hail prophet Troy !!
;-o
"But what about the GOD LIGHT people, the GOD LIGHT !!!!!"
Hey, could we use the God Light to look through the exterior of the bear suit to watch Troy squirming and sweating inside it? Now THAT would be entertainment!
As for the angel/god light... seems to be a pretty big technological leap for it to do what he says it does. Something that incredible deserves its fair share of criticism. But i've sat through lectures at university regarding magnetism, light, energy, etc... and we really dont know what's going on, all the "laws" and the "theories" are nothing more than commonalities found from experimental evidence. Sure it can be used to explain things... but what happens when new effects and anomalies appear? Thats when its time to change what we think to be true.
And im a 4th year electrical engineering student... i've been to lectures on all sorts of quantum physics, energy transfer, thermodynamics, blah blah blah.... you name it... most of it is boring as hell. Primarily because the "experts" ramble on about the laws of this, or the theory of that, without actually knowing what is happening... truthfully... there is no way to REALLY "know"... all we have is experimental evidence. But to talk of it as if it were set in stone is stupid. A good engineer tries to make what is possible... work, a great engineer tries to make what is impossible possible.
And as for my spelling and english skills, a really great english prof once told me, forget everything you know about grammar, it's meaningless, the english language is dynamic, it's always changing... just try to get your thoughts and ideas across.
hmm... somethings seems to be missing in this post.... what is it.... something doesnt quite fit with the majority of other posts... ah, yes... the childishness
😛
there we go... all is right with the world.
It is true that such things appear infrequently but that in no way means that every thing that someone produces which appears to violate the known laws of physics is legitimate.
The notion of "keeping an open mind" is kind of a red herring. If Troy can just demonstrate that his invention works under proper scientific testing, it will be accepted. No one is obligated to accept what he says unless and until it is show to work (which has yet to happen).
Nice rant! Not quite as inane as others on this thread but that's not for lack of trying. The quality is pretty good, you just need some more quantity to bring it up a notch. Let's summarize:
1. An unsubstantiated claim to authority in the fields of "all sorts of quantum physics, energy transfer, thermodynamics, blah blah blah.... you name it..."
2. An profound display of your lack of understanding of the Scientific Method
3. A global dismissal of the concept that precision in language and grammar is important
4. A dismissive and insulting directive to "just shut it."
...followed (ironically) by a claim that your post is *not* childish.
Nice! This thread sure is entertaining. Attracts uninformed ranters like moths to a flame.
If you took the time to learn what the Scientific Method is all about, it may not bore you as much. You're a student of a fascinating field and it it's a shame that you're not enjoying it more.
For your information, anyone who wants to argue about grammar on this post is perfectly free to do so. That being said, I don't recall any arguments about grammar on this thread. Which argument about grammar are you referring to?
It's fun to read your posts. Starting from last year, where all you did was bash everyone, and try and prove your point with irrelevant information. Thankfully, you
Having spotted the Movie about this guy in the video store, I was captivated by him..and his strange obsession to create a bear suit..
Throughout the course of the film, the man just grew on me, and I was determined after watching the movie to find out more...That was last night at about 11PM
Long story short: I found this thread, and am typing at 7:30AM THE NEXT DAY!
This thread is great!
I have more to say, but I think I need to sleep for a bit first...
Thanks to this thread I found the referenced "Coast to Coast" interview (I just happen to subscribe to their streaming archive service). Based on that, Troy is either telling the truth or he is a bald-faced liar. He left no room for a simple mis-interpretation of his results. He even mentioned he and his brother having looked into the soil beneath their feet (without explaining how he got the huge device pointed-down).
I actually read quantum physics and string theory books as a hobby (I'm a degreed computer scientist, I understand academic discipline and critical thinking) I do know that many reputable physicist honestly question the very foundations of our perception of "reality" (think multi-verse, dark-matter etc.). We also know that neutrinos are whizzing right though the Earth, like it was crystal clear, all the time. We have no right to call anything "impossible" without examining it. Yes Troy is wrong to handle it like he apparently does -- but that shouldn't stop us from at least looking into it.
So I'm unable to dismiss this "Angel Light" out-of-hand. Anybody heard anymore about it in the last year? Why wouldn't Troy have been paid to "hush-up" by now if it is real?
"We have no right to call anything "impossible" without examining it. Yes Troy is wrong to handle it like he apparently does -- but that shouldn't stop us from at least looking into it."
We aren't dismissing it out of hand. We're asking for the evidence that it works, which is the only fair thing to do when someone makes claims that defy the known laws of physics.
The problem is that there is only one of these whiz-bang machines and Troy has it. Therefore, HE has to produce the evidence. Since he has yet to do so, we have every reason to call "bullshit" on this thing. If and when Troy proves his claims, we'll all have to concede that he is a genius and mankind will have advanced considerably, thanks to him. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though.
http://www.intalek.com/AV/Troy-Hurtubise.wma
http://www.premiereinteractive.com/cgi-bin/members.cgi?stream=clips/05/01/011905_hurtubise.wma&type=windows_od&site=coast
Sorry it's taken so long to rant to your rant of my rants 😊 I'm glad you enjoy them, that's what it's all about!
Guess I'll have to review all my posts since 'way back last year to fully appreciate the maturation I've accomplished. And to look for the "irrelevant information" you claim I've posted.
It's too bad so many of my posts consist of bashing people. I admit it's juvenille but I feel compelled to explain, for my own amusement and to attempt to procure the indulgence of those suffering through my posts.
Here it is in a nutshell: the Angel Light is so obviously a load of laugh-out-loud *BULLSHIT*. And Troy's antics are just plain *HILARIOUS*. As is the fact that so many "reporters" are hoodwinked into taking him seriously. In summary, the whole thing is just plain blasted *FUNNY*, I like to laugh, we all like to laugh, and this is just a great opportunity to all get together and bust out laughing! That's all I really want out of this thread.
Only problem is, we who are happily having our hees and haws are occasionally interrupted by...well...ah, ahem, let's just say, people who are...somewhat credulous. Worse yet, these same folks sure seem to have a tendency to include personal insults in their opening salvos.
In reviewing the posts where I'm bashing someone, I think you'll note that I don't bash people just because they're credulous. I bash people who come barging in on this thread insulting people, because I don't take kindly to it and because I feel their insults are a cry for help. As in "Help me, I need help learning how and how not to engage people in useful dialogue."
If you or anyone feels Troy's antics are relevant to science, I suggest discussing it in a forum devoted to serious science (and, for my entertainment, *please* post a link to the thread!).
Meanwhile, if you feel Troy's work is (or may be) scientifically relevant and you insist on posting here, please review Cranky Media Guy's posts before doing so, and kindly address his few, basic and reasonable concerns.
And if you think the whole thing is a laugh riot, please post your personal perspectives to propogate profound Troy Wackiness Revelation Nirvana.
And if you want to post insults, fire away because I've got a Rant Analyzer and I'm not afraid to use it!
Ironically -- it is my journey to the "edge of physics" (string theory) via the likes of Michio Kaku and Brian Green (et al) that makes me even more susceptable to some bizare claims. It turns-out that science doesn't really even understand things like how particles get mass -- and whether we're constantly transmuting into parallel universes based on our choices collapsing wave functions (or even what Dark Matter is)
So, when some kook claims to have stumbled onto something that defies the laws of physics -- it's not such a stretch for those who "know how much we don't know". See?
Now the fact that this kook lives near the N. Pole -- where the solar wind causes ionizing radiation to form the "Northern Lights" -- does make one wonder if physics could be a 'lil skewed up there. Logic sure is 😊
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2461483863639462160&q=kaku
If it did work he would have no problem funding his work. None at all. All he would have to do is call the discovery channel. Setup some simple experements with controls and there, instant proof, instant funding, instant wealth.
This goes for all his magical light inventions. It is convenient that he chose to stop work because of the "hyde" effect without showing any proof.
Then he claims he has made a "God" light which will reverse all these debilitating deseases. The greatest of which apperently has been shown
I thought ol' Troy was last years news, but people are still talking about him - media addiction must be a terrible thing...
and there are still people, who after reading the posts here and any of the informed media out there, actually beleive that a man who shines a light on his brothers wifes titties and claims to cure cancer is a God-like genius!
Check out the quote
'I said
Yeah -- it's called "Moulson Light" (less filling -- taste great!)
http://announce.curtin.edu.au/local/attached files/ignobelawards.pdf
It's a poster for a week-long event that was held in Austrailia:
"The Weird World of Highly Improbable Scientific Research"
A National Science Week Event
Friday 13 August, at 6pm
Elizabeth Jolley Lecture Theatre
(Building 210)
Curtin University of Technology
Kent St, Bentley
Curtin University of Technology
...it says "Ig Nobels are awarded for peer
reviewed, published, scientific research and are presented annually at Harvard University."
...I didn't know any of Troy's "research" had been published, much less peer reviewed. I'll have to check that out. Does anyone know where any of Troy's "research" has been published?
--intjudo
attached files/ignobelawards.pdf
Link didn't post correctly.
There should be a " " between "attached" and "files" in the URL
I split it in two for this post; copy and past both parts into a single URL
OK, instead do this search on google.com:
"troy hurtubise" "national science week" filetype:pdf
So instead, do a Google search on:
"troy hurtubise" "national science week" filetype:pdf
Yes intjudo, I am referring to your idiotic blathering. For Christ's sake son, go back to highschool.
Thanks for the rant! It's not at all productive but at least it's short and to the point:
1. False statement combined with an insult that applies to me, to all developmentally challenged human beings *and* to all 12 year old girls. Four for one!
2. Insult
3. Two insults in one sentence.
Very condensed rant. It really says so much with so few words. It's like Rant Poetry!
You seem to be lacking in the "facts" department, so here are a few facts to get you started:
1. There are plenty of people who use 'smileys' who are neither retards nor 12 year old girls. You can easily verify this for yourself: ask 100 random people who are neither developmentally challenged nor 12 year old girls if they've ever used a 'smiley' and collate the results. When you're finished, please post the results to this forum and we'll go from there.
2. I am not a developmentally challenged individual.
3. I am not a 12 year old girl.
4. I have graduated from high school.
And, a word of advice: an opening salvo of insults is not conducive to meaningful dialogue.
Cheers! Hope your mood improves soon! 😊 :lol: :cheese: 😊 😉 😏 😝 😜 😛 :coolsmile: :exclaim:
"I just wanted to point out that anybody who uses 'smileys' is either a retard or a 12 year old girl."
Although I am neither a "retard" nor a 12-year-old girl, I occasionally use a "smiley" because sometimes I'm not entirely sure that a point I'm making will come across as humor. Print can be a somewhat limiting medium at times. The smiley, while a wee bit dopey, is a good shorthand way to convey that you aren't serious. It sure helps to avoid extended arguments.
Thanks for the suggestion to check out Dr. Kaku.
The link you posted didn't work but a Goodle search quickly landed me on a BBC interview.
I must say I think he's getting a bit ahead of himself in the interview I saw. He says a lot of purely speculative things but phrases them as if they're practically proven, for instance:
One fine day the human race will be able to "go through the umbilical cord to travel to another universe", by "boiling space"
Claims that "listening" to the "songs" of sub-atomic particles (strings) is equivalent to "reading the mind of god"
Utilizes a double-standard approach to Intelligent Design: claims it's invalid when you apply it to eyeballs but is valid when you apply it to the overall architecture of laws of physics
States that science predicts that there "should" be abundant intelligent life easily detectable by our technologies. The reason it's not: other intelligences keep on self-destructing with wars before they can make themselves known to us. The unprovable assertions are really stacking up here.
Describes the universe as a physical manifestation of the resolution of the conflicting views of Christianity and Buddhism. (So...science is merging, marrying and providing resolution to the discrepancies between two mutually exclusive null theories? Wow.)
The only supporting theories he mentions have been old hat for a long time now: dark matter, the accelleration of the universe, the "membrane" theory of multiverses, white holes etc. None of these substantially support any of the wild claims itemized above.
This guy is smart, but from that interview I'd say he's not necessarily to be trusted with all of your metaphysical eggs, despite his contributions to science.
Remember the logical fallacy of appeal to authority: a position of knowledge and/or authority does not exempt anyone from the requirement of providing independantly verifiable facts to double-check their observations and confirm the results of supporting, repeatable experiments.
Personally, I'd like to see the experiment that proves that "listening" to subatomic particles is equivalent to "reading the mind of god."
Dr. Kaku is not famous because he's the only one who works in String Theory -- but because he's made it his business to "bring it down" to interested laymen -- kinda like Carl Sagan did.
So, his analogies like "the music of the Universe" are really just a way for "the rest of us" to get an intuitive notion of what might be happening in quantum physics. As far as "reading the mind of God" -- that's a direct quote of Einstien. I think Kaku seeks to honor Einstien by inferring that at last maybe his dream is coming true.
Dr. Kaku's book "Parallel Universes" walks us lay-people all the way from high school physics to bleeding-edge quantum string theory (M-Theory).
It's VERY difficult for our 3-D carbon brains to concieve of a 12-D Universe in which we may be transmuting thru other instances of reality based on observer-based collasping wave functions. It's *SO* complex that Dr Wheeler and others offer "virtual" explanations. That in turn makes one wonder if holographic or simulation based realities should be considered. Either way -- a Theory Of Everything (TOE) is at least being sought. Meanwhile maybe some guy like Troy could still get lucky -- there's plenty of ignorance to go-around.
No, Kaku is a real Phd Physicist. The real thing. Metaphysical folks do like him because they can get some good quotes from his distillations. Any Scientist would have the same problem with respect when trying to interpret Physics to laymen. His books are "hard-science" -- his interviews are "soft science". Hope that helps.
A new optical effect has been created in a London laboratory that means solid objects such as walls could one day be rendered transparent, scientists report today in the journal Nature Materials.
Researchers from Imperial College London and the University of Neuchatel, Switzerland, have pioneered the technique which could be used to see through rubble at earthquake sites, or look at parts of the body obscured by bone.
The effect is based on the development of a new material that exploits the way atoms in matter move, to make them interact with a laser beam in an entirely new way.
The work is based on a breakthrough which contradicts Einstein's theory that in order for a laser to work, the light-amplifying material it contains, usually a crystal or glass, must be brought to a state known as 'population inversion'. This refers to the condition of the atoms within the material, which must be excited with enough energy to make them emit rather than absorb light.
Quantum physicists, however, have long predicted that by interfering with the wave-patterns of atoms, light could be amplified without population inversion. This has previously been demonstrated in the atoms of gases but has not before been shown in solids.
In order to make this breakthrough, the team created specially patterned crystals only a few billionths of a metre in length that behaved like 'artificial atoms'. When light was shone into the crystals, it became entangled with the crystals at a molecular level rather than being absorbed, causing the material to become transparent.
This new transparent material created by the entanglement is made up of molecules that are half matter and half light. This allows light to be amplified without population inversion for the first time in a solid. Professor Chris Phillips, of Imperial College London, says:
"This real life 'x-ray specs' effect relies on a property of matter that is usually ignored
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/P7487.htm
(I'm not saying that Troy accidentally obtained direct matter-wave interference, but this shows that a theory does exist that would make solids "photon friendly")
If I'm reading the press release correctly, they've apparently engineered a crystalline nanomaterial that can be rendered "invisible" to laser light. Unfortunately this is a rare, not a pervasive substance. Earthquake rubble, etc. would have to be made out of this stuff in order to be suseptible to the effect described.
It looks to me like an unfortunate choice of words on part of the Professor Chris Philips that was taken out of context and then exaggerated.
If I'm reading it correctly.
At this stage of this technologie's development I'd say grandiose headlines like "New optical effect renders solid objects transparent" and "New material means 'x-ray specs' no longer required" are premature, and somewhat irresponsible.
At this point I'd say the title of the original paper says it best: "Gain without inversion in semiconductor nanostructures." Note the words "semiconductor nanostructures," as opposed to "any and all solids."
That being said, the visual similarities between Hurtubises' contraption and the equipment pictured in the article referenced are quite striking (though purely visual and otherwise inconsequential, I'm sure). I would *love* to see and hear Troy's reaction to this.
So the real question for me is -- do they realy think they are "interfering" with matter waves? That would be a Nobel Prize winner all by itself. Of course we're also dealing at the scale of "String Theory" here -- branes and all that -- so there may be some supporting work from that field here too -- if its real (remember cold fusion?)
As far as being irresponsible in their claim -- I'd have to read the actual paper. If they really think they can manipulate matter waves -- then they are correct to assume the method will eventually be extended to all matter. That is MAJOR!
<b>When Einstein showed that light amplification needed a collection of atoms in 'population inversion' (that is, where more than half the atoms are in an excited state, ready to emit light rather than absorb it) he was using thermodynamic arguments1. Later on, quantum theory predicted2, 3 that matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetically_induced_transparency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetically_induced_transparency
..."blue lasers" in PlayStations, "solid state quantum computation," quantum calculations, flourescence spectroscopy (detection of tumors), improved solar cells...quantum dots kick serious A**
It looks like the study at Imperial College basically involves the interaction of lasers and quantum dots under very specialized conditions.
Thanks for posting this Anywho! I'm not anticipating 20%-off-sales of Angel Lights at Radio Shack anytime soon but this stuff is damned interesting any way you slice it.
Now, if we could only get Hurtubise and Kaku, with about a six-pack of Moosehead in each of them, in the same room, talking about quantum dots.
Clearly science is about to create matter from its fundamental matter wave components. That matter can be made EIT compliant from the get-go -- transparent matter. It'll cost about a billion dollars per ounce and may be unstable -- but hey it's a start.
Troy may or may not have done anything other than stimulate some searching on our part -- but that alone has been very useful. I'm still reeling over the magnitude of whats happening in quantum condensed physics nowadays. This is Star Trek stuff.
(when matter can be manipulated as de Broglie matter waves -- we can start asking philosophical questions about the nature of our [4.5% baryonic] material universe.
How about if i were to say that the Mass in our universe was not what produces gravity, even though mass and gravity ARE intertwined.?
I do understand the fact that people WANT TO SEE PROOF, but no proof does not mean that the info or technology is bogus. I myself am skeptical about his claims of the angel light. I want to see a demo too. but i am willing to give the benifit of the doubt. For a time anyway. If the device is indeed dangerous, as claimed, then he is smart to dismantle and discontinue his work on it. remember what happened to the Curie's
Of course, without any additional evidence, yes i would have to say, "in all probability this device is a hoax"
Hell, i will say right now that it probalby IS a hoax, but there is the SLIM chance that he actually stumbled accross some type of revolutionary discovery...
Now, that being said, someone said in a earlier post that if someone claimed that teleportation or star trek type beaming were real they would be a crank or loon( i am paraphrasing here, that is the gist of the post or at least part of it) Well, look up teleportation on google.
Scientists have successfully teleported photons from on place to another. Yes, a far cry from star trek, but the tech has to start somewhere...Oh and as for my first question, if you think that it is not possible and would violate the laws of physics, look up Quantum Entanglment on google. The military and nasa are currently researching both technologys(teleportation and quantum entanglement) for both travel and information transfer respectively.
And my second question, well that is something that is not currently provable with our tech, but it IS a intrical part of current theory(M-Brand theory) which states that gravity is actually leaking INTO our Brane(universe) from another Brane(universe). Why the gravity leaks more in a space occupied by mass is over my head, but it is part of current theory....
just a couple of thoughts and or points....
and speaking of star trek, i saw a article on transparent alluminum not too long ago...don't know the link, but u can look it up..
Getting back to Troy and speaking of quantum entanglement, here's a funny quantum thought experiment:
Imagine what it would be like if Troy was offered $20,000 to prove or disprove this (his choice):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Seriously now. I challenge anyone who has observed (or listened to) Troy in his natural habitat, and has read more than three paragraphs of the above link, to make a compelling case that Troy has a snowball's chance in hell of impacting the field of quantum mechanics in any way whatsoever.
Using anything besides truisms, tautologies and cliches ("TTC") to prove your point.
Preferrably with any sort of concrete basis in Troy's accomplishments.
Without making me laugh at you.
Building on my Rant Analyzer, I'm going to add a TTC analyzer to this thread.
You are warned.
read this:
http://www.royalsoc.org/exhibit.asp?id=4659&tip=1
First, that article is rather poorly written. Nowhere in it does it say that the scientists have actually produced a working model based on their "discovery." It's very unclear about exactly what they have accomplished.
Second, since Troy has been very secretive about things, how do you know that he even says that his device works along the same principles that these scientists claim to have discovered?
If Troy Hurtubise really HAS invented something that can see through solids (without using X-rays, of course), then he deserves all the acclaim he can get. It remains to be seen that he has done anything of the kind, though.
i'm guessing that #1) stuff like this has sorta been researched towards, but with failure
#2) that this guy & namely bay or whatevr is fraud
#3) the illuminati have planted this to find make intelligent people who ARE paying attention to look like gullible morons who listen & believe everything they hear.
#4) if you haven't noticed yet, you should definitely check out the game 'Illuminati - New World Order' that was PRINTED in 1995..
#5) also watch 'Loose Change 2'
#6) watch the pilot episode of 'The Lone Gunmen' (which aired 6 mos before 911)
#7) masonry has created mormons, jehovas witnesses, christian science & scientology (dont take my word for it, and dont be a moron - check it out) the illuminati use the masons alot.
#8) 'cyber wars' is sorta decent.. 'the legend of zoro' mentions the 'knights of aragon' who are trying to take over the world
alex jones i respect... thus far.
EVERYONE should see 'LOOSE CHANGE 2'.
"the illuminati have planted this to find make intelligent people who ARE paying attention to look like gullible morons who listen & believe everything they hear."
Uh oh, *someone* lost his tin foil hat!