Energy Beam Weapon?

[Yaters]

Hi Everyone-

My first thread, thought I'd give everyone a heads up on this news story from this morning:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20497575/?GT1=10252

It talks about this non-lethal beam technology developed that military generals feel we could use on large, violent protest groups in Iraq.

How long before Truthers point to this you think?

[T.A.M.]

Thats no moon...its a space station...

TAM:)

[Quad4_72]

Looks pretty cool to me. Twoofers can say what they want about it. I want to see it in action!

[Hellbound]

I want one for the house. Great for door-to-door salesmen, Jehovah's Witnesses, neighborhood children...

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Protest Groups in Iraq?

So is that what they're calling IED's today?

[Yaters]

It does seem pretty sweet. According to the article, it makes the person feel like they are on fire.

So, for truthers, this might mean the building thought it was on fire and stopped, dropped and rolled...at free fall speed straight to the ground?

[MRC_Hans]

Would not be wise to put it into action as long as possible long-term effects are unresearched. Not only because it might have some nasty lon-term effects (not particularly likely, but possible), but as long as we have not charted the effects, people may blame it for all sorts of things they may happen to contract after being hit, and that could easily get far uglier than some people having actual side-effects.

Hans

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Would not be wise to put it into action as long as possible long-term effects are unresearched. Not only because it might have some nasty lon-term effects (not particularly likely, but possible), but as long as we have not charted the effects, people may blame it for all sorts of things they may happen to contract after being hit, and that could easily get far uglier than some people having actual side-effects.

Hans

Right... better just to handle them the old-fashioned way... with machine guns.

[Hellbound]

Right... better just to handle them the old-fashioned way... with machine guns.
What's wrong with fire hoses, rubber bullets, and CS gas?

:D

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Right... better just to handle them the old-fashioned way... with machine guns.

At least then there are no long term health effects...

[Drudgewire]

It does seem pretty sweet. According to the article, it makes the person feel like they are on fire.

So, for truthers, this might mean the building thought it was on fire and stopped, dropped and rolled...at free fall speed straight to the ground?
"If they have this technology and are letting the public see it, imagine how much more powerful the model THEY WON'T SHOW US is." http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/tinfoil.gif

[jaydeehess]

Actually this comes up every year for the past 2 or 3 already.
yes, it exists and one of the woo's about it is that it contains a modulation that allows mind control, IIRC.

[leftysergeant]

The twoofers are already on top of it. They think it is intended for use on civilians here. I would have to give them some credit for logical thinking on this point.

But, there are reports that it is not harmless, and that at high settings it will cook a protestor who does not back down. I have also seen, but was unable to find sources for, reports that some military personnel have been burned in testing.

I want to see Cheney and Rummy stand in front of that thing before it is allowed to be deployed on American soil.

For that matter, where have we the right to suppress dissent in Iraq to begin with?

This thing should be reserved exclusively for area denial in combat. It's use against unarmed civilians in war time should be considered a war crime and its use domesticly for riot control should be considered unreasonable force. It IS an armed response.

For riot control purposes, I never thought there was a better weapon than a crash truck with a roof turret that discharges a stream or 1400 gpm at 250 psi.

[firecoins]

But, there are reports that it is not harmless, and that at high settings it will cook a protestor who does not back down. I have also seen, but was unable to find sources for, reports that some military personnel have been burned in testing.
You see there is nothing like a cooked protester. It is a delicasy(sp) where i come from. Soldiers just don't cook as well. Its a different type of meat.

[leftysergeant]

Soldiers just don't cook as well. Its a different type of meat.

Too much heavy metal content? Lead, Uranium, mercury from their immunizations? Exotic hydrocarbons from weapons cleaner? Metal plates in old fractures that cause uneven heating?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

But, there are reports that it is not harmless, and that at high settings it will cook a protestor who does not back down. I have also seen, but was unable to find sources for, reports that some military personnel have been burned in testing.

Unless the operator is a sociopath who is likely to commit some other war crime anyway (the kind of person the military tries to filter out of potential recruits) why would they use such a high setting?

Why would the manufacturer not hardwire the device to be incapable of such a high setting?

I want to see Cheney and Rummy stand in front of that thing before it is allowed to be deployed on American soil.

I don't know about Cheney and Rumsfeld, but I have a cousin who is in training with the RCMP who got TASERed and pepper sprayed last week. And as you pointed out, the servicemen who will be using it have already felt it's sting.

For that matter, where have we the right to suppress dissent in Iraq to begin with?

Overturning cars, smashing shop windows, throwing rocks and molotov cocktails are not in any sane definition of "dissent".

This thing should be reserved exclusively for area denial in combat. It's use against unarmed civilians in war time should be considered a war crime and its use domesticly for riot control should be considered unreasonable force. It IS an armed response.

If it works as designed, and can end a potentially deadly situation quickly and without casualties on either side, then not using it would be a crime.

For riot control purposes, I never thought there was a better weapon than a crash truck with a roof turret that discharges a stream or 1400 gpm at 250 psi.

...Until science comes up with something better.

[Unsecured Coins]

Too much heavy metal content? Lead, Uranium, mercury from their immunizations? Exotic hydrocarbons from weapons cleaner? Metal plates in old fractures that cause uneven heating?


No, we're made of whatever it is they're trying to pass off as beef in the MRE's. It's a totally different kind of food all together.

[Hellbound]

No, we're made of whatever it is they're trying to pass off as beef in the MRE's. It's a totally different kind of food all together.

I personally think it's a by-product from the production of the M-1's reactive armor.

[Sabrina]

Funny, I thought it was saltpeter (http://www.snopes.com/military/saltpeter.asp)

[Cheap Shot]

It does seem pretty sweet. According to the article, it makes the person feel like they are on fire.

So, for truthers, this might mean the building thought it was on fire and stopped, dropped and rolled...at free fall speed straight to the ground?


Kind of like Archimedes and his burning mirrors?

[Unsecured Coins]

Funny, I thought it was saltpeter (http://www.snopes.com/military/saltpeter.asp)

I think we need to see other people. :D

[Sabrina]

:p

[Alferd_Packer]

Speaking of energy beams, just for fun, I calculated that the energy required to raise the temperature of 10,000 cubic feet of water (the approximate volume of the concrete in a single floor slab of the WTC towers) from 20 degrees C to 100 degrees C and to vaporize it to steam in 1 minute of time would be approximately 12 million kilowatts.

[Brainster]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yGPqjfPvrUA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yGPqjfPvrUA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

A discussion of Directed Energy Weapons with Nico Haupt and Dean Loren. Probably not of general interest, but amazing to watch.

[leftysergeant]

My big concern is that it is too easy for a corrupt official to suppress dissent if he can convince citizen soldiers to turn a supposedly harmless weapon on their own people to suppress a peaceful protest that is more disruptive than damaging.

[dudalb]

I could debate whether a disruptive protest is truly peaceful.
You have the right to demonstrate unless you violate somebody else's rights in the process.

[fuelair]

For topic a few months back: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70046&highlight=beam+weapon

[beachnut]

Finally, a use for tin foil hats

[Spins]

A discussion of Directed Energy Weapons with Nico Haupt and Dean Loren. Probably not of general interest, but amazing to watch.I couldn't see the video you linked to, but I think it's this one...

yGPqjfPvrUA
...there is so much woo it almost made my nose bleed.

Yes, Mr. Nico Haupt believes "Directed Energy Weapons" were used at the WTC on 9/11 that's no surprise. But that's not all he thinks was used, he also believes ... drum roll ... wait for it ... "Antimatter Weaponry" and "Neutrino Weaponry" were used ...

jHjFxJVeCQs

[leftysergeant]

I could debate whether a disruptive protest is truly peaceful.
You have the right to demonstrate unless you violate somebody else's rights in the process.

The GOP thinks that people standing on the street to flip Bush the bird is disruptive. I do not want to see them secure the streets against that sort of demonstration with any kind of weapon. To do so at all, I think, is an insult to everything our soldiers are risking their lives to preserve.

I do not trust this lot in power now with that sort of toys.

[Drudgewire]

I do not trust this lot in power now with that sort of toys.
Admit it though, a pocket model when in line at the DMV would RULE. :cool:

[leftysergeant]

Admit it though, a pocket model when in line at the DMV would RULE. :cool:

Hmmm...Wonder what it does to cell phones and a trunkful of sub-woofers on the highway.

[Cuddles]

Nuts, I had a long reply all typed out but the internet ate it somewhere between here and the JREF.

Basically, this is nothing new. It has existed since at least 2001 and was developed for domestic police use as well as military use, although the military version is higher power. The burns are not caused directly by the microwaves but by the heating of metal objects which then burn the skin. This means that while it can cause small burns, it is not going to cause the "Sun burn all over" sort of thing that some people seem to think. However, it is also possible that sweat could also heat up and cause scalding, although there would need to be a lot of it.

The main concerns are about people who do not, or are unable to, react as expected. Alcohol, or other intoxication, can reduce the feeling of pain and the response to it, so it is possible that drunk people could get close enough to be harmed rather than being forced to stop before getting too close. There are also concerns that in a crowd situation people can get injured or trampled and be unable to move. This would mean mobile versions of the weapon trying to follow riots could injure people who are no able to move out of the way.

http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/dn10084-microwave-weapon-intensified-by-sweaty-skin.html
http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg18624975.800-police-toy-with-less-lethal-weapons.html

When it comes down to it, this faces exactly the same problems as all other non-lethal weaponry. Mainly that people will be more willing to use them than more dangerous weapons and there could therefore be serious civil rights implications. They could also lead to many more accusations of excessive use of force by authorities where the argument would be that no weapons would have been used at all if the non-lethal ones weren't available, and therefore any injuries are a direct result of their use. Personally, I don't consider this second argument particularly valid.

[Gravy]

I've developed a multi-purpose defense against this weapon. It's a suit made of frozen food packets.

[Par]

I've developed a multi-purpose defense against this weapon. It's a suit made of frozen food packets.


Does it have hot pockets?

[twinstead]

I've developed a multi-purpose defense against this weapon. It's a suit made of frozen food packets.

Perhaps we can call it the StoufferSuit?

[Gravy]

Does it have hot pockets?

Go to your room!
:drillserg

[Apollo20]

Gravy:

Is it true you have refused to debate Ace Baker, a proponent of directed energy weapons I believe?

If this is true, is this a good stategy?

Why not take the opportunity to expose him as a TWOOFER NUTCASE?

[Hokulele]

Gravy:

Is it true you have refused to debate Ace Baker, a proponent of directed energy weapons I believe?

If this is true, is this a good stategy?

Why not take the opportunity to expose him as a TWOOFER NUTCASE?


I tried debating with him regarding material estimates taken from photographs. He doesn't debate. A formal debate with him would be an exercise in futility as he refuses to address the points, but will zing off on umpteen million tangents that have no reference to the topic. It is like debating a mexican jumping bean on crack.

Since no one takes him seriously anyway, anyone having a formal debate with him would be wasting their time.

You can ask him if he wants to finish the debate he and I started. I am willing to bet that he will ignore the question, pretend he doesn't remember, or outright refuse, as he has done every time I brought it up in this forum.

[twinstead]

Gravy:

Is it true you have refused to debate Ace Baker, a proponent of directed energy weapons I believe?

If this is true, is this a good stategy?

Why not take the opportunity to expose him as a TWOOFER NUTCASE?

Ace is exposed as a 'twoofer nutcase' by anybody reading his threads. It is fruitless to 'debate' him because he doesn't adhere to the same rules of debate, even at their most liberal, that rational people do.

This debate tactic is common. Basically, any evidence that supports the opposition is declared fake.

It appears you have a rational streak (shame on you), so you don't debate like that. Others, like Ace, do.

[Apollo20]

I have debated Ace Baker. While I do NOT agree with many of his ideas, I havn't seen him use any questionable tactics .... unlike many other questionable characters here!

It appears Mr. Baker, (who at least uses his real name!), was banned here for some reason. I hope it wasn't because he was being irrational?

[Hokulele]

I have debated Ace Baker. While I do NOT agree with many of his ideas, I havn't seen him use any questionable tactics .... unlike many other questionable characters here!

It appears Mr. Baker, (who at least uses his real name!), was banned here for some reason. I hope it wasn't because he was being irrational?


He certainly used questionable tactics with me, including abandoning the debate once he felt he was losing!

Or are you suggesting that I am one of the questionable characters . . .



He was banned for ignoring multiple warnings from the moderators.

[Apollo20]

Who told you that?

[Hokulele]

It was in the notice of his banning.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2836696#post2836696

Although Rule 6 (at the time, the rules have changed since then) was the infraction mentioned in the public notice, it was the fact that he was on probation at the time that led to his banning. Simply breaking rule 6 alone would not have led to his banishment, as he had done so several times in the past.

ETA: Don't just take my word on this. You can PM Darat, who is the admin who banned him, for full details.

[Apollo20]

A discussion of energy beam weapons without Ace Baker and Judy Wood to defend the idea is like, ... well, .....

the Pope discussing Islam,

or Bush discussing 9/11,

or the Queen discussing Lady Di's murder.

[Viper Daimao]

IE. it's been done and decided?

[Hokulele]

A discussion of energy beam weapons without Ace Baker and Judy Wood to defend the idea is like, ... well, .....

the Pope discussing Islam,

or Bush discussing 9/11,

or the Queen discussing Lady Di's murder.


But you see, Islam, 9/11, and Lady Di's murder have defensible positions. Energy beam weapons do not. You may as well ask Johan Becher to defend the idea of phlogiston.

[Apollo20]

Are you saying energy beam weapons don't exist?

What is a LASER, or a MASER?

What about infrasound?

Professor Cherepanov thinks there were FRACTURE WAVES in the twin towers.

Have you read his peer-reviewed papers?

[Hokulele]

Oooookaaaay.

At this point I assume you are simply trolling. Let me know when you plan to discuss vulcanology again.

[The Almond]

Are you saying energy beam weapons don't exist?

What is a LASER, or a MASER?

What about infrasound?

Professor Cherepanov thinks there were FRACTURE WAVES in the twin towers.

Have you read his peer-reviewed papers?

I think a better summary of his position is that energy beam weapons do not exist in space, as posited by Judy Wood.

[maccy]

A discussion of energy beam weapons without Ace Baker and Judy Wood to defend the idea is like, ... well, .....

the Pope discussing Islam,

or Bush discussing 9/11,

or the Queen discussing Lady Di's murder.

Lady Di wasn't murdered. :)

I think there was sufficient discussion while Ace was here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66444

Judy Wood is, of course, welcome to join the forum.

As for Gravy's position on these issues, I think it's pretty well summed up here, even though he's mainly talking about Kevin Barrett:

This thread was intended as a quickie humorous/sad post, but I'd like to solicit opinions about my decision to not debate Barrett. I gave my reasons in the OP,

You're just a mentally ill person who fantasizes about the violent death of your perceived enemies. Not much to debate there, except the type and quantity of medication you need, and that's outside my area of knowledge. Please get help.

and I'm quite serious about them. I think Barrett is a mentally ill attention-seeker whose illness will only be fed by giving him what he wants. I spent more than enough time with the shape-shifting Fetzer, and only did so because he's been influential: for example, students at my alma mater who were inspired and advised by him started "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth," which remains active.

People like Ryan, Steven Jones, and Griffin are sane enough to know that they'll be annihilated in a debate with someone who's both well-read in 9/11 issues and who knows their claims, tactics, and misrepresentations. People like Barrett, Fetzer, and Ace Baker don't care about that. Any attention is a win for them.

Some people think that any opportunity to stomp one of these crackpots into the ground should be taken. But based on what I've heard of Barrett's radio show, there's no question in my mind that any attempt at discussing, say, evidence for controlled demolition, would result in a Barrett rant about why I'm a shill for Rupert Murdoch and why do I support U.S. soldiers drinking the blood of Iraqi babies. Hell, in his invitation to debate me he included his charge that I should be tried and probably executed for war crimes. Yet he has never bothered to point out anything I've gotten wrong. I don't know that there are many people on any side of this issue who take him seriously.

It's my opinion that arguing with these people is no more productive – for anyone – than arguing with the poor wretch who paces the sidewalk festooned with "The End is Nigh" sandwich boards.

Maybe you should debate Gravy in that thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91656)?

[Apollo20]

I should debate Gravy?

That's not possible since I'm already on his ignore list!

[Concept]

I should debate Gravy?

That's not possible since I'm already on his ignore list!
Really? Pardon my curiosity, but why does Gravy have you on ignore? :)

[Apollo20]

Concept:

I'm not sure ......

Gravy is the person to answer that!

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Concept:

I'm not sure ......

Gravy is the person to answer that!

Gravy said he's driven by anger, not academics. Could this be why?

[Par]

Gravy said he's driven by anger, not academics. Could this be why?


Ooohhh. Sexy innuendo.