RE: The Pentagon's ray gun

RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Aneirin -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 3:38:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnSteed1967 Yeah, MMMMM, and the Government didn't steal the idea from Tesla when he died back in the 30's ???? (given that his housekeeper said not an hour after they took telsa's body from the house they seized ever paper he had screaming National Security) But the Government would never do anything like that, everyone knows that our government is only looking out for our best intrests! Yes also his laboratory also mysteriously burned down, 'destroying everything' shortly afterwards and was bulldozed flat after that. Tesla, an interesting guy, even has input in the violet wand , his technology. His failing was he did his thing for the good of humanity, and not commercialism. I also wonder what of his discoveries the Pentagon is utilising, ray guns, hovering discs, what about the discoveries history does not know about.

joanus -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 5:18:17 AM)
The reason you don't see this weapon on the battle feild is because it is totally useless. 1. Its just too big. 2. The tunning capablities of the turrt sucks, plus the targeting system seems to lack persicion. 3. Its just a beam of low frequantcy electro light, its effectiveness is less aganst a moving target. 4. Battle hardened fighters can with stand the messure of pain that thing delivers. As a crowd control device for Riot officers it would be useful, if it where only a little smaller.

Muttling -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 5:32:45 AM)
This thing has been in prototype for a few years now. It's a tremendous riot control gizmo, but I don't see it having much tactical value in combat. So you make an enemy run away, he will simply hide and return to fight or plant explosives. I also have many other questions about why it would be useful in combat.... What is the combat suvivability of that dish. It's going to be visible on the battlefield, how much damage can it withstand before being disabled? That this is very easy target to hit. What can the waves penetrate? I presume heavy clothing procect you so all you have to do is shield exposed skin. That's going to be pretty ineffective against troops who are already trained to seek cover against bullets.

TheHeretic -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 6:45:51 AM)
Watch the video, Mutt. This isn't a battlefield weapon. It's a crowd control device, with some great IFF aspects. The reporter was able to continue approaching it by using a mattress as a shield, but that sort of behavior is going to mark you as a hostile and get your ass shot.

Real0ne -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 7:02:04 AM)
yeh they can install one in dc

MstrssPassion -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 7:10:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Watch the video, Mutt. This isn't a battlefield weapon. It's a crowd control device, with some great IFF aspects. The reporter was able to continue approaching it by using a mattress as a shield, but that sort of behavior is going to mark you as a hostile and get your ass shot. BINGO I saw this on the news last night & my mind raced with all the images I have seen about crowds tying to overpower an opposing force, the riots that broke out in the streets where hoards of people were breaking in glass store fronts, massive surges of rioters terrorizing innocents as they bust up everything that lay in their path.... the list goes on. I saw this & I thought how effective this would be in those events because it was typically only a small percentage of the people involved that fed the rage of the others. Only a small percentage is 'committed' to the act.. they rest are just caught up in the energy of the others. Slap them in the face with a pot of scalding water & they are gonna snap out it & duck for cover....only those few who are committed to the chaos or attack are going push forward. Target those for extreme measures & you cut back on casualties. After watching this I thought again about all those images & thought how differently things may have gone. The end result may have been much more pleasant & surely the image of huge crowds being effectively controlled in this manner would pre-emptively deter others from the action of staging such a surge

NeedToUseYou -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 9:16:54 AM)
I don't like it. They are trying to sell it as a military device primarily and mentioning all the wonderful benefits. But the first thought that comes to my mind is the potential to control any civilian population with such a device foreign or domestic. Did you notice the training signs of the 'Bad' protesters, were all about peace. LOL. It's not like we have a history of doing good in this world with our military conquests and our government is about as trustworthy as any mobster and that police officer was giddy about the possiblity of eventually getting one for domestic use. And everyone in that clip is so excited about the new fangled cattle herding device that won't damage the product. whooopeeee. Just put cameras up everywhere mount those fuckers on top of skyscrapers, get the targeting refined, and instant total control. Maybe I'm paranoid. Doubt it.

kdsub -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 9:20:49 AM)
From the 60 minutes segment the range was over a ½ mile and very effective. It can be blocked with shielding but that would single out combatants. It seems that it will not be used anytime soon in Iraq because it would be perceived as a torture weapon. So now it is how we are perceived rather than the safety of our troops and reduced injury to non-combatants. It is hard for me to understand the logic of the powers that be. Butch

wkdshadow -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 9:28:55 AM)
I've actually played with microwave weapons, one of the guys in the local 2600 group made some prototypes after the slashdot stories last year. While some of them are painful(and some will make you hear voices), it's still not going to stop someone with a gun from killing you IME. What Sinergy says about energy dispersal is correct - the inverse square law comes into play.

Termyn8or -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 12:16:48 PM)
wkd, there is still a 2600 ? Wow. Anyway, so they finally decided to make this weapon public. They can do something similar with ultrasound, but that hasn't hit the mainstream media as of yet. And with EM energy, inverse square needs not to come into play if you can focus it. Focussing can be changed by moving the emitter to and fro in relation to the dish. Range vs coverage area. I don't think they can do that effectively with ultrasound. The political aspects of these weapons, and others that we don't know about is not the subject here, but if you want to talk revolution or insurrection, which is our right if they continue to disallow Lawful redress of our grievances, is not feasible. Believe me, they have alot more technology than they let on. T

Smith117 -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 12:56:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MstrssPassion I saw this & I thought how effective this would be in those events because it was typically only a small percentage of the people involved that fed the rage of the others. Only a small percentage is 'committed' to the act.. they rest are just caught up in the energy of the others. Slap them in the face with a pot of scalding water & they are gonna snap out it & duck for cover....only those few who are committed to the chaos or attack are going push forward. Target those for extreme measures & you cut back on casualties. Perhaps, but as with the taser and all other 'non-lethal' alternatives, you'll get one or two accidental deaths because it made a person freak out and fall into a pane of glass or something and suddenly the nuts will be up in arms about how horrible this 'non-lethal' weapon is when it can cause people's deaths, and then it won't be used anymore.

Aneirin -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 1:40:23 PM)
Honestly T, you sound as if it is a them and us situation, but you are probably right. Probably beeen doing it for years building sneaky weapons to use against the masses for when they revolt.

camille65 -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 1:54:10 PM)
Taken from page 2, this made me giggle a bit. Asked what she thought of the system, Payton tells Martin, "I loved it. I started giggling." "Giggle is not the usual response to pain," Martin remarks.

Termyn8or -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 1:56:21 PM)
Anereirin, it is necessary for them to control other countries to get the natural resources, and it is necessary for them to control us to stay in power. That's all for now. T

wkdshadow -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 2:16:15 PM)
Er, inverse square applies to EMRF. And yeah, some areas still have rather active 2600 groups, just depends on where you are.

CuriousLord -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 2:34:08 PM)
Inverse square law applies when dispersion's free, right? Isn't there a way to have the radiation interfere constructively (directing it) to avoid it? (Such as in a lazer.) Actually asking. Afraid I still haven't taken any of the E/M classes. =/

MstrssPassion -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 5:28:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 Taken from page 2, this made me giggle a bit. Asked what she thought of the system, Payton tells Martin, "I loved it. I started giggling." "Giggle is not the usual response to pain," Martin remarks. LMAO yeah I caught that part... I just looked at the love of my life sitting next to me & she looked back at me with a sh*t-eating grin & we both giggled.

Level -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 5:35:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 Taken from page 2, this made me giggle a bit. Asked what she thought of the system, Payton tells Martin, "I loved it. I started giggling." "Giggle is not the usual response to pain," Martin remarks. I have a feeling we could find this "Payton" here at CM.... [X(]

Muttling -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 7:15:57 PM)
My apologies all..... I mis-interperted the responses. Mostly because I have heard responses before that described this as a way to win a war without having to kill the enemy. I wrongly painted you guys in a similar light and was mistaken. Carry On.

Termyn8or -> RE: The Pentagon's ray gun (3/3/2008 7:17:16 PM)
Inverse square does apply to everything, but there is another factor, the loss factor. While it is not yet technically possible if one can generate a truly 100% coherent lase beam in a vacuum, inverse square has very little importance because the loss factor is infitesimal. However in the atmosphere it is quite a different story. Even a totally coherenyt laser beam would suffer so much loss, well, that is one of the problems in develping alot of new weapons, "star wars" for example. Propogation loss varies in the atmosphere with wavelength to a great degree. That is why some bands can be used for communication with geosynchonus satellites and others cannot. Some wavelengths make it through the ionosphere and others do not. It could with enough power, but the propogation loss brings inverse square in spades. Do not confuse this with dispersion, they are two different things. We recieve only so much of the sun's energy because of our distance and our size, that is area with which to absorb energy. The rest is indeed propogated, just not to us. This case is one in which inverse square is almost perfect. Progogation loss is nil, it is omnidirectional so our little eentsy slice of the universe on which it shines recieves it's little slice of that energy which happens to be the right amount to sustain life. So here we are. If you have a way to make waves non-divergent, in space, essentially a vacuum there is not loss. And if they diverge, yes, less is delivered, but one thing still holds. Energy has not been created nor destroyed. What wavelengths to use in the atmosphere need to be chosen carefully. Those that exhibit the least propogation loss should be used of course. Most bands are simply scattered too much. Even with the means to selectively focus it, the range would still be quite limited. When there is a propogation loss through a medium, that energy is still not destroyed. Some physical changes will be observable. But I am going to switch up now to the other aspect of this, and I wasn't even the one to bring this up. A weapon of this type used against a civilian population during an insurrection. Without getting too political, I do have one thing to say. The international community should demand that the US government dismantle any and all such weapons, abandon all research and any future plans to build more. Do you REALLY want the US govt to have this ? T

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125