posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 04:57 AM
You know, the thing that I'm getting stuck on when I'm thinking back to that program is this: I don't remember goggles or glasses being mentioned
as being necessary to use this technology!
Early Russian ('Gen 1.5' for a guess) NVDs use IR diodes around the upper rim of the lens covers and are are actually superior for both range and
shadowzone penetration in closed rooms etc. Furthermore, they can be tuned to respond quicker to changes in ambient intensities so that /anything/
outside a nominally narrow spectral range is blanked out before hitting the MCP, let alone eye.
But I don't know how that would be possible!
Actually, most humans can see further into the IR and UV spectrums than is commonly known. Turn off a light bulb and see the 'glow'. That is
Turn off a computer monitor and look /from the side/ of the screen (in a darkened room) that is UV.
With direct retinal projecton (holographic displays which use the eye lens as a direct combiner) you could probably enhance a lot of this.
I clearly remember that in the demonstration the user of the "flashlight" and another person who was going to be the "hunted" were in a
pitch-black warehouse or large room.
Careful. With little or no preparation, I can make a room so dark that there is not enough ambient photon activity to function at a physical level.
At least in the near-IR (.76 to 1.3u) range.
..as the "hunted" walked through the room as quietly as possible the TV cameras followed his movements with night-vision technology...then when the
"flashlight" was going to be used the cameras switched to regular filming, making the scene pitch black until the "flashlight" was turned on...and
apparently, to the naked eye, from what I remember, the "hunted" was illuminated as if by a bright WHITE spotlight...
Suspicious. How did the hunter find him? Was the 'glaring white light' effect on a GREEN SCREEN (or B&W) presentation of a television monitor?
To a lowlight capable system, a man lighting a cigarette half a block away looks like he's setting off a fireworks display.
But the "hunted" kept walking around as quietly as possible and had no idea that he was clearly illuminated from all the way across the room!
You can alter the phase of a light to allow anyone not immediately in it's path very little chance of seeing it's refractive spray outside the
illumination beamswath. But to do so to a human (with visible light) would require precision awarness of everything from stereoscopy effects (most
humans don't have perfect depth perception and the eyes will vary, slighty, for left:right and high:low orbital alignment based on dominance and
muscle development as well as assymetry at the genetic level) to anaprop conditions in the local atmosphere. You would literally have to realtime
match the phase and hz rate of the eye scan (motor psychology) at the disparate left-right rates for which the visual system updates each part of the
human visual cognition centers.
And that rate varies just enough between people to be impossible, even if you could hold retina-center within the scotomal arc using a VERY fine
laser, the mapping from person to person would be too highly vagaried to allow for full covertness. They might only see it as a glow like the sun
over the horizon, but they would see it. And as soon as you expand the spot coverage enough to illuminate (again visible spectrum) ANY other part of
the body, the glint and scintillant Mie scatter would become just impossible to predict, let alone match.
I still can't wrap my . around it and I wish to God that I'd had a DVR back when this show was on, but alas, I'm screwed for want!
There is a laser dazzler that is in open field test use in select law enforcement agencies. It looks like it runs on about 10 D-cells and is indeed
like a long flashflight.
The problem is that the victim is indeed VERY MUCH aware of the unit's presence and gets an effect something like a prismatic spray (close your eyes
press on your eyeball, kaleidoscopic psychedilism) as the laser radiation penetrate and focus' on the retinal back wall no with an intensity and at a
refractive index that can cause unwanted and disorienting 'flash' photorensis (duuuh, IIRR) of the retina in areas that don't normally (time synch)
feed the optic nerve that way.
Unfortunately, there are a whole host of 'unknowns' with this system including shortterm effects like night blindness and iris based paralytics
which cause image overlaps and 'halos' around various light-dark differentiated objects.
All the way up to corneal ulcers and rupturing of the Descemets (again, from a long-ago bio class) membrane which is more or less the burst and
collapsing of the eye.
Lasers are NOT something to be messed with and if the episode you are talking about is the one I remember, dealing with supposedly less-than-lethal
weapons technology, you need only contemplate the notion of 20-30 years of blindness after knowing sight or worse, psychovisual seizuer problems akin
to epilepsy as a 'restrained use of force' alternative to 10 seconds worth of mortal bullets by which (at least) a government might be more apt to
be quickly labelled rogue.
Because that is what the programs "I know, shine the dazzle right in the camera at a 3ft distance away from the flashlight!" use of the dazzler
would have been likely to torture-and-maim do.
I'm starting to think that you are right Warpboost, maybe that technology was not supposed to be aired in the first place?
We live in a diametrian world which at once worships the ultmate blood sport of lethal violence as an organized and exclusive social activitiy and
proscribes it as a social-psychologic safety valve 'for the rest of us' who share the 2 million year legacy of hunter-gathering genetics.
But not political loyalty or submission to the few allowed to release their inner predator.
Somewhere beneath the laboring brow of mindless mass conscience beats a constant of awareness that /maybe/ this is not a good. Not a 'fair'
That it perhaps is not the act of killing but it's _reasoned justification_ which is being abortively misused in the name of good as simply limited
empowerment to do violence.
And thus (to cover up their own hypocrisy of needless sport-warfare while keeping us firmly guilt ridden 'in abstentia') the Powers That Be run a
continuing slideshow by which, divorcing motive from consequence, blood from justification, they can make their own actions seem acceptable, even
commendable 'because nothing really bad ever happened to the majority'.
Unfortunately, by following this line of simpleton ill-logic (violence is wrong for all of us, therefore the government who /conjointly represents us/
must be the only ones allowed to engage in it), the reality becomes that the traditional method of 'inspiring ones fellow morons' with vituperous
discourse can all too readily be interpreted or even (further incited to a true mob psychology.
At which point, with these weapons in hand, no amount of apriori bad act complaint justification by the beaten and humiliated 'but still breathing'
victim can overwhelm a secondary instinctive response which is to dismiss he weak as being inherently wrong.
"After all, he knew what was coming..."
THIS in turn is deadly. Not to the body but the mind of a social (shared, experimental) cultural memory awareness. Because a rancher doesn't get
his herd of cattle to start wandering up to the abatoir kill chute by pulling out a gun and blasting one right between the eyes.
He does it by making the /inevitable/ (acquiesce or be hurt) seem like a matter of gentle embarrassment at having to be coerced at all.
We are not cattle. But the moment we endorse 'hunting' a human being, whether with a covert illumination or by 'driving' force of a
dazzler/tazer/paint-ball mace. We deprave and degrade ourselves one more step towards a schismatic severing of the human whole which is an
acknowledgement of MOTIVES as much as actions in standing by them.
'Once upon a time', someone once said...
"No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, and why we died. All that matters is that today, two stood against
The reality is that two will no longer (and have rarely ever) stood against the many and won the day. So we MUST CARE WHY, as a social organism, if
only by putting more than embarrassment on the line when it comes to time for more than casual motivation or commitment to be all that is required for
violence to BE acceptable.
LTL's, because of their mass psychosis effects on morale and motivational shifts make push that line a long ways right of fuzzy.