It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Military Lies to 60 Minutes about Non-Lethal Ray Gun

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Hench why i said that i didn't want to support the OP's case.

As incredibly powerful this technology is when a simple all-out war in concerned, you simply could not ask for anything better than a weapon that can eradicate enemy missiles and air-support without having to rely on guided missiles - this thing doesn't even need to be guided.

You could just point it in the sky and leave it on, if you had a decent power source.

Hell, if you made one big enough you could make some kind of security field that would fry anything that went in it's path - the ultimate security system, in otherwords.

Say goodbye to mile after mile of fencing and fortification, say hello to Ray-gun outposts with directed beams surrounding the HQ.

You are right to state that it does nothing to affect subterfuge, but it does mean that subterfuge is the only way for an enemy to get behind your lines.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]




posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:09 AM
link   
So not only does this technology represent an incredible weapon, it's also providing the foundations for force-field technology.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Response to Tyrant, this technology, as was recently discussed, typically works by heating the water molecule beneath the skin to a sort of boiling poitn which induces a searing pain and sensation of fire. I do not think that applies to metal objects with no sense of pain. Even if the field was hot enough to begin to casuign metal fatigue, which would have to be thousands of degrees, you would have to have an extremely concentrated and intense impact. A missle would fly right through this. you may be referring to the AirBborneLaser, which pretty much is designed for that very purpose.
slated for field test sometime this year.



Sadly I agree with you, It is very powerful. But just remember, the A bomb was dropped twice and not since then has any government been willing to use it again


Those bombs were flown in by plane, which can now be tracked on radar or satellite. They also made loud sounds and bright flash as a way to pinpoint the source.

this ray gun leaves no evidence of direction, distance, or point of origin.

It does not leave shells to run ballistics on. It does not make sounds. There are no bright flashes. No gun powder residue.

If this weapon were used from a rooftop or building to destroy delegates at a meeting in the UN, there would be very little to determine point of origin. Eve if there were, there is no evidence left behind. Even if we assume the perp was caught, there is no evidence absolutley zero to convict.

Could take out a motorcade from 1/4 mile away and nobody would know what happened. I think the only hope would be to utilize that technology that was developed by US-britsh scientists a few years back that can deflect micorwaves, ort of make them bend around it.

This is the article where we made reference to the possibility of deflecting DEW's utilizing the new technology
Experts test cloaking technology
That was the original press release on the technology in discussion.


The device mostly hid a small copper cylinder from microwaves in tests at Duke University, North Carolina.

It works by deflecting the microwaves around the object and restoring them on the other side, as if they had passed through empty space.
.....
Next, the researchers placed the invisibility cloak over the copper cylinder. The cloak did not completely iron out the disturbance, but it greatly reduced the microwaves being blocked or deflected.


Because even if the weapon never ventured out of government/military control, who is to say groups of truth seekers and dissenters would not just drop dead and fry for no apparanet reason, or source....?
It would be quite beneficial to have a defense readily available to the public before these weapons see any action.


[edit on 4/16/2008 by DYepes]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Muundoggie
 


I'm sorry my friend. First off, this technology has been around for a LONG LONG time and has been used. This kind of technology is only ever released to the public once it becomes too difficult to cover up or there is a need to make a ton of money.

All this means is that there will likely be a push to start more wars so they can sell ray guns now.

Also, there is no way that this weapon could have sped up this business venture by the Bush administration. They didn't want to speed it up. They are making too much money for themselves.

Lastly, according to this administration, we don't know who the heck we are fighting. They are 'terrorists'. That's about as generalized as you can get. That could cover anyone that acts violently towards another human being. Especially in this country according to the Patriot Act.

So how could this weapon speed anything up? It just means that more people will die painfully than before.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muundoggie
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


Well, don't you think this weapon would make the terrorists think twice if they could not reach their intended target to blow up themselves and whoever is near them?


The ones who have these weapons and use them ARE the terrorists. Please wake up.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
dariousg, could you perhaps explain to us all who do not know everything about this weaponw hat a "long long time" is. Perhaps a date, and preferably a date of use against a target?

As far as we can tell this is only developed in the last 7-10 years or so. I dont consider that a long, long time.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
The guy's rationale makes no sense.

We could "kill everyone within a city block" with simple bombs too, the problem is you'll get 20 innocent bystanders for every insurgent.

The avowed goal is to pacify Iraq, not to depopulate it...



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


Gotta agree with you there!



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Here is the military telling the truth:



Look at the Chinese Mr. Chairman!!!!!

Still think a communist Chinaman won't be watering the flowers in your garden or sitting on your old sofa- soon?

Oliver North our Military wingnut tells the truth by not saying a word and when he does speak it is only to say I don't recall.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Back in the 80's pilots used to fly at the practice ranges and fry jackrabbits and other creatures with the IR radiation pulse from the target acquisition radar. This is THE EXACT SAME WEAPON on a new updated portable platform.

No, it's not 'new' and yes, it has been around for quite a long time.

AT THAT TIME however, there was no talk of 'urban pacification applications' or 'non-lethal' use - we knew it could kill then, and we know it can kill now. Also, back then when planners thought of war - it was with a real enemy - with supply lines - and infrastructure vulnerabilities.

NOW we have 'terrorist ghosts' which is like targeting 'whoever happens to be downrange.' Truth is, the Military Industrial Complex can only define its existence in terms of developing ways to project destructive force. This is but the beginning. There ARE much worse developments in the pipeline. I find this to be more applicable to creating a no-entry field which will keep people out or away from certain areas.

The real worry comes from weapon applications akin to (and including) HAARP. Against those there is no defense.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
The guy's rationale makes no sense.

We could "kill everyone within a city block" with simple bombs too, the problem is you'll get 20 innocent bystanders for every insurgent.

The avowed goal is to pacify Iraq, not to depopulate it...


The difference to me between this DE weapon and a bomb is that the DE weapon "only" destroys the living things and leaves the structures intact. Remember when they used to say that about the "neutron bomb".

Also, someone else was worried that someone could shoot it and leave no trace. All the pictures I've seen show a pretty large device with a big flat antenna. I'm it would be noticed as it was brought in or travelled away from the site where it was used.

I still see this - lethal or not - as a good area defense weapon for a base or ship. As someone else said, given the right power source, you could use it a a sort of "force field" to keep out anyone you didn't want to be there.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I think the author is mistaking for a laser weapon dealing with IEDs and one that just likes to give a warm hug to rioters.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

You could just point it in the sky and leave it on, if you had a decent power source.

Hell, if you made one big enough you could make some kind of security field that would fry anything that went in it's path - the ultimate security system, in otherwords.

Say goodbye to mile after mile of fencing and fortification, say hello to Ray-gun outposts with directed beams surrounding the HQ.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]


Once again we humans think only of ourselves. Screw the WORLD!!!
It's US (not the U.S.) that matters. Not the environment, birds, mammals, etc. that would ALSO be obliterated. It's every MAN for himself.

Just point it at the sky. Screw the radiation and side effects.

Do you see the flaw yet?


apc

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by DJMessiah
 

It would just overload and fry itself, and anyone it's pointed at, or turn off. All it is is a big fat magnetron and focusing dish. Microwave oven on steroids basically. The amplitude is just right so it can penetrate the surface of the skin but not much deeper. Death is probably from the pain, causing heart attack, rather than the heat itself. Of course they can always crank up the juice which would cook the target or at least cause internal burns, but only at close range.

I guess you could take out an entire block of people with this weapon so long as it were just a wide open field. It can't go through walls very well. Useful on an army of foot soldiers probably... but who fights like that anymore? Maybe point it at a camp or base or something where the enemy only has tents to hide in.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by apc]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   
This is complete and unadulterated BS.

The amount of energy it would take to "fry" a person with a "ray gun," much less an entire battalion, would require a source too big for an humvee, which the Active Denial System is mounted on. The amount needed for the non-lethal ADS is massive itself; here is a picture of one mounted on a humvee just to give you an idea. The mobile version of the joint US-Israeli designed Tactical High Energy Laser, built to shoot down missiles, is the size of three semi-trailers. And that what is needed just to shoot down one missile; no way the ADS "ray gun" could cook an entire battalion.


[edit on 17-4-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
The thing you all need to keep in mind is that, if someone is willing to die to accomplish their mission, it doesnt matter what weapon you have. the end result will be the same.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Seriously, nobody on this board thinks it's more likely that Gaubatz is talking out his ass? A deadly microwave weapon would take absurd amounts of power. It would have to literally cook everyone to death. It takes a thousand watts of power inside a little metal box to cook your food. If you're just spraying it out there into the air, you're not liable to cook anyone, unless you've got something like a missile defense radar, which can pulse at something like the megawatt level and literally cook unfortunate birds and squirrels.

The microwave weapon the military has is a little rig that fits on the back of a hummer, and runs off a gas generator.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I still don't understand how CBS saying the weapon is not lethal could get American soldiers killed. What is the deal here?



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican
Seriously, nobody on this board thinks it's more likely that Gaubatz is talking out his ass?


Welcome to ATS...the home of knee-jerk, unthinking reactions and the attitude that "If someone is saying the military/government/etc is lying, is must be true!"



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by DYepes
 


Well, i was unaware there was already technology available for that kind of scenario.

However i feel it's nessecary to make a point that you seem to have missed - i said that this provided the foundation for such technology.

Obviously i'm not going to go about stating that this is the be-all and end-all of military technology, because that would just be stupid.

Which is what you seem to be attempting to make me out to be by ignoring specific points of my reasoning.


Originally posted by dariousg

Do you see the flaw yet?


I see plenty of flaws*, please state one that doesn't involve protecting the environment instead of friendly troops.



*Power demand, vulnerability to multiple ordinance strikes and limitation of friendly manuevourability being the most obvious.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join