Did a Satellite-Based DeuteriumFluorideLaserDestroy“DeepHorizon”?

I am posting this story and video since I know it will make it's way to ATS eventually. My reason being that I think the idea is ridiculous based on what I see in the linked video. What they are claiming to be a "blue laser beam" is actually just artifacts (incorrect term possibly) from the fire and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.

Here's the story from Steve Quayle's website -

oilpatchplug.blogspot.com...

And the video they are basing this on -

I think this is a sad example of wild speculation, posted with little or no thought.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Asktheanimals]

i know nothin bout lasers but i did see a picture of the Horizon with a 40-50 foot hole on their helipad area i think. also the "laser" in the video is reflecting of the water. its a little hard to hoax that i would think :]

You are correct sir, that is pretty sad. Obviously lens flare from the flames against a night sky. Why anyone would think that was a laser from outer space is just beyond me.

Flouride laser eh? Sounds like a newbie conspiracy theory.

Yeah, it looks to be just the reflection or whatever its called from the fire.

Mainly because you can see it below and above, and its overlaying the water.

Lens flare that's all.

Although it could be "Spock and Bones" beaming down for a sandwich in the crew mess of a support boat" - I think my scenario is equally as plausible as the original claim.

Ya the blue light is reflecting off the ocean water.

It cannot be an artifact than.

It looks just like those huge spotlights that are used often for many decades.

I really am thinking it may be a few large spot lights that are pointed upwards perhaps to aid in locating the rig at night.

Here is a pic of what I am talking about.
hqcompany.com...
The light beams are almost always BLUE hued as well.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by muzzleflash]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by muzzleflash]

Originally posted by who-me?
Lens flare that's all.

Although it could be "Spock and Bones" beaming down for a sandwich in the crew mess of a support boat" - I think my scenario is equally as plausible as the original claim.

Nope it's a spot light. Notice the reflection on the ocean water?

Lens flares do not do that LOL...

Everyone knows that:
" Don't stop! We don't have time to fix the warped blow out preventer"
is the sound a space laser makes when it blows a whole in a broken down piece of machinery a mile down in the sea.


hey this video isn't from Flourideia is it?

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Danbones]

Sounds like another thread I saw on ATS where someone was speculating that the Boeing airplane with the massive laser on board had shot the oil rig which caused the hole in the helipad. Do some satellites even have a flouride laser on them because that sounds extremely expensive and kind of out there although im sure there is one on a drawing board at DARPA or something?

Actually, I think it was an invisible holographic airplane.

It's an upgrade from the visible holographic airplanes used on 911.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Ya the blue light is reflecting off the ocean water.

It cannot be an artifact than.

It looks just like those huge spotlights that are used often for many decades.

I really am thinking it may be a few large spot lights that are pointed upwards perhaps to aid in locating the rig at night.

Here is a pic of what I am talking about.
hqcompany.com...
The light beams are almost always BLUE hued as well.

Not a spot light, it's the lens flare of the fire like a previous poster added. If you look at the 'Blue Beam' on teh water there's no wave distortion showing it to be a reflection of something that is aimed at or on the rig itself. It's just as straight as the 'Blue Beam' above the fire. Which is perfect evidence of lens flare.

If there were either a spot light shineing up from the rig or some sort of 'beam' shining down on the rig that was so intense that it could be seen from that distance and actually reflect on the water then the reflection would be distorted by the waves of the water just like the reflection of the fire itself. Meaning the blue 'beam' would look like a blue wavy line in the water just like the yellow/orange glow of the fire reflection.

Also, it would have to be the most powerful laser in human history to reflect on the water at that distance. 2nd note at no time does the person videoing (or those in the back ground) make any reference to the 'Blue Beam' what-so-ever. Common sense dictates if there WAS a blue laser hitting the platform then the person(s) on the boat videoing the disaster would be full of:

"OMG! What is that!? You see that Blue Beam!? What is that!?" etc.

Camera Lens Flare - Case Closed - Next?

With my HP Smart, sometimes, when I film outside and there is a light of great intensity I will see those blue/mauve ray of light. It is only a scattering on the lens or something similar. I think it is due to digital technology.

I will try to produce one today.

reply to post by Asktheanimals
I sure am glad you said 'ridiculous' , I would be worried about you if you hadn't.

It is just a bit out there on the kooky- nutzo scale for me.

No, it's not.

First off, a D-F laser is medium wave IR. It's not blue. It's not visible. In fact, lasers aren't visible from the side ANYWAY except by scattering due to dust or a lot of water vapor in the air. So if you see something with a "beam" coming down, it's fake.

Next, D-F lasers generally don't have the ass to melt holes in a building, oil rig or whatnot, certainly not from space. Even moderately big D-F lasers like a Skyguard or THEL don't "melt" targets, they heat them to deflagration or structural failure if it's a missile. And missiles are pretty light-weight. The amount of energy required to slag structural steel in a blink is past what you could easily pack into orbit.

And it's back to "why bother" like it is for most of this stuff - if you wanted to screw up an oil rig, it's way easier to use something low-tech like an explosive charge. Hell, even a couple of Javelins would likely do the job, and at a lot lower cost than using up a spaceborne laser, if you had one that big.

Ok I did some research.

It is a lens flare.

But only because I have proof.



The blue light goes inbetween the Fire on top, and the Water below.

A spot light would not do that. Only a flare would.

And thanks RecentlyAwaken for pointing out the water reflection was not wavy, therefore it was not on the water at all.

Weaponized lasers are pulsed. They are not fired in continuous beams. An orbital laser strike would look like a very brief, very straight, very thin bolt of lightning- if the laser were in the visible light spectrum. High energy lasers have enormous power requirements, and they generate a lot of heat. They are fired in brief pulses, the duration of which corresponds to the discharge rate of their capacitors- similar to a camera flash. Assuming multiple capacitors, a space-based laser would be able to fire a few pulses at most, and then would be down for several minutes, if not hours or days to recharge.

The destructive effect of a weaponized laser is not directly from burning or melting. It is from mechanical shear, caused by the spontaneous vaporization of the target material- that is to say, an explosion. To an observer, the effect of a high-energy laser strike would look much like a conventional explosive detonation.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by moonwilson]

I was just in Hawaii and as I was videoing my wife swimming with the turtles with heavy sun glare on the water I got those same blue lines on my recording. No stupid laser beam.

Lens flare as 97% of ATS folks would say...
weaponized laser beams and anti-gravity vehicles are just impossible. Kinda like satelites, airplanes, interplanetary robots, giant ships floating on water, round earth, heliocentric orbit of the planets, etc etc.

However...the camera/video is a very tricky thing indeed.

Example: Some anomalous objects (UFOs) can only be seen with the night shot filter.

Originally posted by moonwilson
Weaponized lasers are pulsed. They are not fired in continuous beams.

Quite incorrect. Gas dynamic lasers are CW, such as a D-F laser (THEL), a COIL laser (ABL) or H-F laser (TRW's ASAT weapon). Other combat lasers are also CW, like a number of CARM or FEL weapons you've likely not heard of. Yet.

The destructive effect of a weaponized laser is not directly from burning or melting. It is from mechanical shear, caused by the spontaneous vaporization of the target material- that is to say, an explosion. To an observer, the effect of a high-energy laser strike would look much like a conventional explosive detonation.

In the case of a gas dynamic laser like THEL, the damage is in fact from heating. Same with a COIL. Other combat lasers which use pulse modes DO cause mechanical damage, either from explosive ablation or from plasma bloom formation at the target surface due to reverse brehmsstrahlung energy capture. You can also cause other types of damage by inducing RF emission in the impact bloom.

Originally posted by America?
Sounds like another thread I saw on ATS where someone was speculating that the Boeing airplane with the massive laser on board had shot the oil rig which caused the hole in the helipad. Do some satellites even have a flouride laser on them because that sounds extremely expensive and kind of out there although im sure there is one on a drawing board at DARPA or something?

The ABL is a COIL laser, also IR, also not visible. But from the "shot angle", it'd have to be standing on one wing going in teeny little circles to come straight down like that.

And the ABL also doesn't have the ass to melt structural steel in a trice. It takes a LOT of energy to do that. And at some point, if you push the beam power density too high, you get plasma blooming in the beam path - the air "burns" into a plasma, which just absorbs or scatters the beam. It's a problem.