Are directed energy weapons real?

Guess folks have to decide for themselves whether the fires were normal or the result of a DEW.

Lahaina FIRE - Inside the RESTRICTED Area - The MIRACLE Neighborhood that Survived !!!
August 29, 2023
17:16

 

Here's something I just came across.

CCP Satellites Over Maui At Time of Fires
https://gregreese.substack.com/p/ccp-satellites-over-maui-at-time

 

It really pisses me that the people actually doing the deceiving are the ones making these claims! Take for instance the multiple used "beam from space" image passed around by the social media, as these conspiracy theorists gush amongst themselves at their detective skills and ability to join dots - dots that small children would rub out with an eraser because they are extremely dumb or suspect!
Old photos are being misrepresented online to fuel a conspiracy theory about the Maui wildfires | AP News

This combination of photos provided by Travis Secrest, a resident of Perry Township in Ohio, shows a flame at the Marathon Petroleum refinery in the winter of 2018.
The right-hand photo was shared on social media in August 2023 with false claims that it shows the wildfires in Maui. (Travis Secrest via AP)

Were 2023 Maui Fires Caused by a 'Direct Energy Weapon'? | Snopes.com
"Deadly wildfires fueled by hot, dry, and windy weather conditions devastated parts of the Hawaiian island of Maui in early August 2023, killing at least 53 people, as of this writing, and causing widespread damage in the historic town of Lahaina. As dramatic first-person accounts and photographs of the conflagration spread on social media, so did rumors and conspiracy theories about what caused it.

There were many more such posts, all of which shared this same glaring attribute: a complete lack of evidence in support of the notion that the fires were caused by any sort of attack, much less an attack by a "direct energy weapon." (What is a "direct energy weapon"? The devices most often mentioned in discussions of this type of weaponry are lasers and microwaves. You may recall internet chatter about "space lasers" in the aftermath of the 2020 California wildfires, which some people claimed were indeed caused by direct energy weapons.)"

Another batshit claim is that the "CCP" was overhead. This one is absolutely absurd for a number of easily shown reasons. Firstly, one would ask the claimant to define "overhead"! Satellites travel at 8km/s so in addition to the absolutely vast/unfeasible/impossible energy required to make any effect, it must constantly be altering its targeting system. Lahaina is 24 km across, so in 3 seconds this satellite is NOT "overhead" but now angled. In one minute it is 480km away! An effective/destructive laser has a range of a few miles before atmospheric diffusion diminishes its power. Interference lasers can be used for much greater distances, but have no direct destructive power.

Not one single person witnessed any batshit space-laser. And examples used are shown to be pure deceit.

 

Presuming that CCP Satellites have laser weapons on them, an invalid presumption IMO, why would they target residential areas in Hawaii instead of military targets in Okinawa or Taiwan?

 

I'm not taking any stands on this. I came across it so I posted it so it could be discussed. It may turn out to be wrong.

 

Understood. I still laugh at those who bought into the story of the Chinese Attack Balloons.

 

So batshit space lasers is not laughable?

 

Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. Aiming systems operate in nanoseconds. This makes the rationale presented to disprove the "CCP" theory above invalid. I'm not saying the contention is right or wrong. More data is necessary. But the rationale using "one minute" is silly considering the velocity of light and the processing speed of aiming systems.

 

Nope. The rationale is that after 10 seconds it's 80km further away. After 20 it's 160km!

Since it is claimed that the space weapons caused this damage, how the hell does it lock onto a moving target of many square miles and concentrate INVISIBLE laser beam damage. I know how satellites can lock on and stay locked on. Light/radio doesn't degrade that much, but lasers most certainly do.

If you read this bit properly it explains it:
"Lahaina is 24 km across, so in 3 seconds this satellite is NOT "overhead" but now angled. In one minute it is 480km away! An effective/destructive laser has a range of a few miles before atmospheric diffusion diminishes its power. Interference lasers can be used for much greater distances, but have no direct destructive power."

 

You don't get it. TEN SECONDS???? The processing is done in NANOSECONDS... that's MILLIONTHS OF A SECOND! So if 10 seconds means a displacement of 80 kilometers... a nano second will allow displacement of EIGHT MILLIONTHS OF A METER. Ten seconds is an eternity in terms of micro processing.

Lasers come in many configurations. The ABL (Airborne Laser) can destroy incomi8ng enemy missiles at hundreds of miles away. Its a function of power and wavelength. Military lasers are available in all sorts of configurations. MILES (training simulation lasers) are low power. CO2 lasers, as seen on the Avenger missile system is stronger, NdYAG lasers are stronger yet. ABL is a very powerful laser.

 

Listen, YOU don't get it. I'm not talking about the time or the processing I'm talking quite clearly about the degradation of the laser in a matter of a few seconds. It now has to travel 80 MORE kilometres through atmosphere.

The ABL works because it concentrates the beam into an extremely narrow corridor of around 10 microns. That way all of its energy is deposited in a fashion similar to a magnifying glass. Now, how do you figure THAT works in destroying a town and all whilst the target recedes at 8km every second? How long for this narrow beam over 100 miles up in orbit to strafe an entire town?

Concentrated into a narrow 10 micron beam.

And not one of them capable of doing anything close to what is being suggested on the Maui town. The ABL is also grossly limited in its discharge duration and its subsequent recharge. Three to five seconds firing time.

 

Where o you get that ten seconds from? High power lasers (like ABL) fire in short bursts.... fractions of a second. You don't have to cover the town... just start a few fires and stand back. Towns, homes, facilities, etc. were destroyed by uncontrolled fires. The lasers (if they were there) just STARTED the fires.

"Whilst"??? Oh... you're an Aussie... we understand now,

 

Listen. I know you are clearly a sensible and reasonable person. We are arguing about something from the wrong context. Of course anything in space could generate enough of a burst to start a fire, as could a 3yr old with a box of matches and slightly easier to do. But that is not what is being claimed. It is suggested that these space lasers remotely targeted whole sections of the town and left other areas deliberately untouched. That is why I am questioning the motion of the satellite and how quickly it goes out of range.

I know these lasers are fast and accurate. But ABL uses a highly concentrated narrow beam and takes out the missile by applying intense heat to its casing and causing malfunction via detonation of fuel or failure of internal guidance. It's beam is under 10 microns and whilst that would incinerate a small patch of grass at 100 miles or heat up somebody's gas tank, it's not going to do much more than that. Certainly not selectively wipe out a few square kilometres.

Not what they are claiming. The claim is wholly controlled and specific targeting of huge areas.

No, why do you think that? Understanding the nature of bush fires is not a requirement for knowing how easy it is to start one, absent a billion dollar laser. Or indeed to know how feasible it is for a space laser to target large areas as claimed.

 

Good find and thanks for the link. The video comment, lasers have "a minimal reaction with objects colored blue" at 1:20, can also apply to the video in my last post. Five cars are shown at 8:05-9:09. Four were destroyed but the middle car, with relatively minor damage, was blue.

Below the video is the comment:

It's possible China leases satellites, and possible some have lasers. If we assume the satellites were correctly identified, had military grade lasers and used them... did China coordinate with Maui's authorities so public services would fail right after the attack? Did China know exactly which areas to destroy to facilitate the land-grab of locals' property?

If we further assume for a moment the US has the same military grade laser satellites as China, why would the US lease China's satellites? Would the gov't allow China's authorities to coordinate with US national, state and local authorities to attack the US? Probably not. However, suppose the US gov't knew it might need a handy excuse to lay the blame somewhere else, and leased China's satellites to cover that possiblity?

If this hypothetical possiblity was ever widely published by MSM, true or not, it would create much ado. As in other instances of 'Blame China!' they'd say nothing, US officials would mumble some inane BS and the public would speculate 'til the next disaster directed their attention elsewhere.

If interested:
Steve Favis's laser page https://www.misterrobots.com/lasers has a video showing how he determined where and when the CCP satellite was at the time the fires started.

The linked page (CCP Satellites Over Maui), at the end of the text below the video, is the link "software program." Clicking it auto starts a 2GB download of Favis's program to track satellite telemetry (Windows 10/11).


That’s No Meteor: NASA Satellite’s Elusive Green Lasers Spotted at Work
Article + 0:21 video
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...tellites-elusive-green-lasers-spotted-at-work

 

Perfectly demonstrated. No amount of reasoned explanation makes any difference to batshit opinions. I spend several posts detailing the impossible nature of satellites doing this and without even acknowledging it or attempting to counter it, we get more of this ludicrous speculative hogwash.

So how powerful is NASA's green laser? Absolutely negligible as a weapon. But, don't let reality get in the way of batshit. Conspiracy theorists.....meh!

 

My beef isn't with you then. Its with the guy that said you have to cover a whole town to incinerate it. All it takes is starting a few fires here and there/

Americans don't say "whilst".

 

Lasers can shoot down incoming ballistic missiles. Starting a fire is easy compared to this. The US ABL (Airborne Laser) is mounted in the front of a 747 and designed to shoot down incoming enemy ICBM's,

 

This one does - pretty much always in written form though. I've lived in various places and worked with English/European folk most of my life. I have 3 computers and one is set for UK English (a work Mac) so constantly find myself correcting the correcting. Americans never used to use British swear words that I won't repeat, but are now in common use. Many of my English friends use American terms in normal conversation, such as "my bad", "whatever" Samuel L Jackson's favorite swear word etc.

Apart from the fact that this system is absolutely enormous, you are conflating what the laser does. It does not "shoot down" the missile. It causes it to malfunction by applying heat to sensitive areas.
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/
"Where the missile carries liquid fuel, the laser can heat a spot on the missile’s fuel tank, causing an increase in internal pressure resulting in catastrophic failure. Alternatively, the missile is heated in an arc around its circumference and crumples under atmospheric drag force or its own g-force."

Incidentally, my figure of 10 microns was for the older system, as you can see from the cited specifications, this one is 1.315 microns. And once again, the claim is not that a fire was started by a laser, but that (in this case) selective cars were burnt out!

 

Let's hear your analysis of this?
https://www.misterrobots.com/lasers
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can a Satellite ignite a fire from space?

Yes.

Here's a simplified analysis, with variables that affect laser energy:

Atmospheric Absorption and Scattering: The Earth's atmosphere will absorb and scatter some of the laser energy. Depending on the specific wavelength, certain parts of the electromagnetic spectrum can be absorbed by water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmospheric constituents. The laser would need to be in a wavelength range that minimizes this absorption and scattering. The longer the path through the atmosphere, the more significant this effect becomes.

Beam Divergence: The laser beam will spread out or diverge as it travels. A laser with a very small beam divergence is essential to ensure that the beam remains focused over the long distance from the satellite to the Earth's surface. Advanced optics would be required.

Energy Intensity: To ignite a material, the laser's energy intensity (energy per unit area) must be above a certain threshold. The type of material, its moisture content, and other factors will dictate the ignition energy required.

Laser Duration: Prolonged exposure would likely be needed, especially if the initial energy intensity is near the threshold for ignition. This would mean the satellite would need a way to keep the laser fixed on a single point for an extended period, which is challenging due to the satellite's movement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Of what? Have you even read that page? It's interesting but entirely simplified. Anyone can "ignite a fire", the problem is stopping it!
1. For starters it suggests the satellite would need to be 32,000kg in size.
2. It points out that infrared is invisible to the human eye, yet your ridiculous sources cite fake photographs showing beams.
3. It suggests a fire of grass covering a square mile would take "161 seconds or about 2.7 minutes to scan and ignite the entire mile-long strip."

Wow. Just number 3 should tell you how ludicrous this whole thing is!
1. How does this laser stop the fires from spreading? It is a moronic claim to suggest this.
2. A satellite moves 8km per second. In just a minute, it is 480km away from the target which is assumed to be grass.
3. The Sun loses 23% of it's energy in passing through 60 miles of measurable atmosphere.
4. What would you expect to happen when it passes through an extra few hundred miles!?

Your page tells you the big problem I highlighted!
"Energy Intensity: To ignite a material, the laser's energy intensity (energy per unit area) must be above a certain threshold. The type of material, its moisture content, and other factors will dictate the ignition energy required.

Laser Duration: Prolonged exposure would likely be needed, especially if the initial energy intensity is near the threshold for ignition. This would mean the satellite would need a way to keep the laser fixed on a single point for an extended period, which is challenging due to the satellite's movement."

 

It doesn't take a huge platform. Its not necessary to cover large areas. Just start a small fire and let it grow. Heck, a camper that doesn't extinguish a campfire can be responsible for the destruction of hundreds of square miles of forest.

 

For the 4th time now. We are NOT talking about the space laser as a means to start a fire. The claim is that it is causing widespread individual damage and selectively missing entire sections. This cannot be a "start fire - walk away" thing. They are claiming that the incineration is performed by direct laser damage.

I have confirmed that a laser can start a fire, never denied. A small child with a magnifying glass could do it far simpler. Once a bushfire is started there is no magical way to stop it from burning one area as opposed to another. It has been shown that a space laser would need to be extremely big and is not equipped to do massive local damage in one pass - its very motion precludes it from doing so.

 

When whole cities have burned to the ground its tough to prove it came from a laser, a campfire, a smoker careless with a match... or even that small child with a magnifying glass.

 

Here's a photo of a of multiple vehicles destroyed by a severe wild fire in the 1980's, as you can see many with external paintwork (but not tires or inside detailing) intact. I guess this confirms it. The Deep State has obviously been using 'super weapons' in secret for decades.




In fact at great personal risk and by using some old 'back channel' contacts of mine in the UN I think I may have identified the Deep State operative in charge of Operation Destroy 'Mauri'.

 

There might be some useful info here.

Conspiracy theory alert: What we know and what we don't know about Hawaii fires, California hurricane
https://thecovidblog.com/2023/08/21...know-about-hawaii-fires-california-hurricane/