Inventor claims to have built device that can see through walls.

  • Thread starter Thread starter check
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Device
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on Troy Hurtubise's claim of having developed a device that can see through walls. Participants explore the feasibility, implications, and skepticism surrounding this invention, touching on its theoretical and practical aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the device, suggesting it may be a hoax due to its unconventional claims and lack of demonstrable evidence.
  • Others question the scientific principles behind the device, particularly how electromagnetic radiation could penetrate walls and still reflect off objects behind them.
  • A few participants highlight the need for a demonstration to validate Hurtubise's claims, noting the absence of visual evidence showing the device in action.
  • Some comments draw parallels to Hurtubise's previous inventions, with mixed opinions on their effectiveness and practicality.
  • There are humorous remarks about the complexity of the device, likening it to an overly complicated X-ray machine.
  • Participants mention the potential dangers of the device, including unintended side effects like damaging cameras or harming living beings.
  • There are references to Hurtubise's past inventions, with some participants recalling their perceived successes or failures, particularly the bear-proof suit.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus on the validity of Hurtubise's claims. There are multiple competing views, with some expressing belief in the device's potential and others firmly skeptical of its feasibility.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the lack of clear definitions and the ambiguity surrounding the device's operation, as well as the absence of rigorous testing or demonstration. The discussion reflects a mix of technical reasoning and personal opinions without resolving the underlying uncertainties.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in innovative inventions, skepticism in scientific claims, or discussions about the intersection of technology and physics may find this thread engaging.

  • #31
Oh my... I heard the inventor in an interview on Coast to Coast. He's a total nutjob. He claims to have "loads of friends" in the scientific community several of which are nobel lauriats as well as "loads of friends" in the military whom he has come over to his lab and sweep for bugs which crop up regularly. Ofcourse he also states that Navy Seals couldn't get into his place if they tried due to all the boobie traps. He says that he's been attacked by three bears (before the bear suit) and shot and stabbed several times. The best part was when he said that he gets lots of help from his scientist friends since they know that he knows nothing about science. He was absolutely hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #32
Boobie traps? Is that like putting flypaper in your girlfriend's bra?
 
Last edited:
  • #33
TheStatutoryApe said:
He says that he's been attacked by three bears (before the bear suit) and shot and stabbed several times.

I'm not surprised. If you saw him wandering around in his bear-proof suit, wouldn't you just shoot him to prove the point that it is useless/for your own amusement?
 
  • #34
A Hoax

I believe this is a hoax. Not only does it go against the laws of physics, but the article is poorly written. The structure is incorrect, (i.e. punctuation) and there are typographical errors throughout the article. I'm not perfect at writing, but any editor would see that there are spelling mistakes that should have been addressed.

Though some of his claims like killing fish and losing feeling in his fingers is highly possible with this device the overall claim points to a hoax due to the lack of proof. A radar with high enough power can roast a bird out of the sky, which is what I believed happened in the case of killing the fish and damage to his finger. He basically cooked them... That is if the device actually was in existence.

PsychoSquirrel
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
31K
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K