Salty Cracker and Wall Street Apes are now insinuating it. The op was a success, they've created a narrative binary where either space lasers did it or climate change (MSM narrative) did it. Meanwhile the much more likely story (strategic arson ahead of high winds + collusion with crooked state and local officials to mishandle the response on purpose) has effectively been shoved under the rug. Now instead of having the entire internet digging into that to possibly find some arsonists or conspiracies to mishandle response, they are instead "laser focused" on space lasers.
Of course, if the DEW theory is correct, this is fine. I just don't think it is.
endrant
I don't think anyone is all in on lasers. But we're not going to rule it out either. Why would we?
Agreed, however, like the flair someone put on this post, it's about the focus
At least Maui is still being scrutinized
I don't believe it was lasers. However I do believe there is something very strange with the intensity of the fires like this. It's very strange how some houses remain standing. It's strange when one side of the street is scorched to smithereens but the other side isn't even touched. What pisses me off is, there are all of these cameras and people with cameras all over the place and yet no one has any video of the fires being started. I have not see any satellite footage appear of the fires starting in real time like in Canada. It simply doesn't make sense this happened, especially since you don't see fires burning down entire cities like this on the regular.
I chalk up the unburned mansions and properties to the corrupt officials mishandling it on purpose aspect, in reverse: the millionaires had top of the line fire fighting for their properties- the rest didnt
I'm starting to think there's something to the blue stuff not burning, did some research and found that blue lasers light will completely reflect off blue but other colors will absorb the energy and heat up.
Blue lasers also have the greatest penetration depth in water, so it could be useful for both underwater mapping and attacking submarines.
Optical wavelengths are not used for laser weapons; they are too inefficient in producing power. If there is enough power, it wouldn't matter what color the target was, because no color is 100% reflective and it would take only a short exposure to say 100 w/cm2 before the paint chars and the absorption coefficient goes up.
The underwater applications are maybe mapping but more likely submarine detection or two-way communication. Not attacking submarines. You are thinking of heating up something that is cooled by a surrounding environment of seawater? Or, you aren't thinking...
Just a thought:
How hard would it be if they had satellites with magnifying lenses to focus down sunlight, to just target wherever they want to cook like ants? No lasers necessary, just natural focused sunlight.
How big of a magnifying glass would that be kek. I think it's a stretch but good thoughts regardless
If you work out the optics...it doesn't work. The solar image spot would have a diameter equal to the angular extent of the sun times the focal length of the optics. The only reason a magnifying lens works is because the focal length is very small and it is possible to concentrate the sunlight. The focal length of a satellite-based optical system would be on the order of hundreds of kilometers. The angular diameter of the sun is about 0.54 degree, or nearly 0.01 radian. This means the solar disk diameter from a satellite 200 km distant would be 2 km. The collector size on the satellite would have to be much larger than that in order to get any amplification of the light. And during nighttime, no sunlight in low Earth orbit. How hard would it be? Next to impossible.
Pantifa, Illegals, and BLM have been setting the west ablaze for decades. I think lasers are more for accuracy and when there's not enough kindling around to get the result they want. However we knows lasers have been used to spark forest fires too.
Because there is no way to "rule it in." It just doesn't make sense. It is the antithesis of something simple and reliable, and accessible without questions being asked. I know some of you guys like the idea. Having worked with the subject, I think it is nuts. So, I have no idea why you like the idea. Maybe your imagination gets the better of your knowledge.
No one likes that idea. You being the authority on lasers does not rule out the possibility they were used to start this fire. You won't convince people to stop discussing this. And they shouldn't until something is proved. Beyond me why you want rule anything out. Anything
Whether I am an authority or not should make no difference. The important aspect is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. Surmise and imagination are not evidence. And this notion of DEWs is very tricky, because the nature of a DEW is not to leave much evidence. It is in the same category as Menehunes. You say DEWs exist, and they do. But so do elephants, and they didn't start the fires. You may say Menehunes don't exist---but how do you know? Revenge against the white man? Another theory is giant fire arrows from arbalests, straight out of the 12th century. Perfectly feasible. Evidence is self-consuming. You could drag out a particle accelerator and spray the trees with hot electrons. Where's the evidence? If you are not going to rule anything out, you are going to have to keep book on all these alternatives. Somebody dropping jars of phosphorus from light planes. Somebody driving around shooting off flamethrowers or tossing traffic flares. Need I continue?
Do you see what I am trying to explain? You have to base allegations about reality on evidence pertinent to the case. Right now, it comes down to stray downed power lines or/and a conspiracy of arsonists...but we have evidence for the former and only imagination for the latter. I am trying to coax anons away from unsupported but favorite delusions, because a delusory understanding of reality is a contradiction in terms.
Feasible causes need to be talked about. It's that simple. Don't try to muzzle someone bc you don't agree. And how do you know a rogue circus elephant didn't start the fire. It's feasible