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
Sometimes explaining DEW is as easy as sharing the Wikipedia link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1#/media/File:Airbornelaserturret.jpg
… and asking simple question: ”What is this laser designed for?”
If someone burned down your home. Destroying all your earthly possessions...
Would spend all your energy trying to figure out if they used a zippo, a bic, or a pack of matches? Or... Would you want to know who and why?
If you're investigating a murder, you need to know what the murder weapon was.
True, but how it happened needs to be feasible. We need only look to WWII and the fire bombing of cities.
As it relates to the public en mass, it reminds me of the 'axiom' spoken by Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men". I mean.... who can handle the truth? The answer is, 'not many'. This extends to the level of pointing their noses to overwhelming proof. It can only be explained by cognitive dissonance. The Great Awakening is more of the '100th monkey' effect than anything else. It's best to point out the obvious facts of what occurred leading up to and occurring on that fateful day. The ensuing cover-up is becoming the greater crime and is being clearly seen.
And the answer is: shooting down ballistic missiles in boosting flight. No secret about that. Not only does the turret need to acquire the elevation and azimuth of the target independent of the motion of the airplane, it has to be able to rotate the aperture to face aft so it is not continually exposed to the airstream while not in use.
Using it to shoot at the ground fails on several counts. (1) There is no targeting system or targeting concept for ground targets. (I actually analyzed this problem for the YAL-1A program.) (2) If there are clouds below the YAL-1A, no targets will be seen (if it had the sensors to see them with, which it did not). (3) If there are water clouds below the YAL-1A, there is the likelihood they would absorb the beam (water is an absorber of most infrared radiation). (4) If there are smoke clouds, the target would be obscured and the beam would be scattered.
This is all idle bullshitting, as the YAL-1A was scrapped not long after its mission success in 2010. Existing DEWs under field test are designed to engage air targets only from the ground or water surface. If you want to light a fire, use a match. Much easier, and it doesn't put you into the wild-eyed ignoramus camp.
From ground mounted laser to space satellite reflector back to ground.
That is hilarious. It makes no optical sense whatsoever. The targeting image would have to go up to the satellite and down to the laser. You need to have two separate telescope systems on the satellite to pass the beam two ways, with large apertures. (I did a system analysis of this architecture a long time ago.) And how long do you think such a satellite would be in position to exploit the geometry before it passes over the horizon? And we still don't have any sensors that can differentiate ground targets....unless you want television. Will you know what you are looking at? You are just compounding the absurdity by invoking an order of magnitude more complexity and expense.
Be careful, u/catsfive might ban you and call you a DEWtatd