Connecting the dots - Is Donald Trump JR trying to tell us something? HRC? DEW? Weird …
🤔💭 Theory Research Wanted 😲💡
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (36)
sorted by:
You were just shown an airplane with a massive megawatt laser on the nose cone but you are saying there is "no evidence of dews"
Yea ok.
The DEW crowd is making very specific claims about what laser weapons are capable of, i.e. melting and setting fire to an entire island from a space based laser weapon. They then point to the YAL-1 as "proof" of their claim without considering any of the following:
Operational effective range is 1-2 miles, tops. How exactly is a space satellite going to punch through 60+ miles of atmosphere with that kind of range? Apparently some people feel like they can just ignore atmospheric refraction and absorption and they'll magically go away.
YAL-1 systems have very limited energy capacity and have to be refueled because they consume chemical fuel to create the laser. Furthermore, real laser weapons operate in the kilowatt range, not the megawatt range.
The laser doesn't actually destroy its target, it deforms and weakens the shell of a missile (what it's actually designed to shoot down) and high-velocity atmospheric drag does all the actual work. This same laser could be pointed directly at a human at point blank range and it would only give them a 2nd degree burn. Setting fire to tropical islands is well outside the capability of known laser weapons systems. The reason for this is because the metal exteriors of missiles interact with lasers differently than organic matter, but DEW theorists conveniently leave this fact out (because they don't even understand the properties of lasers in the first place).
That doesn't even begin to cover all the other problems with DEW theory that I brought up in my first comment.
The DEW crowd is coming up with complete science fiction, then deliberately conflating their theory with known applications of laser technology as a "proof of concept" in lieu of actually providing evidence for their outlandish claims. They borrow actual principles of science and engineering, then absolutely butcher them because they haven't actually studied this stuff, and that becomes more painfully obvious every time they open their mouths. The fact that everything I have said is easy to find on the internet makes such ignorance even more infuriating.
Now do Rods of God. 😉
Rods dropped from orbit actually would work, except they do more penetrative damage than area effect damage like that one G.I. Joe movie depicted. Combined with the fact that its expensive to get things up into space in the first place, you're better off developing better bunker-busting missiles.
Do you follow Starship development?
You can sit here and list all the reasons why it doesn't work, or CAN'T work. But just watch -- they will make it work.
Nope, not how this works.
DEW theorists are making specific claims about an alleged technology and its capabilities. It's their job to prove that 1) such tech works in theory, 2) it actually exists, and 3) it was used to do the things they've said it has done.
The burden of proof is on the advocate of the theory or allegation in question. It is not the job of everyone else to say, "well, we can't prove it isn't possible, therefore we should listen to your theory".
Wild speculation is not validated just because it can't be proven wrong. It is still wild, baseless speculation. You have to use logic and evidence to prove that it's right.
You sound vaccinated