But you are wrong about the DEW development. That takes place at Kirtland Air Force Base / Air Force Research Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico. And it's been a long haul. The airborne lasers had been discontinued with the scrapping of YAL-1A (by Obama), though there is interest in lower-power versions for smaller aircraft. The terrestrial lasers (land and sea) are anti-aircraft systems. They are all, by nature, clear-weather weapons only. The facility on Mt. Haleakala is undoubtedly involved in research for DEWs against satellites, from the ground up (good astronomical viewing). Probably for optical sensor "kills," since hard kills are an order of magnitude more difficult.
At this stage of events, this is almost too convenient. One must be wary of a fake letter.
Nothing easier than to give a "heads up" to the favored land owners that they should protectively soak their properties the day before, while the water was still available. It could have been as simple as telephone calls.
This is just a melodramatic fascination with superweapons. Kill somebody with a disintegrator instead of a shot to the forehead. One of the reasons why "normies" can't take us seriously---because we are too damn obsessed with our imaginations and violate Occam's Razor all the time.
The Air Force Research Laboratory is located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. That is where they built the weapon in 18 months, not on top of Mt. Haleakala. The facility there is for upward (space-borne) propagation testing, not for downward (terrestrial) testing. You don't even know if there is a direct line-of-sight between the Space Force facility and the fire sites. Can't shoot a laser through a mountain.
It would only be relevant if you had evidence. Just blaming DEWs like they were Leprechauns is not relevant. Particularly since this application has been low, low, low on the list of laser weapon missions for half a century.
I did. For those in the field, it has been known for a very long time. Just like the guided missile test range on the west side of Kuaii.
The sodium guidestar laser is purely an optical instrument for the real-time adjustment of active telescope optics. The site at Mt. Haleakala may support other lasers used for atmospheric propagation testing and effects measurement on satellites. These lasers are pointed upward, and are subject to weather limitations (cannot propagate through clouds).
The article about Dr. Hammett is interesting and encouraging. AFRL has been working on laser weapon development since the 1970s. Their signal achievement was the YAL-1A airborne laser (since scrapped). The weapons he talks about are generally for use against airborne targets---they point upwards to detect targets against a sky background. It has been long understood that they can be defeated in their function by smoke clouds.
There is no question the U.S. is starting to field laser weapons. But there is also no question that we have tactical bombers. Do we jump from what we have to an ASSUMPTION that such things are involved? Why not assume that the Air Force bombed Maui with incendiary bombs? Because there is NO EVIDENCE. And if there is a conspiracy, the easiest thing to devise for a conspiracy are conspirators, cell phones, accomplices, and cigarette lighters.
This is less research than it is grasping at straws to support confirmation bias.
As to fires and molten materials, the adiabatic flame temperature of wood (in air) is 1,980 deg C. The melting point of aluminum is 660 deg C. The liquid-solid transition temperature for glass is 550-600 deg C. The fire was MORE than hot enough to produce such melting. Kindly do some research before spouting off nonsense. Only the "climate change" contention is crap; the rest are features of many wildfires.
There are such things as "rain shadows." Here in the state of Washington, the Olympic peninsula has the highest rainfall (~100 inches/year), but certain locations (e.g., Sequim) are in the lee of the Olympic mountains which take the brunt of the incoming rain from the Pacific Ocean. It is notoriously dry, with only a few inches/year.
The flames are not "moving," they are being blown sideways by the wind. What you are seeing as "flame" is really airborne burning particles. They would have no connection to the roadway. You can see that the winds are blowing sheets of flame from stable burning patches on the ground. Nothing to do with plasma. No "transference" necessary.
The winds are blowing the flames across the surface. They are not arising from the surface. You have to think in terms of what the combustion is. The fuel is solid material from plants and possibly dust. (Sawdust or grain dust can produce terrible fires.) The wind is blowing plenty of dust. So the burning particles are blown across the street by the wind. The redness of the flames indicates that it is carbonaceous material and the fuel/air ratio is higher than it would be in quiet air, where there would be normal draft. This is an example of the capricious nature of forest fires and urban fires generally.
"Colonizer" is 50% "colon." Some people do gematria; I do statistics.
This nitwit would get farther if he would ask and learn, instead of trying to ignorantly figure it out on his own.
I forgot to comment on the fancy of an A212 submarine entering Puget Sound. I would expect the Navy to have both passive and active sonar at the entrance to the Sound, and particularly at the entrance to Hood Canal. No submarine is invisible to active sonar. Any non-responsive intruder would be challenged and/or sunk.
Why shouldn't a submarine surface in "the midst of a highly capable U.S. fleet"? Does that mean it wasn't detected? No, not at all. We are not in the practice of conducting anti-submarine warfare against anyone else enjoying freedom of navigation. If some stranger joins my hiking party---but I knew of his approach---do I simply shoot him when he turns up? I think you are suffering from a "fixed mental position" in assuming its unintercepted appearance means it was undetected.
Actually you do have trouble with people who maintain that 2 + 2 = 4. You just deny that, in principle, we can ever know that 2 + 2 = 4. Can't accept it. Must keep an "open mind." You cannot have a mind so open (and empty) that the bats fly in and out.
No. Knowing what one is talking about leads to realistic estimation. And you don't know much. All your argument here is to deny the valid points I made about the identification of that photo. To the extent that they tell against my argument, they blow your argument completely out of the water, so you don't get much victory.
Did you not notice that I was always qualifying by saying "if that is what it was"? I have an open mind---but not to nonsense. It sill could have been the stupid helicopter (though I doubt it).
I'm not kidding. A spark will do. Do you have any idea what the combustive environment is in hot weather among certain kinds of trees? Trees normally exude isoprenes, which are short chain hydrocarbons. One day in deep summer, I drove out to our mountains for sight-seeing and stopped by a river to get out and stretch my legs. It was a red warning status day. When I exited the car, it was like I was stepping into a can of turpentine, the exhalations were so strong. The air was close to being flammable. It became no mystery to me that forest fires are furious and leap from tree to tree. This is among conifers, normally used as kindling for fireplace fires. In Hawaii, I can't say.
No, I know what I am talking about. I designed and analyzed laser weapons for about a decade of my career. YAL-1A was the last such program I worked on. I edited the winning proposal for that development contract. You are ignorant and need to learn from those who can teach you.
All it takes is a spark.
Shows you don't know beans about directed energy weapons. They cannot see or penetrate through smoke. This was known 50 years ago. (I was there.)
So, you have trouble with people who maintain that 2 + 2 = 4? That's not much of an argument. You are confusing being Open Minded with having an empty mind. Your objective is to keep an infeasible "option" open in the face of all the contrary evidence. For what conceivable purpose? Certainly not to get at the truth, because you find the facts offensive to your hypothesis.
The most likely use of DEWs in a space war is to shoot up from the ground at satellites. To date, they have only enough power to blind sensors, but that is as useful as destroying the satellite.
You are quite correct. Take any evil occurrence and there are two culprit theories: (1) some kind of a thug in a mask, or (2) ultra-technology from Despicable Me. Why people here pick option (2) so frequently is a maddening sight to see.
Again, on target.
Interesting that I am downvoted for providing correct information that no one else on this board can provide. Why is that? Honesty and knowledge don't sit well if they highlight ignorance? Egos are bruised?