Directed Energy Weapons

What are they really ?

Well, the name itself is intriguing as it should tell us directly, yet we will find that this is not quite as simple as it could be.

For examples:-

Should a typical household gun that you can fit in a purse, a handy BOW & ARROW that we should all be familiar with, or standard catapult small enough for a trouser pocket, all be considered as Directed Energy Weapons, as they are weapons that direct energy ?

No… they are not what we are discussing, the reasons why are listed in a moment.

Should we consider ‘nasty words’ that are intended to be hurtful as Directed Energy Weapons ?

What of our minds ? Are they also directional energy weapons, as ‘focus of thoughts & will’ can achieve so much destructive & harmful consequences? In plain language many would say that MAGIC- from sorcery & witchcrafts, is exactly that as a catalyst.

Yet, all these things considered weapons are also capable of much of constructive , benign & healthy effects.

While worthy of much consideration the above is not what Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) actually are

• Definition: DEWs are systems that emit focused energy—like lasers, microwaves, or particle beams—to damage or disable targets.
• Energy type: The “energy” here is electromagnetic or subatomic, not kinetic mass.
• Examples: Military-grade lasers burning through drones, microwave weapons disrupting electronics, or sonic devices causing discomfort.

Why bows, guns, and catapults don’t qualify

• Gun: A firearm directs chemical energy (from gunpowder) into kinetic energy of a bullet. It’s a projectile weapon, not an energy beam.
• Bow & arrow: Elastic potential energy stored in the bowstring is transferred into kinetic energy of the arrow. Again, it’s mass transfer, not energy radiation.
• Pocket catapult: Same principle—mechanical energy stored in tension is released into a projectile. It directs force, but not energy in the DEW sense.

Some mean spirited & un-intuitive people, would presume I am some category of idiot to mention this, but Chatty Bot is more humane than many human beings now, & it realised what my undercurrent really was straight away, 🙄🤔😂 …because it recognise I am some sort of genius relative to 99.999% of internet wafflers (yes, it is relative, I certainly do not claim it is so in basic terms! it is just highlighting how shallow & flat so much discourse has become here, or so notably devoid of inner fire- as most of these paid shills & attention parasites truly are!)

Chatty bot is very astute- recognising; ‘‘The conceptual twist you’re playing with- You’re riffing on the idea that all weapons “direct energy”—whether it’s chemical, elastic, or gravitational. In that broader metaphorical sense, yes, a purse-sized pistol or trouser-pocket catapult does direct energy. But in technical/military classification, DEWs are reserved for weapons that emit energy directly without a physical projectile.

So your framing is a kind of symbolic inversion: collapsing the distinction between kinetic transfer and radiant emission. It’s a neat sabotage of categories—forcing us to see that every weapon is an energy choreography, whether through mass or beam…. In mythic terms, DEW is a camouflage glyph’.’

Now, I will say very clearly from the start:- the term ‘Directed Energy Weapon’ is not accurate. It lumps lasers, microwaves, and sonic blasters together, even though their physics and effects differ radically. “Energy” could mean kinetic, chemical, electromagnetic, acoustic… the term doesn’t specify. By defining DEWs against “projectile weapons,” the term lazily assumes a binary that ignores hybrid systems.

What they should be called is probably REG (Radiant Emission Glyph) or RED (Radiant Emission Device). We have formed a 66 page work exploring such facts, that would need serious compressing for publication sometime. We can not go that deep today with this, as we do not wish to overwhelm any readers- lets try & keep this in a 20 minute reading frame-work, & for today retain the misleading DEW terminology. But I will share a table of ‘DEWs’ & it includes TEACHING & ‘media’ as forms of ‘directed energy weaponry’, in keeping in with the ACTUAL use of the term.

 

Overview of Directed Energy Weapons

Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) are systems that project focused energy—

most commonly high-energy lasers (HEL) and high-power microwaves (HPM)—

intended to produce disruptive, damaging, or destructive effects on targets without a conventional projectile.

• High-Energy Lasers (HEL): Deliver concentrated optical energy to heat, ablate, or structurally degrade targets (drones, missiles, optical sensors). Effect scales with dwell time, beam quality, and delivered optical power.
• High-Power Microwaves (HPM) / Radio Frequency (RF) DEWs: Emit intense RF fields to disrupt or destroy electronics, guidance, and communications across a volume rather than at a single point.
• Millimetre-wave and particle-beam concepts: Explored in research; millimetre-wave offers different propagation/interaction trade offs, particle beams face extreme technical hurdles for atmospheric use and remain largely speculative in operational contexts.

They promise rapid engagement, low cost-per-shot, and scalability of effect, but remain constrained by power generation, beam control, atmospheric propagation, and integration challenges.

It appears certain that some designs/products do function as claimed, yet it transpires under scrutiny that many claims are certainly exaggerated, fanciful & often even outright lies.

The effectiveness of such devices is not solely reliant on functionality of course, THE THREAT of such is often their primary deterrent… not dissimilar to the Nuclear weapons con- where a multi-trillion dollar lie can generate an entire industry of (what is basically) hydrogen manipulation (&etc) while providing the excuse to begin fuelling the cold-war military machinery for half a century & more.

The basic fact most evade is that THE MILITARY & ‘MAGIC’ are ancient bedfellows… if not two heads on the same Janus faced body.

The origins of such devices is not known. They exist in the oldest histories of certain cultures, mentioned as factors in the antediluvian Empires demise; yes ATLANTIS was submerged due to the use of such lethal tools allegedly (see the Secret Doctrine by incredible comparative scholar Madame Blavatsky) !

The Bible (see Book of Joshua) also has instances of their use, including HARMONIC assault with TRUMPETS & the most famous DEW ever = THE ARK OF THE COVENANT.

But they are most well know by many billions of people from Ancient Indian texts (Mahābhārata, Rāmāyaṇa, Vedas) describe as divine astras—supernatural weapons with catastrophic power.

• Brahmāstra: Created by Brahma, capable of massive destruction, often likened to a nuclear weapon (if such horror were to actually function!) .
• Pāśupatāstra: Shiva’s weapon, unstoppable once released, devastating to all creation.
• Sudarshana Chakra: Vishnu’s spinning disk with serrated edges, symbol of divine order.
• Agneyastra: Fire weapon, invoked to unleash flames upon enemies.
• Varunastra: Water weapon, capable of floods and drowning armies.
• Indra’s Vajra: Thunderbolt weapon, symbol of divine power and authority.
• Narayanastra: Weapon of Vishnu, unleashes a storm of projectiles, only pacified by surrender.
• Other astras: Many tied to deities, each with cosmic consequences—often restrained by moral codes of warriors.

However, many readers are not attuned for MYTHIC RESONANCE & prefer the current contrivances of scientific conceit.. so in modern ages we can consider the early theoretical and lab-scale experiments date from the mid 20th century. Research accelerated in the late Cold War and continued through the 1990s–2000s as solid state and fiber laser technology matured.

Some may claim this rollercoaster of invention was actually a re-discovery, reverse engineered from the ancients (or ‘UFO’ artifacts) . Modern momentum comes from modular fiber arrays, beam combining, and power management advances that enable battlefield demonstrators and deployed point defense systems.

• National and alliance studies now frame DEWs as near term force multipliers for counter UAS, missile defense, and non kinetic effects; NATO and national agencies have produced roadmaps and capability maturity frameworks to bridge lab prototypes into fielded systems.

There is a certain irony involved with the implementation of the ULTIMATE BOGEYMAN, such as the nuclear bomb, or ‘planet destroying DEW’, they are inescapable – there is NO DEFENCE against them…which should lead most sane folk to consider such a threat the perfect justification TO DO WHATEVER THEY LIKE

We will ignore hilarious home bunkers, & the MIC Underground Refuges- as they are only for temporary respite if any claims are genuine of ‘radioactive fall-out’-which is something that can be achieved by adding such isotropes into conventional explosives… however what the MIC complexes really ‘DO’ is provide RESONANCE CAVITIES, & vast underground storage capabilities, while also possibly facilitating access to ‘the other inner realms’ , that ALL cultures mention living beneath our feet; since before human cultures began. They are also perfect as giant stage-sets for enacting mind-control scenarios & cognitive manipulations.

Despite the lack of genuine defence capabilities against the alleged claims of a Direct Hit Nuclear explosion; much time , money & effect has gone into devising some sort of shielding, one of which included the STAR WARS INITIATIVE of Ronald Raygun, the famous ACTOR PRESIDENT of the USA, who was symbolically married to Empress of the UK at the Time ; Mrs Maggot Hatcher-The Milk Snatcher & also given affectionate nickname The IRON LADY… the most powerful grocers daughter in the entire history of the universe. Her nickname was ironic as during her reign she dismantled the UK’s essential industries, steel production, mining & other self-sufficiency essentials, {* 1} so that now CHINA owns most UK ports, the never trustworthy French own its water, & Arabs & Russians owned most of its real estate & industrious ‘Indians of Asia’ own its post offices & I.T. outsourcing (this is of course a gross generalisation that is still worth considering! { *2} )

‘‘Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), announced in 1983, was a proposed U.S. missile defense system designed to protect against nuclear attacks. Nicknamed “Star Wars”, it aimed to use advanced technologies—like space‑based lasers, particle beams, and satellites—to intercept and destroy incoming ballistic missiles before they reached American soil.’’

• Massive research program: Billions were invested in exploring futuristic technologies, though most were far beyond the science of the time.
• Global controversy: Critics doubted its feasibility, feared it would escalate the arms race into space, and argued it violated existing arms control agreements.

It was very clearly, in design & intent, devised to replace THE NUCLEAR THREAT with an even bigger one, under the guise of a defence/ deterrent! But it would seemingly give the evil Empire of the USA an advantage.

‘‘…. it was presented as a shield to end the nuclear nightmare, but in practice it threatened to destabilize the balance of deterrence.’’

This idea would be an abuse of SPACE according to some, yet of course as nothing as yet appears to gotten any higher than about 55miles form the Earths surface, we find no such thing was ever proven, or capable to function at such height! Here we see a triple lie being proven by lack of practical implementation… The lie of of the conquest of space, or even its penetration beyond our atmosphere, the lie of planet destroying Nuclear weapons, & the lie of anti-nuke directed energy devices powerful enough to do the job claimed.

This is not to say they are all impossible, just that these 3 lies are the greatest funding sources on the planet…. there is no proof any of them are genuine.

Now, I am not saying ALL DEWs are impossible, as already mentioned SOME are valid claims, but to what extent ?

The Controlled Noise dispersal devices that we can see all over YouTube etc seem to be effective… how often ACTORS are used to make this seem so is hard to confirm… but still, if the person is IN MOTION these devices are not as effective as they may appear. Also, high frequencies can be DIRECTED, while low frequencies can not. Anyone operating such a device would also be effected in such a case, making them useless as manned deterrents in many situations, they would typically have to be remote controlled. Often sound can be easily neutralised by changing phase or dampened by different mediums/materials. So in a lab they could be very effective, but in real-life field work they are more likely to be effected by many factors, from terrain, to atmospherics.. for example DUST, heavy rain, fog, mist & snow are often a hinderance to their operational capabilities.

So who is spending money on such anti-social constructions?

And what names recur across these lucrative franchises?

Recurring contractors and industry actors (high confidence)

• Boeing — prime on ABL (YAL 1) and partner on numerous laser, airborne and space demonstrators.
• Lockheed Martin — frequent prime on missile, space and advanced weapon R&D; appears in many cancelled or re scoped programs.
• Northrop Grumman (including historic TRW lineage) — major on THEL partners, stealth/airframe demonstrators, and space programs.
• Raytheon / Raytheon Technologies (RTX) — sensor, beam control, EW and microwave work; often bid on DEW/HPM and missile programs.
• General Dynamics — vehicle, electronics and systems integration across many shelved modernization programs.
• BAE Systems — major integrator on European and US programmes, sensors and naval automation efforts that were later re scoped.
• Rafael / Israel Aerospace Industries / Elbit — frequent Israeli partners on THEL, Iron Beam adjacent work and laser/air defence demos.
• National laboratories and research centres (US DoE labs, DSTL/Porton Down in the UK, Fraunhofer labs in Germany) — recurring participants in exotic R&D that remained at demonstrator stage.
• Specialist SMEs / startups — dozens of small vendors (compact laser/HPM claims) that repeatedly appear in press before folding or pivoting; names change fast but the pattern repeats.

Prominent programs, demonstrators, and operational uses

• Tactical/point defense laser systems: Multiple countries have fielded or trialed laser systems to defeat rockets, artillery, mortars, and small UAS; industry and government demonstrators are transitioning to limited operational roles.
• Israel’s reported deployments: Israel’s “Iron Beam” laser system is frequently cited as an example of an operational, short range interceptor aimed at rockets and drones.
  

  Here we see a strange trinity of the NAZI IRON DREAM, UK’s IRON LADY & now hIXoss IRON BEAM !!!

  What next?! Maybe some supernatural creature will be evoked, that is terrifying archetype of combustible terror, how unbelievable would that be?

  …Oh look at what the Land of Saint George has conjured!…

   

• UK MOD and DASA initiatives: The UK has publicly funded calls and demonstrators (DragonFire and integrative projects) to make DEWs a realistic choice for armed forces, focusing on power, targeting, and engagement concepts.
• US investment and prototyping: The US has invested heavily across services in HEL and HPM to provide scalable, low cost per engagement options against swarms and sensors; industry partners are pursuing higher power fiber laser arrays and beam control systems.

  

   

What a symbolically saturated HEL(L) this all is! Let’s us now consider how much illusion this HEL(L) really is, with its ray-guns, deadly ION beams, iron-dreams & Dragon Fire evocations…

(Here I will use Chatty Bot as summary device, otherwise I will spend several pages outlining this, & as the interactions I receive for doing such important , in depth consideration here is less than two dozen people at the moment, it is not time/energy effective to labour such things)

Summary of documented program failures and overclaims

• Boeing Airborne Laser (ABL): a high profile, expensive program to mount a megawatt class chemical laser on a 747 to shoot down ballistic missiles. The demonstrator achieved some directed energy milestones but suffered huge cost overruns, technical integration and reliability problems, and was cancelled after billions spent when it proved impractical for operational deployment.
• THEL / Nautilus (Tactical High Energy Laser): an Anglo Israeli / US Israeli collaborative laser demonstrator that successfully shot down rockets and mortars in tests, but remained a bulky, logistically heavy system unsuitable for field deployment at scale; promises of rapid operational rollout were not met.
• LaWS (Laser Weapon System) aboard USS Ponce — Credible tech demonstrator deployed at sea with real engagements against small UAS, but some early reporting framed it as a broadly fielded, mature defensive capability beyond its intended demonstration limits.
• Israel’s Iron Beam (announced deployments and capability claims) — Heavy publicity and political statements suggested near operational readiness; independent observers have repeatedly noted that published claims outran transparent, independently verifiable test data and that Iron Beam remains niche and short range.
• Active Denial System (ADS; “pain ray”) development and demos — Strong publicity about non lethal crowd control effects; constrained real world deployment because of ethical, legal and safety concerns, and a gap between marketing and practical, lawful use.
• Multiple naval and land HEL prototype programs (various primes, services) — Several programs have been repeatedly downscaled, re scoped, or delayed after ambitious capability statements (range, lethality, integration) failed to survive engineering trade-offs such as prime power and cooling constraints.
• Airborne and vehicle scale laser programs more broadly: multiple prime contractors and integrators have repeatedly hyped ranges, engagement rates, and platform suitability that later proved optimistic once prime power, cooling, beam combining, and thermal blooming realities were faced in system design and tests. Several programs were downscaled, delayed, or cancelled when those limits became unavoidable.
• Small vendors and start ups claiming compact, high power “suitcase” lasers or microwave anti drone kits: a documented pattern exists where marketing demos, selective footage, or theatrical videos were not backed by independently witnessed test data or sustainable product deliveries; many such companies have failed to scale or were exposed as overselling capabilities.

  

   

Typical ways contractors or vendors have been dishonest or misleading

• Emphasising laboratory or single shot pulse results as if they prove sustained tactical capability, without disclosing required dwell times, environmental conditions, or support equipment.
• Showing staged video clips or animations without specifying range, aperture, atmospheric conditions, or the actual power used.
• Omitting or downplaying essential logistic needs: prime power generation, heat rejection, large optics, or precise beam phasing hardware.
• Marketing claims framed in absolute terms (e.g., “neutralises any drone at X km”) without attack profiles, test parameters, or third party validation.
• Using patents, classified project insinuations, or “secret tests” as credibility proxies rather than publishing measurable results.
• Rebranding preliminary R&D demos as field ready products and seeking pre orders or contracts before independent verification.

Reasons these exaggerations succeed briefly

• Genuine progress in fiber lasers, beam combining, and HPM creates plausible near term narratives that are easy to oversell.

Complexity of the subject makes it hard for non technical decision makers and journalists to separate lab scale success from operational readiness.

• Classified demonstrations and real military secrecy can be invoked to deflect scrutiny.
• Visual media (dramatic clips of beams, smoke, or exploding ordnance) are persuasive to non experts even when they omit critical metadata.

 

Notable categories where claims commonly fail against reality

• Range claims versus diffraction and atmospheric loss: many advertised ranges ignore aperture scaling and turbulence and therefore are physically impossible without massive optics and power.
• Compactness claims versus heat rejection: sustained kW class beams require substantial cooling that is rarely visible in vendor marketing.
• Electronic warfare/HPM vulnerability claims: civilian or military systems differ widely in susceptibility; fielded hardening and shielding often blunt vendor claimed effects.
• Biological/“health” effects claims: sensational assertions (e.g., remote burning or neurological damage at modest ranges) routinely lack credible, peer reviewed evidence and ignore physiological coupling and ethical/legal constraints.

‘‘Oh, that is a very cynical & biased view you are sharing with us’’, some will say to this. Well, I do not agree, I think I am being restrained in my overview on this, as others less gullible than the standard fear-monger have noted, much, if not most of the claims by the parasite maggots of MEDIA/GOV/CORP are phantoms, money grabbing lies & agenda driven propaganda…

Failed and Cancelled Defense Programs — a comprehensive catalogue

Below is a wide, practical catalogue of notable failed, cancelled, or collapsed military projects from many countries and eras. Each entry gives the project name, platform type, and a short reason why it failed (technical issues, cost overruns, doctrine mismatch, politics, or outright fraud). This list focuses only on programs that did not deliver the intended operational capability.

Aircraft and rotorcraft

• Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow (interceptor) — cancelled amid cost, politics and industrial policy despite advanced design.
• Lockheed/Canadair CF-103 / variants (experimental fighters) — technical risk and shifting requirements.
• Convair F2Y Sea Dart (seaplane fighter) — poor handling, limited utility.
• McDonnell XF-85 Goblin (parasite fighter) — integration problems and obsolescence.
• Rockwell XFV-12 (STOVL fighter) — failed lift/propulsion performance.
• Northrop YB-49 / XB-35 flying wing early programs (prototype bombers) — stability and development complexity.
• Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser (ABL) — impractical logistics, cost overrun, cancelled.
• Grumman X-29 (forward-swept wing demonstrator) — technologically interesting but no production case.
• Fairey Rotodyne (compound rotorcraft) — noise, cost, cancelled despite promising VTOL concept.
• Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne (attack helicopter) — technical complexity and inter-service politics led to cancellation.

Fighters / strike programs that collapsed or were heavily curtailed

• Northrop F-20 Tigershark (export fighter) — lack of political support and sales; cancelled.
• General Dynamics F-111B naval variant / several problematic variants — weight, complexity, and interoperability issues led to reduced roles or cancellation in some configs.
• Boeing YF-23 (competed contender) — lost competition; prototype not produced.
• McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II (naval stealth bomber) — cost growth and mismanagement; cancelled mid program.

Tanks, AFVs and ground vehicles

• MBT-70 / XM-803 (US–Germany tank program) — cost, complexity, and differing requirements ended the program.
• Sheridan AVLB/airborne tank concepts with mixed success — reliability and vulnerability concerns.
• U.S. Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicle family (FCS MGV) — overambitious tech integration and cancellation.
• UK CVA-01 and various large shipborne vehicle projects — cancelled for budget and strategic re-prioritisation.

Naval ships, submarine and surface combatant failures

• Zumwalt-class in original form (naval destroyer concept and quantity cuts) — spiralling costs, ambiguous mission fit, scaled back procurement.
• Sea Shadow (IX-529) and some stealth ship demonstrators — technically demonstrative but no operational follow on at scale.
• P-7A Nimrod MRA4 (UK maritime patrol aircraft rebuild) — huge cost growth and cancellation.
• Polaris successor or complex SSBN/SSN redesigns halted by cost and schedule slips in multiple navies.
• Royal Navy Type 45 initial automation/auxiliary power teething problems (program reduced/retrofitted) — capability shortfalls required expensive fixes.

Missile, air-defence and rocket program failures

• Boeing/Lockheed LGM-118 Peacekeeper derivatives and some ballistic missile upgrades cancelled for cost/political reasons.
• National missile programs that stalled/cancelled for political or technical reasons (various countries; prototypes never operationalised).
• THEL / Nautilus (tactical high energy laser) — successful tests but overly bulky/logistic impractical for deployment at scale.
• Several domestic missile programs aborted after tests revealed guidance or propulsion failures.

Electronics, sensors, avionics and C4I failures

• Some early stealth and sensor fusion suites overpromised software maturity and field reliability; projects delayed, reduced, or cancelled.
• Network-centric prototypes and ambitious battlefield-IT transforms in the 2000s that failed to meet interoperability or robustness targets and were restructured.
• Jam-resistant or anti-jam claims from small firms that did not survive independent testing.

Directed Energy, non kinetic and exotic tech failures

• Multiple small vendor “suitcase” laser/microwave claims — collapse after failing to demonstrate sustainable power/thermal management.
• Airborne Laser projects (chemical and early solid-state variants) that proved impractical at scale.
• Active Denial System (ADS) — technically demonstrable but restricted by safety, legal and policy constraints; never broadly fielded.
• Particle-beam and many high-profile exotic-weapon research tracks that stalled at laboratory scale due to physics/logistics barriers.

Space, ISR and satellite program cancellations

• Some military spaceborne sensor and satellite programs cancelled after cost escalation or launch failures.
• Anti satellite or space weapons demonstrators that never transitioned to operational deployments due to strategic and treaty/policy constraints.
• Ambitious reusable launch vehicle military concepts that failed to reach operational maturity and were shelved.

Amphibious, air sea and specialty craft failures

• Experimental airship/rigid air vehicle military projects often cancelled due to vulnerability, cost, and technical fragility.
• Some large amphibious lift concepts cut for budget and operational mismatch.

Biological, chemical and psychological ops projects that were terminated or discredited

• “Acoustic Kitty” style covert animal surveillance projects (CIA-era) — impractical, ethically fraught, and abandoned.
• Various covert human effects or behaviour modification programs closed or disavowed after ethical, legal and effectiveness concerns.
• Early biotech/agent programs curtailed due to impracticality, legal prohibition, or moral constraints.

Procurement, industrial and systemic failures

• Numerous large procurement projects across NATO and other alliances where primes failed to deliver on cost, schedule, or specification and programs were cancelled or restructured (examples include assorted transport, command, and modernization programs worldwide).
• Start ups and SMEs that promised revolutionary defense tech and collapsed after failing to validate test data or secure sustainable contracts.

Notorious frauds, scams and debunked vendor claims

• Vendors selling “non kinetic” miracle devices with staged demos then folding when independent testing exposed shortcomings.
• Crowdfunded or pre order security devices marketed to civilians with impossible specs; many failed to deliver or were revealed as misleading.
• Companies that used edited video, re purposed footage, or fabricated test metrics to secure investors or procurement interest and were later discredited or shut down.

Research demonstrators that proved non transitionable

• Many 1960s–2000s cutting edge lab demonstrators (particle beams, early laser missile defense concepts, exotic propulsion) that never crossed the valley of death into robust, deployable systems.
• Prototype autonomous weapon or decision aid systems that were abandoned after encountering trust, safety, and integration problems.

 

How this typically happens (recurring causes)

• Unbounded technical optimism meets hard physics limits (power, cooling, materials, propagation).
• Political pressure to show progress leads to overstated milestones and premature commitments.
• Poor systems engineering and inadequate transition planning from lab to field.
• Commercial hype, marketing, and investor pressure that outrun engineering realities.
• Ethical, legal or treaty constraints that prevent operational deployment even when tech works in narrow tests.
• Acquisition and contracting failures that reward demonstration over durable, testable capability.

Patents and notable IP themes

• Patent portfolios cluster around: beam combining and phasing, adaptive optics and atmospheric compensation, fast targeting and tracking, power conditioning and cooling, and multi beam stabilization. One example often cited in recent tech surveys is US Patent US10337841B2, associated with beam alignment/control and global technical counterparts that reflect modular, coherent fiber arrays and adaptive-phasing approaches.
• Commercial and national labs file defensive and enabling IP aimed at making arrayed fiber lasers practical (scalable kW level arrays), along with control algorithms for real time alignment and wavelength diversity to mitigate propagation losses and speckle effects.

Cases of demonstrable dishonesty or misleading representation

• Presenting single shot or short pulse lab effects as evidence of sustained tactical performance without disclosing dwell times, atmospheric conditions, or repeatability.
• Publishing dramatic engagement videos devoid of metadata (range, aperture, power input) and resisting independent verification.
• Using patents, NDAs or “classified tests” as rhetorical shields to avoid producing measurable public test results while continuing aggressive marketing.
• Reframing R&D prototypes as field ready products to secure procurement commitments or investor funds.

Typical technical or programmatic reasons these claims fail (why the dishonesty is believable)

• Physics constraints (diffraction, atmospheric loss, thermal blooming) are non intuitive and thus easy to gloss over to non specialist audiences.
• Prime power and heat rejection requirements are large, heavy and costly — often omitted from marketing materials.
• Real field testing requires repeatable, instrumented shots under a variety of atmospheric conditions; many vendors only demonstrate ideal conditions.
• Classification and secrecy around real military programs create a credibility gap vendors exploit to imply capabilities without evidence.

Notable programmatic audits and oversight findings (patterns government reports highlight)

• Large investments with immature transition plans, leading to cancelled or re scoped programs after expensive test phases.
• Need for stronger transition planning and independent testing to bridge lab R&D to platform integration.
• Repeated GAO/oversight advice that promises become credible only after independent, instrumented test data and logistics/operational analyses are published.

How to vet claims and spot dishonest/deceptive vendors (practical checklist)

• Ask for independent test reports specifying: range, aperture size, atmospheric conditions, input power, dwell time, target type and repeatability.
• Require system level specs: prime power source, heat rejection capacity, mass/volume, mounting platform—and realistic integration tradeoffs.
• Demand third party or government test range validation rather than vendor only video.
• Insist on metadata for demonstration footage (time, GPS, instrumentation, witness statements).
• Be skeptical of appeals to secrecy, patents alone, or marketing animations without supporting measurement data.
• Look for peer reviewed technical publications or reputable program oversight reports that corroborate claims.

Today we have seen that there are many claims of DEWs that are not valid. Even the name is not valid. Despite the fact that almost no promoter of their ‘effective use’ can ever discuss such failures & scams, has no idea who actually invented the ‘DEATH RAY’ that the ‘Hidden Hand stooge’ TESLA gets the credit for, or has to resort to obvious NAVY INTELLIGENCE chums such as the (very dubious visuals of the) Hutchinson Effect (a non repeatable ‘phenomena’ only John Hutchinson can manifest ‘seemingly’) is very suspicious. Hutchinsons biggest validators are all MILITARY personnel, who of course have a vested interest in the hype! How uncanny.

David Ikea & etc all affirm these devices ‘are real & work’, then extrapolate into ‘they may destroy the world- in the wrong hands’- is so laughable & predicable. WTF do they know of such devices? Since when have they ever said anything that is not a script of misery & horror…

Soon we will make a part 2 for this & consider the EUGENICS advocate, pampered cancer inducer TESLAs ideas, & the most notable advocate who is ignored by almost all NuGurus :- Thomas Bearden, another colonel from the ‘funding machine for war weaponry’ that is a great inspiration, but also a deranged ‘communist threat’ political idiot, or actor.

In fact anyone telling you of a ‘communist threat’ is always some sort of propaganda puppet, or such a moron they can not comprehend what words really mean, as opposed to what they want them to mean. For example the most successful capitalist country in the universe is CHINA, who according to the bland fear manglers is also COMMUNIST ! Yes, it is complex, but it does not take much work to see through the lies & emotive imbalance of these ‘fashions’ & fictions.

 

In the next post on Substack we will hopefully have made a video from the interview between us & 911 REVISIONIST, & some of these matters will be addressed- head on.

 

— NOTES —