Posted on 01/04/2005 3:29:45 AM PST by Reader of news
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The FBI investigation into recent incidents involving laser beams aimed at aircraft has found no link to terrorism, the Department of Homeland Security's transportation security chief said Monday.
"There's not any evidence that these lasers are being used by terrorists," said Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary of border and transportation security. "The FBI certainly continues to investigate and look at these fact scenarios. It's also a safety issue that the Department of Transportation would certainly want to look at."
The FBI is investigating eight incidents since Christmas involving lasers -- or lights believed to be lasers -- directed at various aircraft across the nation, including incidents in the District of Columbia, Ohio, Colorado and New Jersey. All of the pilots were able to land without incident.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Nope. But, doggone it, the promotional literature sounds convincing. I'm not saying it would be easy.
I have however, tried to follow predictable moving objects with a telescope before, and I'll tell you it ain't as simple as you would think. And, like it's been said here...we're not talking about a predictably moving object...though we can take quite a bit of movement out of the mix by lining up with the runway.
Questions for you on these "dazzler" weapons:
1. What is the maximum angle of incidence--on the windshield--that you could have before they're ineffective?
2. How noticeable would they be if you set up shop within a couple thousand feet of the end of a runway and spent several minutes adjusting and focusing?
Now that Asa has dealt with the illegal immigration situation, he's designated to handle aircraft safety.
Be assured Asa is the man. Don't worry at all.
2) The ZM-87 is tripod mounted, however is could be put in the back of a van, kinda like the DC snipers.
The range for that weapon is up to 6 miles.
The difference between a laser and a rifle is obvious. Tracking a moving target with a point of light is child's play against hitting it with a rifle. You seem to be fond of the .50 as an example. Have you shot it? I have, and it's not a superweapon; It's just a rifle. Without computers and radar, it would be impossible to hit a jet aircraft except at close range.
If you would like an exercise to simulate this feat, hire the best sniper you can find to shoot down some high-flying geese! (Good luck)
Please limit your speculation about firearms -- We have enough hysteria in circulation . . .
No nothing here.... move on
ALSO, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE NOT BEING USED BY TERRORISTS.
BINGO. It is all legalese for we are clueless and if we knew, we wouldn't tell YOU peon citizens to avoid panic. Wouldn't want to stop the flow of greenbacks and hurt the economy now would we. /sarc
This is just a thought. It might be a worthwhile one, if the lasers are only to interfere with the pilot's eyesight. If it is being used at as a scope of some sort, that would be a whole different thing.
Just read that they will be considering special lenses for the pilots. Wonder if the windshields (is that what it's called on a plane) can be fitted with some special material to block the laser beam.
LCD screens to have contrast ratios as much as 600 to 1.
They probably could, if they could make lenses for glasses that would absorb or reflect the laser. It would be like tinted glass on your car. They probably never had to deal with something like this before. There's many things that "can" be done that were not necessary before. It depends if it is a real threat.
BTW, I didn't see it posted here, but the man in NJ was charged in Federal Court today. He admitted to lying, and he admitted to pointing the laser at a police helicopter and a commercial jet. Previously, he said his daughter did it. Nice guy, huh? It doesn't sound like he's a terrorist, just a moron.
See, you could be on to something. It's all a matter of the
need for a solution. That is how so many inventions and technology have come out of our space program. Only when we are challenged, do we come up with solutions.
Me too, but I have sneaky suspicion the military must have something like this already. They probably had it after the Roswell incident, or at least "The War of the World's" broadcast. LOL
Bookem, finem, lockemup.
Fair enough...I will limit my speculation on firearms.
Tracking a moving target with a point of light is child's play against hitting it with a rifle.
However, I cannot agree your assertion that tracking the cockpit of a plane with a point of light is childs play. Like I said before, the target we're talking about is smaller (either the pilot's eye...or depending on the angle of incidence, possibly the whole window) than the plane itself, and it's still moving.
Flashing near the window, or flashing across it instantaneously doesn't tell us that there's a systematic susceptibility to lasers. The least common denominator...the most likely scenario...is that a few pranksters got lucky.
Before we go and join in the media frenzy on lasers, perhaps you should go out and tag that goose, too. I will back down and not speculate on firearms, but likewise I would hope that the group as a whole would back off on "laser tracking." The media's doing a fine enough job blowing it out of proportion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.