You can wrap your house in tinfoil, but when you start shining bright lights to defend yourself against alien attack, you’ve gone too far.
In general, society puts limits on what types of security you are allowed to use, especially when that use can affect others. You can’t place landmines on your lawn or shoot down drones hovering over your property.
rgaff • September 25, 2015 3:12 PM
@Tautvydas
It’s settled in areas where you are not allowed to fire a gun AT ALL within city or town limits…
Chris • September 25, 2015 3:21 PM
I am more amused than I probably should be that the homeowner’s name is Arthur Brown. But to make this post relevant to security, does anyone else think that fining him $20,000 for being a crackpot is a little heavy-handed? I know his neighbors are probably exasperated, but shouldn’t they have pulled the plug on the lights at around $5,000?
Rick Auricchio • September 25, 2015 3:42 PM
@Chris: Yes, I too chuckled about Arthur Brown’s name. And he lives in Hermitage…somewhat like a hermit!
Why not aim the lights skyward?
Anura • September 25, 2015 4:11 PM
@Chris
Yeah, at some point you need to look into having the man committed, as he is obviously mentally ill.
Sam S • September 25, 2015 4:14 PM
@Chris, I doubt it matters whether the fine is too much or too little – he’s obviously beyond “crackpot” and into some unfortunate further state where normal incentives won’t affect his behavior. Even cutting off his power would probably result in him just pulling some other crazy stunt, like lighting bonfires in the front yard.
If he’s got family, they should look into whether he can manage on his own anymore.
Justin • September 25, 2015 6:54 PM
@Anura
@Chris
Yeah, at some point you need to look into having the man committed, as he is obviously mentally ill.
“The man” now. Yes, yes, yes. That reminds me of “the male” from this thread. And just like “uh, Mike” said here, broaden your gender monotype, please. The world is fractal now.
Anura • September 25, 2015 7:47 PM
@Justin
I realize you are trying to score progressive points here, but masculine name, masculine clothing, masculine haircut. Yep, I’m perfectly okay with making the assumption that he identifies as male.
Justin • September 25, 2015 8:01 PM
@ Anura
You seem awfully impressed with a 78-year-old man’s masculinity. Maybe you’ll turn into a princess if he kisses you? Or are you just jealous of all his lady friends?
Nick P • September 25, 2015 8:26 PM
@ Justin
It’s a common way to speak about a male in the United States. Especially in a comment like that. I’m not sure why you’re making a bit deal of it. Matter of fact, you’re either the first or one of the few people online I’ve seen gripe about someone referring to a male as a man. The sexism claims usually come out when people use masculine as a default assumption, especially on a female or person of unknown gender. Probably best to drop it.
And I’m not seeing the comparison between “having the man committed” and the troll you referenced switching to “the male” in mid-conversation… droning on in almost robotic fashion in a way that made sense to nobody. Not sure what you’re goal is with that one, esp [again] with Anura referring to a male using “man.”
TFH • September 25, 2015 8:36 PM
Just another nutter?
…or on the cutting edge of the false flag wars?
Werner von Braun & Dr. Carol Rosin: False Flag Wars and Exopolitics
“The following interview with Dr. Carol Rosin, President of the Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS) summarizes testimony which Carol Rosin gave at the Disclosure Project Press Conference, National Press Club, Washington, DC on May 9, 2001 regarding the a succession of “False Flag Wars” to follow the collapse of the permanent war economy’s Communism vs. Capitalism war (1945-1991).
These False Flag Wars start with a “War on Terror;” ; followed by a False Flag “War Against the Asteroids and Near Earth Objects;” and finally a False Falg “War Against Extraterrestrial Civilizations. Each of these wars, starting with the False Flag operation of September 11, 2001 has had the weaponization of space and occupation of the solar system as a significant objective.”
Buck • September 25, 2015 8:51 PM
I thought that the connection between “having the man committed” and “the male” troll was pretty clear. Came across as a humorous joke to me given the context! ^_^
rgaff • September 25, 2015 8:56 PM
@ TFH
Judging by how many times we’ve recently gone to the moon, I’m not overly worried about exopolitics and wars against extraterrestrials…
I’m a lot more worried about one worldwide nazi-like government arising… within our lifetimes.
tyr • September 25, 2015 9:32 PM
@rgaff
I finished Wrights book Spycatcher and was amazed that there
wasn’t a peep about Gehlen and his band of merry men included in
the entire span of his involvement with the Russian spies inside
MI5.
The omission seems to be deliberate, meaning the whole lot of
them would prefer not to have anyone aware of NSDAP penetration
into the 5eyes. I find the whole thing ludicrous enough to be
true though. The head of MI5 is the fifth man in the Philby,
Blunt, et al group of russian spies running British intelligence.
That put an end to whatever empire the British had by government
incompetence. Today it is cousin Cameron on the ropes for fig-
Puckery hoping to take the spotlight away from Corbyns rise to
media attention. Sacrifices must be made in the cause.
TFH • September 25, 2015 9:47 PM
@ rgaff
Please forgive my jest. I should have qualified my comment with “/sarc”
Btw – I regularly and thoroughly enjoy your contributions.
rgaff • September 25, 2015 9:58 PM
@ TFH
How could my contributions possibly be “regularly and thoroughly enjoyed”… I mean… I go off the deep end sometimes 🙂 oh… maybe that’s the enjoyable part 🙂
z • September 25, 2015 10:30 PM
Is the lack of alien attacks on this guy’s house proof that his security measures work, or that no aliens have attempted to attack?
ianf • September 26, 2015 12:55 AM
@ z
Truth be told, we don’t know. He, the cis-male (correct term!) human in question might just as well have already been invaded, and had his brain command center taken over by some aliens or other. If so, now they continue to run the bright-light false-flag operation on—OBSERVE—the outside of his house in order not to alert the neighbors. Maybe these aliens are just lying in wait in his ganglia to have him committed, so they can spread further & multiply inside the asylum still without raising undue suspicion?
So to answer your question: no, without clinical examination, preferably a vivisection, we simply don’t know (=an instance of Donal Rumsfeld’s Known Unknowns).
fgaff • September 26, 2015 1:10 AM
@ ianf
I think the white house is a far better place for them to multiply than an asylum… could explain why our government is so insane, they’ve all been taken over by aliens just biding their time… 🙂
(speaking of going off the deep end) 🙂
FNRSV • September 26, 2015 1:45 AM
It’s surprising and irresponsible that the reporter didn’t even bother to take the basic step of phoning Arthur or knocking on his door for an interview. As it stands, this story is entirely one-sided and none of the commentary here is fair to him.
Why assume he’s a nutter? What if Arthur actually has experienced an alien encounter or some other traumatizing event? Is it “crazy” simply because it’s extremely unlikely? If we only dismiss people without questioning, we’ll never learn anything.
When people dismiss the security measures you recommend, how does that make you feel? You tell people to use a unique password on each site and to encrypt their messages, yet they don’t actually hear any of it, all they hear is paranoia from you regardless of whether you’re right. In the same way, what if Arthur has something useful to tell but we’re all too busy calling him a crackpot and making fun of him?
As a basic security measure, lights are obviously better than darkness for spotting badguys, alien or otherwise. Metal foil does block signals, preventing EMF attacks such as TEMPEST (Obama uses a foil tent all the time and Gottfrid Svartholm used one to avoid surveillance.)
If aliens really do exist and visit Earth, then calling people like this “mentally ill” is exactly what governments worldwide would love for everyone to do.
Notice how Bruce doesn’t make any judgment calls about Arthur in the original post.
I’m not saying Arthur is sane or insane, or claiming that aliens do or don’t exist, just that it takes more than a cursory news article in which the only people interviewed are the angry neighbors and the city manager – not the man himself – to make any honest judgments about him. He deserves some respect.
ianf • September 26, 2015 4:55 AM
@ FNRSV
your heartfelt opposition to remote diagnosis of said Arthur as a loony falls flat on its face due to a naïve and logically unwarranted assumption, that the reporter who should have done that preliminary vetting, anybody in his/her stead, indeed we all as a culture, possess some tools, or unassailable methods, to recognize a potentially alien-infested individual as such—and not simply as a Yet Another Alien Nutter (YAAN).
After all, what are the StarTrek, etc. conventions, other than temporary mutual infestation and cross-fertilization gatherings of so-affected nutters? Come to think of, the same applies to all fundamentalistic, orthodox religions.
Clive Robinson • September 26, 2015 5:07 AM
On reading the article I find it strange that the do not say if they have approached Arthur Brown for comment, but they do alow one of the neighbors to witter on about property prices…
I guess the question to ask is have any impartial non-self interested witnesses seen Arthur shining lights about? Further when did the aledged light shining start, and was complaint made at the time or shortly there after, or only when the neighbor decided to sell up?
I suspect there is a lot more going on than the article implies after all why be a responsible journalist when it just gets in the way of a good “Crazy man made my house worthless” story.
There is a story from the UK about a man who had issues with his local (Croydon IIRC) council. The council made a mistake and refused to back down and then compounded the mistake in several ways. So the man started to do a few things to raise awarness of the issue, the council then further compounded the situation, by repeatedly taking court action and failing and still not backing down. The situation escelated to the point it got on national news. The journalists actually investigated the issue and instead of a “crazy man” story they had a much better much funnier “David -v- Goliath” public interest story instead. Apparently it was shortly after that news item, that the council actually “reviewed” something and finaly backed down, which they should have done in the first place. The last I heard the man still had his tank though.
Clive Robinson • September 26, 2015 5:30 AM
I forgot to add a link to “the man, the marlin and a tank” story, just in case people think I made it up,
There are other stories out there about it, including a model Spitfire on the roof as well
From what I remember the council incorectly said the marlin was a fixture and needed planing consent, where as in fact it was and still is not a fixture and thus being “temporary and not afixed to the property” did not require planning consent from Croydon Council (had I been on the council I would have suggested that they “cook his goose” by grade two listing his property as a “Historic monument” 😉
Wael • September 26, 2015 6:27 AM
It surprises me that no one was able to convince the guy these lights aren’t helping; there are many ways to do it.
One way is to dress up some kids as aliens then have them visit the man (obviously it’s a man from the description and the pronoun used to reference him, @Justin.) Then tell the man: Your lights, dear, are attracting aliens like flies. The tinfoil is sufficient. Or have the kids tell him: More light, more light, we need to bring more aliens from home 🙂
Use similar strategy with governments 🙂
ianf • September 26, 2015 7:05 AM
@ Wael, not a good tactic. If the nutter is armed—and why shouldn’t he be?—such a “trespassing invasion” of costumed Aliens WITH DEADLY OUTCOME would constitute the prime line of defense at his trial, and possibly grounds for acquittal (“he was just standing his ground;” book- and TV-punditry contracts to follow).
Nic • September 26, 2015 8:55 AM
Discharging guns in a populated area is of concern to bystanders, even when it is safe. Though that never seems to stop police from shooting the place up.
On the other hand, it doesn’t take much to take out a drone. Have you considered a garden hose? A net? Silly string? A super-soaker?
Landmines are a menace to anybody going door to door. Blow up a bunch of girl scouts selling cookies and it will make the news. On the other hand, posted no-trespassing signs and a sprinkler system wired to a motion detector will have much the same discouraging effect as landmines without all the carnage. These days, you could even have a firehose-type high pressure system with auto-targeting.
People talk about defense and all. One of the more interesting ideas I’ve heard of involves water pistols. Some of today’s water pistols can shoot large volumes of liquid an impressive distance. But these water pistols were loaded with cooking oil. Soak the target, drop road flares, target approaches at their own risk. Ever seen what happens when you mix cooking oil, or an oil soaked object, and fire? It always seemed like a great way to encourage someone to be someplace else. Especially when the defenders greatly outnumbered a heavily armed attacker. Like at a school. Guns and bombs don’t mix well with fire.
As for the lights & aliens, it sounds like there’s a lot more to that story than what has been told so far. I’m also reminded of certain college kids years ago who used to like to have very loud parties outside. Lots of citations for the noise, but that never stopped them. Then somebody used a BB gun on their speakers, these great big things the size of a car. Destroyed them. Never found out who. But things were quiet after that.
ZARKON5 • September 26, 2015 9:02 AM
EARTHLINGS! DESIST IN YOUR EFFORTS TO DENY US LANDING LIGHTS!
(Also, this PC gender-whacko shit is getting old.)
The Infidel • September 26, 2015 9:27 AM
Suppose this odd fellow wasn’t obsessed with aliens, but rather, with the US Government and NSA in particular? It’s not hard to imagine him being fed a steady anti-NSA and anti-US Govt. diet on various blogs.
Would Bruce’s echo chamber find him so loony then?
I suspect not. I suspect many here would rush to his defense with the well trod:
“Heh. Heh. Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean there is nothing to be paranoid about.”
Or put another way:
A paranoid NSA loon may be a loon, but at least he is our loon.
My own take? Embrace this fellow and his paranoid madness. But for the grace of god, there go ye.
Joe McGraffin • September 26, 2015 11:48 AM
Here’s a crazy alien “story”…a recording really, between someone purportedly from Area 51 and a radio station host named Al. The recording is part of below video compilation of recordings and lasts from 3:20mark to the 5:04mark.
https://youtu.be/00l2OmnApp8?t=3m20s
(Alas, it’s probably a hoax. The real aliens would not have let that loony escape.)
Limited Time Only! Get a complimentary tin foil hat for a special someone, free with any order at http://store.joestinfoilhats.com
Wael • September 26, 2015 11:49 AM
@ianf,
not a good tactic. If the nutter is armed
That thought crossed my mind, and it’s likely to be the case. There are ways around that too. Bullet proof custom or robots can do the job. A few drones over his house may also work. But maybe the drones are what started the whole thing 🙂
Randy • September 26, 2015 12:40 PM
@Joe McGraffin
that “Area 51 caller” called back on that radio station a week later. He’s some kind of a voice actor from the looks of it
The truth is out there. In particular, it’s in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhLh8KJCPNI
albert • September 26, 2015 3:02 PM
Would I rather have plastic pellets or rubber bullets rain down on my head, or a 10-lb drone hit me in the face at 30mph?
.
IIRC, Santa Fe has strict lighting limits at night, to preserve the sky views (which are spectacular, I’ll admit). More cities are doing things like requiring downward illumination by street lights to cut down on light pollution.
.
I found this in the (1094 pages, so I may have missed something) Hermitage Code of Ordinances:
.
“…Glare. Lighting devices which produce objectionable direct or reflected glare on adjoining properties or thoroughfares shall not be permitted….”
.
In other words, “it’s whatever we say it is”.
At least Arthur Brown isn’t using fire. It’s a crazy world.
.
. .. . .. o
Sean • September 26, 2015 5:07 PM
Is there anything against using an anti-drone drone? Somebody was testing a DJI Octocopter with a snare net device that easily fouls the blades of anything it’s deployed against. Let the drone wars begin!
albert • September 26, 2015 6:22 PM
@Sean,
Be sure your drone has protected rotors, or you may find yourself in a drone vs. drone dogfight!
. .. . .. o
Justin • September 26, 2015 10:01 PM
@ ZARKON5 • September 26, 2015 9:02 AM
EARTHLINGS! DESIST IN YOUR EFFORTS TO DENY US LANDING LIGHTS!
(Also, this PC gender-whacko shit is getting old.)
I’m not sure these aliens even have a gender in earthling terms. All we know is that they have quite an attraction to a 78-year-old man. We actually know very little about the sex determination system of the alien species that is bothering the man. Perhaps they are all of the same gender and somehow manage to reproduce without the assistance of a male. In this case their attraction to the male is only residual, and the man needn’t worry about them.
Peter A. • September 28, 2015 3:30 AM
One word: window-shutters. Or shades. Or whatever.
I am, living on the 2nd floor, constantly harassed by street-lamps, to the level that I can’t sleep – unless I finally get up and roll down that damn shade I forgot before laying down.
Anon • September 28, 2015 9:21 AM
How illegal is firing a paintball gun at his spot lights?
Clive Robinson • September 28, 2015 1:25 PM
@ Anon,
It might be a “paint ball gun” but it is still a kinetic weapon the same as any projectile weapon such as an airgun etc. If fired with the intent of doing damage, then it’s mostlikely a “criminal” matter depending on the local legislation in place. Further the gentleman who owns the lights would probably stand a very good chance in claiming civil damages if any damage occured (which it would do).
The only way at the end of the day to deal with this is by non confrontational or aggrivated methods, anything else is just going to cause further issues.
albert • September 28, 2015 2:22 PM
Let the city handle it, it’s -their- responsibility to enforce -their- ordinance.
. .. . .. _ _ _
tyr • September 28, 2015 8:53 PM
What is an “Area 51 caller” ?
Do they live in Groom Lake Nevada ?
Do they work at Lockheeds SkunkWorks ?
Art Bell who broadcast from Pahrump used to open a phone
line for aliens/ time travellers once in awhile and the
nuts came out of the woodwork like cockroachs. It might
be entertaining but apparently no one owns a map that
they can use to locate Nevada on, that would lead me
to believe that any such claimants are full of shit as
the locals say.
It’s like the bunch who expect Arthur Pendragon to pop
out of the ground in the hotbed of crop circle jerking
Area 51 sounds so mysterious and strange it attracts
the marvels of humanity like flies to a turd.
There is something there they don’t want you to see but
it isn’t alien boogeymen.
K.S. • September 28, 2015 9:27 PM
“A paranoid NSA loon may be a loon, but at least he is our loon.”
While I can’t speak for others, I imagine derision is not over particular flavor of paranoid behavior, but rather effectiveness of mitigating stated threats.
If your threat model is alien invasion/abduction, tinfoil and lights simply won’t cut it. At the very least you need a bunker and some AA guns.
MGS • September 29, 2015 11:30 AM
A clinical examination shows that the ladies in society used the illegal sex trade as a weapon against Mike. They found come inside an Alien Princess.
Anon • September 30, 2015 3:39 AM
@Clive Robinson
Thanks for the considered reply Clive! You wouldn’t know if a supersoaker is a kinetic weapon too then would you, and whether it works with some sort of low viscosity paint?
Clive Robinson • September 30, 2015 8:22 AM
@ Anon,
You wouldn’t know if a supersoaker is a kinetic weapon too then would you, and whether it works with some sort of low viscosity paint?
It is certainly a kinetic device just like the bait catapults used by fishermen. The question of if it is a weapon or not is debatable and would hinge on what the payload was.
So for instance if you fired tacks / nails / staples out of the bait catapult most would say it was being used as a weapon (same as a baseball bat being used to hit/intimidate a person). Likewise a super soaker with any kind of harmfull liquid would be considered a weapon. As paint can cause permanent damage to a drone I’m guessing in most jurisdictions you would get a criminal charge as well as civil damages litigation.
The problem is paint being in a supersoaker shows “pre-meditation” with a harmfull substance (as well as damaging the super soaker). If however it was full of say detergant/dishwash liquid and water, you could argue you were going out to wash difficult to reach parts of your home etc “when you were suprised” by the drone and were afraid it was going to be used to harm you, thus “stand your ground defence” not “vigilante attack”.
Personaly I’d think of the “bait catapult” and very hard “cat repelant” pellets. Whilst they might do damage close up on the way up but their terminal velocity and impact force on coming down is going to be at worst about as bad as hail or heavy rain.
Anon • October 1, 2015 4:54 AM
Thanks again Clive. I guess you’re all right, the best thing to do really would be try to be a good neighbour and install black out curtains then.
Joe • October 7, 2015 2:48 PM
Realize of course that normal water is pretty dangerous to a hot bulb. :/
Subscribe to comments on this entry
Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.
Tautvydas • September 25, 2015 2:43 PM
Isn’t it a bit early to make such conclusions about shooting drones? Is the matter really settled already?