They are labeled "directed-energy weapons," and they may well signal a revolution in military hardware — perhaps more so than the atomic bomb. [<--They run on a new form of energy called Hype!](MSNBC, today)
Beason said he has a blue-sky idea of his own, which he tags "the voice from heaven." By tuning the resonance of a laser onto Earth’s ionosphere, you can create audible frequencies. Like some boom box in the sky, the laser-produced voice could bellow from above down to the target below: "Put down your weapons."
I suppose it might work if they used it to say, "Allah here, enough with jihad already...and down with those burkas too."
Possible weaponry, note the titillating aspect of "Active Denial Technology":
Some of the article is probably science (science!) hype to get funding, drivel on the level of stem cell reporting and so on, although it's an interesting prospect.
It's also interesting how we come to the point of deniability and questionability as far as anything supernatural. Is it the voice of Allah or the Americans with their laser weapon? Is it the seemingly demonic angel of light that Mohammad supposedly saw or a CIA trick based on their studies of UFO cults? If there were some supposed prophets around calling down fire from the sky you would think that everyone would listen to their message. Yet they would not if they simply would not will to, instead they would say it was the aliens, a government conspiracy, etc. I'm reminded of the mythohistorian types (Who seem to tend towards New Age kookiness.) with their "fire of the gods" notions and their arguments, like the ark of the covenant being a relic taken out of Egypt that was based on mysterious ancient technologies and the like that hold explanatory power to explain pretty much everything. There are ancient anomalies like holes drilled through granite and so on to be sure but they get a bit kooky about things too. Their argument with respect to the ark goes along the lines that the ark was an electrical device, which is why it was carried on poles and so when someone touched it they died. And so on, it seems that there is always an argument that people can fit to observations that seems to fit. In the end, everyone is in some sense choosing to make it fit by an act of will. You'd think that if the empirical evidence keeps going against someone then they'd change their mind yet that is not necessarily so for anyone, not even scientists.
At least one thing is certain, there is a right answer, so most of us are wrong.