Slashdot Mirror


The CIA's Amazing RC Animals From the 70s

GameboyRMH writes "If you were impressed at the remote-controlled ornithopters released in recent years, then this will really knock your socks off: In the 1970s, the CIA developed and tested a remote-controlled ornithopter that was disguised as a dragonfly — and at roughly the size of a dragonfly. It was intended to be used as a platform for listening devices. This 'insectothopter' was laser-guided and powered by a tiny gasoline engine built by a watchmaker. While its performance was impressive, difficulty controlling the tiny craft in crosswinds made it impractical, and the idea was scrapped. The article also mentions a robo-squid, and has information on a remote-controlled fish (video) that is also very impressive."

113 comments

  1. Really cool but... by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

    I have to admit this is really cool. I only wonder what something that small could have carried in the 70's. I mean with today's near microscopic cameras, mics and storage or transmission devices, it would be able to do some half decent surveillance; but 40 years ago even smallish "bugs" were fairly decent sized items. I have trouble believing even the CIA was THAT far ahead of the technology power curve. Maybe a microfilm camera for a few still shots could be fitted onto it; but there wasn't even hardly a concept of digital audio or video, let alone high density storage to hold the data.

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    1. Re:Really cool but... by sznupi · · Score: 2

      A variant of The Thing could have been small & light enough?... (but I wonder if there simply wasn't much need, for the effort - with so many other methods to plant a bug, between strong arming and bribery / etc., with denying any involvement anyway whatever the case ... maybe such dragonfly wasn't even particularly practical)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    2. Re:Really cool but... by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      From the second sentence, "It was intended to be used as a platform for listening devices." There you have it, mystery solved.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    3. Re:Really cool but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be woefully misinformed on the history of technology. In WWII there was already encrypted digital voice communication.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGSALY
      Digital recording of music was already an experimental reality in the 1960s.

      http://www.1stopcdshop.com/info/historycd.cfm.htm

      I mean, if you honestly believe "here wasn't even hardly a concept of digital audio or video" 40 years ago, when, in your opinion did it start?

    4. Re:Really cool but... by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, but again, unless your sibling is right about that Russian capacitance listening device being small enough (and to me the picture makes it look way to big, especially the antenna) there weren't listening devices small enough to be carried by something dragonfly sized in the '70s. At least none that I know of. I freely admit that those CIA guys are clever buggers (ha ha I made a pun) and they may have had something that would work, but given that such items are commonplace now I can't see why they wouldn't declassify it too so we could see the pieces as a package.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    5. Re:Really cool but... by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      Yes, the theory for digital sound existed, forgive me for exaggerating a bit, I forgot that /. is such a literal place. It required (for the time) fairly massive amounts of computational power to encode and decode though, and small scale storage for it didn't really exist. My point was that you couldn't have fit the required computational and storage capability on such a small device unless the CIA had technology *much* more advanced than the rest of the world. Like, decades ahead.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    6. Re:Really cool but... by Scrameustache · · Score: 2

      I can't see why they wouldn't declassify it too

      If they how you learned what you know then they'll know what else you could have learned and what you couldn't have learned that way.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    7. Re:Really cool but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, you show your ignorance of technology. A tunnel diode transmitter was easily small enough, *IN 1959*. But hey, whatever. So when exactly do you think we suddenly acquired the mountain of technology we use today? 10 years ago? Twenty? It popped into existence, magically, fully formed, overnight? People were stupid before the invention of the transistor? What? I really want to know.

      http://www.electricstuff.co.uk/glassadc.html

      Oh look, an 8 bit ADC from 1953.

      Oh look, a digital scope with GHz bandwidth and digital readout, from 1962...

      http://w140.com/tekwiki/wiki/567

    8. Re:Really cool but... by eiiiI'monslashdot · · Score: 1

      there are a lot of conspiracys theorys looking for guys like you to believe them. you can google for them, they will make your day more fun. or do you already believe some of them? ahhh i thought u didn't sorry never mind then :)

    9. Re:Really cool but... by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      Care to provide a link to this ultra small transmitter which would fit (with audio gathering equipment, power, and an antenna) in a dragonfly in the 70s? I'm looking at "tunnel diode transmitter" on Google and most of the stuff that's coming up doesn't look like it would fit (again with power, mic, and antenna) into a small enough space. Regardless, I never claimed to an expert on 40 year old technology, and my whole post is more a matter of curiously wondering what they were planning to do with it, not declaring that there wasn't anything they could have done. So stop being an ass.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    10. Re:Really cool but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, back in the 80's, I came up with this interesting idea for a digital microphone. I figured a simple laser bouncing off a diaphragm would do the trick. That approach would allow for a digital voice output. Found out that something similar was developed in the 60s.
      Secondly, USA had great tech pre WWII. We developed decent memory in the late 50's and early 60's. The issue was not size, BUT PRICE. Bubble memory comes to mind. However, the US military and spying is not about being economical and they have toys that will hit the market 20-30 years LATER. These days with US companies hiring Chinese, it hits the Chinese market within 1 year.

    11. Re:Really cool but... by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      ..since you can build an FM transmitter with just a transistor, a few diodes, a couple of capacitors and resistors, some wire, and a condenser mic, you are quite clearly wrong about the size and weight of listening devices possible (and well documented) in the 70's...

      The problem was of course power. A small enough battery wouldnt last very long.. perhaps a few hours..

      A small wireless bug is pretty much step 1 for most amateur electronics hack. Its really quite simple, and even in the 70's there were books filled to the brim with instructions on how to build stuff like this. More than a few of the designs featured here are small enough.. using parts that were certainly available in the 70's from radio shack and its ilk.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    12. Re:Really cool but... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      It looks perfectly within scales required on the picture, especially since its antenna (and a whip one, essentially, not anywhere near the smallest possible) is simply determined by the wavelength to which it responds. A bit shorter wavelength, much shorter (1/4) the antenna.

      And whole device is perfectly close to the shape of a dragonfly, can form its structure. The few acoustic / electronic components - also easily much smaller (The Thing was built at the end of WW2!)

      A lot of stuff isn't declassified (what do you think such devices were used for? And in this case, if my guess is correct, it would be largely a copy of something the godless commies did, we can't admit to doing that...)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    13. Re:Really cool but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have trouble believing that 1970's fake dragonfly actually flew. Nor does a cheesy animated rendering really do enough to convince me either. (I've seen better animation done by people screwing around with Poser or Gary's Mod for lulz.) To me the actual artifact looks like something stuck on a wall or tree and used as a clever way of hiding an antenna. Particularly when looking at the wires in the wings. As for the fish, it looks like something that would be hollowed out and used as a dead-drop in a pond or shallow river. (Not to mention it would seem less suspicious to pull that up with a fishing line than a rock.)

      Now with today's technology, maybe they do have robotic dragonflies and fish with microcams and other sensors. Hell you can even buy (a somewhat large-ish) robotic dragonfly of your own. So it wouldn't surprise me that they have something more advanced.

      But those old ones? Pssh... Seriously doubtful.

    14. Re:Really cool but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If they how you learned what you know then they'll know what else you could have learned and what you couldn't have learned that way.

      Jesus Christ! Is that a sentence, or a one-time pad?

    15. Re:Really cool but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I never claimed to an expert on 40 year old technology,"

      Yes, you did, when you said "but there wasn't even hardly a concept of digital audio or video," and "there weren't listening devices small enough to be carried by something dragonfly sized". Pretty authoritative, don't you think?

      You showed astonishing ignorance of the history of technology, an inexcusable sin in an era of instant information access.

      Please scroll to page 3 of this PDF

      n4trb.com/AmateurRadio/SemiconductorHistory/GE_Tunnel_Diodes.pdf

      Do you think that maybe given an unlimited budget, a team of two or three engineers and technicians could have hand picked (or even built) the correct tunnel diode and battery, in the 1970s? Tunnel diodes were already obsolete by 1970. I assure you that IC technology was already advanced by then. Anyways. Let's say it took months to design and build, and it only ran for 10 minutes, broadcasting a tiny, jittery signal to a white van crammed with receivers and reel to reel tape decks. That's all you need.

      "So stop being an ass."
      I will, as soon as you stop acting like people were morons 40 years ago and that "modern technology" popped into existence overnight from a vacuum of knuckle-dragging and slack-jawed ignorance.

      I daresay that actually very little has changed in 40 years, we're just better at mass manufacturing and making smaller transistors. That's all. I go even further to say that PEOPLE changed a lot more than technology did in 40 years. I used to get beat up for being a computer nerd in the '80s. And yes, I'm too lazy to make proper URLs. That's a computer's job.

    16. Re:Really cool but... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      "Bug-bomb searching, Thodin."

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    17. Re:Really cool but... by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      there weren't listening devices small enough to be carried by something dragonfly sized in the '70s. At least none that I know of. I freely admit that those CIA guys are clever buggers (ha ha I made a pun) and they may have had something that would work

      Gosh that looks an awful lot to me like I was saying that I "wasn't aware" of any. I made no authoritative claim there. Damn. Gosh you'd almost think I was hedging my bet against the fact that I was ignorant of something that would work.

      I only wonder what something that small could have carried in the 70's

      And there right before the first quote you take out of my post, "I wonder". Almost like I don't know and I'm, ya know, wondering. God damn. As to the "Hardly a concept of digital audio and video" I admitted I was exaggerating a bit. I *meant* the tiny digital audio devices of today that would actually fit on something this small. Yes, with enough gear you could encode and store digital audio in the 70s. It wouldn't fit on a tiny robot though.

      My point was not and is not that technology popped into being, and you're right the major change in the last 40 years has been the size of transistors. Considering we're talking about something the size of a god damned insect, that's a pretty damned relevant change wouldn't you say? As others have (nicely) pointed out there are some potential devices that could have worked. That's interesting. I posted becasue I was vaguely curious and I may have learned something. Regardless of whether they planned to use something like "The Thing" it's a cool bit of tech, especially for the time. those were the kind of posts I was hoping to get. So thanks very much for being a superior asshole.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    18. Re:Really cool but... by arivanov · · Score: 1

      And a lot of the parts can be even smaller if you strip the casing with a suitable solvent...

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    19. Re:Really cool but... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      possibly an alternator on the micro gas engine?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    20. Re:Really cool but... by mevets · · Score: 1

      I love voluntary surveys where people click "no opinion". It is quite something to go out of your way to visit a site, or phone a number to tell them that you have no opinion.

      The same with "that I am aware of". The phrase may have a place in the discourse of an expert in a particular field. For example, a renowned cancer specialist rebutting a question about Bruce Lee movies curing cancer might state "There is no evidence, that I am aware of, that watching Bruce Lee movies cures cancer".

      But, in an idle chatter, it takes on quite a different meaning. Something like "I really don't have a clue but would like to participate".

      Anyways, why don't you knuckle heads get back to bashing each other for our continued enjoyment...

    21. Re:Really cool but... by knarf · · Score: 1

      Maybe the intention was to use the laser reflectors on the head of the thing to create a laser microphone? That would require no power whatsoever on the bug - but a line of sight to the laser.

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    22. Re:Really cool but... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Skip to 0:45 of the video. The live action shots start there. The video ends with a live action outdoor flight.

    23. Re:Really cool but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I used to get beat up for being a computer nerd in the '80s.

      And it shows...

    24. Re:Really cool but... by scurvyj · · Score: 0

      I have to admit this is really cool. I only wonder what something that small could have carried in the 70's. I mean with today's near microscopic cameras, mics and storage or transmission devices, it would be able to do some half decent surveillance; but 40 years ago even smallish "bugs" were fairly decent sized items. I have trouble believing even the CIA was THAT far ahead of the technology power curve. Maybe a microfilm camera for a few still shots could be fitted onto it; but there wasn't even hardly a concept of digital audio or video, let alone high density storage to hold the data.

      I quite agree, there is a large amount of FUD from the C acronym here. The listening devices they dropped in the 60s during the Vietnam war were a joke, the enemy used to collect them and put them in chosen places to send incorrect accoustic signals back to the US forces. The 'bug' is an impressive piece of engineering but its targeted goals are only just now becoming feasible.

    25. Re:Really cool but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Slashdot groupthink never ceases to amaze me. The delusional Space Nutter drawings of space stations, moon mining, space based solar from the 1970s are supposed to be the sacred cloth of geeks. But the same era was apparently unable to build a small motor in a dragonfly. Either the people in th'70s were complete drooling morons or prescient technological masters. It can't be both.

      Oh look: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3785509.stm

      An amateur built a small motor in his spare time in 1960... But somehow professional scientists and engineers of the era, the same era that invented modern computing, intergrated cicruits, the mouse, gigahertz sampling oscilloscopes, jet airplanes, missiles, satellites, color TV, planetary probes and a worlwide net of telephones and computers would have been stumped by a small motor, given the budget of the world's richest country.... Makes sense!

      Ah yes, "today's technology", that mysterious entity that popped into existence from a vacuum ten, twenty years ago? Yes, from nothing at all!! It's a miracle! Praise Jeebus!

    26. Re:Really cool but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You mistakenly drag digital and computers into this discussion, it's entirely irrelevant. Perfectly good analog solutions exist for your microphone transmitter. It's really not as hard as you think it was in the 1970s. Like I said, a custom built doohickey, maybe using tunnel diodes because they're so small and can work on low voltages, transmitting an analog signal to an analog recording suite would have been enough. Now, getting the wind noise and engine noise and wing noise out of the signal? Hmm, if only there were a bunch of smart people working on acoustics back then...

      Oh yeah, BBN Technologies. You know, those guys that invented a lot of the computing we take for granted today?

      "Considering we're talking about something the size of a god damned insect,"

      Insects can be quite large, you're being intentionally vague. Watch the video, the thing looks HUGE. Nothing at all like the "darning needles" I kayak with in summer.

      And yeah, maybe I was being a bit harsh with you, but NOTHING gets under my skin more than the whole "there was no technology back then!" thing. 40 years ago was the maiden flight of the 747, and nothing's really changed or improved on the performance of the 747. We have better, quieter engines, and better toys during the flight. But the basic technology and physical principles? Same shit.

      Technology-wise, we've been stagnating since the 1960s. Refining a few things here, more medical knowledge there. But all we're doing is twiddling numbers after the decimal point.

    27. Re:Really cool but... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      If they know how you learned what you know then they'll know what else you could have learned and what you couldn't have learned that way.

      Jesus Christ! Is that a sentence, or a one-time pad?

      Sorry about dropping that word... Try reading it in Rumselfd's voice: If they know how you learned what you know

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    28. Re:Really cool but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason the sentence "While its performance was impressive, difficulty controlling the tiny craft in crosswinds made it impractical" made me smile.

    29. Re:Really cool but... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I read once that the CIA dropped masses of little listening devices into the Vietnamese jungle as kind of a remote sensing system. I assume they monitored the system with receivers on relatively low flying aircraft.

    30. Re:Really cool but... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I reckon I could have built it into eight cubic centimetres or so in 1970. And if you took the components out of their packages and had a watch/jewlry maker assemble it you could probably get it into one CC. My dad built radio controlled model aircraft in the 1950s but they were one channel and he had to build a lot of the gear himself.

    31. Re:Really cool but... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I built a two transistor FM transmitter some time in the late '80s. To test it I left it in my young sisters bed room when my mother was reading her a story. I then got into my car and drove up the road listening to the signal. Two kilometres away I decided it was working a little bit too well so I turned right back and switched it off. I still have it here for emergencies or whatever.

    32. Re:Really cool but... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      They'd have to turn the engine off to be able to listen!

      --
      No sig today...
    33. Re:Really cool but... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I don't know, if they were looking at using it as a listening platform, putting in a micro gas engine seemed rather odd, maybe it lands before turning on the mic...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. What about the cat? by oodaloop · · Score: 2

    The Cocaine Importation Agency also made a cat/listening device. They put a cat under, installed a bug inside of it, and put the antenna in its tail. It was supposed to wander across the street and eavesdrop on the Soviet Embassy, IIRC, and it cost a few million in research. After the surgery, the cat was a little woozy and got hit by a car immediately after release, and the program was scrapped.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:What about the cat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it worked fine until the cat deafened a listener by hacking up a hairball...

    2. Re:What about the cat? by Oflife · · Score: 0

      I love cats, but this made me chuckle.

    3. Re:What about the cat? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Trying to let a cat do anything other than purr and eat is a waste of time. Until they are a few years old you can entice them to run after things, but that's about it.

      If cats were ever created for any purpose, it's probably to show to people that you are not in control of everything. Doubly so when mackerel is involved.

  3. Ultimate weapon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be nearly impossible to protect yourself from a swam of these things if they were stalking you.
    Think poison dart from the movie Dune.

    1. Re:Ultimate weapon? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      You could blow them away with a fan. Nobody tried that on dune.

    2. Re:Ultimate weapon? by vlad30 · · Score: 1

      first thing I thought of was bugbot from LEXX episode 1 now remembering Eva Haberman I think I need to rewatch that show

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
  4. Re:First post on my own article! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Funny

    Thank you, I'll cherish it forever ^_^

    I'd like to thank my N900 for helping me work around my currently-unreliable office Internet connection, which nearly thwarted my attempt. It wasn't easy, I credit many hours on Quake 3 Arena with developing my ninja-like reflexes.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  5. And by 'scrapped'... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

    ...we mean in active use and classified.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:And by 'scrapped'... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yes. Future entomologists will wonder what 21st century people meant when they talked about "dragonflies"

  6. And of course... by Ethanol · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Those of us who are a certain age and were geeky enough to read Danny Dunn books know exactly where the CIA got this idea.

    (Luckily Danny was able to destroy Professor Bullfinch's notes so the CIA wouldn't be able to replicate the much better dragonfly he'd invented, so they had to fall back on tiny, impractical gasoline engines instead.)

    1. Re:And of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loved those books! I spent many hours reading the series when I was just a sprog, dreaming of the day when I too could be like Danny. Too bad that part never came around. Turned out you need to be a main character in a book before cool stuff like that just happens to you... and I wasn't one.

    2. Re:And of course... by Tackhead · · Score: 1

      Those of us who are a certain age and were geeky enough to read Danny Dunn books know exactly where the CIA got this idea.

      I may not yet be an Invisible Boy, but I've got one hell of a Homework Machine these days. (Especially compared to the computers I grew up with, let alone a 1958 "Miniac" that filled an entire house :)

    3. Re:And of course... by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

      Was that what it was? I would have sworn I first read about the remote-controlled dragonfly in a Hardy Boy's novel, in the '70s. But I was just a kid, so it could have easily been some other Boy Genius novel.

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    4. Re:And of course... by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Oh wow... I'd totally forgotten this. Thanks for bringing back the memory. IIRC, the DD dragonfly had sensory feedback too. There was a part where it got into somethat that was too hot, and he had to let go.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    5. Re:And of course... by ElrondHubbard · · Score: 1

      Those of us who are a certain age and were geeky enough to read Danny Dunn books know exactly where the CIA got this idea.

      (Luckily Danny was able to destroy Professor Bullfinch's notes so the CIA wouldn't be able to replicate the much better dragonfly he'd invented, so they had to fall back on tiny, impractical gasoline engines instead.)

      Boo, you got there first! If I couldn't post first about DD, I wish I had some moderator points so I could upvote. Just hearing the name Danny Dunn makes me feel like I'm ten years old again, curled up at Riverside Library. Ah, memories...

      --
      "The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
    6. Re:And of course... by sesshomaru · · Score: 1
      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    7. Re:And of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was a kid in the late 80s -- and I was still reading the Danny Dunn books from my public library.

    8. Re:And of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I was about to say that! Danny Dunn and the Invisibility Machine. It also predicted VR (the professor made a helmet that would display things from the dragonflys POV, and even had 'gauntlets' that would let him feel what the 'claws' on the dragonfly felt.

      That was one of my favourite books as a kid.

      Really tho, it wasn't Bullfinches motor tech they were after, but his transistor tech. ;)

    9. Re:And of course... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure I read that story too, or a similar one. Did it involve telepresence?

    10. Re:And of course... by Avatar8 · · Score: 1
      Yes, I recall that story, too, and it was the first thing I thought of when reading this article.

      I wonder if there is some connection between the catfish Charlie and the Don Knotts' movie, "The Incredible Mr. Limpet?"

  7. What's more likely? by catmistake · · Score: 1, Funny

    What's more likely? That some intelligent hand designed and built these? Or they evolved over hundreds of millions of years?

    1. Re:What's more likely? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hundreds of millions of years?
      Haven't you heard, Bender says: "robots do *everything* faster"

    2. Re:What's more likely? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The TFA was clearly written by some religious nutball who was brainwashed by his parents and can't think for himself. Seriously, who still thinks that we need some "intelligent" entity to explain the existence of robot insects? Even more ridiculous is that they can't think of a better name than "Central Intelligence Agency". Might as well call it the "Intelligent Design Agency". Sheesh. Take a second grade biology course next time. It's obvious these insects evolved their individual mechanical parts over millions of years and this "CIA" is just trying to take the credit so they can use it as a tool of fear and control.

    3. Re:What's more likely? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, since it is the only one of its kind, it doesn't reproduce, and it obviously lacks the tremendous sophistication and complexity of biological organisms, this thing was built.

  8. Re:A win nonetheless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, because if anything is clear, it's a global upward trend in the amount of money governments spend.

  9. Not to mention Acoustic Kitty. by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When listing robotic and cyborg animals from the cold war era, let's not forget poor Acoustic Kitty.

    Some people might say that it was a myth, but one of the people on the project was my boss in the 1990s and he showed me a souvenir. Yes, I have held the skull of Acoustic Kitty in my hands. It had fine channels engraved in the bone so that the microphone wires would not cause bumps under the skin. The detail work was impressive, even more so when you realize that the cat lived through the operation.

    My boss also told me how he was present on Acoustic Kitty's first and only mission. The poor thing was kidnapped from an ambassador's home and put through hellish surgery, including installation of batteries that were destined to kill it after a few months. Then they released it across the street so that it would walk back into the house and begin to spy on its owner. Can you blame it for jumping under the tires of a taxicab? 20 million dollars and months of work, down the drain.

    My old boss is dead now. Sometimes I wonder what happened to AK's skull. It should be placed in the Smithsonian, as a visible reminder that some experiments just should not be done.

    --
    Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    1. Re:Not to mention Acoustic Kitty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your name Steven Heck by any chance? ;)

    2. Re:Not to mention Acoustic Kitty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnkDpG1fAbY

    3. Re:Not to mention Acoustic Kitty. by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

      There is a museum in Langley, at CIA headquarters, that contains several of the robots discussed in the article. It's possible AK's skull resides there too. They have a website, but there's a lot in that museum off limits to non-CIA people, perhaps they're still embarrassed by Acoustic Kitty.

    4. Re:Not to mention Acoustic Kitty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Figures... Did they ever stop to think it might have been an 'indoor' cat and didn't know what a car was?

    5. Re:Not to mention Acoustic Kitty. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Acoustic Kitty reminds me of the extremely creepy head transplant experiments done in the Soviet Union in the 1960's, as detailed in Mary Roach's book "Stiff" and another book called "Elephants On Acid". The latter includes pictures of an obviously functional, conscious small dog head sticking off the shoulder/neck of a larger dog, who is also obviously conscious. Really unsettling, especially when one considers that if we *really* needed to keep someone alive for what they had in their brains, we could, even if they were mostly missing a body.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    6. Re:Not to mention Acoustic Kitty. by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Does any cat know, beforehand?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    7. Re:Not to mention Acoustic Kitty. by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      It's possible his estate gave the skull back to the CIA. All I know that in 1996 he kept the skull in his living room on a nice wooden stand.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    8. Re:Not to mention Acoustic Kitty. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      if we *really* needed to keep someone alive for what they had in their brains, we could, even if they were mostly missing a body.

      Not in evidence. The fact that the dog and the body were animate in no way demonstrates that if you did it with a human they'd be in any fashion rational or coherent.

    9. Re:Not to mention Acoustic Kitty. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      if we *really* needed to keep someone alive for what they had in their brains, we could, even if they were mostly missing a body.

      Not in evidence. The fact that the dog and the body were animate in no way demonstrates that if you did it with a human they'd be in any fashion rational or coherent.

      Maybe not but it'd be interesting to try, don't you think? How about taking the brain out entirely and feeding it artificial nutrients? I reckon you could keep it alive on a few watts.

  10. What, no armaments? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    I remember back in the 70's there was a scandal about the CIA storing deadly Hawaiian shellfish toxin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKNAOMI . A drop of that stuff can kill a human, really fast. Now, imagine this dragonfly armed with some of that. Even "Q" from James Bond would stand up and applaud.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:What, no armaments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read that particular Wikipedia page very carefully, and notice the lack of citations for key claims. Note in the discussion page that it was once almost deleted for being full of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

    2. Re:What, no armaments? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Who cares about shellfish? Ricin is one of the world's most deadly poisons and you make it from beans.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Robosquid you say? by demonbug · · Score: 1

    Please, don't let the Japanese hear about this...

    (although Rule 34 suggests it is far too late)

  12. Entomopter by Scrameustache · · Score: 1
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Entomopter by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I just keep thinking about this. (From the movie 5th Element if you don't get it.)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Entomopter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that makes more sense.

      helicopter = helix (heliko-) + pteron = "spiral/turn-around wing"
      ornithopter = ornis (ornitho-) + pteron = "bird wing"
      entomopter = entomon + pteron = "insect wing"

      but

      insectothopter = insectum + THO + pteron ... what's a "tho"?

      Languages never were the CIA's forte.

  13. Nano Air Vehicles from DARPA by bughunter · · Score: 1

    DARPA is more or less trying this again. With better results.

    --
    I can see the fnords!
  14. More cool stuff on the CIA's flickr page by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/ciagov/

    I included the link in my submission but it was edited out, this is actually the original source of the information. Lots more cool spy gadgets to see in the above link.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  15. Re:First post on my own article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's as intelligent and relevant to the article as 99% of your other posts, so why not?

  16. In the wild, tracking anti-war protests in 2007 by metrometro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Out in the crowd, Bernard Crane saw them, too. "I'd never seen anything like it in my life," the Washington lawyer said. "They were large for dragonflies. I thought, 'Is that mechanical, or is that alive?' That is just one of the questions hovering over a handful of similar sightings at political events in Washington and New York. Some suspect the insectlike drones are high-tech surveillance tools, perhaps deployed by the Department of Homeland Security. "

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100801434.html

    Nothing definitive in the story, but reasonably well reported eyewitness accounts.

    1. Re:In the wild, tracking anti-war protests in 2007 by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      I remember reading something like that a few years ago, but it could have been a Wowwee Flytech Dragonfly:

      http://www.wowwee.com/en/support/flytech-dragonfly

      I have one myself. The wingspan is a bit over a foot and they make loud squeaky noises when they fly, but that could have been drowned out in a protest.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:In the wild, tracking anti-war protests in 2007 by radtea · · Score: 1

      .Some suspect the insectlike drones are high-tech surveillance tools, perhaps deployed by the Department of Homeland Security. "

      I'm just glad they aren't using this tech for anything that would actually make anyone more secure, like improving crop yields, delivery of clean water, improving waste management, and so on. I mean, can you imagine what would happen if technology like this was deployed in any economically useful way!? It's a good thing it's being carefully restricted to the deadweight loss of the security-industrial complex!

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    3. Re:In the wild, tracking anti-war protests in 2007 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did all of these problems get unsolved sometime after 1970?

    4. Re:In the wild, tracking anti-war protests in 2007 by brkello · · Score: 1

      How would you know it didn't? There are tons of example of military/intelligence technology eventually making it in to consumer products that we use every day now. They have a problem they are trying to solve so they focus on that. As a side benefit, we get to use it for a different purpose years later if they were good ideas.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
  17. Re:First post on my own article! by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

    Do you want a medal or what?

    --
    Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
  18. Re:First post on my own article! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I have my own "cyberstalker" now O_O

    This means that...I'm Internet-famous! AWRIGHT! \(^_^)/

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  19. power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the goals are total control and dominance, and there are infinite funds available, there are no limits to human ingenuity and cruelty.

    "No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine." - William Blum

  20. Of course it never worked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, we tried it and gave up, heck we can't figure out how to tap phone lines, read e-mails or any of that stuff. It's just beyond us, completely.

  21. Re:First post on my own article! by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

    I think he just wanted first post on his story.

    I get the reason for his post even if it is just noise to you and me. I don't get the reason for your post other than you wanted a chance to bitch at someone.

  22. Inspiration for Dark Tower guardians? by Deagol · · Score: 1

    Seeing this article made me think of the robotic/cyborg "guardian" animals in the Dark Tower series. I wonder if this cold war stuff inspired that part of King's story?

  23. Why so soon? by sb98052 · · Score: 1

    Why are we hearing about one of the coolest pieces of technology developed in the last 30 years in a tabloidesque news bulletin? Another area that could benefit from wikileaks.

  24. Re:First post on my own article! by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

    Your laughably puny ninja-like reflexes are useless compared to the pirate-like reflexes of those who modded you into oblivion.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  25. Probably a Hoax by littlewink · · Score: 1

    Circa 1970 we got one of the first portable lasers in our physics lab. It weighed about 6 pounds. Prior to that the only lasers we had were built on lab benches. So the part about it being laser-controlled I seriously doubt.

    1. Re:Probably a Hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Circa 1970 we got one of the first portable lasers in our physics lab. It weighed about 6 pounds. Prior to that the only lasers we had were built on lab benches.

      So the part about it being laser-controlled I seriously doubt.

      The laser wasn't on the dragonfly, it just had to have some kind of way of using the laser as guidance. I don't think sensors were all that big, as transistors had taken over, but still.

      The claim is they had a gas engine, a laser guidance system, wings and actuators, a microphone, and a transmitter all in a body the size of a dragonfly.

      This is *classic* CIA propaganda. It's really amazing how an organization with a record of being pitifully inept can get people to think they are staffed entirely by super spies and have technology 10 years ahead of their time.

    2. Re:Probably a Hoax by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      "Laser Guided" does not mean it has a laser on board.

    3. Re:Probably a Hoax by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Those were the shark-lasers. The dragonfly lasers were actually much smaller.

    4. Re:Probably a Hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "This is *classic* CIA propaganda. It's really amazing how an organization with a record of being pitifully inept "

      So you're *absolutely* sure which part is the propaganda? You're amazing. What IS it with this story that is so hard to believe? There are TONS of technologies that existed "before" their time.

  26. I, for one, welcome our new robo-squid overlords! by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Oh, come on, hasn't somebody posted something that obvious yet? In Soviet Russia, You eavesdrop on CIA!!

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  27. Re:First post on my own article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or he clicked on your name and read a few the posts listed there

  28. What happend after they scrapped this project? by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0

    They sat down and started to think hard...
    While staring at goats

  29. Danny Dunn Invisible Boy by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

    The article is a spoiler regarding the plot of Danny Dunn Invisible Boy

    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  30. Re:I, for one, welcome our new robo-squid overlord by arivanov · · Score: 2

    Exactly.

    Guess why Americans bulldozed their half-finished embassy in Moscow and rebuilt it from scratch with all-imported materials (even sand, brick and concrete) in the 80-es.

    Why bother with a dragonfly if you can bake everything you need into a brick ya know...

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  31. But what about the noise? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    It seems like the "tiny gasoline engine" they used must have been a cousin to old Cox glow-plug engines that I used to fly on model airplanes. Those things howled like banshees.

    1. Re:But what about the noise? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, it was certainly a two-stroke, because they were chasing maximum power output. And it almost certainly had compression ignition with a hot spot, because there's no room for a magneto in there, is there? And even if you had one you'd kill your spark electrode in short order. Then again, if they only have to last for a minute or two that might be OK. Today I would probably try to run them on rocket fuel being mixed in a closed chamber.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  32. Gas engine? by SoundGuyNoise · · Score: 2

    I'm imagining it with a little tiny string to start it like a lawnmower.

    --
    You never expect irony, do you?
    Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
    @iyfwrestling
  33. I call bullshit on the whole thing... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    A gasoline engine the size of a dragonfly, complete with fuel tank? (Knowing the Americans I bet it was a V8, too...)

    And: They scrapped the whole project because it didn't work in cross-winds? They never have calm days in Russia...?

    Nope. The whole thing is probably just more cold-war-era psych-ops to make the Russians think the USA had amazingly advanced secret technology.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:I call bullshit on the whole thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A Moon rocket, complete with life support and return craft? And they scrapped the whole project because the moon is useless? Nope. There was no technology back then. As a matter of fact, the entire planet just popped into existence 5 days ago complete with all the technology we have now.

      What is so hard to believe about this?

    2. Re:I call bullshit on the whole thing... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Inexpensive, mass produced, tiny IC engines were available for many years back then, for model usage (check out, say, cox tee dee 010). Such project could certainly afford much more expensive machining... (or maybe not even IC; maybe small & light (not like IC don't have fabulous energy density) CO2 engine sufficient for dozen s of quiet operation)

      And generally, such psych-ops were targeted more typically at US population (NVM that Soviet Union was most likely better informed than the US population at any point in time; how would such posturing even work with a secret project?). Themes of Red Scare and McCarthyism; fiction of bomber gap, missile gap and mine shaft gap. Old policies of "Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power" (pay close attention to the names in this one...) - good old demonization of "foes"; inventing and exaggerating menace, enemies; terrorizing people with hyped up or invented threats. Lack of evidence or capability (or even theoretical possibility) meaning they are good at hiding something (or too many scientists are secret commies). Because it is so cold outside

      Repeat ad nauseam with South America (Operation Condor), Cuba, Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, Irag, Iran, N. Korea ... China, Venezuela, Brazil, India. Empires need to feed, to sustain themselves (or at least military-industrial complex, looking for things to do after WW2); "preemption" is crucial for safety...

      (not like Soviet Union was immune to that, of course... shining examples of propaganda also there (though those didn't lead so far / even also with infighting camps - such methods weren't needed to stay on top; some advantages of central planning / economy & not bothering yourself with elections... relative immunity to such hysterias; Soviets were, in the end, often very pragmatist))

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter