The note on the page from 2 days ago says: https://archive.ph/MOosN#selection-1891.8-1893.46
Staff edit - Fake - no info available anywhere about this.
I haven't done any searching myself yet on it to see if I can find anything.
Also, Catbox:
It looks to me like someone took a video of an actual bee and edited parts of it to look robotic.
Good call, I thought the same, posted to see if anyone had more info
Although there do appear to be patents along the same line of thinking. Unknown if tested / produced.
Also, what's the point? Some guy just gonna catch one on the side of the highway? Sat cams are way more useful than this type, esp if they can tap phones.
My thought is more for covert assassinations; plug a deadly poison into the 'stinger', particularly one that can only be found if it is specifically looked for during autopsy, then direct/steer it to the target.
Armed security, alarms, pressure sensors, mined compound - all worthless if it can find even the slightest opening in a door or window to enter to get in to the target and 'sting' them.
Alternatively, it could also be used to incapacitate someone to abduct. Or back with assassinating again, if it is wanted that it looks like an accident, it can 'sting' them while they are behind the wheel of a vehicle at the right time (around a curve, traveling fast, etc.) and knock them out.
It can go on and on, though such mini drones have existed for years. The late author Clive Cussler always sourced the technologies used in his books that exist in reality, and also gave sources for those he expanded on based on the then-current state of them. He also regularly conversed and worked with military departments, such as the DoD. I believe one of his Oregon Files books involved using remotely controlled mosquitoes/bees to assassinate/attempt to assassinate someone in one of them and sourced that technology as already existing. I think that book was released 20+ years ago, and that was information on technology that the US military was ok with being included in his book back then.
Essentially, anyone, -anyone-, anywhere in the world can be gotten to and removed without any kind of trail if they have a reason to justify expending the resources to get them and as long as any ripple effects from the taken action do not interfere (too much) with other areas of operations. They would much rather bribe, threaten or brainwash someone into working for them to further their agendas than to take them out completely (it would seem, anyway).
Good info. Will look into those sources
I'd guess most of the "why don't we see this all the time" thought is because of leak potential, info control on the tech, and other intel agencies "knowing" / learning that this tech was conduced in a specific airspace, which would naturally reveal info about who did that attack. No one would willingly reveal they used/had this tech without the suspect that it'd be watched. Much easier to hire some cheapo darknet hitmen or do a suicide op and run the media.
Again thanks for the Clive name and the book title (Oregon Files), I think much of the warfare has changed to hide from the internet these days, and is less direct, more intense, smokebomb'd, etc
(post is archived)