It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hologram dudes, how was it done?

page: 10
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Originally posted by ixiy





example: Get a real plane... this time..... are they incompetent or what?



No. They just couldn't find any volunteers to fly it. Even the Muslims they asked said, "Are you out of your friggin' mind?" When reminded about the 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven the Muslims responded, "Anticipation is greater than realization!"

They finally got one Air Force pilot who was having trouble at home to volunteer. They got him all trained and then sent him to Las Vegas for one last party. He ended up at the Chicken Ranch, fell in love and thats the last they heard of him.




posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
Displays a 3D image on to what? Thin air? A progector is just that, it emits light of some sort, then to be observed needs to be reflected back to your eye, how was this part done?


There are hologram systems on the market that can show a hologram in mid-air.

www.heliodisplay.eu...

So what do you think the military might have ?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Why would they need holograms to pull this off. Operation Northwoods states that more than 50 YEARS AGO, America had the technology to control a plane by remote control. Wouldn't a remote control plane be much more effective and safer (in terms of getting their cover blown)... then a hologram?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


But that isn't a hologram, and it doesn't project onto thin air. (you should have read my first post)

It projects onto fog, which the unit produces. And it's not a hologram in any sense. It's not even 3D.

edit:



Heliodisplay images are not holographic although they are free-space, employing a rear projection system in which images are captured onto a nearly invisible plane of transformed air...

These projected images and video are two-dimensional...



You'll note they say "transformed air", what's transformed about it is that they spray a very fine fog into the air. There's a water reservoir in the base.

[edit on 30-9-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


But that isn't a hologram, and it doesn't project onto thin air. (you should have read my first post)

It projects onto fog, which the unit produces. And it's not a hologram in any sense. It's not even 3D.


Uh.....Tom? Why let facts get in the way of a good wet dream?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by hikix
Why would they need holograms to pull this off. Operation Northwoods states that more than 50 YEARS AGO, America had the technology to control a plane by remote control. Wouldn't a remote control plane be much more effective and safer (in terms of getting their cover blown)... then a hologram?


Yes, we have had remote control target drones for a long time. Now we have better remote control systems.

The British have a Tornado fighter that is equiped with a remote control system that can take over a hijacked plane.

There is even a report that Isreal has used a remote control sytem to crash a plane.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Uh.....Tom? Why let facts get in the way of a good wet dream?


The only wet dream i see is the official story, that has been proven wrong some many times its pathetic.

You did not read the much about the system. It states that it appears 3D.

Also as stated this is just a simple civilan system, imagine what the military could produce.

[edit on 30-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Now John asked me to pop in... I usually stay away from 911 threads because they get nowhere..

BUT since we are talking about HOLOGRAMS and the 'state of the art'

Well lets cut the crap (can I say crap?) about Rock and Roll stuff shall we? Lets try what the real boys are toying with...

I will post the link, but be warned you will be redirected to a secure link... and I am very sure your IP will be logged... and I take no responsibility for who may knock at your door...

So that disclaimer being said...


snort

It's not sensitive, and never was. But you guys are leaving out the FUN stuff. There's two sections you guys clip (this is one) but you never ever set up the context.



A Quick Look at Air Force 2025

Introduction

The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, General Ronald R. Fogleman, tasked the Air University at Maxwell AFB, AL to look 30 years into the future to identify the concepts, capabilities and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the 21st century.

The Air University commander led a team of students and faculty from the Air University's Air War College and Air Command and Staff College; scientists and technologists from the Air Force Institute of Technology, located at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH; Air Force Academy and AFROTC cadets from around the country; and selected academic and business leaders in the civilian community across the nation in the 10-month effort to meet General Foglemans tasking.

The resulting study is called Air Force 2025 or 2025 for short. The team's findings were briefed to General Fogleman in June 1996 and to the Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. Sheila Widnall, in July 1996. The 2025 study was subsequently published in a collection of white papers consisting of an executive summary and 41 individual papers, totaling more than 3,300 pages of text.

Alternate Futures

Study participants used a forecasting technique known as alternate futures to help them envision an array of future worlds in which the U.S. must be able to survive and prosper in the year 2025. The 2025 team studied the works of respected futurists, then identified their own factors or drivers of change in the future. More than 100 individual drivers were considered. Ultimately the three drivers most relevant in terms of structuring the environment affecting U.S. security in the next century were chosen.

(snip for conciseness -- if you want to read this part see the link)

Concept Generation

The 2025 team sought ideas worldwide via the internet about future military capabilities. The group synthesized the best ideas into white papers focusing on specific military tasks. Using the six alternate futures as a backdrop, the team then evaluated these concepts to determine which of the 25 emerging technologies and 40 separate systems envisioned by the 2025 team had the most merit. Each of these capabilities and technologies were evaluated in the context of categories airmen are familiar with today -- awareness, reach, and power -- to draw conclusions about their usefulness to airmen in the world envisioned in 2025. The ten capabilities and six high-leverage technologies listed below emerged from this analysis as the best investments to ensure the United States continued air and space dominance in the future.

LINK


Yet, nowhere does it say that it is an expose of current technology, quite the opposite, they were envisioning a future then 30 years ahead. And they used people from ROTC cadets to business leaders.

More to come...



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

You did not read the much about the system. It states that it appears 3D.

Also as stated this is just a simple civilan system, imagine what the military could produce.


Uh..the statement is that it "appears 3D because there is no depth reference", not that it is a 3D display. Which it is not. It is a simple rear projection system (which they also say) and that it projects onto "transformed air", which is air with water added using a fogger.

They also say you can't use it unless it's in dead air, and even then it will appear "wavery".



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   
More context from 2025:



Disclaimer

2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.

This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared for public release.

Link



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Yet, nowhere does it say that it is an expose of current technology, quite the opposite, they were envisioning a future then 30 years ahead. And they used people from ROTC cadets to business leaders.

More to come...


But this report was commissioned in 1995, and technology has come a long way since this paper was written. Have you ever looked at some of the projects DARPA has been working on ?



Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
They also say you can't use it unless it's in dead air, and even then it will appear "wavery".


Yes, and as stated imagine what the military has if this system is on the market.


[edit on 30-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


What I imagine is that this system isn't anything special, and that its technology is not holographic in any way, could not be used in the thread's context, and that it has no bearing on the discussion.

It's like pointing at my monitor and saying "Look - that thing makes pictures - if it can do that on my desk top, imagine what the military can do now!"

That is what's called a non-sequitur, basically. You're making an example of something non-applicable.

I mean, I can imagine that the military has invisible elephants that can fly by flapping their ears. And that these elephants grasped sheets of Eyeliner in their trunks, and flew down the streets of New York, while another invisible elephant flying in formation projected an image on the Eyeliner with an invisible DLP projector.

That would be something I could imagine, but it probably isn't true.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
From the executive summary, which you guys really should take the time to read if you're going to quote 2025:



What We Did And Why

Long range planning does not deal with future decisions,
but with the future of present decisions.
—Peter Drucker

We conducted a year-long study at Air University during 1995-96 to answer the question: What capabilities should the USAF have in 2025 to help defend the nation? The 2025 effort was begun at the direction of the chief of staff of the US Air Force, Gen Ronald R. Fogleman. His charge was to “generate ideas and concepts on the capabilities the United States will require to possess the dominant air and space force in the future.” Ultimately, the study involved the following:

· More than 200 participants,students and faculty from the Air
Command and Staff College and Air War College and a support staff
at Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base (AFB), Alabama;

· Fifteen scientists and technologists who formed an operations analysis
team at the Air Force Institute of Technology at Wright Patterson
AFB, Ohio;

· Cadets at the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs and at
AFROTC detachments nationwide;

· More than 70 guest speakers, including Alvin Toffler, Adm William
Owens, Kevin Kelly, Andrew Marshall, Dennis Meadows, Martin van
Creveld, and Fritz Ermath among a host of others, including experts on
creativity and critical thinking; science fiction writers and movie
producers;
scientists discussing swarming insects, communication
capabilities, advances in energy; experts in propulsion systems;
military historians; international relations specialists, and others;

· Groups of outside advisors and assessors, both military and civilian,
who sought to evaluate the concepts as they were developed and
refined;

· A survey of retired general officers asking for their insights and
opinions; and

· More than 2,000 contributors from around the world who participated
as contributors to web sites and internet dialogues



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
What I imagine is that this system isn't anything special, and that its technology is not holographic in any way, could not be used in the thread's context, and that it has no bearing on the discussion.


I suggest you go check out DARPA and other DoD research and see some of unclassified programs they are working on. Just imagine what classified programs they are working on.

www.darpa.mil...

[edit on 30-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
And the preface to the chapter with the "holographic projector":



Ultimately, the test of national defense is the ability to apply military force unilaterally in support of the national interest. The array of power at the nation’s disposal in support of its interests is crucial to national security. The power that the USAF can employ—both lethal and nonlethal—in the worlds of 2025 is critical to the nation’s ability to survive and prosper in a complex, interdependent, constantly changing security environment. That power has many different dimensions—tactical and strategic, conventional and nuclear, informational, and chemical or biological. The nature of the force available in 2025 will determine the effectiveness of the power of the United States in 2025. Hence, force structure decisions made now are crucial to the strategic environment of the future.

But power, the application of force, the utilization of military capabilities, is only an instrumental goal. What we really seek is influence, the ability to produce effects on others, directly or indirectly. We want to change another’s perceptions, cost benefit calculations, and action or inaction in accord with our desires. We seek to influence people to make certain choices. The use of power in the application of force is merely one way to do this. Having the power, the force, to compel is a means to deter. We don’t use power directly, but we have it and our possession of certain systems and capabilities may indirectly cause an adversary to change his mind on a course of action. What we seek is less global power than global influence. In Douhet’s terms, we seek to destroy the enemy’s will to resist. That may be done by destroying his capability to resist. But it need not be. All we need do is influence his decision processes.

The papers in this volume investigate numerous systems, technologies, and concepts of operations by which the United States may maintain or increase its technological superiority to leverage asymmetrical advantage in conflict with nearly any adversary to preserve American security in the twenty-first century. Some of these notions may seem rather outlandish and more akin to science fiction than serious military planning. But one must remember that the technology of the future may verge on the incomprehensible. Any technology forecast 30 years hence which does not seem like magic is probably flawed.


The stuff in Volume 3 where the holographic projector is discussed are pretty much wild-ass guesses, as stated.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Okay, I am getting the same thing happen that nightsider2007 alluded to in pg 9 of this.
Its when I hit page "9" in the thread, I get this connection message warning from my Browser (FIREFOX),

www.maxwell.af.mil is the place that is trying to connect...

Anyone know anything on this??



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Some of them I DO work on.

Nonetheless, it's not logical to say "Wow, look at all this stuff I don't understand, therefore, anything that pops into my mind must exist"

If you could post links to any DARPA solution that shows how to get past even the first problem, how to get the air to emit light, and how that is tied to a holographic display of some sort, then it's relevant. If it's just "Wow, look at this neat stuff, what I think of MUST be true!" then I don't think it's a reasonable statement.

Once you get past "how do I get the first pixels in free air in the lab with no fog/mist/film/aerogel" then you've got all the other issues, there's lots.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


Oh, don't worry about that. MAFB's security certificate has changed or expired, so when it tries to put your browser into HTTPS: mode, your browser asks if you want to accept an incorrect certificate. Isn't that what you're seeing?

I should drop a line to their webmaster.



For the interested, some copies of the 2025 document are really screwed up on MAFB as I said, it's scattered around and some of it's gone, some of the links are bad, and you have to get pieces of it from Air University's separate server, CSAT.

A better source for all the bits and pieces (although I still don't think the links inside the documents work) is here.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 



thanks for that, I was wondering since it kept appearing on pg-9 of the thread.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


There's some content there hotlinked from MAFB - maybe that illustration in Zorgon's post? I think I saw some on earlier pages too. But that's it.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join