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: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Dierbeck Solves 'Space Beam' And 'No Plane' 911 Disinfo:

www.rense.com...

I personally dont buy into the hologram theory, but I thought I'd share this article that supposedly debunks it.




posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Projection of holographic images is a long-sought technology. I have seen research and design requests from everyone you might imagine would want it, since before 2025.

Heck, I even worked as a pup on a somewhat loosely related project. In the beginning, everyone and his dog bid these things, but although they're still fired across our bows every quarter, no one seems to be winning anymore, probably due to the new requirements that you have some approach that hasn't failed so far. The kicker in the late 90's/early 2000's was that you just couldn't DO it. No one was able to do images. The other part of the request - sound that appeared to come from the image - was in fact achieved but not the way that people thought it would be. It was a failure in one sense due to some overly dramatic side effects, but in another sense they really added to the effect if you didn't have the images. That one was developed into a psyops device and a very few field units were built, demonstrated, and shelved. The last I knew of them, they were in Stuttgart but that was over 15 years ago.

The 2025 appendix that keeps being posted was obviously nothing more than a wish list. At one time I found out where that one came from, if you look at the external speaker list for the development of 2025, I think you'll find either Lucas or Spielberg on there, it's been a long time since I bothered. But they were inviting anyone and everyone to present ideas from Hollywood writers and producers to physicists.

However, it was a line item that really piqued everyone's interest. How could it not? The trick lies in actually doing it, at least in the way the bid requires it for field use.

First, what actually IS a hologram. A real hologram is made by recording the interference patterns made by a coherent reference beam and the reflections of that beam from an image target. One then reproduces the original image by mixing this interference pattern and a beam of coherent light (a laser, usually). You can synthesize the interference patterns - I've worked on other projects where we calculated lens systems' holographic equivalents and then created them in real time inside a holographic refraction system. A holographic lens works as well as a "real" one, with some limitations which didn't affect us at all in this application. But in every case, you have to have this pattern and a source of coherent light, and you're looking through the interference pattern to get there. In real holograms (and by that I mean something you can make in a lab, not movie CGI or faux holograms), you always view the thing by looking through the pattern you recorded the image on. That means you are looking at the image through a piece of film or glass, which won't work for this application.

Now, there are a lot of marketing wonks calling any 3D or projected image a "hologram", among these would be that crap done by Musion called Eyeliner, which you occasionally see used in concerts. That is not a hologram, despite their calling it one. Unfortunately, once Lucas used a "hologram" on Star Wars (not one), any goob writing copy about a projection system felt obliged to call his fog projector or Peppers Ghost setup a 'hologram'; for the most part they are not. If it does not have a source of coherent light to illuminate it and an interference pattern, it is not a hologram, and you're seeing ad copy written by a technical imbecile.

The bid requirements for a system like this generally include some real show-stoppers, including line obscuration, background obscuration, accurate color, accurate "walk around" perspective, accuracy from any POV, and immunity to adverse weather. And obviously, you can't have it in a "box" or require a film substrate or giant block of aerogel be suspended on the battlefield - it has to be free standing and "spontaneous".

All of these are spectacularly difficult or impossible to overcome. Might as well toss in the requirements for specular reflections and/or context appropriate lighting.

First and foremost problem to be resolved: other than dust and moisture in the air, light passing through air doesn't "glow". You get some scattering of light due to impurities in the air, but those don't typically amount to much. So even if you "projected" an image onto air, you won't see it. Experiment: get a laser pointer, go into a totally dark room and shine it. Do you see the beam? I'm not talking about the place it hits, I mean the beam itself, in free air. No, you don't. That's the very first problem. How do you "paint an image on air", when air doesn't "light up" from light passing through it?

That, by the way, is why the free-floating image systems like Heliodisplay use fog or mist. You can light up fog. Air, not so well. Well, that is unless you really don't WANT it to, then you have it as an issue, generally if you are trying to do this in rain or fog, which fall under the "inclement weather conditions" requirement.

There's a lot to it, at the risk of being overly wordy. If you want more, I remember most of the issues.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam




The 2025 appendix that keeps being posted was obviously nothing more than a wish list. At one time I found out where that one came from, if you look at the external speaker list for the development of 2025, I think you'll find either Lucas or Spielberg on there, it's been a long time since I bothered. But they were inviting anyone and everyone to present ideas from Hollywood writers and producers to physicists.


Hello Tom, thanks for your input. It is always greatly appreciated.

First of all I'd like to ask you if you've been read in on any holograph projects in the past 10 years?

Second, would it be correct to say that what you know about holographs is not based on any classified information regarding holographs you have received within the past 10 years?

Third, you say in the above post that "The 2025 appendix that keeps being posted was obviously nothing more than a wish list. At one time I found out where that one came from, if you look at the external speaker list for the development of 2025, I think you'll find either Lucas or Spielberg on there, it's been a long time since I bothered.

First, let me say that that is my “2025 appendix” as you call it, I was the one who retrieved it, I was the one who initially posted it last year and I know where I got it and it wasn’t from Spielberg, Lucas. Sleeper or Zeta Talk. I know where I got it and it is not a “wish list”.

What I am interested in here is the sentence “if you look at the external speaker list for the development of 2025, I think you'll find either Lucas or Spielberg on there.”

My questions are:
1. Where is the external speakers list and,
2. Are you saying Lucas and Spielberg are advising the Pentagon in some fashion?


Many thanks for your input, it is greatly appreciated.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 


Thanks Bedlam, you've helped color in some of aspects of my first question "how is the light reflected back to the eye?". This is one of the big hurdles for the hologram crew, clear day in september. Everything seems crisper on an early september moring thats clear(just my opinion, not fact). It would take a special machine to pull this off, a way special machine.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
First of all I'd like to ask you if you've been read in on any holograph projects in the past 10 years?


Your first and second questions are what we call a self-defeating criterion. If it were in the past ten years, I'd dodge the question, or lie.

Still, the laws of physics are always discussable, as long as it's not something They® don't want you to (what was the phrase?) "connect the dots" for.

And in this case, you'd have to have air emitting light, in order to have an image appear in thin air. That is a big big issue. Not the only one, either, but it's certainly first principle.



First, let me say that that is my “2025 appendix” as you call it, I was the one who retrieved it...My questions are...


It has been generally available from Maxwell AFB since it was released as a draft, which has been quite some time back. Somewhere in the Maxwell AFB server, there is a list of the guest speakers. As I said, I was very curious as to whom they had invited years back, and at that time I found it, and on the list were several well-known Hollywood writers/directors. It is my recollection that it was either Spielberg or Lucas. 2025 was supposed to be a futuristic view of what might be true.

To that end, they invited engineers, physicists, science fiction writers and various Hollywood types. I recall being a bit surprised at first but, after I thought about it, they occasionally do come up with some damn good ideas amongst the trash. I'm surprised that they don't hire Niven, for example.

Hm. Well, there is Skunk, too. I assume you've heard of Steely Dan?


edit: Before I stick my foot in it, the files used to be on the MAFB servers in toto. Lately, it looks like someone reorganized and didn't do too good of a job, they're all over several directories and you really have to look to find anything. It may be gone by now. It would require digging it out again, if it's still there.

[edit on 29-9-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   


So here we have one page of a manual that had many different weapon systems and concepts.

These concepts came from either George Lucas or Steven Spielberg who came to Maxwell Air Force Base to speak about the future of weaponry.

Someone transcribed their speech, someone wrote down the speakers ideas, then someone else illustrated the concepts, and then someone catalogued their ideas and then made a manual that was, at least up until recently available on the Maxwell AFB servers.

Have I got this correct Tom?

Thank for straightening this thing out. You would have thought the military could have come up with their own ideas.

At least the military would have come up with something half way plausible instead of some nut house idea about holographs. :



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
As usual, you have to peg it all the way to the rail, John. You know that's not what I said, but you've got to run it through with the gain at "11".

I think I made it clear - if you need a recap:

It's been available on MAFB for quite some time.

It was a fairly long project. A LOT of people contributed to it. That ranged from AF ROTC cadets at the AF Academy in C Springs to Air University at Maxwell. It was primarily an Air University project, I believe.

As part of the project, they invited guest speakers from various industries who were thought to be technical visionaries. Some of these included science fiction writers and movie writers/directors who had made AF/space related movies, as well as CEOs and well-known physicists and engineers.

Some or all of this is still on MAFB's servers last time I looked. At some point the entire thing was moved around between directories on the server and it's a muddle - a lot of the in-page links are now broken. In some places the first and final drafts seem to be mixed up.

At one time, they had a list of the guests that had been invited. That may still be there, I haven't looked for quite a while.

There, does that help? There's a very in-depth precis that will tell you the history of how 2025 came to be written, I bet I can find it on the server for you.

At any rate, to continue a previous comment, you DO know that Skunk Baxter, former guitarist for Steely Dan, is a Real Big Deal in the DoD? He may occasionally still toss off compositions (like the theme from "King of the Hill" oddly enough) but he's got more clearances than you and I put together. He specializes in the design of nuclear war games, but he's also got near carte blanche at NGIA and MDA, as well as Space Command. So it's not like it's unheard of.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   
As i have already posted the 2025 report was commissioned by then Chief of Staff Geeral Ron Fogleman in 1995.

" Sceenless holographic projection is being studied as an entertainment technology by a number of companies, and the idea of a mid-air holographic projection was cited in the USAF Air University's Air Force 2025 report, commissioned by then-Chief of Staff Gen. Ron Fogleman in 1995. The report suggested that a hologram could be projected far enough from its source to create a virtual decoy, a visable but non-existent target. "



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


However, your quote doesn't address who wrote it, what the mission was, who contributed to it, what the intent was and so on.

IIRC, there's actually more than one summary, there's an executive summary and a much more detailed one. I guess the executives don't have much of an attention span.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaleGribble

they didn't give them up they sent them to live with the greys. its the only way they could hid that many people disappearing.


Now THAT is an interesting thought!!! So That's how they recruit for those mines on the moon... what an interesting notion




I have only two questions...

As to the missing wreckage how do you completely vaporize an airplane, especially those parts John listed and yet a Passport survived completely intact


Every airplane crash ever is painstakingly reassembled and they go out of their way to find every little scrap...

Had they done this at The WTC or the Pentagon or with flight 93 there would have been no question at all about there being a plane... and there would have been no conspiracy

So can someone please tell me WHY THEY DID NOT DO THIS...



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Every airplane crash ever is painstakingly reassembled and they go out of their way to find every little scrap...

Had they done this at The WTC or the Pentagon or with flight 93 there would have been no question at all about there being a plane... and there would have been no conspiracy

So can someone please tell me WHY THEY DID NOT DO THIS...



Yes, you would have thought this would have been done seeing this was supposed the be the biggest terrorist attack in recent history.

There are several questions. Like why the FBI only spent 5 days on the crime scene at the Pentagon after they stated it would take 30 just to name 1.

[edit on 29-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Well, I think it all goes back to the black boxes. If they started reassembling the aircraft, eventually there would be some very problematic questions about what happened to the black boxes. If you will recall, a first responder testified that the FBI took them, the FBI says "we've never seen them!" I believe that the black boxes have been "vanished" somehow, because if they were available, the official story would be shown to be irrefutably false.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As far as the energy weapon i have seen a report of a Russian airborne laser aircraft that was missing for quit a while around 9/11.


That's a report I would like to see... any more data so I can find it?



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

Originally posted by zorgon
That's a report I would like to see... any more data so I can find it?


Sorry but most of that information is classified right now. But i am sure you could find some basic information on the Russian airborne laser programs and their aircraft.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Did anyone here on ats actually see the planes hit the towers? Does anyone know anyone who did? And I dont mean just reading eye witness accounts, I mean actually talking to the people that saw it happen?


Nope not one.. but I have talked with a FEMA worker who says the reason so many firefighters lost their lives was because their radios were not on the same frequency and they did not hear a call to get out of there... something covered later in their CIA briefing...

I also recall that this radio problem made the news and they said they needed to get new radios so 'everyone is on the same page'

Problem is I can not find this report anymore... if anyone has seen this one please pass it on Thanks


I have also talked to a friend who is a mechanic on those "white unmarked jets" that have standing orders to shoot down commercial liners 'if the need arises'. One thing he told me is that the order to scramble is usually given after the plane is 'off the scope' for 9.8 minutes...


Perhaps someone in the military can confirm this? One of these 'white planes' was seen by an eyewitness taking down Flight 93... but hey what good are eyewitnesses as we never saw THAT wreck put together either



Anyone know what happened to the indestructable black boxes?




What about all the families of the dead? Has their backgrounds been checked? Has it been proved without doubt that their loved ones died on the planes that day?


Good question... Follow the money... the red cross collected millions for these families... did this money actually get to them?



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Sorry but most of that information is classified right now. But i am sure you could find some basic information on the Russian airborne laser programs and their aircraft.


Don't give me that 'sorry it's classified' crap


Just U@U me and I will take my chances....


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...



5.6 Airborne Holographic Projector

Brief Description

The holographic projector displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.



Capabilities

* Precision projection of 3-D visual images into a selected area
* Supports PSYOP and strategic deception management
* Provides deception and cloaking against optical sensors

Enabling Technologies (MCTL)

* 4.1.4, Image Processing (holographic displays)
* 10.1, Lasers
* 10.2, Optics
* 10.3, Power Systems

White Papers

* Q, Special & Humanitarian Operations
* N, Strategic Attack


Now I will post this warning... I have said in many threads that some stuff while available on the 'public internet' is still sensitive...

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...

www.maxwell.af.mil...


Yup that is the new home of that page John had....

Enjoy

[edit on 29-9-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 05:03 AM
link   
ok, a very weird thing happened right now! i was trying to open this thread, and i got a message "security error: domain name mismatch", and in the message it says "it is possible, though unlikely, that someone may be trying to intercept your communication with this web site."

and the website mentioned is: "www.maxwell.af.mil", which is obviously a military site.

i made a screenshot of it, here


maybe it has to do something with the image that john lear posted earlier, because i noticed that theres a url on it, which also has the "af.mil" domain name...

i dont know... never got that kind of message before...

[edit on 30-9-2007 by nightsider2007]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Don't give me that 'sorry it's classified' crap



Well sorry but some things i research are classified since i am a data analyst for the government.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Building 7's collapse, which is most likely the case?

a) The terrorist did not target it, hence no plane to crash into it.

b) The government's hologram machine failed or ran out of power and they abandon the plan to attack the buliding directly.

________________________

I would say that A was most likly the answer, because if it was B, they would have thought of a back up plan, if and when their hologram machine fails.

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

They must have had alot of faith in their hologram machine.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:50 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'



5.6 Airborne Holographic Projector

Brief Description

The holographic projector displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.




[edit on 29-9-2007 by zorgon]


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?

Also are you and John saying in a round about way that New Yorkers are an unsophisticated adversary?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join