Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The John Lear Hologram Challenge

page: 17
6
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Allow me to spruce it back up with the final blow to the No Planes Religion.



Maybe I'll be penalised but, yessss!




posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by sr71b
Do you want to compare al with Ti? I have some aluminum honeycomb you can have, now that is cool stuff.


Oh yes that would be great... isn't that what the Russians used on their Shuttle? A small piece would do,
(The Titanium is 1/4 inch thick... we got it to make swords, but its not easy to cut
)




posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by sr71b
Do you want to compare al with Ti? I have some aluminum honeycomb you can have, now that is cool stuff.


Oh yes that would be great... isn't that what the Russians used on their Shuttle? A small piece would do,
(The Titanium is 1/4 inch thick... we got it to make swords, but its not easy to cut
)


But using Titanium in swords is completely self defeating. For swords etc, steel is far far superior.

swordforum.com...



[edit on 13/10/07 by Chorlton]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Hello,

It seems we've gone off-topic, chatting about swords and Titanium?

Wanted to direct readers to the website 'Aviation Safety Network'.

Nutshell: The B767 was/is offered with two engine options: The GE CF6 and the PWJT9D. The B757 is powered by either the PW2037 or the RB (Rolls Royce)RB211. AA operates the GE engines on the B767 and both the RB and PW engines on the B757. (AA77 ws equipped with the RBs).

UA is PW exclusive on their Boeing fleet. I didn't look it up, but guess they bought the Rolls Royce engines on the Airbuses.

These facts are pointed out to 'enhance' John Lear's earlier confusion re: which brand of engine cores were found in the wreckage sites. (9/27/2007) and (9/29/2007) postings.

Please remember---

0846EDT: AA11 B767-223 N334AA Impact, no survivors
0903EDT: UA175 B767-222 N612UA Impact, no survivors
0940EDT: AA77 B757-223 N644AA Impact, no survivors
1003EDT: UA93 B757-222 N591UA Impact, no survivors

I was in my home in Arlington, suburb of DC, that day. The Pentagon is a few miles away. At almost 10AM I felt the house shake. That was, we learned, the seismic effect of the upper floors of the Pentagon collapsing. I have a friend who saw AA77 fly low along Columbia Pike (a street in Virginia) past his 6th floor apartment balcony _

goto: aviation-safety(dot)net or simply Google, or Ask, or use whatever Search Engine you prefer....



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Well, I take it the No Planers aren't going to address my last post, which basically destroys the No Planes Myth?

Where are you John? Your posts are always appreciated



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Yeah, we're wainting for the attempted explanation how your theory works John. Is it close to being ready? I've posted a link in the "other thread", you know the one that got the ball rolling, it's a recent application for a patent on a new holographic device. Have you looked at it?

[edit on 10/14/2007 by infinityoreilly]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Originally posted by weedwhacker





UA is PW exclusive on their Boeing fleet. I didn't look it up, but guess they bought the Rolls Royce engines on the Airbuses.

These facts are pointed out to 'enhance' John Lear's earlier confusion re: which brand of engine cores were found in the wreckage sites. (9/27/2007) and (9/29/2007) postings.



Thanks for your help weedwhacker. I thought that the engine found in the street was identified as a CFM56. Could you help me with this?

I have been busy the past few days with a brand new grand daughter (my third grandchild). Zoe is her name and she is 2 days old today. I couldn't believe it but her first words were, "Holographs are real grampa." What a kid.



Please remember---

0846EDT: AA11 B767-223 N334AA Impact, no survivors
0903EDT: UA175 B767-222 N612UA Impact, no survivors
0940EDT: AA77 B757-223 N644AA Impact, no survivors
1003EDT: UA93 B757-222 N591UA Impact, no survivors


I would respectfully remind you that there have been no accident reports released by the NTSB on these planes and the reason is that there is no accident to investigate. NTSB only investigates airplane crashes that have really occurred. They don't investigate PsyOps.


Hey did you ever find you Scenic Airlines seniority number?



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   
There was no NTSB accident report for the simple reason that 9-11 was not an accident.

Thank you for posting, John.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Originally posted by Tuning Spork




There was no NTSB accident report for the simple reason that 9-11 was not an accident.
Thank you for posting, John.



Federal regulations require operators to notify the NTSB immediately of aviation accidents and certain incidents. An accident is defined as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft that takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. An incident is an occurrence other than an accident that affects or could affect the safety of operations. (See 49 CFR 830.)



Thanks for your post Tuning Spork, it is greatly appreciated.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   
You old dog, you.

I'll respond once I've had a good night's sleep.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
It's frustrating to come to the realization that we'll never know the truth about 9/11. With all the information and disinformation, how can we come to any conclusion? There is proof of this on that video and then that video get disproved by the other video. What are we to believe about what happened?
There is still a glimmer of hope. We need to forget about how it happened and focus on why and who gained from it.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by corusso
 


"Follow the cash" is the technique you refer to.

Except i don't think you would want to follow the cash. You likely will want to find other benefits. Occams Razor will keep pushing you towards the terrorists....but there is still that nagging pile of anomolous evidence that makes you wonder.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Attention: Anybody reading or posting on this thread who thinks a Boeing 767 crashed into the World Trade Center on 911 is urgently invited to contact the following defendants in the lawsuit FILED UNDER SEAL QUI TAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND
DOCKET NO. May 31, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK:



SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.;
APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.;
BOEING; NuSTATS; COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.;
DATASOURCE, INC.; GEOSTAATS, INC.;
GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP;
HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.; AJMAL ABBASI;
EDUARDO KAUSEL; DAVID PARKS;
DAVID SHARP; DANIELE VENEZANO;
JOSEF VAN DYCK; KASPAR WILLIAM;
ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC;
ROSENWASSER/GROSSMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C.;
SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & :HEGER, INC.;
S. K. GHOSH ASSOCIATES, INC.;
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL, LLP;
TENG & ASSOCIATES, INC.;
UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.;
WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC.;
AMERICAN AIRLINES; SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES;
and UNITED AIRLINES,

These guys are getting sued by Morgan Reynolds in New York District Court. (FILED UNDER SEAL QUI TAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND DOCKET NO. May 31, 2007). Morgan Reynolds says there were no planes. He's a 'no planer'. The difference between Morgan Reynolds and the rest of us 'no planers' is Morgan Reynolds is putting his money where his mouth is.

So what I am saying here is if you think an airplane crashed into the WTC towers you need to call these guys up and say, "Hey! A Boeing 767 crashed into the World Trade Center towers and I can prove it!"

Believe me these guys will welcome you with open arms because right now they are hurting pretty bad.

You know why?

Ever heard of Rule 11?

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules For Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts (amendments received to February 10, 2006) states that Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and other papers; Representations to Court, Sanctions, specifically states in (a)(3)” The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery”.

I point this out because the Court, under Rule 11 (c) Sanctions, can “If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.

These sanction include (Rule 11 (1)(A) (excerpt) “If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees”.

What this means, of course, is that if Morgan Reynolds and his attorney Jerry V. Leaphart & Associates., P.P. can’t prove their allegations against:

Science Applications International Corp.
Applied Research Associates, Inc. Boeing; NuStates; Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc.
Datasource, Inc.; Geostats, Inc.;
Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP;
Hughes Associates, Inc.; Ajmal Abbasi;
Eduardo Kausel; David Parks;
David Sharp; Daniel Venezana;
Josef Van Dyck; Kaspar William;
Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.
Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers, P.C.;
Simpson Gumpertz & :Heger, Inc.;
S.K.Ghosh Associates, Inc.;
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP.
Teng & Associates, Inc.;
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.;
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.;
American Airlines; Silverstein Properties;
And United Airlines,

they are going to owe the above defendants a substantial amount of money in addition to which the Court may impose (Rule 11, (2) (excerpt) “directives of a non monetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all the reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.

So, I would respectfully and urgently suggest that if you have any information that would help the Court decide the truthfulness of the allegations, specifically any proof that a Boeing 767 actually crashed into the World Trade Center I would strongly recommend that you contact the defendants. I think you can get some big bucks for your testimony and your evidence if any. I don’t think uninformed speculation will be allowed.

I will not ask for a finders fee.



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Hello

I have stumbled over this site/thread and while I do not agree with many things Mr.Lear has written here or on his site (Which I have checked out), I feel obligated to add something of maybe "some" importance.

How many here have actually witnessed a hologram or seen a holographic projector? Not many I assume, I have not.

I work in the IT, in the last 4 years I have worked with US manufactured host servers. The latest one's performance is so high that right now its hard to tell customers what kind of net gain they will get. What I do know though is that this hardware sold in 2007 has been out there 10 years ago.

What I want to say with this simple example, the technology shown in public right now is actually old, if not dated.

Let's go back to my story and hologram projectors. In 1994 my "best" buddy back then was heavily into 3D animation. He lived in a commune with 4 other guys that shared his semi-professional hobby. One day he told me they applied in a contest for 3D animated intros. The contest was hosted by one of the biggest tabaco companies of this planet.

By chance, they made it into the top 3. My friend was then invited to their european HQ. And now comes the interesting part.

After a lunch and getting to know each other one of the project leaders asked him if he want to see something intersting. They planned to use the 3D animation in connection to this. So he said "Yea sure" and was led into a rather large room. In the middle of the room was some kind of device. I do not recall exactly the description of it. Then came the demonstration.

They projected his teams 3D intro into the room, in 3D. A perfect hologram. Since they had all the data from the team this was possible (Afterall the intro itself would just have been a 2D rendered movie). Needles to say he was totaly flabbergasted. Star Wars Chess meets reality.

Mind you that was in 1994, we were 18 back then. When he told me he was very exited and I replyed with a simple "cool".

I have never actually thought about this event till I read this many threads here, and I felt I need to tell people of this. That company was not a military contractor nor were/are they a technology company. They probably have lent that thing out from someone.

And now back to my intro of this post. If they had such a "simple"- low-end machine in 1994, they were using technology of 1984 if not older. And not even the top notch edition.

I do not want to say I believe in the no plane theory. I believe that 2 planes crashed into the twin towers. But holograms are a reality of the past. At what technological level they are right now I can not tell.

Good luck

Edit: I forgot something to add. He was a very good friend of mine back from childhood. If he would have been bs'ing me or lying I would have smelled it from a mile away. But I knew about the contest and their hardwork.

I try hard right now to remember the size, it was not small and not men size at the same time. I "assume" it must have been 3-4 feet in size. He didn't tell me of hardcore mainframes standing in the room or any kind of large devices. They were not wearing any googles. It was a realtime projection into the middle of the room, 3 dimensional. I do not remmeber him saying if it was colored or not. The intro data was "in color".

They didn't win, the rights for the intro they had given to that company. They never were told who won nor have they seen the winners "movie". Back then he shrugged it off as bad luck...

[edit on 17-10-2007 by allmight]



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by allmight
How many here have actually witnessed a hologram or seen a holographic projector? Not many I assume, I have not.


Well this sounds like a good cue for me


I have... many of them My first ones were back in 72 at Disney in Orlando... the "Haunted House"

But now I want to show you a little video... I would say "State of the Art" but hey even this guy says they developed it 15 years ago...

Its a Windows media clip 8 minutes long

Oh and this is not Military... just the kind of stuff you see at Las Vegas conventions...

Enjoy...

holophile.com...

Oh almost forgot... wouldn't want someone to say "Yeah but... they are onlt 12 inches tall!..."



Using sets starting from just 2m 2 sized cubes, projected images range in size from 50cm square, up to a massive 20m x 100m. Content can be live or virtual humans, animations (cartoon or computer generated), full sized trucks or automobiles, landscape, property or scenery, even machinery, pharmaceuticals and electronic components and appliances.


www.dimensionalstudios.com...

I wonder... you guys DO know how to use google huh?



And as I said this is the cheap stuff

[edit on 17-10-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   
"They were only twelve inches tall"...

reminds me of a joke about the twelve-inch pianist - oh, nevermind, Krusty the Klown is funnier than I'll ever be...



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Just a quick question. Do the holograms include audio too? Is it like the 'Holodeck' on Star Trek: The Next Generation?



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Clicked on your link, vorgon. Did I see it correctly? Seems the hologram needs to be in a set, or stage setting? Correct me if I'm wrong please.

Thank you for your post, your contribution is appreciated.

(smiley face).



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 01:51 AM
link   
OOPS...sorry...zorgon, not vorgon. I'm still having trouble learning all the off-world species' names. NO offense intended.

Actually the Vorgons are not to be trifled with, from what
I've been told. Wouldn't want to come across one in a dark alley...



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by allmight
How many here have actually witnessed a hologram or seen a holographic projector? Not many I assume, I have not.


Well this sounds like a good cue for me


I have... many of them


Or maybe not
, because this ...

My first ones were back in 72 at Disney in Orlando... the "Haunted House"

... isn't a "holographic projection" at all! It's an old illusion named "Pepper's Ghost":

en.wikipedia.org...

Regards
yf






top topics



 
6
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join