The Hologram Theory is dead

page: 62
16
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Happy to point out that live video fakery is too easy:

Amazing Video overlay technology.

Just food for thought, not an opinion either way...




posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   


but i guess even a blind dog can lick his genetelias ,

the blind dog being the ppl of the Us and genetalias the goverment ,

all this talk of land of free and the brave is more or less just propaganda bs ,

sorry for takin a piss out o you ppl who dont realize that it was an inside job,


I fail to see how dismissing the hologram theory supports the official story. Just because some disagree with certain theories doesn't mean they've sided with the official story, just that they don't support YOUR idea.

So is that how it goes here? We're either with you, or with the terrorists? Can I write you a letter at 1600 Penn? Or should I forward it to my congressman?

I'm really not a fan of the infighting, and moreso am not a fan of the namecalling and dismissal of one another's theories. This is but one specific example of what I see a lot of, not just here, but EVERYWHERE. "If you don't agree with me, you're with THEM". Isn't this precisely what "They" want us doing? Fighting amongst ourselves, squabbling over nitpicking and ignoring larger issues that can be jointly resolved?

I think the most dissapointing aspect is how quickly it all degrades into name calling. Quite sad, really.

Oh, and just for the record, the ultimate nail in the hologram theory coffin is simple.

Why did they not also holographically fake the pentagon strike? Why after 5+ years have we not even one single somewhat recognizable photograph or footage of ANYTHING resembling a plane anywhere NEAR the pentagon (aside from aftermath debris, that is inconsistent with the plane claimed to have struck it). They can spend tons of time, effort and money holographically destroying two tower in front of millions of onlookers (live and via television) but in 5 years can't fake even ONE somewhat convincing frame of footage from the pentagon? Did their special effects department go over budget or something?


[edit on 3-1-2008 by LeeHarvey]



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Had another thought.. why not video/photo edit all the "physical" evidence to match the holographic planes as well.. why leave so many things to question when you're fabricating the whole event. It's not just a small trivial continuity slip-up, its a fullscale b-grade horror flick going on as it stands. I think someone should put together a blooper reel!



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I remember one time i seen on google video/ youtube a reflection of what seemed to be an aeroplane hitting a building or tower in the back window of a car that was parked metres away from the building itself but their was no actual plane in the sky?
i couldnt be certain where i found this video i think it was on youtube or google video, i would be greatful though if anyone has or found this video and could i would be greatful if it could be posted?
seeing this evidence i do support the theory of a hologram being used, but i always say that iam never right and im always hoping to be proved wrong as the idea of someone doing this to cover up a greater evil scares the hell out of me.

keeping the faith
TheSkepticSway



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Hey John, I just wanted to know where you got you Hologram theory from. Did you make it up, did some one tell you, ....what?

Just wondering, cuz it's seems like quite a strange theory to make up. I would have never looked at the planes crashing into the WTC's and go "Hologram!,...that's a hologram!".

I'm not saying it's not possible, just wondering how you came to that conclustion is all.


You'll have to excuse me, if you posted saying the answer to my questions in another page in this topic or another thread, sorry. I don't feel like going through 60+ pages of text.


Thanks in advance.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by Johnny Sasaki]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Nothing you’re saying is weakening the hologram theory.


Why don't you just stand in the middle of a big river in Egypt somewhere else? The pwnag3 is getting extreme. Seriously- the hologram theory is disinformation, the people promulgating it are disinformation agents of deception and the people following their lead and adhering to it are unglued.

I used to blow stuff up for a living amongst other useful social skills and nothing about the hologram theory - or for that matter the equally nosebleedingly insane H-Bomb theory and the barely better DEW theory- make a lick of real sense.

They are distractions and are insulting not only to the intelligence but to the memory of the victims of the terrorists (domestic and foreign).



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
The whole hologram idea is a complete joke. It's simply not technologically possible. It should be apparent that this idea is dead as even the FEW people who actually believe it are refusing to post evidence to back up their statements. Of course they can't post evidence as there is none



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Whenever I see a discussion containing same person multiple, adamant responses of the impossibility of hologram use on 9/11/2001, I have to wonder this. Exactly, who are those same people attempting to convince of unproved impossiblity? Others, themselves, or both?



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DogHead
I used to blow stuff up for a living amongst other useful social skills...


Ah, it seems the ‘intellectual elite’ has returned.

It’s dandy that you used to blow stuff up for a living. Then — unless you were a complete hack — you will understand that it took a lot of explosive power to make dust out of WTC-1, 2, 6 and 7. Just to turn the concrete into powder, the equivalent of 12,350 tons of TNT were necessary — PER TOWER.

Where exactly DO YOU — with all your insights and expertise — suggest the energy came from to take out the WTC complex?

And, how do you explain that NOT A SINGLE PLANE PART relating to AA11, UA175, AA77, UA93 was ever found? Holograms might seem ‘unglued’ to your royal highness, but thus far, short of calling people liars, THEY’RE THE ONLY EXPLANATION for NYC eyewitness accounts!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 2/5/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
There might be more believers if some problems can be shown to have been overcome. Like using light beams to create a life-size opaque 3D image of a large aircraft in motion in full spectrum colour that's darker than the background it's projected on (daylight sky) complete with realistic surround sound and all this without giving away the source of the sound, projection or even the projection screen itself. This technology needs to be impervious to airborn material as well.

Show me that technology working and I'll believe it.

Real planes are plentiful and perfect for achieving the desired effects.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


If only you would apply your ‘strict standards’ of proof to the real planes were used on 9-11 scenario.

Why is it more likely (than advanced hologram technology) to you that four giant passenger planes, some of the biggest ones made — the same type as used on trans-Atlantic flights — purportedly completely vanished on 9-11?

You may think holograms are unrealistic. Well, thus far no one has postulated anything more plausible. The presence of real aircraft does not fit what was observed, there was no wreckage. Holograms just might be the explanation for what some claim they saw.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
1,200+ posts on this thread suggests to me that the "Hologram" theory is alive and well.I was a firm believer in Holo(I concluded there were no airplanes after watching the "impacts" in slow mo a couple of times) for a couple years as it made the only sense. More and more computer fakery has been pointed out since then. I personally believe some sort of projection to mask the missiles may have been used in conjunction with the obvious computer graphics that were inserted , both in the "live" broadcasts and again with those "appearing" later. The wispy, see - through images I suspect are projections, albeit not very good ones which provided "something" for the crowd to see and maybe get caught on camera by witnesses. The crappy computer graphics inserted couldnt be too good, they would stand out against the "holo" ones and raise eyebrows.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Whenever I see a discussion containing same person multiple, adamant responses of the impossibility of hologram use on 9/11/2001, I have to wonder this. Exactly, who are those same people attempting to convince of unproved impossiblity? Others, themselves, or both?


I'm only interested in making sure people understand the REALITY of science. When someone makes some silly claim like, "Since you don't know what the government has, you can't say it doesn't exist", it makes me laugh


You can't stamp "TOP SECRET" on something that doesn't exist and make it exist. This is a complete cop out statement that gets someone off the hook when they can't prove what they're claiming.

Then of course the other, even more silly follow up statement is:
Prove it doesn't exist


This is a statement that ANY scientist would laugh at as it's asking to disprove a double negative. In affect asking me to prove it doesn't exist by proving it exists


So I'm asking for the 87th time. Does anybody have any evidence that holograms of this sophistication, exist?



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 



And, how do you explain that NOT A SINGLE PLANE PART relating to AA11, UA175, AA77, UA93 was ever found? Holograms might seem ‘unglued’ to your royal highness, but thus far, short of calling people liars, THEY’RE THE ONLY EXPLANATION for NYC eyewitness accounts!

But it can't be an explanation if they don't exist at that level of sophistication. Nobody has ever been able to prove they do !!! You haven't, John hasn't, orion hasn't, nobody....
And in addition, evidence has been presented to show they can't exist at that level of sophistication.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
1,200+ posts on this thread suggests to me that the "Hologram" theory is alive and well.

Really? Has there been one bit of evidence posted that suggests that level of technology exists or can exist? The answer of course is no so how can a non-theory be alive?


I was a firm believer in Holo(I concluded there were no airplanes after watching the "impacts" in slow mo a couple of times) for a couple years as it made the only sense. More and more computer fakery has been pointed out since then. I personally believe some sort of projection to mask the missiles may have been used in conjunction with the obvious computer graphics that were inserted , both in the "live" broadcasts and again with those "appearing" later. The wispy, see - through images I suspect are projections, albeit not very good ones which provided "something" for the crowd to see and maybe get caught on camera by witnesses. The crappy computer graphics inserted couldnt be too good, they would stand out against the "holo" ones and raise eyebrows.


Holograms of the level of sophistication simply do not exist. Might I suggest going to the following thread and read up on lasers so you can understand why the hologram idea is nothing but garbage.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are some very intelligent people posting very scientific information regarding holograms. One of the posters has even performed laser experiments to help either prove or disprove several hypothesis' put forth.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 



And, how do you explain that NOT A SINGLE PLANE PART relating to AA11, UA175, AA77, UA93 was ever found? Holograms might seem ‘unglued’ to your royal highness, but thus far, short of calling people liars, THEY’RE THE ONLY EXPLANATION for NYC eyewitness accounts!

But it can't be an explanation if they don't exist at that level of sophistication. Nobody has ever been able to prove they do !!! You haven't, John hasn't, orion hasn't, nobody....
And in addition, evidence has been presented to show they can't exist at that level of sophistication.


I have a little trouble with someone claiming "...that NOT A SINGLE PLANE PART relating to AA11, A175, AA77, UA93 was ever found...."

Quotes are mine...emphasis was not added, it came from the source.

Plenty of debris was found. An assertion that no parts were found is, simply, false. No one should stand on that claim....



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 



The presence of real aircraft does not fit what was observed, there was no wreckage.

The only problem with this statement is that it is 100% wrong


Even John Lear has stated that wreckage has been found at the sites. Whether or not you believe the wreckage found is real or planted, there was wreckage there. I'm shocked that with all the photographic evidence and testimony, anybody would claim NO wreckage was found at any of the sites.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Simmer down there teakettle. If you don't believe the technology exists to project a crappy wispy image for a couple of seconds, fine. Your insistance that this technology doesnt exist because there is no "proof" is just as valid as saying that it does exist in the absence of "proof". What is your point? The fact remains that the live videos are fakes, there were no airliners, and yet people on the scene did see "something". Perhaps focusing your energy on a reasonable explanation for these three seemingly incompatible truths would be in order instead of focusing it on others who are doing exactly that.

P.S. If a daylight projection is not possible, are you implying that David Copperfield REALLY made a 747 disappear? I think he didn't. The most reasonable explanation for his "magic" is that there was no airplane there at all, only the image of one.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
reply to post by jfj123
 


Simmer down there teakettle.

I'm sorry, was I shouting???


If you don't believe the technology exists to project a crappy wispy image for a couple of seconds, fine.

Get yourself a laser and fire it around in the middle of the daytime and see what you get.

Then tell me how many super computers you'd need running with parallel processors to generate any image of that size and interacting with environmental variables not to mention controlling all the laser projectors.

In addition, what would have been the medium that the hologram would have been projected on?


Your insistance that this technology doesnt exist because there is no "proof" is just as valid as saying that it does exist in the absence of "proof".

I'm sorry but that is silly. By your thought process, I can make anything up and since you can't disprove it's existence, it may exist.
Giant, flying, invisible, purple wombats orchestrated 9/11. Prove they didn't. Same thing



What is your point? The fact remains that the live videos are fakes,

Can you prove this?


there were no airliners, and yet people on the scene did see "something".

Prove there were no airliners.


Perhaps focusing your energy on a reasonable explanation for these three seemingly incompatible truths would be in order instead of focusing it on others who are doing exactly that.

Since holography at that level of sophistication cannot exist, they must have been real planes.


P.S. If a daylight projection is not possible, are you implying that David Copperfield REALLY made a 747 disappear?

It had NOTHING to do with holography. No offense but if you were knowledgeable about lasers and holography, you'd realize how silly this holography idea really is.

I'll do you one better, here's how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear.


Copperfield had a setup of two towers on a stage, supporting an arch to hold the huge curtain that would be used to conceal the statue. The TV cameras and the live audience only saw the monument through the arch. When the curtains closed, David waxed poetic while the stage was ... slowly ... and imperceptibly ... turned. When the curtains opened, the statue was hidden behind one of the towers, and the audience was looking out to sea. Voila! The Statue of Liberty has disappeared!



I think he didn't. The most reasonable explanation for his "magic" is that there was no airplane there at all, only the image of one.

If you had actually looked into this for a few seconds, you would have found the REAL answer.


[edit on 8-2-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



Thanks for pointing out that Mr. Copperfield didn't make the Statue of Liberty disappear . This proves what? I just perused your postings "jf" and there seems to be a pattern, : personal attacks , misdirections , and obfuscations . And oddly, your posts seem to adhere to a schedule.

Hmmmm






top topics



 
16
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join