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.

 

Is holography currently available for use and misuse?

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Originally posted by Question

Since you chose to pass out your biased baseless suggestion, perhaps, you should open your mind to full possibility concerning sophisticated tech. Plus, open it toward other matters concerning the science of physics and quantum mechanics possibilies, you vividly project you choose not to consider.


Since you claim this immense knowledge, why don't you, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, describe exactly how the holographic project would be created for 9/11. If you can't do this, we know your knowledge in this area is very limited. Good luck my friend


[edit on 24-1-2008 by jfj123]




posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Retikx
 


reply to post by Retikx
 


As I presented from holography trade shows, no aerosol mist was needed or seen. Yet, there were several suspended 3-D holograms. Then they had another hologram looking as if it was actually dancing on the cushion of a chair in someone's residence. They were all under bright lights. They were dense enough so as not to be transparent. That is what gives the illusion of 3-D holography realism other technology may well not be able to do. Realism is in the number of dimensions projected by machine, including illusion.


What type of holographic project was used there?
What company had the display?
Where are the links supporting this?
Does the above help support your argument?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

I stated I was only going to prove it is possible which it is.

But you haven't proven anything.
Yes we know LASERS exist...
Yes we know holograms exist...
NO you haven't proven that they can do what you're claiming regarding the 9/11 planes.


Then we can now be in agreement that holograms are not "alien technology", and I can be assured that type of snide commentary will not be made against your opposition, by you, in this discussion or any other. Is that correct?


I never said holograms were alien technology.
I have stated that holograms of the claimed sophistication, do not exist. Nobody has proven otherwise.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retikx
"If I were you I wouldn't try to hold to that theory as gospel (since you seem to bring it up again and again)"


Well your not me, and dont presume to have a monopoly on the truth, it will only serve as a personal embarrassment in the future.

The technology i speak of will come into the public eye this year, so id suggest biting your tongue for now.


I don't hold a monopoly on truth, but I do know BS when I see it. When you first made this statement. You posted afterwards that you have no proof other than yourself (who's holding the monopoly?). So let me get this straight. You expect us to belive you just because you said so? how delusional can you be?

The technology IS out, but it is nowhere near the level that you or anybody here is suggesting. This is why the hollographic theory does not and has not held water.

I may not know everything, but I do have a basic understanding of what a hollogram is, as well as what forces need to be involved in order for a "believable" hollographic image to be produced, and it was not present in 9/11. The fact you actually try to tout that "it doesn't need to be perfect" shows how little you actually know on the subject and how much you under estimate not only the people present that day, but the people here in ATS that have viewed and re-viewed over and over again the videos presented in the news reports. and have come to the conclusion that they were not hollograms

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Question]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

I never said holograms were alien technology.
I have stated that holograms of the claimed sophistication, do not exist. Nobody has proven otherwise.


At the same time, I do not see you correcting anyone, on your side of the 9/11/2001 controversy, when they make those snide remarks against others in many of these discussions. I and others, on my side, correct them, but you do not.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

I never said holograms were alien technology.
I have stated that holograms of the claimed sophistication, do not exist. Nobody has proven otherwise.


At the same time, I do not see you correcting anyone, on your side of the 9/11/2001 controversy, when they make those snide remarks against others in many of these discussions. I and others, on my side, correct them, but you do not.


When did I become responsible for this?
Well maybe this will help.

I am officially stating now and forever to all whom seriously believe that currently existing holographic technology is alien based. I don't believe it is and there is no evidence to support this idea. If you believe this, I recommend you research the history of LASER's, Holographic Technology and Optics. If you still believe holographic technology is alien based, I request you publish said information on this page. If you cannot, I request you retract your statements.

Does this help? Now will you start answering my questions?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Question

LOL! yes there we go, making assumptions. Read back to previous posts and you'll see that I stated "can it be projected during daylight? sure, but it would be incredibly obivious that it's a hollogram because you would be able to see right through it"


I only went by your description of needing darkness, which I proved realistic 3-D holograms do not. That was my point of concentration.

The "mouse" in the video realistically looked like a human dressed in a mouse costume dancing on a special effect oversized chair. No different than done live on stage by actual human beings. Until, that hologram went suddenly disappearing without a trace.

Since you chose to pass out your biased baseless suggestion, perhaps, you should open your mind to full possibility concerning sophisticated tech. Plus, open it toward other matters concerning the science of physics and quantum mechanics possibilies, you vividly project you choose not to consider.

and yet, what you keep missing is that you could actually see through the mouse and see the reddish/brownish texture of the chair THROUGH the mouse. This only serve to prove that there haven't been hollograms that appear dense enough to be confused for real objects. The only way I've seen so far to even come close to this is using a dark room. Get your facts straight.

Do me a favor and don't try to deviate the topic towards quantum mechanics since that is not relevant to how hollographic images are projected.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Question]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I have no idea. I was busy concentrating on realistic 3-D holograms with no indication of what they were using. The website page I viewed did not say. I did not attend the trade show to find out. I would have asked them to show me how it works had I been there.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


I have no idea. I was busy concentrating on realistic 3-D holograms with no indication of what they were using. The website page I viewed did not say. I did not attend the trade show to find out. I would have asked them to show me how it works had I been there.


So then you have no idea if a medium was used or not. YES or NO?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Laser beams are invisible unless color is added to to them.

Pray tell... How does one "add" colour to a laser beam?

I would really love to know. Maybe then i can change the colour of my lasers without having to combine three beams at various intensities (RGB)...

Look, the colour of the beam (or rather wavelength) is completelly dependent on how the laser is made. Once it's made you can not change it's colour. Not even with a filter.

Filters work by preventing all the other colours to pass, except for the colour the filter has. They only work with light that has more than one colour and also contains the colour of the filter.

Only white light can be "changed" into any colour light, by using a filter. If you use a filter on a laser with a different colour, nothing gets through.



Originally posted by OrionStars
Just a question. What holography does not use laser beams?

I meant to say that some of those projectors, that project an image onto a fine mist or ionised air are just normal projectors. Not all of them are 3D.

And the REAL 3D ones are done in a controlled environment. Usually in a glass box of some kind.

And when i say REAL 3D i'm not talking about 2D representations of 3D objects (which is what you see on your computer screen as 3D) but such 3D, that you can walk around and see it from other sides, which is what a hologram should mean.



Originally posted by OrionStars
That is why I linked into the holography trade show. It proves the opposite of what you have stated. Do you need that link?

I'll look for it myself, to see what it's about.



Originally posted by OrionStars
However, my opposition pointed out to me CGI and holography is not the same technology. For a change they were correct. It isn't. It is why I started the topic confined to holography. The oppostion decided to take it off topic with a different type of tech to make their off topic point.

Of course CGI and holograms are not the same.

But the thread is about holograms being used or rather misused on 911.


My position on this is, that it would be stupid to do so. Even if they had such holographic technology, it would still be much safer, much cheaper, much more convincing and especially much more effective from all aspects, to simply fly real jets by remote control.

There is not one single reason for "them" to start complicating this much.


Sometimes when i'm developing something i start complicating too much, trying to make it better. But in the end, the simpler approach is ALWAYS better. This is true with almost everything.


BTW: You shouldn't use four posts for one reply...



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Question

and yet, what you keep missing is that you could actually see through the mouse and see the reddish/brownish texture of the chair THROUGH the mouse. This only serve to prove that there haven't been hollograms that appear dense enough to be confused for real objects. The only way I've seen so far to even come close to this is using a dark room. Get your facts straight.


Then your comments begs this question. Did you even bother to view what I presented? I did not see through it. I specifically tried to see through it and a suspended logo. I could not see through either. How did you see through them? Provided you even bothered to look at them.

Lack of transparency was for what I was testing on holograms, when I chose that website for my side of points of argument. Those lacked the transparency often accompanying 1 and 2 dimensional holograms.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Question

and yet, what you keep missing is that you could actually see through the mouse and see the reddish/brownish texture of the chair THROUGH the mouse. This only serve to prove that there haven't been hollograms that appear dense enough to be confused for real objects. The only way I've seen so far to even come close to this is using a dark room. Get your facts straight.


Then your comments begs this question. Did you even bother to view what I presented? I did not see through it. I specifically tried to see through it and a suspended logo. I could not see through either. How did you see through them? Provided you even bothered to look at them.

Lack of transparency was for what I was testing on holograms, when I chose that website for my side of points of argument. Those lacked the transparency often accompanying 1 and 2 dimensional holograms.

Then you are obviously incredibly blind! Here's a picture of the mouse dancing

www.tradeshowhologram.com...

Tell me how the H is it that you can't see through it and notice the texture of the chair behind it?

Here's another
www.tradeshowhologram.com...

and another
www.tradeshowhologram.com...

All of these 3 are in lit areas and you can obviously see through them despite your continous claims that they are "so dense they look real"

I swear I feel like I'm talking to a four year old or a brick wall because you obviously can't seem to grasp basic principles of how these images are projected.


By the way, 2 of the images I've displayed actually show the mediums they're using to project the images (the glass encasements where the projectors are in). Something you've failed to answer despite jfj's repeated attempts to get you to answer.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Question]

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Question]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee

Originally posted by OrionStars
Laser beams are invisible unless color is added to to them.


Pray tell... How does one "add" colour to a laser beam?


Laser beams are beams of light. Do you understand how colors are naturally or unnaturally refracted and reflected out from light beams?

If not, you can learn something about colored laser beams at this website:

www.tlc-call4ideas.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


I have no idea. I was busy concentrating on realistic 3-D holograms with no indication of what they were using. The website page I viewed did not say. I did not attend the trade show to find out. I would have asked them to show me how it works had I been there.


So then you have no idea if a medium was used or not. YES or NO?



[edit on 24-1-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Question
 


FYI,
I can see right through the freakin things !!!! Good post !!!!



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Now that I think about it, that cellophane might have come in different colors not just blue or green. They did a great job making 3-D movies highly realistic. We felt like everything was jumping at us right off the screen. It was that real for illusion.


Again, i don't know if this was answered already..


But stereoscopy has nothing to do with holograms.

It's just two images taken by two cameras spaced slightly appart.

Then a red green or red magenta filter or LCD shutter glasses allow each eye to see only one of the images. The left eye sees the image from the left camera and the right eye only sees the image from the right camera.

The brain then combines these two images into an illusion of three dimensions. It works on the same principle as our usual seeing.

From the difference between the two images the brain creates an appearance of a 3D object and from the distance between the objects in the two images the brain gives you the feeling of distance.


It's very fascinating, and i used to play with it a lot, when LCD shutter glasses came out. I could make a 3D object appear as if it is floating in front of the computer screen or even be deep behind it.

But again, it has nothing to do with holography.


I'm sorry if this was already explained. I checked but could not find it.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Question

Then you are obviously incredibly blind! Here's a picture of the mouse dancing


I do not need a reminder of what it looked like. I already viewed the dancing "mouse" myself along with the suspended logo. I originally placed the trade show website into the discussion.

You say you see what I did not. Fine That is as far with your rude remarks, concerning that "mouse", directed at me, you are going to get.

Please attempt to present civil comments to other posters in the future. This is not a flame board, and I am not going to assist in making it one.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I think he/she find's it frustrating because you are the only one that can't see through it. I am concerned for your eye sight. Please make an appointment ASAP.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee

Again, i don't know if this was answered already..

But stereoscopy has nothing to do with holograms.


I know that. The cite of my words you used were a follow up to another of my posts. I had stated the closest we got to holography effect was 3-D
movies, which were very popular when I was growing up.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I think he/she find's it frustrating because you are the only one that can't see through it. I am concerned for your eye sight. Please make an appointment ASAP.


When I want your snide advice, I will ask for it. Are we clear on that?




top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join