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: 12
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee

Why do people unrealistically keep saying that?


I know jfj123 well enough by now, that i know what he is saying is true.

Are you saying he is the only living person in the world who never takes a side, and promotes opinions? Because it certainly does not look that way from where I am sitting on the opposite side of his expressed opinions and yours.




posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
The fact that the Joint Cheifs were discussing using Holo projection in an actual combat situation- while discussing war preperations for the first Iraqi War- indicates to me that they did indeed have the technology available.


Actually it only suggest that they had some technology that suggested it could perhaps be possible and that it might be worth looking into.

Talking about possibilities is one thing, but it doesn't always work out....



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Are you saying he is the only living person in the world who never takes a side, and promotes opinions? Because it certainly does not look that way from where I am sitting on the opposite side of his expressed opinions and yours.


Actually that was not what i was saying.

I was saying, that his "side" is the one based on logic and facts.

He is always asking for evidence and facts if they exist. Speculations are not facts. If evidence was shown to him, he would accept it and so would i.

Also, he is always friendly to everyone and doesn't attack people.

What is wrong with asking for facts and a reason to believe a theory?


You're also saying that i'm somehow against you. I'm sorry if that is the feeling you got from my posts.

This thread is about discussing the possibility of very advanced holography.

You believe it exists. We don't believe it doesn't exist. We are just asking for supporting evidence, for verification. If there is any, we will gladly admit we were wrong and accept it's existence.

So yes, we are not taking sides, we just want to know. Believing speculations is not enough for us. What is wrong with wanting to know instead of just believing?


Oh and just BTW: I have nothing against you. I'm just trying to discuss the matter with you.

I even proposed an experiment. Are you interested or not?



EDIT: Oh, and if a hologram is transparent or not, is not a side to be taken. It either is, or it isn't..

[edit on 24/1/08 by deezee]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Spoodily
 


Good find !!! Not many people are aware of this info.

Here's a bit of background. The Air Force commissioned a think tank of scientists to think outside the box and come up with different ways of applying existing technologies and also future concepts regardless of current tech limitations. All this is part of a larger proposal called "Air Force 2025".

Here's a bit of info from the article that shows the real limitations due to dispersion problems.


According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.

But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and power sources.


so we should take away the following
space mirror over 1 mile square
huge projectors
huge power sources

Thanks for the great find !!! Good job !!!



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
The real jets by remote control being "easier"- etc argument is absurd.

Yes, it's very absurd indeed.


So it is more realistic to attempt to convince people that impacting 767s, against double steel walls, left no trace of evidence of impact directly from the 767s, and two buildings completely swallowed two commercial jetliners, with a length of over 150' feet, and all contents?

Now, considering the reality those alleged planes only had approximately 59' on two sides of double steel cores before meeting those double steel center cores, and approximately 35' meeting the double steel on the other two sides, how is what the "official" reports state even close to physics and quantum mechanics reality?

You think what you promote is more realistic than holograms (light beams), which disappear without a trace the moment the projecting machine is turned off? If so, would you logically explain why? Please do not give me a the illogic of "official" reports as your reason. I prefer your own logical reasoning to shine through.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I had no idea Mahattan and Iraq were comparable. Where is the nearest fresh water source in Iraq compared to the Manhattan harbor? Yes, it does make a difference when referring to holography and projection of light beam images.

What is a smoke machine but vapor/humidity?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and power sources.


That's a good example.. You need SOMETHING for the light to reflect from. Without it you can not decide where a laser would "stop" and create a "pixel" in the air.

Crossing two or more less visible laser beams might create a visible pixel in the air, but you would need many such pixels to create any object.

This would create an additional problem of laser beams crossing where you don't want them to.

Then there's the problem with the huge number of lasers with scanners to create this.


If something is high enough, you don't even have to make it 3D, as the difference wouldn't be noticable.

It could be possible to use a ballon of sorts to hang a reflecting surface from and project the image onto it..


Powerfull lasers can even project images on clouds (around 10-20W) but the clouds would be a dead giveaway...



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


I had no idea Mahattan and Iraq were comparable. Where is the nearest fresh water source in Iraq compared to the Manhattan harbor? Yes, it does make a difference when referring to holography and projection of light beam images.

What is a smoke machine but vapor/humidity?


I'm sorry, what are you talking about? If you are answering a previous question, would you please include it in your post for reference. Thanks, I appreciate it.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee


Originally posted by OrionStars
Are you saying he is the only living person in the world who never takes a side, and promotes opinions? Because it certainly does not look that way from where I am sitting on the opposite side of his expressed opinions and yours.


Actually that was not what i was saying.


It may not have been what you intended but that is what you stated. Please realize the reality that anytime anyone expresses an opposing view against anyone else, that is a taking a side. One's own point of view side.

"Fence riding" would be people with no opinon. Are you saying that is what jfj is? A fence rider? Because he isn't. It is quite apparent from what he expresses in these discussions.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by deezee
 


Since you are obviously the authority on lasers, I have a quick question. I've seen astronomy profs use green lasers to show students where certain stars are in the night sky. Could you describe how that works? In other words, obviously the laser is not bouncing off the star thousands of light years away so what is causing the "refraction"?? -not sure if thats the right word.

Thanks for your help.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee

I was saying, that his "side" is the one based on logic and facts.


That is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it.



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

Originally posted by deezee

Originally posted by OrionStars
You are on the opposing view side. Your response comes as no surprise.

Jesus, you're quick at labeling people.. You don't even know me or what i believe.

I just mentioned what i saw and it was my response to jfj123


What does knowing you have to do with responding on what you wrote? You said the holograms I presented at a link were transparent, and I disagreed. You certainly have taken this issue out of context to make irrelevant comments.

Here is more reality. The moment people express their thoughts to others, others then know what they think from what was expressed to the others. If you do not want people to know what you think, then do not express any thoughts to others.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

I'm sorry, what are you talking about? If you are answering a previous question, would you please include it in your post for reference. Thanks, I appreciate it.


It was response to the following from another of your posts:


Here's a bit of info from the article that shows the real limitations due to dispersion problems.


According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.


But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and power sources.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Thanks Orion, I didnt want to waste the time explaining my "the videos are fake" post. He wants physical evidence that the videos are fake? That is real easy- first investigate objects known as "aircraft"- they are lightweight flimsy pices of aluminum-described by those who build and fly them as flying beer cans- and have to be that way because if they were made indestructable- they would be too heavy to fly- google airplane crashes photos- etc- lots of great photos of what happens when one of these things bumps into even a small object like a bird or telephone pole-the plane LOSES. Now investigate STEEL- it is some pretty tough stuff- which is why it is used to make things like tanks- bridges- machetes and skyscrapers. Now, with your new knowledge of the physical world do a little test to make sure your not falling prey to internet BS. Get a six pack of beer- in aluminum cans- and a steel machete from WalMart-$5.95. Crack one of the beers open and chug it down. Crumple it up and throw it aside. This isnt part of the test- but it will help you cope with what your about to learn. Now- take a full can of beer and put it on a stump. Whack it with the Machete. Carefully examine the results- maybe even videotape it and watch in slow motion. If the machete slices through the aluminum can- shooting beer in every direction and leaving a smashed wet beer can with a machete stuck in the stump, the videos of the planes neatly disapearing into the WTC without a drop of fuel or a shred of debris and then the buildings turning to dust and blowing away in the wind are FAKE. If the can of beer disappears completely leaving no beer behind - and then the steel machete turns into dust and blows away in the wind 55 minutes later- then the videos are real. Figure it out for yourself.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


You still haven't answered if you want me to do the experiment or not.

jfj123 on the other hand U2Ud me and said he would love to see the results.

From this i can tell he is interested in seeing what will happen and he'll accept what he sees no matter if it support his original oppinion or not.


The only thing i wanted to explain to you with that was, that we are interested in facts. What are you interested in?

You're saying i'm arguing with you and taking sides. I'm not trying to argue, i'm trying to discuss the issue at hand and come to a logical conclusion.

What is wrong with that?

As to the taking sides thing... Well, i always try to consider ALL possibilities and then assign them probabilities as best i can.
If i have a way of verifying it, even better.

If this is taking sides, well... In that case, my side is logic. If yours is too, we should eventually arrive to the same conclusion, no matter which one was right. If i'm wrong i will gladly say so and learn something new.

And i can tell you jfj would do the same.


And about verification...
This is just what i'm going to do now. Take some pictures of a laser beam in different lighting conditions, to see when other light can pass through it.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

I'm sorry, what are you talking about? If you are answering a previous question, would you please include it in your post for reference. Thanks, I appreciate it.


It was response to the following from another of your posts:


Here's a bit of info from the article that shows the real limitations due to dispersion problems.


According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.


But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and power sources.



I simply posted what the scientists in the article stated. Are you saying they're wrong? Here is your post. Please explain why a water source changes everything including the scientists statement of the 1 sqr. mile space mirror.


I had no idea Mahattan and Iraq were comparable. Where is the nearest fresh water source in Iraq compared to the Manhattan harbor? Yes, it does make a difference when referring to holography and projection of light beam images.

What is a smoke machine but vapor/humidity?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I am looking at the mouse video. It is indeed semi-transparent. Actually at certain points the . fades out almost completely. I'm not sure of the medium or projector type. Also, you'll notice at the end the mouse slowly goes from semi-transparent to completely gone.

In the second video, the rotating globe is also semi-transparent.

The other 3 videos are also semi-transparent.

Thats all I get out of the videos. Sorry.


I know the rotating globe may have appeared "semi-transparent. Other parts of that hologram did not. The letters were rotating and not "semi-transparent among other objects circling the globe, i.e. white windmills.

Back to the "dancing mouse". Again, I saw saw none of what you described. How can you carefully study a full view at all times? I have to carefully study objects section by section. For example, if I have to rerun a video over and over to capture every iota of what is in a video, I will do it.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Don't worry Orionstars! I believe you!

But, I should clear up some things about movies and the effects you see in them since that is where my work lies. Regarding Ghost. When Patrick Swazy appeared as a ghost, he was not, in fact, a hologram, but used what we in the movie business call "temporary opague transducence h20". You drink an ionized source of water, and for exactly three minutes your body becomes, in essence, "see-thru". It's a great trick for if you need ghosts in your movie and to my knowledge, is still being used to this day. As for the walking through walls thing, I have no idea how they did that and you may be correct in your claim that it was created using holograms.

Now, as for the Star Wars movies, you are correct. They did use holograms there. In fact, despite claims to the contrary, Ewan McGregor, the actor who played Obi-Wan, never acted in the films. Only a hologram of him was used. From my understanding, this is a win-win situation, because Ewan McGregor doesn't have to show up for work, and he gets paid 20 million dollars. Someone else correct me if I'm wrong but Natalie Portman did act in 18% of the films - and only 82% of her character was created using holograms.

Not many people know this, but Casablanca relied heavily on holograms. Of course the technology was primitive back then, hence the black and white look of the holograms, but those were some great holograms. If anyone wants to learn more about holograms in movies, please PM me.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by deezee


Originally posted by OrionStars
Are you saying he is the only living person in the world who never takes a side, and promotes opinions? Because it certainly does not look that way from where I am sitting on the opposite side of his expressed opinions and yours.


Actually that was not what i was saying.


It may not have been what you intended but that is what you stated. Please realize the reality that anytime anyone expresses an opposing view against anyone else, that is a taking a side. One's own point of view side.

"Fence riding" would be people with no opinon. Are you saying that is what jfj is? A fence rider? Because he isn't. It is quite apparent from what he expresses in these discussions.


Ok, so you've gone from uneducated irrational thinking, to labeling people, to making stupid assumptions about what you THINK people here were intending to say, all in the span of 12 pages. Jesus christ! you switch personalities faster than Kerry flip flops!

Nobody here is taking sides except you! You're the one that is so hellbent on trying to prove the hollography theory is a plausability without presenting any actual, verifiable evidence. We've all presented our reasons as to why it's not possible due to the fact we here actually have a basic understanding (and in some posters cases, a more elaborate understanding) of the technology. We understand that the technology has not reached the level you are suggesting, and if the govt. was actually dumb enough to use it, the evidence that it was a hollogram would stick out like a sore thumb!

Now if you want to continue on with your ridiculous tirade trying to go in circles by throwing the same article adnauseum without presenting any actual PROOF of a hollographic image that is so incredibly dense that you can't see THROUGH it go a.. You're only doing yourself a disservice.

I have a feeling that now it is only YOU that are here arguing for the sake of arguing and the only one here that is taking sides because you seem to ignore the facts that have been presented to you and da**ed if anyone tries to present a different idea other than yours.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I am looking at the mouse video. It is indeed semi-transparent. Actually at certain points the . fades out almost completely. I'm not sure of the medium or projector type. Also, you'll notice at the end the mouse slowly goes from semi-transparent to completely gone.

In the second video, the rotating globe is also semi-transparent.

The other 3 videos are also semi-transparent.

Thats all I get out of the videos. Sorry.


I know the rotating globe may have appeared "semi-transparent. Other parts of that hologram did not.

Everything was semi-transparent to differing degrees.


The letters were rotating and not "semi-transparent among other objects circling the globe, i.e. white windmills.

I did see them as semi-transparent. I am wondering if it's possible that the difference could be your monitor or it's refresh rate??


Back to the "dancing mouse". Again, I saw saw none of what you described.

Sorry but I saw what I saw. If I saw it as solid, I'd tell you.


How can you carefully study a full view at all times?

By watching the video over and over and paying attention to different area's each time.


I have to carefully study objects section by section. For example, if I have to rerun a video over and over to capture every iota of what is in a video, I will do it.

Yes this is what I did also and I do think that is a very good idea to make sure nothing is missed.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join