Is holography currently available for use and misuse?

Originally posted by deezee
I spent more than an hour yesturday night and another today, making pictures of a powerfull laser beam, as an experiment, if it is posible for light to block other light from showing through.

Most of us here already know it is impossible, and the other two don't care about the facts anyway, so it would seem i threw my time away.


If anyone is still interested, i can upload the images to image shack (after resizing) and post links.


Otherwise, the crazyness here is starting to get to me and i'm thinking about giving up. I wanted to add some facts to the thread, answering the question if such technology exists, but it looks like that wasn't even close to the real purpose of this thread.

It would seem it's just another "Agree with me or you're ignorant! Facts not welcome!" thread.

Please do. Orionstars may not be interested in actual facts. But I am

reply to post by deezee


yes please upload the images !!! that'd be awesome !!!! I'm a bit medicated so hopefully I won't think the images are holograms !!!

Originally posted by OrionStars
We already gathered you disagee it is possible. You have given partial facts and opinion reasons why you think it is impossible. Yet, there are contradictory facts presented by others saying is possible.

I gave oppinions and others gave facts to the opposite?

Well then PLEASE point me to those facts!

Originally posted by OrionStars
At this point, wisdom dictates to agree to disagree.

The only thing we can agree upon is, that facts don't agree with you.

If they do, please post them or at least point at them.

Originally posted by OrionStars
None of us knows what the DOD and Pentagon have for development in laser, including holography, technology. Until they publicly reveal it, no one, not directly privvy to the development success, will know for certain.

We know it is possible.

I see, so no one knows, but you know it is possible. Interesting. Makes sense now, that i think of it..

Originally posted by OrionStars
Holograms have become highly sophisticated compared to when I was growing up back in the late 40s and early 50s.

Ok, first you didn't even know the difference between holograms and CGI.

Now you're saying holograms have existed since the 40s and 50s?!?

Do you even know what those holograms were?!?

They were thin pieces of film, created by exposing an object to the interference of two laser beams.

All these holograms (square pieces of plastic film) do, is make it possible for you to look at them from different angles and see a 3D object in them.


These holograms have NOTHING to do with holograms projected into empty air.
Not even in darkness, never mind in daylight.


You are mixing up two things that have nothing in common, except being related to lasers, but in a COMPLETELY different way.

Originally posted by OrionStars
I have watched the sophistication as it was researched and developed, plus, put on display. I have long-term known that technology

After confusing CGI with holograms, adding colour to laser beams and even believing CaptnCrunch, who was making fun of you and not knowing the difference between plastic holograms and holograms projected into a medium i have serious doubts about your knowledge of stuff.

You can continue agreeing to disagreeing with facts and making bizzare speculations, but if you really wanted to know something, you'd have to accept truth whether you like it or not.

If i was wrong about something i would gladly admit it and learn something new.

But you just keep repeating your beliefs (yes beliefs) without any supportive reasoning or facts.


Maybe we should all leave this thread, so that the two believers could start patting each other on their backs about how they agree on something.

reply to post by jfj123


Bon appétit:

www.patentstorm.us...

You can access the full text at the link as well. Please do note the use of laser beams and splitting of light waves when they automatically split tto go around physical matter.

I do recall a gentleman saying there were men in one of the twin towers (north tower?), on what may have been the 91st floor, on a week-end doing something in empty office. The gentleman was working on the week-end below that office. He heard banging above.

When he rode the elevator up to that floor, the elevator door was locked and normally was not locked. I am not certain if he said he called security, or attempted to get the mens' attention by banging on the elevator door.

He was not pre-alerted any type of loud maintenance would be going on that particular week-end. He worked on the week-end because he needed the quiet. That may have been the week-end all the security cameras were shut down, which he also found odd.

I recall he stated he took off on 9/11/2001, because he worked the week-end and finished, on whatever it was he was working, on Monday 9/10/2001. That is how he lived to tell it about.

It was in a documentary on one of the A&E network channels.

reply to post by deezee


Ironically, in spite of a few "day dream believers" (Monkee's reference), I've learned a bit here so I appreciate everyone who has given real, solid, factual information such as Question and deezee, just to name a few. So thanks again !!!

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

Bon appétit:

www.patentstorm.us...

You can access the full text at the link as well. Please do note the use of laser beams and splitting of light waves when they automatically split tto go around physical matter.

I do recall a gentleman saying there were men in one of the twin towers (north tower?), on what may have been the 91st floor, on a week-end doing something in empty office. The gentleman was working on the week-end below that office. He heard banging above.

When he rode the elevator up to that floor, the elevator door was locked and normally was not locked. I am not certain if he said he called security, or attempted to get the mens' attention by banging on the elevator door.

He was not pre-alerted any type of loud maintenance would be going on that particular week-end. He worked on the week-end because he needed the quiet. That may have been the week-end all the security cameras were shut down, which he also found odd.

I recall he stated he took off on 9/11/2001, because he worked the week-end and finished, on whatever it was he was working, on Monday 9/10/2001. That is how he lived to tell it about.

It was in a documentary on one of the A&E network channels.

There aerosol works inside of a pressurized chamber.

A substrate may be treated by impinging the substrate with a cryogenic aerosol spray wherein the cryogenic aerosol spray is formed by expanding a pressurized liquid or liquid/gaseous stream of one or more cryogens through a nozzle at a given distance from the substrate into a process chamber with a pressure of about 1.6×10 to the forth power

Originally posted by jfj123
By using the large hadron super collider and firing anti-protons into a heavy deuterium nucleus, you can create what is known as a micro-black hole which lasts approx. .000013 nanoseconds. During this time, all light beyond the event horizon would disappear and would create a black spot. So there's your 1 black pixel. Do this a few billion more times and you can create enough dark spots to generate a dark image against a light sky. Easy as pie.

And there i was thinking it was impossible without using anti-photons or at least splitting photons into pion / anti-pion pairs..


On the other hand, you may have just sprouted a new 911 conspiracy theory:

The towers fell because the holograms required a huge number of miniature black holes, so they couldn't withstand the gravity pull...


Anyway, i'm working on those photos now.. It'll take a while.

[edit on 25/1/08 by deezee]

Originally posted by deezee

Originally posted by OrionStars
We already gathered you disagee it is possible. You have given partial facts and opinion reasons why you think it is impossible. Yet, there are contradictory facts presented by others saying is possible.

I gave oppinions and others gave facts to the opposite?

Well then PLEASE point me to those facts!

You did not read very carefully, did you? Try reading it again without allowing your bias to get in the way of objectivity.

You can add attempting to digest the documentation at the link, to a website, I very recently posted. That is fact not fiction.

reply to post by jfj123


That is right. Simply cherry pick what you like and ignore the rest. Way to go.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

Bon appétit:

www.patentstorm.us...

You can access the full text at the link as well. Please do note the use of laser beams and splitting of light waves when they automatically split tto go around physical matter.

I do recall a gentleman saying there were men in one of the twin towers (north tower?), on what may have been the 91st floor, on a week-end doing something in empty office. The gentleman was working on the week-end below that office. He heard banging above.

When he rode the elevator up to that floor, the elevator door was locked and normally was not locked. I am not certain if he said he called security, or attempted to get the mens' attention by banging on the elevator door.

He was not pre-alerted any type of loud maintenance would be going on that particular week-end. He worked on the week-end because he needed the quiet. That may have been the week-end all the security cameras were shut down, which he also found odd.

I recall he stated he took off on 9/11/2001, because he worked the week-end and finished, on whatever it was he was working, on Monday 9/10/2001. That is how he lived to tell it about.

It was in a documentary on one of the A&E network channels.

from the link itself you provided:

Abstract
A substrate may be treated by impinging the substrate with a cryogenic aerosol spray wherein the cryogenic aerosol spray is formed by expanding a pressurized liquid or liquid/gaseous stream of one or more cryogens through a nozzle at a given distance from the substrate into a process chamber with a pressure of about 1.6×104 Pascal or less so as to form at least substantially solid aerosol particles of said one or more cryogens downstream from the nozzle by the cooling resulting from the expansion and/or evaporation to form an at least substantially solid particle containing aerosol. Other References

JP Abstract of JP 55-106538; vol. 4, No. 166 (c-031), Nov. 18, 1980.
JP Abstract of JP 2-43730, vol. 14, No. 200 (E-920), Apr. 24, 1990.
JP Abstract of JP 1-92071, vol. 13, No. 300 (M-848), Jul. 11, 1989.
JP Abstract of JP 61-223311, vol. 11, No. 67 (M-566), Feb. 28, 1987.
PCT search report for PCT/US98/12256.
Robert Sherman et al, "CO2 Process Parameters and Automation Potentials", pp. 22-27, Jun. 1998.
John F. Williford, "The Advantages, Disadvantages, and History of CO2 Snow Cleaning", pp. 12-17, Jun. 1998.
L. Layden et al, "High velocity carbon dioxide snow for cleaning vacuum system surfaces", J. Vac. Sci. Tehcnol., pp. 38813883, Sep./Oct. 1990.
Ronald V. Peterson et al, "Contamination Removal by CO2 Jet Spray", Optical System Contamination:Effects, Measurement, Control II, pp. 72-85, 1990.
Richard R. Zito et al, "Cleaning large optics with CO2 snow", Advanced Technology Optical Telescopes IV, pp. 952-971, (1990).
Cryogenic Wafer Cleaning, Micro Contamination Identification, Analysis and Control, vol. 14(10), Nov./Dec. 1996 pp. 50, 52.
FSI Aries™ Cryokinetic Cleaning Systems Brochure (Sep. 1996).
R. D. Reitz, "Photographic Study of Flash Boiling Atomization", Aerosol. Sci. Technol., vol. 12 pp. 561-569 (1990).
Rader et al, "Optical Direct-Reading Techniques: In Situ Sensing", Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques and Applications, 1993, pp. 345-380.

Please... I am dieing to know what this cryogenic spray aerosol has anything to do with anything in this thread. (sarcasm)

Now you're just throwing links out of thin air without even bothering to look whether they make relevance or not to hollographic technology.
It's a shame that a thread that could've been substantially informative on how hollographic technology works ended up ruined by someone who is so obviously clueless, they can't even tell whether its called green screen or green plating, and confuses cgi for hollograms, and facts be da**ed unless they actually fit with the narrow minded view of the OP.

I know the motto of this site is to deny ignorance, but jesus christ! this guy is just as bad and persistent as telemarketers who keep calling during dinner time!

[edit on 25-1-2008 by Question]

[edit on 25-1-2008 by Question]

reply to post by OrionStars


I have no way of responding to this as you have not quoted anything, just responded. So what exactly are you accusing me of cherry picking and why?

reply to post by jfj123


If you can muster some objectivity in your own reasoning, you should easily be able to figure out what you did wrong, in presenting your counter points of argument.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

If you can muster some objectivity in your own reasoning, you should easily be able to figure out what you did wrong, in presenting your counter points of argument.

I have no idea what post you are referring to as you are not posting what I said with your responses. If you can take the time to post the quote with your response, maybe I can help, if not, I'm going to have to keep asking what you're talking about.

Originally posted by jfj123

I have no idea what post you are referring to as you are not posting what I said with your responses. If you can take the time to post the quote with your response, maybe I can help, if not, I'm going to have to keep asking what you're talking about.

Is that better? When you countered against the link I presented, you picked out of that website what you preferred from the abstract, and left the rest, which proved nothing for you. You did not have time to read the very lengthy full text, is how I know you conveniently cherry picked from the abstract instead which proved nothing for whatever points you were trying to make. All you projected again was, in your opinion, it is impossible. We got that same impression many pages ago.

reply to post by jfj123


you know jfj, I was actually considering last night spending some time on photoshop and my movie editor doing a short, easilly explainable pictures that explain why a hollogram against a clear background simply doesn't work in the context of 9/11. But then I figured it would be lost on these people supporting this idea and besides, most people with even half a brain can already grasp this simple idea.

My opinion on the 9-11 hologram situation, is that the terrorists, backed by a higher power (likely China) did indeed hit the buildings, and that the U.S. was TRYING to use *de-hologram* technology to prevent the United States public from seeing any of this. The technology caused a lot of hologram anomolies, which is why there are so many strange sightings on that day. Although it is said that it somewhat worked in the Pentagon situation, which is why there is so much discrepency in those details.

Holograms of news achors were then used to confuse people through the media, although it was later found that this technology was unnecessary as they could've uesd real newscasters at 1/100,000 the cost. It is my understanding that these holographic reporters cost the United States 80,000,000 in tax money. Still, it was a major testing ground that apparently worked.

Holographic technology, to my knowledge, has extended into many other areas including drugs, food, sports, fabric, sky generation, and even artificial friends. Though these numbers are unsubstatiated, I have it on good faith with a friend who works in the government that 1 out of ever 79 children is a hologram.

Best,
Capn.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

I have no idea what post you are referring to as you are not posting what I said with your responses. If you can take the time to post the quote with your response, maybe I can help, if not, I'm going to have to keep asking what you're talking about.

Is that better? When you countered against the link I presented, you picked out of that website what you preferred from the abstract, and left the rest, which proved nothing for you. You did not have time to read the very lengthy full text, is how I know you conveniently cherry picked from the abstract instead which proved nothing for whatever points you were trying to make. All you projected again was, in your opinion, it is impossible. We got that same impression many pages ago.

Instead of saying this, why don't you just PROVE it. See that is one of your problems. You make claims but don't back them up. If you think what I said was wrong, show me and I'll gladly apologize. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again in the future so it's no big deal. Once again, don't bother saying I'm wrong without proving it as you would require the same of me.

Originally posted by Question
reply to post by jfj123

 

you know jfj, I was actually considering last night spending some time on photoshop and my movie editor doing a short, easilly explainable pictures that explain why a hollogram against a clear background simply doesn't work in the context of 9/11. But then I figured it would be lost on these people supporting this idea and besides, most people with even half a brain can already grasp this simple idea.

Well I'm sure it might help some newbies who actually have an open mind and want to learn so I'd say go for it !!!

reply to post by Question


Then I highly recommend reading and comprehending the full text of the article - not sarcasm. You can take or leave the recommendation. That is up to you. We do not need anymore of your denigrating sarcasm, simply because it makes you feel more psychologically secure and falsely superior to all others.

By all means, convince selves that primitive Photoshop can begin to compare to highly sophisticated laser holography. You may be able to convince yourselves and others of that. But you will never convince all others, merely because the plural you cajole or badger it to be so, in order to make the plural you feel more psychologically secure in your biased views of life.