Is holography currently available for use and misuse?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
It's also interesting to note that many of the most convincing displays are not laser holograms at all.

That is true.


One of the most convincing i have seen, was LCD shutter glasses based stereoscopy.

The first one i used was a system way ahead of it's time, which is why in the end it never did much more than run with the demo software, that it came with and the 3D engine i wrote for it.

I could make an object appear to float in mid air in front of the computer screen. Then i combined this with a 3D "mouse" that used ultrasound and trigonometry to calculate it's position in front of the monitor through the use of three sensors put on the monitor. The "mouse" itself was just a tiny ultrasound noise source with two buttons, strapped on my finger.

This way i was able to "grab" the 3D object floating in front of the monitor with my hand, move it around or rotate it.

Both pieces of hardware could have been extremelly usefull, but the computers were so slow back then that no practical software ever came out for it... (I was doing all this on a 66MHz 486.. Imagine the all the sweat and pain that went into writing my own 3D visualisation software on such a slow computer, before we ever even heard of 3D accelerators..)

I still have both of them, but now i can't even attach them to a computer anymore due to incompatibility...

Of course i'm still obsessed with 3D graphics and stereoscopy, so i now have a new pair of LCD shutter glasses that actually are usefull, now that we have 3D accelerators and extreemely fast computers..


Due to the effectiveness of this approach it is still widely used in many areas in science, where you have to see something in 3D.

The mars rover for example has two cameras. Using these glasses NASA engineers can view the landscape as if they were there.



A new technology, that just came out is a monitor, that can do the same thing without the need for any glasses.
It uses something called a parallax barrier. The monitor presents two images interlaced with each other, and the barrier allows each eye only to see the image meant for it.
Again, images can jump out of the screen or even be deep behind it.

The problem with this technology is, that your head can not move around too much or this effect is lost.


All of these systems use stereoscopy. If you have a way of controlling what each eye can see separtelly, the rest is done by our brain. So it's basically very smple.
You either use two cameras mounted slightly appart and record real scenes, or you can use a computer, and generate two 2D representations of 3D objects, again from two positions slightly appart.

Our brain superimposes the two 2D images, giving us a feeling of distance from the separaton between the objects in the superimposed image, and a feeling of seeing in three dimensions from the tiny differences in the angles of the objects.


Trying to achieve a similiar effect without control over what each of our eyes can see, is a different matter entirelly.

You would have to recreate the entire object in mid air. All it's surfaces would have to have the same shape and colour as it has in reality.

On monitors and projectors we have resolution in pixels. But the monitors are small.

If someone tried to create 3D pixels in mid air, let's say by crossing a number of laser beams, they would first have to decide on the size of the pixels. The smaller, the more realistic the object can be.
But at the same time this would increase the number of the pixels required to create the object dramatically.

This would require enormous computer power and extremelly fast and precise scanning systems. And a lot of them!

But there's another problem. Beams wouldn't stop where they would cross. They would continue and cross with other beams where you wouldn't want them to. Due to the enormous number of beams required, this would completelly mess up the projection in the end..

All the problems related to this are mind boggling. And even if there was a way, it would still only work in the dark.


Anyway, since i have a couple of blue laser diodes on the way, i will make another experiment, (after i build them), trying to see if i can make even one such 3D pixel by crossing four laser beams.


It's gonna take a while, but if i get results, i will post them.



Oh, jfj123: You were right, when you asked about the computer power required for something like that..
I was thinking on the wrong scale, when i gave you that answer.. On a monitor a realistic image of an airplane could be created by a single 3D accelerator card. But only in the resolution of the monitor.
A scale size projection (if it was possible) would require an incredible amount of computer power, so you were right. It's a question of the size of the 3D "pixels" multiplied by the entire surface of the aircraft....

The number required wouldn't fit here..

reply to post by deezee


Oh, jfj123: You were right, when you asked about the computer power required for something like that..
I was thinking on the wrong scale, when i gave you that answer.. On a monitor a realistic image of an airplane could be created by a single 3D accelerator card. But only in the resolution of the monitor.
A scale size projection (if it was possible) would require an incredible amount of computer power, so you were right. It's a question of the size of the 3D "pixels" multiplied by the entire surface of the aircraft....

The number required wouldn't fit here..

Thanks for the post,

Plus you would need to scan the environment in real time so when the virtual plane passed through a cloud, the plane would need to decrease and increase visibility as needed. So there are quite a few aspects that would require massive amounts of computer power.

[edit on 27-1-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123
Plus you would need to scan the environment in real time so when the virtual plane passed through a cloud, the plane would need to decrease and increase visibility as needed. So there are quite a few aspects that would require massive amounts of computer power.

I didn't even think of a cloud..

Yes, if such a projection was possible, and you would "fly" it through a cloud, this would completelly mess up the process.

Let's say it was possible to use laser beams to project 3D "pixels" in mid air, without the beams themselves being visible. This would mean the air is the medium...

As this projection would pass into a cloud, the medium would suddenly be much more dense, which would make the beams completelly visible as well, giving away the secret. Also, the image would get completelly distorted by this.


Besides, all this is completelly pointless anyway, since anti light doesn't exist, to allow for non transparent projections in daylight...


So... I guess the question of the thread is answered.



Thanks to everyone, who contributed logic, facts and good questions. It was an interesting thought experiment, and i learned a lot from it myself.

P.S. I am still going to attempt creating at least one 3D pixel, to see if it is possible at all. If i should get results, i will post them here.

Hi fellow Truthers and also hello to you OfficialConspiracyTheoryBelievers. The Discovery channel show MythBusters has issued an invitation to submit "myths" for them to explore. There are obviously enough myths pertaining to the events of Black Tuesday to provide enough material for a whole season. I suggest that everyone interested in this topic to submit one or two well defined myths from that day to them for testing. Truthers- heres your chance to prove whether concrete turns into dust in a building collapse etc- and OTC Believers quit griping about the impossibilities of daylight Holographic projections etc. and submit it to the crew at Mythbusters.

Here is the thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Please be civil and happy MythBusting

I was trying to learn more about the possibilities of projecting three dimensional volumetric virtual objects into air or any other medium..

At first, the only thing i could find was a special crystal cube, where intersecting laser beams create those elusive 3D pixels...
This is very interesting and usefull. But unfortunatelly for now, the biggest cube so far is only 1.5cm big..

So it is possible to create a pixel by crossing two beams, but obviously not in air, or they wouldn't be bothering with such a cube. This means my experiment is doomed from the start. (i'm still gonna try of course)


But then i found something MUCH more interesting..

It started with a story, that in the late 80s scientists experimented with a way of intersecting two incredibly powerfull infra red (invisible) laser beams in mid air. Supposedly the air at the point of the intersection basically exploded, creating plasma and a ball of intense white light together with the sound of an explosion.
The story went on, to say that these plasma balls were then projected around in the air over a desert, which would make it look as if these balls of light were flying.

Yes, i know what you're thinking, but wait, it gets more interesting.. (altho the story didn't mention this)

Lasers are not pointed around by moving the entire laser module.
Instead mirrors on very fast servo motors are used to point the beam wherever you want.
If this story is real, it would be possible to create a glowing ball of plasma and not only fly it around at huge speeds, but also turn and change direction at a 90° angle almost instantaniously and at an immense speed.
This is possible, because the mirrors only have to turn with a certain angular velocity, but further away, this same angular velocity would mean a huge speed and the possibility of those sharp turns i mentioned.

Ok, now you can think... What does this remind you of?


Anyway, back to the article... The article focused on another aspect of this - the sound of explosion.
It went on, to explain, that these explosions could be modulated in frequency and amplitude, to create an audio speaker of sorts, high up in the sky:

the team discovered that by modulating the frequency and intensity of the hissing sound, they could create a voice-like effect. The result was a highly manoeuvrable, glowing ball of plasma that seemed to appear out of thin air—a ball of plasma that could "talk". The US military named the technology the Voice of God and classified it top secret. My contact said that he had heard of plans to use the device as a psychological weapon during the Gulf War in 1991, but that for some reason these plans were never realised.

Voice of God.... If real, it could create a glowing talking ball of light in the sky..

The entire article can be found here: New Scientist - And the voice said

But is it true? The author says he was told this by an expert in laser optics from Stanford University.
The author also tried to verify the story, by asking other scientists, that work with lasers.

They said it would be theoretically possible, but very hard and unlikelly. They can create these explosions of air, by focusing a powerfull laser into a tiny spot. All the light get's bundled in that spot and creates an intense heat.
But the problem is, this focusing only works well up to a certain distance.
The further away, the harder it is to focus, and the less bundled this light becomes.

In the story, these balls were supposedly "flying" high above the desert.
This is what makes it unlikelly.
Maybe that laser optics expert knew about this effect and "slightly" exagerrated about it because of drinking too much at that party? I don't know...


But then i stumbled over something else:

Japan's "real" 3D image projector.

Many companies claim to provide real 3D holograms, only to later have a disclaimer that sound's like "3D is in the mind of the observer anyway..."

But this REALLY generates those ellusive 3D pixels in mid air!

And guess how:

A new device developed by Japan's National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology uses lasers to project "real" 3D images into the ether. A special projector can cast three-dimensional shapes of white light between 2 and 3-meters into the air -- previous devices only tricked the eyes into thinking the image was 3D. The images are created by blasting the nitrogen and oxygen in the air at fixed points resulting in glowing plasma emissions which hang-out just long enough to etch an ephemeral image. The 3D images are, gulp, accompanied by a series of satisfying "tiny explosions" from the expanding air.

Blasting nitrogen and oxygen in the air? Plasma? Sound of explosions?

Could that story really be true?


Well, again, there is a limitation: 2 - 3 meters.. This has to do with the focusing problem..
But it would seem they do it with one laser only and determine the point of explosion with the focal point..
Maybe using two intersecting lasers, the distance achieved could be much greater? I don't know..

But it is very interesting!


This could, for the first time ever, create real volumetric 3D projections in mid air.. The laser is IR, so it is invisible, leaving no beam to be seen. You only see the explosion.

On the other hand these projections would be very loud...

Oh, and it wouldn't be very healthy to stand close to it, or even in the way of the beam, never mind touching it. If you look at the photo, the guy is wearing IR blocking protection goggles, so the IR lasers wouldn't fry his eyes.
I don't know how they're going to solve the colour thing tho. The colour depends on the type of the gas turning into plasma. But they seem to have some ideas...

I wonder what will come out of it.. It will definatelly be spectacular (and loud).



P.S. Before anyone jumps on it and claims this was used to project the planes - This system won't be able to project images darker than the surroundings. The same problem remains. You can't make "dark" using light.

On the other hand, i can already see this used to enrich the Project Blue Beam conspiracy theory.. I didn't do it on purpose, i promise! It was simply too interesting to ignore.

reply to post by deezee


Really interesting finds !!!! Good job !!!

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
Hi fellow Truthers and also hello to you OfficialConspiracyTheoryBelievers.

So being a truther means believing conspiracy theories, the more impossible, the better?

And discussing logic and facts about the possibility of "holograms" means believing the official story?

Interesting reasoning.. Mind explaining?

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
Truthers- heres your chance to prove whether concrete turns into dust in a building collapse etc- and

So you believe in a conspiracy theory, in which all media is involved, but at the same time think a show on Discovery Channel is going to proove this conspiracy in which it itself is involved?

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
OTC Believers quit griping about the impossibilities of daylight Holographic projections etc. and submit it to the crew at Mythbusters.

First of all, the problem is not only with daylight "holographic" projection.

The problem is, that real volumetric 3D "holograms" can't even be made in complete darkness.. There is no such thing. The method i described in my previous post could be the first step towards creating a volumetric 3D projection in darkness, but again, not in daylight.

Secondly, most of us here don't need MythBusters to tell us, that light can not block other light or even project darkness. Actually nothing can project darkness.

And thirdly.. I never said i believe any theory, official or not.

We weren't even discussing 911. Just the possibility of projecting 3D volumetric images in mid air and in daylight.
And the conclusion was, that unfortunatelly for now, it is impossible even in darkness, never mind daylight.

I don't know why you compare discussing facts about "holographic" projections to believing something one way or the other.


I will tell you again, as i told you before: Holograms are not necessary for the 911 conspiracy to be true. If it really was a conspiracy, "holograms" would be the stupidest explanation. Not just because 3D volumetric projections don't exist... Even if they did exist, there would be thousands of better ways for pulling off the conspiracy.

I would much sooner believe, that the 911 videos were edited to cover up the fact, that the airplanes were not passenger jets, but maybe remote controlled cargo jets or even a UAV like the Global Hawk.


But holograms? Why?!? Why would anyone want to use holograms, to pretend something slammed into the towers?
Tell me ONE good reason. One good reason, why not simply use a remote controlled jet instead..
One piece of evidence supporting the use of "holograms", PLEASE!


What you don't seem to understand is, that me (and others here) would LOVE to believe such mid air "holograms" are possible.

I've been obsessed with 3D graphics since i was 15, when i wrote my first 3D simulation software. I became even more obsessed with it, when i found the possibility to make it appear in real 3D, floating in mid air in front of the monitor.
I was researching these possibilities for many years now and many exist, but unfortunatelly, none allow real 3D viewing without the use of some sort of stereoscopy.

If it did, i would want to know about it, see it and possibly use it.

So if you have proof of existance of real 3D "holograms", please show it to me. It doesn't even have to work in daylight. I would be satisfied even if it required complete darkness, as long as it's 3D and doesn't need a medium other than air.

Is there even ONE real 3D "hologram" that at least works in darkness?

Everything we've seen so far were just 2D projections on some surface. People call it a 3D hologram, but it isn't a hologram and it isn't 3D. It's always just normal projections either on fine mist of water or on a 45° tilted transparent surface. (Pepper's ghost)


So you see, the real problem for the MythBusters would be to research the myth that real mid air 3D "holograms" exist in the first place. Never mind in daylight.


And i can already tell you what their conclusion would be:
Real 3D mid air "holograms" don't yet exist. Not even in darkness. We just believe so because of science fiction and a misunderstanding of the word hologram.


And if you think i'm not objective, and want to believe the opposite of what you believe, please read my previous post, where i described a discovery, which could for the first time ever lead to the possibility of creating real 3D volumetric projections in mid air.
Unfortunatelly it would again consist of light, and since light can not create darkness, it would again work much better in darkness.


All we've done here, was discuss science and facts about the possibility of mid air 3D projections. Unfortunatelly we discovered it doesn't yet exist. Not even in complete darkness.

If you have some evidence of the existence of such projections, or at least a theory on how it could work, please present it. I for one would love to see it.

But you can not expect people to believe something without ANY reason.

How does halo tech work is it like lasers from difrrent angle hitting each other to make a 3D pixel. There all lasers are out of the human Eye spectrum. But when combine we can see them?_javascript:icon('')
_javascript:icon('')

reply to post by ancient5121


deezee has laid it out very well over the past few pages. Please review his posts then post any questions you might have.

Originally posted by ancient5121
How does halo tech work

Just in case someone missed it:

Holograms are those thin pieces of plastic film, which contain 3D information about an object. If you look at this hologram from different angles, you can also see the object from a different angle.
These holograms are created with lasers.


Holograms are NOT mid air three dimensional volumetric projections.
The only reason we believe this is science fiction.

There are many companies offering 3D holograms, but in reality, what they offer is a normal 2D projection either on a transparent foil or glass, or a cloud of fine mist.


Real mid air three dimensional volumetric projections don't exist. When i started posting in this thread, i thought they might exist and that the only problem is, that they wouldn't work in daylight.

After researching it for a while, i discovered it is impossible even in complete darkness.


The first step towards it could be that Japanese technology i mentioned two posts ago.

Originally posted by ancient5121
is it like lasers from difrrent angle hitting each other to make a 3D pixel. There all lasers are out of the human Eye spectrum. But when combine we can see them?

If you are reffering to that Japanese discovery, it is not that simple unfortunatelly.

If you cross two visible beams, you see two beams and a spot slightly brighter, where they cross.

If you cross two invisible Infra Red beams, you don't see anything.
If you use an IR sensitive camera (any CCD camera might do, if you remove the IR filter), you again see two beams, and a spot slightly brighter, where they cross.


Creating those "3D pixels" is much more complicated than that.
You need an extreemely powerfull laser. Then you focus it into a tiny spot at a certain distance.

What this means is, that the beam will start wide, then it will get narrower and narrower, untill it will become completelly thin, thinner than a human hair.

This looks like a cone. The base of the cone is at the collimator lense (which does the focusing) and the tip is at the point at which you focused it.

Of course the light doesn't stop at the tip of that "cone" after that point it again starts spreading, becoming wider and wider.


But at the point where it is the thinnest, the entire energy of the laser is bundled into that tiny spot.

If the laser is powerfull enough, that spot will contain enough energy, to turn air into plasma, and create a glowing white point (and the sound of an explosion).

So what happens is, the invisible laser light doesn't turn into visible light. It creates plasma and that plasma is what you see.


The problem with this technology is, that this focusing into a tiny spot is only possible up to a certain distance. The further away, the longer that "cone" of light and the more spread out that "tip" becomes.

This is what limits this technology for now.

But as i said before, this distance could perhaps be increased, by crossing two such focused powerfull laser beams.


If you looked at my laser beam pictures, you saw a straight beam of light. This means the laser was focused at infinity - the beams were parallel.

People usually imagine, that when lasers are used for cutting, the beam is straight like that. Unfortunatelly this is yet another misconception, from the movies.

If you want to cut something using a laser, you have to focus it into that same tiny spot at the exact distance of the object you are cutting.

If the beam is parallel, it's power is spread out over a larger area and it becomes weaker, even tho it still delivers the same amount of power.


Maybe i should make a couple pictures of a laser beam focused to just a few centimeters and another one focused to one meter, so this focusing issue will be easier to imagine.. Tomorow...

Do mid air "holograms" even exist?

If anyone knows about ANY succesfull projection of mid air three dimensional volumetric objects (often called holograms, even tho holograms are something else), i would love to hear about it.

Was there ever a sucessfull experiment with such mid air "holograms"?
I don't care how simple the object, actually it can even be 2D, as long as it is in mid air, without any other medium.


If there is someone, who knows of such a thing, i'm sure many of us here would be very greatefull, if you posted the information here.


Thanks!

[edit on 30/1/08 by deezee]

reply to post by OrionStars


You can believe in the Force, Cold Fusion, that OJ Simpson was innocent becauese there are no Wookies on Endor, etc... If you want to believe in something without seeing/providing any evidence, don't be surprised if others question you though. There is no holographic technology that could simulate a plane crash, much less in broad daylight, with nothing to project onto. Planes hit the WTC(or do you believe that in addition to a controlled demolition that conspirators managed to get large quantities of aviation fuel into the building to simulate the fires that would result?)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That was not the purpose of the discussion. The purpose is the serious consideration, of the high probablity, holograms could be successfully used, because they most assuredly existed on 9/11/2001 to a highly sophisticated degree. Developed by the Pentagon and DOD through their own and private labs.

When people cannot see an impact prior to explosion, something is definitely wrong. Explosions are always delayed reactions after impacting another object. So far no one has been able to prove any impact took place at four different locations on 9/11/2001.

reply to post by OrionStars


Eyewitnesses didn't seem to think they saw anything other than what they saw, and the video footage from multiple sources/angles sure looked like planes hitting a building. Do you have footage of what a plane hitting a building really looks like so we can compare?

Originally posted by OrionStars
That was not the purpose of the discussion. The purpose is the serious consideration, of the high probablity, holograms could be successfully used, because they most assuredly existed on 9/11/2001 to a highly sophisticated degree. Developed by the Pentagon and DOD through their own and private labs.

Your thread is named "Is holography currently available for use and misuse?".

Your post started with a document on lasers, which stated, that lasers are used to create holograms. That is true, but these holograms are those thin pieces of film.

There is no relation between those holograms and mid air 3D volumetric projections.


If you really want to know the truth, you have to accept it, wheather you like it or not.

I would love for mid air "holograms" to be possible, but we weren't able to find ANY sucessfull examples.


If the existance of mid air "holograms" isn't the point here, then what is? I mean, before we can speculate if something hit the towers, we have to know, if that something even exists, right?

Otherwise, we are just using meaningless (or misunderstood) words, which don't help us understand anything at all.



I was more than willing to consider the possibility. But i can't find any evidence of such "holograms" even existing.

That's why i would love to know, if anyone has any evidence for them. Wouldn't you?



EDIT: Oh, you were talking to Blue Raja.. Sorry..

[edit on 30/1/08 by deezee]

The following website has a picture of the hole after a plane did not completely penetrate, with a large part hanging to the outside, pulled out from the inside, and then broke up all over a Manhattan city street.

www.freerepublic.com...

www.nytimes.com...

www.esbnyc.com...

Smith's final blunder came when he passed the Chrysler Building. Had he kicked the left rudder, he would have been safe; instead, he went right rudder and directly on a path to the Empire State Building. At 200 miles per hour, the unarmed trainer bomber screamed down 42nd Street and banked south over 5th Avenue. The pilot tried desperately to climb, but it was too late. At 9:40 that Saturday morning, the B-25 slammed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building.

If anyone else has an authenticated series of something showing an actual plane made contact on impact, pentetrated, and was swallow intact whole by any building, I am certainly willing to look at what anyone might have as specifically described.

reply to post by OrionStars


The problem is you have a much smaller plane, travelling less than half the speed, into more ruggedly constructed building.

Wow, just wow.

The OP posed the following questions for discussion:

In the title it is stated "Is holography currently available for use and misuse?"

Holography IS currently available. But the OP goes on to ask the following question:

"The purpose is the serious consideration, of the high probability [spelling of probability corrected], holograms could be successfully used, because they most assuredly existed on 9/11/2001 to a highly sophisticated degree."

If you are asking if planes were holographic projections used during 9/11, then you are absolutely wrong.

Holographs in the way you describe, as manufactured by lasers, requires a medium. The medium often used is silver halide film. You cannot simply make a laser project a hologram in empty space. That is not how holography works. It requires a medium with specialized film.

Now to the reality factor. The "Occam's razor" of this. The cost and required setup of actually trying to create a holograph of plane's crashing into the WTC severely outweighs the cost and plausibility of actually crashing a plane into the WTC. It is much easier to remote control a plane into the WTC than it is to try and crate a holograph of flying one into a building.


And to correct the OP, holography was actually discovered before lasers were produced. Holography only became easier to create with the invention of lasers.

It has become clear to me that the OP has no clue how holographs really work. He has cited sites and examples that only disprove what he is trying to get across.

It amazes me to see how convoluted the OP has made the use of holography in the 9/11 case.

The sky is not falling (and holographs were not used to show a plane crashing into the WTC)

case closed.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by xmaddness]

I was requested to present evidence of a plane impacting a building and nothing more. I provided it. Any arguments on tangent are irrelevant to what was requested, and in complete compliance with request. I also stated I was willing to look at the following from anyone else:

If anyone else has an authenticated series of something showing an actual plane made contact on impact, pentetrated, and was swallow intact whole by any building, I am certainly willing to look at what anyone might have as specifically described.

I complied with a specific request. I did not agree to argue concerning tangents from the specific request.

reply to post by xmaddness


Yes, that is the title. People have stated they do not agree it is possible. Others have stated they agree it is possible. Neither opinion is right or wrong when it comes to possibility vs impossibility.