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: 28
4
<< 25  26  27    29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Again you only show your unwaivering belief that the US military is forthcoming and honest with the info they release to the public. Assuming the tech does not exist doesn't make it so, granted this statement works both ways. But i suppose you could stop with your "its impossible" statements nows.




posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
We've been trying to find out if holograms of the needed sophistication, exist in such a form that would allow their use for the 9/11 disaster.

So can a hologram be created to look solid in the daylight, on a massive scale, with reflective properties, while moving through a non-medium and interacting with environmental variables in real time?

Thus far, we have seen no evidence to suggest this is probable or even possible.

9/11 happened-we know this. Whether you believe 9/11 was some type of US government conspiracy or an act of psychotic muslim extremist, I think we can all agree that we don't know the ENTIRE truth. Now I think if we do really want to find out what really happened, and honor the memories of those who died on 9/11, we must find out if this and all aspects of the conspiracy are possible and probable not based on a belief or feeling but based on science. You cannot present a belief or feeling as evidence in court and you cannot present a feeling to the world as proof of a horrible crime so why bother trying?

If we continue baselessly speculating on every aspect of 9/11 and deciding something is true based only on a belief or feeling, we will become in reality, what many people perceive us to be-Conspiracy KOOKS!



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retikx
reply to post by jfj123
 


Again you only show your unwaivering belief that the US military is forthcoming and honest with the info they release to the public. Assuming the tech does not exist doesn't make it so, granted this statement works both ways. But i suppose you could stop with your "its impossible" statements nows.


My belief is based on science. Can you show me any science that says my belief is wrong. If you have a reason as to why I and many others here are wrong, please post the science that indicates that it is.

So as I say, my belief is based on real science, what is your belief based on?



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
My belief is based on the fact that science is a constantly shifting constantly changing set of rules and boundries. To believe one thing is completely impossible in the eyes of science is to beleive we are at the pinnical of what we can possibly do and know on this rock.

This belief that we know all that can be known has been had by men for thousends of years, each one claiming that the system of new is better than the system of old and that it cannot be changed or altered because it is impossible



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retikx
My belief is based on the fact that science is a constantly shifting constantly changing set of rules and boundries. To believe one thing is completely impossible in the eyes of science is to beleive we are at the pinnical of what we can possibly do and know on this rock.

This belief that we know all that can be known has been had by men for thousends of years, each one claiming that the system of new is better than the system of old and that it cannot be changed or altered because it is impossible


Thank you for your response. Do you currently have any reason to believe science is shifting in the required direction to allow for this technology? I do understand what you're saying but my primary point is that we can handle this discussion in one of two ways:
1. Guess that based on the past, somebody, somewhere may come up with the needed technology and not rely on any science based opinion.
or
2. Discuss the scientific probability of the technology.

If we choose number 1, we can wrap this thread up really quick by simply saying "we believe it's possible and we don't need to support that opinion". At that point we really have nothing further to talk about as there is no way to verify or contradict this claim. For that matter, we can remove holography from the conversation and insert anything . For example, aliens destroyed the WTC's, a rogue black hole destroyed the WTC's, etc...

I guess I'm not sure the usefulness of groundless speculation about the subject.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


The problem with that crowd, is that they believe any and everything to be possible, and it's up to us to disprove a negative. It sure makes their arguments easier when speculation is all the proof they require, rather than hard facts, yet they expect hard facts from us to disprove their speculation.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by BlueRaja]



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
It sure makes their arguments easier when speculation is all the proof they require, rather than hard facts, yet they expect hard facts from us to disprove their speculation.


Actually, they ignore hard facts, when they disproove their speculation.

And there is one thing they simply don't get: We are not trying to disproove them, we are just trying to verify their claims.

If their claims were plausible, we would say so. I mean, if i would want people to believe, that there is no way a real 3D volumetric display is ever going to be possible, i wouldn't post the thing about those mid air plasma pixels, that could actually for the first time ever allow something to be projected in mid air completelly three dimensionally.

Unfortunatelly it will again present the problem of it being impossible to project something darker, than the background..


I will say this again, even tho believers don't seem to understand it:
I would absolutelly LOVE for it to be possible! I'm obsessed with 3D displays. They're my hobby. I love programming 3D engines and using stereoscopy to see things float in front of my computer monitor and actually interact with them virtually.

It's just, that
1. There is no evidence whatsoever for a plane projected in mid air in daylight to even be possible
2. Even if it was possible, it would be the stupidest way to pull it off.


All that speculations like these do, is shift the focus away from what really happened, and make ALL the theories appear completelly ridiculous, even the ones, that could be true.

Speculations like holograms and mini-nukes actually do damage to the truth movement.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by jfj123
 


The problem with that crowd, is that they believe any and everything to be possible, and it's up to us to disprove a negative. It sure makes their arguments easier when speculation is all the proof they require, rather than hard facts, yet they expect hard facts from us to disprove their speculation.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by BlueRaja]


You are absolutely right! It must be a wonderfully simple side to be on- to require all others to do all the work for them



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
As ive said before in this thread MANY times there would have been absolutely no need to make a 3D hologram. While i agree that that it would have been impossible to project a perfect crystal clear 3D hologram in mid air for all to see (given our current understanding of civilian holography tech) it would have been completely possible to project a crappy moving image/outline of a plane for the 4 or 5 seconds it was seen by people on the ground. Just long enough and vague enough to give the general impression of a plane, THEN when the people that thought they MAY have seen a plane hit the building went home and saw the myriad of fake footage being peddled on the news networks they would simply put what they thought they saw(crappy fuzzy plane'ish figure) with the crystal clear image they are seeing on the tube. The human mind then takes the two images and melds them together.

THE PERFECT PSYOP



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retikx
As ive said before in this thread MANY times there would have been absolutely no need to make a 3D hologram.

Of course there would as it could theoretically be seen at multiple angles. But lets say it wasn't necessary, do you have any evidence to suggest that a 2-D hologram is possible under those conditions?


it would have been completely possible to project a crappy moving image/outline of a plane for the 4 or 5 seconds it was seen by people on the ground.

Could you post the science that supports this?


Just long enough and vague enough to give the general impression of a plane, THEN when the people that thought they MAY have seen a plane hit the building went home and saw the myriad of fake footage being peddled on the news networks they would simply put what they thought they saw(crappy fuzzy plane'ish figure) with the crystal clear image they are seeing on the tube. The human mind then takes the two images and melds them together.
THE PERFECT PSYOP


Just curious but how do you explain all the individuals who had taken photos from cameras, phones, vids' etc. which show the planes? Are all those individuals part of the conspiracy too?


[edit on 13-2-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You are absolutely right! It must be a wonderfully simple side to be on- to require all others to do all the work for them


You forgot to add:

"Only to then ignore all the work, that was done and continue believing what they want, without a single reason."


And before anyone explodes: If there is a reason for believing this, please explain it to us.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Retikx
That still gets us back to that little problem of projecting an image that's darker than the medium it's being projected on. Sharp or fuzzy, it's defying a basic principle of light IE you can't project dark.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retikx
While i agree that that it would have been impossible to project a perfect crystal clear 3D hologram in mid air for all to see (given our current understanding of civilian holography tech) it would have been completely possible to project a crappy moving image/outline of a plane for the 4 or 5 seconds it was seen by people on the ground.


Sure, people do have very selective memories, and most might even be convinced by the TV, that that was what they saw..


But. What would this 2D image be projected on?

You see, the problem isn't 2D/3D.. If such a technology would exist, that would make it possible to project 2D images in mid air, i myself would be perfectly capable of rewriting the program, to make it fully 3D capable.

If you have the possibility to project "mid air pixels" for a 2D projection, the SAME technology could be used to project the thing in 3D.


That is not the problem! The problem is projecting something in the air IN THE FIRST PLACE! Never mind in full daylight.

Even if you hung a screen at the height where the plane was supposed to be projected for those 4 - 5 seconds, painted this screen sky blue and used projector, to project a plane on this screen, it would be so faint, that it would be pretty much invisible.


There is no way to project something, that looks darker than the background! You can not use light, to project "dark". (EDIT: What Pilgrum said...)

A real object absorbs most of the light, and partially reflects only certain wavelengths of light. This is how we see objects - by light reflecting off them.


But hey, if we're hanging a screen for projecting on, up there in the sky, why not rather use a huge long LED screen? You know, those things that are mounted on buildings, and display commercials and other short clips, and are visible even in full daylight, because they use very bright RGB LEDs..
Hmm, it would have to be as wide as the airplane, it would have to be hundreds of meters long, but at least then, you could use it to project the image of the sky on it, and then a plane flying towards the tower..

Well, we would have to make it invisible, right, so why not wrap it in LEDs from all the visible angles, and then use CCD cameras on top, to record the sky, and display it on the bottom and the sides... That would be more convincing and less visible. The plane would simply be added on top, right?


Hey, great, now we just need to check, if there was a company, that bought 7 trillions of super bright Luxeon RGB LEDs and CCD cameras. Then we would have the first lead! Great, right? Man, this company producing LED displays must have made a gazillion dollars for this project..



But wait... What if we wanted to do it 100 million times cheaper? What if we wanted it to be more convincing? What if we wanted to make sure nothing goes wrong and that there are no loose ends?


Hey, i have an idea! Let's use a plane! Maybe if we use a plane, people will see a plane? Hmm, worth a shot. In fact, it would not only be more convincing, effective and cheaper, it would at least be possible!

If you want people to see a plane, why not use a plane? Hmm.. Too simple? Too good? Too little loose ends?!?


No, that's not good. It has to be complicated and completelly impossible, otherwise we don't like it, right?



P.S. If it was done by the US government, please tell me ONE good reason, why not simply use a jet converted to remote controll.
Actually, if it doesn't have to be convincing, why not just use a UAV, like the Global Hawk? It has the same wingspan as a boeing, a different shape, but people will be brainwashed into believing it was a boeing by the TV anyway, right?

If you want people to see a plane, use a plane! If you disagree, please offer ONE reason, why not to use a plane. If you have more than one, even better, but ONE would be a start.

Thanks!

[edit on 13/2/08 by deezee]



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by deezee
 



Even if you hung a screen at the height where the plane was supposed to be projected for those 4 - 5 seconds, painted this screen sky blue and used projector, to project a plane on this screen, it would be so faint, that it would be pretty much invisible.


Would it be similar to watching a drive in movie at around noon? I have actually seen this before and it's almost unrecognizable.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Would it be similar to watching a drive in movie at around noon? I have actually seen this before and it's almost unrecognizable.


Heh, yeah, that's what i meant...

Why would anyone try to project a movie outdoors during daylight?!?

Actually, it would be even worse than that.. If it was a normal white screen, with the sky + plane projected on it, the sky would look white, maybe only slightly blueish.. But the plane.. Think about it. In a movie projection, how is a dark object presented? Simple, you use less light, where you want it dark. The cinema has to be in complete darkness for it to work of course..

A white screen in daylight, using less light to project something dark, like a plane, what would you get? A white screen. Nothing.

If you used a sky colour screen, so at least the sky would look convincing, you again have the problem, that you can not project something dark on it.

It's the same problem, as with the laser projected "holograms", if they were possible.


The huge RGB LED display was the only thing i could come up with, that isn't impossible...

These LEDs are ultrabright, so you can actually see what's on the display, even during daylight, and since they work from a black basis (background behind them), they can show things darker, than the ambient light.

Of course i think everyone understands why this, while theoretically possible, wouldn't work.



I mean, let's say for a moment, that the government did it.. If they wanted people to see a plane, why not use a plane?!?

Has anyone offered at least one reason, why they would complicate and use some complicated, unreliable and not very convincing technology only to make people see a plane?

I don't get it. What is the reason people even believe this? I mean, i know some people get a kick out of believing bizzare things... Is that it? Is that the only reason?


Or is there at least one good reason, to even consider the possibility, that the thing in the sky that day wasn't really a plane? If there is, i would like to hear it..

[edit on 14/2/08 by deezee]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by deezee
 


I also wonder what resolution that projector would need to project at ?

The theoretical screen size would be an absolute minimum of
159 ft 2 in long x 156 ft 1 in wide (Boeing 767 200 ER plane dimensions). That's a lot of freakin pixels !!!

My computer isn't happy with anything higher then 1280 x 1024 on my 22" LCD screen.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I also wonder what resolution that projector would need to project at ?

The theoretical screen size would be an absolute minimum of
159 ft 2 in long x 156 ft 1 in wide (Boeing 767 200 ER plane dimensions). That's a lot of freakin pixels !!!

My computer isn't happy with anything higher then 1280 x 1024 on my 22" LCD screen.


That would be just to show a realistic looking plane. To show it in motion, over the span of several seconds, you would have to make it as long, as the path the plane travels in those seconds.

I don't want to start calculating this now, as i'm in a hurry, but imagine how complicated this would be..

Much more complicated than, let's say using a real plane.. Or is this too radical?



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee

Originally posted by jfj123
I also wonder what resolution that projector would need to project at ?

The theoretical screen size would be an absolute minimum of
159 ft 2 in long x 156 ft 1 in wide (Boeing 767 200 ER plane dimensions). That's a lot of freakin pixels !!!

My computer isn't happy with anything higher then 1280 x 1024 on my 22" LCD screen.


That would be just to show a realistic looking plane. To show it in motion, over the span of several seconds, you would have to make it as long, as the path the plane travels in those seconds.

I don't want to start calculating this now, as i'm in a hurry, but imagine how complicated this would be..

Much more complicated than, let's say using a real plane.. Or is this too radical?


In addition, I believe the plane would need to be projected in extreme HD to prevent a washed out look of the detail lines. This would be due to the large distance between the projection and the viewer.

I don't even think Ultra HD would do the job:
Ultra High Definition Video, UHDV, Ultra High Definition Television, UHDTV and UHD is an experimental digital video format, currently proposed by NHK of Japan.

Super Hi-Vision's main specifications:
Resolution: 7,680 × 4,320 pixels (16:9) (approximately 33 megapixels)

The new format with a resolution of 7,680 × 4,320 pixels is four times as wide and four times as high (for a total of 16 times the pixel resolution) as existing HDTV, which has a maximum resolution of 1920 × 1080 pixels.

[edit on 15-2-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
In addition, I believe the plane would need to be projected in extreme HD to prevent a washed out look of the detail lines. This would be due to the large distance between the projection and the viewer.


I thought we were talking about the RGB LED display.. There, the resolution is limited by the size of the LEDs.

But the further away you are, the less important the resolution becomes, due to perspective.. Even if the pixels were huge, they would look ok, from far away..

Anyway, let's say we're using RGB LEDs.. Nowadays you can get them in 3mm or 5mm.. It looks like one LED, but actually contains four - 1xR, 1xG, 2xB. With pulse width modulation (PWM) you can controll the brightness of each of them, to get slightly less than 17 millions of colours (24bit).

3mm LEDs would give the best resolution for a small display.
Some larger LED screens actually don't use these special RGB LEDs but 4 normal super bright LEDs arranged in a square - RGBB.. If 5mms were used, this would give a square of 15x15mm (due to edges...). This would then be one pixel..

Imagine having such huge pixels on a monitor.. Well, since these things are big, and you look at them from far away, this doesn't matter.

For an even larger display, you can use 10mm LEDs, which would give a sqare pixel of 24x24mm. High up in the sky, this would actually look very detailed.


Ok, you said, the plane was 156 feet wide. This makes 47550mm
The plane travels 500mph. This is 222000mm/s. Ten seconds means 2220000mm.

Ok, what would be the resolution..
1981 pixels wide
92500 pixels long

This would make 183.242.500 pixels. More than 183 million pixels, each out of four LEDs, makes 732.970.000 LEDs..

Each LED needs it's own driver with PWM modulation capability. If you want a smooth animation, you'd probably want 30 frames per second.
This means, that each of this LEDs has to be modulated 30 times per second. The frequency of the modulation has to be much higher because of this. The computer power required would be mind boggling...

If it was a RGB LED display with 24mm sqare pixels, that is..
Of course, there is no way to put it up there in the first place, even if it could be created.


Now that i think of it, a hologram would be easyer.. If only it was possible...

It would require the possibility of creating mid air pixels, which would be balls most likely. Again, they wouldn't need to be very small, to still look convincing from far away. A ball of 20-30mm would be fine.
Now if i knew the surface of the plane, i could halve it (you only need to display it from below) and again divide it with this approximate number.

The result would be a much smaller number, but still huge...

[edit on 15/2/08 by deezee]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by deezee
 


I just had another thought about the imaginary projector. Wouldn't the projector need to be perfectly stationary to project smoothly? For example, when using construction lasers at a distance, you have a massive movement at the ending point of the laser when only moving the laser itself minutely.




top topics



 
4
<< 25  26  27    29 >>

log in

join