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: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Thats as reasonable as me asking you to prove or disprove gods existence.


Talk about irrelevant


So now that were clear, you know that the army is not forthcoming in their statements about what is and is not possible and what is and isn't available to them. Does it not then stand to reason that they would have technology beyond what common science tells us is and is not possible?

The mere FACT that science is a constantly shifting list of of possibilities and conjectures lays credence to the fact that almost anything IS in fact possible, no?

It never ceases to amaze me how people take the gospel of science as a firm un-shifting set of rules and boundaries.

The world was once flat and our planet was once the center of the universe, and anyone thinking otherwise was ridiculed.




posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars


Why didn't you use the proper term rather than the term you did, while confining the color to green?

Do you wish to contend holography was not used for special effects in "Ghost"? OK. What do have that supports your claim holography was not used?



This is getting absurdly annoying. It is called green screen, or blue screen because it is filmed ON A GREEN OR BLUE BACKGROUND. Clear?

Yes I do contend your idea that holography was used in Ghost for the FACT that it wasn't. It was most likely green or blue screen. What evidence do you purport to have that it was some form of holography?


Originally posted by OrionStars

You did not appreciate what Wiki described? Why?


I very much do, you obviously don't. It doens;t mention holography ANYWHERE in that wiki article about chroma-key.

If I wasn't quite so sure that you were serious about this i'd say you were pulling my leg. How many times must you have the concept of CGI DOES not equal Holography shoved down your throat? And would you kindly answer the questions i posed above and the points i raised?

You know it's hard to deny ignorance when you're arguing with it's apparent embodiment...



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vector J


This is getting absurdly annoying.


On that, we can certainly agree.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Vector J


This is getting absurdly annoying.


On that, we can certainly agree.


Thats not an answer.

Read these:

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe they will help clear up your misunderstanding? Oh and one line posts are against forum rules...



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Vector J
 


I shall what I meant. That was my way of saying I am going to agree to disagree - until you can post something relevant to the topic - holography laser technology.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I have I along with several other members, have repeatedly pointed out that your view of holography is wrong. You believe effects from a computer put into films were actualy manifest holograms that you could see in the real world. This is very wrong.

How can I talk to you about holograms when you don't understnd the difference between CGI that is rendered in a computer program and then overlayed onto film is the same thing as a hologram generated in the realworld using laser technology?

Read my above twolinks. You'll notice how it even specifically mentions Star Wars, your champion of holograms in films, was just cgi. No lasers. No actual holograms.

I really feel I need to keep hammering this point home until you, or t least people suffering the same dillusion see that you are not understanding the two very different concepts.

Holograms that look like the effects you see in films arenot possible to be realised in the real world with current technologies...



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Vector J
 


Do not make the same mistake others have made, and presume to know what I think about laser technology, including holography. Because your presumption is dead wrong as written by you. You cannot find anything I wrote stating what you presume I wrote and meant. You are misinterpreting my words. Please refrain from doing it again or in the future.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


You have stated that holograms were used in both Star Wars and Ghost. Will you dispute that?

I have stated that holograms were NOT used in both Star Wars and Ghost that infact special effects are used, green screen or CGI. I have provided a link to explain what CGI is and how it is no holographic in the slightest and how it ws CGI, not holography used in Star Wars.

It is quite clear that you equate film special effects to holography. I and numerous others have pointed out that this is wrong, that they are two different things.

CGI can certainly be used to create the data that a state of the art holographic display system then uses to create its holographic imagery, however they are not sufficinetly dvanced enough to create images on the level you have stated you believe that they are, namely in films and the WTC planes.

Can you disprove anything I have said here?

Can you prove your insistence that holograms, created by lasers have routinely been used for years in hollywood?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I think the problem here is that the OP's native language is not English. If I am wrong I apologize, but I say this because it seems that you don't understand the English term "hologram" and are confusing it with computer-generated imagery.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerOfKnowledge
 


Few, if any people, make the comment you just made without intending to insult someone. You are certainly entitled to your presumptuous opinion as well.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Vector J
 


Well, then, you will not mind explaining how Patrick Swayze ended up realistically, via what looked more to be holographic illusion, appearing to jump through a solid wall with this tech, will you?

www.famousbymorning.com...



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I'd like to see you dispute what I said and answer the questions I posed if you wouldn't mind. they are on topic and speak about the basis of this thread, namely holography. Have I misstated your opinion perhaps? Maybe you didn't read my links?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I mean no insult. You just seem to not understand what a hologram is and the fact that they aren't used for special effects in movies. Computers can create the "movie magic" that you attribute to holograms.
So to be clear, your native language is English? or not?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Happy to. Already did but ill go through the process again for you.

Swayze stood infront a screen (Blue or green, due to the time period, probably green) and made his jump.

Footage was then filmed of the wall in an actual set.

The editors then took swayzes jump and removed the background from the footage. They then overlayed that fottage on the wall footage.

To make it seem as if he was jumping through the wall, the merged footage had all the parts of swayze that would appear to be 'in' or 'going through' the wall, and removed them, to leave the slick image of him apparentlyjumping through a soild wall.

Easy as pie.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
While anyone is so set on Chroma Key tech, while in determined denial of any potential holography use on 9/11/2001, they really should keep in mind the realism in dimension only comes with 3-D. Otherwise, photos and vidoes are obviously very one or two dimensional. 3-D projects height, width and depth. 1- and 2-D, as in photos and videos, do not.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Are you disputing the description i gave? You really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Can anybody help me out here? Maybe i'm not explaining it well enough, but mainly i reckon the OP just doesn;t care what I say.

What evidnce do you have for ANYTHING, ANYTHING AT ALL that you have posted in the thread and labelled 'fact'?

I have clearly shown you, as have others that your beliefs about holography in films is wrong, how is it that you still don;t see it yourself?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Vector J
 


Made his jump into what? Another solid physical piece of some type? I would be inclined to surmise he would bounce backwards when he made impact. Or do you wish to contend his image was holography?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
We had very cheap form of holographic effect when I was growing up. It was called 3-D movies. We have to wear a pair of cardboard glasses with green or blue cellophane lenses. The movies became very realistic to us - until we took off those very cheap flimsy pair of glasses.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


You seem to have completely missed the explinion and are trying to find holes where theyr are none. I'm not actually sure what exact scene you are reffering to in the film, so i gave you the stndard way that it would be done. He may have landed on a green screened piece of set for all i know. I didn't stand over them while they filmed it. However you will find that that is exactly how that effect is achived.

You've even linked to chroma-key videos yourself, nd yet you still need me to explain word for word again how it wroks?

You are dead set on not being proven wrong.

I'm going to leave this now untill tomorow as i need to sleep, but i'd wager a lot that you will not find a single person that agrees with your belief that hollywood effects are holographic images. Not one.

I bid you a goodnight for now. I hope someone else has more luck convincing you than I've had...



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


The wall was made of jello and as soon as he went through it reformed into the shape of a wall.

/sarcasm

This person is apparently a troll who is just trying to get a lot of replies to his thread by making ridiculous statements.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join