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: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Now that I think about it, that cellophane might have come in different colors not just blue or green. They did a great job making 3-D movies highly realistic. We felt like everything was jumping at us right off the screen. It was that real for illusion.




posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Vector J
 


Yes, I did. It was one solid physical piece with photos and videos superimposed on it in the background. That is the way they used to run subliminals on the same screen before they became illegal in movies and TV shows.

Now exactly what solid piece did Patrick Swayze jump through and disappear from view? You conveniently avoided that question. Probably, because it would have been impossible for him to do that, but not with 3-D holography.

Have a good night's rest.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerOfKnowledge
 


Thank you for the apology.

I understand just fine what holography is, and have for a very long time.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerOfKnowledge
 


The wall and door were made of jello, and never shimmied when he appeared to go through it. Jello under hot lights and not expect it to melt very rapidly. That is a novelty.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerOfKnowledge

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


I suppose the above leaves no doubt your apology was completely insincere. Since you obviously missed the beginning, where I explicitly explained the purpose of this discussion, you are totally out of line with your rude comments.

I am not the one consistently taking this discussion off tangent and insulting people.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by SeekerOfKnowledge
 


The wall and door were made of jello, and never shimmied when he appeared to go through it. Jello under hot lights and not expect it to melt very rapidly. That is a novelty.


I read the entire thread - I know...I'm a sucker - but couldn't decide until this post. Now I'm sure someone is just having fun with everybody. I refuse to believe that anyone would take this question seriously and actually bring up the hot lights.

Don't feed the trolls. This isn't helping anyone. jfj - this reminds me of some of the talks with 11:11. I wonder what name he uses now?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Here is how they used green screen for the movie Sin City www.youtube.com...

No holograms.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
This topic is not about "Sin City" and no holography. This topic is specifically concerning holography. Could people please stay on topic?

www.tradeshowhologram.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   
It seems totally on topic when you have asserted here and in other threads that two dimensional images on film are in fact "three dimensional" holograms.

I was saving this one, but now seems as good a time as any.

Could you explain how the holograms are photographed?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


Do either of you actually understand the science behind holograms? They make laser images that look as real as any biological or elemental 3-D image. One will never know it is hologram until one tries to touch it. They use colored laser beams and patterns, which makes the illusion of exact 3-D imaging look real.

They use it in Hollywood all the time. Surely people did not think what they viewed on screen was all real did they? In sci-fi and action movies, a great deal of it can be hologram, i.e. "National Treasure".


Considering that I myself am a film student.... yes I have a basic understanding of hollographic technology, and no, 9/11 could not have been hollogram for exactly the reasons that were mentioned above.

Please observe the following youtube video of the MTV awards of madonna performing alongside the hollographic images of the gorillaz.

www.youtube.com...

As mentioned before, without a proper medium the illusion of the hollographic image will not hold. Simply put, you need a dark room and in some cases a fog curtain as per this documentary suggests.
video.google.com...

Notice that in both videos something is always present, they're both done in dark areas. 9/11 ocurred in a very very bright day. Could there still be hollographic images projected on a sunny day? sure! but you'd be able to tell right away it was a hollographic projection due to that you could see through it.
Not only that, something that would be incredibly hard for a hollographic image to replicate is the illusion of accurate shadows. Meaning? the placement and movement of shadows on the object itself as it goes through objects in its path.

I know this is probably not the answer you were looking for since it seems what you're really asking is "do you think the planes on 9/11 were hollograms?" but what the heck, I'll answer both the question on the thread title and this question as well with a resounding NO! If you think otherwise, please provide proof. I've provided mine. G'day to you sir.

Oh, I should add that, as a film student I find your knowledge of hollywood special effects technology laughable, the fact that you actually believe Star Wars was made using hollograms proves this. You obviously are either very clueless or a troll. Do more research on green screen and chroma key as the other posters have stated because they obviously know more about how hollywood effects are done than you do.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Question]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Question
 


Do not necessarily need a dark room according to the holography trade show link I placed in one of my posts. The videos are well worth watching at that link.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by DogHead
 


Are they using photography at the following website? Aside from the fact we can only view it in video and photos when not attending the particular show advertised at the website:

www.tradeshowhologram.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Question
 


Do not necessarily need a dark room according to the holography trade show link I placed in one of my posts. The videos are well worth watching at that link.


I think I've seen one similar before and I don't think it helps prove the possibility of the 9/11 planes being hollographs considering how incredibly close the images in the trade show were to the projecting device and even then it still didn't look convincing enough (I'm assuming you're talking about the trade show where the guy transformed his control into a lightsaber, which, by the way you could still see through the image). on 9/11 these images (if that's what they were) where hundreds of yards, if not miles away from the projecting device. Hence it would become glaringly obvious that they were hollograms because of light dispersion (as was stated over and over by jfj) But considering how in reality they looked crisp and clear even at a distance, that knocks out the hollogram idea. Not to mention the behavior of shadows and sunlight on the planes as well as below on the ground.

Sorry, but it simply is not possible to make a convincing hollographic image, nor was it used on 9/11 either. There are too many variables that have to be taken into consideration such as shadows, luminosity, brightness and contrast (and the list goes on). Mess up 1 or 2 of these things, and the image will stick out like a sore thumb. (yes, I've done 3d modelling as well, so I know what's involved.)

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Question]

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Question]

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Question]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retikx

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?

Do me a favor and learn something about optics, lasers and holography then come back and ask me the same question. Your current complete lack of knowledge in this area makes explaining everything over and over rather pointless.


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?

Read above.


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

It never ceases to amaze me that people believe that sci-fi is real.


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

You just don't get it. Everything must work within the confines of our physical world. Any scientist will tell you this. Seriously, go to school then come back and lets see if you will continue making smart @ss statements or something has sunk in and you'll understand what I and others are saying.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.


At this point, I'd also like to know what your native language is as the above just makes no sense. I would like to believe that you're simply not fluent in english then think......well you get the idea.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vector J
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?


You've been explaining it just fine and I applaud your patience

I think the problem here is two fold-a language barrier and and educational level barrier. Good try though



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by SeekerOfKnowledge
 


The wall and door were made of jello, and never shimmied when he appeared to go through it. Jello under hot lights and not expect it to melt very rapidly. That is a novelty.


Thats very limited thinking. Don't you believe that movie scientists could come up with melt proof jello? it may be top secret so that automatically means it's real



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   
self edited for snippiness

[edit on 24-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Holography is currently available but unknown on the scale being proposed. It needs ultra-stable and precise projection points to maintain the image geometry which rules out any flying platforms being used, not to mention the large problem of getting the image through a large smoke cloud or preventing the laser light being visible on the smoke if projected from below.

There's video of UA175 approaching from about a mile away from WTC2 to give an idea of the size of the invisible stable perfect screen the image would need to be projected on. There's also the problem which becomes obvious once the technique of recording holograms is understood - how to perfectly record a very large fast moving object over such a distance in full spectrum colour in the first place complete down to the wing flex during high speed maneuvers?

There's a severe problem if you want to project an image against a light background like sky and that is due to the L in LASER which stands for Light. The darkest possible part of the holo image is the absence of light so no part of the projected image can be darker than the background - it can only be brighter.

That's unless what we observed was a DASAR holographic image (Dark Amplification by Stimulated Absorption of Radiation) - yep I made that up
but it still presents the same problems for actually recording it.

Maybe I found a use for those DEDs in the workshop (Dark Emitting Diodes)



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Just to recap how it was possibly done:


"The medium used on 9/11 was dispersed aerosol sprays from strategic positions around the wtc, these are specially formulated sprays that are far lighter then air and they created an invisible dense cloud of aerosol vapor for which an image can be projected on.

as for the projectors them selfs they could have been either ground based or air based (satellite/high altitude balloon) or a combo of both."


"
"As for the aerosol clouds, any kind of high density cloud even with small particles would surely be visible, especially in a non controlled environment."

You would be wrong on the aspect of visibility, and you are also forgetting the large amount of smoke that was hanging in the air that day. Any aerosol that might be visible would pale in comparison with the visibility of the smoke from the buildings. And against the back drop of the sky it would be almost invisible,[hypothetical] imagine 100 people standing on a rooftop spraying air freshener into the sky, from the ground you would not see it against the sky.[hypothetical]"


""if there was such a high density of smoke as to not to see these particles surely it would also be disrupting or interfering with any kind of projection."

You are right, it would have interfered but as i stated above the holograph did not need to be at all perfect and crisp and clean. It only had to give the momentary illusion of a plane in order to give a few people a glimpse of what they would report as a plane. There was simply no need for the illusion to be 100% perfect because the people who saw the holograph all eventually saw the footage of the "plane" hitting the buildings and said to themselfs "yea thats what i saw" The perfect psyop.


"Theres also as stated by jfj123 if the aerosol was lighter than air (your own words) it would simply rise upwards at such a rate as to be useless, with you stating its an aerosol aswell im guessing that would mean, as with most aerosols, itd be a little flammable. Could pose a problem next to a burning building"

As i have said the aerosol was specifically designed to interact with the air in such a way that all it had to do was raise into the air slow enough for it to be useful in the projection. Heres the likely situation, a 10 block radius around the wtc is wired with aerosol canisters releasing a constant steam of spray a few mins before the initial "impact" and continuing to spray until after the second "impact" thus eliminating the spray dissipating from just one application the tanks were simply running continuously for 30+ mins dispersing spray is a constant large area around the wtc. And as for the flammability it is very possible to engineer a completely non flammable aerosol. Just so you know."

"As ive already stated, there was absolutely no reason for the holographs to be perfect images, not even close to perfect images. Just good enough to give the general outlines and figure of a plane for a few seconds in order to convince a few people on the ground that they indeed saw a plane. Then when those people went home and saw the actual "armature footage" and news "footage" from (LOL) "live" feed they simply saw the plane animations and for any person who saw what appeared to be a plane (for a few seconds) hit the towers there would be no reason to doubt what they are seeing it real. The PERFECT psyop

So to answer your question it is not necessarily possible to OVERCOME the distance factor but it is possible to come close to overcoming it. Thus creating a shaky crappy illusion just good enough to fool a few people. "



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join