Is holography currently available for use and misuse?

reply to post by Retikx


show us proof or it's all BS. Then again, you yourself said you were just speculating. If I were you I wouldn't try to hold to that theory as gospel (since you seem to bring it up again and again).

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Question]

"If I were you I wouldn't try to hold to that theory as gospel (since you seem to bring it up again and again)"


Well your not me, and dont presume to have a monopoly on the truth, it will only serve as a personal embarrassment in the future.

The technology i speak of will come into the public eye this year, so id suggest biting your tongue for now.

reply to post by Question


I hold this attitude because I am a scientist in thought and deed. Anything is possible until proved impossible. If someone can design machines called DEW, holography is not that hard to master compared to DEW. I continue to stand firm on view it is possible. Until proved impossible, it will remain possible.

I will interate again. I never said I was going to prove it was done on 9/11/2001. I stated I was only going to prove it is possible which it is. We have firm science research and development results to prove it is indeed possible.

No one knows everything the Pentagon and DOD secretly develop do they? If so, how do they know, except for those people actually involved in those projects? Anyone not directly involved spends their time speculating instead.

Originally posted by Question

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 ............ (edited for brevity by this author)

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.)

You said holography required darkness. I established it did not. Yet, you still continue to argue it was not possible, though proof was given refuting that part of your arguments of being impossible.

It is fine if you chose not to believe it and your perogative. However, you no longer currently have grounds to establish it was not possible. When part of your argument is refuted, the counter can refute your entire argument. You have given no proof it is impossible. You do use the word assume. Assumption is not proof of anything.

Originally posted by jfj123
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.

Perhaps it is you who does not "get it". You have repeatedly expressed you are not open to possibility beyond the immediate environment in which you habitate. If scientists thought like you, we would have no modern conveniences to kiss good-bye.

reply to post by Retikx


reply to post by Retikx


As I presented from holography trade shows, no aerosol mist was needed or seen. Yet, there were several suspended 3-D holograms. Then they had another hologram looking as if it was actually dancing on the cushion of a chair in someone's residence. They were all under bright lights. They were dense enough so as not to be transparent. That is what gives the illusion of 3-D holography realism other technology may well not be able to do. Realism is in the number of dimensions projected by machine, including illusion.

Does the above help support your argument?

I, like most of us, was intitally completely fooled by the Great Manhatten Swindle of 9/11. After hearinf runors about there being no planes at either Shanksville or the Pentagon I began to look into it, and sure enough, upon close inspection the images of aircraft hitting the WTC buildings also turned out to definitely be FAKE. At the time I didnt think it was possible that it was a CGI show- because of all the witnesses and "private" footage of the event. I therefore concluded that an image of some sort had to have been projected for the live "audience" there. Now, after exhaustive research and rumintaion on the subject it is clear that any of the "private amatuer" video is nothing of the kind- only surfacing well after the fact by non-existent people, or people with obvious connections with the deed- (the Hezarkani video for instance). So my decision was to concentrate on only the "live" broadcasts. As far as I know- there are 5 that show the second impact- with only 3 actually showing the plane disappear into the building. The "nose out" (FOX chopper9) and "glide into the building like its butter"(CBS) ones are the most obvious fakes, and not until a year or so ago was I convinced that indeed they were in fact CGI images. I was certain that if the perps were going to make computer images, they would have been a heck of a lot better! I have come to the conclusion that the answer is that BOTH an image albeit bad blurry and shimmering was projected, and simultaneously a slightly better CGI plane was pasted onto the "live" feed (which keeps getting better and better as they slowly change the "official" archives). Now, with that being said, I would like to comment on the actual topic here- daylight Holographic projections. Of course its possible - check out the HELIO display for instance www.youtube.com... it uses a laser projection bouncing off a film of ionized air. How could this be done in midair? you ask- simple. The real impact vehicle- lets say it was a cruise missile- produced an ionized cloud providing the necessary "thicker" air for the laser projection to appear upon, while at the same time providing a loud shreak for the crowd to hear. for those on the wrong angle or light reflection areas, where the projected image was bad- would still see the blurr of the missile- probably painted like a UA jet. Anyone who managed to snap a picture would have SOMETHING on film, and with the instantly replayed CGI images on TV being drilled into our heads the "fact" of airliners was accepted by everyone. I distinctly remember, but havnt really tried to dig up a mention in one of the "its new" magazines (Pop mech or pop sicence- not sure) in the 80s about "Battlefield Holographic projections will help save our boys lives"- the concept being this: you have a concealed enemy- you project an image of a vehicle onto the battlefield- the concealed enemy believing it is real fires upon it thus giving away their position, allowing them to be pinpointed to return fire. Pretty good trick. I have had this discussion with lots of people- and the most common rsponse is"that would require a really powerful laser to make the image in broad daylight" DUH?- GEEE- I wonder who might have those?........

Heres who has high energy lasers: www.airforce-technology.com... sorry- havnt quite figured out the link post on this forum. Disregard that this technology is only now being revealed- new gear in the military arsenal isnt admitted to exist until it is painfully obvious or thought to be necessary to prove that they are "doing their job" in this case- doing their job by blasting those nasty non-existant Iranian missiles from the sky.

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
I have had this discussion with lots of people- and the most common rsponse is"that would require a really powerful laser to make the image in broad daylight" DUH?- GEEE- I wonder who might have those?........

A powerfull laser is not the problem. The problem with a powerfull laser is, that it's entire beam would be visible. (Unless of course it's an IR laser, but then nothing is visible.)

Even "just" a 1W green laser can have a completely visible beam in daylight if there isn't too much sun.

So the problem is, how do you make it visible only where you want it to be.


You have to use a weaker source of light and create a "surface" for it to reflect off, just like you said before. All these holographic machines use something to manipulate the air where the image is projected. But not all of them use lasers.


Unfortunately, even if you mounted a huge and powerfull ion generator onto a missile, or let's say a Global Hawk, and put hundreds of thousands of needles all over it's body, for the ions to shoot out, the simple fact that it's moving so fast would leave all these ions way behind it, because of airflow.

And before you ask.. Yes, i do know a bit about high voltage ion generators and lasers, as i've built and experimented with both. Huge sparks, explosions and surfaces burnt with lasers are very common in my workshop.


To the OP: I don't know if this was mentioned before... Usually, when you read about lasers being used for creating holograms, this doesn't mean 3D holograms in mid air, but those flat pieces of film, which show a 3D object, when you change the angle from which you're looking at them.


In any case, it would have been MUCH cheaper and WAY more reliable and convincing to modify the planes to remote control and fly them into buildings.

If the videos of the impacts really were CGI, this would mean either that nothing hit the towers (and people just got convinced of seeing planes later with a little help of mass hysteria) or that it was painted UAVs. Global Hawk seems to be popular in this theory.

If you think there really is a conspiracy for you to expose, it would be better to stop making up stories like holograms and micronukes. All this does is make it look even less plausible.

[edit on 24/1/08 by deezee]

reply to post by ItsHumanNature


Thank you. You have just confirmed what I once brought up, in consideration of holography used by magicians, Hollywood special effects, and for personal entertainment. Plus, consideration of the trade show where those 3-D holographs appear dense. Dense enough to hide something physically material inside them. I was told it was impossible at an earlier time. Yet, I am still not convinced it was.

I do know the steel of the facade and perimeter wall frames were too vertical and straight cut to have anything resembling a 767 impact and penetate them on either buildings. Laser beams can cut that steel very easily. Throw up a facade of "smoke and fireball", and lasers could cut through steel in less time than it would take to "swallow" an entire 767. People would never actually see any invisible beams. Not without a catalyst to expose them. Besides, people had their total attention on "smoke and fireballs" not anything else at the time.

If they added a cruise missile, it is living testimony that both towers could withstand just about any opposing force, but nature's earthquakes, H-, A-bomb, DEW, or conventional controlled demolitions. It is the differnce in time when the buildings were alleged to be impacted and demolished (into their own footprints) by 767s and jet fuel fire vs. the time they were demolished by what strongly looks to be DEW.

reply to post by deezee


Laser beams are invisible unless color is added to to them. No one will see a variety colors to project images. All they will see is the image. The same way projectors showing movies do not have a stream of colors running to the screen on those image projections.

reply to post by deezee


Just a question. What holography does not use laser beams?

Originally posted by deezee

To the OP: I don't know if this was mentioned before... Usually, when you read about lasers being used for creating holograms, this doesn't mean 3D holograms in mid air, but those flat pieces of film, which show a 3D object, when you change the angle from which you're looking at them.

That is why I linked into the holography trade show. It proves the opposite of what you have stated. Do you need that link?

Originally posted by deezee

If the videos of the impacts really were CGI, this would mean either that nothing hit the towers (and people just got convinced of seeing planes later with a little help of mass hysteria) or that it was painted UAVs. Global Hawk seems to be popular in this theory.

However, my opposition pointed out to me CGI and holography is not the same technology. For a change they were correct. It isn't. It is why I started the topic confined to holography. The oppostion decided to take it off topic with a different type of tech to make their off topic point.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Question

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 ............ (edited for brevity by this author)

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.)

You said holography required darkness. I established it did not. Yet, you still continue to argue it was not possible, though proof was given refuting that part of your arguments of being impossible.

It is fine if you chose not to believe it and your perogative. However, you no longer currently have grounds to establish it was not possible. When part of your argument is refuted, the counter can refute your entire argument. You have given no proof it is impossible. You do use the word assume. Assumption is not proof of anything.

LOL! yes there we go, making assumptions. Read back to previous posts and you'll see that I stated "can it be projected during daylight? sure, but it would be incredibly obivious that it's a hollogram because you would be able to see right through it"

Is the technology available? duh! I posted a frikking video of the MTV video awards using it. But it is not... I repeat NOT to the level of which you are describing. This is where your whole argument has fallen apart. You are completely ignoring the reality of light dispersion, not to mention the fact that it is increasingly difficult for a hollographic image to accurately mimmic or create such things as shadows, luminosity, the sun glare bouncing off the hollographic airplane's steel construct, all of which is present in the news reports. These are just a few of the variables of the many that have to be taken into account for a hollographic image to be "believable".

Yes, I've seen a video of at some major trade event where they were using hollograms (at a close range by the way) and while the audience was "oooooh" ing and "aaaaaa" ing. I couldn't help but laugh at the obvious plasticity of the images projected, even the lightsaber which seemed to be the only semi-real looking hollogram displayed.

You should go back to learning more about HOW hollograms work and WHAT affects them, and not just focus on the "Look they work" part. Oh by the way, with regards to the hollywood effects... there's no such thing as a "green plating" it's called a green screen or chroma key.

Also, I googled hollography tradeshow (since I can't recall your link) went to the link on hollography trade show and saw this hollogram of a dancing mouse on a chair (maybe the one you're referring to) and couldn't help but laugh. You could obviously see right through it, and the same for the other videos. They are obviously nowhere near as dense as you claim they are and in fact ended up proving my point that, in order to make a hollogram look more believable (and not just a floating image) you need darkness in order to cover the transparency of the object. Sorry, pal. Your argument does not hold water.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Question]

Originally posted by Retikx
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.

Not possible. Again, lighter then air means it will INSTANTLY start floating up and disperse. You would need a neutrally buoyant, invisible compound that would not disperse into the surrounding air immediately. Not gonna happen. If you think I'm wrong, cite an example of this super aerosol.

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."

Again, NO.
Assuming this was possible, and it isn't, there is the distance factor, and a satellite based holographic projector would be useless as we have an atmosphere. You could not keep a been coherent enough to create any fine detail.

"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.

Let's see the specs on the aerosol. If you can't provide the specs, you are simply making this up.

"As ive already stated, there was absolutely no reason for the holographs to be perfect images, not even close to perfect images.

Don't be silly, if they weren't concerned about it looking good, they would have eliminated the whole idea in the first place.

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.

Please show me how they overcame the problem of dispersion. Again, if you can't tell me how this was done, you are just guessing.

Originally posted by Retikx
"If I were you I wouldn't try to hold to that theory as gospel (since you seem to bring it up again and again)"


Well your not me, and dont presume to have a monopoly on the truth, it will only serve as a personal embarrassment in the future.

The technology i speak of will come into the public eye this year, so id suggest biting your tongue for now.

For you to make this statement, you MUST have knowledge of said technology. Post the information or give it up. Put your money where your MOUTH is.

Originally posted by Question

LOL! yes there we go, making assumptions. Read back to previous posts and you'll see that I stated "can it be projected during daylight? sure, but it would be incredibly obivious that it's a hollogram because you would be able to see right through it"

I only went by your description of needing darkness, which I proved realistic 3-D holograms do not. That was my point of concentration.

The "mouse" in the video realistically looked like a human dressed in a mouse costume dancing on a special effect oversized chair. No different than done live on stage by actual human beings. Until, that hologram went suddenly disappearing without a trace.

Since you chose to pass out your biased baseless suggestion, perhaps, you should open your mind to full possibility concerning sophisticated tech. Plus, open it toward other matters concerning the science of physics and quantum mechanics possibilies, you vividly project you choose not to consider.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Question

 

I stated I was only going to prove it is possible which it is.

But you haven't proven anything.
Yes we know LASERS exist...
Yes we know holograms exist...
NO you haven't proven that they can do what you're claiming regarding the 9/11 planes.

We have firm science research and development results to prove it is indeed possible.

You have posted ZERO evidence to back up what you're saying. Since you say the science exists to accomplish what is claimed, post it. This is where you can start:
1. Show specific evidence that holograms can be created without a medium. 2. Show me holographic projectors that can project a high definition hologram at distance in daylight.
3. Show me any hologram that can reflect sun light.
4. Show me any holographic projector that can be projected from a non-stable platform to any point in the sky.


It'll be a good start if you can show me proof of the above.

Originally posted by jfj123

I stated I was only going to prove it is possible which it is.

But you haven't proven anything.
Yes we know LASERS exist...
Yes we know holograms exist...
NO you haven't proven that they can do what you're claiming regarding the 9/11 planes.

Then we can now be in agreement that holograms are not "alien technology", and I can be assured that type of snide commentary will not be made against your opposition, by you, in this discussion or any other. Is that correct?