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.

 

Toronto Sky Anomalies - 9/11 holograms

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
just wondering if you could take a look at something and I was wondering if you cared to comment.

Prior to reading Judy Wood's erin study I was interested in weather manipulation technology. What I found most interesting was these huge streaks in the sky. That is what I call them, not 'chemtrails' because I personally don't believe in 'chemtrails' in terms of 'planes spraying chemicals'

From what I have photographed, and videographed was images of what looked like planes one second, and then the next something different.
I have had photos of these large streaks with 'no plane' infront of them and also with a completely different 'orb' type object.

You may also be interested in the cloud formations at the begining of my piece, something I rarely ever see.

Anyways, I know this is complete speculation, but I was wondering if you could comment.

www.youtube.com...

I am in the works of making a very large article about this along with a movie explaining it entitled 9/11 mocking bird, i will look at fakery and dews and the mockingbird cover up, but my main NEW task is to prove holograms were used on 9/11

Look at 2:44 and compare it to 6:01 of my video
the courshesne video looks exactly like the 'plane' i photograhed in the toronto skies.
notice the missing wing ohmy.gif ?

i think im on to something to be honest here guys.

img.alibaba.com...

science.howstuffworks.com...

www.freepatentsonline.com...

Anyone got anything to say about this ?

cache.daylife.com...




posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I would suggest that next time you think you've located an orb in the toronto sky, you purchase a telescope and use that to zoom in on it. I have a feeling you will find they are all planes.

Happy orb hunting!



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
OK, I'll bite. What do those naturally occuring clouds, some of which are probably due to contrails spreading out, have to do with 9/11 holograms, which are hogwash anyway?



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
OK, I'll bite. What do those naturally occuring clouds, some of which are probably due to contrails spreading out, have to do with 9/11 holograms, which are hogwash anyway?



Even If you wash a hog you still see its spot.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Awesome avatared Sensfan (and a host of others) aside, I'm not ready to discard the 9/11 hologram theory yet.

I'm sure that such things exist. I remember hearing a caller to the Art Bell show say that a jet liner flew low over his car once as he was driving along and then it just vanished into thin air in front of him. He didn't sound obviously nutty or like some kind of smart ass hoaxter.

Someone in another thread months ago found US Air Force literature connected to a military meeting that took place in Australia, in which holograms were included in the spectrum of weapons expected to be available in the near future.

Maybe what the OP saw was some kind of experiment with holograms. Video proof of a hologram would be nice to have.

Just found this. If you go to 56:20 of this video, John Lear tells hologram stories including the one I was trying to remember.




[edit on 28-8-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SparkOfLife
 


Just to clarify. If you're saying that there were holograms on 9/11, don't worry, there were not.

I assume you're implying that there were holographic planes based on what you've said. There were not. There were no holograms involved in 9/11 at all.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


No offense but I've spoken to John Lear about his hologram STORIES. They're nothing but hogwash and his knowledge of holograms is laughable.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Awesome avatared Sensfan (and a host of others) aside, I'm not ready to discard the 9/11 hologram theory yet.

Please research holograms, lasers and optics and you'll realize you should abandon the hologram hypothesis.


I'm sure that such things exist.

They do not.


I remember hearing a caller to the Art Bell show say that a jet liner flew low over his car once as he was driving along and then it just vanished into thin air in front of him. He didn't sound obviously nutty or like some kind of smart ass hoaxter.

Yes, john lear made that claim. It's false.


Someone in another thread months ago found US Air Force literature connected to a military meeting that took place in Australia, in which holograms were included in the spectrum of weapons expected to be available in the near future.

It in regard to a future weapons proposal program called the 2025 program in association with DARPA
Here's a link about that info
www.defensetech.org...


Maybe what the OP saw was some kind of experiment with holograms. Video proof of a hologram would be nice to have.

The type of hologram we're referring to (ie holo planes) simply doesn't exist so you will never see any evidence of it.


Just found this. If you go to 56:20 of this video, John Lear tells hologram stories including the one I was trying to remember.

John Lear knows as much about holograms as I do about god's favorite websites.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


You're a very authoritative expert in everything but credentials, or should I say, stated credentials. Is there any reason you could supply that would indicate why we should believe anything you say.

I don't mean to sound flippant, but you've made a lot of very categorical statements with nothing to back them up. How about some sources or at least some kind of explanation of what you are saying?

And if you don't mind, don't bother with the ad hominem against John Lear. I've heard a lot of that already from people who sound screwier than he alledgedly does. Mr. Lear really pushes some people's buttons!?!



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by jfj123
 


You're a very authoritative expert in everything but credentials, or should I say, stated credentials. Is there any reason you could supply that would indicate why we should believe anything you say.

I don't mean to sound flippant, but you've made a lot of very categorical statements with nothing to back them up. How about some sources or at least some kind of explanation of what you are saying?

And if you don't mind, don't bother with the ad hominem against John Lear. I've heard a lot of that already from people who sound screwier than he alledgedly does. Mr. Lear really pushes some people's buttons!?!



1. Why don't you ask me questions related to the thread and holograms, I'll answer them and you can decide for yourself.
2. Mr. Lear doesn't know anything about holograms which he has proven with his own statements. He's never pushed my buttons, I simply don't approve of people who make things up, can't back them up in any way, and push them as fact. I've called him on those supposed facts and he's caved.
3. My background involves Electronics, computers, lasers, optics and construction. Believe it if you want. I don't care. Keep in mind that when you ask my why the planes couldn't be holograms and I post the answers, you can easily verify them.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I don't mean to sound flippant, but you've made a lot of very categorical statements with nothing to back them up. How about some sources or at least some kind of explanation of what you are saying?


Unfortunately, there's no explanation possible in most cases, because the opposing theory is equally unexplained.

For example, suppose I were to say "Holograms can be created in 3d without any mirrors or diffraction gratings near them and result in a totally indistinguishable image."

Ok, how can I disprove this? Well I can't, because my claim makes no actual testable predictions. There's no mechanism proposed, nor any real facts whatsoever. This is much the case and is mostly just fantasy. People use a whole range of logical fallacies to justify this such as "you really think our government wouldn't have developed these weapons" etc.

We need positive evidence of a claim before anyone can start to easily present opposing evidence.

edit: My background includes work with optics and computing, but I would rather not get into specifics


[edit on 2-9-2008 by exponent]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
1. Why don't you ask me questions related to the thread and holograms, I'll answer them and you can decide for yourself.
. . .
3. My background involves Electronics, computers, lasers, optics and construction. Believe it if you want. I don't care. Keep in mind that when you ask my why the planes couldn't be holograms and I post the answers, you can easily verify them.


Couldn't you have made your points without bothering with this step? You should re-read the post of mine that you are responding to. Remember this is a web forum. I can't take time out to research holograms and lazers and answer my own questions.

You're fencing with me here and in danger of making my point about people who sound screwier than John Lear.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
We need positive evidence of a claim before anyone can start to easily present opposing evidence.

edit: My background includes work with optics and computing, but I would rather not get into specifics

[edit on 2-9-2008 by exponent]


I agree with your post. These types of discussions often take place in a vacuum with nothing in the way of concrete examples put forward. I take your point there.

It is often said that the military are twenty years ahead of the marketplace when it comes to technical advances. I don't know where the marketplace is in terms of lazers and holograms, etc.

I like hearing from experts when they actually inform and provide something to chew on. A simple "that's impossible" with no further explanation really doesn't advance the discussion on forums like these, especially in the current political and scientific climate, with it's distinctly two tiered landscape and rampant suspicions of hi-tech wizardry from the "black" scientific world..

It would be nice to hear from knowledgeable people as to what exactly is the current state of the art in holograms in the public access world.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Here's someithing that will provide a little context for discussion.

This video reinforces for me the possibility that holograms may very well have been used to disguise missiles, which would carry the portable hologram projection screens on 9/11.




posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
This is one of Julian Beever's images. I thought I'd post it and a link to some of his other stuff, just to remind people how convincingly the eye can be tricked even with very low-tech means.



Here is more of his stuff:
www.rense.com...

It's clear that if you could put one or more projectors on a missile (cruise missile, or possibly drone?) the possiblilities of what you could project, with your twenty year black project technological lead, is likely unlimited, especially if you had people like Julian Beever or Stephen Spielberg working for you.

I don't think holograms on 9/11 are far fetched at all.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Ok here's the deal
Holograms require a medium to work. In other words the lasers or images that have been projected, must be intercepted by something that can reflect the image. Another way to look at it is, if you've ever been to a drive in movie theater, you know the movie is projected on a screen. Remove the screen and what do you get? The movie is not projected onto thin air but instead the light disperses at a distance. Much the same way, a hologram must be projected on something.

Also, have you ever watched a drive in movie in the middle of the day? Of course you haven't because you need darkness to project the light. You would have the same problem trying to project a hologram in the middle of the day. You wouldn't see it unless the background the image was projected on, was noticably darker then the laser lights.

There are more reasons why the hologram hypothesis can't be real but lets just start with these for now.

Hopefully this helps. Let me know if you have any questions.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
A little bit of history of the hologram

Holography was invented in 1947 by Hungarian physicist Dennis Gabor. The discovery was an unexpected result of research into improving electron microscopes.
There are several types of holograms:
Transmission holograms such as those produced by Leith and Upatnieks, are viewed by shining laser light through them and looking at the reconstructed image from the side of the hologram opposite the source. A later refinement, the "rainbow transmission" hologram allows more convenient illumination by white light rather than by lasers or other monochromatic sources.

This is of course very basic info.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
This is what would be needed to create the hologram you're referring to

Create a completely realistic 3-d coherent moving image without the need for any medium. In addition, the hologram would need to reflect sunlight and emit sound including audio doppler shift be able to interact on the fly with anything it may encounter en-route including the final impact with the buildings.

This all would require a stable, zero vibration stage in addition to several BANKS of super computers.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

I'm sure that such things exist.

They do not.


Oh so you know that DARPA does not have one, right ?

Might want to look at DARPA's budget for some of its programs.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
And lets not forget laser dispersion whereas laser light travels at a NEAR parallel line but does actually disperse over distance. An example of this would be trying to focus a movie projector much further away then the device allows.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join