Toronto Sky Anomalies - 9/11 holograms

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
So we don't even know if it had any equipment to create holograms.

But you have no proof that it does not.

So please do not make a claim without evidence to support it.

This is completely illogical. It's the worst type of circular reasoning.

You're asking me to prove a double negative which simple doesn't make sense. You claim to have info about DARPA's hologram programs so post it.

I know those types of holograms are not possible because of the limitations of physics and optics. Unless you can show me otherwise of course ????

You could always try this link jfj123. Funny enough, its on page 123!

www.darpa.mil...


The Japanese pavilion at the world EXPO 1988, held in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, was one of the most popular of them all, and often with the longest cue.
I had to wait over an hour to get in, but it was worth it.

For here you could see the most amazing little hologram of a man about 8 inches tall, if my memory serves me right! And much more clear than Princess Leia! in the first Star Wars! And the room was fully illuminated, by the way.

Knowing USA's competitiveness wanting to be the world leaders in virtually everything, it should come as no surprise if they have spend millions upon millions of dollars on especially this technology since 1988!

Maybe someone could find out what their budget was from the period 1995 to 2000, to
this same project linked above!!





[edit on 4-9-2008 by djeminy]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by djeminy]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I know those types of holograms are not possible because of the limitations of physics and optics. Unless you can show me otherwise of course ????

Ok, if you know they are not possible then it should be easy for you to show facts and evidence to suppot this claim.

I already did. Read above. If you can't understand something, let me know.

reply to post by djeminy


Thanks for the link. I believe I've already read all the declassified DARPA project relating to holography in any way.

Unfortunately page 123 has nothing to do with projecting visible holographic projections without the need for a medium in daylight. If I missed that part, please point it out with a detailed explanation.

As for the Japanese pavilion at the world EXPO 1988, could you please post a picture or article so I can review and explain it. Thanks.

Good posts !

Here's a pretty good video of how holograms are made

www.youtube.com...

You'll notice they specifically talk about vibration.

Here's a neat hologram
www.youtube.com...

Notice the darkened environment needed for the projection?

You need dark to project light. You cannot project light on light. Again, try and watch a drive in movie at noon. You can't see anything viable.

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by djeminy

 

Thanks for the link. I believe I've already read all the declassified DARPA project relating to holography in any way.

Unfortunately page 123 has nothing to do with projecting visible holographic projections without the need for a medium in daylight. If I missed that part, please point it out with a detailed explanation.

Good posts !

Thanks!

Please read page 123 again, but take your time.

I would have been much more impressed with the Telstra CEO if he had stood in front of the stage so you could see him 360 degrees.

That was how we saw the live, talking japanese man back in 1988.
As I said, the room was not darkened.

Originally posted by jfj123
Please post evidence here. Thanks.

Getting into the details of video fakery on 9/11 would amount to a significant excursion which I don't have time for. A lot of this info, links to the video clips plus discussion is available on ATS in other threads on the subject. Getting exposure to the topic is very easy using the site's search feature or googling "9/11 video fakery" on YouTube or GoogleVideo.

Of course with video, provenance and chain of custody is everything. The weight you assign to what you are given is a personal judgement. Based on what I have seen, I believe that significant fakery took place on 9/11 in addition to the host of other oddball events that day.

If you look at the plane specs and flight tolerances, you'll see that yes the plane could indeed fly that fast. In addition, you'll notice that these plans are equipped with mach warning devices which means the planes can travel at the speed of sound. Why have the device if it will never be used.

I think the issue that the technical people bring up is not so much the speed but the limits on speed imposed by altitude. I'm calling on memory here but I believe a former Boeing engineer, the designer of the "shaker sytem" (if memory serves) on the aircraft, said that at the altitude the planes were flying, the 500 mph. plus speeds are impossible.

This is a technical issue that has also been thoroughly discussed in another thread.

Originally posted by djeminy

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by djeminy

 

Thanks for the link. I believe I've already read all the declassified DARPA project relating to holography in any way.

Unfortunately page 123 has nothing to do with projecting visible holographic projections without the need for a medium in daylight. If I missed that part, please point it out with a detailed explanation.

Good posts !

Thanks!

Please read page 123 again, but take your time.

I would have been much more impressed with the Telstra CEO if he had stood in front of the stage so you could see him 360 degrees.

That was how we saw the live, talking japanese man back in 1988.
As I said, the room was not darkened.

Please post specifically what you're referring to on page 123.

Also, the vid link I posted of the ceo wasn't really a hologram and what you saw wasn't really a hologram but a more advanced version of the Pepper's Ghost trick.

Here's some info about Pepper's Ghost
Pepper's ghost is an illusionary technique used in theater and in some magic tricks. Using a plate glass and special lighting techniques, it can make objects seem to appear or disappear, or make one object seem to "morph" into another.

www.youtube.com...

This is one of my favorite "holograms"
www.youtube.com...

here are a few others

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Here's some good info about HelioDisplay technology and some good vids
www.io2technology.com...

Now as to your hologram, if I could see it, I could explain what's going on. Do you have a location for the video of the display?

You'll notice a few things in all of the above holograms
1. They all have a dark background. Another comparison is if you take a flashlight in a darkened room or even dim room, you can see the flashlight light and it's source. Now take that same flashlight either into a brightly lit room or outside into the daylight and you don't see the light or the source anymore. The reason is you need a darker background then the light equivalent being shined on it or through it. This is a constant.
2. All of the holograms were projected onto/into mediums without excpetion.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

I think the issue that the technical people bring up is not so much the speed but the limits on speed imposed by altitude. I'm calling on memory here but I believe a former Boeing engineer, the designer of the "shaker sytem" (if memory serves) on the aircraft, said that at the altitude the planes were flying, the 500 mph. plus speeds are impossible.

This is a technical issue that has also been thoroughly discussed in another thread.

Well we know that planes can fly much faster then 500mph at that altitude so that leaves the question as to whether that particular plane can fly that fast at that altitude. I'll look into that and get back to you.

Wither regard to video fakery, it should be very easy to prove. There are hundreds and hundreds of photos and videos out there, many of those taken by independent sources. Just compare and contrast and see if they're the exact same.
OR
Check for CGI indicators on video and artifact elements in video and photos.
Any good special effects video editor should be able to ferret out things like this.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually I have.

Well you missed the lazer and hologram programs.

could you post this information ? Thanks

reply to post by jfj123


I'm of course specifically referring to the passages mentioning holograms and 3D projections!

Yeah, I fancy the Kate Moss one as well!

Cheers

Originally posted by jfj123
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.

This may no longer be true.

Here is a link to a page discussing a new development in holography that was made at Keio University in Japan. apparently they have succeeded in projecting holograms in the air.

They seem (as of 2006) to have achieved only rudimentary holographic images, but they are projected in the air, not into an emulsion, or mirror etc.

The device we have developed utilizes the plasma emission phenomenon near the focal point of focused laser light. By controlling the position of the focal point in the direction of the x-, y-, and z-axes, we have succeeded in displaying real 3D-images constructed by dot arrays in air (3D-space).

www.aist.go.jp...





I apologize but I can't help invoking that old CT'ers mantra, remember, the military, with it's black science programs is at least twenty years ahead of public access research.

Do you remember what computers were like twenty years ago, in 1988? In the world of technology, twenty years is an age..


[edit on 5-9-2008 by ipsedixit]

The preceding post makes one watch this Chinese UFO footage in a whole new way.





[edit on 5-9-2008 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 5-9-2008 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


You're right, I forgot to mention the holographic program which allows for the excitation of the air itself to create small plasma explosions. Very good find as not many people are aware of that info. I forgot about it myself !

You still have some of the same problems with that particular type of holographic technology.
1. Notice it's done in a darkened room? Let's try this a different way. If you've ever had an inkjet printer, look at your ink cartridges and you'll notice they don't have white in them. So if you want white, you must use the paper as a source for white. So, you must have white paper as a background to have any white on your printing. You have a similar problem with light. Light doesn't produce darkness so if you are going to have something dark in your hologram, you must use existing darkness as a background. Now keeping that in mind, look at all the photos and videos of planes hitting the towers. Notice the dark outlining of the planes? Since lasers cannot produce darkness, they must rely on dark area's to be produced from the background. The background isn't dark so a hologram cannot be created.

2. That particular type of hologram has a distance projection of only a few feet due to diffusion of laser light. Again diffusion/diversion is a problem.

Also, is there something you've read where the government claims that they are 20 years ahead of public technology in every field?

Finally, I didn't see anything about holographic projectors on page 123. Could you post those excerpts here? Thanks.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The preceding post makes one watch this Chinese UFO footage in a whole new way.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 5-9-2008 by ipsedixit]

Notice it's dark on a light background?
Since lasers don't produce dark, it can't be a hologram.

reply to post by jfj123


Quite right

I also note that those demo displays are monochromatic and different colours could be achieved by using different gases but all the plasma dots would still be the same colour. It's an on/off effect with no in-between states IE all 'pixels' generated would be the same - transparent (off) or bright (on).

This frame from a video of UA175 exhibits all the characteristics that any sort of light projection could not reproduce in those conditions:


The dark parts of the plane in shadow could only be the same as the background sky at best if it was some sort of projection plus note the UA logo on the tail and the colours of the fuselage.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
plus note the UA logo on the tail

So you can actually see that there is a UA logo on the tail ?

reply to post by jfj123

Originally posted by jfj123
You're right, I forgot to mention the holographic program which allows for the excitation of the air itself to create small plasma explosions. Very good find as not many people are aware of that info. I forgot about it myself !

No problem. I thought you were being a little dogmatic and whenever I'm being dogmatized, my spider senses start to tingle.

You still have some of the same problems with that particular type of holographic technology. . . .
Light doesn't produce darkness so if you are going to have something dark in your hologram, you must use existing darkness as a background.

You are getting a little dogmatic again.

In fact all colours, light and dark can be produced by blending the colors of the spectrum. Absence of light produces black, but you can get close to black by blending other colors. There are dark colours in the paintings of some of the impressionists who never used black in their pallette.

The technical problems of a hologram are of course different from the problems of an oil painting, but the essence is the same, presenting a blend of diffracted light to the eye.

Keeping that in mind, look at all the photos and videos of planes hitting the towers.

I'm already very suspicious of the photos and videos, but your basic point is that holograms can't produce dark colors. I'm not so sure of that. I think it's rash for non-experts to be defining the limits of what the experts can achieve.

2. That particular type of hologram has a distance projection of only a few feet due to diffusion of laser light. Again diffusion/diversion is a problem.

If you read the article carefully, you would see that they had achieved results up to several meters, but yes, your point is taken, there are technical problems with the evidence on the linked page. I think the proof of concept point is made though. They can put an image up in thin air.

Also, is there something you've read where the government claims that they are 20 years ahead of public technology in every field?

I think the idea is to keep it all hush, hush, but they can't help boasting occasionally. I don't want to belabour the point here but Nick Cook's book, The Hunt for Zero Point, gives you an idea of the mentality of the people involved in government black science. I think Ben Rich or Kelly Johnson is quoted in there somewhere as saying words to the effect of, we already have the technology to send ET home.

Finally, I didn't see anything about holographic projectors on page 123. Could you post those excerpts here? Thanks. Kee

Your post is in reply to me, but this part of it is meant for djeminy, I assume.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I also note that those demo displays are monochromatic and different colours could be achieved by using different gases but all the plasma dots would still be the same colour. It's an on/off effect with no in-between states IE all 'pixels' generated would be the same - transparent (off) or bright (on).

You make a very good point. I certainly can't address it in a meaningful way or solve that problem on the thread here, but dollars to donuts someone in a lab somewhere is working hard on that very thing.

I was simply trying to make the point that holographic images can in fact be projected in the air.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by jfj123

 

You still have some of the same problems with that particular type of holographic technology. . . .
Light doesn't produce darkness so if you are going to have something dark in your hologram, you must use existing darkness as a background.

In fact all colours, light and dark can be produced by blending the colors of the spectrum. Absence of light produces black, but you can get close to black by blending other colors. There are dark colours in the paintings of some of the impressionists who never used black in their pallette.

That doesn't work the same with lasers as they are made up completely of light.

Keeping that in mind, look at all the photos and videos of planes hitting the towers.

I'm already very suspicious of the photos and videos, but your basic point is that holograms can't produce dark colors. I'm not so sure of that. I think it's rash for non-experts to be defining the limits of what the experts can achieve.

Fair enough. Please find any instance where a laser can produce darkness and post it for me.

2. That particular type of hologram has a distance projection of only a few feet due to diffusion of laser light. Again diffusion/diversion is a problem.

If you read the article carefully, you would see that they had achieved results up to several meters, but yes, your point is taken, there are technical problems with the evidence on the linked page. I think the proof of concept point is made though. They can put an image up in thin air.

They can put a single color (white) dot matrix shape in air, not an actual image (ie photo, picture, etc..), and only at a short distance at that. Now take those few, single colored dots and add billions to fit them together to create a coherent, moving shape with REFLECTIVE capabilities and make that work. Huge difference. And we're right back where we're started in that you can't create darkness with light. As another example, turn on your flashlight and flash it into the sky in the middle of the day. Now do as you suggested and combine colors as you see fit, maybe using different colored lenses, and try to make darkness appear in the sky with your "colored" flashlight.

Also, is there something you've read where the government claims that they are 20 years ahead of public technology in every field?

I think the idea is to keep it all hush, hush, but they can't help boasting occasionally. I don't want to belabour the point here but Nick Cook's book, The Hunt for Zero Point, gives you an idea of the mentality of the people involved in government black science. I think Ben Rich or Kelly Johnson is quoted in there somewhere as saying words to the effect of, we already have the technology to send ET home.

Those are wonderful statements and all but are meaningless without any evidence to support them.


[edit on 5-9-2008 by jfj123]

I'm going to have to go with no on this one. I was in Bayonne, NJ on 9-11, and there were a lot of people saying that they heard the low flying planes. If it was a hologram, you wouldn't be able to fake the traveling of sound. So how would have people heard the planes if there were none? I am big on the truth movement and all, but some of the stuff is hard even for me. Good post though, its something new for me to watch. Thanks