• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Volumetric 3D projection is possible, and has been achieved on a very limited scale in specific static environments. See this link (slightly dated, but still very relevant)
True volumetric 3D

There are a few methods of making a true three-dimensional image appear in a volume of space. These would be the closest to the "Princess Leia" type of image. But all current methods have severe limitations.

NEOS Technology has one of the largest volumes; a cylinder approximately one meter high by 1/2 meter diameter. Inside the cylinder, a helix spins at high speed. The image is projected onto the helix. At this time, the images are simple CAD-like drawings (for air traffic control or submarine warfare).

Another method uses two lasers which intersect inside a cube of a special material. The material glows at the intersection. (Pangolin's software is currently used to create 3D images in the volume.) The largest cube is about 1.5 cm on each side. You can see this at the website for 3D Technology Laboratories.

There is no volumetric technology mature enough to do a full-color, reasonable size representation of a human being such as Princess Leia, projected in freespace (as opposed to looking into a TV-like box).
Click to expand...

I do remember work in this area being done at MIT (I know they had a really cool hologram exhibit at one point), but I can't recall anything specific at the moment.

Regardless, the technology to project a full scale image of an airplane, in broad daylight, into free space simply does not exist right now.
 
Last edited:
excaza said:
Volumetric 3D projection (R2D2 & Princess Leia) is possible, and has been achieved in static environments. See this link (slightly dated, but still very relevant.

The technology to project an image into free space isn't even remotely close to being mature right now.
Click to expand...

What will he come up with next?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ

here is video taken by a channel 11 news camera. the camera was resting on the ground as the plane approached and crashed into building. you can clearly hear all the engine sounds and impact/explosion sounds. then they pick up the camera and point it at the smoke from the tower.

Jamm- please debunk.
 
Myriad said:
Holograms are not "projected" at all, in the same sense that movies or slides are projected onto a screen. They are not projected onto anything; the light is instead projected toward the viewer's eye. Viewing a hologram is more like viewing a printed picture on paper.
Click to expand...

Actually, they can be projected like a movie, onto a screen. The key there is that the screen is an integral part of the system. But you can't project a hologram onto air or the sky or any arbitrary surface, the screen is absolutely required. And as you said, the screen would need to be miles long, invisible, and floating magically over Manhattan.

Here's one such system. Note that it only works in the dark because the images are not opaque.

http://www.musion.co.uk/
 
Thunder said:
lolool!!!

subways don't sound like that. I lived in Manhattan for 24 years, I should know.
Click to expand...

But have you SEEN a subway train make that noise while you're above ground? I THINK NOT, it's not possible to see an underground train while above ground, so you can't prove the subway makes that noise!
 
excaza said:
But have you SEEN a subway train make that noise while you're above ground? I THINK NOT, it's not possible to see an underground train while above ground, so you can't prove the subway makes that noise!
Click to expand...

err...umm....NYC has above ground trains & subways. In all 5 boroughs.

and NONE of them...sound like an jetplane.
 
Last edited:
phunk said:
Actually, they can be projected like a movie, onto a screen. The key there is that the screen is an integral part of the system. But you can't project a hologram onto air or the sky or any arbitrary surface, the screen is absolutely required. And as you said, the screen would need to be miles long, invisible, and floating magically over Manhattan.

Here's one such system. Note that it only works in the dark because the images are not opaque.

http://www.musion.co.uk/
Click to expand...


Well, I didn't want to get too complicated, but you're correct. The key to that kind of technology is optically non-linear materials, that is materials whose physical properties (such as reflectivity, opacity, or even thickness) change (instantaneously or close to it) with incident light.

The reason you can't take an ordinary film hologram and project the pattern on it onto a movie screen, turning the movie screen into a giant copy of the hologram, is that a movie screen only reflects the incident light. Its material properties don't change. The dark parts of a movie frame don't dye the screen dark, they just have less light reflecting off the screen. A holographic medium (again more like a printed image on paper) must have a pattern of varying optical properties.

But if you have a screen made of an optically nonlinear material, and you project a hologram pattern onto it, the light and dark areas of the pattern could actually change the optical properties of the parts of the screen they hit, turning the screen itself into a secondary holographic medium.

Note that in that case, even though projection is involved in getting the image onto the screen (which could make e.g. holographic cinema possible), the viewer is still viewing the hologram by looking directly at a holographic medium, in this case the screen. Turn the same projector onto a white-painted wall and nothing distinct would be visible.

This is exactly what the MIT media lab meant by "holographic color projection... possible within 10 years."

The volumetric projection approaches excaza cited are not, of course, holograms at all... though the one employing intersecting lasers is another application of optically non-linear material. (That is exciting stuff. This is pie in the sky, but I imagine the possibility of true optical circuitry being created dynamically within a non-linear optical material -- giving you, for instance, a computer that can continuously rewrite its own hardware.)

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
I anxiously await Jamm's hand-waving....I mean "debunking" of the two videos I've provided.

I mean, honestly Jammonious, what do you want from us?

Help us...help you.
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
The volumetric projection approaches excaza cited are not, of course, holograms at all... though the one employing intersecting lasers is another application of optically non-linear material. (That is exciting stuff. This is pie in the sky, but I imagine the possibility of true optical circuitry being created dynamically within a non-linear optical material -- giving you, for instance, a computer that can continuously rewrite its own hardware.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but volumetric projection is generally what the cranks are talking about, either they don't realize the difference between that and holography or they simply don't care.
 
Myriad said:
...Viewing a hologram is more like viewing a printed picture on paper.

And just like no part of a printed image appears beyond the edges of the paper, no part of a hologram appears beyond the edges of the holographic medium.
Click to expand...

Good point.
I guess I was thinking wildly imagining that you could somehow project the properties of a hologram onto a portion of the sky (say, heat the air bubble by bubble in a specific pattern, or create fog particles...). But still, for any image shape to be visible, it would have to have brighter than the background sky, as you can't or don't block the background.

Myriad said:
...
Well, it means that the physical medium containing the holographic image has to be at least as big as the footprint of the real airplane it depicts, and it has to be in the air where the image of the airplane appears. That means it must either move in the airplane's path at the airplane's speed, or it must be even bigger so as to extend along the airplane's path.
...
Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Hm not necessarily. You could create a hologram that is small and very close to you that depicts an object virtually a mile behind the medium.

That however would require not one but a great many of such small holograms, one for each individual viewer or group of viewers, with the problem that you would have to know in advance which of the tens or hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers and New Jerseyers with a view on the towers would think of pointing a camera at the burning North Tower.
 
Thunder said:
lolool!!!

subways don't sound like that. I lived in Manhattan for 24 years, I should know.
Click to expand...

Oh then you must have succumbed to mass group think and anyway are too much emotionally attached to the City to be able to assess anything New-Yorkish objectively :duck:
 
Thunder said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ

here is video taken by a channel 11 news camera. the camera was resting on the ground as the plane approached and crashed into building. you can clearly hear all the engine sounds and impact/explosion sounds. then they pick up the camera and point it at the smoke from the tower.

Jamm- please debunk.
Click to expand...

Oh noooooooo :jaw-dropp

jammonius opened another mind-numbing thread about specifically that video. After explaining that black is white and planes are buses and inside is outside, that thread was thankfully relegated to the AAH (Abandon All Hope) subforum by Moderators.
 
excaza said:
Yeah, but volumetric projection is generally what the cranks are talking about, either they don't realize the difference between that and holography or they simply don't care.
Click to expand...


That could be the case. After all the word "holographic" does seem to have taken on a more generic meaning, of describing anything that involves either 3D imaging, or processing of spatially (or conceptually) distributed information.

For example, on further examination it appears the the Musion product described in phunk's link is not real holography either, but rather, some sort of projected lenticular effect (a descendent of the 3-D postcard) on a foil medium. The images come from stock HD video players and SVGA projectors (they don't say how many per screen) which is not sufficient resolution for even a small visible-light hologram.

Which reminds me of another odd bit of hologram lore... growing up, I listened to many of my friends rave about all the cool "holograms" of ghosts in the Haunted Mansion at Disney world. After I finally saw it for myself a few times, I concluded that actually, there was not a single real hologram in the entire attraction. (That may have changed since then.) Various techniques that were being used to create images of three dimensional looking ghosts in open space included reflections of lighted animatronic figures in otherwise clear-looking glass, movie projections onto sculpted faces, lighted sculpted and animatronic figures behind half-silvered mirrors, and movie projections onto gauze or scrim.

I'm afraid the prospects for volumetric projections of airplanes on 9/11 are no better than for actual holograms of airplanes. It makes it possible that the images themselves could come from ground based (or maybe space based :eye-poppi) projectors, but now instead of a half football field sized billboard, you'd need a very rapidly spinning half football sized billboard, or something comparably unwieldy, moving through the air at high speeds 1000 feet over Manhattan.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom