Another idea is peaks and troughs. All wavelengths of light have peaks and troughs. You could subtract the light by beams that exactly cancel the natural peaks and troughs. I'm not saying I know how the technology might have been accomplished, but I'm not letting that get in the way.
If I knew exactly how a 3D hologram violated the laws of physics, then I'd stop talking about it and consider it debunked.
See, the problem isn't that any one idea you have for holograms "violates the laws of physics", it just that you have
no idea exactly how difficult it would be to pull them off as you suggest they were.
For instance, here you've now introduced "peaks and troughs", and suggest that we could "subtract the light by beams that exactly cancel the natural peaks and troughs". What you're talking about here is
destructive interference of light, which as you can see from that link, is a real phenomenon. It even has practical uses is devices that utilize
thin film coatings to either increase or decrease reflections of light from surfaces, like in solar control films for windows, or optical coatings in telescope, microscopes and the like.
The problem is,
designing an interference filter to reflect certain wavelengths of light, and to pass others, is a really complicated bit of math, and then
implementing that design in a practical apparatus is a tricky bit of materials science and engineering. It requires precise control of all sorts of variables, so as to lay down exactly the right films of exactly the right thicknesses, in the right order. And even then, they're never perfect - there are issues such as, they have severe angular effects; a beam that passes through at an angle sees a different effective layer spacing than one that passes perpendicularly, and so the wavelengths affected are different.
And that's for solid state devices made in a lab or factory, on fairly small scales, with a great deal of control over the conditions.
And that's just for
uniform coatings. If you want to produce an image, you add in the complexity of spatial control of the layers (to produce pixels in the image).
What you're proposing is to produce a much larger image, in a medium (air) over which you have very little, if any control, from a distance far exceeding (by orders of magnitude!) the distances used in factories, to produce an image indistinguishable from reality (at any angle of observation!). Every single step of that process you suggest is
orders of magnitude harder than those used in known devices. Multiplied together, the difficulty becomes unimaginably harder than what is known to be possible.
For the NWO (or whoever) to be that far in advance of the science and technology used by optical manufacturers all over the world would require them to have a research team either far larger than the number of researchers employed by all other manufacturers, or composed of people who would make Einstein look like an idiot.
Do you want to know what the known state-of-the art optical interference images look like? Take a look at the security holograms they have on banks cards and the like. Now compare that image to reality, and ask how much more effort it would take to match reality.
And then animate it.
As I said above, it's not a question of "violating a law of physics" that makes this virtually impossible, it's simply requiring a level of control over the natural world that is simply
astoundingly out of reach for humanity.
