Whats this over Norway?
- Thread starter HillBill
- Start date
- Status
That would be what you'd normally expect but isn't always the case.
The images we see do not appear to be light sources in themselves, they would be more ( but not necessarily totally ) consistant from image to image if they were.
What we see, when we don't see the direct source(s) of the light(s), whether it be from laser beams or a rocket engine, is the refration/reflection of the lights from objects, again in either case they could be things like ice crystals, stontium compounds, water vapour etc. But these light phenomena are artifacts of the events not the events themselves. I have studied a few more pictures and from different angles the phenoma appears differently, so it seems unlikely to be a holographic projections as that would be more consistant from different angles, checking the moving images gives us a better idea of that as the static ones could be taken at different times, so could cause all sorts of differnces if it was a moving hologram.
This appears to be the artifacts of pressure waves afftecting particles in the air to reflect/refract light which comes from 2 different source, eg the center of the spiral and a ground soucre pointing to the center of the spiral ( of axis to one another and the blue light off axis to the source of the pressure waves, though the white light maybe indeed be from that source )
So while the white source may follow what you'd expect the blue comes from another direction andthe amount of light bounceing back to the cameras wll be a product of it's natural inclination to fade with distance from source and how much it refract/reflects back from the particles caused by the pressure waves.
This might explain why in some images the blue light appears brightest ( for that image ) nearest it's source while in others it appeares brighter further away and still others where it appears brightest part way between.
OK, I have done a little more research. Firstly, your two wiki refs (one has recently been removed for poor sourcing and "questionable" claims) were both entered by the same user, who has no other edits on any scientific topics (his handful of minor edits are mostly about Dr Who and Twilight, plus a spectacularly abusive random outburst on the bio of someone called George Whitefield, who was apparently an itinerant preacher in the 18th century), and who shortly later got himself banned for viciously abusing another user - so perhaps not the most reliable source. But that's by-the-by...
I've also bought and read that 1998 ARL paper you cited. They're talking about using single planar SBN crystals as holographic storage media, and not using an aerosol of SBN crystals as a projection surface as your source seems to think. Basically they're using an SBN crystal like a piece of photographic film. In order to reproduce the image, you need to control the geometry between the storage crystal, the read beam, and the observer fairly tightly (which you wouldn't be able to do by scattering large numbers of crystals into the atmosphere), and you need to project the image somehow. You can't just project an image into thin air - there needs to be something to scatter the light back to your eye. The paper specifically says:
"We would also like to display the hologram in such a medium that the image could be viewed at different angles. A scattering liquid was tested, but proved ineffective as the perspective was lost, and only a 2-D image was visible."
So I'm afraid that your citation doesn't come anywhere near demonstrating anything like the capabilities you describe.
I might just also mention at this point that I did study Optoelectronics and Laser Engineering at Heriot-Watt University, and that optical system design was my second-best subject. I stand by my assertion that what you're describing is simply not possible.
Yeah, yeah, I can't help it...
Oh, and that Doritos ad? Yes, they broadcast a 30-second TV ad towards a solar system in Ursa Major. It was a radio frequency broadcast, not a holographic projection.
Technicalities aside, the whole idea of some conspiracy to control the world is 
Yeah, a image of some geezer with a beard floating over the Middle East is gonna convince all the Muslems to change their beliefs or to stop trying to blow up the infidel invaders? And if they project make-believe aliens the entire world is going to fall on it knees and agree to a common government? Good grief how mad can you get?!?
Even if some overfunded, under employed bunch of government hacks DID think this was a good idea to try, what on earth makes anyone think that it would do anything more than make a hugely expensive lab experiment. The little Grey Men alone know how many wacky projects have been tried for a while, but have ultimately proved a complete waste of time and money and have been tucked under the rug where its hoped no one will notice them.
Back to this uniting the world rubbish.
People have been killing each other over minor differences in opinion about interpretation of the same religious texts for thousands of years. No light show dreamed up by the Americans, who are famous for not understanding how other nations think, is going to do diddly to get all factions and beliefs to unite.
Unite under what, under whom? How off base does someone have to be to believe that the world wants or needs a common government. Hell, there is hardly a governement out there right now that you can point at and say they are able to cope with running their own country, much less take on the goverance of the whole world while simaltaniously simulating an invasion by ET. :borgsmile:
And finally, for an idea as barking mad as that Blue Beam to work, you couldn't possibly allow the word to get out ahead of implementation. Instead of having tested it in the Antarctic when no one is looking, they did it over Norway where dozens of random residents were able to film it with their mobile phones and post it on Youtube.
Hey, anyone remember crop circles? Those HAD to have been made by extra terrestrial visitors...well, until people started 'fessing up to having run around at night dragging ropes around corn fields Just because you don't want (for whatever reason) to believe the most logical explanations doesn't mean that you simply have to embrace the really way out theories.
Yeah, a image of some geezer with a beard floating over the Middle East is gonna convince all the Muslems to change their beliefs or to stop trying to blow up the infidel invaders?
And if they project make-believe aliens the entire world is going to fall on it knees and agree to a common government? Good grief how mad can you get?!?Even if some overfunded, under employed bunch of government hacks DID think this was a good idea to try, what on earth makes anyone think that it would do anything more than make a hugely expensive lab experiment. The little Grey Men alone know how many wacky projects have been tried for a while, but have ultimately proved a complete waste of time and money and have been tucked under the rug where its hoped no one will notice them.
Back to this uniting the world rubbish.
People have been killing each other over minor differences in opinion about interpretation of the same religious texts for thousands of years. No light show dreamed up by the Americans, who are famous for not understanding how other nations think, is going to do diddly to get all factions and beliefs to unite.
Unite under what, under whom? How off base does someone have to be to believe that the world wants or needs a common government. Hell, there is hardly a governement out there right now that you can point at and say they are able to cope with running their own country, much less take on the goverance of the whole world while simaltaniously simulating an invasion by ET. :borgsmile:
And finally, for an idea as barking mad as that Blue Beam to work, you couldn't possibly allow the word to get out ahead of implementation. Instead of having tested it in the Antarctic when no one is looking, they did it over Norway where dozens of random residents were able to film it with their mobile phones and post it on Youtube.
Hey, anyone remember crop circles? Those HAD to have been made by extra terrestrial visitors...well, until people started 'fessing up to having run around at night dragging ropes around corn fields
Just because you don't want (for whatever reason) to believe the most logical explanations doesn't mean that you simply have to embrace the really way out theories.
Last edited:
I agree with Gregorach on this point and have past experience of making holograms for a living (a long time ago I hasten to add). A hologram is created by recording the interference patterns created by two beams of coherent (laser) light which is also called interferometry. One of the beams is called the 'object' beam and it's purpose is to light up the object, the second beam is called the 'reference' beam and it determines the angle at which the hologram will be 'played back'. A hologram can only be seen when it's illuminated from the same angle as the original reference beam. For this thing to be a hologram it would have to be a solid flat surface coated with a ultra fine silver halide emulsion and somehow fixed in the sky which goes against the known laws of physics. Having said that it could be some other form of interferometry?
...or it could just be some jokers mucking about with a powerful laser
TFS
.
Now that was a cracking prog!! Rocking little theme tune if i remember rightly as well.
Here we go;-
Jamie! Jamie!
Jamie and the Magic Torch.
Down the helter skelter, faster and faster
towards Cuckoo Land.
Wordsworth! Wordsworth!
Following hard behind.
Ready for adventure, always there to lend a paw
...or hand!
Mr Boo and all the others too,
the strangest people you've ever seen.
And the torch with it's magical beam -
If I hadn't really been there
I'd think that I was dreaming!
Jamie! Jamie!
No two nights are the same.
And life is one long glorious game
with Jamie.
Jamie and the Magic Torch!
[Yeah! Switch On!]
Sincere apologies but in case anyones wondering what we are on about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B_FQKHQDYk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B_FQKHQDYk
There you go, trying to spoil a perfectly good conspiracy theory with facts. It won't work. Quoth XKCD:
"Conspiracy theories represent a known glitch in human reasoning. The theories are of course occasionally true, but their truth is completely uncorrelated with the believer's certainty. For some reason, sometimes when people think they've uncovered a lie, they raise confirmation bias to an art form. They cut context away from facts and arguments and assemble them into reassuring litanies. And over and over I've argued helplessly with smart people consumed by theories they were sure were irrefutable, theories that in the end proved complete fictions. Young-Earth Creationists, the Moon Landing people, the Perpetual Motion subculture -- can't you see you're falling into the same pattern?"
C_Claycomb said:
--- SPOILER ---
Hey, it worked in the Watchmen comics!
- Status
Similar threads
