Military Holography Question

[wwkirk]

In recent months, Randall has repeatedly brought up the notion that the military may have been employing holography to project faux UFOs in the sky. Obviously, this recalls the Project Blue Beam conspiracy theory from years ago, which many rejected as nonsense. But Randall is apparently invoking serious, recent technological developments.

Maybe I am doing it wrong, but when I Google "military uses of holography" this mainly produces links to how holography will be employed for training and mapping purposes. Similar results appear when the search date range is restricted to the past year.

Okay, I tried Bing and found this 2006 article which mentions this idea: "Take a shop window and replace it with a hologram of a window display, and you have an apparently innocuous space where troops can be stationed without any hint of their presence." But it also says, "Real holograms will not fool people at short range and they do not move, nor can they be projected into a remote location." - Unfortunately, the links to actual research are all dead.

Fast forward to 2010 and I found this article. But the hologram described there "is created by a suite of 16 cameras that use lasers to record data on "smart" plastic some distance away that, when hit by a special light, project the image in solid-looking 3D."

I just had an idea. I will Google "holographic simulation of UFOs". Hmm. Nothing truly relevant, just Project Blue Beam and the speculation that we are living inside a simulation.

Now I will use Google Advanced Search to find any of the following "hologram holographic simulation mimic," plus "UFO" must appear. What I get are some trinkets for sale, and a Facebook page about the connection between UFOs, holograms, and chemtrails. Also coming up is an old 2011 Youtube debunking video that claims "to show how the sun and where it is located in the sky can manipulate your eyes and camera. The effects you will see are very typical to many of the videos here on youtube with claims of Fake planes, Morphing planes, Holographic planes, and Shape Shifting planes."

I will now try Bing again, searching for "UFO hologram OR holographic OR simulation OR mimic." Rats! The movie Mimic is the first thing to come up. So, I will delete the word mimic and try again. Sadly, the most prominent link to appear is a 2016 video posted by secureteam10! And as we all know, they have a reputation for posting hoaxes and other unvetted material.

Okay. I am at a loss. I seem to be unable to find any evidence that the technology to create holographic, fake UFOs is available, or even in the works.

Does Randall have access to confidential research or other documents? Or can he provide links to corroborate his repeated suggestions about UFO-holgrams?

Randall, if you're reading this, I think you owe it to both Paracast listeners and forum users to provide evidence that what you have been suggesting is realistic, either now, or in the foreseeable future.

 

[Randall]

In recent months, Randall has repeatedly brought up the notion that the military may have been employing holography to project faux UFOs in the sky ... Does Randall have access to confidential research or other documents? Or can he provide links to corroborate his repeated suggestions about UFO-holgrams ... Randall, if you're reading this, I think you owe it to both Paracast listeners and forum users to provide evidence that what you have been suggesting is realistic, either now, or in the foreseeable future.

Thanks for your interest in this subject and any information you can dig-up. To make my position clear. My position is not that I have any knowledge of actual military grade holography, and expecting me to produce proof of that is neither reasonable or required in order to conceive of the possibility that it could be the case.

Given the above, my rule of thumb when it comes to reports of alien craft is: If it's something that is possible for humans to technologically create, then it's more reasonable to assume that humans are responsible for creating it than aliens. In the case of the Nimitz Encounters there are a number of things that fit the bill. If you feel any need for verification or clarification, it would be very helpful if you could assist. I don't have time to dig-up all the references right now, but here's a list to start with:

1. Holograms ( or volumetric images ) are possible.
2. Radar spoofing is possible.
3. This Nimitz situation was a training exercise which makes the timing for a classified test right.
4. The object was reported by one pilot to be mirage like. That fits with the idea of some sort of projection.
5. The object moved as if inertia wasn't an issue. Light can do this.
6. Detection of the object(s) by airborne radar was absent or intermittent. This would be expected if the object wasn't actually there.
7. The object gave a heat signature. This would be expected from a hologram created with some sort of energy beam
8. There are precedents for classified projects using UFOs as cover stories ( Skyhook balloons, SR-71 )
9. The object seemed to have foreknowledge of the training mission parameters. This would be expected if it was a military project.
10. The recorders containing the data from the encounter were taken by military personnel shortly after the incident. This would be expected if the test was a secret military exercise.

That's 10 factors that fit both the possibility and the situation. So why jump to OMG it's aliens? At the very least it should be enough for any constructively skeptical science minded person to take it seriously. That is why I brought it up with Rich Hoffman. The SCU purports to have such people. Would it not be more responsible to study this possibility than to handwave it and instead assume some seemingly impossible craft?

There is also more. The military has been experimenting with optical beams since the 1980s ( lookup Starfire Optical Range ). There is a direct connection there with the Bennewitz case that includes photos of glowing plasma like objects, most likely produced by tests at the range ( or at the very least possibly produced by them ). Are we to expect that after 40 years they couldn't have figured out how to project an image?

BTW: I remember attending a Triumph concert during the 1980s that used 3D laser projections. They were fairly basic, just shapes, but they were very impressive. I tried to find out more about them and was told that they were proprietary tech courtesy of some military program and that no information could be given out. Exactly how true that was I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. This is not BS.

The artifacts that were produced looked like lage emerald crystals emanating from the stage that travelled out into the audience. You could see them leave the stage and come at you, just like some sort of sci-fi Star Wars laser burst. You could reach out and intercept them as they passed by. They were low intensity. I positioned myself so as to get one directly head-on, and as it passed by me it looked like the entire arena was bathed in an emerald glow. I have never seen anything like it before or since.

Again, that was almost 40 years ago. Give the military 40 billion dollars and 40 years and do you really think they couldn't have come up with a highly classified optical countermeasures system by now? You're free to bet against it if you want, but IMO military grade optical countermeasures are realistic, and all things considered so far, the scales tip in favor of that as an explanation.

This band is a hologram

 

[wwkirk]

I'm disappointed in your response.

My position is not that I have any knowledge of actual military grade holography

I had hoped you were at least aware of research in this area.

expecting me to produce proof of that is neither reasonable or required

I wasn't asking for proof; just evidence of a strongly suggestive sort.

lookup Starfire Optical Range

Nothing about holography at this link.

The technology discussed in the video you supplied is neat, but I'm not shocked by it, because it utilizes screens, or other materials the light is projected onto. UFOs are in the open air. Furthermore, in the Nimitz case, the object was seen in daytime. Someone very knowledgeable about physics told me it's impossible to make a holographic projection in free space; there isn't even a speculative idea in the academic literature about how to go about it. Another issue, is that a "sky-hologram," if such were possible, would at best appear as a ghostly apparition or a mirage. This individual concedes that there is a method for producing a glowing patch of ionized air using a high-intensity beam of protons, but that the result would look considerably different from what Fravor saw.

"Proof" is not required, or even expected. However, if you could produce at least "a speculative idea in the academic literature" regarding how to produce solid looking objects in free space, particularly over a wide area, your hologram suggestion wouldn't seem whimsical.

Above, I stated that I was disappointed. This is because I thought your frequent suggestions about holographic technology was based on real insight or information about developments in holography. I presumed you had links that would support the reasonableness of your speculation. What a let-down that you had literally nothing on point.

You even seemed to be ignorant of the fact that holographic projections require a medium to project into. The following video explains how holographic projections are created in theaters.

 

[Randall]

I'm disappointed in your response.

Sorry to disappoint. But if it is secret military tech, you're not going to find anyone willing to go on record anyway. You'll be just as disappointed. You need to read between the lines and outside the box at the same time.

I had hoped you were at least aware of research in this area.

I have seen some related research in the past, but it comes and goes from the net. There is one civilian example in my post about volumetric images. If some civilians figured it out on their limited budget, how do we know some classified project hasn't already done the same thing and more?

I wasn't asking for proof; just evidence of a strongly suggestive sort.

Hey if you don't believe holograms or volumetric imaging or radar spoofing exists or it's beyond our technological capability to create it, then I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. Personally however I think it's obvious that all three technologies exist and have existed for some time, and that it's just a matter of putting them together.

Nothing about holography at this link.

The starfire optical range link proves a high level of optical beam technology has been under study for a long time. Whether or not it mentions holograms in specific detail is beside the point. It proves that the scale of the technology required exists, even if a specific application for creating images isn't mentioned.

The technology discussed in the video you supplied is neat, but I'm not shocked by it, because it utilizes screens, or other materials the light is projected onto. UFOs are in the open air. Furthermore, in the Nimitz case, the object was seen in daytime.

Like I already said; give the military 40 billion dollars and 40 years and you really think they couldn't have figured out how to make 3D images without screens by now?

Someone very knowledgeable about physics told me it's impossible to make a holographic projection in free space; there isn't even a speculative idea in the academic literature about how to go about it.

The link to the project on volumetric imaging clearly shows the above to not be the case. It's already been done in high resolution on a small scale by civilians, so it's entirely possible that the military has been doing it for years on a much larger scale.

Another issue, is that a "sky-hologram," if such were possible, would at best appear as a ghostly apparition or a mirage. This individual concedes that there is a method for producing a glowing patch of ionized air using a high-intensity beam of protons, but that the result would look considerably different from what Fravor saw.

As I already mentioned, one pilot reported that the object ( the same one fravor saw ) looked mirage like from another position.

"Proof" is not required, or even expected. However, if you could produce at least "a speculative idea in the academic literature" regarding how to produce solid looking objects in free space, particularly over a wide area, your hologram suggestion wouldn't seem whimsical.

If you think secret military countermeasures are more whimsical that alien craft, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Above, I stated that I was disappointed. This is because I thought your frequent suggestions about holographic technology was based on real insight or information about developments in holography. I presumed you had links that would support the reasonableness of your speculation. What a let-down that you had literally nothing on point.

Maybe you need to read my points again then. Holograms are real. Volumetric imaging is real. Radar spoofing is real. Secret military projects are real. The military has had both the means and the time to combine and develop those technologies into an advanced countermeasures system. Yet you call that "nothing". I'm sensing some hand waving going on.

You even seemed to be ignorant of the fact that holographic projections require a medium to project into. The following video explains how holographic projections are created in theaters.

I use the word "hologram" as a convenience term for some sort of 3D projection. For example, volumetric projection technology isn't technically holography. The point is that a 3D image can be projected. Also, the Triumph concert I saw back in the 1980s wasn't filled with any smoke or other sort of medium. Out where we were viewing from, the air was clear and the light crystals came right up off the stage and across the audience. They were perfectly visible. Mind you the lights were low. But we are also talking about very low powered lasers.

Anyway. I was hoping this would be less of an argument and more of a collaboration. If you don't see the value in it, by all means consider it as unworthy of your time. In the meantime, I remain of the opinion that secret military countermeasures that combine specialized optics with radar spoofing is a more reasonable explanation than aliens or any craft humans can build.

Given your take, I would assume you don't agree, and therefore think aliens, or an actual human built craft, or something else is more reasonable? Please explain how any of those options are more likely. Perhaps the whole story is fabricated? What do you think the object actually was?

 

[wwkirk]

If you think secret military countermeasures are more whimsical that alien craft, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

This strikes me as weird coming from you. You have asserted numerous times that you believe alien craft have visited Earth in the past. Have you decided for some reason that the visitations have stopped?

 

[Randall]

This strikes me as weird coming from you. You have asserted numerous times that you believe alien craft have visited Earth in the past. Have you decided for some reason that the visitations have stopped?

I've decided that we can't be sure we can tell the difference anymore unless an actual alien craft lands and does an open house for everyone, or perhaps a mothership parks itself in orbit where high powered civilian telescopes can get a good look. These days it has to be so much more definitive, because our own technology could be responsible for the illusion, if not the real thing.

 

[Burnt State]

I'm disappointed in your response.

I had hoped you were at least aware of research in this area.

I wasn't asking for proof; just evidence of a strongly suggestive sort.

Nothing about holography at this link.

The technology discussed in the video you supplied is neat, but I'm not shocked by it, because it utilizes screens, or other materials the light is projected onto. UFOs are in the open air. Furthermore, in the Nimitz case, the object was seen in daytime. Someone very knowledgeable about physics told me it's impossible to make a holographic projection in free space; there isn't even a speculative idea in the academic literature about how to go about it

Above, I stated that I was disappointed. This is because I thought your frequent suggestions about holographic technology was based on real insight or information about developments in holography. I presumed you had links that would support the reasonableness of your speculation.

Re: laser technology to create images on the sky

Was this the tic tac?

 

[Randall]

Re: laser technology to create images on the sky: Was this the tic tac?

Nice find !

 

[Burnt State]

Nice find !

What’s interesting about this is that in the history of people seeing strange things in the sky that seem to be some kind of advanced presentation of our own future technologies, this patent from the navy seems to be making something that resembles the Foo Fighters.

i just find it strange that the anomalous phenomena seem in the sky is always busy heralding what we are going to do next. Certainly the heady mixture of our own secret tech and sightings of strange tech in the skies is a very robust environment for mythologies to be born within the populous, or to be constructed purposefully as a means of state sanctioned obfuscation and all that comes with it.

 

[henris42]

Hi, to continue on this track, do check this Japanese video

It is indeed projecting something visible to the thin air.

But it has nothing to do with holography, which requires something in-between the source and the viewers, as those cool band-on-stage ones have.
(But those are also not holograms, much simpler tech)
Holography is not something you can just project anywhere and you'd get Princess Leia, it just doesn't work that way. They actually did a Leia demo a few years back in MIT to demonstrate calculational holography that that not what we see at all. But in effect holography in a trick of a light based on interference patterns, something I expect to see in future televisions once DPI counts go over 10k or something like that.

Most cool 3D we see today is based on just showing a nice "mesh" of 3d images, so we get different images for each eye. You can actually buy display that do this, my friend has one at home.

So if that tic tac is man made, I'd be looking more of that Japan style of stuff. I wonder what such thing would show in the radar! It's plasma, so its feasible that it would be visible.

Just my engineer's 2c,
//HS

 

[marduk]

I just listened to a podcast that Nick Redfern was on where he indicated that holograms were a component in the military faking Rendlesham. I was quite surprised by that assertion given Rendlesham was 40 years ago, and we have seen absolutely zero open-air holography hit the open market to my knowledge.

I think that was wishful thinking on his behalf personally, even if it were combined with LSD and stagehands working behind the scenes.