The John Lear Hologram Challenge

Originally posted by yfxxx
... isn't a "holographic projection" at all! It's an old illusion named "Pepper's Ghost":

You know what... you REALLY need to do your homework before ya flap yer lips...

If you've ever visited the Haunted Mansion ride at the Disney theme parks, you'll find tons of tributes to it in this film. Gypsy fortune teller Madame Leota (Jennifer Tilly) is that weird green hologram head in a globe

www.agirlsworld.com...

How are you ever going to be taken seriously as a debunker if you just keep getting your facts wrong?

:shk:




[edit on 18-10-2007 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


"A Girls World"??

"Where girls and teens rule the web"? That is your source to deride someones post? For real?

I'm serious. Do you actually consider your sources? Or do you just read a couple of sentences and start the copy/paste operation?


[edit on 18-10-2007 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by zorgon
How are you ever going to be taken seriously as a debunker if you just keep getting your facts wrong?

I haven't got anything wrong! The big "3D effect" in "Haunted Mansion" (the Great Hall) is a "Pepper's Ghost" illusion, and I had any reason to believe you referred to this specific part of the attraction. In fact, I'd guess you did refer to it, and after I pointed out your mistake, you googled for any references to other "holograms" in "Haunted Mansion". You grabbed the first promising one you found, which just happened to be on this less-than-scientific site .

Anyway, I don't know first-hand if your "Madame Leota" example is actually a hologram. I doubt it, however. E.g., this page

www.hauntedattraction.com...

says:

Passing through a narrow corridor of shaking and rattling doors, the patrons emerge into a séance, led by Madame Leota, a glowing, disembodied head speaking from within a misty crystal ball. In response to her supplications, various objects and ectoplasmic lights are dancing overhead. Madame Leota is named after Leota Toombs, a veteran Cast Member who had worked at both Disneyland and, later, Walt Disney World, maintaining the audioanimatronic characters’ cosmetic appearances. For the effect, a projection of a real actress (Toombs) performing as Madame Leota is projected from a 16mm projector onto a static head form, creating a startlingly realistic and eerie effect.

So who is getting facts wrong here?

Regards
yf

I've just finished reading all the posts on this thread and it really is an interesting theory. I've only just started to look at the 9/11 conspiracies and I have a list of questions I'd like to get answered but this is not the thread for it.

Looking at the footage of the attacks posted by various posters, 1 thing became apparent. All of the official footage (by TV cameras) doesn't appear to the show plane physically hitting the tower. Its either obscured by the first tower, or the camera is showing the back of the tower. There appears to only be 1 piece footage showing the actual impact. Having seen it all slowed down etc, it does appear that the plane passes through the tower before any explosions etc. This is very odd. Also, alot of the commentary suggested the 2 planes had already hit, then the 2nd plane hits the tower (though with all the confusion and wonder, its probable this is just human error)

As for the hologram theory. Does the technology exist to create holographic images? Yes it does. Does it exist to do it on this scale? Probably. Does it exist to do it with this kind of complexity? This requires a leap of faith regarding just how far advanced the military is and just not telling us about it.

Can jet fuel burn hot enough to burn steel (even with the presense of other materials) Well, according to various sites, jet fuel burns at around 1700-1800 degrees F. Steel melts at 2500 degrees F. This suggests not.

The other thing that bothers me is that whilst a fireball comes out the other side, there doesn't appear that any part of the plane does. If the speeds of 500mph are accurate, wouldn't part of it go right through with the kind of momentum/inertia it would have generated?

I'm not totally convinced about the hologram theory but it does merit further investigation on my part

Just my thoughts on this.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by TheJenkster]

Just checkin' in to see how things are going John, I look forward to you story on how it was done. Zorgon, even if that is a hologram, it's so confined it doesn't compare to 911.

reply to post by johnlear


forgive me if this has been covered

John, what happened to the crew and passengers of the planes that were flown into the towers in your theory ?

I'm not asking for a link to another webiste or your theory, I'm asking for physical evidence.

It happened in 2001, so I'm sure the evidence has come out by now, right ?

Please present exactly what happened, supported by independently verified physical evidence, like photos or audio.

thank you

Can jet fuel burn hot enough to burn steel (even with the presense of other materials) Well, according to various sites, jet fuel burns at around 1700-1800 degrees F. Steel melts at 2500 degrees F. This suggests not.

Has nobody seen the documentary from one of the men who helped design the building? In the documentary he helped explain the structural flaws and many answers to a lot of the conspiracy theories for how a plane can take down the building. It has been a while since I saw it, but the main part that I recall from it at this point is how the heat didn't cause the beams to melt or anything to that degree.

The heat was hot enough however to cause the beams to bow and weaken under the weight. In the interior of the building a lot of concrete is used more then actual steel beams. With the heat melting the concrete adding to the weight as it burns and the steal beams becoming bowed from the heat and weaken is what caused the collapse. Not to mention there is a hell of a lot more then just steel and concrete adding to the weight such as electrical wiring, cabling, furniture etc etc.

The tube system concept is based on the idea that a building can be designed to resist lateral loads by designing it as a hollow cantilever perpendicular to the ground. In the simplest incarnation of the tube, the perimeter of the exterior consists of closely spaced columns that are tied together with deep spandrel beams through moment connections. This assembly of columns and beams forms a rigid frame that amounts to a dense and strong structural wall along the exterior of the building.

en.wikipedia.org...


To say there is no evidence of plane parts is asinine. There is an ample amount of pictures and videos both mainstream and simply from people with phone cameras and hand held camcorders that show the debris.

Personally, I'll take the word of one of my former managers who was visiting relatives in NY during the attack and was nearly struck by some plane debris and office furniture.

He is retired Air Force and was enlisted for over 20yrs. I don't recall his exact rank, but he was in charge of the mechanics fixing fighter jets.

Originally posted by zarlaan

To say there is no evidence of plane parts is asinine. There is an ample amount of pictures and videos both mainstream and simply from people with phone cameras and hand held camcorders that show the debris.

I agree. Here is just one picture of the Boeing 767 debris. What can people be thinking about? If there is this much there has GOT to be more.

John, are you replying saying that you no longer believe your hologram theory?

In summary there is no evidence of any kind that any Boeing 767 crashed into either the north or the south tower of the World Trade Center. It is pure fiction.

Or are you just trying to be sarcastic and mock me and my close friends who experienced it first hand and know what landed 20ft from them?

Also, correct if I'm wrong, but isn't that picture you're showing supposedly a part from the plane that hit the Pentagon? I was commenting on the WTC.



[edit on 28-10-2007 by zarlaan]

reply to post by johnlear


I assume you ignored my post because it forces you to be on the other side of the fence, the side you don't like, you need to supply the story and the proof, instead if sitting back and picking apart someone elses story and proof

I'm not surprised, I think your theory is just a way to get attention anyway

cheers

reply to post by johnlear


Hey John,
Hasnt Milton given you any insight into the 911 story? I would love to know the real deal....but he's probably not talking??

John,

Can you answer one question for me please? When somebody posts in regards to evidence of debris at the World Trade Center site that you have posted that same picture in response many times, and the picture isn't even from wreckage at the WTC?



[edit on 29-10-2007 by zarlaan]

Originally posted by zarlaan

John,

Can you answer one question for me please? When somebody posts in regards to evidence of debris at the World Trade Center site that you have posted that same picture in response many times, and the picture isn't even from wreckage at the WTC?

Please accept my apologies for posting the wrong picture. Actually no airplane crashed anywhere on 911 so a picture of fake wreckage would be applicable to either accident site.

Thanks again for the correction.

corrected spelling of correction


[edit on 29-10-2007 by johnlear]

Originally posted by adica1

Hey John,
Hasnt Milton given you any insight into the 911 story? I would love to know the real deal....but he's probably not talking??

Milton told me everything but he made me promise not to tell. Its supposed to be a surprise.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

John, what happened to the crew and passengers of the planes that were flown into the towers in your theory ?

I don't know what happened to the crew, passengers or the planes. I'm sure that some of them are still alive. I am certain that Chic Burlingame is still alive but Wendy, one of his daughters is not and I would like to more about her suspicious death. I believe it is related to Chic being alive.

The last any passengers were seen was when Flight 93 landed in Cleveland and the passengers deplaned and were escorted to the NASA Glenn Research Center hangar.

I'm not asking for a link to another webiste or your theory, I'm asking for physical evidence.

Rudy trucked out all of the physical evidence which was sent to China. Unless you are willing to go to China you are not going to see any physical evidence.

If you are asking for physical evidence of a holograph you need to specify what you will accept as evidence.

1. A flyby (your house) of a Boeing 767 holograph

2. A demonstration of a Boeing 767 holograph on 60 minutes.

3. A trip to Groom Lake and demonstration of a Boeing 767 holograph flyby.

Please select one. Thanks.

It happened in 2001, so I'm sure the evidence has come out by now, right ?

No big leaks yet, but a lot of little ones.

Please present exactly what happened, supported by independently verified physical evidence, like photos or audio.

Wake up SHP! Wake up! *throws cold water on SHP's face* Wake up. You're dreaming!

if your gonna plant fake plane debris, why do it so badly? The only thing that really makes sense to me is that the planes had explosive payloads on them which blew them to smithereens thus we have lack of debris and unexpected damage. U93 reminds me of Lockerbie disaster. Not really much plane left, just a big crater and lots of destruction.

en.wikipedia.org...

Pentagon and Shanksville, no plane debris. Why? Because they exploded. If you can rig the twin towers with explosives rigging a few plane shouldn't be any more difficult. When the hijackers said they had a bomb on board they probably weren't joking. Lets face it, when doesn't a terrorist plot involve explosives.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
The only thing that really makes sense to me is that the planes had explosive payloads on them which blew them to smithereens thus we have lack of debris and unexpected damage.

Yes, that would be the jet fuel.

U93 started falling apart in the sky and left an 8 mile debris trail. I don't think that was caused by the jet fuel alone. Must of been a bomb on the plane, most likely timed or remotely detonated. The only scenario similiar I know of would be the Lockerbie bombing.

Originally posted by johnlear

Milton told me everything but he made me promise not to tell. Its supposed to be a surprise.

Darn you lucky dogs touched by "Milton"!.......Sorry to get off the hologram subject but you mentioned in your thread you went to the remote viewing training...I was looking at her website....did you find the experience worthwile...Ive tried RV on my own with not much success...

Thanks!

JOHN LEAR, i wonder how many people who lost loved ones on those flights would love to punch your lights out. oh and the people in the building who jumped to their very death. was that a halogram too? where do you get these easter bunny storys? holagrams? how many different goddamn cameras have the airliners going into the building. how many new yorkers saw the planes. also the fact that there were two planes to be accounted for. along with the passengers. i never heard anything more stupid. i wish i could see you explain to the familys that lost their loved ones on those flights to see you catch a good whoopin. stop blowing smoke up peoples as$es. your insultin a lot of folks. i cant believe this site post your bull$hit.

"American Airlines identified the planes that crashed into the Trade Center as Flight 11, a Los Angeles-bound jet hijacked after takeoff from Boston with 92 people aboard, and Flight 77, which was seized while carrying 64 people from Washington to Los Angeles."
so thats 156 people that were killed when those planes collided with the twin towers. or 156 halograms according to the so called JOHN LEAR.


[edit on 30-10-2007 by S.O.Blilbobby]

[edit on 30-10-2007 by S.O.Blilbobby]

[edit on 30-10-2007 by S.O.Blilbobby]

[edit on 30-10-2007 by S.O.Blilbobby]