Sunday, 18 February 2018

September Clues - Addendum "DECEPTIONS" - Part Two


By Mark Conlon

Following-on from my part one analysis, in this short part two analysis I’m going to study more claims made by Simon Shack in his September Clues – Addendum film, where he claims all of the live network television footage depicting the South Tower’s destruction is “fake”. Simon Shack bases his claims on the presence and movements of a helicopter (PAT) flying in the vicinity of the South Tower, prior to the South Tower’s destruction. 

At 6:10 into the film, Simon Shack claims that 'Chopper 2' (CBS) filming from the south behind the towers is no where to be seen on any available 9/11 footage. See below: screen-shot.


I was able to find some MSNBC news coverage footage which shows both 'PAT' the helicopter and 'Chopper 2' filming the South Tower as it is destroyed. Simon Shack claims no footage of 'Chopper 2' exists. See below: screen-shot.



Simon Shack also debunks himself again here below, as he points out 'PAT' in this 'Chopper 2' CBS news footage.


At 6:40 into his film Shack again debunks his own theory by showing another 9/11 video which also shows 'PAT' clearly in the video footage. See below: screen-shots.


At 6:46, Simon Shack tries again to "exploit" some poor quality distance video footage claiming that 'PAT' is not in the video. See below:


I managed to track down the video footage of the video on the "right" in the split screen-shot above in Simon Shack's film, where he implies 'PAT' the helicopter is "missing". See Below: series of screen-shots showing 'PAT' the helicopter flying away as the South Tower is destroyed. (Note: how Simon Shack misrepresents the location in the image above of PAT's location when considering PAT's actual location in the screen-shots below).




See below: enlargement... 'PAT' is clearly visible...


This is clear evidence that Simon Shack is either mistaken, or it implies he is deliberately trying to deceive his viewers of his film. The pattern throughout the film indicates deception.
 

At 7:32 in his film Simon Shack tries again to imply 'PAT' is missing, by using some very poor low quality video footage. See below:


However if you very look closely at 7:31 'PAT' can vaguely be seen in Simon Shack's version. WHY hasn't Simon Shack pointed 'PAT' out?


Instead at 7:36, Simon Shack flashes this question mark up again trying to "exploit" the poor quality video to promote "video fakery"...


I managed to locate some better quality video footage below of the same video above, which shows 'PAT' clearly located in the video. See screen-shot below:


Conclusions:
A question to consider is, can we really trust Simon Shack's to fairly present the 9/11 video evidence? The answer for me judging by his "unfair" treatment of the video evidence presented in his September Clues films, is NO. Simon Shack's integrity has been called into question so many times regarding his presentation of the video evidence, because of his clever editing, misdirection and false, misleading statements which he makes without any supportive evidence, other than to conceal evidence which proves the opposite to his claims.

Simon Shack appears to have an agenda with predetermined conclusions where he is prepared to "exploit" legitimate explanations such as, "laws of optics" to present perfectly genuine 9/11 videos as "fake". Simon Shack's intention is to cast doubt in people's minds over the authenticity of the 9/11 video evidence, which to some degree has worked as people are still promoting 'video fakery'.

It appears that Simon Shack is overseeing a "Psychological Operation" to  manage people's perceptions. When people believe they have the correct answers it stops them studying the video evidence any further. This personally happened to me for several years, and in that respect, Simon Shack’s "Psychological Operation" and "Perception Management" worked, as I didn’t continue to study the video evidence because I thought I had all the answers… How wrong I was.


To find out more about Simon Shack (Hytten), please read Andrew Johnson's research article here: 9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175. http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=60

Also see these other articles related to my analysis of Simon Shack's films below...

I may do a 'Part Three' as there are more mistakes and deceptions to be exposed...  


Thank you for reading and caring....




Thursday, 1 February 2018

Demonising the 9/11 Witnesses


By Mark Conlon


In this blog post I want to draw attention and remember the people who witnessed the 9/11 event. It has been rather uncomfortable of late to hear how some so-called 9/11 researchers have been disrespecting people's experiences of that day, just so they can promote their theories. From accusing eyewitnesses to being all liars, who were heroes really, who deserve respect in reality. Same with a number of people who videoed and photographed the events, capturing and documenting as the events unfolded in NYC and Washington. Again these individuals have been demonised by various 9/11 "No-Planes" researchers, such Simon Shack, Ace Baker, BS Registration, Markus Allen and many others, and recently Steve De'ak. 

Having engaged with one of the videographers recently who "heard" and "seen" a "large" plane fly into the North Tower, and analysing many of the other eyewitness reports to both events in NYC, it is apparent to me that they recall what is depicted in all the videos in NYC. Example, Scott Forbes seen the 2nd plane melt into the South Tower, and recalls it as so, even "baffling"  for him how the plane just disappeared into the South Tower building. Nevertheless it is accurately accounted for in all the available video evidence, suggesting that the videos and eyewitness accounts all seem to accurately describe the events they seen, and what is observed in the videos. Some cannot accept this fact, because they are too focused on proving their own outlandish theories instead of looking at the all the available evidence. 

So I am posting this video below of Fire Chief Pfeifer who witnessed the first plane hitting the North Tower building... His experience of what he witnessed in his account accurately matches the available video evidence of both the Naudet video footage and the Pavel Hlava video footage of the first plane. I do 'NOT' have reason to believe that Chief Pfeifer is a "liar" as Steve De'ak claims about all the eyewitnesses, videographers and photographers who don't depict his theory of 11 to 12 multiple missiles striking the North Tower in their accounts.

If anything the eyewitnesses, videographers and photographers are all victims themselves not just because they were witnesses to such an horrific event, however because there are such people like Steve De'ak who accuse them of being liars to what they experienced and witnessed, videoed or photographed, and worse accusing them of being party to the conspiracy. 

So I want to spare a thought for all those people who have been wrongly "demonised" by people such as the Simon "Shack Pack" and Ace "Baker Bunch", as they seem to come from the same cut of cloth, with Steve De'ak being no exception... 

Here's Fire Chief Joseph Pfeifer's accounts contained in this video below... 


will leave it up to the reader if they believe Fire Chief Pfeifer's witness account comes from a "liar" as Steve De'ak would have people believe, who continues demonising such people as Cheif Pfeifer, when in reality they were just recounting their experiences of they witnessed that day... They are the living survivors but now are victims at the hands of a small network of "No-Planes" researchers  who continue to diseminate disinformation.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/index.php?dir=911/JeffHillsPhoneCalls/

Anyone wishing to listen to some of the eyewitnesses, videographers and photographers testimonies, here's Jeff Hill's archive of phone calls to them. 
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/index.php?dir=911/JeffHillsPhoneCalls/


Thank you for reading... and caring about the truth. 


      

Richard D. Hall - RICHPLANET 2018 UK TOUR


 By Mark Conlon


It's that time again folks, yes Richard D. Hall is doing number speaking events around the UK. This tour marks the 10th anniversary of Richplanet TV. Some words about the up and coming tour below...


In this years tour Richard will be launching his latest film entitled "Kill Jill, The Dando Assassination Explained". 


The film, available to pre order here, looks at all the popular theories for the motive behind Jill Dando's murder, and brings comprehensive circumstantial evidence to light which has not been considered by the police or independent researchers. This is another case where it seems the state were involved in a crime and the cover up of a crime. In the UK, over recent years there have been a number of what the media describe as "terrorist" attacks. Richard will discuss the phenomenon as a whole and then focus on one or two of these very dubious events, attempting to highlight evidence and bring clarity to help understand what is really going on. We will also delve into the area of how people obtain their information and how the landscape is changing and being manipulated to prevent the most important information becoming widely known about. There have been more bizarre animal mutilations occurring in the UK, still with no satisfactory explanation - in particular hundreds of cats being found mutilated around greater London and further afield. Richard will present some preliminary findings about this phenomenon. Following on from his research into the very dubious Mars Rover programme and the recent expose on Richplanet of the very dubious Apollo (moon landing) programme, we will look at some compelling information about Mars that it seems has been suppressed. And also look with a very critical eye at some of the commercial ventures which claim to be attempting to send people to Mars in a rocket (firework). Richard will also discuss some of his UFO related research, both evidence based and the current politics surrounding this subject. I will try and think of some jokes too.TICKETS : £12

See Richard's events page here to purchase tickets: http://www.richplanet.net/events.php

Also see Richard's online shop to purchase his films & other merchandise here:
http://www.richplanet.net/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=287 

Hopefully I will see some of you there for anyone attending the Birmingham event on the 27th April...


Thanks for reading.... 

 

Wednesday, 31 January 2018

9/11 - Video Fakery Psyop - Article By Wolf Clan Media


By Mark Conlon


I would like to draw people's attention to a good article by Wolf Clan Media called - '9/11 - Video Fakery Psyop'. He has been observing and documenting the 9/11 "Video Fakery" Psychological Operation and the people involved past and present and the promulgating of disinformation. 



In particular he covers recent developments of the attacks against me by the self termed "Concerned Grandpa" Steve De'ak, where many inaccurate claims have been made about me by De'ak. It is now clear that De'ak is part of the the Simon "Shack Pack" and Ace "Baker Bunch" with all sorts of fantastical far-out claims which would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

I would personally like to thank 'Wolf Clan Media' for observing the situation and the disinformation and individuals involved. 


Thank you for reading... and caring.


   

Monday, 29 January 2018

Exposing Steve De'ak's Avoidance of "Video Fakery" & More Ad Hominem Attacks


By Mark Conlon
 
This is a review and response to Steve De'ak's latest "derogatory" article called.  "Tools of the Trade: Mark Conlon". In his latest article we see another insight into the kind of mentality, attitude and nature of De'ak, while never addressing any of the points about "video fakery", which he uses to support his "flawed" "multiple missile" theory.
 
De'ak's introduction to his article below:
De'ak says..."Just a quick poke at Judy Wood’s tool, Mark Conlon.  From his post below, he seems to be nursing a grudge.  He won’t take comments on his blog and he is fond of being indignant and of accusing me of lying, so I thought I’d add a little fuel to his fire". 

Analysis of De'ak's introduction:
Above yet again we have an example of De'ak's true colours, (colours spelt the English way Steve) of where he is lying and being derogatory. I am not a "tool" of Dr. Wood (whatever way De'ak means this term), I have "NO" contact with Dr. Wood. I have only met Dr. Wood once in October 2011 after her talk she did in the UK. I own a copy and have read Dr. Wood's book Where Did The Towers Go? which qualifies me to explore her evidence she presents within her book. Please bear in mind, that I have never said that I've done research on the how the buildings disappeared. My research has been mainly in relation to "video fakery" and the video evidence. Perhaps De'ak could show some honesty in his reporting of the facts instead of trying to associate me with Dr. Wood, or having some type of collusion with her. This is De'ak's mind of fantasty of not a reality. 

Also De'ak knows already I don't allow comments on my blog-page, as mentioned in my response in December 2017. People can contact me directly through the "Contact Form" on my blog, and many do.. Please note, De'ak has never contacted me using the contact form. The reason this is important to make this next point is because De'ak has brought it back-up again and also because De'ak's accusations of being "stalked" or "targeted" by people who ask him difficult or challenging questions on his "public" comments sections on his blog and YouTube channel videos.


De'ak then publicly plays the "victim" and then rationalises his abusive "bad" language towards those who dare ask him to clarify his theories. It should be obvious by now that I don't wish to create such a "drama triangle" like De'ak does with my blog readers, my boundaries are clear, his are not, as he also complains about spamming, which is why I explained in my open response to him on the 19th Decemeber 2017, why I block comments and only invite contact to me through the "Contact Form" on blog. 

A word of advice to "Grandpa De'ak", don't invite comments on your "public" videos or articles/blogs if you don't like them, while at the same time accusing people of "stalking" or "targeting" you when you put yourself into the "public domain". This just smells of double standards to me Grandpa.

Decoding De'ak's Fuzzy Logic...?
Below is a paragraph from my blog which De'ak responds to in his latest blog post. An interesting response to say the least, yet very telling at the same time.

Steve De’ak relies on “video fakery” because without it his “multiple missiles” theory cannot be valid, and the fact we have now “proven” and “exposed” the “video fakery” psy-op over and over again, he does not want to discuss it any longer and has subtly shifted the debate to his “multiple missile” theory which is based on just 9 people’s accounts from the mainstream media reports, which is a “contradictory” position by Steve De’ak as according to him the media where complicit on 9/11, and according to Steve De’ak they produced “fake” videos and live coverage on 9/11? Yet he has no issues “cherry picking” mainstream media accounts as truth regarding missiles hitting the North Tower, while ignoring all the other evidence of eyewitnesses, videographers and photographers accounts, who seen a PLANE. De’ak  would rather make wild accusations against those people calling them liars, and fabricators of their video evidence and being part of a giant conspiracy on 9/11 without a single shred of evidence to support his bizarre theories. “Does “PEOPLE BASHING” come to mind”?

De'ak's response below:
Nope.  Actually Mark it isn’t video fakery that I rely on for my conclusions, it is the evidence at the scene of the crime, evidence that you refuse to address. I guess this is where I should be acting all indignant that you lied!  Gasp!
It isn’t about me, and it isn’t about you – it is about the fucking evidence.
 
My response to De'ak's Fuzzy Logic...
Note, more profanity swearing from De'ak. Firstly, De'ak claims it's not about "video fakery", but in reality it is all about "video fakery". Let's me be clear, De'ak has promoted "video fakery" and has promoted several "unfounded" claims about the Michael Hezarkhani video on Jim Fetzer's show where he made three claims. De'ak claimed the "smoke was frozen" in the Michael Hezarkhani video to allow a plane to be inserted. This was proven factually to be wrong in my article, later De'ak retracted this area of promotion of "video fakery" about the Michael Hezarkhani video. See below:


Secondly, he claimed that "15 frames" in the Michael Hezarkhani video showed no movement in the video, which was seriously scrutinised by 'Conspiracy Cuber' and myself separately, which showed none of the frames from the "15 frames" were completely held still or motionless as De'ak claimed. Again this was later admitted and retracted by De'ak, yet promoted this again afterwards, which was rather strange considering his response to 'Conspiracy Cuber' in his YouTube comment. Was this forgetfulness from the self termed "Concerned Grandpa"?

Thirdly, we also have De'ak accusing Michael Hezarkhani himself of "fabricating" his video and "fuzzing-out" and "blurring-out" the plane gash, something which I addressed in an analysis video I did, which was conveniently overlooked by De'ak, and he has never spoken about it, other than making "false" claims and name calling towards me in a "PUBLIC" Facebook Group, while at the same time shockingly admitting he had not "listened" or "watched" the video analysis I did in relation to the claims he had made on Fetzer's show.. WHY has he not wanted to talk about the analysis, however would rather call me names instead?


Let me add the person who runs the "9/11 Plane Hoax" Facebook Group, where De'ak was calling me names, and not talking about the analysis video I had made, was the person who first alerted me to his "public" comments about me, which were "inaccurately" reported in his Paparazzi blog post, where he again accuses people of "stalking" or "targeting" him. Plus, De'ak mentions a "frauds list" that I aparently added him to. Let me be clear again, there is 'NO' reference in the article I wrote to the "list of names" being a "frauds list" as De'ak claims in his Facebook comment above. The "frauds" comment came from the person who runs (admin) the "9/11 Plane Hoax" Facebook Group. See below:

   
Perhaps De'ak should realise if you are going to talk in a "public" forum about people it means members of the public can read and see what you are saying about them, so it again highlights the "victim mode" De'ak sinks to by making out he is being "stalked" or "targeted" by people in someway when it is him who is speaking about others and not the research which was being presented about his thoeries not him as a person. 

  

Let's continue...
So this is about "video fakery" because De'ak has made several "unfounded" claims about "video fakery", same as he talks about "layering" and "masking" in videos, implying how they concealed the "multiple missiles" according to him hitting the North and South Towers in the videos? So again his theory involves "video fakery". WHY is De'ak egar not to discuss this area of research that I have mainly been investigating for that last 5 years? It appears De'ak wants to discuss evidence of the crime scene, yet doesn't actually want to discuss the actual video evidence of the crime happening, WHY? 

If it is not De'ak's belief that it is not about "video fakery", why is it that not one video shows "multiple missiles" hitting the North or South Tower.. WHY? Please answer this question...

The overwhelming testimonies of eyewitnesses speak of a "large plane". De'ak's logic here is everyone is either controlled in NY, or liars. Yet chooses to accept 9 accounts of a missile or missiles being fired at the WTC Tower reported through mainstream media sources, yet confusingly and contradictory, De'ak tells us the media were part of the conspiracy putting-out "false" information. Was this "false" information about a missile? Note, only 1 out of the 9 reports which De'ak cites reported seeing a missile being fired at the WTC Towers, note a missile not missiles? All the other 8 are just "unidentified" accounts or reports from the police radio dispatches, which could have come from one source which was recirculated and heard by many emergency personal. Many of the report reference accounts in the third person, which implies it wasn't their first hand account.See below:




Let's take a look at a 'List of Witnesses' who saw a plane which De'ak ignores...


Fire Chief Pfeifer is listed in the list above who seen the plane impact the North Tower... He has never mentioned other than a plane impacting the North Tower, no mention of multiple missiles, as De'ak alleges happened. Here's a video of an interview below with Fire Chief Pfeifer recalling what he witnessed at 8:46am. 


De'ak ignores all the eyewitnesses listed above and says they are all liars including Chief Pfeifer, however De'ak relies on one second-hand report of someone seeing a missile not missiles.. WHY does De'ak ignore the overwhelming witness testimony evidence? Or does De'ak have other motives?

Moving on... 

"De'ak fails again to address another paragraph from my blog post, which he offers no "real" response to in relation to video fakery"...  

See below: My paragraph which De'ak cites in his blog post    
So the “real” debate which Steve De’ak is avoiding is “video fakery” and it is now clear why, as without “video fakery” De’ak’s “multiple missiles” theory causing the plane shaped holes in the WTC buildings falls apart, which makes it invalid. This explains why he avoids the debate with myself and ‘Conspiracy Cuber’ regarding “video fakery”, as he has had to publicly “retract” certain theories in the past he put-out about the Hezarkhani video, and has now tried to get myself and others into a “false” debate using a “phony-bone of contention” of a “multiple missiles” theory causing of shaped plane holes. Something which I and others will discuss if he can get past his sheer childish rudeness and bad attitude when questions are put to him.

De'ak's response below:
"Still nope, see above and stop avoiding the “real” debate which is the lightly bent aluminum cladding followed by the progressively worse-damaged steel columns bent sharply to the right, in a completely different direction than the cartoon plane (or advanced projection technology) was traveling".

Analysis of De'ak's response...
Again, note De'ak doesn't want to discuss "video fakery" he wants to shift the debate away from "video fakery" to the damage of the towers, so consequentially he avoids and ignores all the evidence documentation of crime events taking place in the video evidence record. He must answer why his theory involving "multiple missiles" causing the damage to the WTC Towers isn't described by the "overwhelming" evidence record? Calling people liars simply isn't evidence Grandpa.


De'ak chooses to ignore all video evidence, and would rather we take his word or theory that the damage was caused by his "multiple missiles" theory, despite none of his theory being present in any of the videos, photographs and overwhelming eyewitness testimonies.

Here's another paragraph from my blog below which De’ak cites in his latest article. His response is very telling where accuracy and honesty seems to be vaccant yet again.

My paragraph which De'ak cites in blog article below:
I will be addressing several “lies” and inaccuracies told by Steve De’ak about myself, which he learly has knowingly put-out, such as myself “deleting” YouTube comments from his YouTube comments thread. Twice he has told this lie, as he was informed twice about why my comments were removed due to YouTube’s termination of my YouTube channel (I have evidence to prove it).
De’ak responds…

Please note: in my article to which is being referred to in De'ak's Facebook comments below, I never referenced the list or to De'ak as a "fraud"., it was the person who runs (admin) the "9/11 Plane Hoax" Facebook Group who referred to the list as "Frauds" not me. De'ak has never acknowledged this fact. WHY?


De'ak's response:  
I couldn’t give a rat’s ass why your comments went missing, and why you think this is important is beyond me.  Sue me if I missed the memo.  You wanna talk “lies?”  Fine!  The videos of flight 175 are all lies, including Hezarkhani’s!  (And I have the evidence to prove it!)

Analysis of De’ak’s response:
De’ak says: “I couldn’t give a rat’s ass why your comments went missing, and why you think this is important is beyond me”. 

Well if De’ak couldn’t give a rats ass why my YouTube comments disappeared from his YouTube comments thread, why did he make such a "big deal" about it in his blog article? Why has he brought-up this issue up three times, if he doesn’t care? Surely this suggests he does give a rats ass or else he wouldn’t have brought it up yet again. However the worrying aspect is De’ak is happy to make this “false” statement three times, that I deleted my YouTube comments. WHY does De’ak promote this “false” information repeatedly? Surely isn't it about time he reported this correctly and accurately?


In the second part of his sentence De’ak again reverts to implying that all the videos are lies and fake, and Hezarkhani is a liar also. De’ak offers “NO” evidence to back-up these claims, just a statement, this is not evidence and based on any facts. This is an interesting display by De'ak and highlights perfectly why De’ak needs the videos to be promoted as "fake", because without the “video fakery” aspect his theory of “multiple missiles” is rendered invalid.

This also highlights the “smearing” against people such as, Michael Hezarkhani and the other 60 videographers to which De’ak is party to, and it is plain to see here yet again. I challenge De’ak to produce his “video fakery” evidence to which he alludes to at the end of his sentence. I await his evidence.

Another paragraph from my blog post which De’ak cites in his article, with another interesting lack-luster response.. See my paragraph below:

Plus, I will be documenting comprehensively the lies and other distortions he has told regarding comment exchanges between each other. Perhaps an indication why he did not want the “accurate” archive of comments exchanged between us which ‘Conspiracy Cuber’ offered to him which he outright rejected. Perhaps if he had, he might of accurately reported or reflected the true nature of the comments exchanged between us, and maybe reflected truthfully what was said, instead of distorting it to suit his false memory of what was said, where he’d rather play the man and not the ball with personal attacks about me and not the my research or analysis. There will be a full report with evidence demonstrating what has taken place, and the reader can decide for themselves whether or not Steve De’ak was being completely “truthful” and “honest” in what he said about me and his own comments and responses.

De’ak’s response below:
Start with documenting the damage evidence and stop being such a pussy.  But before you do that admit you’re the one stretching the truth.  Here’s a screenshot from your blog where you’ve been acting like a Trekkie who just learned Spock’s ears are fake.  Do I really see that you included a link to the long discredited claim that “7D” technology exists?

Analysis of De’ak’s response:
Here we observe De’ak’s use of disrespectful name calling to which he can't help resort to, by calling me a “pussy”. Is this really someone who portrays himself as a “Concerned Grandpa” and an adult? I do wonder? It seems he wants to get me into a name calling situation, this is classic distraction by De'ak whereby he seems hell-bent on creating the "drama triangle". His name calling doesn't matter, as it says more about him than does me... This shows weakness in his arguments, so please keep-it-up "Grandpa". 


Moving on, again apparently I’m stretching the truth, but De’ak couldn’t resist to start his implying labelling yet again in relation to holography. It has nothing to do with Trekkie (Star Trek) as much as De’ak would like people to believe, as holography has been around since the 1800's well before Star Trek. So another example of De'ak wondering-off and introducing "Star Trek" again.. It's getting boring now Steve come on shack a leg!  

I will deal with De'ak's comment at the end of his sentence below:

De’ak said: Do I really see that you included a link to the long discredited claim that “7D” technology exists?

De’ak pointed-out an observation regarding the video I linked to in the blog, however there is 'NO' reference or weight of it being “discredited” in any of the two links he provided about Magic Leap in De’ak’s article, as it was only a promotional video allegedly for a tech start-up that shows what type of technology they want to develop. So there’s nothing to really discredit. Let me add Truthorfiction.com who De'ak cites is a snopes mainstream debunking website with possible links to the mainstream such as Time Warner. Rich Buhler was the founder and president of Branches Communications an LA company that produced radio, TV, and film media for many years. He also founded www.TruthOrFiction.com in 1999.

As for the the 7D whale supposedly that come from a company called Magic Leap who do augmented reality, and it may not have been witnessed in "real time". At this time there is contact to confirm this, and I will report more about this soon...

De'ak's denial of holography even existing:
Here's a reference of the type of “holographic technology” to create powerful images which I alluded to regarding De'ak's denial in my article. Please see videos below talking about holography:
 

The interactive transmission process is known as Musion Live Stage telepresence and offers a new way for people to holographically communicate across the globe - face-to-face in real time. Three Christie Roadster HD18K DLP® projectors were used for the first-ever transmission of live, interactive 3D holograms from London and Montreal to Orlando, Florida from June 17-19, 2009.

 


In the video below: Jeri demonstrate theories behind holograms and how to project 3d images from a standard hologram plate. The table used to make the hologram.


See video below: Holograms, Holographs: "Introduction to Holography" 1972 Encyclopaedia Britannica Films. Examines the process of holography, types of holograms, and the uses of the hologram for artistic and scientific purposes.




Fairy Lights in Femtoseconds: Tangible Holographic Plasma. Fairy Lights in Femtoseconds: Aerial and Volumetric Graphics Rendered by Focused Femtosecond Laser Combined with Computational Holographic Fields.
 


Japan's Laser 3D Image Display


Again I will leave it up to the reader of this article to make up their own minds whether Steve De'ak has been completely honest in his statements and whether or not he has conducted himself in a respectful manner which is worthy of any respect anymore..



Thank you for reading and caring...


UPDATE: 8th February 2018

Interestingly Steve De'ak didn't offer this link alongside his efforts of trying to debunk the video I linked to in this article regarding Magic Leap. Rather choosing a debunking website instead. According to Michelle Starr on October 20th 2015...  

"Stunning Magic Leap demo is as real as augmented reality gets"...

The mysterious augmented-reality startup has released a video demonstrating its technology with zero special effects or compositing....