My dear brothers, see how your meeting attracts us and invites us to share. We are never far away and you know it, you feel it. And it's not the math or the data that should take you away from us. We understand your confusion and the questioning that concerns you. The technicality you must demonstrate should not be off-putting or the yoke that overcomes the bad student.
Do you believe that we have chosen you to make you hear our will?
To force you to science?
No. We called on women and men who are available, inventive and intelligent. Who, far from
the eyes and from its certainties, knew how to open their hearts to the unspeakable. And this breeding ground of which you are made is a treasure for us. Do not see in our writings the sly invitation to effort, the implementation of the simplest of flattery. Neither see encouragement because the load is not that heavy and the announcement is not in vain. Many great human discoveries have been made by accident, at least as the saying goes. Well, tell yourself that here among all of you, there is material for our events. This is tangent, often on the edge of the fabulous meeting. Let's go, let's work!
Which does not mean: let us torture ourselves, but open our hearts and our minds. Proofreading by Jean Luc
We will say that it is rather a message of encouragement. I think they felt we were a bit stuck with these technical issues. It's a little bit to try to cheer us up, I was going to say. Thank you for this message, this introduction.
We have a few questions for you: Questions proposed by a surfer Julien. The first question is:
"Knowing the information you had given us in previous sessions. That is to say when you told us that we should eventually remove the screen and use only lasers for the creation of the hologram. The crossing of several lasers on several axes with a common convergence zone, could it allow you to create this hologram without having to use video feedback and the projector anymore? "
The spirits :
The multiplicity of laser sources is already a hologram production system. You can, if you wish, multiply these devices. This is generally done for combined holograms, for particular services requiring a large field of vision. The video you're talking about, however, is not an end in itself. It is only the end of a cycle and the beginning of something else. The combination of interference fringes could, it is true, make the focus of the manifestation more visible, but would be far too complicated to set up. Orient yourself to the rendering hologram. You will find, in many examples, the best way to overcome your difficulties. To do this, a radius and a precise sense of observation. Remember that we will make the hologram, you will return it so that it is visible.
Jean Luc: Question n ° 2 is:
"You tell us that your manifestations will be visible to the naked eye, without our needing a screen. You told us about smoked before telling us that it was only an example and that we had to go to the most simple. And although you can modulate the coherence of the laser to make an image appear, we cannot see it without a minimum of reflection and this in the direction of our eyes. Would the solution be the gas in? would the modulation area be dense and opaque enough to reflect the light back to our eyes? "
My friends, you complicate life. We like your spirit of synthesis. Smoke is here agreed to replace the projection of an image not to restore a hologram. To do this, you need a coherent or semi- coherent light like that of your video projector. The screen is optional for the hologram and this is also its principle, since the image appears in the beam of light you are looking at.
Do you think that in some museums you need to fill the room with smoke or gas to see the works appear?
No, just coherent light. This is what we ask of you. Set up a holographic rendering system, materialize the focus of the hologram. Or, give us a neutral holographic support for example and observe the light thus projected and without a screen.
I think it will speak more to those who are more technical like Julien and Joël. I hope at least, because it doesn't mean much to me.
The third question is:
"In the current system, the object beam is in the direction of the screen and the reference beam towards the experimenter. In the current state and from a technical point of view, the reference beam of the module is not is of no use in capturing the hologram From an educational point of view, you encouraged us in this direction because we could learn the method of interferometry which requires two laser beams.
Now, this reference beam should be directed directly towards the camera sensor as is the case in the holography method. But after discussion with Joël, it seems impossible or at least difficult with our equipment. As it is, a beam directly directed into the camera sensor would saturate the image which would then be unreadable. Do we still have to do this to show you that we understood what you wanted and maybe have an inspiration at the time or risk that the next results will be worse.
This is a tough question. We find many errors there. The first is that your laser has never been divided correctly and that it has been for us and until today only a significant support for our demonstrations. We do not need to verify that you have understood and that we are trying to tell you, we perceive it in you far beyond the forms, which is essential. Once again, understand that in this configuration you cannot create a hologram. And besides that is not the goal. You need to create a restitution.
Let's take an example: your module does not create our images, it renders them. It is an intermediary, just as this man transmits our thoughts, he does not create them. We must make you pass our image in three dimensions and this in the light of a laser which in the passage crossed a virtual holographic focus where we will find the material to develop it. A prism, liquid crystals, glass, neutral hologram plate etc.... Think about it, I'm sure you will understand where we are coming from.
I'm sorry, I'm asking you all the questions that have been prepared without bouncing back on your answers. I would like us to be able to study them properly before reacting to them.
Question number 4 is:
The lights which are directed on the screen are inconsistent lights (apart from the laser) and with the video projector form what are called additions of intensities which you can modulate but only at the level of the 'screen. We have therefore understood the system of this luminous agglomerate. But without a screen, will this one have to be done with coherent light sources? Since there is no surface on which the lights come crashing down, consistency becomes essential to facilitate modulation.
I think you answered a little bit in the first answer.
Yes indeed, the current lights do not illuminate the screen but the focus of the manifestation. The video projector reproduces a combined image. This device will be erased over time. Supports are very useful for video feedback, they will no longer be useful for the hologram. Understand that you are following a logical path from the video feedback technique to the hologram. It is obvious that your installation will change along the way. So we should not try to combine the elements, but understand why they are useful to us, in what order, for what results. And then, why they can become unnecessary.
Brief exchange between Jean Luc and Laurie.
In the recordings we make: in audio and video we record the session in small clips of a few seconds. Do you think it would be interesting if we record the entire session from where we would view some extracts in the form of small clips. But would it be interesting to record the entire experiment?
For what result?
Because I told myself that by recording small clips as we do now and that we look frame by frame, we can maybe, sometimes, miss images, or an entity, a spirit that could come manifest and on several images and that we would see moving?
My friends, you can if you want to create backups for yourself in case we happen to materialize in the room and you are way too sleepy recording the manifestation!
We smile a little, but the idea is a good idea. Rest assured, you don't miss a thing, we take care of it. So do as you feel, as for us it is something else that we expect from you and you know it.
Jean Luc: Is it clear?
You don't have enough work to add more?
It is certain that by making clips of 2 or 3 seconds, we say to ourselves that maybe you are not able to manifest yourself at this precise moment. You really need to be able to use the device in a very short, very precise moment. And if by the time you try to come forward you are 5 seconds after our recordings, then we won't record you. Whereas if we recorded the continuity, we would get to see your manifestation.
What is your goal in this research?
It is sure that it is not to see an image from time to time. But that you manage to manifest yourself in a long way with sound and image.
Yes. Do you believe then that the production of so-called incidence images is an objective?
No. I think it's a step.
Well, when we can manifest over several seconds do you think it would be invisible at normal speed, during the experiment?
Well no. If you can come forward over several seconds, I think we'll see you.
So what do you think you capture by continuous recordings?
Isn't it better to start recording in the first signs of our manifestation?
Yes, of course, except that today, we are not yet at recordings over several seconds, so it was to be able to give us maximum luck.
If tomorrow we manage to obtain a hologram, that we can record it at the same time and that you manage to manifest yourself over several seconds, it is certain that we will be able to start recording on sight ...
We are going to leave you, since the Gabriel control cannot remain with you more. Be available and be reassured of a tender heart. You are not alone.
Gabriel, Sébastopol and Éric.