Forensic exams of Billy Meier photo: Not faked.

www.spacedaily.com... CE-EXPLORATION&andorquestion=OR&&passDir=0,1,2,3,4,5,6,15,17,34

Mufon reopens the case to it's 3000 members.

Fast forward to today where - just like in an episode of CSI - independent researcher Prof. Rhal Zahi revives the Meier cold case by taking a took a close look at the "DNA" in the WCUFO photos using PhotoShop, professional 3-D computer modeling software and actual scale models. His 74-page report, including his reproducible protocols, conclusively authenticate the photos as large, unknown objects and rules out small models or special effects.

Prof. Zahi then discovered never before seen details in a nighttime WCUFO photo that have been hidden in not so plain sight - for 34 years - revealing that the craft is hovering over a gravel road and that Meier somehow actually took the photo from...above the object.

so skeptics; if you were proclaiming the photos as fakes you were wrong ##SNIPPED##...or just fess up that you were wrong.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

The photo probably is real. However there is no proof that it's a space craft.
It looks man made, erected where it stands and photographed.

a reply to: alldaylong well according to the examiner it was not a miniature but a photo of a large object. see the problem is all of the debunkers proclaimed it was a garbage lid and so forth loudly and strongly as if it was true and it wasn't. they were liars. they lied. at the very least the presented their opinion as if it were a proven fact and with whatever ramifications that had for Mr Meier, his family and interested onlookers. and that is just wrong. and i doubt a damned one of them care enough or are principled enough to correct the record.

revealing that the craft is hovering over a gravel road and that Meier somehow actually took the photo from...above the object.

While I'm not real familiar with this, this statement stands out to me. Isn't there a statement to go with the picture, from Billy? Shouldn't where it was taken be known? (or how he was above it, in this case?)

Oh my. The debunkerz are going to blow a fuse over this one. This case is well-documented and the only thing that would save the day is screaming "FAAAAAAAAAKE!!!". Without that, these people are going to need to be restrained.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

This doesn't prove anything. So what if the object was deemed a real object, large or small. It doesn't change the fact it could still be a fake ufo. I couldn't say for certain. My opinion is MUFON has an agenda to lie to people.

Okay am I looking at the right picture? The mini pic looks like a cake of some sort and the blown up version sort of looks like a half a$$ed put together tin piece the size of a basket ball and the picture was just taken really close.

a reply to: alldaylong
Yeah..I thought this guy was proven as a hoaxer long ago.If Billy really did have contact with aliens,he blew it by presenting fake photos of time travel and beamships.meier hoax

a reply to: Urantia1111

Oh my. The debunkerz are going to blow a fuse over this one.

Why, as it was said earlier...The picture is not fake but that doesn't prove that what's on it is real.

Where's the report on the MUFON website. I did a search on the MUFON site and there was not mention of the new report?

a reply to: WakeUpBeer it could still be ...therefore it is? that's hardly a basis for a rational conclusion. not very scientific.

occam's razor is not that the simplest explanation for something is always true. its the simplest explanation that fits the EVIDENCE is the most LIKELY answer. something that seems simple can be completely wrong. occam is a rule of thumb; not a universal law. it's wrong almost as often as not.

originally posted by: cyberheater
Where's the report on the MUFON website. I did a search on the MUFON site and there was not mention of the new report?

The Article says the following:

An update on the remarkable, historical developments in the Billy Meier case may be announced at the upcoming MUFON Symposium, July 17 - 20, in Pennsylvania.

so it may be thatthere is no MUFON documentation on thier website yet. i don't know.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
a reply to: alldaylong well according to the examiner it was not a miniature but a photo of a large object. see the problem is all of the debunkers proclaimed it was a garbage lid and so forth loudly and strongly as if it was true and it wasn't. they were liars. they lied. at the very least the presented their opinion as if it were a proven fact and with whatever ramifications that had for Mr Meier, his family and interested onlookers. and that is just wrong. and i doubt a damned one of them care enough or are principled enough to correct the record.

I didn't say it was a miniature. It probably is full size.
However that being so, it still doesn't clarify it being a space craft. If one has the inclination then one can build anything they wish:-

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Jeez, does this stuff never go away? The article is sourced from Meiers' US publicist. Let's make this clear...the person in charge of making money and generating publicity for Billy Meier is the person claiming that it isn't a hoax.

Fast forward to today where - just like in an episode of CSI - independent researcher Prof. Rhal Zahi revives the Meier cold case by taking a took a close look at the "DNA" in the WCUFO photos using PhotoShop, professional 3-D computer modeling software and actual scale models. His 74-page report, including his reproducible protocols, conclusively authenticate the photos as large, unknown objects and rules out small models or special effects.

Nobody gives a damn that an alleged member of MUFON has written a 74 page report on the wedding cake UFO images. A child wouldn't be hoaxed by those images.

It's just spam for a yet another 'breakthrough' movie to spawn this garbage.

originally posted by: alldaylong

I didn't say it was a miniature. It probably is full size.
However that being so, it still doesn't clarify it being a space craft. If one has the inclination then one can build anything they wish:-

www.dailymail.co.uk...

like no one would notice some crazed hoaxer building a full scale fake space woojit on a public road? like there would be no material to find if it was moved or disassembled afterwards?

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

An update on the remarkable, historical developments in the Billy Meier case may be announced at the upcoming MUFON Symposium, July 17 - 20, in Pennsylvania.

so it may be thatthere is no MUFON documentation on thier website yet. i don't know.

Thanks stormbringer1701. So in the next couple of days then.

What bothers me is that the source of the information comes from Michael Horn, who is the one representing Billy Meier and making ton$ of cheddar off of products.

Product$ Product$ Product$

Media Contact: Michael Horn, They Fly Productions, 310.876.8585, [email protected]

News distributed by PR Newswire iReach: ireach.prnewswire.com...

SOURCE They Fly Productions

Link back to article

And where is the press release from MUFON?

I loved the Billy Meier story until I watched one of the documentaries with Michael Horn. That guy smells fishy.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Jeez, does this stuff never go away? The article is sourced from Meiers' US publicist. Let's make this clear...the person in charge of making money and generating publicity for Billy Meier is the person claiming that it isn't a hoax.

Well that settles it.

Thanks for that Kandisky, I knew there was something fishy bout this whole deal.

I bet Muffon doesn't even mention it at the symposium.

~Tenth

a reply to: stormbringer1701

so skeptics; if you were proclaiming the photos as fakes you were wrong and may plug your tiny little genitals into the nearest wall outlet

Doesn't everyone do that anyway?

a reply to: stormbringer1701

I think it's fake but not because it's the simplest answer. I have many reasons why my opinion is that it's fake. Here's one of them that makes me suspicious. Something I read in the Jacques Valle threadnaught.

originally posted by: The GUT
In Messengers of Deception, Dr. Vallee explores ufological deception from, mainly, two angles. The seemingly deceptive nature of the anomalous phenomenon itself and deception by frauds and intelligence agencies.

I get the sense, over and over in Forbidden Science II--and Messengers of Deception--that he has a burning desire for truth. He leaves bread crumbs but, as he stated above, he is, "condemned to understatements." That he returns time and again to the theme of intelligence agencies and ufological deception is quite remarkable.

It appears that he wants to tell us…and he's done the best he can.

What have I learned? (1) The phenomenon is real but it offers multiple levels. (2) No simple extraterrestrial explanation fits the facts. (3) The governments of the U.S., Mexico and France have a keen level of interest (and the Russian and U.K. as well) but no scientific research project seems to exist. (4) Some of the brightest people in Intelligence get involved but the real data must be hidden at a different level. (5) Much of the official involvement is directed at faking data, not at discovering the truth. (6) Animal mutilations are real but probably unrelated to UFOs. (7) No solution will be found by mediocre, amateurish research.

Forbidden Science II

Dr. Jacques Vallee ~ The Control System