Hi-res Meier pictures

Originally posted by EastonStyle78
If this guy is for real and the aliens allowed him to take photos then why doesn't he do it again?

Perhaps he was lucky one or two times and actually got some nice UFO pictures, and then he though "Hey, perhaps I can use this to start a religion...Muhahaha.." or something... Then after that he faked all new pictures to keep the "faith" of the followers up...?


[edit on 19-8-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]

Hey, perhaps I can use this to start a religion...Muhahaha.." or something... Then after that he faked all new pictures to keep the "faith" of the followers up...?

[edit on 19-8-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]

Yeah, maybe he's related to PY...............

[edit on 23-8-2005 by EastonStyle78]

[edit on 23-8-2005 by EastonStyle78]

Or
BOB "friggin" LAZER
[edit on 23-8-2005 by EastonStyle78]

[edit on 23-8-2005 by EastonStyle78]

Why would an intelligent lifeform fly into a tree...?

img301.imageshack.us...

[edit on 23-8-2005 by shorty]

Originally posted by shorty
Why would an intelligent lifeform fly into a tree...?

img301.imageshack.us...

[edit on 23-8-2005 by shorty]

maybe they thought it was a cloud...

Originally posted by EastonStyle78

Originally posted by shorty
Why would an intelligent lifeform fly into a tree...?

img301.imageshack.us...

[edit on 23-8-2005 by shorty]

maybe they thought it was a cloud...

But, you gotta wonder...how the hell could people take these photos seriously!?



[edit on 24-8-2005 by shorty]

Going back to the pics, I´ve just seen a little detail in the bottom left of the first one. Did anybody see that dark border? For me it looks like he photographed a model hanging in front of a small tree, with a picture of that landscape in the back. With this in mind, take a look at it again, and tell me what you see now.

Here´s a detail:

I personally like this find, from jrittzman....

Originally posted by Peronemlin
take a look at it again, and tell me what you see now.

Here´s a detail:

sure why not.
it does look vary fake. there is no sign of movement or nothing, and don't tell me it's stitting there floating b/c if it was then he should have gotten a ton of photos at that time.
I know if I saw something extrordinary like that then i would take as many photos as possible.
oh and I think he created a still life like you said and photographed it.

I just find the whole spaceships in the trees thing amusing

I'll admit, they are good shots, but i'm sceptical

Nice pics

Wow those are the fakest pictures I've ever seen. Pathetic

Good find.

I don't know about Billy Meier--his story was so long ago and there has been much more, more recently BUT that first photo on the list is fake. It shows a supposed disk but it's between the tree and the camera. Given the size of that tree, the disk could only be about five feet wide, at most. No aliens that small, methinks. Get that close to any pine of the sort, a small pine at that, and you'll see that even the smallest saucer would blot out the whole tree.

All I can say Is:

Originally posted by Gazrok
I personally like this find, from jrittzman....

People, people....c'mon, really now. Is anyone genuinely interested in facts, science and other serious stuff here or what?

Okay, look. I'll try to make this as simple as possible:

The items you see in these pictures are small (the presumed carpet tack and bracelet per self-acclaimed researcher, Kal Korff: Meier researcher extraordinaire). Small is not big last time we checked, right?

Okay. Now carefully examine one of Meier's own video footage clips of this craft:

www.billymeier.com...

1) Notice Meier is clearly seen (and heard) in front of the camera off to the right, and subsequently breathing behind the camera, so he's not doing the ol' fishing pole trick. Are you all with me?
2) Consider the camera, as documented by the investigators, is a SABA, one of the earliest consumer videocams on the market in 1981, a camera which presumably has a measurable zoom factor which Meier obviously max's out. Through some trig and camera optic calcs, we should be able to find the distance, right?
3) Notice how far Meier zooms across a big (again, not small) meadow toward the rather big (not small) ship and rather large (not small) tree. No little bonsai trees here, agreed?
4) Notice you hear Meier taking simultaneous stills of the object which can be seen in Meier's "Photobuch" (see the English version: Through Space and Time) in all of their hyuge, metallic splendor. Pretty neat trick, eh?

In all seriousness fellow ATS-ers: I honestly have to chuckle at the chucklers here who see pictures like these by some half-baked semi-pseudo-researcher(s) and evidently accept it at face value without knowing a shred about the actual facts in the case.

I challenge anyone here to seriously tell me that the object beside the tree is small enough to have the above-shown bracelet (or whatever that small thing is) and carpet tacks comprising its structure (the cupola) as shown in the photo. C'mon, I know I can pull at least one of you away from Fear Factor, Survivor, a football game or other sub-alpha-wave inducing TV entertainment and give me a straight-faced and credible explanation!

I'll gladly respond, but in kind.

Aurelius

Originally posted by Aurelius

Originally posted by Gazrok
I personally like this find, from jrittzman....

People, people....c'mon, really now. Is anyone genuinely interested in facts, science and other serious stuff here or what?

Okay, look. I'll try to make this as simple as possible:

The items you see in these pictures are small (the presumed carpet tack and bracelet per self-acclaimed researcher, Kal Korff: Meier researcher extraordinaire). Small is not big last time we checked, right?

Okay. Now carefully examine one of Meier's own video footage clips of this craft:

www.billymeier.com...

1) Notice Meier is clearly seen (and heard) in front of the camera off to the right, and subsequently breathing behind the camera, so he's not doing the ol' fishing pole trick. Are you all with me?
2) Consider the camera, as documented by the investigators, is a SABA, one of the earliest consumer videocams on the market in 1981, a camera which presumably has a measurable zoom factor which Meier obviously max's out. Through some trig and camera optic calcs, we should be able to find the distance, right?
3) Notice how far Meier zooms across a big (again, not small) meadow toward the rather big (not small) ship and rather large (not small) tree. No little bonsai trees here, agreed?
4) Notice you hear Meier taking simultaneous stills of the object which can be seen in Meier's "Photobuch" (see the English version: Through Space and Time) in all of their hyuge, metallic splendor. Pretty neat trick, eh?

In all seriousness fellow ATS-ers: I honestly have to chuckle at the chucklers here who see pictures like these by some half-baked semi-pseudo-researcher(s) and evidently accept it at face value without knowing a shred about the actual facts in the case.

It's a small tree, more then likely some sort of tree used in model train circles. It appears in 2 other films and photos supposedly shot at other locations (albeit fluffed a bit and shot at slightly different angles.) that supposedly were "eliminated" by Semjase.

That said, the object is roughly 12-14 inches across. Placed far enough away from a camera and yes, you'll zoom completely out trying to make it large in frame. That completes the forced perspective look, and achieves the illusion. It can also be done with anything from cutout flats, to even smaller models.

Where is this tree today? Where is it located? Why isnt there ONE picture of just the tree? Why does the ship not move ONE iota.
Oh right, it "wasnt possible" according to the dialogue on camera. I can only guess why.

Sure they can traverse time and space, but lets not go past moving away from a tree in the Swiss countryside.

So before you go calling people names like "half baked" and "pseudo"-anything resorting to personal attacks, maybe you ought to try doing a shred of real examination and study on forced perspective and zoom factor to scales.

Originally posted by Peronemlin
Going back to the pics, I´ve just seen a little detail in the bottom left of the first one. Did anybody see that dark border? For me it looks like he photographed a model hanging in front of a small tree, with a picture of that landscape in the back. With this in mind, take a look at it again, and tell me what you see now.

Here´s a detail:

The tree in the picture also looks similar to the one in the movie although it's not conclusive.

Thats only one other use TerraX, there's a couple more too. Funny how you never seem to see *where* the tree enters the ground and goes to dirt.

The craft seem to have a real affinity for this little tree, they are always flying within it's branches.

I know there's a punch line using "sap" in this, but I just cant find it yet.

The tree is only i two of the pictures, what about all the others, and what about the films he shot?

Originally posted by anorwegianguy1972
The tree is only i two of the pictures, what about all the others, and what about the films he shot?

It is? Just 2 pics? More then that I assure ya.

What about the other films? If ya go 2 page 2 I think of the forum, there's a thread called "Meier case on C2C" or something like that. During that thread I showed evidence of double exposure and stop motion in one of the other films. (one that contains what was described as a "jump", an instant, blink of an eye movement...which really turning off the camera and moving the model) Some of the other films that show such a "jump" are truly hysterical to me, as one would show a tree branch moving as if by a slight breeze...then, at the instance of "jump" that branch suddenly stops, and the sky is a bit different in lighting. Or you can find the reverse, the branch is moving, and then at the instance of "jump", instantly stops.

Just means the wind was moving the branch before the cam was shut off, and stopped when it was restarted for the "jump" effect.

The one I love is the one thats said to show a "light" or 2 flash on the ship. Whats funny is the "light" looks very much like a gleam on the surface of a greeble (a found part applied to the disc model) from the sun. As the dsic rotates slightly, the "light" slowly turns on, and as it rotates further, flicks off. Not surprisingly, the sunlight direction is on the same side of the craft as these "lights". Uneven surface, reflective surface (or surfaces) and rotation...thats all it is. And I'm sure what any artist would call a "happy accident". But it's one of the most touted films that supposedly prove to the supporters that he didnt use a model.

If the light(s) were on the other side, I'd say ok, maybe thats something else. But it isnt..and when you really look at it, and examine the film in slow motion, it's really evident, just as evident as the stop motion employed in the other films.