Meier Photos Replicated

And there you have a Meier true believer, one who:

-Says he "devised" a photoshop application to judge double exposures

-States as fact that the IIG photos are double exposures

-Essentially dares anyone to prove him wrong, and when proven, switches the story, addresses none of his wrongs, nor his obviously unaccurate conclusions.

Thats what the true believers of the Meier story do, they'll turn it around on ya every time...like it's your fault.

Lets make it clear, Mysraki (sp) said they were double exposures, using a graphics program. Derek has concretely shown that not to be the case...Mysraki is wrong. Period.

Instead he'll make note that he was somehow right because the camera was digital....wait...it wasnt....huh? Ok, you go ahead and live it that world buddy, the rest of us perfer reality.

Well, my pics were taken with the same kind of camera, with a model constructed to beamship scale and size, and I have negatives. So now what. I suppose I should also cut off my arm?? (You might laugh folks, but thats how ridiculous it gets.)

But will it matter? Nope. I've come to the conclusion that the supporters like Horn ask for these pics to waste the time and energy of those who question the authenticity of the case. Why? Maybe to keep them from doing truly productive work in disproving (or the opposite) the case itself.

But, as far as Mysraki (sp?) goes...how thats crow tastin? Must be pretty bitter from the non addressive reply.

[edit on 22-9-2005 by jritzmann]

Originally posted by jritzmann
And there you have a Meier true believer, one who:

-Says he "devised" a photoshop application to judge double exposures

-States as fact that the IIG photos are double exposures

-Essentially dares anyone to prove him wrong, and when proven, switches the story, addresses none of his wrongs, nor his obviously unaccurate conclusions.

Thats what the true believers of the Meier story do, they'll turn it around on ya every time...like it's your fault.

Lets make it clear, Mysraki (sp) said they were double exposures, using a graphics program. Derek has concretely shown that not to be the case...Mysraki is wrong. Period.

Instead he'll make note that he was somehow right because the camera was digital....wait...it wasnt....huh? Ok, you go ahead and live it that world buddy, the rest of us perfer reality.

Well, my pics were taken with the same kind of camera, with a model constructed to beamship scale and size, and I have negatives. So now what. I suppose I should also cut off my arm?? (You might laugh folks, but thats how ridiculous it gets.)

But will it matter? Nope. I've come to the conclusion that the supporters like Horn ask for these pics to waste the time and energy of those who question the authenticity of the case. Why? Maybe to keep them from doing truly productive work in disproving (or the opposite) the case itself.

But, as far as Mysraki (sp?) goes...how thats crow tastin? Must be pretty bitter from the non addressive reply.

[edit on 22-9-2005 by jritzmann]

As far as I know Derek has not shown anything yet, not the real thing.
You are wrong and lost Jirtzman. I don't belive in Meier neither his stories.

But I recognize the level of his case and the challenge
to debunk so much data, no just some photos. I'm tired to read
weak debunk attempts to this case and still look forward to find
real debunking stuff.

A good example of a professional debunker is Mr. Philip Klass who unfortunately passed away recently.
Not even Kal Korff was able to make a good debunk of Meier and failed to provide a single recreation of Meier's films.
Korff real interest was to sell his book wich resulted dissapointing.

I can recognize a professional debunker Mr. Jirtzman but this is not your
case. Definitely you and Mr. Bartholomaus are small amateurs focusing your debunk in a buch of photos.
The easy way. What about the films ?

Nah, that would be a major task to replicate. And you say you used the same type of camera that Meier ?
And I suppose the same film ? Why don't you mention the camera's brand, model and features.
Also the type of film you used to get your pictures. You talk easy but I have not seen your evidences here.
Where is that camera and that film ? Where are the negatives ?
Where are those Meier's ships scale model replicas ?

Perhaps you could produce a similar photographic gallery like Meier,
the same way many others did for the past two decades but at the end
that bunch of faked photos will prove nothing. If you're looking the
glory among the skeptic world you'll need more than that.

What else can you provide to debunk the Meier's case besides your
faked photos ? I've read your arguments and allegations. They're
dissapointing as all your weak debunk is based on photographs.
Unless you show a real knowledge of the Meier case your degree
is low average. My two cents.

Originally posted by mysraki

IIG photos are hoaxes themselves.

Don't get excited. Those photos posted by IIG as replicas for the Meier's UFO photographs are double exposure digital photos processed with a graphic design software. Despite the claims by IIG the UFO models were added later to the backgrounds using a common computer program, nothing elaborated here, they used a digital camera and the process is so simple that can be made by any kid these days.

Let's get back to the point you made in your very first posting in this thread. I have quoted it above. You said that the IIG photos were double-exposures and that the look of the images was created using graphic design software. This website: www.iigwest.com... demonstrates that this is not the case. This model is the one used by IIG Member Trey Stokes in his photographs displayed on the IIG website at www.iigwest.com...

The model used in the images taken by IIG Chair and CFI-West Executive Director James Underdown is, in fact, a Mr. Coffee coffee pot lid. I will be happy to post the images here demonstrating that if someone will tell me how to do it, or Jeff can post them here since he has high-resolution copies of them in his possession.

As we say on the ufopix page "All of the photographs taken by the IIG are single-shot, single-exposure with no digital or laboratory manipulation." I can prove this. Can Billy Meier prove the same about his photos? Can Michael Horn?

Can you?

all i can say is very well done it's good to have experts like Jeff and Derek who know all the ins and outs of photo manipulation and such as i haven't got a clue lol

as someone said earlier "just because something can be faked doesn't mean it is faked"

i agree with that statemant 100% but lets not forget this is the Billy Meier case were talking about lol

Graham

Skeptics are something that may not be re-routed until EBEs show themselves.

But we are making progess on debunkers. They must feel far more inclined to prove their total disbelief instead of straight saying what your seeing is an inverted frisbee.

Dallas

Originally posted by mysraki
As far as I know Derek has not shown anything yet, not the real thing.
You are wrong and lost Jirtzman. I don't belive in Meier neither his stories.

Derek is not trying to "show the real thing" as in a real UFO, he's answering the false allegation by you that his photos were double exposed as according to your alledged "test"...what I find really sad is your inability to admit you have no real "test" written with photoshop because if you actually had done some real homework, you'd be trying to explain your way outta that one. Instead, we're getting the same kind of diatribe we've come to expect from Meier supporters.

You dont believe in Meier or his stories? Could have fooled me. We should join a club, I dont either.

Originally posted by mysraki
But I recognize the level of his case and the challenge
to debunk so much data, no just some photos. I'm tired to read
weak debunk attempts to this case and still look forward to find
real debunking stuff.

The level of his case? You mean popularity. There's no real "weak" debunk to the case, as most of the UFO community has long left it behind (with good reason).

Originally posted by mysraki
A good example of a professional debunker is Mr. Philip Klass who unfortunately passed away recently.
Not even Kal Korff was able to make a good debunk of Meier and failed to provide a single recreation of Meier's films.
Korff real interest was to sell his book wich resulted dissapointing.

I spoke personally with Kal on several occasions, and while I'm dissapointed to hear he's fallen from grace in regard to UFO circles, I found some of his book very interesting.

Originally posted by mysraki
I can recognize a professional debunker Mr. Jirtzman but this is not your
case. Definitely you and Mr. Bartholomaus are small amateurs focusing your debunk in a buch of photos.
The easy way. What about the films ?

Small amateurs...what exactly does that imply to me? I dont do this for a living (obviously, it doesnt pay worth a damn) but I have been doing the UFO roundabout for going on 20 years: worked for Sightings and ParaScope on AOL, hosted experiencer support groups, have investigated Gulf Breeze and Pine Bush NY, recorded the only daylight footage of a UFO during the Gulf Breeze Conference, did numerous lectures in Maryland and DC, and have done more photo and video work as it applies to the UFO subject then I care to think about...so what right? In your infinite wisdom you've decided I'm not good enough for you...wow, I think I'll cry.

Not.

It seems you cant even do simple research to substanciate your issues with IIG's pics, so why should I care exactly what you think about me? I'll say it like this: You know absolutely nothing about what I believe about in regard to the UFO question...so dont dare put words like debunker to me, unless you know what the hell your talking about. You dont.

Now that I'm past that unpleasantness, the films are as a piece o' cake as the pics are. I located the same make of still camera used, and I'll find the Nalcom FTL as well...not to worry.

Originally posted by mysraki
Nah, that would be a major task to replicate. And you say you used the same type of camera that Meier ?
And I suppose the same film ? Why don't you mention the camera's brand, model and features.
Also the type of film you used to get your pictures. You talk easy but I have not seen your evidences here.
Where is that camera and that film ? Where are the negatives ?
Where are those Meier's ships scale model replicas ?

Why dont I mention the camera make and model? You didnt ask...nobody did. In fact, it seems no one wants to talk about them. Odd silence, unless you count where one of the memebrs of the Plejaren Yahoo group apparently believed they were Meier's and not mine.
It's an Olympus 35 (ECR), using Kodak film. Do some research and find out what camera Meier used. Where is the camera, film and negatives? Right here....why?...you wanna do some "analysis"? The models as well are here, one of which was seen here before...see you dont know as much as you think about me, I designed and fabricated props for many many years, I got no shortage of leftover junk to build spaceships with.

Originally posted by mysraki
Perhaps you could produce a similar photographic gallery like Meier,
the same way many others did for the past two decades but at the end
that bunch of faked photos will prove nothing. If you're looking the
glory among the skeptic world you'll need more than that.

What else can you provide to debunk the Meier's case besides your
faked photos ? I've read your arguments and allegations. They're
dissapointing as all your weak debunk is based on photographs.
Unless you show a real knowledge of the Meier case your degree
is low average. My two cents.

Lets put it this way, maybe you cant read...or maybe you dont want to. I have posted many items with detailed explainations and data, that anyone with basic imaging knowledge can do too...to see for themselves. You wanna read some before you start swingin at the air?

My "weak debunk" is based on photos and film because thats where the case started from, and it's also my profession (imaging). As far as I'm concerned, if the photos and film dont measure up to scrutiny, then the prophecy, the TJ, and all the rest can go in the garbage as well. Even if there was truth to any of the other stuff besides the UFO shots, IF those pics were in fact faked, then he's blown his credibility...and I'd have no reason to believe any of his other stuff. IF one side of the story is faked, then it stands to reason, so is the rest.

So, is there reason to go through hundreds of his photos? Nope.

To set you straight, and so you have even the slightest little bit of knowledge, I'm not looking for any kind of "glory" as you put it. What I'm looking for is accountability. The UFO community has been sorely lacking in that for years, and if we're ever to get anywhere with answers, or even more questions, we have to clear the water. Exposing some cases for what they are has to be done. It's a pain to deal with, but ya know what?...either people start making those who make the outraegous claims responcible for what they put out, or we wallow in crap and never learn anything.

I personally see UFOs and one of THE most important mysteries we as humans will ever witness, however, the muddy water we're trying to see through is made all the muddier by people trying to "get rich", "get famous", start a religion, or just be noticed.

I treat the UFO subject and it's impact on my life very seriously, and I guess I expect that when dealing with the subject I expect people to be accountable.

I probably expect too much.

So, next time you *think* you know what someone is all about Mysraki, it might be good to ask, rather then make up stories and throw stones from the sidelines.