Billy Meier called the New Nostradamus!?!?

Originally posted by 8Michael12
Billy is still alive and your observation about it being unlikely that someone in the Alps is behind a very sophisticated UFO hoax is worth emphasizing. Especially so when you realize the sheer volume, variety and abundance of (still irreproducible) physical evidence that was produced by a man in the 1970s without any technology (time, money, motive, collaborators,e tc.) to do so.

i share the same thoughts...i stumbled on this case 15 years ago and the stuff i have read on it had a way more serious tone about the whole case than i have seen here. And im also sure JR can make a hoax that would equal it, especially with todays technology, but at that time, remembering the common gadgets that were around in the 80s even....im not sure. Did anyone ever find any wires in his pictures btw?

Funny thing this convincing yourself that something is real or fake. I can make myself think both in Meiers case.

But the last thing that is required, especially in this case, is belief. A huge part of why we in this world are in very deep trouble is from beleif, faith, superstition, etc. We are encouraged to leave behind the Age of Belief for the Age of Knowledge.

well from that perspective i agree with you, but i was thinking more in the way that if a person looks for proof from completely scientific point of view he will always be able to say "its a hoax" .
Anyway im sure if i talked to Mr.Meier personally i would know pretty soon which one it is.

cheers to you all i read this "mess" quite a lot

ps: waaaaay above SERPO

Re any wires, etc., they were only "found" in photos that had been in the possession of a person who had formerly been part of the group around Meier and then had a falling out with him. No one else's copies of those photos had so-called wires and, if I recall correctly, it may have been those photos that Kal Korff tried to pass off as proof that Meier hoaxed them. However, the original investigative team actually brought a very well made model to Switzerland and, wherever possible, photogrpahed it in the same location as some of Meier's photos. The computer analysis clearly showed the difference between the model and the demonstrably much larger obejcts in Meier's photos (and films).

The more you look into the case, the more you will have to weigh and ponder. And yes, it would take you all of two minutes upon meeting Meier to get a sense of whether you're dealing with an honest man or a hoaxer.

This is also about a good a time as any to say that, in light of the recent confirmation of information given to Meier, again well before the events made the news, when it becomes unavoidable for even the most devoted skeptics to deny the authenticity of the case (and hopefully perceive its underlying purpose) there will be NO gloating, recriminations, I told you so, etc. coming from me. I have nothing to gain by the case being true, in the most important sense, that isn't shared by all the rest of the world. And, the way events are unfolding, no one will even have to spend the dreaded $29 on my DVD to be satisified that the case is real since so much is already on record, freely available at my site and www.figu.org/us and other sources.

Of course there are things that we'd all prefer to NOT be proven true, so, once one is satisfied that this isn't some grand money-making scheme or whatever else they fear, they can devote their attention to helping change things in this world for the better, for our future survival.

Now you can find the actual document in German that has been posted online for the past few months at:

www.figu.org...

that document was put on the web on 01.06.2006, just rightclick and choose properties to see for yourself.

and for the record i am sure that maier and horn are conmen and nothing else. and i can read german!

i feel pity for horn who is a very sad example of the human species, and i feel pity for everyone who believes in these weak stories

[edit on 6-1-2006 by hoeon]

Originally posted by 8Michael12
The computer analysis clearly showed the difference between the model and the demonstrably much larger obejcts in Meier's photos (and films).

You'd do well to say that the "analysis" done was done by one man, one who claims impossible tests such as Spectral analysis on video tape, and that the photos (originals) were critically examined and analyzed by only himself. Yes, they were seen by other, more qualified people but those people didnt do the high profile analysis that was claimed to have been done before.

Ever since then, there has been no original photos nor negative available to any other independant analyst. There has been no fact checking done on the outcome of analysis, and no corroboration by anyone other then Dilettoso.

and now the negatives are what? lost?

Originally posted by nukunuku
and now the negatives are what? lost?

Yes, either lost or stolen. No further analysis can be done, and if you want to on your own, youre using data that is ridiculously hard to define and get to a point where it is usable.

If I'm to do what Horn wants, in setting up an anlysis of the shots and whatnot, I'm going to have to solicit for the best copies I can get for drum scans.

The whole bird flu prophecy is ludicrous at best. I have been following H5N1 for the last couple of years because of an on going argument with a friend. All you need do is go to the web sites of the WHO and CDC for info. They have been tracking it since 1999 and by 2001 had confirmed it's migratory nature. Since then there have been numerous people suggesting the eventual infection in Central Europe because of the travels of certain bird species. One excellent article available on RENSE.COM by Dr. Dorothy Doyle published in 2003 clearly states this. Rense.com has an excellent database on H5N1.
Its that research thing you keep talking about MH. Maybe you should come down off FIGU Mountain once in a while and look around.

Since you have claimed that the photos, films, metal alloys, sounds, video, etc. are hoaxed, WITHOUT your having seen the negatives (or the slide positives that Stevens referred to), original films, etc., just give us your reasoning/evidence for making YOUR claims...as opposed to your not simply saying - "I don't know if this is authentic or not."

And, since genuine physical evidence is still freely available for examination and for ANYONE to attempt to duplicate - the sound samples that you said you could knock out with a guitar amp - you can back up your claim regarding the sounds by doing so. None of this should be so difficult since you have been very firm in your conviction that this is a hoax.

Of course, you'll still have to explain the five other photographers and 120+ witnesses...with something more than slander and innuendo. Go for it!

Originally posted by 8Michael12
Since you have claimed that the photos, films, metal alloys, sounds, video, etc. are hoaxed, WITHOUT your having seen the negatives (or the slide positives that Stevens referred to), original films, etc., just give us your reasoning/evidence for making YOUR claims...as opposed to your not simply saying - "I don't know if this is authentic or not."

And, since genuine physical evidence is still freely available for examination and for ANYONE to attempt to duplicate - the sound samples that you said you could knock out with a guitar amp - you can back up your claim regarding the sounds by doing so. None of this should be so difficult since you have been very firm in your conviction that this is a hoax.

Of course, you'll still have to explain the five other photographers and 120+ witnesses...with something more than slander and innuendo. Go for it!

Just because you dont have the data readily available to make judgement calls on film grain and evidence of paste up, doesnt mean you cant state the obvious focal issues that run rampant thru the case, nor the scale issues. These doesnt require what I dont have...yet.
For that matter, the film footage which was discussed at PAR wasnt even *the* footage. It was footage shot off a projection screen...and thats all anyone has ever seen.

If the original stuff is so good, and youre so confident in it, then pony some up! I'll ask this for the last time. I'll sign whatever return papers and see them securely returned in the same condition I get them. I'll provide all contact info, including my home address. What more could anyone want? Thats security. But, my guess is you wont oblige, because youre just not confident enough in it.

Tell me Michael, do you eat the rotten apple to see whats at the core? I dont. There's not much need to go point by point to Dilettoso's technobabble, when you have initial viewing issues like focus and scale problems off the bat.

I can say at least that I'll be able to give duplicatable results and thats one thing Dilettoso didnt do.

Not sure what your point is. We both agree regarding what you saw and, based on that, you've claimed that it's a hoax...as opposed to saying that it COULD be a hoax or that you DON'T KNOW if it's real or not. So just let us know...how you know.

As you OBVIOUSLY know, I am not in possession of any orignals, should such even still exist. But perhaps you will make the argument that all reports, analyses, expert opinions were coerced, falacious, based on hoaxed evidence, etc. thereby indicting the credibility, expertise, honesty and motives of all concerned...I don't yet know what you intend to do with that.

As far as duplicatable results, I'm not sure what you mean exactly as I can produce "something" that others can duplicate, which doesn't mean that what I produced in the first place is unique, or that it qualifies as actually duplicating another object for which much more unique and/or irreproducible aspects are claimed.

Fortunately, we (all) still have the sound recordings, which are real, physical evidence, and available for testing and attempted duplication..and which don't require rhetorical questions as to their existence and location. So let's skeep them in the discussion...and also give them the importance they deserve as testable physical evidence.

Duplicatable results means that if you and I use the same picture and you do the same operations with the same programs, you get to the same picture as I do. The same results.

Thats duplicable results, and it's the basis for scientific study. This has not been the case for the Meier analysis of photos and film.

I told you how I come to the questions I have, and why, and even showed you. Over, and over. I dont need negatives to make certain remarks, as they are rather blantantly obvious. It's you guys who refuse to answer the questions, the pointed facts about optics that dont add up.

Sound, my friend, is not physical evidence, it's audio. And, that I have commented on before, and described the limitations of duplicating it. The amount of variables in duplicating feedback thru a 33-32 comb filter is astronomical. But we can get close.

Ok, so no original photos nor negatives....out of how many Mike? Over 1200?
Either somone doesnt want to give them up, or someone is lying. Youre going to tell me, that amount of data, and the importance of it...is just...gone? Gone? Metal samples that alledgedly could have filled a basketball court ("In an aircraft hangar at the Scottsdale, Arizona airport, we carefully placed each specimen on a black dropcloth that was the size of a basketball court; the rock specimens covered the entire dropcloth." ~Jim Dilettoso)....gone?

This to me is a deliberate effort to NOT submit data. Thats ok, I'll find other ways.

BTW Michael-can you provide the coordinates for The Semjase Silver Star Center? I'm trying to find the place on Google earth. No luck using Schmidrueti ZH, Switzerland

Anyone wanna have a try looking for it?

I asked the same question earlier in this thread. What happened to the box of rocks(why did he use this term)? Never got an answer. My guess is they were used to pave the road to FIGU. That way they could link arms and sing 'follow the missing samples road'.

JR have you tried spaceimaging.com?
I'll give it a try using your above reference.

[edit on 1/6/06 by longhaircowboy]

Off hand I don't have the actual coordinates, although if you look up towns like Wila or Winterthur you will be right in the ballpark. (I don't want to dwell too much on the ominous sound to the word "coordinates" and the connotations of various types of attacks with which we have become familiar.)

Regarding the sounds as physical evidence (mephasis added):

Physical: used to describe sciences such as PHYSICS and chemistry that deal with nonliving THINGS such as ENERGY and MATTER; existing in the real MAterial world, rather than as an idea or notion, and able to be touched and SEEN (note: hearing is a physical sense too and the sounds also produce visible patterns on oscilloscopes and spectrum analyzers)

Sound: vibrations traveling through air, water, or some other medium, especially those within the range of frequencies that can be perceived by the human ear.

Vibration: an instance of shaking or moving back and forth very rapidly

Thing: an inanimate object, an unnamed or unspecified object (as in the "thing" that moved back and forth rapidly...and made the sounds)

So, I'd say that it's conclusive, by defintion, that we do indeed have physical evidence in the form of the sounds and the great news is that not only you but all the other guys out there (especially the ones who are so sure that the case is a hoax and the evidence so simple to reproduce and/or debunk) can now, to put as politely as I can, put up or...

And since there are a number of presumably able-bodied types, with two hands each, who have been harping about it for a while (without producing anything even close to Meier's quality, quantity, etc.) surely it should take no time at all for you/them to present YOUR/THEIR evidence.

And before you refer to your own nice little photos as being comparable to Meier's, I suggest that you meet the standard seen in the series of photos from which these are taken:

www.tjresearch.info...
www.tjresearch.info...

And do watch out for any trees that may "wander around" while you're out there doing it!

Why is it the cropped photo seems to have a brighter light source?
When the saucer crashed into that tree did it damage either the tree or the craft?
What happened to the box of rocks(why did he use that term?)?

Originally posted by jritzmann
BTW Michael-can you provide the coordinates for The Semjase Silver Star Center? I'm trying to find the place on Google earth. No luck using Schmidrueti ZH, Switzerland

Anyone wanna have a try looking for it?

Hi Jeff.
Here you go.

Zuerich - Schmidrueti
Direction
Autobahn (Highway) A1 St. Gallen
Highway crossing Bruetisellen Uster A53
Exit: Uster Nord Pfaeffikon
Pfaeffikon Turbenthal/Hittnau/Saland
Hittnau Saland (Bauma)
Saland (Bauma) Winterthur/Wila
Just before entrance to village Wila turn left: Sitzberg/Schmidrueti
Schmidrueti in front of Post Office
left way down towards gravel path FIGU Visitor Parking Area

map.search.ch...
This map pinpoints where this Schmidrueti is. Good detail.

Ptaah had told him so in '85. He just forgot.

From what I know of Billy Meier, he doesn't claim to be superhuman, so he does forget things just as any other human being can forget things.

I could go on & on .. the dinosaur pics that Meier photographed from a magazine and claimed he took them while time travelling with his alien friends.

I don't accept a single comparison as evidence. I asked you in the other thread for the scientific and/or professional photographic evidence that the photo had been doctored in some way or altered. Now please produce and present that evidence. And I would like for it to be "peer reviewed"--they should at least have their findings confirmed by one other unbiased source.

Billy Meier IS and ALWAYS will be a hoax and fraud

So the IBM scientists who analyzed his metal fragments were in on this hoax too? And the book publishers, etc.? And the Swiss military who documented UFO sightings near his abode? And Billy Meier's neighbors who all told reporters they've never seen him with any models?

That's a lot of open questions if you ask me.

In reading your post, I find it more akin to seeking validation more on a podium position. Alike a pharasee in the biblical sense. Sometime prohesy is best done when your a vessel of the Father and I have been told by my only friend that it is frowned upon. Read the Bible its in there if you wish to come down from the mountain top. Please do not take me wrong but that is how the text felt to me. I used to call myself Nostradumbass.Cordially, LEGALCATALYST.

Originally posted by 8Michael12
And before you refer to your own nice little photos as being comparable to Meier's, I suggest that you meet the standard seen in the series of photos from which these are taken:

www.tjresearch.info...
www.tjresearch.info...

And do watch out for any trees that may "wander around" while you're out there doing it!

Seems you have a very different view of physical evidence then most people do. The tape is NOT physical evidence. Just like Dilettoso who claims to be able to do spectral analysis on video tape, you fail to understand the limitations of items like Mic, tape frequency, and all around capturable data. The tape is nothing more then a mic and electronic impulses trying to convey it's input. Just like video tape cannot be used for spectral analysis...I liken it again to people putting big words on what they dont even understand, in an effort to substanciate a belief. How many times has that tape been copied? Do you know the degradation of transfer rate to wav format??

My guess is no.

In reference to my own shots duplicating (and surpassing) Meier's photos, you'll note I shot "ground to sky", with the disc moving across the sky, (no tree "support") and then behind trees that appear to be distant. In your referenced pictures, there's no problem there....want them closer? No sweat. I'll be more then happy to attach a disc to a tree and shoot. Thats easier to do then what I've already supplied.

Seems to me the sound evidence is indeed comprehensive, accompanied as it is by numerous eyewitnesses, on four separate occasions. The recordings are still quite clear, analyzable and either will or won't reveal discreeet frequency patterns from known or unknown sources, etc.

So, if you want to keep presenting a premise that amounts to: an abundance of (still irreproducible) and witnessed evidence is no more valid than no evidence, I don't know what kind of logic or standards you are invoking. Semantic arguments are no substitute for facts and if you think that simply denying 41 years of phtographic evidence, all the eyewitnesses and scientific experts' comments, the prophetically accurate information, etc. makes it so, welll, I've got news for you.

So go ahead and let's see your photos. Can you post them tomorrow?