Billy Meier called the New Nostradamus!?!?

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
OK I emailed Mr. Burd about the supposed email that he sent to Horn which Deardorff posted. This is what he had to say:
Consider me out of this conflict. Argue amongst yourselves.
All I asked was for confirmation of that email. I didn't ask him anything weird just could he confirm the email.

How convenient...

I don't know why you're posting here. Is it to boost your posts or points? Cause you're not contributing and your posts make no sense. If you have something to contribute then do so otherwise move along.

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
Jim wrote:
its angular size was not very much larger when closer to the camera than when farthest away. /quote

Ritzmann wrote:
You said it right there. If it's not much different, then it cant be going around a large tree can it? If the tree was so large, then logistically it would have to go farther to get around it, therefore making the disc smaller.

Jim writes:
I'll try once more. If a tree is just 10 ft away, say, and an object is swinging above it transversely (from left to right), 5 ft to the left and back until 5 ft to the right, etc., its angular size remains about constant throughout its swings. If it swings towards and away from you, however, and is closest when 5 ft away and farthest when 15 ft away, then when it's closest its angular size will be 3 times as great as when it's farthest away. Nothing like that is seen in the movie segment. Instead, one finds that its angular size is only about 20% larger when closest than when it's at its furthest, on its to-and-fro swings.

Again, this places supposition on how large the tree is, and how far. You dont know the hieght of the tree, therefore how can you know the distance-swing width/model width?? And again, if it's forced perspective, the tree can literally be a few feet away.

"If a tree is 10 ft away", is a big if, and places alot of notion on calculating distances from that size, swing, and so forth. The oscillation speed to me means very little, as that speed isnt necessarily constituted by gravity (therefore using the speed=mass and guesstimating or judging size or distance for that matter from that, isnt going to cut it.)

To me it's building castles in the air.

Lets look at it from the camera standpoitn because thats where it all started. If the camera was set to throw the far house slightly out of focus, then at a certain distance between the house and cam would be perfect focus, closer then that, once again going out of focus from foreshortening.

Place the model and model tree where they are both equally out, or in focus depending on your stance. One is far (house) one is close (UFO/tree), but both are equal in focal quality. Forced perspective, add that along with the dark quality, and it's complete.

Now with that, forgetting those issues, add in that the "craft" also wobbles as if on a tether. That points solidly (at least to me) that we're dealing with a model, and therefore a small model tree.

But ya know what, if you had gotten this video back in the day, and gone there to see the actual site..would you honestly have bought into it, if those people said there never was a tree there? That would have been it for me, it's looks very much like it's tethered, wobble, bad quality, and no tree...not even sign of one in that position.

I mean how far is it that we have to go here? Those factors add it up for me.

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
I don't know why you're posting here. Is it to boost your posts or points? Cause you're not contributing and your posts make no sense. If you have something to contribute then do so otherwise move along.

It's called free speech rights. Dig it.

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
Cause you're not contributing and your posts make no sense.

You criticized others for lack of evidence by saying "how convenient" Now when you accuse Michael Horn of lying about Mr. Burd, it's interesting that his emails gets posted and passed to other people to verify, yet you will not do this. Again, how convenient...

JR thanks for finally bringing that down to my level of camera/photo expertise. Now I am finally getting a sense of what is involved. I mean I read your post and it just doesn't get any easier than that.
Makes me wanna see what I can do with a camera.

Posted by Iseekthetruth
you accuse Michael Horn of lying about Mr. Burd, it's interesting that his emails gets posted and passed to other people to verify, yet you will not do this. Again, how convenient...

Never called MH a liar. Go back and READ the posts. The email in question was not passed to someone to verify. It was passed to someone to post here thereby making it a second hand communication(hearsay).

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
JR thanks for finally bringing that down to my level of camera/photo expertise. Now I am finally getting a sense of what is involved. I mean I read your post and it just doesn't get any easier than that.
Makes me wanna see what I can do with a camera.

Thats the thing LHC, most of the imaging work does come down to very simple answers and techniques, that arent always easy to explain tho.

The problem is for anyone to "get it" you have to put it in perspectives they can understand, and even duplicate if they want to try it and see for themselves.

Dr. Macabbee is a good analyst, even though as of late his reputation's been attacked, and motives questioned. I will say however that my old research partner and I worked on a case for him at Ft. Meade MD, where according to Dr. M, a 24-28 ft disc was daylight photographed quite low to the ground. We were given copies of the shots, and my research partner found the exact spot where they were taken. Once a reference point was reached, and measured, that size disc wouldnt have even fit in there. I built a small model disc and we shot it, at the same distance from the same spot to match the pictures. How big? No more then about 12 inches across. In the original shots there was some blur that Dr. M said couldnt have happened unless there was alot of speed shown by the craft.

One throw and we had the same blur. I threw the damned thing.

So, he was very mistaken, and I never heard anymore about the case after that. Doesnt mean he's always wrong, nor does it mean he's a lousy analyst. I spent alot of time talking to him at group meetings he attended, and learned alot from what he had to say..he's a genuine man, and a very kind and likeable gent, and his knowledge of the UFO issue is astounding and insightful. He inspired me further into photo and video analysis I can tell ya that.

But I have disagreed with him on some cases. I go from different angles then do some, because being an artist you see things differently. You become accutely aware of light and shadow, haze, and movement. And if youre aware of what cameras do, and how they work (and some work much differently then others, and I dont mean digital vs film) then you start to see tell tale signs. Most of those signs can be shown thru very simple means. Others take more effort. My background in event design and propwork and FX helps too, but it's not all that needed...most stuff is faked in a pretty easy way. The camera is the one thats easily fooled.

I've seen and read alot about Macabee and he seems to me to be a straight shooter. I'm no photo expert even though I have done some work with various software(fractal,photoshop,etc) and even did some graphic design stuff for a manufacturer. But I been a chef for about 30 years as my primary source of income and that is definitely not a wedding cake in those photos.

Well, unfortunately Dr. M took a good bit of heat for the Gulf Breeze Sightings, which was unfortunate...but not totally unexpected when cashflow gets into a case. Book deals, and all that...you know the public opinion is going to say "hey wait a second, aint he making money off this??"

I mean, at what point is it ok? I dont know if it ever is. You always have to look at what the public outlook is. Then there's the common ethical issues too.

Best off to leave money out of it.

All I can say about Gulf Breeze...is it's a very interesting place.

You're right about that.
As far as what the public will swallow just look to the Great Glass Teat as Harlan Ellison was so fond of saying. What the masses find entertaining is nothing but mind-numbing drivel. But thats for another thread.
Thankfully the Gulf Breeze affair is pretty much ancient news in these parts. Shoot we got SOCOM. Thats way bigger here. Although they dont fly many crazy craft here anymore.

[edit on 1/11/06 by longhaircowboy]

I can't beleive this thread is still going strong.
Can't any of ya'll do some research, I looked up billy once and had more links to how he is a fraud than his actual input.

They found his spaceships in his backyard and they were made out of junk scraps and garbage can lids. with pics. lol!!!!!

When are we going to get an ATS debunked garbage list?
All the pics and peeps that we need to ignore from now on.

We seriously need this...!!!!!!

Ritzmann wrote:
Again, this places supposition on how large the tree is, and how far. You dont know the hieght of the tree, therefore how can you know the distance-swing width/model width?? And again, if it's forced perspective, the tree can literally be a few feet away.

Jim writes:

Are you unable to go to the websites involved to get the answers?

If it were a model, the length of the string is known, from the "pendulum" equation and knowing the period of oscillation. Therefore, the model's width is then known. Since it is viewed along with the tree (whose top once moved and then jumped back) iimmediately after the object passed close above it, the tree's height is then also known. It all follows from the assumption of pendular motion.

It all follows from the assumption of pendular motion.

Sorry JD but an assumption is not a fact. And I've been to all the websites.
And whats with this ritzman writes: jim writes:stuff? You dont post like that in other forums I've read.

I've been away for a short vacation and my jaw dropped when I saw the last 4-5 pages. People calling one another on their private addresses because they disagree is beyond the valley of good taste. But I do recognise a lot of stuff which transpired. Ironicly that's also part of a Meier investigation.

The movie you are discussing. Isn't it possible to do the math? I mean come up with an equasion that is a probable explanation for size, distance and so on?
In all honesty, trees that disappear don't exactly help to establish the authenticity of the footage and as in one particular instance of a 'weddingcake' picture serie, it was alleged that a top of a tree broke off. Personally that aroused my suspicion since it could have been used to make 'forced perspective' shots as if the UFO was over the trees. It seems that the Meier case is full of such peculiarities. What I find so disappointing is that it is hard to discuss these things with Meier supporters while some of them easily attribute (unsubstantiated) foul play on the part of others.

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
Are you unable to go to the websites involved to get the answers?

If it were a model, the length of the string is known, from the "pendulum" equation and knowing the period of oscillation. Therefore, the model's width is then known. Since it is viewed along with the tree (whose top once moved and then jumped back) iimmediately after the object passed close above it, the tree's height is then also known. It all follows from the assumption of pendular motion.

Jim-for the last time, if the ship is a model, that doesnt prove *anything* in regard to how long the string is, as you have no clue how far it is. It could be any number of distance from the lens, that doesnt comment to the length or size. The pendulum flight is there, and forced perspective is making you think it's 50 ft away. Think rationally. If it's a pendulum, it's not that far.
The oscillation can be fast, or slow in revolution...depends how you swing it. Lest not forget *how* a tree moves when it's blown? Look at any tree outside on a windy day...then tell me the Meier tree blows at the top like that. The top of the tree literally "puffs", like a small object getting puffs blown at it. C'mon.

Are we forgetting the disc isnt moving when the film starts???

delete please...my fault.

[edit on 12-1-2006 by jritzmann]

[edit on 12-1-2006 by jritzmann]

Going back to page 1 of this discussion, Centrist proposes the following:

I know there are LOTS of threads about Billy Meier. This thread is not intended to discuss the merits of his claims, predictions, or writings. What this thread about is this story being reported on the major Washington D.C. news radio station.

We certainly seem to have come around to the story being reported, but also, and once again! Billy's claims, predictions, photography, etc. have come into focus.

I don't know how much longer this thread will continue, but I did want to ask Manny a question. What would you like to see resolved here so as not to end this discussion "in limbo?"

I don't think everyone here is a true skeptic of the Meier case, and I also believe that a number of people here have done sufficient "homework" to raise good questions and challenges, which in my book does not equal skepticism. As to Centrist's original question as to why the Meier story would be aired, may I suggest that there is enough truth in it to create interest in the DC area and flood the station with more e-mails on the subject than ever before. Of that claim, I am not sure, but I do know that Dr.Steven Greer created major awareness of the ET presence at a press conference in D.C. awhile back. Perhaps folks there are beginning to hear! And I'm talking of the folks in Washington who just might be able to influence the powers that be to scrap a 50+ year cover-up, a trillion dollar+ a year budget for the military-industrial-complex, and acknowledge our cosmic neighbors in a peaceful and cooperative way. (Ah, such incurable idealism!)

I have been aware of the Billy Meier case since1980, and for my own personal reasons must accept certain aspects of it as profoundly real. I cannot and do not, however, embrace all of the claims -- some of which I find "whacko" (to quote Centrist).

Where do we go from here?

[edit on 12-1-2006 by vogelfire]

Jim wrote:
If it were a model, the length of the string is known, from the "pendulum" equation and knowing the period of oscillation. Therefore, the model's width is then known. Since it is viewed along with the tree (whose top once moved and then jumped back) iimmediately after the object passed close above it, the tree's height is then also known. It all follows from the assumption of pendular motion.

Jeff wrote:
Jim-for the last time, if the ship is a model, that doesnt prove *anything* in regard to how long the string is, as you have no clue how far it is. It could be any number of distance from the lens, that doesnt comment to the length or size. The pendulum flight is there, and forced perspective is making you think it's 50 ft away. Think rationally. If it's a pendulum, it's not that far.
The oscillation can be fast, or slow in revolution...depends how you swing it.

Jim writes:
The whole point of Maccabee's paper, the one I think you read, is that if the period (time in seconds, say) of swinging of an object hanging from a string is known, then the length of that string is known. That's the basis of the pendulum clock. You know that, I know that. You don't need to know about lens settings in order to time the swinging of an object on a string.

So the length of the assumed string was known, and thus the width of the assumed model UFO was known.

Now if it is assumed to have been a model on a string supported by a pole, and if the assumed pole is waved back and forth quickly to try to make it swing faster, it just won't do it. It might result in a jerky motion (not seen in the movie), but it won't speed up the inherent pendular period.

If the assumed pole is moved back and forth slowly, it can somewhat lengthen the apparent pendular period, at the expense of flattening the arc of the swinging object. The pendulum equation (which is very simple) would then yield a longer asssumed string. Then the other calculation (Maccabee's calculation of 2002) could yield a distance for the tree that's even farther away than 55 ft.

Jeff wrote:
Lest not forget *how* a tree moves when it's blown? Look at any tree outside on a windy day...then tell me the Meier tree blows at the top like that. The top of the tree literally "puffs", like a small object getting puffs blown at it.

Jim writes:
Indeed, in just one instance (on the surviving tape copy that had had been cut and spliced in Munich or Austria before being returned to Meier), the tree top (its upper 1/4 or so) bent over to the right and then returned, all in less than a second, just after the craft had passed over it from left to right. It was nothing like wind-induced tree swaying. But just try making the sudden swerve of a tree top happen to a potted fir tree with a jet of air issued from 10(?) feet off to the left side of the frame! No way (air jets spread out). Instead, a hoaxer would have to have a thin cord tied to the top of the tree and extending out to the right, on which he could suddenly jerk, and another (taut) line tied to about the middle of the tree extending off to the left to hold the tree steady, which would require a further taut cord tied to the tree's mid section extending out to the right.

Jeff wrote:
Are we forgetting the disc isnt moving when the film starts???

Indeed, it hovers perfectly motionless just above the tree top for about 20 seconds. Try that sometime with a model dangling from a 60-ft pole!

I wish I could get a statement from Jeff saying that he understands that the length of a pendulum determines the time period of its swing. If he can understand that, he could go back and understand how Maccabee, in 2002, determined the approximate distance from the camera that an assumed model UFO would have been. It would also help if he were to read Maccabee's website article on this at: brumac.8k.com...
as well as my own at www.tjresearch.info/BillyYes.htm. He shouldn't mind reading Maccabee's article as it's written in sort of a pro-UFO-model tone.

Hello vogelfire, what I meant was that I don't want this thread to close
without discussing it further. As we all know, all of those issues that people point out are never really explained appropriately.

At the same time, the case does have a lot of interesting aspects which
seems favorable to it while it also has many that are unfavorable.

I am thinking about one myself which is maybe not important but anyway here is:
Its said that aliens removed a tree because they were concerned about the tree's welfare (Im guessing as a living thing), but at the same time they permitted meier to use a "LASER" gun to make a hole through a tree?. Now Im not taking any sides, but I just have a few minor questions which I would like to understand better. I already asked about the alien pictures where the girl doesn't look like the one they say was in the dean show also. Sorry Im not that knowledgeable and my english is not that great! (thanks god for grammar spelling).

Note : waiting for the photos like crazy! can't wait!!