Billy Meier called the New Nostradamus!?!?

Oh boy another Mike Horn clone.

I haven't read the entire thread but..

There's your first problem.

what all you "debunkers"

There's your next problem. I myself am a UFO investigater/researcher. Phil Klass is a debunker and he and I definitely don't see 'eye to eye'.

fail to see when you're so closely looking to the details is that IF he was taking pictures of models, there would have been test shots, shots that failed, or shots where it is obvious that he's using models wich he later cuts out of the sequence.

Next problem. What if they're all test shots? And how do we know what he did or didn't discard after the fact.

Nothing like that ever happend. Meier had to bring all his films to a store about 40 minutes away, wich were then sent to 3 different company's to develop. The guy in that store states they were always full rolls of negatives, unedited, nothing cut out to hide anything.

See above. This is a meaningless statement since we have no idea what happened to the film or the negatives after the fact. Oh wait some were lost or stolen.

Pretty amazing work for a one armed man.

And I type with one hand and smoke a cigarette.

I'm sure if his intention was making money he could've been rich doing special effects 50 years ago. But that doesn't fit your story does it?

According to your idol Mr. Horn he turned those jobs down. Although the FX companies I contacted who supposedly offered him jobs deny any knowledge.

And while he specifically states that everyone is equal and nobody should be idolized, you accuse him of being a cult leader. Uhu.

See FIGU.

Skepticism is good if you have an open mind to begin with.

Agreed so please keep this in mind as you appear to be refuting this statement(by taking a certain viewpoint).

But trying to figure out a theory of how a one armed man can operate a model, a camera and in the meanwhile smoke a sigaret(blasphemy!) is amusing to see. I can't wait to see your video of the weddincake model.

At least we of open mind are trying and not just accepting the proscribed line of thought.

Excuse my sarcasm!

You're excused.
Suggetion: read the thread.

I have no intention to read it front to back, I've read the most of it, pendulum this, model on a fishing pole, yadda ya.

I've just finished reading one of the books about him (by Gary Kinder) for the second time in 15 years. I suggest you do the same.

Meiers place was overrun by people, he kept his pictures under his bed, people were running in and out the entire day and yes alot of them were stolen.
And don't give me those coincidence theories of "the failed ones were those that were stolen". Right, how would he know before he had developed them?

Many people that visited him weren't "followers" but real investigators trying their best to find models or something that would've been proof of a scam. Nobody, in almost 60 years, ever found anything to support the claim of the hoax.

Even the metal that was analyzed by a scientist by IBM was said to first resembe something found in nature (though rare) in switzerland, but on closer inspection turned out to be something totally extroardinary. One of the docu's has this on video.

FIGU.. I haven't looked into that very much, I've read the site a couple of times. And I agree with the stuff I did read and I don't see what's wrong with it?

I have no intention to read it front to back, I've read the most of it, pendulum this, model on a fishing pole, yadda ya.

That would explain your misconception below.

I've just finished reading one of the books about him (by Gary Kinder) for the second time in 15 years. I suggest you do the same.

Been there done that got an autographed copy. What's the point?

Meiers place was overrun by people, he kept his pictures under his bed, people were running in and out the entire day and yes alot of them were stolen.
And don't give me those coincidence theories of "the failed ones were those that were stolen". Right, how would he know before he had developed them?

That's actually Mr. Horns(you know who he is?) theory if you could be bothered to read the thread. And Billy wouldn't know until they were developed and that's when they mysteriously vanished.

Many people that visited him weren't "followers" but real investigators trying their best to find models or something that would've been proof of a scam. Nobody, in almost 60 years, ever found anything to support the claim of the hoax.

Like Steven's the supposed photo expert? Ok maybe hoax is a little strong. I can live with the word fraud.

Even the metal that was analyzed by a scientist by IBM was said to first resembe something found in nature (though rare) in switzerland, but on closer inspection turned out to be something totally extroardinary. One of the docu's has this on video.

The metal has never been indepently analysed. And italso mysteriously vanished along with the box of rocks.

FIGU.. I haven't looked into that very much, I've read the site a couple of times. And I agree with the stuff I did read and I don't see what's wrong with it?

Sorry to hear that.

Hey Cowboy- When they refuse to read, what possible chance do you or I have to make anyone understand...anything?

Do we have to mention...
-not one surviving negative
-not one surviving photo from original negatives?
-not one surviving metal sample?
-the reluctance to submit to independant 3rd party analysis of photos?
-film shot off a projection screen?
-the laser "gun", and subsequent tree "hole"?
-obvious stop motion-resulting double exposure in film footage?
-"walking trees"?

Makes me queazy.

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
That would explain your misconception below.

Not really, I've seen the "tactics" used in this thread, it's a 9/11 thread all over again, claims without sources.
Actually, everyone is "acting" like a specialist trying to debunk the story and
people who want to belief it's a fraud will easily accept the "proof" presented here without studying the proof they got.
I'm telling you, I'm not at all convinced. And that has nothing to do with missing a few replies or pages in the thread.

Nice try though.

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
That's actually Mr. Horns(you know who he is?) theory if you could be bothered to read the thread. And Billy wouldn't know until they were developed and that's when they mysteriously vanished.

You don't make any sense here and you're basically repeating what I've said.
I guess I know what you're aiming at.. But if you've read Gary Kinder's book, you'll know that all the negatives and developed pictures that arrived at the photo-shop were always complete. That means BEFORE Meier got to "weed out the bads" as you think. I guess it's just easier to forget that fact huh?

Like Steven's the supposed photo expert? Ok maybe hoax is a little strong. I can live with the word fraud.

You've read the book, there's more than one person listed there.
I've even tried the pictures in this thread that tried to mimick the Meier UFO's, and with a simple zoom in photoshop you can tell they've been tampered with.

Again, nice try.

The metal has never been indepently analysed. And italso mysteriously vanished along with the box of rocks.

Yeah, lets not beliefe the guy at IBM, he probably doesn't know what he's talking about. Convenient!

Sorry to hear that.

I don't really need your sympathy, and I think you honestly can't see anything wrong with it either. Nothing that is worth writing down anyway and probably only makes sense as long as its floating around in your head.

Ofcourse, if you fling the word cult around enough, it leaves a bad aftertaste doesn't it?

[edit on 8-3-2006 by Shroomery]

Originally posted by Shroomery
I've even tried the pictures in this thread that tried to mimick the Meier UFO's, and with a simple zoom in photoshop you can tell they've been tampered with.

Again, nice try.

I shot those without the use of anything other then a camera and model. Photoshop was used only to size the image for display on the web.

I've worked in professional digital and classical imaging for over 20 years, so I dont have to "act" like anything.

Maybe you should "act" like your brains are loaded before you shoot your mouth off.

Let's understand something clearly. If a man will hoax one thing, he will hoax many others. Billy's hoaxes are laughable and pathetic and insult one's intelligence...

Originally posted by jritzmann
I shot those without the use of anything other then a camera and model. Photoshop was used only to size the image for display on the web.

I've worked in professional digital and classical imaging for over 20 years, so I dont have to "act" like anything.

Maybe you should "act" like your brains are loaded before you shoot your mouth off.

So, now you're offended because your 20 years of imaging skills were debunked after 15 seconds of photoshop?
You think you're the only one with an imaging history huh?

People who scream that from the top of their lungs like you do usually know
very little about it. As long as you can inflate your ego right?

Good luck in your next 20 years of professional imaging!

Nope. Just pointing out that you have no idea whatsoever what your talking about. You didnt "debunk" anything but you.

And, when you assume that anyone is "acting" expect that someone to call you to the floor on it. No one is trying to inflate anything again, but you.

[edit on 8-3-2006 by jritzmann]

Ok let me see if I understand correctly:

"I've even tried the pictures in this thread that tried to mimick the Meier
UFO's, and with a simple zoom in photoshop you can tell they've been
tampered with."

How can photos that were not produced in photoshop (Inserted objects) show that they were photoshop tampered by zooming? (other than size)

Another question: Aren't all Meier's photos = photos of photos of photos of photos.......................................? This does not show a lot of details as originals might show or even negatives.

Unless he had a real aircraft of 'decent' size flying there, you can (almost) always tell. Light reflections, depth of field, a small object from closeby will colorbleed more into the surrounding area than a big object far away.
There's a whole list of things you can check for really..

Him being in the imaging business for 20 years will certainly know that. And bravo for accomplishing those pictures, they certainly look real, but is that really all you can do with 20 years of experience and a modern computer?

The man had an old camera and a forrest to work with... half a century ago.

I'm still not convinced.


[edit on 8-3-2006 by Shroomery]

Originally posted by Shroomery
Unless he had a real aircraft of 'decent' size flying there, you can (almost) always tell. Light reflections, depth of field, a small object from closeby will colorbleed more into the surrounding area than a big object far away.
There's a whole list of things you can check for really..

Him being in the imaging business for 20 years will certainly know that. And bravo for accomplishing those pictures, they certainly look real, but is that really all you can do with 20 years of experience and a modern computer?

The man had an old camera and a forrest to work with... half a century ago.

I'm still not convinced.


[edit on 8-3-2006 by Shroomery]

You seem to need things spelled out for you so lets take this slowly:
1) I didnt use anything to make the pics except a model, and a camera. No PS, no anything...does that get thru?
2) Your light reflections and depth of field, I wont even touch other then to say it's an absurd statement basing that they werent photoshopped to start with. Color unequivocally does not bleed on a close object within the focal range. That happens with a large DOF, and a small object outside the focal range, in terms of focus, not in terms of color.
In relation to colorbleed, it's reflective area vs distance and haze, and it's the opposite of your statement.
3) This is the original model:


and it's close shot:


and it's far shot:


No Photoshop, other then scan, size and compression. Btw, note the far shot and "colorbleed: as you call it. The exact opposite (and reality) of all your statements. Despite the smartass statement that "thats all he can do do with 20 years experience and a modern computer", the idea was to use the model, string and camera and nothing else. I'm not out to convince you, as it's seems to me youre fairly unreachable. But the point was made that anyone with a camera and knowledge of forced perspective (or at least playing around with it) can make these shots, same as Meier.

I'm done with this little round with you as it's clear to me youre someone with an axe to grind and little to no real knowledge of imaging.

[edit on 8-3-2006 by jritzmann]

That means BEFORE Meier got to "weed out the bads" as you think.

Never said it Horn did. READ. It's good for you. My contention is they were "weeded" out AFTER (ie lost or stolen).

Yeah, lets not beliefe the guy at IBM,

And he knows what about rocks? Look when my toaster needs fixin I don't rush it to the ER.

You might find this of interest-
www.brumac.8k.com...

"The rules are 1. Don't bother me with the
facts,my mind is made up; 2. What the public doesn't know, I am
not going to tell them; and 3. Do one's research by
proclamation, investigation is too much trouble."
-Stanton Friedman


[edit on 3/8/06 by longhaircowboy]

Eduard Meier is one of the person that influences my view about the complex multi-dimensional universe. I have read lots and lots of his materials for so many years and also lots of debunkers' materials as well, but after all these years, all these debunkers, some are professional in this field to confuse the public by giving false informations to discredit a geniune case, are not even close to any success in debunking any of the Billy's geniune fotos.

But Billy's materials are not just the fotos, he gives a great details of our universe. The whole materials may not be perfectly true, because after all the Pleiadians are just like earth humans in their own path of spiritual, mental, and technological evolution, in the same on-going process of reincarnation same as earth humans, except they are much far advanced in all field of evolutions because of their much mature age of civilization. But they are giving infomations and their views about what they have learned through their much longer civilization.

According to the" Kardashev Scale", they are probably in the type 3 civilization already, due to their ability of colonization of Milky Way galaxy and their energy output 10 to the 36th W. But the Pleiadians probably not in the type 4 yet, type 4 civilization, colonization of local super clusters and can move through different dimensions by creating black holes.

According to the physicist Kardashev and Michio Kaku, we earth humans are still in type 0 civilization, and will be moving to type 1 in 2200, and type 2 in 5200 and type 3 in 7800, where Pleiadians most likely in this stage.

So we earth humans still have lots of evolutions and tons of reincarnations to do before even reach the first type 1 civilization in probably year 2200. So we have to take the infos from Pleiadians like we receive infos from master degree teacher, still some errors but mostly facts, because they are working on their PHD as well, to move into the type 4 civilization, while we earth humans are still in nursery fighting each other, crying, stumble all the time when we walk, but every civilization has to pass this baby stage like we are now.

not even close to any success in debunking any of the Billy's geniune fotos.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. See JR's photos above or the IIG WEST photos.

And shame on you for sullying Michio Kakus name by associating him with this gobblety gook.

You may also want see-
www.brumac.8k.com...

Care to explain the "walking trees"?

Originally posted by jritzmann
You seem to need things spelled out for you so lets take this slowly:
1) I didnt use anything to make the pics except a model, and a camera. No PS, no anything...does that get thru?

You seem to come back on unrelated stuff just so you can come off as a smart fella. Nice try but I got it the first time, what you don't seem to get is that it doesn't make a difference. But thank you for proving that you suffer from tunnel vision.

Originally posted by jritzmann
2) Your light reflections and depth of field, I wont even touch other then to say it's an absurd statement basing that they werent photoshopped to start with. Color unequivocally does not bleed on a close object within the focal range. That happens with a large DOF, and a small object outside the focal range, in terms of focus, not in terms of color.

Oh color does not bleed on a close object, right, that's the same as saying the object is invisible.
I think you're mixing blur and color bleed. And your focal point has very little to do with it. If the object is not in focus it will appear to bleed yes but it's not the same.

But hey lets assume he did use a model, can you reproduce the zoom-in on the weddingcake model with that tiny model of yours? How about just flying it around with nothing but your camera?

If you're so convinced this was how he did it it shouldn't be hard to reproduce ?

edit:
Or you know what, just put up ALL the pictures, from before the craft is in sight. You didn't edit it, so you're throwing it? I'd like to see it enter and leave the picture. Should be good to compare it to Meiers wouldn't it?




[edit on 9-3-2006 by Shroomery]

Originally posted by Shroomery

If you're so convinced this was how he did it it shouldn't be hard to reproduce ?

Are you missing something? Didn't he post some photographs that are WAY MORE CONVINCING than any of Meier's photos?

I'm a little confused -- why do you say it shouldn't be hard???? From the looks of those pictures, it WASN'T.

jritzmann, those pictures are amazing. I'll bet you could fool as many people as the Meier freaks with them.

Just as I thought, no proof of points nor address of issues. No, I'm not talking about blur. Your OWN points are shown in *reverse* above. Quit while your behind. So give me an example of your so called "color bleed".

God, I'm so tired of providing these goofs examples all the time.

Apparently you DONT "get it" or you'd not have said all the Photoshop comments. Read your own statements Keep diggin that hole boy.

Now of course your throwing in the ring with "oh yeah? duplicate this". SO f'in typical of these Meier-ites. They lose one issue and start another. Well, take a leap pal, I'll get to it on my time, not yours or any other Meierite. I've done enough for you simpletons.

Originally posted by Habit_Burger

Originally posted by Shroomery

If you're so convinced this was how he did it it shouldn't be hard to reproduce ?

Are you missing something? Didn't he post some photographs that are WAY MORE CONVINCING than any of Meier's photos?

I'm a little confused -- why do you say it shouldn't be hard???? From the looks of those pictures, it WASN'T.

jritzmann, those pictures are amazing. I'll bet you could fool as many people as the Meier freaks with them.

Thanx. If I were an amoral individual, I'd own all of you.

Originally posted by jritzmann
Now of course your throwing in the ring with "oh yeah? duplicate this". SO f'in typical of these Meier-ites. They lose one issue and start another. Well, take a leap pal, I'll get to it on my time, not yours or any other Meierite. I've done enough for you simpletons.

Crying victory over what really? You stating that you're right? Well I'm stating I'm right.

And thanks for bringing those pictures up, excellent example of your focal point.

In both of them you focus on the ship, because there are trees at varying distances, we can guess how far the object is away.

in deck1-1 the first line of trees is already blurry, the line of houses on the other side of the street is even more blurry, wich means the object was in front of the trees. Therefor, it's a small object.

Second picture (deck3-1). Same here. The object here is even smaller, so it should be further away. The trees in the back are out of focus however, just as those in the front, so the object is somewhere in between. It's too small to be real and at the same time inbetween the trees.

Also notice that the 'bleed' or reflection only occurs on the lower side, wich could mean it is a motion blur of you throwing it up. I could be wrong.
But it's still a good example, as the "bleed" is far too big for an object that looks so far away. Wich again points to a motion blur of a small object closeby.

I also said to compare large objects and small ones at varying distances, you gave 2 small objects at varying distances in a different setting. And basically, you can always come up with an exception. But that doesn't mean it's foolproof,as your examples pointed out.