Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

Originally posted by johnlear
All tips of all ray guns are red. Many are ribbed. That is a heat sync.

Well John I am still waiting for you to clarify this statement. You are always quick to jump on people to defend their statements with proof yourself, and yet you make the above claim without clarification. Please prove that this statement is truth.

Originally posted by johnlear
so it is with much regret that I inform you that you cannot serve on our panel to determine whether or not a particular toy ray gun served as the model for the Billy Meier Ray gun.

You are not the head of any panel. You are not the CEO of anything here at ATS. Are you aware you made this statement to a Moderator/Staff?
If we are going to make this type of statement on who is qualified to judge this evidence, You aren't qualified to judge it either. Who Is?
And Mr. Horn:
You had said you were not going to come back, and yet here you are. We are glad to have you here, but I think it would be nice to keep this as on topic as possible and not hijack this thread with an opportunity to quote Meieresque scripture to us. Let us all speak of the "raygun."

Originally posted by johnlear
All tips of all ray guns are red. Many are ribbed. That is a heat sync.

Looking at my motherboard, I can see heat sinks in a variety of colors. Is there any reason why all laser gun have red heat sinks? And why would aliens follow this convention?

Originally posted by Michael12
Semjase:

Sure; on February 9, 10, and 11, 1979.

Interesting. Thanks for posting these MH. Are all the predictions in Contact #115 this precise? If so could you post some more of these? (like the following)

• Jonestown massacre (Nov 18, 1978)
• Chinese invasion of North Vietnam (Feb–Mar 1979)
• Iran Hostage Crisis (Nov 1979–Jan 1981)
• Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Dec 1979)
• Terrorist attack on Iranian Embassy, London (Apr–May 1980)
• Abdication of Queen Juliana of The Netherlands (Apr 1980)
• Death of Tito of Yugoslavia (May 4, 1980)
• Mount St Helens eruption (May 18, 1980)
• Assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (Oct 31, 1984).

Source: www.theyfly.com...

Sorry, if this has been answered, but where can I get the full text of Contact 115? (German ok, English better)

BTW, regarding the profit motive, I don’t think that in itself discounts Meier’s claims. ATS itself often gets attacked for the same reason. University professors receive payment for their tenure at universities. This doesn’t mean that they are all lying.

Personally, the only way I can judge someone’s integrity is by meeting them in person. And then it’s still just an opinion.

MH, are you fluent in German?





[edit on 22/4/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by WhiteWash

Originally posted by johnlear
All tips of all ray guns are red. Many are ribbed. That is a heat sync.

Well John I am still waiting for you to clarify this statement. You are always quick to jump on people to defend their statements with proof yourself, and yet you make the above claim without clarification. Please prove that this statement is truth.

True that, WhiteWash.

I wonder how johnlear knows that all tips of ray guns are red? That's a huge claim to make. Some evidence would be perfectly welcome to support it!

Re: Red tips, etc. How do you know that the parts are...plastic?

Questions about the ray gun have either been answered or directions to the rest of the answers have been given. If you cannot grasp the implications that a Swiss farmer is publishing information about two-chemical lasers pertaining to a weapon that he first used in 1976, one year BEFORE the first COIL laser was developed, just why are you seeking more discussion?

Perhaps you should shift your focus to the comments by David Froning, reproduced here:

David Froning: At the time, Dr. Froning had already spent 25 years as an astronautical engineer at McDonnell Douglas in highly classified military defense and, in 1979, became interested in Meier’s accounts of Plejaren starship travel, which mentioned tachyon propulsion. Dr. Froning found Meier's account of tachyon propulsion (which was only beginning to be discussed by a very small and select group of theoretical physicists), and his calculations for above light speed travel to be amazing. In 1983, he was pursuing his Quantum Interstellar Ramjet idea (JBIS vol. 33, no. 7, July 1980; AIAA 81-1533, July1981; IAF-85-492, October, 1985) and plugged in his Quantum Ramjet performance equations, assuming: a given starship density, vacuum energy conversion efficiency (in transforming positrons and electrons within the quantum vacuum into photons), and vacuum energy conversion scales of distance of the order of the Compton wavelength. The resulting vehicle acceleration enabled achievement of almost light speed in about 4.3 hours and deceleration from light speed in about 4.3 hours. Meier said that the elapsed time during the "hyperspace jump" took only several seconds. Thus, trip time between the Pleiades star cluster and Earth with Froning’s slower-than-light Quantum Ramjet Drive plus a hypothetical tachyon drive would be 8.6 hours, which was within 20% of the Plejaren trip time reported by Meier. But, while Froning’s calculations were based on many arbitrary assumptions, and in no way proved the truthfulness of Meier's account (since it was a theoretical system he was working on, only time will tell as to which are correct) Froning was somewhat startled that his arbitrary flight time computations were within 20% of the flight time mentioned by Meier. Regarding the Meier material, Dr. Froning also publicly stated that, “My colleagues and I may have made breakthroughs in our understanding of possibilities and ways for traveling faster than light from Billy Meier's accounts of his encounters with the Plejarens.” He also said, "If what this Meier is saying is just a hoax, he's being cued by some very knowledgeable scientists. I've only discussed this Meier case with scientists who are fairly open-minded about interstellar flight, but I'll tell you, the majority of them think it's credible and agree at least part, or sometimes all, of the things talked about by the Pleiadians."

Now, can you grasp the implications of what Dr. Froning said?

Regarding the prophecies in Conracr 115, I'll post some more when I have time and you can see how they were given.

I am not fluent enough in German to read the Meier material.

Originally posted by Michael12
Re: Red tips, etc. How do you know that the parts are...plastic?

Questions about the ray gun have either been answered or directions to the rest of the answers have been given.

Michael12, whether the tips of ray guns are made from metal, plastic, wood or element 115 has no bearing to the statement that johnlear makes when he says that they are all red.

How does he know that they are all red? Is he just making it up, or does he have information that he would like to share with us?

For your information, dude, I have the book Light Years written by Gary Kinder and I've also read it. I am puzzled by many of Meier's experiences and I don't necessarily think that he is a complete liar. I think that there is some truth with lots of lies and disinformation. It was a good read, I'm not inclined to toss out everything that Meier states as being garbage.

However, whether or not I believe Eduard Meier makes no difference to wanting to know why the tips of ray guns are red. Questions about the ray gun have clearly NOT been answered, when johnlear makes a claim that they all have red tips.

Originally posted by Michael12
Re: Red tips, etc. How do you know that the parts are...plastic?

Years ago, I worked in a plastic injection molding factory. I have seen ungodly amounts of plastic in my day, including red. It is my opinion based upon facts grounded in reality based upon my ocular senses that the tip of that mock-up "ray-gun" is simply....red plastic.

Originally posted by Michael12
Questions about the ray gun have either been answered or directions to the rest of the answers have been given. If you cannot grasp the implications that a Swiss farmer is publishing information about two-chemical lasers pertaining to a weapon that he first used in 1976, one year BEFORE the first COIL laser was developed, just why are you seeking more discussion?

Actually Mr. Horn the first working Chemical Laser was demonstrated In 1965 by Kasper and Pimentel by initiating a hydrogen-chlorine explosion with a flashlamp. Source
The first laser theorum was discovered by Albert Einstein in 1916/1917.
Even it's predesessor, the Maser has been around for quite some time before
lasers.
As far as grasping the other information in which you attempted to derail and hijack the thread AGAIN, I could care less. We are discussing the "Raygun".

Originally posted by WhiteWash
Well John I am still waiting for you to clarify this statement. You are always quick to jump on people to defend their statements with proof yourself, and yet you make the above claim without clarification. Please prove that this statement is truth.

You are not the head of any panel. You are not the CEO of anything here at ATS. Are you aware you made this statement to a Moderator/Staff?
If we are going to make this type of statement on who is qualified to judge this evidence, You aren't qualified to judge it either. Who Is?

I can see that I failed utterly and miserably in my attempt to make a humorous post about Ray Guns. Please accept my humble apologies. You can rest assured that I shall give considerably more consideration in the future before I make any more weak attempts at making fun of such a serious subject as Ray Guns. Again, I extend my sincere apologies to both you and Dulcimer if I caused any offense. Sorry.

John, in no way was your post in which you stated that the tips of ALL rayguns are red considered to be an attempt at humor. Please point out to me in that post where exactly you gave any indication you were making a joke? You must understand that when you make a statement like that in a discussion you are making it seem as if you know of this as fact, and are posting it as such(in your opinion), and therefore it must be clarified as fact if it is presented as factual.
Is there anyone here that in reading the context of John's post saw any indication that it was meant as humor?

I must step in and defend Mr Lear i did sense some sarcasm in his post. But thought i would let it develop.

I have come accustomed to his style and technique of posting since my very first post about my 3 year old son who builds rayguns for MI5 and MI6.


I accept paypal and wire transfer Mr Lear for defending you.



[edit on 22-4-2007 by h3akalee]

If the ray gun is being discussed here then I suggest that you go back and read the information from the investigation pertaining to it. The investigation was conducted by Lt. Colonel Wendellle Stevens, who started investigating unknown flying objects in 1947, and case information surrounding them, and Lee and Brit Elders, private investigators and...SKEPTICS - at least intially.

But in truth you're not just discussing a ray gun, you're discussing the only (still ongoing) UFO contact case with six categories of still irreproducible physical evidence. The laser gun, and some other items no longer available, are part of the other evidence in the case. If - after a thorough read of Stevens' information - there are questions or objections then that's another matter.

And, since you mention the first two-element laser, doesn't it make sense that since lasers were only broadly known (in sicence fiction, certainly) to be single element weapons (as most all lasers actually were for all practical purposes until the COIL) that a Swiss farmer would further complicate his credibility by describing a functioning weapon the technology of which he would have little, if any, knowledge of? COnsider that rhetorical because, as seems to be the trend here, there's no real response to the above referred to facts of the matter, i.e. the oval, smooth as glass hole in the tree, the singed branches, twigs and leaves all the way through the forest, etc.

I often wonder why it's so hard for some people to admit that they don't really have genuine answers for puzzling things, that they're incapable or unwilling to express some wide-eyed awe at situations that truly deserve it...and that they have reasons other than searching for knowledge for engaging those who actually possess it.

As a Canadian farmer, I ask again, do you have any thoughts as to why the hole produced by the laser weapon was somewhat oval?

Any thoughts on why it would produce a hole like this?

Anyone?

Micheal i am personally not saying all of billy's evidence is fake. And i am not saying you are a bad person for sharing SOME of the information with us for FREE.

I am however saying the ray gun evidence as it appears on the front page is bad.

Maybe if you place all the evidence here in one post about the ray/lasergun we can all look over it in a little more detail.

Some members are maybe lazy and dont want to read masses of information. So dont provide them with the excuse of being lazy and place the good credible evidence here for all to see.

Regards
Lee




[edit on 22-4-2007 by h3akalee]

Mr Horn,
I have plenty of awe at such things. However I think what the problem is is that while we have a picture of a raygun being held in the hand, and we have talk of a tree with a hole in it, why do we not have a film or at least a picture of anyone shooting the tree as it was happening. (if you do please point me to it as i wasn't aware of that data) I find it very odd that while Mr. Meier had enough forethought to video-tape the beamships moving etc, we have no film footage(that I know of), of the aliens themselves, of the aliens entering or exiting the craft, or of the aliens or meier firing these weapons. The only thing I ever saw as far as the aliens themselves are very vague. Perhaps I haven't seen everything. That is very likely. If you have photographic evidence of the aliens, the aliens entering and or exiting their craft, the aliens or even humans firing the weaponry, or any other evidence on these topics I would LOVE to see these, as would everyone else. I WANT to believe. Please show me something that I can be in awe of, that isn't blurry and out of focus(and i don't mean just the ships by themselves, because I still believe those pics and video are of a smaller craft being manipulated in an optical illusion using camera/distance tricks).

It was said earlier that the laser weapon produced a type of radiation that destroyed film when it was fired.

I can only conjecture as to why, and how, the hole was oval. My guesses would be that whoever produced such a weapon was capable of, or intended to create that shape or that it was a manifestation or expression of the technology that may not have been deliberate on their part but a naturally occurring effect of the technology at that level. Let me now say, in case it was forgotten, that I truly don't have a clue and my conjecture might be/most likely is complete nonsense.

As for the ray gun evidence being weak, it really helps to refer to the specifics, once again, the two-element description, the hole in the tree, the burned/singed foliage (in a perfectly straight line), the burn marks around the hole, etc.

This is what I mean by being responsive, i.e. be very specific about your objections.

BTW, the material the gun was made out of was described as being closer to some sort of nylon than plastic, it's all in the investigation info.

Now i feel we are going around and around i also feel that we are not going to get much more information on the ray/lasergun we are all so intent on learning from.

This leads my personal interest on this subject to come to an end i will read further post's on this subject however i will no longer make any.

Good day to all of you and GOOOODNIIIIIGHT muhahaha.

Yes I realize it was mentioned that it conveniently supposedly destroys film. Why is it that when it comes to establishing proof such things always come into play in that manner? As far as referring to the material in your databanks Mr. Horn, this is hardly what I can call conclusive evidence as you are so obviously biased in Mr. Meier's favor. In addition words on some paper do not equivilate PROOF.
Again and again you avoid the questions. You are very evasive and just point us to your website. I won't be purchasing anything! Give us proof in this forum right here for all to see. I doubt you can.

Now that you have moved the focus to the photographic evidence, naughty, naughty, let me suggest a few things...so I don't dwell in "off topic" land.

There is a FREE Photo Analysis document on my site. It will give you an idea of the procotols of the photo testing. More of it was described in the video "Contact", made about the case in about 1982. In the film the digital analysis of the UFO photos was shown, including things like edge enhancement, contour determinations, pixel counting, etc. and comparisons with the model shots were covered to clarify the difference.

To date, ALL attempts at duplicating Meier's UFO photos have in common the fact that not ONE of the photos was submitted to the same analysis, simply because not one would pass, as they are all small models close to the camera. It's important that it's understood that Meier's UFOs were found to be LARGE objects FAR from the camera. I don't think we want to go into all the stuff about that now but I will tell you that the Meier evidence is very solid. Please go back and note what the owners of the special effectrs company that won the Academy Award for Independence Day said about the UFOs in Meier's photos and films.

As far as posting the whole chapter about the ray gun, please excuse me if I decline, it's a lot of copying that I don't have time for. Yes, it's available on a CD of Wendelle's but I know that some people here are very sensitive about my mentioning such things...please note that this is the first time I've done so. Don't misunderstand, since I do my work on the Meier case for free (6-10 hours per everyday) I have NO problem selling things. But I also have made it a point to load my site with as much free info as I can, to inform EVERYONE and eliminate the strictly commercial approach.

As you can see, I haven't escaped criticism here for being an industrious, self-supporting individual...despite my voluntary work. Such as informing here.

Well that's that then eh? We have to purchase a product in order to go further to verify more about this issue.
sigh.