Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

Okay, it's irresistible to AGAIN point out that a "tack" (the goofy theory of even goofier Kal Korf and some other conspiracists) is simply laughable. Why, you surely ask?

Scale.

Go get your little self a tack and then put it on a "garbage can lid" of the presumed size and notice how it just doesn't match, let alone with an object 3.5 meters in diameter, let alone even with the box in the picture I, patiently, redirected y'all too.

And we're told that a bracelet was used for the textured top of the ship and gosh knows what for the globes (no one's tried to explain the approximately 100 reddish, jewel-like settings on the rim.

Now you can see why, without exception, the critics here are unqualified and simply not competent. And considering how long the Meier case has been attacked on ATS, you'd think that someone, even one person, would have learned how to investigate this and been able to come up with something both original and accurate in their criticisms.

Originally posted by Michael12
The absence of both intellect, reasoniing AND courage produces a strange product.

Again, if the shoe fits......

That's good, continue to insult the members of ATS. I vow to stay as far from any commercial venture as possible, if it has your name attached to it.

Originally posted by MrPenny

It doesn't require any type of "explanation" or "analysis".....its a frickin' model. It isn't even a good optical illusion. Maybe its the way some people percieve depth of field, but to me, its plainly a small object, close to the camera.

I disagree. I think it is the real thing but since I wasn't there and I didn't take the picture I wouldn't know for sure. However you, Mr.Penny, seem to be awfully sure of your statement, "...its a frickin' model!" I agree, it doesn't conform to any spacecraft we have seen before but its a very large universe out there. I don't think there is any telling what weird craft there are. But for you to to call it a '...frickin' model" tells us a lot more about you than the space ship.

Sorry, Michael, but not only have do you reference a photo that is not shown, while ignoring the comments I made concerning the photos embedded a few posts up, but you post that Newsflash link as though that is going to somehow be conclusive.

The writer of the article you linked clearly states that he is not a photographer or a photographic expert. I am. I have been retouching photographs for lying magazines and ad agencies since it was done by hand. I have removed celulite from naomi campbells arse and placed coke logos on fake spacecraft in the course of 18 years in the photographic/graphic design industries.

The most laughable thing in the article is the "most puzzeling shot" of all, with a blurred TOY car in front of the model UFO.

Go out and try to recreate that shot, by getting a shot of a car THAT far out of focus with a pin sharp truck or bus beyond it. You won't because it is utterly impossible, UNLESS the car is a dinky toy and so is the bus.

And I think my conscience can live with ruining things for future generations of Meierites.

Billy Meier has less veracity than the Blair Witch Project.

Originally posted by Michael12
Hi Cygnific,

I'm not exactly clear on what you mean. The object is in front of the house. There may be some things growing there, I'll take a look at another picture. Please clarify if you can.

Michael, in the first picture where i surrounded the item with a yellow line. I just want to know what that dark area is (not as dark as the rest) turn up brightness else. To me it looks like something is supporting the craft. (i.e. hand with gloves) And it does not show at the second picture, where you can see a tree.

Originally posted by Michael12
Okay, it's irresistible to AGAIN point out that a "tack" (the goofy theory of even goofier Kal Korf and some other conspiracists) is simply laughable. Why, you surely ask?

a tack, a screw, a bolt, whatever. there's a broken piece on your toy ufo and you guys didn't catch it when you made those images and it's truly hysterical. The fact that you try and deflect the issue away from a clearly busted toy to the idea that it isn't a tack because of the size is ludicrous.

who cares what the thing that broke off is? It broke off and is lying beneath the spot where it should be and is in the photo and is pretty damning evidence of a fake ufo.

unless that is the veribiculator grblaxk beam tab that came off during landing and was about to be repaird by the gold foil wearing aliens carrying tinfoil covered rayguns.

Just in case anyone here THINKS the UFO pics are real:


thebiggestsecret.online.fr...





FAKE

Thanks, Smartie. Great link.

Now THAT's what I call a critique. Michael, please read this, and save yourself more heartache. And also note the diagram of the wedding-cake & farmhouse shot. S'what I meant..

An analysis of the garbage can lid is HERE along with a complete analysis of the wedding cake craft. You will notice that it is a very detailed analysis, not just "Oh, this looks like a garbage can lid." They found the lid on the Meier farm, for openers. The grooves, the handle, and the measurements are all precise and they all match. Combined with the perspective photographic analysis this issue is nailed. (Note, it is a French site with lots of pictures and may load slowly.)

Horn has complained in his usual manner about this analysis before, and that is included. In fact, the "Pleadians" even have an answer, which is that they used the design first whch was then picked up and used by the garbage can lid makers. A follow up article addressing Horn's objections to the initial analysis is HERE.

"Even further, when one of the sound experts - who hadn't seen the WCUFO photos - was analyzing the sounds from that craft, to illustrate the kind of sound source that would generate it, he drew a top view of what looked like...the WCUFO."

Oh B.S. You can come up with more goofy crapola.

Wanna know what everyone else gets when they check out the sound? Here's an excerpt from the very long documentation I kept track of when looking into these claims:

-----------------------
I spoke with Justin Spence, who is the chief sound engineer and course coodinator at SAE, a global institute for sound engineering.

I sent the sound to him and he played it. He asked me what I thought it was, and I told him, being a guitar player for 20+ years it sounded like feedback through an old tape delay. These have been used as far as back as Hendrix and before. I also remarked to him that in the very beginning of the recording, you could hear what amounts to a tap. This tap sounds like a tap on a reverb pan of an ampilifer. This tap sets off the feedback, as there must be an inital sound to begin it, and then the feedback ensues as the tape delay loads run after run of it. The sound becomes progressively louder, due to the tape delay layering. The tone changes due to movement of the sound input device, most likely a mic. I do this alot with guitar, and feedback changes tone when you move the angle of the guitar's pickups in relation to the amp.

His (Spence's) reply was (from my notes):

"I completely agree with you"

He said, and further stated there was reverb used as well, a fairly standard amp component. (and would have been present for the "tap" to be heard) Justin commented he thought there could possibly be another effect in there, but wasn't sure as the sound was of such poor quality. He said the "knock" was very obviously a tap on reverb springs to set off the feedback loop. He commented that he could create such a sound in 10 minutes with his equipment, but that the original wouldn't require anything sophisticated. It could be generated by the old equipment with slightly more difficulty due to many variables like distance of the input device to speaker, and setting of echo on the delay effect, amp, etc.

In essence, all needed items to make the sound were completely available to Meier to do this, and quite easily. It seems the sound engineers who've "analyzed" the sounds must have been prior believers in UFO contact cases or the Meier case, because the answer was very obvious to the sound engineer I spoke with.

I wrote Nils Rognerud who is listed as one of the sound engineers listed by Horn who listened to the Meier beamship sounds, and his responses to me sounded very much like someone who essentially wanted the evidence to be real representation of aliens craft sounds. "I want to believe that Billy Meier is telling the truth".

Enough said there.

-----------------------------------

Also, Derek at IIG also wrote into a qualified electronic sound professional and got this reply:

---------------------------------------------------
This recording sounds exactly like what a UFO would sound like in
an old sci-fi movie. Its as if the maker's only idea of what a UFO sounds like came from watching old movies, then he tried to copy that. The sound is certainly created thru the use of feedback. Most likely created by feeding the output of a tape deck back into itself, or, it was created by feeding a signal
thru an analog delay box. I would lean toward this being tape feedback thru a cheap tape deck, which would make the resulting signal a little more complex and uncontrollable compared to an analog delay box.
Lee Scott
professional electronic music composer
M.A. California Institute of the Arts

-----------------------------------------------

I think that pretty well settles the sound crap. No big equipment, no unattainable parts, no special expert knowledge.

I encourage everyone who wants to know more to contact a qualified sound engineer and send them the sound Horn has on his site. Ask them what they think it is and how it's been done. Dont forget to tell them the year it was recorded.

This is the kind of things you'll find when you check the Meier stuff and Horn's claims on your own.

Ok kids, thats all for me, enjoy playing with Horn.

Space sounds That was my first thought, i'm sure these sounds where available on cassete tape in the 70's

Ah, more experts!

Okay.

For the zillionth time:

Duplicate photos. (Especially Mr. Cellulite Remover, should be easy, cellulite already removed from WCUFO, low fat model.)

Duplicate films. (Hey, where's the one JR promised more than a year ago? Anyone wanna help him?)

Duplicate cideo. (Hey, where's the one JR promised more than a year ago? Anyone wanna help him? Did I already say that?)


Duplicate sounds. (Especially Mr. Guitar amp JR...who can't photograph just one wee little model UFO next to one wee little model tree. Aw, after all that noise...was that amp feedback too?)

So simple.

Regarding hand holding WCUFO idea. Very good! But where is hand when WCUFO is in tree tops?

Pretty irritating stuff, eh? Beats a cup of coffee in the morning.

And lookie how many pages we're up to now...all cause of that little ray gun!

Originally posted by johnlear
But for you to to call it a '...frickin' model" tells us a lot more about you than the space ship.

Really....I've seen a picture of a '...frickin' model'. I have more information to judge that object by, than you have to even hazard a guess about me. It is more clearly a '...frickin' model', than the blurry, fuzzy, indistinct images often touted as 'mines on the moon'.

Please direct me to your credentials as a psychologist or therapist. Something that would lend some credence to your claim..."tells us a lot more about you".

Just duckin' in for this:

Note that Horn refuses to acknowledge the other experts, only the ones he wants. (Clear deception tactic) He demands duplication, which is his biggest pitfall, as it proves nothing but keeps you busy. I fell into that trap, once. Not again.

If anyone gets mad enough to do it, I guarantee even if you duplicate the photos, film, sound exactly, he'll still trash you and piss you off. Thats his MO. Dont fall for it.

Enjoy playing mouse with him, he's alot of fun if you just laugh.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by jritzmann]

Michael, rather than continually ask for duplicates of any of the things you call evidence, why not address the debunking being posted?

You continually deflect away from pieces of evidence that need explaining, like that broken piece on the "ufo" that was accidentally photographed.

Could you please explain this broken thing on the ufo?

Originally posted by Michael12
And lookie how many pages we're up to now...all cause of that little ray gun!

I thought so! Points! Thats what he's after!

The reason for the number of pages is that we can't really get over the fact that, while you seem able to communicate and type and stuff, you still believe these photos are real!

I would be surprised if the shot of the treetop in front of the UFO turns out to be someone holding a twig from some delicate little Alpine plant in front of the toy. I bet it exhibits the same focal peculiarities that all the others do.

It just goes to show that the special effects industry didn't need to move past Ray Harry-Hausen's techniques in order to fool some people.

Originally posted by Karilla
we can't really get over the fact that, while you seem able to communicate and type and stuff, you still believe these photos are real!

What a great sentence!

Actually, I think he knows its farcical and believes he can attain some notoriety and cash flow from it. He's already admitted he's here in order to generate some traffic to his own site.

Originally posted by MrPenny

Really....I've seen a picture of a '...frickin' model'. I have more information to judge that object by, than you have to even hazard a guess about me. It is more clearly a '...frickin' model', than the blurry, fuzzy, indistinct images often touted as 'mines on the moon'.

Please direct me to your credentials as a psychologist or therapist. Something that would lend some credence to your claim..."tells us a lot more about you".

Mr.Penny please calm down. There is no reason to get all upset. I just made a comment which was prompted by your use of the word "frickin" often used by those with a limited descriptive vocabulary. Please accept my apologies if you found my statement offensive.

Originally posted by johnlear
Please accept my apologies if you found my statement offensive.

Likewise.

Please forgive my use of colloquialisms in the body of my text. I will, forthwith, refrain from such grammatical sloppiness and format my responses accordingly.

Better?

When I was a kid, there was this professional wrestler, "Classy Freddie Blassie". He was a bad guy or, "heel", in the parlance of the times.

Anyway, during interviews (which were always the most entertaining aspect of professional wrestling) he'd be accused of >gasp< cheating. Of course, he always denied it. They'd show a film clip of a match where he used a stick or chair for a weapon, or set somebody on fire or something.

His response was always, "Trick photography! I never did that!" It was hilarious, at least to me, at the time. No matter how he'd be challenged on it and despite the evidence, he'd never admit to breaking the rules.

Thanks for the memories. I appreciate Mr. Horn being given the ability to participate. Very entertaining.

And now I'll retreat back to lurk mode.