Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Crakeur

I have yet to see any answers from him. Coming here and asking for duplicates made with one arm is not an answer. The only time Michael has posted anything in defence of his "evidence" it has been done with a sidestep of the actual questions being asked.

Let me respectfully suggest that you are in error here Crakeur. He does in fact post answers. I think that what you mean is that the answers are not satisfactory to your way of thinking. Thats what you mean isn't it? I would respectfully suggest that you make that clear to all that what you meant is not that he didn't answer but that the answers weren't satisfactory to you. In point of fact the answers were satisfactory to me. I look forward to your clarification and thanks for the post.

He did not answer his question about the loose 'thingy' on the UFO, he also didn't answer my question what the dark object/item was under the UFO's base (the dark spot that is seen in one photo that seems to hold the UFO in place, but in the next photo that hides the base there is a some branches of a small bush/tree and shows more of the front of the house)

Simple questions that can have simple answers no? If you believe just his word because you dont know how 'alien' technology could look like, (you haven't been to Meier either as far as i know) that's fine by me. I dont believe in nice chit chat people do to make their believes my believe.

To believe a person just by his words is ignorant, thats all i say.

Edit: Also, he forgot to answer my question about the relation between Dr.vogel, Rumi Da (Which beard allmost looks like Meyer's beard) and Meyer himself.



[edit on 4/5/2007 by Cygnific]

The derogatory innuendo, outright name calling and other non ATS approved behavior ends now or three day bans will start flying from my finger tips.

Michael is not the only Member required to be civil, here we ALL are and I am tired of constantly having to remind everyone of this fact.

Consider this post fair warning that the strict enforcement of the TAC and civility rules starts now. What's before this post gets a pass what comes after does not.

Springer...

Originally posted by Crakeur

once again, the image with the broken piece sitting on the edge of the rim of the ufo.

It doesnt look like broken peice in that pic imo. The gold things go around but stop in the middle, it looks to be made that way, with only a center bottom peice. Any other pics?

Originally posted by Michael12
"He (Vogel) found first that one face of the micro-specimen examined at 500 diameters magnification bore evidence of the mechanical micro-machining, probably with a laser. Looking at the piece by x-ray diffraction, for elemental analysis, he found a single element deposit of Thulium (Tm, Atomic Number 69, Atomic Weight 168.934), a rare transition element in the Lanthide series, and also of Rhenium (Re, Atomic Number 75, Atomic Weight 186.2), another rare metal. Thulium usually exists only in a transition state in modern Earth technology. He also found traces of Bromine and Argon gases alloyed in the metal.

One face of the Thulium showed evidence of micromachining. Looking at that part spectrographically, the Thulium, remarkably, showed only the primary band spike for that element – no secondary bands existed. All of the elements examined spectrographically had missing bands in their spectrums which should have been there if they were normal atomic spectra. This indicates that the elements are put together in a very unusual way from normal Earth technology. The spectrographic bands are entirely different, beyond what one would consider an isotope. The bands showed a very high elemental purity and no secondary bands and no catalyst. Most of the elements studied showed the same un-Earthly characteristics. Basically this indicated a non-electrical cold fusion process of synthesis because there was no ash and no heat residue. Such a process is not known to Earth technology at this time. An elemental Aluminum state of similar purity was also noted, as well as the same for Silver."

Garbage. There's no metal sample available to anyone. It was mysteriously "lost or stolen", could not be varified, cross examined, nor corroborated. Vogel's report is as worthless as the paper it's printed on without hard evidence to back it up.

Done. Next?

Originally posted by Michael12
Obviously it disturbs no one here that JR made claims, accusations, assertions, etc. and couldn't back them up.

B.S. I backed up all of it, with duplicated photos, names and corporations that I consulted, and spoke with. I posted clear concise comparisons of impossible tree similarities, broken spaceship models, and clear evidence of found object parts on "beamships".

When I've checked your "experts" for myself I came up VERY short. I published all of it on here and other places around the net.

Youre a regurgitator. Thats clear as day when Biedny found the multi-exposure fake photo of the "lightship", complete with black drape no less. Youre explaination showed VERY clearly you have NO clue what youre talking about. You know *nothing* of what you claim to have researched.

And for the record, this $#%^# has made more baseless accusations and used more slimy tactics then anyone I've ever seen.

Pot, kettle black.

Uggh, get me outta this thread.

Originally posted by Michael12
BTW, to those complaining about the size of the craft, there were THREE different sized WCUFOs. One was said to be a remote with the other two indeed large enough for someone to pilot it.

No worries. That's convenient of the aliens to provide Meier with three different sizes of the same UFO. It would certainly help him to explain the perspective problems in different pictures.

However, I would like to ask why the aliens would build three different sizes of the same UFO with the same groove pattern on the rim that matches a garbage can lid? I really want to know why they would do that?

You have previously stated that these aliens are giving us some 700 years to develop ourselves for contact - fine. So, why would they risk the slow leak of their presence by making their WCUFO in three different sizes with the grooved rim matching a garbage can lid?

Originally posted by jritzmann

Garbage. There's no metal sample available to anyone. It was mysteriously "lost or stolen", could not be varified, cross examined, nor corroborated. Vogel's report is as worthless as the paper it's printed on without hard evidence to back it up. Done. Next?

Jritzmann, I find your post rude, offensive and without substance or merit. I respectfully request that you tone down your attacks on Michael. Thanks.

Michael,

You have done all the talking ( more than 27 years, I assume? ) and yet you still cant convince us. All your explainations are worthless ( forgive me if I offence you) simply as Gazrok and Jritzmann try to point out

Originally posted by Gazrok
Have other, independent scientists corraborated Vogel's work on the materials? Wouldn't such a conclusion be a magnet for other, serious researchers? What about published papers on the work? Surely, any academic finding such a thing would be quick to publish...

Therein lies the problem. The ONE thing about acadamia, is that corroboration is needed to be taken seriously

Save yourself from trouble, will you? Don't explain. Show all your evidences to Springer. The 1200+ negatives film, the sample metal, the site where Billy and 'Isa Rashid' found the aramic scroll, the ray gun and anything else that Billy claim he has. Since Billy still in contact with the Pleadians, simply ask from them if he 'lost' all this. I'm sure Springer will knows what to do with all this evidences. If the evidences are proven genuine, you'll be richer and Billy gets to 'enlight humankind'.

Isn't that what you and Billy want?


[edit on 4-5-2007 by EasternShadow]

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by jritzmann

Garbage. There's no metal sample available to anyone. It was mysteriously "lost or stolen", could not be varified, cross examined, nor corroborated. Vogel's report is as worthless as the paper it's printed on without hard evidence to back it up. Done. Next?

Jritzmann, I find your post rude, offensive and without substance or merit. I respectfully request that you tone down your attacks on Michael. Thanks.

Well, I don't. I find his post specifically targeted to the issue at hand. The issue can't be corraborated because the sample was "lost." How is that rude? Michael is continually asked to respond to specific issues that he routinely avoids. That's not an attack on Michael, himself, but on his refusal to deal with the issues. jrizmann's post is not at all rude. It's not offensive in the least, and it has all the merit it needs.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by schuyler]

WOW Horn is back. What's up Michael? hits to your website down this quarter? crappy dvd's not selling?

John Lear you are out of order. Jeff's post was not rude. Horn has been banned from this forum for his behavior. People are sick of him and his crap and if you knew what he was actually like you would treat him in the same way.

You can Clearly see the bronzish colored "pin"/"bolt" whatever has fallen out of it's mounting and landed upon another part of the model. This is THE most damning piece of evidence that this entire matter is a Hoax.
I believe this matter should be Case Closed. Case debunked.
The very fact that Horn and Lear are clearly supporting a PROVEN hoax to all the members of ATS and attempting at all costs to pass it off as reality is a sickening and disturbing display of irresponsible behavior and smacks of ulterior motive. I hereby request a full investigation and ruling into this matter by ATS Admins and staff. Please review ALL of this. It clearly breaks ATS rules to knowingly and purposely post hoaxed information like this and pass it off as reality in this manner. I knew if we waited long enough these people would supply the very rope that hangs them.
Apalling.
Smoking Gun Pin fell off this hoaxed "ufo".

[edit on 4-5-2007 by WhiteWash]

We all come to ATS to post and discuss, debate if you will, conspiracy issues. The reason these issues are called ‘conspiracy issues’ is because they are sometimes bizarre and outrageous.

Many of these issues are posted by people who believe passionately in their truth. Many are posted by those who want other opinions.

A few have been exposed as outright frauds, in most cases because the perpetrator either gives up or there is overwhelming evidence.

But many issues go on and on because they generate interest in spite of what seems to many, overwhelming evidence. But are continually defended by those passionate believers.

There seems to be overwhelming evidence that the moon has only one sixth gravity of that of earth and that the moon has no breathable atmosphere or that no one lives there. In spite of that supposed overwhelming evidence I continue to believe that the overwhelming evidence is wrong and I continue to answer questions to the best of my ability why I believe different.

Sometimes in our passionate defense we use words that are not allowed on ATS and we are banned, sometimes for a few days, sometimes longer. But after we serve our time we are back with our beliefs. Why do we come back in spite of the continual attacks? Because we believe that we are correct in our beliefs.

ATS hosts a conspiracy site and their main interest is being sure that the debate is conducted in a non-threatening and polite manner.

I got involved in the Meiers case 20 years ago. Like many I immediately thought it was a hoax. But after talking to a few people I trusted, people who knew Billy Meier and had actually been over to his home in Switzerland I changed my mind. I then believed that Billy Meier was telling the truth. I do not care to get involved in the defense of Billy Meiers because I already know what I believe.

But I would defend those who want to take the time and suffer the abuse of defending Meier even though I consider it an impossible task. Too much of the evidence has been contaminated. To much hysteria surrounds the case. But, hey, if someones wants the job, who am I to say, “Give it up, you’re never going to convince anybody.” I prefer to say, “Go for it. I know what you are up against. But always maintain your civility.”

All I am asking for and all that I suppose ATS is asking for is considerate and gentlemanly conduct in the debate.

Posts such as “Garbage!” “You are a liar,” are not suitable. But I can certainly understand the passion with which these are uttered.

As long as we have conspiracies we will have debate. There is no more chance of determining the truth of the Billy Meier case than there is of proving there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon.

If you feel that the Billy Meiers case is a hoax and you have so stated its time to move on and join another thread. If everybody feels that way the thread will eventually die. But to ask that the thread be closed because you personally feel the evidence is clear that it is a hoax is not going to happen. Too many people are interested in the Billy Meiers case despite or even because it seems there is so much evidence against it. And for what its worth I’ll always be there with my opinion that the Billy Meier case is true.

So relax, lets carry on in a polite and honorable conduct of the debate. Thanks.

John,
Please look at the pic of the "ufo" with the very obvious pin/bolt that has fallen out and landed on the other part of the object...Can you PLEASE explain this to me, how on earth and beyond you can look at this image and believe it? I can understand if you believe certain aspects of the Meier case, However it is very odd that if you are actually even the real John Lear, with all the experience in piloting various aircraft and being such an intelligent person, that you can look at this picture and still say this is real...
I just do not get it...

Originally posted by WhiteWash
John,
Please look at the pic of the "ufo" with the very obvious pin/bolt that has fallen out and landed on the other part of the object...Can you PLEASE explain this to me, how on earth and beyond you can look at this image and believe it? I can understand if you believe certain aspects of the Meier case, However it is very odd that if you are actually even the real John Lear, with all the experience in piloting various aircraft and being such an intelligent person, that you can look at this picture and still say this is real...
I just do not get it...

WhiteWash, I looked at the picture. It certainly could be a pin/bolt that has fallen out and landed on the other part of the object. I can't explain it. Do I still believe the craft is real? Yes. Why? Because that is my opinion. I can't explain why a pin/bolt is laying there and I offer no reason why the pin/bolt is laying there. I would say this: for those who think the Billy Meiers case is a total hoax, the pin/bolt would be very, very good evidence.

Is it a fact that Bob Lazar never went to MIT and CalTech and/or obtained degrees there? That is what the evidence shows. Do I still believe Bob Lazar went to MIT and CalTech and obtained degrees there? Yes. Why? Because that is my opinion.

All I can say WhiteWash is that there is some very good evidence that has been presented in this thread that the Billy Meiers case is a hoax. Do I believe it is a hoax? No. That is my opinion and thats all it is. An opinion.

First, a tip of my virtual/online wings to John, thanks for understanding.

I think that the two questions here are definitely worth addressing, since they lead to some interesting information. First, a correction to what crakeur is saying regarding expert testimony presented from the opposing side. Respectfully, not only were the scientists who examined Meier's evidence - in all cases - independent but there is no opposing side expert here, only questioners who, for whatever reasons, see themselves as opposing the case...rather than being focused on trying to find out what is true or not.

To that end, let's proceed.

In order to do so, I ask you to go to www.theyfly.com... since it happens to have some content relevant to both questions that we will attempt to deal with. The first one that I'll address is the question of what's under/behind the WCUFO that's in front of the house. Right away I have to say that I don't know for sure but we may get a better idea by looking at photos number 33, 34. 39 and 40. The first two photos show us that part of the front of the house last year and the second two show us the same area, more or less, around the same time that the WCUFO photos were taken, maybe given a year or two.

And an aerial view of the house, and that area, from 1981 can be seen at www.tjresearch.info... So, it seems that at the time the photos of the WCUFO were taken that there was no tree present there. Perhaps the photo in question can be enhanced by someone who knows how to do it. I also think that someone viewing the area as it appears in all of these photos can reasonably conclude that there is indeed a high likelihood that the WCUFO in the photo is about the size estimated and not a tiny object held in someone's hand. All theories to the contrary, no one has ever come forth with any such model or information as to who made it, what happened to it, where it could be found, etc.

On to the question of the so-called broken piece. First, it should be immediately clear to any thinking person that to refer to it as a "broken piece" is to assert - and attempt to contaminate the discussion - with facts absolutely not in evidence. This is a fallacious premise, logically speaking. It is much more honest to ask just what the object is, though the honest answer is that there's simply no way of knowing. It should also be pointed out that there is a difference between the spacing of the globes, i.e. there is a deliberate-appearing space where the two globes on either side of it appear to have some additional curved objects on their sides facing each other. So we certainly cannot assume that something broke off.

But there is still something to learn from and about the WCUFO, including something I haven't published anywhere before, as this presents the perfect opportunity to do so.

Let's look at photo 29 and notice the size of the globes and their relative distance from the rim of the craft. Let's also look at the top of the globes in relation to where the edge of the platform, for lack of a better word, just above them is. Now, look - carefully - at photo 28, of the golden colored WCUFO, right above photo 29.

Look at the relative size of the globes and their distance to the rim of the ship (also look at the 100 or so red, jewel-like objects set around the rim, which appear on all photos of the WCUFO). I will leave it to each person to decide for themselves if they see a difference in the size and distance from the rim to the globes. But there's another thing, notice in photo 28 that the platform area above the globes is now at a greater distance (height) from the top of the globes, as if (and this is purely speculative on my part since I don't know) the top part of the ship has raised up (notice the apparently different texture/finish of that area) perhaps as a function of, or connected to, when the object is in flight.

NOTE: Continued in next post.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by Michael12]

[edit on 5-5-2007 by Michael12]

Continued:

There also appears to be a size difference between the two craft, lending credence to the claim that there were multiple-sized WCUFOs for different purposes. We are told that the smallest ship was a remote controlled model.

The points here are these, to say that there is an object that is broken off is about as accurate as saying that there's something glued on, we simply don't know. And, considering the outrageously meticulous crafting of the WCUFO(s) and the gigantic task of setting up 63 different photos, plus a video, someone who was "hoaxing" all of this would certainly not let something "broken off" appear in a photo, or would have thrown such a photo out to avoid the controversy.

Unless of course, provoking controversy was/is part of the agenda, in which case there's not only one phenomenally gifted metallurgist/craftsman/photographer, etc. but an intelligence behind the whole matter that has/is successfully still provoking that controversy more than a quarter of a century later.

But again, pay attention to the issue of the size and distance differences, as well as the elevated structure pertaining to these objects. I suggest that to craft the object in photo 28, and make this, up until now never pointed out, structural difference indicates a highly deliberate reason/purpose - that Meier himself has never pointed out, which, I suggest, would be quite contrary to the instincts and intentions of any, appropriately, proud designer/manufacturer/hoaxer of such a magnificent object.

I sincerely request that those of you who are truly interested in discovery of the truth seriously observe, consider and contemplate this information.

And let me add that these images and these pages have been linked here for some time. Perhaps now, instead of dismissing what I've attempted to do here as avoiding the questions and issues, you'll understand that I've freely given you what I've had to search for, compile and organize on my own. Unfortunately, this may confirm the old adage about how poorly people value things that they don't have to pay (something) for.

Thoughtful comments are welcome.

Originally posted by Michael12
Let's look at photo 29...
...notice in photo 28 that the platform area above the globes is now at a greater distance (height) from the top of the globes, as if (and this is purely speculative on my part since I don't know) the top part of the ship has raised up (notice the apparently different texture/finish of that area) perhaps as a function of, or connected to, when the object is in flight.

Michael12. I seriously looked at the pictures 28 and 29 to try and find what you describe, but I can't.

Have you ever heard of a term called parralax error? If you read a dial (fuel gauge, for example) with a vertical bar from front on, you reduce the parralax error. When you read the same dial from an angle, you record a different reading, as your line-of-sight is skewed.

Another way to say this, is that the WCUFO is a circle, but due to parralax error, we see picture 28 showing the WCUFO as an ellipse. It's fairly simple mathematics that describes shears of conic sections.

Anyway, picture 29 only has a small angular deviation from a normal line projected from the centre of the WCUFO to the rim. In other words, we are almost seeing it side-on. However, picture 28 is from a completely different perspective as it is far from being viewed side-on. The viewing angle skews the side-on projection and creates parralax error.

They look the same to me. I don't see the top part of the ship raised up, I see the effect of parralax error, as the circles are sheared by the viewing angle. Some fairly simple mathematics will be able to determine the angle, as once the radius of the circle is determined, the equations of both sheared ellipses in pics 28 and 29 can be determined, which will then lead to the off-set viewing angle.

Anyway, none of that still describes why the WCUFO pictures have a groove on the rim that perfectly matches the groove found on a garbage bin lid on Meier's property? Pictures 30, 31 and 32 clearly show a vertical line next to the groove in the rim. It seems to be an artifact of how the metal has been joined. To me, that vertical line would cause disturbances in the air-flow around the object in flight. Perhaps the aliens aren't accomplished metal workers and are happy for their craft to be less than perfect?

Originally posted by johnlear

Jritzmann, I find your post rude, offensive and without substance or merit. I respectfully request that you tone down your attacks on Michael. Thanks.

Dear John,
I dont believe there's words in the english language to convey how little I care about your opinions of my posts.

Love,
Jeff

Originally posted by johnlear
We all come to ATS to post and discuss, debate if you will, conspiracy issues. The reason these issues are called ‘conspiracy issues’ is because they are sometimes bizarre and outrageous.Many of these issues are posted by people who believe passionately in their truth. Many are posted by those who want other opinions.
So relax, lets carry on in a polite and honorable conduct of the debate. Thanks.

John, I respect your take on having opinions and that's fine with me. An opinion is an opinion, nothing wrong with that. Opinions fall under freedom of speech as far as I am concerned. However, Michael here tries to present elements of the Meier case as FACT and that is something totally different. Facts can be contested or corroborated. This is the cause for much friction in this thread. Michael presents some things as fact and others dispute that. If Michael were to say 'it is my opinion' that this (e.g.) is a real spacecraft, than we would have a totally different discussion. You may have noticed that Michael brings in testimonies from experts yet upon closer examination there's often something wrong with it or there's simply insufficient information. And when you think about it these experts give their opinion as well. Six forrestry experts say it's a large tree! They looked at a photo, that's what it is. Oddly enough if you want to look up the sights in Switzerland where the alleged UFO supposedly was next to the tree in question you would be unsuccesfull. The trees are gone, according to Meier. Now that is not only weird, it's suspicious. Especially if parts on the alleged UFO are identifiable as common terrestrial objects. This is one example which causes much friction and Michael should take a hard look at himself what is fact and what is opinion.

Originally posted by Michael12

In order to do so, I ask you to go to www.theyfly.com... since it happens to have some content relevant to both questions that we will attempt to deal with. The first one that I'll address is the question of what's under/behind the WCUFO that's in front of the house. Right away I have to say that I don't know for sure but we may get a better idea by looking at photos number 33, 34. 39 and 40. The first two photos show us that part of the front of the house last year and the second two show us the same area, more or less, around the same time that the WCUFO photos were taken, maybe given a year or two.

And an aerial view of the house, and that area, from 1981 can be seen at www.tjresearch.info... So, it seems that at the time the photos of the WCUFO were taken that there was no tree present there. Perhaps the photo in question can be enhanced by someone who knows how to do it. I also think that someone viewing the area as it appears in all of these photos can reasonably conclude that there is indeed a high likelihood that the WCUFO in the photo is about the size estimated and not a tiny object held in someone's hand. All theories to the contrary, no one has ever come forth with any such model or information as to who made it, what happened to it, where it could be found, etc.

Michael, it does not matter when the other pictures where made, the pictures i talk about are from the same time/season/year period. You can show me pictures of year 1834 of his house but it wont help the case.

Look at photo29 at the left-down corner, you see the tree/bush this tree/bush is covered by some item under the base of photo32. Showing pictures from other years doesn't hide the 'fact' that there is something under the base that hides everything behind it, and not seen in photo29.

Also i would like to know what this "item" is inside the yellow marking from FIGU1981:



And explain why it has remarkable similarities to this: