Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

John,
Can you please tell me Why you still think the object in the photo where something has dropped off ie the pin/bolt is real? In your opinion? I would just like to understand why you think it is real. Let us examine something. If you have a craft that is built to travel in space, and also in atmospheres like the earth or any planetary body with pressures and atmospheres, what would happen if said craft had any type of hull breach or missing part? If this object was a real craft that is capable of interstellar travel, and it was created and flown by any beings of advanced technology and society, I find it hard to believe they would fly around in something that looks like mamma's pie plates, perhaps they could only afford a used "junker" at some intergalactic junkyard. Seriously, why does this object look like a trashcan lid with some sort of pots and pans welded to it with metal globes all over it? It looks like something someone made in their toolshed, and badly done at that. In addition the photos of the luminescent objects look exactly like a hanging halogen lamp reflection that was photographed through a color filter. This is rediculous.

Originally posted by tezzajw
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.

John Lear should certainly know about parralax error. That's one of the first things you learn as a pilot when you are taught to look at a speed or altitude gauge from the pilot's seat in a two-seater. Since these things are crucial at various stages of sight, when 5 mph could be the difference between maintaining flight and not, you're taught to adjust for this factor. My first flight instructor was pretty strict about this. He kept tapping the gauge and saying, "Hey! Pay attention."

And although I bow down in wonder to John's flying abilities, many certificates, etc., that fact, which keeps getting brought up, is irrlevant. That's the same as saying that Schuyler, internationally recognized systems librarian with many awards on his "I love me" wall, says the Meier case is bunk. It doesn't matter.

Let's try to stick to known observables. Lear is a study in himself. Thinking the moon has a breathable atmosphere is just one of many astounding theories he has. Jump on over to Project Camelot to see what I mean. (This is a positive interview--no negativity at all.) What we have here, folks, is a tag team.

And now for something completely different, the garbage can lid itself:
. Note that the rings around the lid and the handle both show up as the platform on the wedding cake in several pictures, bioth stationary and in the air. Goto this site for further details, measurements, and comparisons.

As far as I know, the only explanation given by the meier folks on the garbage can similarities is to suggest that the garbage can lid maker reverse engineered the lid from photos of the craft! I know this is hard to believe, but here's a quote originally from FIGU, which is a newsletter put out by the meier folks:

We thoroughly investigated the entire situation and discovered that the old, newly re-emerged drawings were used for the design and production of these receptacle covers. The covers were completely different from anything the designers had previously produced. Normally they designed lids with simple lines and never with shapes that could be called futuristic and complicated. This, then, is how the shape of the container covers came about, which, as I mentioned earlier, strikingly resemble the lower rim section and undercarriage on our flying devices.

I find it astounding that contorted explanations like these are believed by any sane person.

I see that we have both responses and thoughtful comments, so let's take a look.

tezzajw, yes, though I'm not as familiar with the photographic terms as I am the effect. Quite honestly, you may be right regarding the distance to the rim and the relative size of the globes. It just looks that way to me, and it's close but that's why when people say it "looks to me" that there can certainly be an erroneous statement, mine included.

I'm firmer, however, on the distance between the globes and the platform, it's almost double using admittedly rough calculations. I'm sure that someone here can measure it somehow. It appears to me, again speculatively, that this may be like an exterior sleeve in which the top part of the craft moves up and down, for whatever reasons.

Regarding the groove, first, it can also be said that the rest of the object doesn't at all exactly match the lid. And I already posted a link a while back on the explanation from the alleged ETs about not only why there's a similarity to the lid...but to also some 17 other, varied, products. Please, let's keep in mind that, if there really are advanced intelligences behind this, they just may, as stated before, know how to, and have their reasons for, stimulating controversy.

Now you've posed another assumption that is easily disposed with from information long ago published in the Contact Notes, i.e. the aerodynamic/wind-flow issue. Respectfully, this indicates that you think that the craft can only "fly" according to our aerodynamic principles. As I mentioned, they long ago explained that they generate energy fields around their craft when they (let's use the term) "move" them through space, which can apply to any space.

Obviously, if they really are space traveling people, they're no longer dealing with our relatively primitive propulsion and flight technologies. While the disk-shaped craft is the most ubiquitous of all observed forms, please let's not make the mistake of limiting the possibilities, just because we are not (openly) dealing with such technologies yet on our planet.

Now as far as my stating things as facts goes, yes, in some cases I do and in others, as regarding elements of the WCUFO (to which a specific response from this skeptic would have been in order) I openly say that I speculate. As a matter of fact, I've repeatedly stated that there are things that I say are factual and others that I refer to as speculative, since I have no way of proving those, one way or the other.

As far as there being something wrong with experts' opinions (but nothing "wrong" with skeptical attacks, insults, etc.?) the writer is obviously a bit unclear on how things work. Regarding the tree information to which he specifically objects, to whom else does one go to determine accurate information about trees...a UFO skeptic, a car mechanic, a bus driver, etc.? I'm afraid this not only shows the disingenuousness of the writer but one of the prime reasons why most scientific experts DON'T want to get involved in anything remotely connected to UFOs, even when they're trees, i.e. the attacks that they come under cause more professional problems for them than it's worth, which makes the courage of people like Marcel Vogel and David Froning, etc. all the more courageous.

It's also to James Deardorff's credit that he sought out these forestry experts - SIX of them for heaven's sake! - to get the best possible opinion on whether the trees were models or full-sized real ones. To any objective observer, such attacks show ENORMOUS bias and an agenda not to discover the truth, whatever it may be, but to attack and discredit, which they succeed at, but only in so far as discrediting themselves.

Further, Wendelle Stevens has been to several locations where trees in question still exist - we have him on film also relating this. Gee, now what, attack Wendelle...again?

NOTE: Continued in next post.

Well, before, anyone does that, let's revisit the page that we've referenced and take a look at photo number 3. This is the famous "sunlight shot", or actually one in a series of them. While it hasn't been spoken about much, deliberately so that some folks could dig themselves deeper into their holes, let me point out just a couple of things (there's more in the photo analysis that was done on this shot).

First, while it's hard to tell if the UFO is behind or in front of the branches, it's very, very close to the tree. Now, do you see those barren, shrub-like bushes in between the two trees and to the right of the large one? Good, because they aren't bushes. They're the TOPS of two trees growing on the other side of the very steep hillside. We KNOW this.

Now, we have in this picture parts of FOUR, barren trees. Does someone here really want to try to tell us they're models? It will be a rough go because there's also a photo of the same main tree, covered in leaves...with a man standing next to it (Vol. 1 contact from the Pleiades photo book).

Obviously this presents a bit of a problem for the model UFO/miniature tree theorists, one fellow in particular. This brings me to an interesting side note. The new documentary on the Meier case is scheduled for completion by this summer, all things being equal. And, since there've been some rather hostile, presumptive and, frankly, arrogant parties who've claimed that Meier used model UFOs/miniature trees to "hoax" his photos , films and video, well, we're going to give the WORLD the opportunity to judge the credibility (and ethics) of certain claimants, which, I presume will be just dandy with them.

Now, even knowing just how intransigent some people are, if it was me, again if it was me, I think I might want to "reexamine" my claims regarding hoaxing, model UFOs, miniature trees, etc. and, on the off chance that I discovered that I just MIGHT have been in error - and I still found myself unable to duplicate the aforementioned evidence with models, etc. - I might, just might want to drop a little note into a place like this...withdrawing that claim. I wouldn't feel compelled to apologize profusely for slandering, defaming and viciously attacking a man who's innocent of the charges, just a withdrawal of the claims and, if my conscience did in fact compel me, I could probably bring myself to...apologize in a modest and reasonable manner.

I'd do so knowing that, as has been long stated, the proponents of the case would be gracious and understanding enough to neither gloat nor attempt to capitalize, in any way, on my error or my apology. Nor would they see the need to focus on such past errors in their film, since humiliating people isn't the goal of it.

I guess I'd take all of this into consideration, humbling as it would be for me, since I am not without a (sufficiently large) ego. But I do think that I'd finally be able to cut myself some slack and realize that, after all, I'm just human and so I make mistakes, even though sometimes it seems inconceivable to me that I could be wrong.

NOTE: Continued in next post.

CONCLUSION:

This brings me to an obvious question, "Well, if you ever did find out that Meier hoaxed the whole thing, what would you say then smart guy?"

As I think I mentioned before, I'd want to know HOW he did it, HOW he managed to fool me and tons of other people over so many decades.

Now, regarding photo 32, I'm still not sure what you're getting at. The bottom of the craft can be seen a bit more clearly in photo 1 at www.theyfly.com... (I'm not getting into the car debate now, another time). And I have written to Switzerland for a shot of the underside of the WCUFO, where a crystal-like array can also be seen. I don't know what you think it's covering up. As a matter of fact, in the aerial photo, it's estimated that the WCUFO set down approximately at the lower left corner of the yellow box you put in.

As for the similarity you perceive between the "light ship" and the whitish object in the aerial photo, please note that this is incorrect for several logical and factual reasons. First, the object in the nighttime photo is clearly quite bright, whatever anyone thinks it is. Had the whitish area in the daylight photo been said object it - "on or off" -certainly would have been noticed by the numerous family members, group members and visitors - like me. I've been to the center 7 times in the last 6 years and have never seen anything like this object (or the WCUFO!) but I have been to this part of the property. While things change on the property over the years, the area where the whitish object is, is possibly the concrete are just below, or even some plastic covering a garden in an adjoining field.

From the distance, I can't say with certainty what it is but I may be able to tell better when I'm there in a few weeks, if there haven't been some changes, etc.

Finally, so no one feels left out, the duplication of the pie plate/cake pan theory was attempted. Suffice it to say that no pie plates/cake pans were used in the construction of the WCUFO, and no aliens were harmed in the making of our film, however, you are always free to actually demonstrate your theory.

Originally posted by Michael12

Now, regarding photo 32, I'm still not sure what you're getting at. The bottom of the craft can be seen a bit more clearly in photo 1 at www.theyfly.com... (I'm not getting into the car debate now, another time). And I have written to Switzerland for a shot of the underside of the WCUFO, where a crystal-like array can also be seen. I don't know what you think it's covering up. As a matter of fact, in the aerial photo, it's estimated that the WCUFO set down approximately at the lower left corner of the yellow box you put in.

Michael, since you are still not sure where i'm getting at, i hope you understand now.

Original:


Original with colored space to show what is blocking the view (yellow) and (red) where you can see still see a part of the house:


Original with nice ornament, that is missing in above picture and colored in red:


If you still dont understand i'm happy to make another one.

The garbage can lid is not 'similar to' the wedding cake. The porportions are exact: groove to groove, groove to end, and the handle itself. One of many smoking guns. Folks, it doesn't matter what Horn says about this issue. Look for yourselves at the links I posted. This is not a debate. It is a religious issue.

Originally posted by Michael12
I'm firmer, however, on the distance between the globes and the platform, it's almost double using admittedly rough calculations. I'm sure that someone here can measure it somehow. It appears to me, again speculatively, that this may be like an exterior sleeve in which the top part of the craft moves up and down, for whatever reasons.

Please show me the rough calculations that you use to determine that the height of the 'sleeve' is almost doubled between pictures 28 and 29. I don't mind if you use degrees or radians, I am familiar working with both units for measuring angles. Without calculations to prove your assumption, you are merely guessing. Guesses are worth nothing unless they can be supported with evidence. Mathematical calculations will determine the height of the sleeve between each picture. As I explained previously, it is an artifact of parralax error that makes the height of the sleeve look higher than it is. You are viewing the same object from two different elevations.

Regarding the groove, first, it can also be said that the rest of the object doesn't at all exactly match the lid.

If the rest of the object has been stuck on top of the lid, then of course it will not match. However, the rim of the WCUFO has ribbed, horizontal lines, exactly like the barrel lid. There is also a raised groove (similar to a fingergrip) on the WCUFO that exactly matches the pattern of the fingergrip on the barrel lid.

And I already posted a link a while back on the explanation from the alleged ETs about not only why there's a similarity to the lid...but to also some 17 other, varied, products. Please, let's keep in mind that, if there really are advanced intelligences behind this, they just may, as stated before, know how to, and have their reasons for, stimulating controversy.

Your use of the words 'alleged' and 'if' in this paragraph is interesting. While you believe that the aliens exist, you type as though this has not been proven and it is only a working theory. Which is it, Michael12 - either you believe in them as fact and type that way, or you are not convinced and you type with caution?

If I fully believed something to be true, then I would type with authority. I would not type with a speculative premise stating 'if there really are...', as it shows a weakness in beliefs. Premises like that 'if' are usually used in logical statements of proof, where the premise is either supported through a constructed, consistent argument, or they are dismissed through the observation of a glaring contradiction.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by tezzajw]

Why is the "Alien" holding the gun in his right hand in some pix and the left in another?

This is the final proof, the smoking gun that UFO hunting makes you nutz

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota
Why is the "Alien" holding the gun in his right hand in some pix and the left in another?

This is the final proof, the smoking gun that UFO hunting makes you nutz

You mind telling me what picture(s) shows you a right and left hand holding the gun? Because i only see the right hand being shown.

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota
Why is the "Alien" holding the gun in his right hand in some pix and the left in another?

because he's ambidexterous, of course! (don't think i spelled that right.)

Re the area pointed out beneath the WCUFO, I have created an image with enhanced brightness and contrast but I haven't figured out ho wto upload it. I'm kinda Mr. Low-Tech so if someone tells me how to do it I'll upload the image.

I thiink the image reveals that we're seeing the house in the background but when I can upload it I'll give my description.

As for the non sequitur comment about religion, I have to agree, except the religion is on the part of the Church of Skeptology true believers, whose comments will from here on be ignored by me unless and until they are relevan to the discussion...and worth my time. Suggestion, come to the matter to discover what is, not to prove what you've made up your mind that it is, even before you've thoroughly and objectively examined the evidence.

I'll next look at the technical comments regarding the photo and post whatever response I have to them when I have l thought it through.

Originally posted by Michael12
I have created an image with enhanced brightness and contrast but I haven't figured out ho wto upload it. I'm kinda Mr. Low-Tech so if someone tells me how to do it I'll upload the image.

You can create an account at i2.photobucket.com... and upload the picture there Michael, then use the code from the bottom of the picture on the website ([img]*****) and paste the code here..Remember that i took the photo from your site, and only highlighted what was the 'problem' area.

[edit on 5/5/2007 by Cygnific]

First, thanks for that info, I'll probably get to it tomorrow or Monday since I have some other elements of life to enjoy now.

Here is what I wa just preparing re the other issues:

Well you're gonna love this. Since I'm not familiar with using degrees and radians, I did it the ol' fashioned way...with a tape measure. Now this may certainly may be flawed but it's what I have to work with, in addition to eyeballing it.

So, on my screen, coincidentally, both objects measure approximately 2.5" across, as best as I can figure, which may be slightly off because of the angle of the photo number 3 WCUFO (at www.theyfly.com...).

When I try to measure from the top of the globes to the platform on photo number 4, the most straight on of the daytime WCUFO photos I get a rough measurement of about 1/8".

When I measure from the top of the globes in photo number 3, I get a rough measurement of 1/4", or about double, as it appeared to me when I eyeballed it. I am taking into account the angle of the WCUFO but I would agree that some sort of mathematical/geometrical kind measuring would be much more accurate. But I would be very surprised if there wasn't a significant difference, certainly because we're talking about an object that is claimed to be about 10' in diameter (if the WCUFO in photo 3 is even larger, so would the significance of the perceived difference be).

Going on the 10' model estimate, I come up with 1" = 4', so the 1/8" difference that I perceived would be equal to 6" (if I calculated correctly).

I think that we have to get past the garbage can lid theory, since your using the "looks like and therefore is" standard is, in light of all that is available for viewing, even more flawed than my assessment of the raised platform estimate.

By using the words "alleged" and "if" I defer to the notion that we must proceed to establish as much as possible, in this format and discussion, to allow people to work along and come to their own conclusions based on the evidence. I have no problem with having drawn the conclusion that the ET hypothesis is the most logical and reasonable and I think that I've already explained why I came to that conclusion. I'll be happy to spell it out again but I must emphasize that belief and facts are not exactly compatible, even though I understand what you mean by that.

While it may seem like semantics, I prefer to say that my conclusion is thus and so. I have no problem with that being a wrong conclusion, I just need significant, convincing evidence and a strong logical argument to convince me otherwise.

You're certainly welcome to present all the glaring contradictions that you can, however, there have been quite a few wrong assumptions, i.e. broken pieces, air-flow problems and..."garbage can lid" that are simply unsubstantiated and convincingly contradicted through prior, long standing, logical explanations.

One of the best ways to prove the garbage can lid theory involved not only duplicating it, as I've said before, but little things like running down exactly what kind of paints Meier is presumed to have used to color the silver and gold surfaces (and account for the upper structures, globes, textured areas that are not the presumed lid). This involves also finding out where, within reasonable distance to Meier, all these items were available at the time these photos were taken, what they would have cost and some record of the materials having been purchased by Meier in order to construct the objects.

This is very important since I am also familiar with the now (since 2000 at least) existing hardware type facilities within a reasonable proximity to Meier (they're not all that close) and I personally don't even know if and when they started to carry any of the materials with which such an object could be made.

Then, thinking logically and putting the garbage can lid theory to the test (it's really about time) you could find out first hand (as well as one-handed) what is involved in attempting to duplicate the object, i.e. how well the plastic lid takes the silver and gold paints, what level of reflectivity is achieved, as well as uniformity, what it actually takes to attach the rest of the structure, globes, etc. and, not least in importance, what it takes to lug around the object, suspend it (in the many off the ground shots) and, shooting with a 35 mm camera, no darkroom, no special effects, etc. make the mode of suspension seamlessly invisible.

Then there's the little matter of attaching it to a tree on a hill and shooting a video of it from several hundred feet away. If you have a day job, are raising a family, live anywhere where your neighbors are as nosy as Meier's were discovered to be by the investigators, let's see how well you'd fare and retain your sanity (as well as job, family, etc.).

The above are just the beginning of your considerations and challenges and, until they are either met or the task is admitted to being too daunting, there's no reason for me to go further. Except to say that we should remember that all of this centers around the evidence produced by one man, you know the rest.

Originally posted by Michael12
I think that we have to get past the garbage can lid theory, since your using the "looks like and therefore is" standard is, in light of all that is available for viewing, even more flawed than my assessment of the raised platform estimate.

LOL. 30 pages of contributors raising the issue of the garbage can lid and not a micromillimeter of acceptance from Michael Horn. If it looks like a garbage can lid, it isn't when you look at the rest of the material. Standup comedian material.

You're certainly welcome to present all the glaring contradictions that you can, however, there have been quite a few wrong assumptions, i.e. broken pieces, air-flow problems and..."garbage can lid" that are simply unsubstantiated and convincingly contradicted through prior, long standing, logical explanations.

LOL. Our logic is flawed, not his of course. LOL.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by TerraX]

Let's assume it is December and time to set up the Christmas tree, we get our box of Christmas tree items and inside the box, among alot of things to put in the tree are the Christmas balls.


Sorry, didn't have a nice silver ball, and there are balls with a bigger hole and smaller diameter.

It "looks" alot like the balls used here:



Ofcourse, this is all my opinion of what i see.


P.S This photo also has a vague dark 'item' used to support the base.

Edited for spacing and p.s.



[edit on 6/5/2007 by Cygnific]

I agree with an earlier poster, this thread and all other Meier threads should be locked or deleted. Mr. Horn has been banned from this forum and all he wants is attention and to direct you over to his website. A website full of dodgy expert testimony. There are also real experts there, but Horn conveniently misquotes them to favor his agenda.

admin edit: We don't insult people on ATS, fair warning was given a couple pages ago. This member is post banned.

[edit on 5-6-2007 by Springer]

Hello Aspie. Such sound advice against other members supporting what may well be truthful. Would be nice to see your detail on Billy's case in your providing some form of truth and/or support in your skepticism.

I agree there have been a lot of arguments trying to support it all and the other site is somewhat pristine toward Billy's contacts well, being Billy's contacts not from around, in or slightly above this ball.

Amongst other reputable members, when Mr Stevens' speaks about his experience visiting Billy in the seventies, that pretty-much sums it up for me. Oh, he didn't so much speak of it here, but you have my word I was fortunate to be included to learn what Mr Stevens' opinion is on this case.

Dallas

I'd love to hear what Mr.Wendell's opinion is Dallas, did he make photo's/movies from the Meier UFO's to? I would like to see them to..

As it becomes harder and harder for any rational and fair minded person to not laugh out loud at the hoax theory, the heavy hitters from the (very) vested interests step up their negativity, dipping into the personal attack barrel already previously warned about and adding new demands that the thread be closed. I guess the fire they started got too hot for them and the light it provided too blinding.

While we'll see how the moderators respond to this latest violation of the rules, it matters not at all to me if the thread is closed but it certainly indicates just how desperate and intellectually bankrupt the opposition is...and how much certain parties don't want people THINKING about the meaning behind the Meier case.

So to my ignore list I add the "Christmas tree ornaments" and the "look like the globes" theories and their proponents, who obviously had to get up really early in the morning to suggest that such small delicate (and non-matching) objects were, along with gosh knows what else, attached to a garbage can lid, spray painted and carried around the Swiss countryside by Meier, who, with also unbelievable skill, featured them in 63 IRREPRODUCIBLE photos and one video - unobserved by anyone!

While we laugh our way through that, I am hoping that one of the good critical thinkers here will include in our discussion some thoughts about the "sunlight shot" since it is another inescapable example of the impossibility of a hoax here. BTW, when I use a term like "impossibility of a hoax", I mean impossible under the known conditions, resources, technology, assistance, etc. that were conclusively determined, during an 8-year long professional investigation, to be or not be available to Meier - not the "possibilities" dreamed up by armchair experts who, unlike the original investigators and me, have actually walked the walk so as to draw realistic, credible, substantiated conclusions.

So, some established facts for reference re the "sunlight shot":

Several photos, including ship on approach
Four barren trees in photo
UFO very close to tree
No means of support
No photo manipulation
Tree still exists

Also, the investigators suspended a model UFO (made for them at MGM studios FX department) near the tree (and other places) and - along with Meier - photographed it and had the photos tested under the same parameters that Meier's own photos were. The differences between Meier's real UFOs and the model were detected every time (see 1982 film Contact, photo analysis, etc.).

Also, the way, and area, in which the sunlight was observed during the winter season by the investigators was absolutely consistent with the sunlight in Meier's photos.

Now, do you know of ANY other so-called UFO contact case in which not only is there so much (still irreproducible) evidence but also that warranted such an extensive, expensive, lengthy, on-site investigation into actual contacts that...CONTINUE TO THIS DAY?

Is it any wonder then that it continues to be not only subject of much controversy - but the most feared element in uncovering the truth about the UFO cover-up and all of the accompanying implications?

NOTE: Wendelle Stevens has published over 1,000 pages of information regarding the investigation into the Meier case, including info on the lie detector tests of Meier and 15 other witnesses, the sound recordings, the photo and film analysis, the ray gun controversy, the metal testing (and actual protocols used) and the personal experiences of the investigators in the process (Lee and Brit Elders, the skeptics, saw things that forever changed their minds) and much more.

He also published the first four volumes of English language translations which, though flawed in a number of aspects, first brought the case to the attention of many, many people...as well as themselves containing documentation that established Meier's prophetic accuracy.

Stevens is a treasure house of first hand information on the case and we feature an interview with him in the new film.