Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

Originally posted by Cygnific
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..

______________

Hi Cygnific, sorry I don't have Mr Stevens' okie-doke and I should have thought better than to say what I said about learning something from him very recently since I would not post it here without his prior OK. It's a respect thing in the researcher community and there is a bond between them that I'm only scratching the surface that they may let me in.

However, I will ask him privately as he may not mind at all. I apologize for admitting Mr Steven's had shared something important, which he or others in the know here can attest. Mr Stevens, has first hand information about quite a few EBE/UFO related things during his time. I respect him tremendously. Hope you can appreciate my position.

Respectfully,

Dallas

Aspie has been post banned per my warning a couple pages back. I am out of patience and don't have the time to check this thread every five minutes for people who aren't grown up enough to have a civil discussion.

If you can't help but violate the TAC of this site by calling people names, like a small child would, then prepare to be banned as soon as I check this thread again. I assure you you will be banned if I see any violation of our civility requirement.

Springer...




[edit on 5-6-2007 by Springer]

Thanks Dallas, lets hope we get some info then..

Michael, yes it's a laugh indeed, thats the whole Meier UFO itself to.. Did you find your excuse allready for the dark item under the UFO pictures or are you still laughing?

Edit: Please show me the Pictures Wendell made from the Meier UFO's Michael. Also i would like to address to you that people with disabilities are no numbnuts, browse the web of what people can do with a disability, you might be surprised what people can do with one arm to..

[edit on 6/5/2007 by Cygnific]

Hi Cygnific,

What I found mainly is that you're seeing is part of the house in the background and there's some unclarity still at a lower corner, maybe people better with Photo Shop will take a shot at it. I'll try to post my pic later today or tomorrow, haven't opened an account yet.

I hate to be too logical this early in the mornng but if you have 62 other pictures and a video wherein you can see that the WCUFO is a freestanding, unsupported object and there's one photo where it may be too dark to clearly define an area near the base - exactly what's your point? And am I dignifying it even too much by attempting to clarify it?

Obviously, if there was only one photo in question you might have something to get lathered up about (although it wouldn't even begin to explain the tons of other evidence in the case) but a total of 63, nah?

As far as my posting more photos and more photos, why not either find them yourself, as I had to do, or work with the ones freely available (as in FREELY available) at my site and others?

Originally posted by Michael12
Hi Cygnific,

What I found mainly is that you're seeing is part of the house in the background and there's some unclarity still at a lower corner, maybe people better with Photo Shop will take a shot at it. I'll try to post my pic later today or tomorrow, haven't opened an account yet.

That unclarity you see is something HOLDING the base and blocking the view, you dont even see the nice ornament Billy made. Not only one photo with the WCUFO infront of the house has this feature but two, the above shot WCUFO 06 , and WCUFO 7 showing here zoomed:



And why dont you show me the photo's Wendell Stevens made from Meiers UFO's? Or dont you have any?

Micheal12,

"Impossible to hoax"? Does this mean you will not consider any possiblity that it could be hoaxed, hence using the word impossible.

You seem pretty set in your decision, your faith in Billy Meier seem almost religious.

I don't think you will ever convice some of the members here to believe Billy Meier 100%, and I am sure that they will not convice you that Billy Meier may have falsifyed some of the evidence.

Only time will tell... until more new information is avaiable.

Thanks for the information.

Originally posted by TerraX

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.

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

This is to everyone here in this thread that posted in saying they believe the Wedding Cake Ship is a garbage can lid.

Assuming you all have already carefully viewed the video of the Wedding Cake Ship (1981) on the website at www.billymeier.com... none of you have failed to bring up the fact that Meier has clearly zoomed his video camera across a substantially large piece of real estate, a few hundred feet at least, and that there is absolutely no room for discussing a trash can lid that is only a couple-three feet in diameter...case closed. The supporting shots from his still camera at this same spot also show a large, distant object close to the tree.

The sound of the zooming mechanism of Meier's SABA brand video camera (one of the earliest European consumer camcorders on the market) is unmistakably long in duration and without a doubt indicates a large distance being covered between camera and ship/tree.

I own a videotape copy of this sequence lasting several minutes and which displays a much more sharp and clear picture than the badly artifacted MPEG version on that website. On the videotape, grass blades on the hillside, tree foliage, etc. are way clearer and put the icing on the (wedding) cake for the authenticity of a clearly LARGE, METALLIC OBJECT NO LESS THAN 11 - 12 FEET in DIAMETER. I'm sorry, but if you all want to be truthful to your listening audience here, as well as yourselves, you will all have to completely retract your idea that this is a garbage can lid, period.

Does the whole garbage can lid story sound conveniently contrived to cover up an alleged hoax? I suppose it can seem that way. But the video, the obvious metallic structure and perfectly welded construction, and other high-resolution imagery of this craft that is freely available on the net puts this nice little garbage lid story to rest.

In other words, you all are going to have to come up with a much more convincing case of a hoax here to make it worth at least my while to listen to any of you people in denial. But I will listen and I will comment and question appropriately and in sync with your statements, provided they are honest and sincere in intent.

Just in case anyone has doubts:
Two separate instances 2 different locations over years....the little fake tree is a bit ratty some years later, but the main branches and pitch remain. The green line is the same green line in both comparisons. All these similarities are far too much to ascribe to nature. Note even the knots on the trunk.



I know, forestry experts right? Well, I know of one already who's said his statements were taken out of context...you guys figure the rest out. Here's the question one of the forestry experts was asked:

“The aim is to get the best possible estimate of the height of the section of the tree that eclipses the UFO, as that then gives a minimum size to the height of the UFO.”

His reponse:
“Overall, this tree is certainly younger than those in the background, but beyond that, it's hard to tell. It's also hard to tell much about species--it's most likely to be a fir, Douglas-fir, or spruce, but I can't say much beyond that. Douglas-fir is not native to Europe, but it's commonly planted there.

The portion of the tree above the potential UFO appears to me to be in the range of 6-10 feet. Although it's pretty fuzzy, there appear to be 5 or 6 whorls of branches with an average growth (and this is just an educated guess) of 1-2 feet between whorls.”

And he further remarks:
As you can see, I did not verify that the photo is real, or that the object near its top (the potential UFO) is real—both of these judgments are beyond my expertise. I assumed that the tree is real although the photo is fuzzy enough that even this is difficult to verify with any confidence.

-- Ed Jensen

So there ya have it, and one could bet if you contacted the others they'd tell you much the same.

It's all just so damned transparent. The more I see everyone go on and on about it, this all becomes much of a different argument.

Not whether any of it is real or not, but why someone would ever believe it in the first place.


[edit on 6-5-2007 by jritzmann]

Well the photo analyst has again analyzed some of the prints (copied ?prints). Very cool that Mr jritzmann took the time to take a professional peek.

Hat's off Sir.

Dallas

Originally posted by vestri


In other words, you all are going to have to come up with a much more convincing case of a hoax here to make it worth at least my while to listen to any of you people in denial. But I will listen and I will comment and question appropriately and in sync with your statements, provided they are honest and sincere in intent.

Hello Vestri, thanks for your first post since 6/4/2006 and thanks for pointing out that the case is closed on the trashcan lid because the WCUFO is real to you.. If you have such good eyesight can you look at my above previous post and tell me what blocks the view in the zoomed image?

Edit: Why dont you give us a link to the nice wedding cake video you have? If you are so sure and defend the WC atleast show us some proof.

[edit on 6/5/2007 by Cygnific]

I see that things are well in hand now. Vestri has posted the simple, logical explanation about the WCUFO video, one that will take a real Fred Astaire tap dance to try to distort. Do I hear the music starting to play...again?

As for JR's little analysis of the trees, what he fails to point out to you are the following facts:

1. Trees of the SAME species LOOK similar...in SOME areas.
2. Looking at the photos he posted you can also see the DISSIMILARITIES.
3. Similar is NOT equal to "the SAME"...that's why we have a different word, i.e. similar.
4. Despite being a miniature tree cultivator himself, JR CAN'T produce even ONE comparable photo - or VIDEO - why?

Anyone here ever read the story, The Emperor Has No Clothes, aka The Denier Has No Argument?

Of course, JR also does not compare the FOUR bare-branched trees, of a DIFFERENT species in the "sunlight shot". Why should he? He CAN'T explain it or tap dance it away. JR does not explain how Meier photographed the WCUFO above the tree tops and in a forest. If he says that ALL those trees, including the ones in figs. 7, 8, and 9 at:

www.tjresearch.info...

are "models" he has to explain:

1. How Meier made so many models trees (and no one knew about, or ever found, them)
2. Why the "model" tree top in figure 9 looks purdy big to me and not like any model
3. How Meier could cultivate all of these "model" trees so successfully...but JR couldn't

As far as the comments from Ed Jensen go, one they don't refute the real tree theory and, two, they show what happens when a professional does put his word behind something associated with a UFO case and then realizes that he prefers not to be involved in it, for obvious reasons.

So basically what the reality deniers here are saying is that - despite ALL evidence to the contrary, including the factually accurate report on the video camera - that there just MUST be some insidious hoax going on here. Naturally, they fail to give us any reason why it would be a hoax...and why we should take their uneducated word for it.

As far as the go nowhere issue of the bottom of the WCUFO being unclear - in ONE photo - go to figure 6 and feast your eyes on the bottom of the allegedly even larger craft and get your fill of the underside. Do you see Meier's hand holding it up, do you see a stand of some sort that it's resting on? Take a hint and rest your over active imagination.

Also, how's about some comments re the area I referred to on fig. 16, of a different height than on the silver model. And of course the "sunlight ship" photo with FOUR trees.

As mentioned before, while this thread may be seen by a good number of people, the film will be seen by far more...and the world will decide for itself if JRs model UFOs and miniature trees hold water, if the "similar equals the same" double talk makes sense, etc., etc.

Oh yeah, re the demands for even MORE photos, I repsectfully suggest that it's rather boring to hear the same desperate denial, the same convoluted, illogical, non-reasoning and accusations - as if simply because uninformed opinions are expressed that someone is obligated to provide further explanations and education, especially when it's clearly beyond the understanding of the demandee.

Fortunately, voices are being heard here that make this lengthy correspondence seem fruitful, in some small way. There ARE reasonable people - who don't have an axe to grind either way - who have the ability to think and comprehend.

Originally posted by Cygnific
Why dont you give us a link to the nice wedding cake video you have? If you are so sure and defend the WC atleast show us some proof.

The image on this is good enough.

www.billymeier.com...

[edit on 6-5-2007 by vestri]

Why isn't the wcufo moving in this video?Its not spinning or anything .If it were moving it would be a little more believable.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by crowpruitt]

Originally posted by Michael12
1. Trees of the SAME species LOOK similar...in SOME areas.

No, there's a definitive bend, and several branches of correct ptich and scale, and to boot, shape and comparible size. Youre sunk.

Originally posted by Michael12
2. Looking at the photos he posted you can also see the DISSIMILARITIES.

Sure, it's years later, and rattier per those years.

Originally posted by Michael12
3. Similar is NOT equal to "the SAME"...that's why we have a different word, i.e. similar.

The consistencies are not ascribable to nature. Period. If you choose to believe they can youre not living in reality

Originally posted by Michael12
4. Despite being a miniature tree cultivator himself, JR CAN'T produce even ONE comparable photo - or VIDEO - why?

Because it is a monumental waste of time, and you and all your friends refuse to acknowledge the points the FIRST set made. I see no reason to continue for people who refuse to open their eyes. It's a waste.

Originally posted by Michael12
As far as the comments from Ed Jensen go, one they don't refute the real tree theory and, two, they show what happens when a professional does put his word behind something associated with a UFO case and then realizes that he prefers not to be involved in it, for obvious reasons.

You state on YOUR website:

"But just in case there is still even the smallest doubt, please consider that these six forestry experts, Prof. J.D. Brodie, Prof. D. Hanley, Prof. E.M. Hansen, Richard. K. Hermann, Prof. Holdenrieder and Dr. Edward C. Jensen, have recently established, beyond even a shadow of a doubt, that the trees in the photos are full-sized, mature trees of determined heights and, therefore, the UFOs in Meier's photos, films and video are large objects a considerable distance from the camera and not small models close to it."

As per his (Jensen's) statements posted when actually asked by an independant party, you can see your statement above is FALSE and untrue. You are caught...*again* falsely making statements and attributing them to professionals, and thats blatently obvious. This is the second time I've caught you.

Not uncommon for you, you've done it with Post, Malin, and now Jensen (and thats just the ones we know about).





[edit on 5-7-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by jritzmann

Because it is a monumental waste of time, and you and all your nutty friends refuse to acknowledge the points the FIRST set made. I see no reason to continue for people who refuse to open their eyes. It's a waste.

Again jritzmann I would like to call your attention to what I consider inapprorpiate conduct by calling his friends 'nutty'. It would seem that you could express yourself without insulting others.

Oh horses^*t.

Again, jritzmann I would like to call to your attention to what I consider an inappropriate word even with the use of tildes and asterisks.

I would respectfully request that you attempt to express yourself without resorting to these types of insulting words. Thanks.

First, I see that you're back to attacking me and my "nutty friends". I thought there were rules about that and I thought we ALL had to obey them.

Now, one-a more-a time-a:

1. Wendelle Stevens, and the other investigators, have personally seen some of the trees.
2. The "sunlight UFO" is near FOUR barren-branched, different species of trees.
3. There's a photo of the tree in full bloom, with a man standing next to it. IT'S REAL.
4. The forestry experts speak for themselves. Michael Malin could have sued for being incorrectly quoted. He didn't. But just like Ed Jensen, he found himself in a controversy he's probably sorry he entered.
5. You made a 1 1/2 year BIG deal about "model UFOs and miniature trees" but never - deliberately - revealed that you cultivate such trees.
6. When challenged to do so, you FAILED to produce ONE photo (let alone film or video) of a model UFO next to a miniature tree.
7. You claimed that you could duplicate the WCUFO "model", photos and video. You didn't.
8. You can't account for the tree top WCUFO photos or the one in the forest.
9. You've never set foot in the actual locations where the events happen(ed), never spoken to one witness, never spoken to Meier, etc.
10. You claimed that the sounds were created with a guitar amp, but can't duplicate them.
11. You were among the attackers of Marcel Vogel and his metal analysis but obviously don't really know anything about it...or him.
12. You have a DISPROPORIONATELY huge, aggressive and angry attitude towards the case but can't substantiate your claims and attacks.

Oh yeah, for everyone's information, Wendelle Stevens reported that a farmer whoswearsthat a tree was never on his property has a funny habit when he mows his grass...he always cuts AROUND the area where the tree was shown to be standing in the photos.

Anyone here ever read the story, The Emperor Has No Clothes, aka The Denier Has No Argument?

Lol - in the story the 'denier' was corrrect of course - it was those who tried to support silly propositions which were seemingly in conflict with the evidence of our senses who were wrong.

It seems that even the moral of a simple fable is wrongly appropriated to support your largely untenable position.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by granny smith]

Originally posted by vestri

Originally posted by Cygnific
Why dont you give us a link to the nice wedding cake video you have? If you are so sure and defend the WC atleast show us some proof.

The image on this is good enough.

www.billymeier.com...

[edit on 6-5-2007 by vestri]

There is clearly a horizontal object, protruding from the tree, that his holding up this "Alien Space Craft."

Has no one wondered why this marvel of extraterrestrial origin is unable to avoid a tree?

Mr. Horn... your comment?

I don't know much about Billy Meier and i don't know him in person.

So therefor i won't make the mistake of judging him to be a hoaxer.

For all i know the CIA really did interfere to try to make him look wacko, it would be a possibility.

For all i know he could be a hoaxer.

One thing i do know, i always give the benefit of the doubt to everyone.


Can someone tell me a few things about Billy Meier, what's his story and why do everyone on ats seems to know a lot about him.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Michael12
As far as the go nowhere issue of the bottom of the WCUFO being unclear - in ONE photo - go to figure 6 and feast your eyes on the bottom of the allegedly even larger craft and get your fill of the underside. Do you see Meier's hand holding it up, do you see a stand of some sort that it's resting on? Take a hint and rest your over active imagination.

Two photo's Michael not one. Did i say Meiers hand was holding it or are you assuming i mean his hand? I dont know what it is but it is covering the base so something is there. You are the Meier expert so tell me what it is. If you dont know, just say so, but dont try to make me look stupid with my overactive imagination.

WCUFO6:

WCUFO7:


Dont come with the excuse that the other pictures dont show it. These are photo's taken by Meier so lets focus on these first.

Also i would like to ask you a question about Wendelle.

To begin with, here is an excerpt from a recent email I received from Wendelle Stevens, the lead investigator

in the case, regarding one of the technological challenges of Meier – or anyone else - making the WCUFO:

I thought, if one was trying to make such a model, it would take a master welder to get all those shiny balls in perfect alignment, because they have to be welded "out of alignment" so that when they cool the balls will be drawn into perfect alignment, and one would have to agree that the alignment is flawless. Certainly, Meier

with one arm and no other equipment could not possibly have done the job.

Who is saying that the UFO is made of metal and why assume that the UFO is welded together? There is glue for a very long time perfectly able to glue about anything together, then the perfect alignment of the balls, they are not perfectly aligned at all, because the 2 bottom stages of the UFO clearly show gaps at the end of the sequence, meaning that no ball would fit in that small gap to make it perfectly aligned. And again ofcourse the poor excuse of one armed people are numbnuts who can't do anything at all, but smoke a cigarette and watch UFO's.