Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

Just wondering but on Michael's website there's a panoramic view of the landscape where that tree was.

My question is, what happened to the tree? It states on that page that the tree is no longer there but did someone cut it down?



[edit on 7-5-2007 by Palasheea]

Michael,
Is there any of Billys pics/films that you feel were not legitimate. Obviously you feel strongly that many are quite real, but I was curious if any doubts over Billys authenticty ever crossed your mind. Are there any instances were you feel Billy was set up for MIB disinfo?

Originally posted by vestri
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.

The image on this is good enough.

www.billymeier.com...

[edit on 6-5-2007 by vestri]

Why do you send us to the badly artitacted mpeg, when you have quote: "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." And how do you know the diameter of the UFO? Is there any data known about the dimension of the tree to calculate this?

So, once again, no reply to the obvious lies and deception he's been caught in. More double speak and finger pointing. Just more of what an angry guy I am.

Boo-frickin-hoo.

Way to skirt the fact that youre again caught giving fake information thats been spun off simple statements.

PS-btw, we're not talking about the sunlight shot, we're talking about the one I posted. Typical "moving the goalposts" Horn.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by jritzmann]

JohnLear, I think you need to step back and let the mods do what they will with me.

If you'd recieved threatening emails and phone calls by obvious Meier supporters would you be any less "in your face"? Did you know it's been posted by one PAR member that he'd be glad when people like me were "cleansed from the earth"? More then qualifies for "nutty" to me.

I dont think either one were Mr. Horn, nor do I believe he put anyone up to it. But he contributes to a belief system that people will obviously threaten to protect. Sounds like religion to me.


I think my tone is more then fine all considered. But since I've made my point that once again Horn has misled the reader's by attributing false statements to qualified experts, I'll do my best to stay out of this thread and allow you and he to enjoy your playtime.

Originally posted by jritzmann

I'll do my best to stay out of this thread and allow you and he to enjoy your playtime.

I for one would greatly appreciate that and I knew that you would understand. Thanks.

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

Good eye Mr. Old School,this was what first came to my mind when I watched the video.There had to be something supporting the object,because there is NO movement.IMHO.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by crowpruitt]

For the record, I see that JR is apparently being given a pass to insult people even though the moderator clearly spelled out the consequences of doing so, and demonstrated that with one (former) poster already.

Now some comments, in no particular order.

1. More info on Billy Meier can be found at:

www.theyfly.com...
www.figu.org...

2. I'm not clear on which tree was cut down, died or..."disappeared".

3. As for there clearly being "a horizontal object, protruding from the tree...holding up" the WCUFO, sorry, too silly, illogical and unsubstantiated to waste time on. Yes, feel free to take that anyway you wish. Same with the irrelevant to me concerns with the "mysterious thing" at the bottom of a photo of the WCUFO. As the overused saying goes, "And your point is?"

4. I have not seen any UFO photos, films, video from Meier that I consider to be suspect. That other - more easily tampered with - photos may have been tampered with may exist only serves the purpose, i.e. to divert attention away from the obvious and inescapably real UFO evidence.

5. ALL photos of small models, necessarily photographed close to the camera to simulate a large object in the distance...are too clear for them to be large objects far from the camera.

7. Also, ALL of the model UFOs used in ALL of the photos lack a fraction of the detail of the real UFOs in Meier's photos. When one goes to the various pages where Meier's UFO photos are, it is easy to tell the difference. Of course, you can also read the free photo analysis document at www.theyfly.com... for more information on how the size and distance of Meier's UFOs were determined technically. (At another time I'll drop in the info about how...Marcel Vogel came up with a photographic test that helped confirm the authenticity of Meier's UFOs. But for now I'll let certain parties twist in the wind, full of unwarranted confidence.)

8. As far as the "same tree" theory, one has to find it a bit amusing that someone can say that trees with both similarities AND dissimilarities are absolutely the "same" trees and that one is merely more worn looking a year later. That one would REALLY hold up in court, right?

So it's when I point out the barren trees, the tree tops, the forest...that's considered moving the goal post?

No, that's considered using one's mind, also known as thinking, about the totality of the evidence. Anyone can look at the evidence, think and, at the very least...question such cocky and unsubstantiated accusations as the denier hurls.

Of course the funny thing is that the denier here, as naked as the emperor in the story, has some otherwise very unique qualifications. He's a photographer, he's a model maker and...he cultivates miniature trees. In other words, he has all the qualifications and equipment necessary to PROVE his accusations! The hypocrisy and denial are so huge here that it's near impossible to even create an analogy, so I have to rely on the blatant facts and give my own ethical perspective.

If I was the one claiming that Meier hoaxed his photos with a model UFO and a miniature tree and I was a photographer, model maker and I cultivated miniature trees, I would be ethically and duty bound to do one of two things.

1. Take photos of such a set up to prove my accusations.
2. Retract and apologize for those accusations.

Sorry, there's nothing in between. No amount of seething, nasty, innuendo and insult laden attacks - which only show the frustration and ethically bankrupt behavior of the accuser - can obscure this simple fact. 1. or 2. That's it.

Now I, and some other people here, know that extending this conversation, by any and all means, suits the purpose of the ATS forum and I have absolutely nothing against that as it provides information, and links to more of it, for many to see. I should add that while various diversionary challenges, deliberate distortions and misdirections, as well as genuine new inquiries and questions are all present, it only gives further testimony to the actual enormity and complexity of the case.

As far as I'm concerned, there are no more comments necessary from me on the WCUFO. You have plenty to consider in order to make up your own minds. And if really in doubt, try to make one yourself, with one, two, four or ten hands...and then set up 63 photos and one video it. You'll get a REALLY clear realization why JR has avoided trying to do so, in addition to his failing to do the UFO/tree photos.

NOTE: Neither I, nor anyone I know, on my or Meier's behalf, has threatened JR. At this point it needs to be stated that JR has posted on other forums about his alleged paranormal-like experiences. I am not alone in noting that what he described sounds like the experiences of an unwitting mind control subject who's been experimented with/on by terrestrial parties. Should this be the case it could explain perhaps some of the vehemence he's directed at Meier...and other people.

Nothing has been asked/demanded of him, he's not been pressured or invited to join any group, to give any money, to believe any teaching, to follow any guru, etc., etc. - only to PROVE his accusations - so it's hard to understand exactly what, or what other than some unpleasant experiences perhaps at the hands of some military/intelligence operation, motivates such anger.









[edit on 7-5-2007 by Michael12]

[edit on 7-5-2007 by Michael12]

[edit on 7-5-2007 by Michael12]

LMAO....now I'm a military mind controlled experiencer.

See folks, this is the best he has when confronted. I need say no more. This is what is gravitated to when he has nothing else.

Michael, you'll just continue to lay down more untruths with this case, as per Jensen's statements and what I quoted from your site which is demonstrably NOT what he said. You are putting forth false statements and conclusions and attributing them to experts in their field.

If thats all you got, some theory that I'm a mind controlled robot, well...thats truly sad.

I swear he's more like the anti-Klass every day. He never refers to relevant data, nor statements. No comment on the sound data, no comment on Jensen's quote and the subsequent misinformation on his site, just more blow offs and mind controlled wierdness. It's truly any and every excuse these days to explain his shortcomings.

So folks do yourselves a favor, and if you really want a good show, call up some of his listed experts and ask them yourselves...anyone can do it.


EDIT-what motivates the anger? I'll tell everyone, I'm not a bit ashamed. Being called "liar", "stupid", "inept", "morally bankrupt" and a host of thers by a man who has no training in my field and no knowledge of imaging techniques whatsoever, having been threatened (by an obvious Meier supporter), lied about, having my name used by Horn to bolster ticket sales to his lectures, and so on.

But biggest of all? The fact that I think the UFO subject is of serious importantance and deserves to be treated as such. Cases like this and people like Horn, do this field of research and those who are serious about it no favors, and set it back decades in the public eye.

No mind control here, just old fashioned distain.



[edit on 7-5-2007 by jritzmann]

Originally posted by Michael12
If I was the one claiming that Meier hoaxed his photos with a model UFO and a miniature tree and I was a photographer, model maker and I cultivated miniature trees, I would be ethically and duty bound to do one of two things.
1. Take photos of such a set up to prove my accusations.
2. Retract and apologize for those accusations.

Cool. I seem to recall that you, and especially Meier, have said that other figures in Ufology were frauds, hoaxers, or in contact with elements of the secret government, etc. So prove it or retract and apologize. Especially Meier would have to write a new book filled with retractions and apologies. But don't go there right, Michael?

Sorry, there's nothing in between. No amount of seething, nasty, innuendo and insult laden attacks - which only show the frustration and ethically bankrupt behavior of the accuser - can obscure this simple fact. 1. or 2. That's it.

Cool. I just hope that you and Meier realise the above goes for you as well.

Are you trying to avoid the question what is under the WCUFO Michael? www.abovetopsecret.com...
Two!! different photo's with the base covered. Just one simple answer about what is under the WCUFO will do..

Snarl, growl, yip, yip...guess we hit a nerve there.

From www.tjresearch.info...:

Dr. Edward C. Jensen, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Elizabeth P. Ritchie Distinguished Professor, Forest Ecology and Natural Resources Education, Oregon State University:

"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." (March, 2006)

This 6-10 ft estimate of the height of the portion of the tree above the craft then translates to a height for the craft of 4 to 7 feet, and a diameter of 8.8-15.4 ft, or from 2.7 to 4.7 meters. This suggests that it was the same 3.5m craft as shown in Figs. 5 and 6 above, and hovering very close behind the tree.

Another opinion on the tree in question comes from Professor Emeritus Doug Brodie of the College of Forestry, Oregon State University.

"The tree is one of the European true firs -- Abies species. The picture has only a portion of the top of the crown 10 to 15 feet. There could be anywhere from 10 to 50 feet of tree bole below the picture." (March, 2006)

Professor of Forest Management, J. D. Brodie of Oregon State University, who gave me his opinion in 1986, the tree's height was only 3 to 7 meters (10-23 ft) tall. On the other hand, if the annual top growth is a typical 0.3 to 0.4m (12 to 16 inches; see Fig. 8), the tree's height comes out to be 5.5 to 7.3m, (plus whatever portion of the lower trunk lies unseen below the brow of the ridge). Hence a 7m height seems reasonable for the tree.

In 1985 I showed the photo that best displays the tree's trunk (#66), plus another of this series, to two professors of Forest Science at Oregon State University to determine if they could identify the type of tree. These were Profs. Richard. K. Hermann (now retired) and Edward. C. Jensen. Hermann was raised in western Germany and was very familiar with this species of tree. With certainty they stated that it was a mature abies alba, i.e., a European silver fir. Other forestry experts contacted more recently were less unanimous about the species identification, with picea abies (Norwegian spruce) suggested as an additional or secondary possibility (Hanley, 2001; Hansen, 2001; Holdenrieder, 2001). However, none suggested that it could have been a small potted tree or model tree. Thus it was no mere 1- or 2m tree, which would exhibit an unmistakably juvenile appearance in its profile, density of branches and trunk, as will be discussed soon. Prof. Hermann pointed out that its crown was already showing signs of “stork-nesting,” or near cessation of vertical growth, due, they presumed, to the environmental stress of excessive smog east of Zurich and/or to acid rain. A potted, “baby” tree is far too young to exhibit such effects.

See photos at www.tjresearch.info... for the following:

"NOT A POTTED OR MODEL TREE. This conclusion is so pivotal that it may be instructive to remind ourselves of the differences to be expected between a young, potted abies alba and mature ones, if they are not already evident. Upon comparing an example of the former, Fig. 9(a), with the latter (Figs. 9(b),(c),(d)), we see that the mature trees have developed many offshoots to their main branches along their greater length, while the very young tree has not had time to grow any in its upper portion. The abies alba, as well as other species, can develop quite different profiles and foliage densities, depending upon their age, immediate and past environments, climate, etc., as in Figs. 9(b),(c) and (d).

The mature abies alba, and Norwegian spruce as well, may exhibit extensive and numerous preventitious shoots (successive re-branchings), while the very young tree will not have had time for such development to occur (Gruber, 1994, p. 278). When present extensively, these additional re-branchings give the mature fir tree a dense foliage, as in Figs. 9(b),(c) above, in great contrast to the very young fir, Fig. 9(a). Also, the young fir exhibits a conical outer shape while the older, mature fir tends to be much more cylindrical, especially if its crown has suffered from inhibited vertical growth.
Just as important, the diameter of a 30cm model UFO, for example, would not exceed three lengths of annual limb growth, or about three times the typical length of one of the twigs seen dangling from the lower portion of the tree in Fig. 2. Instead, the UFO’s width is seen from Meier's photos to be some 20 times this length. This order-of-magnitude distinction alone negates the small potted-tree hypothesis.

A model-tree hypothesis, which has been proposed over the Internet, fails for similar reasons. In addition, model trees, especially in those days, were not constructed to look like any particular species of tree, and could not have been identified as a mature abies alba. Instead, they are constructed to be of pleasing appearance, symmetric and conical, as in artificial Christmas trees (Fig. 9(e)), where deformities are undesired. If a symmetric model tree had been trimmed to have an irregular outline and a bare trunk, the trimmed edges would then also give it away as a model tree in comparison with the Fuchsbüel-Hofhalden tree. Also, artificial trees available from stores do not, of course, exhibit nodules where limbs once grew out.

A VERY LARGE MODEL UFO? The remaining possibility that the UFO was not “genuine” is that it was a very large model, many meters in diameter. This has not been proposed by Meier-case skeptics, probably because of the tremendous logistical problems that would be encountered in:

(a) constructing and storing such a model without news of this reaching the ears of anyone in the area who could report their awareness of it to Meier’s friends or to Wendelle Stevens and his investigative team on their many trips to Switzerland;

(b) attempting to transport a 7m model UFO, too wide to fit into a two-car garage, to that location on narrow rugged roads, unnoticed by owner and neighbors along the way;

(c) setting up ladders, scaling them and attaching such a huge model to the tree without any support lines or bracing showing up in the photos, and without attracting the attention of the landowner or a group of curious spectators;

(d) repeating procedure (b) five or six times in the short period of one afternoon for the different locations

It's nice to read estimates and guessing about how high the tree COULD be Michael, is there any evidence how high the tree REALLY is?


Edit: Funny how the first hit on Google with "Abies species" is a bonsai link..

[edit on 7/5/2007 by Cygnific]

"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

You can throw words at this for another 500 posts, but the ray gun is still fake. The wedding cake is still on a garbage can. End of story. The real issue is, why debate it here? Does Michael seriously have enough time and energy to do this day in and day out for weeks at a time, batting back all challengers by posting a BIGGER post than before? I mean who cares what ATS people think? What does the outside world think?

Well, the outside world, by and large, considers it hopeless bunk. (See any newspaper article.) And let's just say you get a neophyte in with an "open mind" who has not heard of this hoax before. Well, if he's 'searching for answers' he'll soon discover the ample and well-reasoned sites out there that point out the many, many discrepencies. And he may find Michael out there jumping up and down and yelling at people saying, over and over again, "It's True! It's true! It's true!"

He'll have to make a choice. And if he tends to side with Michael for some strange reason he'll just have to start reading some of the written material (maybe even in the voluminous ones in Deutsch!) and he'll soon discover the details, like the bomb under San Fran, alien fights, pyramids, prophecies, et. al. Lots of stuff there!

And if our neophyte thinks this is the best stuff since sliced bread, hey, he can join up! Then he can feel a sense of belonging knowing he is on the True Path and contributing to humanity. And if he's good enough someday he may be taken into the inner circle, the modelmaker's guild, where he will learn model making is essential because it brings in converts. The real work is far too important to let a little thing like the accountrements of the cult get in the way. What is 'truth' anyway? Quite clearly, it's subjective. It's like the resurrection stuff. That's not the point. It just gets them in the door.

So big deal. It's not like this cult is growing to take over the world or anything. As long as they don't start getting coercive, let them be. Just back away from this guy slowly saying nice things to him until you can get far enough away to run like hell.

So, there's nothing really new here. The thread is not advancing the state of the art. It's pretty good entertainment, if you've got the time. Onward.

Originally posted by schuyler

You can throw words at this for another 500 posts, but the ray gun is still fake. The wedding cake is still on a garbage can.

I assume you have reasons to believe the ray gun is fake Schuyler.. I would like to hear them. And please don't use the tired old, "It can't be real" or "It just looks fake." Give me some scientifc reasons why its fake. Thanks.

Now on the garbage can wedding cake: if thats the garbage can lid, then there must be a garbage can in the garage without a lid. Where is that garbage can? I mean wouldn't they have taken a picture of the garbage can with the missing lid just to prove that that was the garbage can lid that was used for the wedding cake? Or did I miss this?

Well, the outside world, by and large, considers it hopeless bunk. (See any newspaper article.)

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Do you mean that the outside world has a clue as to whats going on? Do you mean that the outside world is our measure of reality? Do you mean the outside world has all the answers?

Well lets take a look here. Let me give you some examples of what else the outside world considers hopeless bunk:

That the U.S. in mining the moon
That U.S. astronauts have been going to Mars since 1966.
That U.S. astronauts have already explored Europa.
That the Pentagon Boeing 757 was a holograph.
That the moon has over half the gravity that earth does.
That the moon has a breathable atmosphere.
That there are cities on the moon.
That there was a fourth astronaut in Apollo 1.
That Osama bin Ladin didn't plan 911.
That the neocons did.

See what I mean here?

So, there's nothing really new here. The thread is not advancing the state of the art.

Now theres an interesting sentence. "This thread is not advancing the state of the art." What art would that be Schuyler?

It's pretty good entertainment, if you've got the time.

I agree with you on that. I have never seen such hysteria over a few flying saucer pictures as I have on this thread. It would seem that the majority are in total denial. But you are correct. It is good entertainment.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by schuyler

You can throw words at this for another 500 posts, but the ray gun is still fake. The wedding cake is still on a garbage can.

I assume you have reasons to believe the ray gun is fake Schuyler.. I would like to hear them. And please don't use the tired old, "It can't be real" or "It just looks fake." Give me some scientifc reasons why its fake. Thanks.

Can you give scientific reasons it is a real working/broken ray-gun? They claim it is a ray-gun, but only show a picture of it. So a picture claims it is real then?

Now on the garbage can wedding cake: if thats the garbage can lid, then there must be a garbage can in the garage without a lid. Where is that garbage can? I mean wouldn't they have taken a picture of the garbage can with the missing lid just to prove that that was the garbage can lid that was used for the wedding cake? Or did I miss this?

Maybe the garbage can is trown away, what use is it without lid? Lot's of guessing can be made of where it is.

Well lets take a look here. Let me give you some examples of what else the outside world considers hopeless bunk:

That the U.S. in mining the moon
That U.S. astronauts have been going to Mars since 1966.
That U.S. astronauts have already explored Europa.
That the Pentagon Boeing 757 was a holograph.
That the moon has over half the gravity that earth does.
That the moon has a breathable atmosphere.
That there are cities on the moon.
That there was a fourth astronaut in Apollo 1.
That Osama bin Ladin didn't plan 911.
That the neocons did.

See what I mean here?

Until it's proven it is hopeless bunk You can proof it?

I agree with you on that. I have never seen such hysteria over a few flying saucer pictures as I have on this thread. It would seem that the majority are in total denial. But you are correct. It is good entertainment.

Which majority? the believers or disbelievers? Or is that the reason you wrote it like that?

John, can you please give your opinion on what is under the WCUFO in this post www.abovetopsecret.com... Your opinion of what it 'might' be is very welcome. So atleast i can drop this subject and waste my life in another topic.

Originally posted by Cygnific

Originally posted by vestri
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.

The image on this is good enough.

www.billymeier.com...

[edit on 6-5-2007 by vestri]

Why do you send us to the badly artitacted mpeg, when you have quote: "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." And how do you know the diameter of the UFO? Is there any data known about the dimension of the tree to calculate this?

Unfortunetly I can't send you a copy of the 'good quality' mpeg video because I am referring to the 1978 Billy Meier documentary film called "Contact". Thats where the wedding cake clip was taken out of. The reason I can't make a cut out copy is because it is on VHS.

If your interested in the Meier UFO case you can purchase the film from Figu website if you like. Its a first class made film and I have no regrets buying it.

shop.figu.org...

Originally posted by vestri
Unfortunetly I can't send you a copy of the 'good quality' mpeg video because I am referring to the 1978 Billy Meier documentary film called "Contact". Thats where the wedding cake clip was taken out of. The reason I can't make a cut out copy is because it is on VHS.

If your interested in the Meier UFO case you can purchase the film from Figu website if you like. Its a first class made film and I have no regrets buying it.

Thanks Vestri for pointing to the "contact" movie, i will see what i can do to obtain a copy of it around my place.. Not planning to buy anything from Figu at this time