Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by jritzmann

Torsion, would make the balls about the Christmas ball size wouldnt it?

It also would make the scale pretty well with the luggage clasps.

Jritzmann, it would seem that you keep trying to convince yourself its a hoax. Let me respectfully suggest you need to let go. You are only preaching to the choir and wasting bandwidth.

Those of us who know its a true story are only mildly amuzed (amazed?) at your continued frantic efforts. Christmas ornaments, luggage clasps? Nice try, but....no cigar.

Let me respectfully suggest you need to take a day off, spend some time with the wife and kids, go see a movie, relax. Maybe even think about 'what if you are wrong'. It surely would be embarrassing for you.

Ya know what John-do give it a rest. If Horn wasnt puking this garbage all over the place and using my name and several others to do it I'd never fool with it again. If you cant open your eyes and see luggage clasps and every other serious issue with this case and it's evidence then I feel for you.

Someone asked me for an explaination and I gave it.

I dont convince myself of anything. I look at the facts, and maybe it's something you might want to try at some point.

I've been away from dealing with any of this Meier crap for months. If they'd leave me alone, I'd leave them alone.

This is what, the third time you've essentially told me to shut up? Thats such a typical believer mentality when someone challenges it.

And just on a personal note, you better check your own mind when you think you know me well enough to suggest what I do with my personal life. Way over the line.

Originally posted by Crakeur

I think you might be alone in that category so perhaps you can explain how you know this is true. I'm of the assumption that even Horn doesn't believe this b.s. He's merely defending it for the coin.

Your assumption is false. I just talked to him on the phone and he says he believes every word of the Meier case as do I. So I would respectfully appreciate it if you would correct 'your assumption' "that even Horm doesn't believe this b.s." Thanks very much.

You have no vested interest and you know it's true. I'd love to hear your reasoning.

I have made my case very clear on the Meier story and am not going to go over it again just so you don't have to go back and do a little research.

My opinion is that the Meier case is real along with the photos and videos.

I can tell you this. The Meier case was the biggest headache for the U.S. Government attempts to ridicule Flying Saucers. Even the Lazar case was not as much trouble for the U.S. Government because Lazar had no photos. (He almost did but thats another story.)

Thanks for checking in Cracker, your input is always appreciated.

Mr Lear is surely having fun stirring the pot and playing devil's advocate. At least I hope that's the case...

Originally posted by schuyler
... I think it is conclusive.

We don't have to "conclude" anything. That's always been the biggest problem with UFO stuff, whether it's Meier or Roswell or Kecksberg or whatever.

I still say that if Meier or his space pals can produce evidence we can all agree is valid proof, then there's always room for it. Nobody's going to argue that the Eiffel Tower doesn't exist. And that's the very simple level of proof we should be asking for.

So we can just file it away for the day such evidence appears. If it does, great. If it never does... shrug. In the meantime, however, I will personally avoid sending Meier any money, buying the Nikes, and drinking any of his Kool-Aid. But, if there's anyone out there who wants to do that, good luck to them. The world won't miss a few gullible people.

Originally posted by torsion
Mr Lear is surely having fun stirring the pot and playing devil's advocate. At least I hope that's the case...

I can never tell with him but the condescending manner of his posts makes it appear as if he is playing da. He's probably not. He believes in a soul catcher on the moon (among other things) so a little toy ufo stuck in a tree with broken pieces would seem totally normal in the world he lives in.

Mr. Lear, I've edited one post due to your feelings being hurt. I understood your issue and altered the post to placate your bruised psyche. I will not alter another one, especially when my comment is my belief. You truly believe that those ridiculous pictures are real. I truly believe that they are not and that even Michael Horn knows this but he will back them for the bucks as that is his job.
Your belief is based on what? Talking to a paid representative for the supposed hoaxer? I'm looking at a whole mess of well documented issues with the photos. Even a 6 year old would see the things in these photos and not believe they were real.

What are you basing your belief on?

Originally posted by johnlear
Your assumption is false. I just talked to him on the phone and he says he believes every word of the Meier case as do I.

Hmm. If I recall correctly I said so much on the previous page. Do you really believe every word of the Meier case? Give that a lot of thought, really. I'm serious here. Do you believe every word of the Meier case? I repeat myself intentionally because I think you have no idea of some of the things said and these things can bite you back in the ###.

Originally posted by SuicideVirus

I still say that if Meier or his space pals can produce evidence we can all agree is valid proof, then there's always room for it. Nobody's going to argue that the Eiffel Tower doesn't exist. And that's the very simple level of proof we should be asking for.

SuicideVirus let me respectfully suggest that you don't hold your breath (for Meier and his space pals to produce any kind of evidence) or your condition might end up very similar to your name. Thanks for your post.

Oh, by the way, the part where you said, "evidence we can all agree is valid proof?" What are you ? Some kind of stand-up comedian?

Originally posted by johnlear
let me respectfully suggest

Your use of "respectfully" and the tone of your posts is starting to water down the concept.

Originally posted by johnlear
I can tell you this. The Meier case was the biggest headache for the U.S. Government attempts to ridicule Flying Saucers. Even the Lazar case was not as much trouble for the U.S. Government because Lazar had no photos. (He almost did but thats another story.)

John:

The above piques my interest, I have spoken with a couple former CIA folks who have never once indicated that the government had any interest in this "material" at all.

I am very interested in hearing in what way this story was a "headache" for the USG? I've always been told that it was exactly the opposite based on the very reasons the membership of ATS has rejected it.

In other words, I've been told when this stuff came "out" and the average person looked at it they giggled and thought these were models. When the dinosaur painting, which Meir DID, without doubt, present as real evidence of time travel (which blows the "MIB tampering with the evidence" line out of the water), was discovered along with the television image photographs, etc... it was an absolute BOON for them.

That's why I have often wondered if this wasn't a contrived case designed to bring ridicule upon flying saucers and those who ponder such things. There is a story that Meir was working with the USG, snitching on dope dealers or something which seems to bring him "into the fold" easy enough if it's true.

I am certainly not in any position to declare anything of the sort but I do have enough information to speculate on it. If you look at this case from that perspective (BM was working with the US or some other government) the availability of virtually unlimited resources, man power, design skill, etc... becomes a no brainer.

If the government(s) wanted to cover up something having to do with this field of study or cast ridicule upon it in the eyes of the general public this is certainly an effective way to go about it in my humble opinion.

Springer...

[edit on 5-11-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by Springer

If the government(s) wanted to cover up something having to do with this field of study or cast ridicule upon it in the eyes of the general public this is certainly an effective way to go about it in my humble opinion.
edit on 5-11-2007 by Springer]

I agree. It does seem to smack of disinformation. Obviously faked, to make it relatively easy to debunk (as evidenced by this thread, in my opinion), whilst being convincing enough at a casual inspection to enable it to become widely disseminated. The effects have generally been the desired ones, haven't they?

Mr. Lear, I read an article of yours recently that featured a video of a man involved in a firefight with EBE's, and noticed that he mentioned Meier and his case. Is it from direct experience, or through people like this man that you have accepted Meier's case as genuine?

Originally posted by johnlear
Lazar had no photos. (He almost did but thats another story.)

Please tell more =)

Originally posted by torsion

Here's another tree hugging ufo with a misplaced piece:

That's a nice tree. Would be worth to inspect all this trees of meier a little close closer. They all seem to have the one or the other anomalies to me you dont catch at first glimbs.

For example in this picture above the big almost single extended branch on the top toward the left. How does this fit to the rest of the rather thin and many branches of the tree. Also note how the main root just at that big branch is going from top left to bottom right and you have a hard time to imagine how is has to angle in the hidden to connect with the main root on the bottom.
This tree looks like a merge of two complete different three..one big that looks real dark and far and one more small 'sprig only'? (double expoed?) up on top right and close and probabliy with the wedding cake model.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by SuicideVirus

I still say that if Meier or his space pals can produce evidence we can all agree is valid proof, then there's always room for it. Nobody's going to argue that the Eiffel Tower doesn't exist. And that's the very simple level of proof we should be asking for.

SuicideVirus let me respectfully suggest that you don't hold your breath (for Meier and his space pals to produce any kind of evidence) or your condition might end up very similar to your name. Thanks for your post.

Oh, I'm not holding my breath for any proof from anybody. If I did that, I would be dead 40 years ago. But I'll be happy to look at any proof anyone wants to offer. I do, however, reserve the right to point out any weaknesses I see in it.

Oh, by the way, the part where you said, "evidence we can all agree is valid proof?" What are you ? Some kind of stand-up comedian?

I'm just saying that for simplicity's sake. I acknowledge that there is nothing we can all agree 100 percent on, since there are undoubtedly people out there who refuse to believe the Eiffel Tower exists.

However, for the most part, reality and truth are generally defined by consensus. Of course, consensus can be wrong, particularly when it's based on limited information. It used to be the consensus that the sun orbited the Earth, for instance. But fortunately, science has been able to offer us better information, and now we pretty much all agree that the Earth is doing the orbiting. That goes to show you that people will look at decent evidence and change their minds if it's good enough. It's gotta be good, though, and it might not happen overnight, but it can happen.

That's why we like solid, material things that are available to anyone who wants to examine them. If we are in doubt about the Eiffel Tower, we can get on a plane and go kick it if we want. We don't have to rely on someone's crazy story about their secret encounters with a big metal tower in the middle of Paris (yeah, right), or some photos somebody could have cooked up with models. But if we get enough honest people with no agendas to look at the evidence and agree that there's something to this nutty Eiffel Tower story, then maybe the majority of us will accept it, and we don't have to fly there and kick it for ourselves.

That's what consensus reality is all about. Of course, you're free to pooh-pooh the entire notion of an Eiffel Tower. But the rest of the world reserves the right to consentually call you gullible at best, or lock you up as a delusional nut, at worst.

Guilt By Dissociation

Originally posted by Springer
If the government(s) wanted to cover up something having to do with this field of study or cast ridicule upon it in the eyes of the general public this is certainly an effective way to go about it in my humble opinion.

Whatever the intent may be, the effect is undeniable.

The net effect of the Billy Meier Case -- regardless of whether it's "true" -- is to not only discourage credible investigation and study of UFO cases, but to portray even the very idea of doing so as absurd.

It is not possible for me to determine intent based solely on the evidence I've seen, but it is equally impossible for me to believe that such profound and lasting damage to legitimate UFOlogy could come about unintentionally.

Thus I can't point fingers at anyone in particular, but all of this bears the unmistakable stench of disinformation.

In such an atmosphere, it is especially important to maintain skepticism and avoid making or being deceived by falsehoods.

I recommend paying particular attention to logical fallacies, unsupported claims and self-contradictory statements in this case, because they offer the most reliable indications of who is telling the truth and who is lying.

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by vestri
jritzmann, can you please explain in clear and simple terms to everyone here how your supposed garbage can lid/toy model theory/claim can fit anywhere in the Meier WCUFO clip, I referred to in my previous post below?

Sure. You refer to the zoom and it's length as some sort of measurable distance, when it isnt. Lemme explain that. Firstly, if something is large and very distant, you zoom in because you want the object bigger in view.

Right?

The same applies if something is very small at a much lesser distance away. You want it bigger in the frame, and you zoom in. The distance of the zoom means more about it's size in the frame then anything to do with size of the actual object. Torsion's post showing the size (providing it's the size Meier used, as there are varying sizes of the grain can lid) gives a good instance. If thats he correct size, it doesnt have to be very far away...however, getting a half block away from the model is going to make the model small and appear to give scale to the little tree/bush and model. You have to zoom in, to get the image bigger. Doesnt mean it's far and huge.

What your saying there COULD be right in regards to that explanation there of how a camera's zooming effect cannot be used or relied upon to give a close to accurate indication of the real size of a particular object being zoomed upon in a picture, but that explanation is NOT correct if its referring to the WCUFO film clip www.billymeier.com... which is the clip your answer there is supposed to be referring to here, because your explanation didn't mention, explain or take into account the matter of the unmistakable sized object (a human) that was standing there at the start of that clip, (before any of the camera zooming started) which can be used to give an excellent/accurate frame of reference of an object in that clip to measure by, to justify the object/ship being no less then around 12 feet in diameter, and to dismiss your toy model theory/claim above.


How about you try again, but this time, explain how that person standing there at start of that WCUFO clip is irrelevant, if raised, in the answer you just gave there which you claim supports your theory/claim of that WCUFO ship in that particular clip being a toy model, and was done by using the camera's zooming in feature to trick it into appearing the size of a real ufo ship/tree?

[edit on 11-5-2007 by vestri]

Here are some images that show the scaling of the Wedding Fake in tree zoomshot. They're a bit primitive but it gives a better idea of what we're really looking at:

Originally posted by SuicideVirus

Originally posted by schuyler
... I think it is conclusive.

We don't have to "conclude" anything. That's always been the biggest problem with UFO stuff, whether it's Meier or Roswell or Kecksberg or whatever.

I don't understand why you take that tone or that point of view. If we don't 'conclude' this what do you want? Another 800 posts about a plastic ray gun that a few people are 'quite sure' is real? I don't see how coming to a conclusion about the Meier Hoax is a problem with 'UFO stuff.' In fact, I think quite the opposite is true. FAILING to come to conclusions means we rehash the same old same old over and over and over again. The result? We get nowhere. If we could package this thread up and stash it somewhere for future reference, that would be the best thing to do. Then NEXT time someone comes up with the plastic ray gun or the garbage can lid we can say, "Go read those 800 posts." Some good original work was done here. The garbage can lid has been done before, but I'm not sure the ray gun has been so successfully debunked. It's great stuff. Let's save it, but let's also move on.

You mean this thread is closing shop already?
I had my night all planned out by sitting at my computer in front of a roaring fire sipping a frappuccino in hopes to find out John Lears' answer to what Springer was asking him earlier today about B.M., but now I guess I'll just have to stroll my polo fields and contemplate on how this thread fizzled out so soon even before it had a chance to get going!! Darn.

Good work, torsion. Primitive, but effective, I'd say.

The guy holding the model looks just about the right scale for the grass tufts, wouldn't you say? I'd swear that a young leylandii was used. You only have to get a young one and it looks like that already. It just doesn't stay small for long.

Originally posted by Palasheea
You mean this thread is closing shop already?

NO it's not...

Springer...