Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

I've been active in the thread for a while. The Meier story, in my eyes, is a hoax. There are too many issues in his so called evidence to even consider taking anything he says about aliens seriously. How anyone can look at the excuses he gives for the issues raised or the flaws in his "evidence" and not see the hoax that this is, is beyond my comprehension. Thus, I suggested you ask the minority side of the discussion why they believe in this stuff. Asking someone why they don't believe when there is so many examples of why you shouldn't believe seems kind of pointless. I think we can learn more and possibly even find reasons to believe, by asking the few believers why they look beyond all the evidence and believe what they believe. I'd rather hear Lear explain his reasoning for disregarding all the things we've mentioned regarding the flaws as opposed to hearing yet another repeating of the many, many, many (did I say many?) issues the Meier Story has yet to properly address.

Incidentally, my being a moderator has nothing to do with my opinion on the topic. It should also be noted that moderators read as much of the postings that they can, in their own, designated forums, as well as in other forums. Our job is to moderate the discussions without appearing like a police force. What better way to do this than to remain active in the various discussions.

Yup, and you have made your thoughts pretty-clear on it. Sorry I have to disagree with your -- thoughts.

Dallas

then let me ask you the same question. How can you disregard all of the points mentioned in this thread and still believe the Meier story?

I think FIGU came into the picture (no pun) and decided to make money, as any company would, and expanded the truth to dismissal. Billy may -- may?, have went along but I feel his basic story is real.

And I recall Mr Stevens' going there and trying hard, with Billy's assistance, trying to duplicate his vids and pics and couldn't.
That, in my mind, does not forgive FIGU for what I feel they did. I also respect ATS (our) photo/vid expert. I'm personally not sure which are real and which are fake. But if even just one is real... and I believe there's more than one.

Dallas

Originally posted by Dallas
schuyler, not so fast please. I believe your right-on in talking about the Laser Guns as it is the OPs subject matter.
But as your aware Billy's case has always required not just speculation but research as well (in order to keep up with it).
When solid people, not me, but such as Mr Stevens' as well as John suggests it's real event seems to me it's worth a deeper look-see. How did arrive at your conclusions?

I assume you have actually read the previous 900 or so posts in this thread. THAT, among other things, is how I arrived at my conclusions. I surely do hope we do not have to wade through ANOTHER 800 posts rehashng the same material with a Michael clone.

Hey schuyler, I assume your referring to yourself on the Michael clone nonsense. I also assume you are not showing deliberate disrespect toward me. We'll forget about the question I had now, I feel it's not worth mentioning all of a sudden. See yah.

Originally posted by Dallas
I think FIGU came into the picture (no pun) and decided to make money, as any company would, and expanded the truth to dismissal. Billy may -- may?, have went along but I feel his basic story is real.

Dallas

I need to get all this straight....

After Mr. Meier took a picture of an alien holding a ray-gun and told everyone that it was a real picture of an alien holding a ray-gun, FIGU members infiltrated a toy company in order to replicate major parts of the real ray gun in a toy to discredit meier..... in order to make money... Ummm, ok

After Mr. Meier took many pictures of a UFO and told everyone they were real pictures of UFO's, Figu members infiltrated a trash can manufacturing plant, designed the lids to look exactly like the "real" UFO, than replaced Meiers trash cans with those ones...

Or, maybe not , you also say maybe Billy is in on it too, but his story is still true... Umm what? So the things he has "proof" of (pictures, metal, ray gun) you are willing to accept might be fake, but the things he has no proof ever happened (predictions, meeting Jesus, being Jesus/Mohammad/Buddha) , you accept as true, even though you think he might be lying to you about other things...

[edit on 14-5-2007 by Tiloke Reborn]

Not bad for I believe your first post, Tiloke Reborn. I suggest think a lot more and talk a bit less. ie read-around, you may find things will come around your way. We're talking Ray Guns btw.

Originally posted by Dallas
Not bad for I believe your first post, Tiloke Reborn. I suggest think a lot more and talk a bit less. ie read-around, you may find things will come around your way. We're talking Ray Guns btw.

Thats nice, insult me and turn the conversation away from my points.... That's really funny considering you did it right after you got upset for being compared to Mikey Horn.


F.Y.I. This is not my first post, I have another account "Tiloke". I had to reformat and lost my info to logon. For now, I can't seem to get a mod to help me, I understand though, ATS is a huge site and I'm just one person.

[edit on 14-5-2007 by Tiloke Reborn]

stick to the topic please. No direct attacks at other members.

now, what were we talking about?

oh yeah, Meier and his "story."

discuss.

Actually, we're talking ray guns here. Any thoughts on the subject. 'cause I think they may be fake,'cause they look like 20th century plastic.

Yes Crakeur. Thanks for the say.
Respectfully,
Dallas

Originally posted by Dallas
Actually, we're talking ray guns here. Any thoughts on the subject. 'cause I think they may be fake,'cause they look like 20th century plastic.

This is a good example of why reading through the previous posts on this topic would do a world of good to anyone just joining up to the thread. The Ray Gun has been rather decidely debunked, complete with pictures, previously. Someone found a Ray Gun on, I think, ebay that has the exact same extruded plastic nozzle, right down to the grooves around the barrel and the exact same (non-functional) gun sight, as exhibited on the BM Ray Gun. As far as I know that particular discovery was new to this thread, in other words, original research done on ATS. The garbage can lid has been done before, but it is also completely covered in these posts.

There is so much good information on this thread that it ought to be saved for posterity somehow rather than just eventually scroll to the second page, then on into oblivion.

Originally posted by schuyler
There is so much good information on this thread that it ought to be saved for posterity somehow rather than just eventually scroll to the second page, then on into oblivion.

Fear not. That's what the tag functionality helps with. See those tags at the bottom? Click on the "Billy Meier" one. This thread will be forever linked with everything else tagged as "Billy Meier", as well as the other tags members have added.

Big to the tagging functionality, which is only as good as the members who participate in thread tagging. You do tag threads, don't you?

Originally posted by Crakeur

then let me ask you the same question. How can you disregard all of the points mentioned in this thread and still believe the Meier story?

Let me answer.

Well for one thing I don't think anybody who has been posting on this Billy Meiers thread has the credentials that Michael Malin had. Those credentials included a degree in Physics from Berkeley and a Ph.D. from CalTech in Planetary Sciences and Geology. Malin was a Professor in the Department of Geology at Arizona State University and had written his doctoral thesis (much of which involved the science of image processing), on the analysis of spacecraft images of Mars. Malin worked at JPL for 4 years before joining the ASU staff.

Michael Malin, in May of 1981, using the highly sophisticated photographic imaging equipment in his photographic laboratory at the Arizona State University where he was a Professor of Geology and Planetary Sciences entered the digitized images of the Meiers photos that have been so thoroughly questioned on this thread.

Michael Malin is quoted in the book “Light Years” by Gary Kinder (Copyright 1987 by Gary Kinder and Intercep, ISBN 0-671-66120-5 Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York):

“I find the photographs themselves credible,” he (Malin) said, “They’re good photographs. They appear to represent real phenomena. The story that some farmer in Switzerland is on a first-name basis with dozens of aliens who come and visit him…I find that incredible. But I find the photographs more credible. They’re reasonable evidence of something. What that something is I don’t know.”

In the Author’s Notes at the end of the book “Light Year’s” Gary Kinder says, ”After completing the manuscript I mailed to each of the scientists, engineers, and the special effects experts a packet which included everything in the manuscript pertaining to each. I asked each make any corrections, technical or otherwise, he cared to make. Either by phone or by mail each of the scientists responded. Some made minor changes; some changed nothing at all. Everything concerning the scientific analyses of the evidence appears in the book exactly as the scientists themselves have authorized it to appear.”

Another quote from Kinder’s book on the Meiers photos, ”As Malin’s business was the analysis of pictures, he found the photographs interesting, ‘very pretty, very clear, very nicely processed.’”

Other comments Malin made for Kinder’s book on the Meier’s photos were, “These pictures are much nicer pictures of UFO’s than any I’d ever seen before.”

Other comments Malin made on the Meiers photographs were, “You can see they look like real objects. Not just on the impression level, but on the demonstrable level. They glint in the sun, there are distinguishable reflections in the metallic objects, things like that that make them much better pictures.”

Other comments Malin made about the Meiers photos were, “I don’t think there is any question that, at least in the things that I’ve ever seen, these are by far the best UFO pictures taken.”

About 4 years after making his comments on the Meiers photos, Michael Malin, President and Chief Scientist, Malin Space Science Systems, Inc., received a $50,000 NASA contract to build a telescope mated to a camera. He subsequently received a NASA contract to build that camera for Mars Observer. In 1992 the camera was installed on the Mars Observer and photographed Mars. An alleged malfunction prompted a double of the camera be sent to Mars in November of 1996.

Malin Space Systems is a very successful NASA contractor.

Whatever position Malin has on his comments on the Meiers photos he gave to Gary Kinder for the book “Light Years’ is probably tempered by his current NASA contracts for Malin Space Systems.

However, the fact is, he made those comments while a Professor of Geology and Planetary Sciences at the Arizona State University. He used his own highly specialized digital imaging equipment to review the Meiers pictures and then make the above statements. He had a chance to review those statements long before the book was published and never sought to change or modify those statements.

Hello Mr. Lear, thank you for jumping back into this topic so we may understand your point of view on this issue.

Originally posted by johnlear
Well for one thing I don't think anybody who has been posting on this Billy Meiers thread has the credentials that Michael Malin had. Those credentials included a degree in Physics from Berkeley and a Ph.D. from CalTech in Planetary Sciences and Geology.

I agree, this sounds like an impressive background.

However, regarding the photographs from Mr. Meier, his exact quote is "They're reasonable evidence of something. What that something is I don't know." However, Malin's analysis did not include all of Meier's photos, especially those reputed to be created with the aid of lithography. Additionally, when shown Mr. Meier's videos, Malin began leaning more toward a potential hoax and is quoted to have said, "I'm sure he's clever. He's a sharp guy," when asked how the videos may have been contrived.

Malin was a Professor in the Department of Geology at Arizona State University and had written his doctoral thesis (much of which involved the science of image processing), on the analysis of spacecraft images of Mars. Malin worked at JPL for 4 years before joining the ASU staff.

Yes indeed. However, this experience does not extend to "JPL" officially endorsing the Meier story as has often been claimed by proponents. Additionally, much of Malin's analysis of the Meier photos occurred long before the current body of evidence and corroborative analysis available online.

Michael Malin, in May of 1981, ... entered the digitized images of the Meiers photos...

Perhaps you would like to revise that summary?

In any event. The resolution of the cheapest home scanner is light years ahead of the capture capability of the most sophisticated (and rare) drum scanners of the early 1980's. And such equipment was not used for "sophisticated analysis." (In 1983, I worked with Rockwell International where we had one such drum scanner, costing more than $50,000 that constantly gave us trouble.)



Regarding the videos that later caused doubt with Malin.

Mr. Lear, could I direct your attention to these two aspects of the video?


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


And then we have this glarringly obvious problem with the video that anyone should be able to immediately notice:

To me, this is the proverbial "nail in the coffin" for the Meier story.

I repeatedly asked Mr. Horn to respond to these two issues, and he avoided a response. I would very much appreciate your opinion on these two attributes that clearly show a contrived setting.


Thank you.

John Lear re posted on 14-5-2007 @ 04:56 PM (ID:3192433, Post Number: 3,092,543)
________________

Very dazzling stuff. Actually extremely well written. Frankly, I didn't know Michael left ATS.
Though I stand by my summary of thought on this subject (less laser guns)I truly respect your stuff here, John Lear.

Dallas

Originally posted by mister.old.school

However, regarding the photographs from Mr. Meier, his exact quote is

mister.old.school with all due respect I respectfully request that you do not attempt to obfuscate my post. His exact quote is exactly what I quoted.

Now, you are welcome to add another quote of his but do not, that is, DO NOT attempt to allege that I misquoted Malin because I did not.

Yes indeed. However, this experience does not extend to "JPL" officially endorsing the Meier story as has often been claimed by proponents.

But not claimed by me or Kinder.

Michael Malin, in May of 1981, ... entered the digitized images of the Meiers photos...

Perhaps you would like to revise that summary

The entire quote is, " Back in his own lab, Malin entered the digitized images Dilettoso has given him into his computer and began studying them with Dilettoso and sometimes Stevens present. I (Malin) zoomed up a given section and then just looked for edges, he said. I (Malin) looked for contrasts differences between various parts of the sky. I (Malin) looked at the color of the sky reflected in the object versus the sky immediately around it. People say the sky is blue, but it isn't uniformly blue. So I (Malin) did things like that. And what I (Malin) found was that the quality of the data he gave me was was insufficient to do a detailed analysis of what these things were. But to the level of quality of the data he gave me, I (Malin) could not see anything wrong with the images. Couldn't see any hoax to it. There was proper amount of blurring of edges and distance fading and thing like that. To the level that I (Malin) saw it, I (Malin) can say that the thing was not a photographic fake."

In any event. The resolution of the cheapest home scanner is light years ahead of the capture capability of the most sophisticated (and rare) drum scanners of the early 1980's. And such equipment was not used for "sophisticated analysis."

That is an opinion and only an opinion. I consider it an opinion without substance or merit. I also consider it an opinion to attempt to ridicule Malins equipment and laboratory at the Arizona State University and his evaluation of the Meier photos in 1981. But nice try.

Regarding the videos that later caused doubt with Malin.

Forget the 'later caused doubt' mister.old.school. Michael Malin was a big boy when he made those comments and very well informed.

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

I do not clearly see anything 'holding up' an alien space craft. That there is some kind of horizontal object is pure conjecture. I would have to see the original to make any informed comment.

And then we have this glarringly obvious problem with the video that anyone should be able to immediately notice:

I do not see anything glaringly obvious except a frame of film in which there are purported fake trees. I would have to see the original to make any informed comment.

I would very much appreciate your opinion on these two attributes that clearly show a contrived setting.

My opinion is that you are incorrect in your assessment of these pictures and that incorrect assessment was due the fact that you used photos of inferior quality, probably copies of copies.

However, as obviously biased as your opinion is, it is nevetheless valued and I thank you for it.

Originally posted by johnlear
That is an opinion and only an opinion. I consider it an opinion without substance or merit. I also consider it an opinion to attempt to ridicule Malins equipment and laboratory at the Arizona State University and his evaluation of the Meier photos in 1981. But nice try.

I'm sorry for your adverse reaction to my reasonable statements. However, I'm unsure if this is "fact", as your signature states, "The above is my opinion and is intended to promote discussion. It is not represented as fact unless so stated."

I intended no ridicule at all. I'm certain the available equipment was cutting edge for the era. But having used high-end systems from Sun, Apollo, and Xerox for early digital image processing since 1979, I can safely say, from direct personal experience, digital analysis at that time cannot touch what is available to consumers today for embarrassingly low cost. And that applies to image scanning, image manipulation, and on-screen display. Much has changed since 1981, and I'm certain Malin would agree. In fact, any scientist would welcome the opportunity to revisit previous projects with improved equipment.

What is your personal experience with high-end graphics processing workstations in the 1980's?

Michael Malin was a big boy when he made those comments and very well informed.

He did indeed consider the Meier case to be contrived after viewing the video we're discussing here.

I do not see anything glaringly obvious except a frame of film in which there are purported fake trees. I would have to see the original to make any informed comment.

Certainly a pilot of your esteemed experience is familiar with, and has direct personal experience with, "Atmospheric" or Aerial Perspective. This is where the haze or moisture in the air causes more distant objects to be "grayed out", to simplify the concept.

There is clear atmospheric effect of haze or high humidity in the air the day Mr. Meier created the video:


The near object, the tree and WCUFO, is sharper and more distinct than the more distant tree to the lower right, and the even more distant hills in the background.

However, the tree to the lower right must be absolutely gargantuan in comparison to the tree at left. It's quite far away, due to the atmospheric perspective, somewhere between the tree at left and the hills.

Even if these trees are the same distance from the camera, the right tree must be over 200 feet tall, which we know is impossible given the variety.

This clearly shows, with absolute certainty, that the tree at left is very small.

Is it coincidense that John mentions Michael Malin, and i read a story about Russia's Phobos 1 and 2 'dissapearing' near Mars moon Phobos. and his company "Malin Space Science Systems" comes up as being NASA's doggy. www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...


Anyway, there is no mention of which photo's where analyzed. But i assume he looked at the pictures with the UFO's in the valley and not the wcufo. Because he would have seen that one photo has a mechanism under it.

Edit: forgot link to Malin article.

[edit on 14/5/2007 by Cygnific]