Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

Originally posted by mister.old.school

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

I believe his opinion on the Meier case was drastically changed after he received the contract from NASA. If you have any evidence to the contrary I would ask you to present it, however, it is the opinion of some, that NASA gave Malin the Mars contract and said "Oh, by the way, start back pedaling on the Billy Meiers case."

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.

I prefer not to comment on this photo until I see and original or at least something better than this. Your statement that "the tree on the lower right must be absolutely gargantuan", is sheer speculation from unclear photos. Your statement that "The right tree must be over 200 feet tall" is equally sheer speculation that is without substance or merit. Your statement that "We know is impossible given the variety" is without foundation, substance or merit and it is derived from photos that are not clear.

You opinions and posts, lacking substance, merit and/or foundation are welcome nevertheless. Perhaps you might ask Michael Malin himself to give us post here on ATS and clear his position up. (At least his position today). His position prior to his NASA contract is quite clear.

Originally posted by johnlearI prefer not to comment on this photo until I see and original or at least something better than this.

Forgive me. I assumed you had familiarity with the material you are staunchly defending. Apparently you choose to defend fraud without engaging in an effort to become acquainted with the details.

Originally posted by johnlear

You opinions and posts, lacking substance, merit and/or foundation are welcome nevertheless.

It's always a red flag for me when someone inaccurately characterizes another's arguments in general derogatory terms, especially when those terms themselves are lacking substance, merit and/or foundation. But then, you're so polite in saying they're "welcome nevertheless." My, what a polite, rational debater you are--I'm really impressed!

Of note is that Malin saw only digitized versions, and very possibly those altered by Ken Dinwiddie of DeAnza at the investigators request. Robert Post as well saw only lithographs. And possibly photos of lithographs, by his statements. I've posted both Malin's and Post's comments here before.

Malin in no way says anything about the photos being real. "Appear to be..." and so on is no validation. He related to me that he'd been quoted out of context and he had no idea if they were real or not from the digital versions he saw.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Forgive me. I assumed you had familiarity with the material you are staunchly defending. Apparently you choose to defend fraud without engaging in an effort to become acquainted with the details.

You are both forgiven and confused. As I have made clear in this thread I am not interested in defending the Billy Meier story or photos. I made up my mind 20 years ago when the information and photos were relatively less contaminated. And I believed then as I do now that the photos are real; that the photos were not faked in anyway; and that the photos represent alien craft from somewhere in outer space.

So when you assumed that I had familiarity with the photos I was "staunchly defending" you were wrong on both counts.

Count one that I had familiarity, when in fact, I have seen most of the photos but I would not presume, as many have on this thread, to be able to make an informed judgment without lots more data.

And count two "staunchly defending". I am not defending anything. I am bringing to your attention, that in my humble opinion you are making absurd and erroneous conclusions on photos that are indistinct and probably third or fourth generation. If that!.

As far as your charge that I am defending fraud. I do not believe that Michael Malin was engaging in fraud and I reserve my right to defend him. I feel that he was being honest in all of his statements, particularly the ones where he says, "I find the photos themselves credible" and "They're good photographs" and "They represent real phenomena."

And furthermore based on what little you have told us about your background and based on everything I know about Michael Malins background including his degree in Physics from Berkely and his Ph.D. from CalTech in Planetary Science and Geology plus the fact that he used own highly sophisticated photographic imaging equipment in his own photographic laboratory at Arizona State University to analyze the Meiers photos I am going to believe Michael Malins' opinion about the Billy Meiers flying saucer photos over yours any day. (I believe that you are only using photos posted in this thread however I could be wrong.)

And the opinion that Michael Malin stated that I believe and am defending is “I find the photographs themselves credible. They’re good photographs. They appear to represent real phenomena.” That is what Malin stated and I believe him.

If Dr. Malin wants to change his opinion based on reevaluating the photos with newer and better technology then he is invited to do so. I would appreciate his expertise on how the newer and better technology would change his opinion from, “I find the photographs credible.”

I would also be interested in hearing from Dr. Malin if his contract from NASA including the entire Mars photo program had anything to do with any change of his opinion on the Meier photographs and if not, why his opinion would seem to have changed about the same time NASA awarded him the contract.

Although I believe that you have unfairly accused me of defending fraud I will continue to support Dr. Malin and his knowledgeable, enlightened and favorable comments on the Billy Meiers flying saucer photographs, which incidentally, in my opinion, includes the photo so derogatorily referred to as the “Wedding Cake” flying saucer.

As always your comments are appreciated.

Originally posted by jritzmann

Malin in no way says anything about the photos being real. "Appear to be..." and so on is no validation. He related to me that he'd been quoted out of context and he had no idea if they were real or not from the digital versions he saw.

Thanks for your post jritzmann however you are in error. Dr. Malin says on page 279, "Light Years" by Gary Kinder (Copyright 1987 by Gary Kinder and Intercep, ISBN 0-671-66120-5, Simon and Schuster, Inc. New York) "I find the photos themselves credible. They're good photos, They appear to represent real phenomena." That is what Dr. Malin said and that is what was printed in the book.

Dr. Malin had every opportunity to correct that statement if he felt it was in error and he did not.

If he told you that he was quoted out of context then he is in error. He was given ample opportunity to correct any errors by Gary Kinder and Simon & Schuster who were very careful not to publish something that was not completely verified and approved by Dr. Malin or any of the other scientists and engineers.

But thanks for the post.

Originally posted by johnlear
however, it is the opinion of some, that NASA gave Malin the Mars contract and said "Oh, by the way, start back pedaling on the Billy Meiers case."

Who are the 'some'? Is there any evidence to support this being true, or is it just an opinion that Malin might have been bribed by NASA to change his mind?

johnlear
You opinions and posts, lacking substance, merit and/or foundation are welcome nevertheless. Perhaps you might ask Michael Malin himself to give us post here on ATS and clear his position up. (At least his position today). His position prior to his NASA contract is quite clear.

Wouldn't your own quote also apply to yourself just as equally? Without any proof of bribery and with a generalised 'some' that does not name names, your opinion lacks substance, merit and foundation as well.

Originally posted by johnlear
I made up my mind 20 years ago when the information and photos were relatively less contaminated. And I believed then as I do now that the photos are real

if everyone's mind worked like yours, we'd still believe the earth was flat. 20 years ago the pictures might have "looked" real. Hell, on first glance, some of them still do but the pictures have been ripped to shreds, the cast of characters in his photos are ripped (literally) from a catalogue and a tv show, his dino "photo" was lifted from a book, his ufo's travel huge distances and and land in trees and they often have broken parts. With the technology we have today, we can break those pictures down and see things that you couldn't see 20 years ago.

Mr. Lear, when you were a little boy, did you believe in Santa Claus? I'm sure you did at some point. With a mind like a vise, how on earth did you ever allow yourself to believe otherwise?

Originally posted by johnlear
will continue to support Dr. Malin and his knowledgeable, enlightened and favorable comments on the Billy Meiers flying saucer photographs, which incidentally, in my opinion, includes the photo so derogatorily referred to as the “Wedding Cake” flying saucer.

John, I just don't get it. I don't know anyone who would not readily admit you are one of the most accomplished pilots of our age. I do not know anyone who would not say you have had an extraordinary life. I do not know anyone who would not readily admit that you are obviously a highly intelligent person. So when you say stuff like the above, about one of the most thoroughly debunked pictures in modern ufology with ample evidence for fraud (and, incidentally, one of the worst pictures in the Meier chronicles to date, far worse than the earlier ones published in the coffee table books), then I just don't understand how you could maintain a straight face and support that.

Combined with many other things and people that you also believe (but are off topic here) my conclusion is that you'll believe anything you're told, the more wild, the better. I'm sorry, but the list is long. Now that is just totally incongruous. The two don't mix, so what's really going on here?

I'm reminded of my cousin. He went to the Air Force Academy. He became an air force pilot. After retiring as a Colonel he flew 747 cargo planes. He's an intelligent fellow. He also believes that Jesus Christ is his personal Savior and cannot understand why ANYONE would not accept this, because if they do not, they will surely go to hell and everlasting damnation. Now, his mother was religious and in 'seeking the Lord' she found her husband, a minister, who ministered to her rather personally, the result of which was my cousin, before they divorced. So I can see where he got it. Neverthless, his steadfast defense of his brand of Christianity is amazing to see. So my point is that we do have people that are strange like that.

IF this is your case, I don't see how you got to the point of wholesale acceptance of any good yarn from a shyster that came your way and a rejection of well-reasoned logical arguments, complete with proof, against them. the side you choose does not make sense to me. And even were you steadfastly on the believer side, you surely chose one of the worst examples of all time to defend. I mean, Lazar is iffy, but much closer to believability. Greer is a little weird, but his main thrust for disclosure is not off the deep end. Corso, now he's got serious supporters. You can make a good case and the opposition is on the weak side. But out of all the contemporary possibilities you choose Meier? It's the same as listening to all contemporary singers and choosing American Idol as the best.

There is another possibility. On one of the other threads (I forget which) someone mentioned your name, then in parens, he said (Lear is not serious, you know.) in an off-hand tangenital manner. And I wondered at that. Does John Lear have his tongue in his cheek the entire time? Is he just kind of having fun here poking a stick in an ant's nest? What if he's just riding on his reputation and has decided to be a contrary contrarian for the fun of it? And further, what did this guy who said you weren't serious know? Why would he have said that? Where did he get HIS evidence?

I must admit, I simply do not know. I don't understand this at all.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by schuyler]

[edit on 15-5-2007 by schuyler]

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by jritzmann

Malin in no way says anything about the photos being real. "Appear to be..." and so on is no validation. He related to me that he'd been quoted out of context and he had no idea if they were real or not from the digital versions he saw.

Thanks for your post jritzmann however you are in error. Dr. Malin says on page 279, "Light Years" by Gary Kinder (Copyright 1987 by Gary Kinder and Intercep, ISBN 0-671-66120-5, Simon and Schuster, Inc. New York) "I find the photos themselves credible. They're good photos, They appear to represent real phenomena." That is what Dr. Malin said and that is what was printed in the book.

Thats not saying theyre real John, you know this. Of course we dont know what ones he was shown, but most likely the best of the best, and possibly altered ones which I've mentioned at length that you wont comment on.

He never validated the photos, he was shown digital versions, and thats all. I'd say he was interested by them, which we all were back in the day at first blush. But as more surfaces, and more is discovered we find the case sorely, sorely lacking and published, admitted tampering of visual evidence.

"Does John Lear have his tongue in his cheek the entire time?"

I expect so. I admire the hell out of him, the only pilot ever to hold every Airman cert. from the FAA...hell I'm afraid to even get on a plane. His accomplishments are BIG ones. Despite that I dont agree with him on this and alot of other stuff, he's nonetheless an extraordinary person. His beliefs and support of this case dont make sense to me either.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by jritzmann]

I am reminded of a Monty Python sketch.....

Behold, "The Dead Parrot".....

Google Video Link

I hope this wasn't too verbose of a post......Heh.

Originally posted by MrPenny
I am reminded of a Monty Python sketch.....

Behold, "The Dead Parrot".....

I hope this wasn't too verbose of a post......Heh.

Hilarious! Gotta hand it to you MrPenny, this was perfect for this thread. "Nailed to the perch," HA!

Originally posted by Crakeur

20years ago the pictures might have "looked" real. Hell, on first glance, some of them still do but the pictures have been ripped to shreds.

Hmmmm. Interesting. So you mean that pictures faked by a one-armed Swiss farmer couldn't be detected without technology developed 20 years later and in some cases 'still' look real?

Do you think the aliens helped him? Just thought I'd ask.

The ultimate sign a Meier believer has nothing else to say and is backed up into a corner is when they break out the "One Armed Swiss Farmer" line.

Having one arm does not in any way make one less able to perform the tasks necessary to fake these pictures.

Being a Swiss farmer does not mean that one is somehow inferior, be it mentally, physically, or in any other way whatsoever.

Mentioning both of these together as you did, Mr. Lear, implies that a one armed man could not accomplish these things, or that a Swiss farmer could not accomplish these things, and most certainly not a One Armed Swiss Farmer.

Why?

Originally posted by jritzmann

Thats not saying theyre real John, you know this.

No, I don't know that jritzmann, I respectfully request that you don't try to put words in my mouth. And furthermore I believe that they thought they were real.

Now you're saying its taken us 20 years to figure out how a one-armed Swiss farmer faked some UFO photos? No, I don’t think so. I think they were real.

Here is a quote from Bob Post. Bob was the head of JPL’s photo lab. Dr. Robert Nathan conceived image processing in the 1960’s and developed it for 20 years. Nathan took the Meiers photos over to Bob Post for his opinion.

Here is what Bob Post had to say about the Meiers photos: “Over the years of looking at photographs you get to the point where you can see a lot of things in a photograph that he average person doesn’t see. I’d seen pictures of UFO’s before and I looked at them as a bunch of bull. There’s no definition to anything. But these (the Meiers photos that Dr. Robert Nathan had brought in to the JPL lab) were good. You’ve got a nice spacecraft sitting there, you’ve got some good ground out here, you’ve got a sky with clouds in it once in a while, and you can see some detail. The pictures look good.” “From a photography standpoint you couldn’t see anything that was fake about them. That’s what struck me. They looked like legitimate photographs."

That was what Bob Post said. Bob Post who worked t JPL. That is what Bob Post said about the Meiers photos that Dr. Robert Nathan brought into him at the JPL photo lab. It was in the JPL photo lab that Bob Post made these comments and these comments where made about the Meiers flying saucer photos.

These comments were published in Gary Kinders book “Light Years” Copyright 1987 by Gary Kinder and Intercep, ISBN 0-671-66120-5 Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York).

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.” And that includes Bob Post.

And Bob post is the one that said of the Meiers photos (that Bob Nathan brought into him at the photo Lab, the photolab that belonged to JPL and was on JPL property and was owned and operated by JPL) “From a photography standpoint you couldn’t see anything that was fake about them. That’s what struck me. They looked like legitimate photographs." That is a direct quote from Bob Post.

And you know what? I'd believe Bob Post before I'd believe any amateur, self-styled photo analyst, the likes of which have been commenting on the the Meiers photos here on this thread..

Thanks for your opinions and comments jritzmann, they are always appreciated.

Originally posted by andersonglk

Mentioning both of these together as you did, Mr. Lear, implies that a one armed man could not accomplish these things, or that a Swiss farmer could not accomplish these things, and most certainly not a One Armed Swiss Farmer. Why?

I mention it because of the difficulty I have in believing that a one armed Swiss farmer could fake photographs that took 20 years of advanced technology to prove as fake.

No, these photos are not fake. They are the real thing. What is fake is the methods used to try and prove they're faked.

But thanks for your comments.

You seem to disregard the fact that Meier could simply have been smart. Smart enough to fool people.

His being a One Armed Swiss Farmer does not in any way mean that he could not have been smart enough to fool people with faked photos/videos/sounds.

As for your post two above this one, you seem to have established that a credible man said that the photos he saw were real. Real photos. Not a real spacecraft, not a real object, but a real photo. That doesn't seem to be saying anything at all, and I wonder why you took the time to post that quote.



[edit on 16-5-2007 by andersonglk]

[edit on 16-5-2007 by andersonglk]

I'm fairly certain many are still scratching their heads as to how the Coral Castle was built by one man....but that doesn't mean aliens helped....

Furthermore, advanced tech was needed only due to the fact that often only 3rd (or worse) generation photos were provided. How can anyone, photo expert or not, make an informed conclusion the photos are not faked, with such evidence? In addition, there are many pics where even the most amateur photography simply "knows" they are fake... This is in cases where the background UFO is more in focus than the foreground, lighting is off, etc. Such pics simply look "fake" to others, even if they aren't sure of the exact issues behind it.

The bottom line for me on the Meier case is that there is simply WAY too much evidence pointing to deliberate trickery, to even believe a small fraction of it is real. Swiss MIBs, "time travel" pics from magazines, and of course, cobbled together toy ray guns, all simply rip this case to shreds.

Um, andersonglk to be honest with you, it really does seem that Malin was actually referring to what they were photographs of and not if they were real photographs or not.
This to me seems obvious and it's clear to me that some people here are trying to divert from that fact by turning it into something that it is not.

At any rate, there's some top form debating going on in this thread and for this reason it's been a real joy to read! Keep up the good work everybody!

I think there's more to Meier than what meets the eye so I can't disagree with everything John Lear is saying about him. I do see why some of you think that all of Meier's photo's are fake in that some of his photo's do indeed look too good to be true or that they look, in fact, too fake -- but, honestly, I don't see how anyone can know for sure about any of this if they don't have the original photo's at hand to analyze.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by Palasheea]

These last two posts perfectly illustrate why this thread reminds me of the "Dead Parrot" sketch......

Gazrok: This parrot's dead.

Palasheea: No its not....its resting......