Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

Originally posted by andersonglk

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.

OK. I'll bite. How did he do it? I mean it’s not like Bob Post or Dr. Michael Malin or Dr. Bob Nathan were idiots. It doesn't take an advanced imaging machine to see alleged strings? Or bolts? Or Christmas tree ornaments?

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.

You're quibbling andersonglk. My point is the photos got into the JPL lab and the lab head Bob Post and Dr. Robert Nathan the father of image processing for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratories looked at them. If they were so obviously fakes why did Dr. Robert Nathan say, "We're still challenging whether or not this is a hoax. Now you have to bring in people with a detective mentality." “The concern here is how he could very steadily move the object from one side of the scene to the other and have it come to an abrupt halt without it appearing to swing. If it were hanging from a long string, and you went ahead and moved the pole and then brought it to a halt, the whole object would tend to move back and forth. But it didn’t.”

The above comments were made by Dr. Robert Nathan of JPL and Dr. Robert Nathan of JPL made these comments at JPL. And Dr. Robert Nathan made these comments after looking at the Meiers video showing the flying saucer flying.

When questioned by an assistant, “Do you think it could have been tethered from someplace?” Dr. Nathan answered, “I have no idea. He would still have to be awfully clever, because that’s a very steady holding. It would have to be a very, very good tethering.”

The above comments were made by Dr. Robert Nathan who at the time worked for NASA’s JPL in Pasadena. Dr. Robert Nathan was the ‘father’ of image processing in the 1960’s and developed it for nearly twenty years.

Dr. Nathan, the father of image processing made it clear that he was looking at the photos and videos as an individual and not as a scientist for JPL and that any opinion he rendered would be his own. Not that of the NASA facility.

So when Dr. Robert Nathan, the father of image processing for NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratories made the statement about the Billy Meiers flying saucer videos: “The concern here is how he could very steadily move the object from one side of the scene to the other and have it come to an abrupt halt without it appearing to swing. If it were hanging from a long string, and you went ahead and moved the pole and then brought it to a halt, the whole object would tend to move back and forth. But it didn’t,” that statement is his, Dr. Robert Nathan and not as a scientist for NASA’s JPL.

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 the above statements by Dr. Robert Nathan, father of imaging processing for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratories appears exactly as Dr. Robert Nathan himself authorized it to appear.

As I have already posted:

-Malin has communicated that he never saw original pictures, but a digital representation (perhaps the one that Ken Dinwiddie was instructed to alter?). It also relayed that he couldn't tell if they were fake or not from the digital representations. It becomes very clear he didn't do any "analysis" on the photos at all. He said that his comments were taken out of context (shocker!).
His last words to me were:
"It really doesn't matter whether they're real or not. If they are real, the occupants don't want to have any substantive contact with us, and certainly they're not offering me a lift to Mars 8^). So screw them! If they're not real, who cares if some nut in Switzerland can make good fakes?"

Doesn't sound like a glowing review to me, however Horn puts forth Mr. Malin all the time as an expert who's given the Meier case the "okie doke". Simply untrue.

Robert Post of JPL had this to say:
Post acknowledges he was fascinated by the images, but was unable to perform a scientific analysis for two reasons: First, he isn't a photo analyst but rather the operator of a photo processing lab ("like you take your film to K-Mart", he said); and second, the pictures weren't originals but rather copies of originals - perhaps even copies of copies of copies. Such multiple copying tends to obscure delicate details, making it hard to detect evidence of fraud - e.g., threads supporting hubcaps.

In addition, when Post examined some images with a magnifying glass, he
realized "a lot of the pictures weren't really photographs at all - they were lithographs," or high-resolution ink prints made from photos - and, hence, were worthless for purposes of analysis. Furthermore, the photos were " a lot fuzzier than the stuff on the lithographs, and I thought that was a little strange." For that and other reasons, Post began to think, "`Nuts, maybe this guy is just a con man.' That's not the kind of guy I want to have anything to do with."

As far as the films? I invite everyone to do what I did, run them at 2X and watch how they move then. They swing, teeter, and in some cases appear to be pulled upwards like a man pulling lengths of string or monofilament as much as his arm can pull, then gathering and pulling again.

Robert Nathan, like many others only saw as much of this evidence as he was given, and none of it enough to make any judgement.

The films were what Nippon TV recorded off a projection screen. In fact, we've never seen raw film at all. Always Nippon's recording off the projection they were shown.

I'm sure if anyone of us were to contact Nathan just as I did Malin they'd find the exact opposite of what is published about them by supporters.

Originally posted by jritzmann

Robert Nathan, like many others only saw as much of this evidence as he was given, and none of it enough to make any judgment.

The films were what Nippon TV recorded off a projection screen. In fact, we've never seen raw film at all. Always Nippon's recording off the projection they were shown.

I'm sure if anyone of us were to contact Nathan just as I did Malin they'd find the exact opposite of what is published about them by supporters.

Pretty weak jritzmann. I would have expected better from you.

I find your statement, "Robert Nathan, like many others only saw as much of this evidence as he was given, and none of it enough to make any judgment" impotent at best.

Dr. Robert Nathan head of NASA's JPL imaging, father of imaging and you say he didn't see enough of the Meiers pictures to make any judgment? What are you? Nathans apologist? What about his statement” “The concern here is how he could very steadily move the object from one side of the scene to the other and have it come to an abrupt halt without it appearing to swing. If it were hanging from a long string, and you went ahead and moved the pole and then brought it to a halt, the whole object would tend to move back and forth. But it didn’t,”?

That’s Dr. Nathan judgment. That’s what he said. And he said it about the Meiers video. And Dr. Nathan is head of imaging at NASA JPL. And now you’re saying that Nathan didn’t see enough of the Meiers pictures to make a judgment. In whose opinion? It certainly isn’t in Dr. Nathans opinion because he is, in fact, making a judgment. He says, “The concern here is how he could very steadily move the object from one side of the scene to the other and have it come to an abrupt halt without it appearing to swing. If it were hanging from a long string, and you went ahead and moved the pole and then brought it to a halt, the whole object would tend to move back and forth. But it didn’t,”?

Now that’s a judgment if I ever heard one. He says, “The concern here is how he could very steadily move the object from one side of the scene to the other and have it come to an abrupt halt without it appearing to swing.” He is stating the concern.

Then he says, that is, Dr. Robert Nathan, head of NASA’s JPL imaging (the father of image processing) says, “If it were hanging from a long string, and you went ahead and moved the pole and then brought it to a halt, the whole object would tend to move back and forth,” in which he states the facts.

Then, Dr. Robert Nathan says, (remember that Dr. Robert Nathan is head of NASA’s JPL imaging), “If it were hanging from a long string, and you went ahead and moved the pole and then brought it to a halt, the whole object would tend to move back and forth.”

Then Dr. Nathan says, “But it didn’t”. He is making a judgment by stating a fact, “But it didn’t.” Meaning, but the flying saucer didn’t tend to move back and forth as if hanging from a pole with a long string.

I'm sure if anyone of us were to contact Nathan just as I did Malin they'd find the exact opposite of what is published about them by supporters.

Published by supporters? Simon and Schuster are supporters? Are you kidding? Simon and Schuster sell books. They don’t support the Meier case one way or another. All they wanted to know is if the scientists and engineers stood by their statements as printed in the book and they did.

Now 20 years later everybody wants to rewrite history?

I don’t think so.

But thanks for the post I always appreciate the chance to clarify the misunderstanding about the Billy Meiers case. The pictures were real and the videos were real. They were pictures of real flying saucers. As were the derogatorily referred to “Wedding Cake” flying saucer. The “Wedding Cake” was a real flying saucer and it was from outer space.

Originally posted by johnlear
The pictures were real and the videos were real. They were pictures of real flying saucers. As were the derogatorily referred to “Wedding Cake” flying saucer. The “Wedding Cake” was a real flying saucer and it was from outer space.

You stated above that the WCUFO is real and is from outerspace.

How does that above quote match with your previous quotes:

johnlear
My opinion is that it is real. Why does it look real? Because I know enough about this crazy stuff to give an educated guess. My educated guess is that it is real. If you had heard the stories I have heard over the 20 years, talked to the people I have talked to; seen the stuff I have seen; heard about the stuff I had heard; then you to would probbly say, yeah, the wedding cake is probably real.

johnlear
Actually, nothing is real. It is all an illusion.

johnlear
But the fact is I don't have the slightest idea of what a craft looks like that travels to interstellar space, and respectfully, neither do you. Maybe it doesn't look like that at all. Maybe that is a holograph surrounding the real craft. But, truthfully, for you to argue what can and what cannot travel to the stars is flat out ridiculous. You need to grab a bit of reality by the short hairs and admit we know nothing about nothing. We can speculate, but we are speculating from a knowledge based on speculation.

Again, johnlear - is it real or not? Does it travel through space or not? Why would you state that it is real, only to deny that reality is all an illusion? Why would you then offer that you don't have the slightest idea what a craft looks like that travels through outerspace and cause doubt that it may look like that anyway?

I try to understand your position, based on your reputation, as I don't personally know you. However, when I read such contradictions, I find it difficult to understand what you think about the WCUFO.

I feel the need to ask a very simple question about "the abrubt stopping without 'swinging'" issue.

I have been involved with enough TV post production to know that the editor's knife can EASILY make the "sway" disappear in post production. Is that not a possibility here? And if it is a possibility WHY on Earth (or anyother planet) would a guy at Nathan's level hold that up as a point of "wonderment" or even consideration much less make the statements he made?

Springer...

Originally posted by johnlear
Now 20 years later everybody wants to rewrite history?

I don’t think so.

20 years ago (?) the SFX in the movie Star Wars (or Close Encounters to keep it on topic) were pretty impressive to me back then although I have to admit it looks kind of cheesy in comparison to some of the amazing stuff coming out of Hollywood now.

Progress: What a concept eh?

Originally posted by johnlear
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?

No John, I'm saying that 20 years ago, when someone saw the pictures for the first time, they might have, at first, thought "gee, check out the ufo" and now, thanks to the internet, where there are so many pictures of ufos, both real and fake, available with the push of a button, those pics don't look anywhere near as real as what we see today.

And with regards to the one armed farmer shtick, why is that always a fall back? He has one arm. So what? There are people with no arms who can play the piano.

Here are two answers to the moronic assumption that Meier couldn't have producted all the hoaxed documents with one arm.

1. it would explain the crappy craftmanship that resulted in broken ufo parts showing up on film.
2. there are more people in Switzerland. He could have had some help.

John Lear
But thanks for the post I always appreciate the chance to clarify the misunderstanding about the Billy Meiers case. The pictures were real and the videos were real. They were pictures of real flying saucers. As were the derogatorily referred to “Wedding Cake” flying saucer. The “Wedding Cake” was a real flying saucer and it was from outer space.

John, I have to take my hat off to you for sticking by this obvious FAKE. I notice that you have not actually used the word FACT yet to describe these images or film, a word you never use in your replies to any questions raised about any of your posts regarding authenticity.

John I respectfully request you take a look at this, then tell me you still believe!








[edit on 17-5-2007 by smartie]

Originally posted by johnlear
Pretty weak jritzmann. I would have expected better from you.

If you think weak is exposing what Malin and Post *really* said, then thats totally your issue. I really have nothing more to say when it's right there and everyone sees it but yourself.

These experts, over and over have said they were not shown original data, but copies, lithographs, etc etc. None of it worthy of analysis.

I've contacted enough of these experts and bothered them over this stupidity, so I'll invite someone else to contact him objectively and ask him what his *real* opinion is.

Personally I think we've all gone over WELL enough to leave this case in the dirt where it belongs.

You'll never convince the believers, so no need to try.

Originally posted by Springer
I feel the need to ask a very simple question about "the abrubt stopping without 'swinging'" issue.

I have been involved with enough TV post production to know that the editor's knife can EASILY make the "sway" disappear in post production. Is that not a possibility here? And if it is a possibility WHY on Earth (or anyother planet) would a guy at Nathan's level hold that up as a point of "wonderment" or even consideration much less make the statements he made?

Springer...

There's no need to post edit. As I said, a 2X speed-up of the films show the real movement. Not only do I question Nathan's statements as being a true representative of his opinion, but we have no idea what he was exposed to as far as data, nor how much time he devoted to even looking at it. There's no "analysis report" from Nathan, and it most likely was only a cursory examination of a tape.

Originally posted by jritzmann

There's no "analysis report" from Nathan, and it most likely was only a cursory examination of a tape.

Which begs the question that Springer posed: Why would Dr. Robert Nathan, the father of digital imaging and NASA JPL head of digital imaging make the comments he did and why would he allow Simon and Schuster to publish those comments?

Dr. Nathan is not exactly an idiot. He had a chance to review his remarks. Why wouldn't he just say to Simon and Schuster, "Do not use my name in any manner with your book on Billy Meier".?

Originally posted by jritzmann

I really have nothing more to say when it's right there and everyone sees it but yourself.

Then on behalf of all of us on this thread we appreciate your input, bid you farewell, and pray that your word is your bond.

Thanks, Smartie for the link: Finally a bit of in-depth, well-documented analysis as opposed to lots of mud-slinging and "he said-she said" interpretive banter.

The trash can lid photo comparison was especially persuasive. Can the pro-Billy folks counter? All opinions are welcome, of course...

Kudos, S - a welcome breath of fresh air...

And now, back to the battlefield...

Originally posted by Outrageo

as opposed to lots of mud-slinging

Thanks for the post Outrageo. Could you please post an example of 'mudslinging'. I want to bring it to the attention of the management of ATS. Thanks.

The trash can lid photo comparison was especially persuasive. Can the pro-Billy folks counter? All opinions are welcome, of course...

I believe the defense was that the Plejarens have constantly beamed out design specs into the cosmos, so these designs just happened to get into the heads of the designers of the trash lids...

No, I'm actually serious...or at least the Meier camp is.... I can't even make this stuff up..... (I believe this was stated by Mr. Horn in the Guest Speaker Event here on ATS, if you need a reference)...

[edit on 17-5-2007 by Gazrok]

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post Outrageo. Could you please post an example of 'mudslinging'. I want to bring it to the attention of the management of ATS. Thanks.

let's make a deal. The moderators will moderate the forums, you stick to discussing the topic at hand, which I will remind you is the Meier Contact Hoax (?) and the focus at this point is why you still believe it.

k?

thanx.

Originally posted by Outrageo

The trash can lid photo comparison was especially persuasive. Can the pro-Billy folks counter? All opinions are welcome, of course...

Yes, they can. That's already been posted and buried somewhere above, but here's the quote from FIGU:

We thoroughly investigated the entire situation and discovered that the old, newly re-emerged drawings were used for the design and production of these receptacle covers. The covers were completely different from anything the designers had previously produced. Normally they designed lids with simple lines and never with shapes that could be called futuristic and complicated. This, then, is how the shape of the container covers came about, which, as I mentioned earlier, strikingly resemble the lower rim section and undercarriage on our flying devices."

In other words, the garbage can lid manufacturer copied the design from the UFO.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by schuyler]

Originally posted by schuyler
In other words, the garbage can lid manufacturer copied the design from the UFO.

it actually makes sense. think about it. the craft the aliens are flying around in seem to have pieces that break off all the time. here on earth, when you have something that always has one broken part, we call it junk. can you think of a better marketing plan than showing that your garbage can lids are so high tech that they are just like the garbage in Meier's photos?

Originally posted by Crakeur

let's make a deal.

There will be no deal until the 'mudslingers' are brought to justice! Your attempt to let the mudslingers off without penalty will not be tolerated.

Outrageo its up to you to help us bring these 'mudslingers' to justice. Cracker is trying to get them off the hook. All you have to do is post several examples of 'mudslinging' which I can bring to the attention of the Moderators.

Thank you in advance for your help in bringing, "Truth, Justice and the American Way" to ATS.

No need to sling mud when the facts will do.

The Meier camp's own statements and outrageous defenses (The Swiss MIBs switched the photos, pics from magazines-really?, the trash can lid designers copied our UFOs, cobbled together toy ray guns) tear down the case far more than any "mudslinging" is capable of.....