Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

Originally posted by torsion


Well, that's none other that our good friend, John Lear

I dont think going after John Lear is the way to go.

I dont think any of billy meiers pics that i have seen are legit, but i do think there is a chance he was visited by some Nordics.

Originally posted by moderndayHanSolo
I dont think any of billy meiers pics that i have seen are legit, but i do think there is a chance he was visited by some Nordics.

'Nordics' in the classical sense of ufology, have nothing to do with the Meier case. But maybe I've read a whole lot more then most people in this thread.

Originally posted by TerraX

Originally posted by moderndayHanSolo
I dont think any of billy meiers pics that i have seen are legit, but i do think there is a chance he was visited by some Nordics.

'Nordics' in the classical sense of ufology, have nothing to do with the Meier case. But maybe I've read a whole lot more then most people in this thread.

you may be right, but the people he describes seem like nordics.

what makes you an expert on nordics and meier???



[edit on 20-5-2007 by moderndayHanSolo]

spacevisitor, this is a very belated response.

If you had read totally the link I gave you, you would realise how obvious this fake is. I have worked in photo retouching and manipulation for the last 20 years and I can assure you that I could come up with better images myself.

I once saw a video of randolph winters talking about billy and showing some videos billy shot of the ufos. On the videos he shows the Suacers tend move slightly while hovering in the air similar to the way a boat will float on water when stationary. He even explains this is because the suacers 'swim' in electrons.

However I just saw a video on www.steelmarkonline.com... shot by billy and the ufo is totaly still unlike the videos randolph winter was showing.

Scroll down to the "A video segment taken at Bachtel on April 3, 1981"

I would just like to mention that every attempt to debunk the Billy Meier photos of flying saucers in the past 52 pages has used photos posted on the web from various sources. All of those sources (including those alleged to be 'official' sources) are using at least 2nd, 3rd, 4th and possibly higher generations of contaminated photos.

Not one of those photos can be proven to have been taken from a negative from Billy Meiers camera to the web without at least several generations of manipulation.

That means that every attempt to debunk the Billy Meiers photos is using contaminated evidence methodology. In other words: garbage in garbage out.

It’s pretty embarrassing that on a website where so many pride themselves on denying ignorance that so many of the same are attempting to deny ignorance with contaminated data. In other words, “This photo is a fake. Look! There is a real bolt that proves it!”

I doubt if anyone, anywhere will ever prove the Billy Meier case, photos and videos, false, or true.

Certainly not with multi-generation contaminated photos.

My opinion is that the Billy Meier original photos and original video are real and show real technology from far beyond this earth.

Originally posted by smartie
spacevisitor, this is a very belated response.
If you had read totally the link I gave you, you would realise how obvious this fake is. I have worked in photo retouching and manipulation for the last 20 years and I can assure you that I could come up with better images myself.

Hi smartie,
I advise you strongly to read these.

www.theyfly.com...


www.theyfly.com...


In addition, for what it’s worth, I am convinced that it is precise as John Lear is saying.

Mr. Lear,

Anyone with a basic understanding of image processing and photography can detect the fact that these images are fabricated hoaxes, even without access to original film or negatives. The Meierites refuse to release original negatives for analysis, because they know that would be the end of the viability of their photographic "evidence" for the ignorant masses, their "customers" ( a term used by their shill).

You are entitled to you beliefs about these images, but the fact, yes FACT, is that they are fabricated with very little attention paid to detail. You may choose to ignore the mountains of photographic analysis which prove they are faked. I would never engage you in a debate regarding aviation - you are the clear expert on that topic - but your opinions regarding the veracity of these photographs hold no weight with myself or anyone else who is reasonably knowledgeable regarding image processing and photography.

And please try to not engage in the tired old routine of citing ancient testimony of folks who have no experience in the fabrication of images, or visual special effects. It's the equivalent of asking an oceanographer about creating believable recreations of ships for motion pictures - they might know a heck of a lot about the science of the ocean, but chances are that not a single one can tell you that 1/6 scale is the magic number for creating convincing wave and water dynamics when doing miniature photography effects.

Your beliefs are just that, beliefs. The photographic nonsense offered by the Meierites is clearly fabricated. I KNOW this - belief never enters the picture, so to speak.

dB

[edit on 22-5-2007 by davidbiedny]

Originally posted by davidbiedny

Mr. Lear,

Anyone with a basic understanding of image processing and photography can detect the fact that these images are fabricated hoaxes.

Dr. Robert Nathan didn't.
Dr. Michael Malin didn't.
Eric Eliason didn't.

Oh wait. Maybe you meant anyone other than Nathan, Malin and Eliason!

Hey David. Why don't you fabricate one for us so we can see how easy it is?

Originally posted by johnlear
Hey David. Why don't you fabricate one for us so we can see how easy it is?

Spoken like a true Meierite. As if it would prove anything - Jeff Ritzmann did exactly that, and the psychotic bulldog shill attacked him and dragged his name through much mud.

Thanks for making serious, sober discussion of UFOs that much more difficult, Lear.

You're absolutely right, when you state this about yourself...

"I am not the brightest crayon in the box, I am extremely lazy, I have a smart mouth and a real poor #ing attitude."

No kidding.

dB

Originally posted by johnlear
It’s pretty embarrassing that on a website where so many pride themselves on denying ignorance that so many of the same are attempting to deny ignorance with contaminated data. In other words, “This photo is a fake. Look! There is a real bolt that proves it!”

One does not need original source materials to understand this proves the hoax --

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.

Originally posted by johnlear


Hey David. Why don't you fabricate one for us so we can see how easy it is?

I'm really new here and I might have misunderstood you. I'm thinking you're asking David to fabricate a ufo picture to see how easy it is...

I think these people did just that.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

One does not need original source materials to understand this proves the hoax --

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.

'Must be', 'somehwere', 'even if' 'gargantuan'.....mister.old.school. with all due respect. 'this clearly shows' nothing with 'absolute certainty'. If you pinning the debunking of every single Meier photo on this one, a hazy, indistinct, 4th generation, contaminated photo then you know what? You need to go back to the old school. Thanks.

Originally posted by johnlearThat means that every attempt to debunk the Billy Meiers photos is using contaminated evidence methodology. In other words: garbage in garbage out.

Hang on, is that the garbage that goes in the can where the lid was used for the WCUFO?

Regardless of how many times the WCUFO has been reproduced, it still shows the lid of a garbage can.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Hang on, is that the garbage that goes in the can where the lid was used for the WCUFO?

Regardless of how many times the WCUFO has been reproduced, it still shows the lid of a garbage can.

I think I see what you mean, well then, garbage can in, garbage can out!

Originally posted by kontol

You are nothing just a pilot.

Not anymore. I retired 6 years ago.

do you know how many pilots in this world? You are just another piece of junk, yes you John Lear is nothing than a piece of junk.

I agree with you 100%. And you know what? I FEEL like a piece of junk.

Get off ok?

That would be nice.

Originally posted by Cassiel

Originally posted by johnlear


Hey David. Why don't you fabricate one for us so we can see how easy it is?

I'm really new here and I might have misunderstood you. I'm thinking you're asking David to fabricate a ufo picture to see how easy it is...

I think these people did just that.

good find!! i personally think meier is full of it. The pics are just too cheezy.

John
Has any photo expert you know of, ever analyzed any Meier negitives?
I mean actual Negatives.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by davidbiedny

Mr. Lear,

Anyone with a basic understanding of image processing and photography can detect the fact that these images are fabricated hoaxes.

Dr. Robert Nathan didn't.
Dr. Michael Malin didn't.
Eric Eliason didn't.

Oh wait. Maybe you meant anyone other than Nathan, Malin and Eliason!

Hey David. Why don't you fabricate one for us so we can see how easy it is?

Originally posted by Cassiel

I'm really new here and I might have misunderstood you. I'm thinking you're asking David to fabricate a ufo picture to see how easy it is...

I think these people did just that.

Nope. You must be new here. Take a good look at the flying saucers in the right hand column and then compare them to the alleged flying saucers in the left hand column. They don't look the same at all. And there is no wedding cake!

Originally posted by johnlear
Nope. You must be new here. Take a good look at the flying saucers in the right hand column and then compare them to the alleged flying saucers in the left hand column. They don't look the same at all. And there is no wedding cake!

They don't have to look EXACTLY the same. Meier's beam ships don't either. They're different from each other (New models, they explain). The point is that good-looking UFO photos can be made in the manner of Meier pretty easily, and this is what that shows. As for the wedding cake, it's a good thing it isn't there. There is a clear deterioration of the quality of picture from Meier over time. The first ones in the "Contact from the Pleaides" series of two coffee table books (I have multiple copies of these books, plus Kinder) are excellent compared to the shabby wedding cake era stuff of more recent days. It's as if these guys don't care to put in the effort any more.

John, you can't possibly believe this stuff. You failed to reply to my extensive post on this issue. If I'm right, then you actually don't believe this stuff. You're just playing around, tongue in cheek. Retirement can be a bitch, can't it? And in Las Vegas it's too darned hot to go outside, so another day sitting in front of the screen, perpetually on ATS, the most addictive site on the web. We should both get out more.