Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

Click here for more information.

reply to post by newinitationed


And yet another previously banned member returns to continue to try and defend the Meier case by pointing out imaginary holes on the debunking process while rudely insulting all those that dare to disagree with him.. Wasn't Newinitiation one of the Horn identities?


Previousl profile of returning banned member





[edit on 25-5-2008 by Tiloke]

Well then, why did he make those photos? I can entertain the idea of him getting carried away, trying to make more evidence. You have to admit though, it doesn't make him look credible. You can't expect people to believe them. Why did he take pictures of dinos from books? Why did he use the Sears models? Why? You have an insane story thats hard to believe without proof- he gives you fake proof- and thats supposed to make it better? Why would this get heated?
The believers should be more down to earth about it. "Yeah, those pictures are crazy, I think he just got carried away. blah blah blah...."
Instead we get ".....Hot Dang Debunkers! You never believe in the truth! Whats wrong with you!, blah blah blah...."
Or the John Lear "...its just true!"
And really, I like his ufo pics, just for camp value. Too bad the perspective is shot. Maybe he did meet aliens, but he had to go and screw it up.

(Though....The one time I took these pictures of a "grey", somebody broke into my house and replaced them with naked pictures of John Goodman, when I went to show my friends nobody believed me.)

reply to post by jetflock


About the models photos, you can find an explanation in here: www.futureofmankind.co.uk...

I know that those photos can make Billy look bad. Still, it doesn't seem too hard to accept the explanations given. Those who have difficulty in accepting the case due to whatever beliefs that they have, however, will very likely use those photos as a justification for their rejection.

About the dinosaur photos my opinion is that there is no reason for controversy since the photo is not an exact match of the illustration. This matter was discussed here already, six pages ago, in case you haven't seen it.

c'mon dude, the dino pic is fake. he didn't scan the picture he took it with a camera facing the picture. the degraded shot and angle won't match perfectly.
This kind of analysis reminds me of the Paul is dead hoax, ( which I love because I think its obnoxious fun, lol), depending on the camera and lens the image shall be distorted.

[edit on 26-5-2008 by jetflock]

Shure, taking a photo of something is not the same as scanning it. Perspective, focus, reflections, light sources, lens distortions, all those things are to be accounted for.

But none of those things are so evident here that it could tell us if this photo is the photo of a print/drawing or not. On the other hand, if it is, it doesn't seem possible to me that it is a photo of this illustration in particular.

Look for example at the head. Namely, the top profile of it. Notice how in the illustration the profile is concave (the forehead/eyes part is recessed in relation to the horn and the top of the beak. In the photo the opposite happens. The skull/forehead is much bigger than in the illustration and stands out, making a convex line.

By flipping between the images in the computer it becomes very clear. Notice also how the neck is ticker and the belly is bigger in the photo while other distances stay the same.

Only if the illustration was like ten feet high and you were standing next to it with a wide-eye lens camera could you make something concave look convex (if you could do that at all). But then, the illustration would look totally distorted in the photo.

This crop of a video by Randolph Winters where he is showing the photo exemplifies a certain perspective distortion without any changes in proportions. It seems closer to the illustration in certain aspects. But the head is still very different.

c'mon, gimme a break. they are the same image. the dang bird is dropping the same piece of meat even.

Well okay then, I'll just crop the piece of meat out. It's better to look at the details.
Look at the upper line of the lower jaw:



Another thing: It is clearly seen that the one on the right is a drawing. The same can't be said of the one in the left. It could be a photo of a more accomplished drawing, though. Or a photo of something else.

A marker and some white out. You want to believe so badly that this is real. Are you going to do this for the women as well?

I'm just examining these photos. It's got nothing to do with what I believe or what I want to believe. I'm just being objective. I'm not making any assumptions, just stating facts.

your facts are full of holes, thats all. Its the same picture.

All I have to say to this entire discussion and this goes to a lot of people, not trying to pin anyone in particular.

A lie told enough times eventually becomes the truth.

So if the pictures are real then wow, I'm impressed, but if they are fake Meier might actually believe they are real since he has been telling the story, or whatever you want to call it, for so long.

Let us assume you are speaking to an agnostic... one who needs physical proof before belief in non-evolution is even a consideration.

I have listened to Billy Meiers Tapes - all 16.
I have watched many documentaries, both for and against the Case of Billy Meier.
I have read the Talmud of Jmmanuel - the 36 discovered chapters.
I have read the discovered scrolls of St. Peter, who says Jesus was not crucified.
I have read the gospel of St. Barnabas.
I have read some of Billy's books.

It is not that I doubt Billy, I feel that Billy may be given only choice information that satisfies the needs of the E.T's but not necessarily the need of us information hungry and impatient beings. I come to my conclusion as such:

Let us assume we take all mono' Religions, religions which believe in this God, who is the ultimate source of creation.

You have in Chronological order:

1. Jewish Book of Revelation
2. Christian Book of Revelation
3. Islamic Book of Revelation

Now the interesting aspect here is that except for the third book, all others were scribed later. The 3rd book was memorized when revealed (peace meal over 23 years direct from Gabriel) so there was no discrepancy in the text from that time to this and today I understand they learn it by heart still.

Much of what Billy says is already revealed in these texts of the 3rd revelation... but the interesting thing is that in not one of Billy's works have I come across any references to this book. A book preaching peace, inner growth and unity with ones own spirit and ultimately with an entity who is neither male nor female but simply exists (God?).

I mean if there were 3 revelations and the latter has been kept literally preserved in the hearts of individuals over so many years... would you not refer to "Version 3" of revelation? why the constant diss. of version 2.1? That just doesn't make sense.

Here's an interesting point also: There is no mention of Islams Prophet having spent 27 years in the celestial skies who was taken to the end of the Universe, where Gabriel could apparently travel no further. Billy says Gabriel was of a more advanced race than the E.T's in contact with him... this according to the E.T's themselves, of which there are many many more advanced civilizations.

The talks and writings always address the inconsistencies with Revelation 2 and the wrongness of the Revelation 1's belief of "being the chosen ones"... The only mention of Revelation 3 by Billy is "terrorists who did the 9/11" - of which we have concrete government suspicions now surfacing... so that's inconsistent too.

This only the tip of the iceberg...

Another example would be that the E.T's told Billy that there was a force that aided Hitler's regime in destroying the Jews of the time, this force is now assisting America in it's "machinist capitalist regime to police the world"... but the E.T's are not sure what this force is and where it is taken from? Surely a super developed creature would know this?

There are many many references in Billy's materials which are internally contradictory, by potentially contradictory information is given to him...

Having objectively read many many "revelational texts" in the eyes of modern knowledge, it seems that the only text, including any of Billy's, not contradictory and indeed not hypocritical to todays scientific findings are those revealed in No. 3. In fact at one point in the book, the Creator throws down the gauntlet, and challenges the reader to come up with one chapter in comparison, if you succeed, then then you can say it's not from your creator.

I say the above with no disrespect intended to any individual or group. It is my attempt to understand our inner universe and I hope that those helping me on my journey of self growth will appreciate the path I am on, and that I am not here to debate your beliefs, but question and fine tune mine.

But none of those things are so evident here that it could tell us if this photo is the photo of a print/drawing or not. On the other hand, if it is, it doesn't seem possible to me that it is a photo of this illustration in particular.

Are you serious?
The light spot in the head is similar.
The light spot in the body is similar.
The pose is nearly identical.
Even the piece of meat is right there.

So either you'd have to believe:
1. Billy took an existing illustration and modified it only slightly.
or
2. Billy went back in time with the aliens and took a photo of a dinosaur in nearly the exact same pose, angle, with the same coloration, and going after the same piece of meat, as an existing illustration.

Are you even listening to that line of logic? I have better odds of being hit by a crashing plane which was put down by lightning, while checking the numbers of my winning lottery ticket in a rainstorm of snakes!

As far as explanation of the models, yes, we've heard the "Swiss MIBs switched my photo argument"...it's almost (but not quite) as bad as "well, the reason the bottom of the wedding cake UFO looks like my trash can lid, is that the aliens transmit their basic designs throughout the Universe, so obviously, some trash can lid designer picked up on this"...

Taken as a whole, it simply forces one to logically dismiss all of Meiers' claims.

Originally posted by Gazrok

So either you'd have to believe:
1. Billy took an existing illustration and modified it only slightly.
or
2. Billy went back in time with the aliens and took a photo of a dinosaur in nearly the exact same pose, angle, with the same coloration, and going after the same piece of meat, as an existing illustration.

I would like to add two other options:

3. The illustration's artist copied Billy's photo, either consciously (by being given acess to a copy of the photo), or unconsciously (by being subliminarly directed to create a drawing resembling the photo, based on a image implanted in his mind by the "Gizeh Intelligences" or some other group determined to undermine Meier's credibility)

4. Nothing

The 3rd hypothesis is one that I find likely, or at least feasible. It's not claimed by Meier or FIGU. I'm not defending it. Where it concerns the comparison of these images the category I'm in is the 4th. I'm not caring about explanations or implications. Any comparison must be done focusing only on the photos, and not using it as a means to defend any position.

That one can't be a photographical representation of the other seems clear to me. Like you said, they are nearly in the exact same pose, etc. Nearly is not the same. If one single thing is different, then obviously it can’t be the same, no matter how much the rest may look similar. That’s why it’s enough to see the difference between the heads of these birds to say that it’s not the same thing. Mentioning other parts of the pictures that are more similar is irrelevant.

I am posting below three photos wich, according to you, were all taken from the same subject. Do they seem to you like three photos of the same subject? Can’t you tell wich are the ones that were taken by me? I’ve tried to make my photos look like Meier’s photo, but I can’t make a photo look different from what I photograph (weird, hum?) You don’t you try, and see if you can take a photo of the illustration that looks like Meier’s photo?

Photo of the illustration in a computer screen

Photo of the printed illustration

Photo of ?

Well, I don't know why I'm doing this but I thought I'd make an animated gif comparing these two images. Here it is.




It's apparent that the distortion came from paper being slightly warped or lens. You are welcome to draw your own conclusion.

I gotta throw this out there and I know I cannot be the only one speculating this in the back of my/your mind.

What if 10% of what Billy claimed is true and the rest has been disinfo by those pesky men in black and their black helicopters?

If this is the case than they are REALLY good at their jobs considering every post I have read in this thread so far.

And there is always that 10% chance that keeps me reading anything that is brought up about Billy.

Deaf Alien's gif pretty much cinches it, no?

3. The illustration's artist copied Billy's photo, either consciously (by being given acess to a copy of the photo), or unconsciously (by being subliminarly directed to create a drawing resembling the photo, based on a image implanted in his mind by the "Gizeh Intelligences" or some other group determined to undermine Meier's credibility)

Of course, that's certainly plausible... (listens for planes and looks for lightning while scratching off a lotto ticket)... Are you serious? Did you even check to see when the drawing was done? No "group" needs to undermine Meiers' credibility, he does a fantastic job of this all on his own....

4. Nothing

That one can't be a photographical representation of the other seems clear to me. Like you said, they are nearly in the exact same pose, etc. Nearly is not the same. If one single thing is different, then obviously it can’t be the same, no matter how much the rest may look similar. That’s why it’s enough to see the difference between the heads of these birds to say that it’s not the same thing. Mentioning other parts of the pictures that are more similar is irrelevant.

As just shown, differences can be effected with angling the source paper, etc. in the photo. Not to mention, the VERY SLIGHT differences are simply WAY too close to assume CHANCE here... This is deliberate forgery and use of the image...even if a separate piece of art was done on the basis of the source....it's a frickin' match...and obvious that this is no mere coincidence (or subconscious influence from the multiverse, like the trash can lid... )

What if 10% of what Billy claimed is true and the rest has been disinfo by those pesky men in black and their black helicopters?

It's often Billy's own statements that have provided the most discrediting evidence...


[edit on 25-6-2008 by Gazrok]

Lens distortions? Only if the lenses had some major manufacturing defects.
Warped paper? Pfff…
Only if a photo was taken of the illustration and then heated up with a lighter, for example.
But… Why do that? Just to fool me? Being that I seem to be the only one paying any attention to those anomalies…
It would be like they were expecting to be caught…
Highly strange, to say the least.
In my view, Deaf Alien’s animation proves my points. At least, someone is admitting the differences!
Another thing: Meier’s photo looks pretty good/natural for a warped piece of photo paper or film, if that would be the case.
As a matter of fact, such distortion would be clearly perceived as such when comparing the two images…
Meier’s photo looks much more natural to me than the illustration.
I will not rush to any conclusion about these photos. I am just very skeptical of the “photo of illustration” hypotesis.