Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

Originally posted by EffEcTiVe_UniT
Not impressed with the deletion of the IIG topic. Shows how biased some people are towards information.

Now that is out of the way.

Lets repeat to what i had to say...In the chronicles of Billy meier the documentary, jim dilettoso clearly said that he was examining multiple pictures as they were to see if anything was presented as a hoax. He said there was none that he could find.

Now once again i like to get this off my chest. Billys wife and her "debunking billy" Look here.

www.youtube.com...

also in there near the end is jim dilletoso looking at the picture while saying that this isnt the first picture as he did looked at other billy pictures.

www.youtube.com...

above is the 4th part in the beggining jim admits himself that he thinks its genuine as in no models or tampering.

Let it keep playing and you will hear the sound results.

Lets start with that and build our discussion from this.

[edit on 21-4-2009 by EffEcTiVe_UniT]

I think the most fascinating and impressive thing about the sound evidence is how the sound expert is able to draw the shape of the field from the sounds and it happens to match the bottom of Semjase's beamship. Anyway we know how UFO's work now. It's all in the field they generate.

Originally posted by dmorgan
Ahh that's the whole problem with the people who call this a hoax, they haven't done the research.

Well, if a person does read up on his material, and does the research, would it matter anyway if the person reaches another conclusion? That's a honest question.
Billy Meier supporters are often reluctant to accept other persons opinion about the case no matter how well formulated. And get this, that's why Meier supporters get so much 'flak' in return. You don't want to accept anything other than Meier is the genuine article and when other people show to you the fallacies, you come up with one hypothetical theory after another why it isn't so. It boils down strictly to what you prefer, not what is reasonable.

You know, I've researched the case. Pretty much read everything that's availible on the internet (in English), bought Randolph Winters book and a decade ago I even purchased material from FIGU (several contact notes). From my perspective I can say that I did research the case. Don't tell me I have to read everything Meier published because what's (freely) availible right now is more than enough to formulate an educated opinion about the case. Billy Meier and his supporters have done a wonderful job at disseminating the even more bizarre and outlandish stuff. It's all there.

Originally posted by EffEcTiVe_UniT
www.youtube.com...
also in there near the end is jim dilletoso looking at the picture while saying that this isnt the first picture as he did looked at other billy pictures.

Bit off a side topic here but did you learn about the relationship between Billy Meier and Lee&Brit Elders later on, after this documentary was filmed? Here's a request, don't reply if you don't know.

I know that lee/brit did not know about billy meier before the investigation, but as for afterwards. Only lee and brit or billy could answer that question.

terrax, i personally never reject anything. I sit down with both sides and i draw a conclusion based upon my thinking. Most of the time i side with billy meier because i cannot bring myself to understand the opposition of the billy meier case. To me i feel that the billy meier case has provided more logical reasons and evidence to me. Ofcourse everyone is entitled to their opinion. But unfortunately opinionis can lead to dealy misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Lets not call it opinions anymore...lets call it...a perspective. Now what is the difference. Opinion could be a personal believe. A perspective is based on a fact or a different side of the story.

Think about it. If we say something that we know its true according to our own thoughts. Would we call it an opinion? No we would call it a fact.

If we are speculating. Would that be more like "well heres a different side of the story" As in looking at a story/case/subject in a difffernt way in hopes of discussing and elevating our thinking to new grounds.

Unfortunately the whole thread of the billy meier cases, are based more on opinions rather then perspectives. If my memory serves me correct i was always just speculating. I never said that this was the truth and that you people are wrong. I was always open to new ideas and enjoyed every post as i am accumulating experiences and different perspectives. This can also be related to krishnamurti or meier as both of these very intelligent men(regardless of meiers evidence) as they mention/talk about these common problems.

Think about it. How do we really grow up? How do we gain knowledge or wisdom. Through Experience. Experience can be attained from different perspectives and work. Later then we gather this experience and disseminate it and use what we honestly think is the best conclusion. But the most important thing is to remain open to new ideas, regardless if it means that it threatens our current believes/thinking structures.

I am not moving away from the billy meier case, but rather then....trying out a new approach. As i observed from the forums, people is too forceful with their ideas of structural believes or something similar. I dont want to get into fist fights or arguing as this clearly is not the answer. Like what does that really fix. Nothing it only surpresses opinions for a while until it comes back as a cannonball.

Just wanted to insert my 2 cents in here. I dont intend this for any offence, but rather to invoke a new style or way of thinking.

Originally posted by TerraX

Originally posted by dmorgan
Ahh that's the whole problem with the people who call this a hoax, they haven't done the research.

Well, if a person does read up on his material, and does the research, would it matter anyway if the person reaches another conclusion? That's a honest question.
Billy Meier supporters are often reluctant to accept other persons opinion about the case no matter how well formulated. And get this, that's why Meier supporters get so much 'flak' in return. You don't want to accept anything other than Meier is the genuine article and when other people show to you the fallacies, you come up with one hypothetical theory after another why it isn't so. It boils down strictly to what you prefer, not what is reasonable.

I think this a bit of a generalization and an inaccurate one to boot. All I have seen so far is nothing more than scoffing and ridiculing by those who oppose Meier, not well formulated opinions, not even civil opinions. They are not even prepared to accept the possibility that Meier might be true, but we on the other hand have said many times that there is a possibility that Meier is a hoax and the only way to find out is discuss the evidence. The evidence so far can be summarized into 2 strong points:

1. The Irreproducability of Meier's photos and videos with small models and strings.
2. The hundres of pages of scientific reports corroborating that Meier's material is genuine i.e., the ufos are indeed very large objects of 20-30feet, they are indeed up to hundred feet above the ground, they do not use strings, wires or other supports, and they indeed do put out an artificial field; the metal sample indeed is beyond terrestrial technology, the sound sample is irreproducible with even state of the art sound equipment and engineers from the 70's.

These are arguments that the opponent must engage for there to be a rational discussion. They are our strongest arguments, and it is mainly because of these arguments we have such strong support for Meier. If these arguments can be defeated, then we will have to retract our support. However, if and only if, the opponent can rationally demonstrate counter-arguments that defeat them. If they just assert an opinion, "He's a hoax because the ray-gun looks tacky" or "The weddingcake is a trash can, because something sticks out of it" don't be surprised when we ignore it.

[edit on 21-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

to add to indigos comment, the "debunkers" label us "meierites". I think this is personally offensive and that mods should give warnings to such personal group attacks such as this. Do we label you as something bad? No we dont. So i would like to kindly ask you to not refer us meierites just because we have certain opinions and/or perspectives.

It could be like a person who critisizes the government. they call you aterrorist. But are you?

Originally posted by EffEcTiVe_UniT
aspie, that was a personal attack. ATS is strick on personal attacks. You should bge temporary banned for this personal slander.

Is it just me or the IIG topic is "Not Found"

Grow up.

To reply to someone in the now defunct other Meier thread, they said something along the lines of 'so you're saying all religions are cults?'. Well I myself have no belief in god and I absolutely abhor anything to do with religion. So yes to me all religions are cults.

I suppose this video fits in a way in this Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion thread.
It's about a lie detector test of Eduard ‘Billy’ Meier and inquiries of some other material of him.
The video starts with the lie detector test.

reply to post by spacevisitor


Sheesh...i really tried to avoid this "thread", but this entire lie detector thing that's being held so high by the ...ehm....meier defenders is kind of ridiculous.
You can easily cheat polygraphs that are build on modern technics, if you know how. How advanced do you really think these have been in the hippy era ? Unreliable piece of junk and that's exactly what the results are.

And just because i find it incredibly funny to quote
from the mouth of madness himself ( us.figu.org... )

Semjase: Certainly. But we've kept an eye on you because you have been preoccupied with these problems for thousands of years within other personalities and because you think and act in a real and honest way; and because you have already frequently carried out such a mission in your former lives, even though for us, great mysteries surround this fact.
Billy: Thanks for the "flowers" [colloq. German for compliments].
---snip---
Billy: Are you thinking of the same method by which you brought me here?
Semjase: You are really very knowledgeable and a credit to us.
Billy: Thank you.

i can't even make it past the first contact.....comedy gold

Cheers

aspie, so its ok for you skeptics to slander us calling us followers/meierites/etc....but when we try to label you guys you immediately go on the offensive side? How is that fair.

The fact that the topic closed down convieniently right after derek bart. admitted that he has not fully conducted research on it says something about this forum. How can we have a fair discussion when we prove people are wrong beyond a reasonable doubt and someone covers it up.

I am beggining to think that the ATS mods dont like the billy meier case as demonstrated from the site owner and his extremely ignorant statement goes to show that ATS mods ARE biased. Because if they werent, we would still be talking in the IIG investigation.

What is the point in talking about something the mods doesnt aqpprove. Its the same as no one believed the world was round. All it took is 2 people to prove the world wrong. As some of you witnessed, there was members that believed the case was genuine. there was other members that had a change of heart and was WILLING to investigate MORE in the billy meier case which most of you dont even have the nerve to do. Becaquse if you actually did. Me + Indigo + malcram would not constantily answer the same questions. A prime example would be his wife. If you watch any documentary in 1970's with billy you will ALWAYS see his wife vouching for him? AND the 30 min interview with poopy and others and about the lie detector and many other aggresive questions. The personality just does not quit. But yet people still bring the fact that his wife debunks him. If you did your research you would know this already. Another one is does anyone even pay attention to the contact notes. Because if you did you would get alot of prophecies in there.

For example. Water on mars.

www.economist.com...

Billy beat them by nearly 30 years in the following exerp of the contact.

Meier- You are right, too. Yet now another question: You had once told me that no life would exist on Mars. If I have understood this right, you meant by this but planetarian human life, didn't you?

Semjase- 114/Certainly.

Meier- Well - then your earlier answer does not exclude (the possibility) that any other life of floric or faunic form can exist there, or even does exist. You then told (me) expressly, that life does not exist there, while logically you had addressed only the human planetary life. What do you think now, Will the Americans discover low forms of life with their sonde sent to Mars?

Semjase- 115/They will meet with surprises in many respects, as in the fact that Mars has much more water than earthly science had assumed until now.
116/ But there are also surprises in the character of the ground and the nature of the microworld.
117/The floric and faunic world can absolutely be found on Mars when the scientific instruments of these sondes are well enough to evaluate and store the concerned results.

Meier- Then "life on Mars" could prove true for our science?

Semjase- 118/It is in the compass of possibility, that the analyses could verify this, when the scientific instruments are good enough, because faunic and floric forms of life are existing on Mars, even though this planet destroys other forms of life by its contrary to life nature.

among many others which is presented in just common talk.

What about James Randi retracts his statements after IIG failed to even produce a single photo for what...5 years now. No im not michael horn.

IF this was such an easy thing to do, why not just make a photo and submit it to testing using 1970 technology. When you start providing specific scientific results attached with your methods/explanations/model shots/etc...maybe you would hold more credibility.

But you guys already looked at that so you must know more then i do when i studied his materials for nearly 4 years. Something to think about

[edit on 21-4-2009 by EffEcTiVe_UniT]

Is it possible that this UFO/ET case was deliberately turned into a Hoax.
Many would say that that is impossible because the evidence would speak for itself.
However, it is easy to create false evidence and spread out a lot of disinformation.
These methods have bin used for decades now and so far with great success.
So the answer is unhesitating YES, it is possible to turn abundantly clear UFO/ET cases into a Hoax.

It happened for example with major UFO/ET cases like Roswell, New Mexico, July 1947, Varginha, Brazil, January 1996, Rendlesham Forest, England, December 1980.

Here is some interesting information related to this case.

February 1989, letter from a security agent to Lt. Col., USAF (Ret) Wendelle C. Stevens.

Part one.

Dear Mr Stevens
A friend of mine, Tom Farr, dropped off a copy of MESSAGE FROM THE PLEIADES. I found it very Interesting. Tom had previously given me another book about Billy Meier, which was also interesting.

The following is information you might find interesting.The American Government did what could be called an extensive soft touch investigation of Billy, when he first attracted public attention to himself, to find out if the contact was in fact for real. The Decision was in his favor. It was extensive investigation, because of the unusual features in Billy's case.
Billy, as an individual, and a citizen of another country, had an American intelligence gathering organization look him over from ass hole to appetite. He passed the inspection rather well, but has not gone off the deep end, as predicted by the personality profile done on him. It of course goes without saying that he had the intelligence gathering community of his own country look him over.

The American investigation was of the light touch vanity(forfenglighet), meaning use no force, make no scars, and leave no traces of the investigation. Which is to say play tourist, pack a camera, and take a lot of pictures, tell a lot of lies, and ask a lot of questions. Host countries(vertslandets-) intelligence systems get pissed(lei), if they catch you screwing off on their turf. So do not accuse us of any breakins, and that type of thing, because it happened back in the days when Billy was in fact liberal with what he gave away. Your book indicates that he has up graded his record keeping sense the early days.

In the other book on Billy there was a big deal about the films, and having them tested. In one specific incident the film tested was believed to be a copy, and not the original negative as Billy thought. Sorry about that.The way we got copies of Billy's pictures was by paying off the man who handled the film processing for Billy. The man simply ordered a second set of pictures for us, and a second copy of the negatives. at an attractive profit, and the man often had copies made for himself. In a couple of cases we took the original copy of the negative, for the type of lab checks that you wanted to make.

We also sent some garbage film through to the same processing company by the same store, under Billy's name, to keep the boys doing the film processing honest. We did establish that there was a little hankey pankey going on at the processing plant, and/or in the mail some place. Someone else was getting off with the first copy of the negatives most of the time. Several times, according to the experts, our copy of the negative would be about the fifth one.

All intelligence communities are well aware that vast volumes of bull # comes and goes in the UFO contactee game, as part of turf(dekke) but pictures make strong evidence, which is almost impossible to fake. Because pictures are the quickest way to find who in fact is telling the truth, they often get stolen. Or, why screw around with the bull #, when the proof is in the film. The Intelligence gathering people are also aware of how to intercept mail, and bribe(bestikke) store owners. When the bribe was set up we did not know how agreeable Billy was going to be about passing out samples.

In the book you touched on one of the most important of all things about UFO's, and may not have realized the true importance, to the history of UFOs, in what you said.
Page 219; "The visitor anticipated............and they immediately associated them with the Anti-Christ, of Christian literature and wanted nothing more to do with the situation."

The problem that Billy had with Karl Veit of Wiesbaden, is the key to understanding most of the American Government and Western Europe Government's approach to UFO's. In 1945, when it was first proven that UFO's were real from space, operated by intelligent being, most of whom where human in form, the American Government did a soft touch check to see what the great unwashed public would say, and how the public would respond to UFO's, and space people, if the President informed the public over National radio.

The results of the investigation would truly frost a thinking mans' balls. The public's response was all bad. 97% of the public took one of two approaches. Shot first and ask questions later. Or call the UFO'S agents of the devil, the prince of the power of the air, the ant-Christ, and set up an even worse situation, where UFOs would became a real negative religious issue. What was surprising was the response of the Religious leadership, which was by far worse than the general public's response. It could only be called grim news.
The science community showed no leadership at all, just a super case of stupidity, and prejudice.

As you might guess, the original investigations were by military men, under orders from General Marshal, under the direction of the President. And if you know your military men, finding one who wants to get into a fight with the preachers, over what is, or is not the Anti-Christ, when neither the military man, nor the preacher know a hell of a lot of factual information. about either the Ant-Christ, or the UFOs, would be a lot like sending a blind person out to spot UFO's. Just as soon as the blind man spots the first UFO, the military will get into the fight with the preachers over the Anti-Christ.

To say that the military seriously avoided the potential conflict with the religious community would be an understatement. To say that the military community successfully avoided a fight with the religious community over UFOs. would be an accurate observation. To say that the military was real damned sneaky (fordømt lusket) about how they informed the public about UFOs, would also be an accurate observation.
The military mind will draw conclusions that the religious mind will not. The military mind quickly figured out that if the UFO's wanted to take over the world, they had the speed, science, and fire power to do so Hence, the military concluded UFO's were working by other rules. The general nature of the rules the individuals in the UFOs would be working under, could be projected. based on previous contact records, how ever skimpy the records.

In other words, the military figured it was a safe assumption that the UFOs would not radically change their actions in modern times, but would stick with the casual and miss system of the past.
The military mind drew one conclusion. The single most important thing to do in the situation it was in, namely sitting on some hot, highly controversial information, was to keep the general public from a bad response. by controlling the public's response to UFOs. In other words keep that damned religious mentality out of the issues involved, as long as possible.

But, do not ever say that the military never did anything about informing the public about the existence of UFO's. That will mean you have not figured out the methods used by the Government to spread the word about UFOs. You might say the military took the Bible's advice about not to let the left hand know what the right hand is doing.
The Military pulled the very same trick that Moses pulled, when he did not like the attitude of his troops, after crossing the Red Sea. He took the time to grow a new batch troops, who's response and thinking was more to his liking. And that is what the military did about UFO's.

The military also found a problem as bad, or worse, than the religious mind. Have you have ever noticed, Scientist are about as bad as the preachers, when it comes to UFO's? Especially in the old days. What you missed is the little detail that Scientist, of the old pre-UFO school got their basic concept of the Universe from an insane preacher. A Catholic Pope. That basic concept is the idea that man is alone in the Universe, and the only intelligent life in the universe.

Going into the dark ages all societies leaving records, in any amount, left some kind of UFO record. Those that left verbal histories left verbal records of UFOs. In effect it was known prior to the Dark Ages that man was not alone in the Universe, that other intelligent beings were out there screwing around. Even the damned cave and rock drawings show UFO activity.

The Greeks and the Romans also knew that the world was round. The Greeks had even tried to measure the size of the earth using wells and sun light.
The insane Catholic Pope decided that he was the most important thing in the Universe, and that the Universe revolved around him. The basic idea that the world was flat was imposed upon the world by an insane Pope, which in effect made the earth the Center of the universe.. That Pope also expanded on the powers of the Pope, in effect saying that he was not only at the center of the Universe, he was all that was good, smart, and holy at the center of the Universe.

Part two.

That pope also pitched the idea that man was alone in the Universe. That of course left the Pope the smartest man in the Universe.When the Science-Religion fight of the early science days started, science in general won out. The one idea that the Scientist took from an insane Pope, which they loved as an idea, and used as where very own idea, was the idea that man is alone in the Universe.The idea that man is alone in the Universe, if valid, would the make Scientist the smartest, and best educated beings in the Universe.
The Science community's response to the coming of UFOs, and the possible drop in status from the smartest thing in the Universe, was some what worse than the religious communities response to UFOs. UFOs rather obviously, put the modern scientist in the position of being a backward person in knowledge, on a backward world. And farther insulted the scientist, by not bothering to make -any contact with him. Few, if any of the scientist involved gave up their status, as the smartest and best educated beings in the universe willing. Most of the older ones died with that idea in their head. The idea man was the only intelligent life in the Universe.

The existence of UFOs - truly lowers the status of the religious and scientific leaders of the world. They resisted such a lowering in their status, particularly the scientist.And here I should clear something up. Mention the word intelligence gathering community, and most people go into some kind of potty training shock, and think they have gone back to messing their pants, and are about to be caught at it. Doing what is called spying on people is an expensive and time consuming operation, generally involving a lot of people. It is surprising how many people think that they have some kind of secret, that makes them worth spying on. Casual surveillance, or simple information gathering, can be done much cheaper. The total amount of information needed, to make a high degree of accuracy decision, about some one like Billy, is in fact not as much as a person would imagine.

In effect, in the early days, if you showed up at Billy's place, knowing enough about good manners, to bring as much food as you eat, wash as many dishes as you get dirty. and just help around the house, or yard a bit. It was possible to get all the UFO information desired from Billy, and be treated as a respected guest.

Looking into Billy with a professional eye will quickly show that there are a couple of things, which are not "totally normal" for this type of contact. The screw ball hours, and the many changes in location, make it some what different from most contacts, which generally proceed on a casual, but regular bases, with some consideration for the contactee. Billy probably holds the record for more bad weather contacts than any one else. His case has some screw ball features, but it had some very good pictures.

In a shared UFO information pool with other Countries, including India, it was noticed that Billy got his contacts when ever a woman, the Indians were watching, was missing. It was speculated that Bills female contact could have been one of two women that the India authorities were watching. One was a tall dark haired woman with a very fair completion who, according to what the Indians could find out had been working an area for about 200 years. The other woman was a short, some what dumpy blond, with kind of a flat face. Every time the dumpy blond left India, Billy had a contact. Because the Indian surveillance was of the soft touch type, and far from complete, nothing was ever established. But, for a period of about 2 to 3 years there was a one to one relationship between the blond leaving India and Billy having a contact.

And there is something else you might figure out, or work on. It is Billy stumbling on to Military men looking at his contact sites. For all their science, the clowns in the UFO do not always work out every thing to perfection.
As a military officer you were exposed to a few classes in physics. As the book says about the rocks and the gold, the physics are the same, this world, or some other. That means that what is known, about physics here, will also apply up there.

The UFO is has a power source, which is obviously related to gravity, and electro magnetic properties of physics. That is all packed into a small space and effects the world around it. Add to that some cloaking device, and a few stray things, and you have a ship, which will give off a few things in the line of radiation. If the dogs can spot the UFOs, then use dogs, which we did around some military and science bases In the early days. If the TV flutters when one comes by, start from there for making a detection device.

It logically follows that about the time that the Governments got into the business of knowing about UFOs, they also got into learning how to detect the things, when they flew by. And it was a dog, who's action told us that flying saucer had clocking devices. It did not turn out to be all that hard to make a detection device. The Swiss Government has such devices and obviously uses them.

The last time I had anything to do with such devices, which was a long time ago, and the devices where physically very large because their radios had vacuum tubes, they could be rigged to do several different things, and the American Government was screwing with a model that would give the general direction the UFO was traveling. By now they could be the size of a pack of smokes, and given direction along with the make and model of the UFO. me In the late 50s we could define between about four types of UFOs based on how they effected our dewises.

If I remember some of the information coming out of Billy's area, the DALs would normally send out a couple of other ships to scout the area, some time several days in advance, before the contact ship showed up. At that time the devices the Swiss had, could tell the difference between the two types of ships normally used. It could also tell the difference between several of. the small. ball shaped probes that might be sent out.
I know it to be a fact that the Swiss Government has contact with Space people. But. like all such contacts. the restriction, on who knows about it, comes from space. The Swiss in fact probably have the best contact of any country in the world. But. that is speculation on my part.

And here I might should add something. Within the Governments of the world, how many I do not know, but based on the patterns, probably most of the reasonable governments. there has been contact from space. But, within any government there will exist two possible sets of information. Those who study UFOs, from the ground looking up. and trade some types of information, some times, and those who are in the direct contact position. The two are not necessarily the same person, or department.
I know it to be a fact, having talked to a man who made the trip with him, that Ike had dinner on a space ship. I also know that the Queen of England has been on a space ship, once for medical treatment.

You mentioned something in passing that was interesting. It was your being "spied" on. I have no idea as to who is doing what to whom in your case. But, I do know that there was once a proposal put out to step on UFO investigators, and contactees a little bit, to keep the field from expanding to much, so the real contacts would not be lost in the pure bull #.

As some one who has been in government, you can probably spot the conflicting, and over lapping authorities, that tend to keep showing up in cases like your self. You never out right ask the question, "what the hells Naval Intelligence doing in UFOs, but if you do, they were the "initiating authority" in the solution to the problem of the old FOO Fighters of WW2, and the boys who proved UFOs were from space. Once an Intelligence gathering community gets the initiating authority status in a field, especially if the job is dumped of onto them, they are damned hard to pry out of that field.

Part three.

Within the structure of the American UFO community there are a lot of stories running around. If you ever have the time and the chance, or inclination, you might look up the one piece of semi hard evidence about a crashed UFO. It is the Brownsville, Texas saucer, which was a very old case. Dating back to right after WW2.

That ship came wobbling by Army Air Force base going about ten miles an how'. They first picked it up on radar, when It was about 40 miles away, which gave them vast amounts of time. Then with field glass as It approached, and finally as a visual. They had enough time that they were able to get a chase plane up in the air to follow the saucer to where it crashed, about ten miles deep in Mexico. Their first action was to get a parachute rigger into a plane. and jump him out over the crash site with a stencle and a can of Red Paint, to mark USAAF on the side of the saucer, so we could claim it was ours - in case the Mexicans showed up.

That ship was dragged back to the US by a cat. It left one hell of a skid trail. From the ground the skid trail can not be seen, because the government paid some Indians $5,000.0O0 to replant the ground. and hid all traces of that drag trail. But it can be seen from the air.
If seen from the air, it will be a very straight line that is almost due North and South. At the South end of the skid trail, there is an East-West gully, and just South of the Gully is a small ridge, or very little hill. The small hill has a north south ridge on it. The saucer came to rest on the East side of that ridge up against the slope of the hill, or at the base of the very little hill.

Because the drag trail could be seen from the air the Indians were hired to make other trails on the ground, as a confusion factor. The true drag trail is the only straight one in the group.
This letter is long enough. Lots of luck with what you are doing.

Respectfully .....................(name deleted)

You try to sound unbiased about meier case but you are obviously not:

"The Irreproducability" everytime that word is use to try to prove meier case I see the weak and lame attend to to avoid the facts. Same as the most used one "One Armed farmer" with not help at all could not have done all that, yet he is in videos and photos, who is filming him? oh I am sorry I forgot! the Aliens.

One at the time, let's see if we get a valid answer for the first time.

"1. The Irreproducability of Meier's photos and videos with small models and strings."

Why reproducing a photo to prove a case is always exclusive to meier's case from his supporters? Even though it have been done to the death!
Perhaps is it because they have nothing else to add!! Also following their analogy, Adamski case must be also real as his photos and videos haven't been reproduce! right?

Ben Harris reproduced the meier's photos and effect 1986-1990 (page 8 and 11)
www.skeptics.com.au...

Herbert Runkel, Bernd Johann, and Thomas Klingler reproduced the meier's photos and effect 1996
www.figu.org...

Alan Friswell reproduced the meier's photos and effect June 2005
www.forteantimes.com...

Many more too!

So how exactly is that they have not been reproduced? or what will that prove for that matter? 2 "False perspective" photos?
oh that is right they don't look the same exact as the fake WCUFO so is not valid for them! yet they show the same effect as meier's, some even way better!

Now the tactic here if I getting their game correctly will be, but those were not tested like meier's did. But they can't prove that meier ever gave an original or negative to be tested, but it's proven that he only sent lithographs (copy of copy of copy) for testing which the investigator also said was invalid for any real testing, as the photo-print (lithographs) quality was degraded. The Ironic!!

The major testing figure of meier's photos was Jim Dilletoso which in present time (2009) it's on record saying that the WCUFO photos are obviously fake!!

So there, the photos have been reproduce several times, several years. Please do not change "Irreproducability" to "TESTING" discussion.

and respond with a valid argurment about those. they show the same effect of meiers photos, that you don't seem to think so will not cut it here.

You don't address any of the facts made here with a valid assumption and yet you accuse us about that we are the ones doing that! How Ironic is that!!

The bottom line is:

"The photos have been reproduced"

I have been thinking something for quite a while, a lot of the people that seems to either attack meier case of sound like they are not in either side are in reality MH minions doing their job, just like I discovered the game "Newinvitation" (MH minion) was doing in a lof of ufo forums in the sameday, Promoting the dvd sells! with coping and paste Mh made up articles and not providing a single valid point.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
These are arguments that the opponent must engage for there to be a rational discussion. They are our strongest arguments, and it is mainly because of these arguments we have such strong support for Meier. If these arguments can be defeated, then we will have to retract our support.

Um, Indigo_Child, you're making demands right off the spot. I've seen Michael Horn do that as well and it's a prayer without end because if you meet those demands new ones pop up. Lets be fair here. Lets judge the case on commonly agreed upon criteria.

Originally posted by MANNYP4
You try to sound unbiased about meier case but you are obviously not:

Just a wrong assumption, look to my earlier posts.

Originally posted by MANNYP4
So how exactly is that they have not been reproduced?

Another wrong assumption, can you show me where I said that they have not been reproduced?

Originally posted by MANNYP4
So there, the photos have been reproduce several times, several years. Please do not change "Irreproducability" to "TESTING" discussion.

You are twisting my words like some sort of disinformation.
And another thing, with the long time available photographic technology software, even a monkey could have turn a real UFO into swamp gas or adding a string to it.

Originally posted by MANNYP4
The major testing figure of meier's photos was Jim Dilletoso which in present time (2009) it's on record saying that the WCUFO photos are obviously fake!!

Here is an earlier article of Jim Dilletoso about Meiers photos.

Some said the case was a hoax, but lab results differed.


We persevered, though, and eventually had found many professionals, who under secrecy and non-disclosure agreements tested these UFO pictures. The secrecy was critical. These labs were not generally authorized to perform personal projects, like testing UFO pictures. So when other UFO researchers, hell bent on getting into the case, made inquiries into some of the places we had been, they would, as agreed, deny any involvement on their part in testing the Billy Meier UFO photographs. Although not one lab found the pictures to be a hoax,

When Stevens and Welch showed up with a box of rocks, things really started to get strange. First things first: Do an inventory. In an aircraft hangar at the Scottsdale, Arizona airport, we carefully placed each specimen on a black dropcloth that was the size of a basketball court; the rock specimens covered the entire dropcloth. The chart of potential scientists to conduct the tests was almost as large. In the end, we selected Marcel Vogel of IBM. Not only had he developed colored TV phosphors and magnetic emulsion for floppy disks, he had been working in paranormal research with astronaut Edgar Mitchell and his Institute of Noetic Sciences. This was the right guy: He was credible, open-minded, and best of all, he had an incredibly advanced lab with the latest in scanning electron microscopes.

Vogel was skeptical at first. But I had convinced him at least to take a look at what we had on our hands. He was as amazed about the findings as we could have ever imagined: Atomic elements 1 through 59 all were present in the same substance; organic materials were cold fused and micromachined. Vogel couldnít imagine how it could be made. Although he had agreed to absolute secrecy, we discovered he had shared the findings with Richard Haines of NASA-Ames and Dr. James Hurtak (Keys of Enoch). We had a box weighing more than 30 pounds filled with these. The metal samples are the single most compelling evidence in the case. It wouldnít be long, however, before some of the samples started to disappear.

www.rense.com...

reply to post by MANNYP4


Sorry none of those are valid duplications. I will tell you, because when you use small models with a string close to the camera it creates visual effect which differs markedly from a large object at a distance.

I can tell from a basic visual analysis that all the images you linked are small models with strings. The original investigators also attempted the small model explanation, and they built a model to look exactly like Meiers and took photographs of it using Meiers camera and their own in the same locations as Meiers original.

The results

1) On basic visual analysis they saw the duplications looked very bad, but they picked out of the best of the worst and sent them for scientific photographic analysis
2) The scientific photographic analysis instantly caught them out as small models on strings.

The scientific analysis is essential because it is able to distinguish the more subtle features of a photograph that are not immediately apparent to the naked eye. The reason that some skeptics have refused scientific testing of their duplications is because they know they don't pass muster.

Again the same reason why Derek does not make a model UFO and put it besides the tree to replicate Meier's extreme distance Wedding cake UFO shot.

A valid duplication needs to recreate every feature of Meier's best UFO pictures and videos:

1) The altitude effect
2) The distance effect
3) The frame clearly showing the foreground and background and the sky visible in the shot
4) It must be subject to the same scientific testing and pass

If you look at the duplications they fail on all technical counts. The depth perception is low and because the small model is right in front of the camera it creates a flat depth perception, so there is no distance effect. The model is always only a few feet above ground, so there is no altitude effect. The background/sky is not clearly visible and in shot, and the object is often close to either edge of the frame. Again, when subjected to scientific testing, they will be instantly caught out.

Thus it remains true that Meir's pictures and videos remain irreproducible to date(one of the latest failed attempts being IIG)

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

The following will demonstrate the differences outlined above:

Meier's originals:





Claimed Duplication:



Nobody could honestly say that the duplication is the same as Meier's, not only does it look like a model in front of camera, even on a basic visual analysis it fails on all technical counts.

Distance and Altitude: Looking at the z and y-axis of the frame, the duplicate UFO is only a metre or so from the camera and a few feet above the camera. In Meier's photograph the UFO is several miles away from the camera and about 30-50 feet above the camera.

Frame and sky visibility: The duplicate UFO does not show the sky background as being clearly visible in frame and it is to the far-right of the frame, thus concealing the pole to the right. In Meier photographs the sky is clearly visible all around the UFO and we can clearly see to the far right and far left of it, clearly showing there is no pole.

You can easily prove my visual analysis wrong by

1) Subjecting the duplicate photograph to scientific testing in the same way as Meier's photographs and showing they pass.
2) Testing out the effects yourself by placing a small model of a UFO(or just glue or tape two plates together) up to a metre from and a few feet above the camera.

I predict that if you did these tests it will become visible as clear day light that the Meier UFO's are not small models suspended by strings near a camera, but really are large objects(up to 20-30 feet in size) hovering 30-50 feet above the ground and several miles away from the camera.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I predict that if you did these tests it will become visible as clear day light that the Meier UFO's are not small models suspended by strings near a camera, but really are large objects(up to 20-30 feet in size) hovering 30-50 feet above the ground and several miles away from the camera.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f81d9008de4.jpg[/atsimg]

The above image was composed using a manual 35mm camera with no post-processing of any type. I had it developed, then scanned the photo and saved it as a JPEG file.

I used a method that is simple and known to most who know their way around a manual film camera.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f81d9008de4.jpg[/atsimg]

The above image was composed using a manual 35mm camera with no post-processing of any type. I had it developed, then scanned the photo and saved it as a JPEG file.

I used a method that is simple and known to most who know their way around a manual film camera.

Great picture indeed, if I had to guess what kind of UFO it is, I would say a highly advanced flying flexible steel rule.