Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

reply to post by mister.old.school


Good attempt. I like those that actually make an effort to back-up what they are saying.

However, I really don't see how you can't see the plain as day light differences between your image and Meiers. I can see it from a mile away. The differences:

1) No distance effect
- If you analyse along z-axis, you will note an absolute flat depth perception. The object is sharply in the foreground, not in the background.
In Meier's pictures the UFO are not in the foreground, but deep in the background. It actually looks like an overlay, but you claim it isn' at least using post, so I will take your word for it.

2) No altitude effect
- The object is barely a metre above the ground and sky is not clearly visible in the frame. In Meier's picture the UFO are up to 50 feet above the ground and the sky is clearly visible all around it from all directions.

3) Frame shot size
- Your frame shot is a close-up(CU) shot and thus the immediate locus around it is out of shot, In Meier's picture the frame size is an extreme long shot(ELS) so we can see clearly all around it, the locus around the UFO is clearly visible and thus no support/pole/crane is possible.

So your duplication fails on all technical counts just like IIG's duplications(which are a tad better to be honest, nothing personal)

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by spacevisitor


Thank you.

It is frustrating to keep seeing the inane demands from Meier apologists that one must replicate the contrived Meier photos as the only possible method to prove the hoax. Anyone with a fair amount of manual film camera experience knows how to create the same effects with a little patience.

The photo I submitted proves that one can easily compose a contrived shot that could make any small object appear to be something large in the sky -- either close or far.

Now that we have proven the effects are possible with a simple film camera, what new demand shall we see next from the Cult Of Meier apology camp? Or perhaps because this is not an exact duplication of a Meier photo, it will be rejected as a meaningless attempt to replicate the effect on film.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
So your duplication fails on all technical counts just like IIG's duplications(which are a tad better to be honest, nothing personal)

Ah, there we have it.

One can surmise that someone such as Meier who is going to great lengths to concoct a complicated hoax will have significant time to practice through trial and error as a means to perfect such things.

My goal here was to prove the point that such compositions are easy.

I simply borrowed a friend's black-walled dark room. Suspended the object with black thread. Pointed three dim spotlights at the object. Shot three frames of the object with long exposure. I then double-exposed those frames in an outdoor setting with a short exposure. Simple. With time and care, lighting values and temperature can be perfected with ease.

I showed how it is easily possible. You reject it. How predictable.

reply to post by mister.old.school


Mister.Old.School, I appreciate your descriptions of how you attempted the duplication, but you seem to have overlooked that I was instantly able to tell what you did. Recall I said, "It looks like an overlay"

Your duplication did not pass, sorry.

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Good luck with your continued trolling of this hoax. It's unfortunate that someone has abandoned their self-respect to perpetuate this fraud with such alacrity. Your disinformation efforts are clearly designed to damage what little credibility is left in the arena of UFO research.

Sad.

Well, because I said I find it a great picture does not mean that you proved me with it that one can easily compose a contrived shot that could make any small object appear to be something large in the sky -- either close or far.
On the contrary, you just have proven to me that the effects are not possible with a simple film camera, in fact you proved exactly the opposite.
It looks in no way at the pictures Meier presented.

So in my opinion, Indigo_Child is right with his saying here.

reply to post by mister.old.school


You're being unfair and unreasonable now now just because I did not accept your work.

You are telling me your duplicate is the same as this:



I am sorry but you're kidding yourself. In your duplication your object(which is suppose to be a UFO) is sharply in the foreground that it does not actually look like it was taken on location. If I analyse along the z axis I see your object before I see the sky, clearly showing it not in the sky. It looks like an overlay, and now you've even revealed that it is what I said it was.

As space-visitor said your attempt just gives the Meier supporter and objective reader further reason to believe in the validity of Meiers photographs.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

bad news, scanners didnt exist back in early 1980s nearly as good performance as current ones or the one displayed in your photo mister.old.school. But like indigo said, atleast you tried with relatively fast response time compared to IIG who took a very long time. I do agree that this might be your first time attempting this so ofcourse it wont be perfect. Having that said, indigodoes raise some good points about it being off focus and that the out edges doesnt seem to fit.

In my opinion yours is much better attempt then IIG who did a horrendous job producing a photo. Hell you should lead the photo analysis for debunking billy meier as you were clearly the best one i have ever seen without any special or advancede technology. I am curious as to how you did a good job on it. Another thing is saving it as jpeg unfortunately the alledged photos were produced back when personal computers were nearly impossible to get a hand on. So jpeg would be crossed out.

If you have a way to get around it i would greatly appreciate it as i am open to both sides and presenting both sides of the story.

Indigo regarding your remakr about double standartds of insulting i greatly appreciate as it does seem that way especially from the site owner stating that billy meier is a hoax according to ATS.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by EffEcTiVe_UniT]

Edited for the sake of peace..

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by EffEcTiVe_UniT
bad news, scanners didnt exist back in early 1980s

That doesn't alter the fact that a scanner of some type must have been used to bring the Meier photos online.

The exercise was intended to portray, in a reasonable way, the ease at which "anyone" can quickly create a convincing double-exposure photo on film. With trial and error practice, environmental nuances and perspective issues can be solved once one spends more time than three trial exposures.

Another thing is saving it as jpeg unfortunately the alledged photos were produced back when personal computers were nearly impossible to get a hand on. So jpeg would be crossed out.

Are you unaware that the Meier photos we see online are also in JPEG format?

**** NOW HEAR THIS ****

The personal attacks, off topic / uncivil posts will stop now.

Thread being reviewd, posts are subject to removal.

This is your warning and last chance.

reply to post by mister.old.school


If it was so easy we would have had a duplication by now, it's been what, almost 3 decades?

You say that the Meier photographs online have been scanned. Your argument that the photographs online of Meiers's photos were scanned is moot. The investigation that took place in the 70's directly handled the actual original film and negatives. If you watch the documentary posted a few pages back you can actually see the investigator with the very high resolution prints of one of the Meier originals I linked, received from the lab in the post, which was produced from the original film

Originally posted by elevatedone
The personal attacks, off topic / uncivil posts will stop now.

I appreciate the diligent attention of moderators on this thread, and subject matter as a whole. However, I urge you to consider the context of the evolutionary process underlying the Meier issue.

To a great many well-informed people, myself included, the case is closed -- Billy Meier created fraudulent "evidence" to support his claims. In fact, you would be very hard pressed to find anyone who attempts to take "UFO research" seriously who believes otherwise. The only people who appear to believe otherwise are the small minority of those who continue to promote the case as factual.

As such, the "Billy Meier" case has transmogrified from that of UFOlogy to that of fraudsterism -- ostensibly for either profit, attention, or both. At this point in the evolution of "Meierism", it has now become more important to focus on the players than the material. The material has been roundly refuted over and over again. However, the "players" refuse to accept the final whistle has blown, and continue to "move the goalposts" so as to extend the life of their fraud.

So, I submit to you, that discussion of the Billy Meier hoax must now transcend the physical evidence, and focus on those who continue to perpetuate the hoax supposedly to capitalize on the hopes and beliefs of a new cache (and wallets) of "believers". Doing so, is the essence of denying ignorance.


[edit on 22-4-2009 by mister.old.school]

reply to post by mister.old.school


No, sorry adhominems, personal attacks are not permissable. You basically just said above that everyone of us is part of some cult or organization to deceive people and to defraud them of their money. This is an absurd and silly accusation. So basically, everyone who has a contrary opinion on Meier being a hoax, is therefore a member of a cult?

I have absolutely no affilation with Meier, or FIGU or Michael Horn. I do not make any kind of money by arguing for Meier. Please review my post history, I have discussed a wide range of topics at ATS, and have never had a Meier-centric focus. Just because I am supporting Meier in this one thread(I am also posting in other threads) does not mean I am his minion, but simply I have a different opinion to yourself or even the majority.

I see absolutely no conclusive proof that Meier is a hoax. I have a right to state my opinion. I have even admitted, as have others arguing for Meier, that we accept that it is likely that some of his material is fake(contamined evidence) So we are not being unreasonable at all.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by mister.old.school
. However, the "players" refuse to accept the final whistle has blown, and continue to "move the goalposts" so as to extend the life of their fraud.

Old School. Truly denying ignorance would be carrying a flag for or against this case with hopes to prove once and for all your views. Where one skeptic dies off, another takes his place. Where one believer dies off, another takes his place. Does this make sense?

What we are left with are the last few flag waving minions of both opposing sides pretending to champion some kind of cause. You made a fatal flaw in assuming that Indigo is for or against Meier. He merely wants to see better fact-checking by the investigators. Your willingness to personally attack him is unnecessary.

So, I submit to you, that discussion of the Billy Meier hoax must now transcend the physical evidence, and focus on those who continue to perpetuate the hoax supposedly to capitalize on the hopes and beliefs of a new cache (and wallets) of "believers". Doing so, is the essence of denying ignorance.

Is it true that you are truly concerned about the wallets of Meier's believers?







[edit on 22-4-2009 by NightVision]

I found the following Youtube video very enlightening regarding ATS and it's policy regarding objective Billy Meier discussions, as well as other such issues. The first relevant section begins from 4 mins 20 into the video up to 12 minutes. The second is from 15 minutes in to 16:35 minutes.

VIDEO

My own experience here very much validates what is said in this video. This recent episode involving the deleted Meier thread indicates this too, as does the quite unfeasible number of stars the hardcore skeptics often get here, especially, as can be seen above, those posts which attack people who suggest there may be some truth to the Meier case. The video also offers an explanation for that implausible star phenomenon.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


That video, and related issues, have been discussed at length in the following thread: Project Camelot's NEW 4hr long interview with John Lear

Please use the existing thread, or the ATS Issues thread to voice your concerns. This thread should remain focused on the "Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion."

Thank you.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f81d9008de4.jpg[/atsimg]

Bwahahahahaha!!!! That's the coolest thing I've seen in quite some time!

Better be careful though, in 20 years someone may want to start a cult based around this; how about F.I.G.U. - Federation of Inches as Governing Units?

Unfortunately the point will be lost on the Meier hoax believers, they will keep twisting things around chasing the rabbit down the never-ending hole. They will say it's not the same for some reason or another, then say you must do it on a Swiss plantation with an old instamatic camera holding one hand behind your back. And even if you were to do that it STILL would not be enough, you must go back in time in a Billy Meier™ (prophet approved) time machine and reproduce it out of scrap items found about the farm (or possibly grow them yourself), since a poor one-armed farmer had no other way possible of making a hoax. And even then you will still not succeed, as there will be a million other excuses and denials from that camp.

LOL@Billy Meier (prophet and savior of pie tins)