[HOAX]Michael Horns Billy Meier photos[HOAX] from C2C tonight

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by AGENT51
1. Where was the model made and concealed?

Perhaps it might be more productive to answer my two questions before repeating a long list of previously addressed issues?

Perhaps it might be more productive for you to re-read my post telling you that I couldn't answer your questions.

I would like to know how my questions have been previously addressed.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by AGENT51]

the only people that defend the mier stuff are

mischief makers
poeple who have a stake in it financially or plan to
disinfo agents
the utterly gullible

the last group i feel really sorry for becuase if they cant identify this as a hoax its likely they will be relieved of all their money by a scamster at some point in their life.

reply to post by mister.old.school

mister.old.school :
"If you please, have a look at this, as a reminder -- Wedding_Cake_ship.mpg"

Yes. I not a film or video master, just a theorist.
Thats a rock steady saucer.. no wobble.

Or has the early wobble gone out of saucer lore.
Or never in it since there are no saucers only fake saucers.

I have other views than Mr Lyne on the wobble which I would say, as
he does, is due to the engines inside. So the internal engine has to be
the Tesla design helicopter engine to eliminate the anti torque boom
and rotor.

Also the electric pulses come into play and if not corrected, some
sort of movement might be effected. Creating an electric vortex
is not what you do in saucer design.

reply to post by davidbiedny


I am more in the photography field.
I have been a designer/photographer/production supervisor for 15 years, have worked specifically with film and digital imaging for the past ten year.
I've worked intimately with global companies with the sole intent on creating visual backgrounds for said company's intent.
I've managed a database of 50,000 plus images with a personal touch on every one.
I've recreated MANY impossible to tell ( for a normal eye) images for use in national magazines in lieu of failed photo-shoots.
I've spent so much time in front of a computer dealing with, scrutinizing images that I can almost tell you what cameras are what just by their individual noise channels.

I currently fiddle with videography and I also have been 3d modeling for a few years as well.

People that have worked for me cannot stand how I pick an image apart after they have tried to have it print ready for whatever purposes.
-----------------

Skeptic Overlord asked why do we keep coming back after phtographs have been debunked:
For me I can't let go because there is just too much that hasn't been invalidated. With the amount of people that have been involved with this case, and the longevity and amount of evidence provided, the is going to be all sorts of head banging views.

The other issue I have is I hear and see many things that are correct on BOTH sides. If there is ANYTHING on the Billy side that is true then I want to know how much and what is..

b

reply to post by AGENT51


My statement:

"The wedding cake saucer.... you can make a saucer any way you want...
its got to be metal."


How about proving no such metal orbs ever existed.

Who uses metal orbs that size, they were obviously made to
concentrate air current to merry go round the tree.
(See Tesla lightning rod patent, an orb is better than Ben Franklin's point.)

Ordinary flat saucers go up, down and sideways and never a
maneuver around a tree.

Unless you have other saucers doing this.
Then internal improvements did it, just nulled my own theory.

Meier playing games with us or someone is playing with Meier.

Nothing ET about these saucer construction.

ED: Mr Bspiracy, did you ever asses the videos on Youtube.
The videos of ever2020 seem of recent vintage.


[edit on 1/29/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

Originally posted by AGENT51
I would like to know how my questions have been previously addressed.

If you would review the existing discussion threads, all of them.

Have you had the opportunity to review my points from the WCUFO video?

Originally posted by AGENT51
I would like to know how my questions have been previously addressed.

If you would review the existing discussion threads, all of them.

Have you had the opportunity to review my points from the WCUFO video?

Michael Horn

Some one pointed out the tree is a young tree.

Why go though all the trouble faking... who works that hard.

I don't know about Disney or Hollywood being better then Meier,
his stuff looks a good fake. And more real since we know
Disney and Hollywood are fake.

Probably the only reason Meier stands out, all the rest are
known fakers.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by AGENT51
I would like to know how my questions have been previously addressed.

If you would review the existing discussion threads, all of them.

Have you had the opportunity to review my points from the WCUFO video?

Yes, I have, and I feel most of the findings you put foreword are very sound and rational. I'm not going to go digging through a hundred threads to get my answers though. If you are confident in your findings, perhaps you could have addressed even one or two of them.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by AGENT51]

reply to post by Bspiracy


Unfortunately Bspiracy, we will likely never know if Meier ever had a legitimate encounter. My guess, and thats all it is, is that he did...and it was most likely a singular event that impacted him enough to stage all the rest of it since.

Do I believe all the predictions, photos, etc came from anyone other then Meier? No. How about discover an ancient biblical text? No.

Could he possibly have had a legitimate experience at some point early on? Totally possible. Could he have made it all up from the get-go, to start his own religion and following? More then possible too (IMO more likely as well, but thats just my opinion).

However, if there was anything legitimate, it's so buried in...well...you know what...that it'll likely never be known.

As I've said before, I'm all about peace love and the environment, but don't sell it to me in a fake flying saucer, because at that point you're urinating in the same pool you and I are in, trying to see more of the real enigma of the UFO issue.

Originally posted by Bspiracy
-VideoB_2: One ship on two places on one frame of film.

Hi there.

There are two possible explanations for this.

Here is the one that I mentioned in my interview for the DVD:

Here is how film is transferred to videotape:
Film is recorded at 24 frames per second.
Video is recorded at 30 frames per second.
There are 2 video fields that make up each video frame.
In order to keep the same running time, 6 frames of film need to be ADDED to every second of videotape.
Basically every 4 frames of film needs to become 5 frames of video. This is done by duplicating some film frames onto two different video fields of the same video frame. This causes some video frames to actually contain 2 different film frames. This is called interlacing.

This image contains both fields of the video frame. As you can see the object appears at the top of the frame and at the bottom of the frame.

This image contains field 1 of the video frame. As you can see the object now only appears at the top.

This image contains field 2 of the video frame. As you can see the object now appears at the bottom. This is exactly what you would expect to see when transferring film to video.


Now, here is an even simpler theory for the object appearing in two places at the same time. I was looking into this at the time of my interview, but I had not received confirmation of it by the time of the interview. As you will notice in the above image there is still a slight image of the object in the upper part of the frame on Field 2. Well, it turns out that 8mm cameras behave differently mechanically than all other types of film cameras. When you stop filming on non-8mm cameras the camera advances to the next unexposed frame. However, 8mm cameras start recording on the same frame that they had previously stopped recording on. This results in a double exposure of the first and last frame of filming. This double image was caused by stopping the camera and then changing the object’s position and then starting the camera again.

Meier and his followers have spent a considerable amount of time and energy theorizing on the properties of the object because it could be seen to be in two places at the same time, but all of this time and energy has been wasted. There was nothing supernatural, nor extraterrestrial, about it.

-Derek

[edit on 29-1-2008 by derekcbart]

For crying out loud...mama's pie plates again. This has been hashed, re-hashed, and hashed again and again. I think we've been over all this in the now famous Ray-gun thread. Once again we have "ZOMG! it must be real! poor old one armed Billeh would NEVER hoax da pooblik!" Then we of course have to have all of us with a brain come in yet again and tell folks it's bull-puckey. THEN of course Johnny-Boy just HAS to come in to the lunacy and defend the silliness again. When will people learn to use the search function, and stop re-hashing this rubbish.

Guys:
Trash-can lids, mama's pie plates, and hoax.
oh my.

Is Agent51 Michael Horn? I ask because the questions he demanded be answered and claimed were "his own"are exactly the same, both in order and in wording to the questions posed by Horn on his site.

Originally posted by AGENT51

I'm not arguing that it looks like a model. There's simply no reference point for what a 'real ufo' would look like. And no, I cannot aswner your above questions as I have a few more of my own:

1. Where was the model made and concealed?

2. Who in Meiers area possesses the specialized skills required for this precision level of manufacture, at any size?

3. What is it made of?

4. Where were the materials obtained?

5. What was the cost of these materials?

6. Who paid for it?

7. How long did it take to make? (Remember, a two-armed model maker took four months to assemble his inferior model.)

8. What does it weigh, assuming even a 5' diameter metallic object, as suggested by one debunker?

9. How was it suspended at 30' by a one-armed man? (Setting up just one special effects shot with a 5' (let alone 14) object requires numerous people and lots of time. Meier took over 60 photos of the WCUFO, plus the video.)

10. Where is the model now, what happened to it, would something of this complexity - and value - just disappear?

11. With all of the photos, both day and nighttime, how could Meier have accomplished all of this unobserved and without accomplices?

12. Why hasn't ANYONE come forward to show that they made and/or now have it?

And now, an exerpt from TheyFly.com (Michael Horns site;

For anyone who rationally contemplates the difficulties a one-armed man would face in actually making and suspending a 14 diameter clearly metallic object, and in doing so completely unobserved – for even one photograph – no further comments should even be necessary. But since the skeptics have been so persistent in their accusations, and so abysmally stupid as well, here are some of the questions that they must credibly answer about the model premise:
1. Where was the model made and concealed?

2. Who in Meiers area possesses the specialized skills required for this precision level of manufacture, at any size?

3. What is it made of?

4. Where were the materials obtained?

5. What was the cost of these materials?

6. Who paid for it?

7. How long did it take to make? (Remember, a two-armed model maker took four months to assemble his inferior model.)

8. What does it weigh, assuming even a 5' diameter metallic object, as suggested by one debunker?

9. How was it suspended at 30' by a one-armed man? (Setting up just one special effects shot with a 5' (let alone 14) object requires numerous people and lots of time. Meier took over 60 photos of the WCUFO, plus the video.)

10. Where is the model now, what happened to it, would something of this complexity - and value - just disappear?

11. With all of the photos, both day and nighttime, how could Meier have accomplished all of this unobserved and without accomplices?

12. Why hasn't ANYONE come forward to show that they made and/or now have it?

[edit on 29-1-2008 by Lotiki]

Great catch Lotiki!
Either it is indeed M Horn, or someone copy and pasted right from his website.
Interesting Indeed.
If it is Horn, that's ok, He's been banned more than once, i'm sure it won't take long for him to go bye-bye again.

i met wendelle stevens years ago and i bought all of his books on the billy meier case before they were collector's items. i think i'll go back and read them this week while i get this computer fixed and see what i can find.

i heard wendelle talk a bunch of times and some of what people are talking about here he's said things about. one thing that no one here so far said anything about is that wendelle sort of lived with the meier family off and on for about eight years while they were investigating him. and he's said many times that people don't understand that it was a kind of rough environment specially in the winter and that billy meier would go out in all kinds of weather and come back with these photographs and films with the ufos always in a short time.

i think that one time when he said that he got called to go contact the pleiadians that wendelle or one of the other investigators loaded his camera with a roll of film they had and then just a few hours later billy meier came back with a whole roll of photographs of the ufos. and wendelle said that the whole place wouldn't have been comfortable for trying to make those kind of models with all the details and machining cause it wasn't like a place with central heating and a tech environment but a farm and everyone there worked hard trying to keep the place together and that meant meier too.

so all the people that talk about what they could do in a model studio are not talking about the same conditions or equipment or materials and this is from the guy who lived there and all that. he said even people who disagreed with meier and left the group and were mad at him said they couldn't explain the photos and all that cause they knew he didn't make them with tricks.

and wendelle said that the wedding cake was a large object and they knew the grounds there real well where many of those photos were taken and it wouldn't have worked with a small model. there's a photo of a large circle in the ice that appeared from one of the ufos one morning. it's in a book. he also said that to weld something so precisely would take a lot of experience because of something about how the round globes would pull or distort on the metal of the ufo object otherwise and that there were about 100 little like lights around the rim of it and it was all so precision made. they took the photos to a metal expert who said it was also aprecision job to try to make one.

also while they were there billy took photographs of a few different types so that there would have to be some kind of amazing team of people making these things but that they wouldn't stay quiet forever if that was the case. and other things about it like how it was gold at night and how many pictures were taken of it.

but i also thought about when people say that it's a model tree in the video cause there's no haze which looks anyhow like there is haze to me, but that the other tree has haze. well if that other tree is visible like that then the tree with the wedding cake couldn't be a small model cause they're pretty close to each other. besides if that thing is really just a lid from a can wouldn't you be able to figure out just how big the tree is and if there even are any model trees of that kind and size made there or anywhere? no one yet seems to show that there even are matching model trees and james deardorff says that a bunch of tree experts said the trees are real.

oh yeah if the tree with the sunlight is really a model doesn't it make all the other trees in the picture models too and wouldn't that be a bit of a job cause there are other trees in that photograph? besides wendelle told us that he actually went to where that one tree was and they photographed models they made there and that there's even a photograph of that tree in the book from Lee and Britt Elder. now i have to see if i still have that book but if it's in there i think the skeptic has some big problems.

i wonder also why the skeptics get so angry about the billy meier case and what they would do if it gets proved positive for sure to be real. i also want someone to tell me where the link is to david biedney's model of a billy meier photo that he proved was a false hoax as I haven't found it here. i agree that if the skeptic can make a wedding cake a real good one like the ones in the photos it would make his case stronger. but so far it's just people saying it's real or it's not.

and if agent51 is a photograph expert could he duplicate the ufo photos and films? i'll think of other questions if i can before i take this thing in tomorrow and if not anyhow i'll come back like on monday and see what's going on here.

oh yeah i think that ats should organize a trip to the meier place and do a real investigation and all that.

reply to post by derekcbart


Good analysis. Good old lightning bright lights and black areas
surrounding an unknown object. Just the effects of a million volt
ion motor surrounding a can.


And FutureSelf1, thanks for the findings of people that did go to
Switzerland. Why didn't they go with Billy when they saw him go
out with his camera and see these saucers on their own.
Or if not seen by eye but only on film, quite possible for optical reasons,
the event would be verified.


Now, Billy could be played these visitors, especially if he said they
looked human. Because they were human.


ED: I don't know what predictions Billy Meier made but if saucers
are controlled by the Illuminati, bankers and others... they can control
a lot of life we have no control over and being fed prediction by such
a group only means they are on their usual ego trip.



[edit on 1/30/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

i see the C2C pictures have officially been declared [hoax] by SO.

I think the last three have been satisfactorily explained, (from inside Semjase's beamship, WC, and the clear daytime picture), I must've missed the post where the "seven-fingered handprints" was addressed.

Personally, I don't put much weight in it, but I nevertheless would like to hear what fellow ATSers opinions are on the subject. I think hands that excrete metal-corrosive oil would be somewhat problematic, even for a Pleiadian... (actually it wasn't a Pleiadian, since we know they have 5 fingers, as seen on the laser gun pics)

Here's the handprint pic:


Like Jeff, i also believe Meier might have had a genuine experience some time ago.

And yes, great catch Lotiki!

PS: for a good laugh, check out:
www.steelmarkonline.com...


[edit on 30/1/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Haha. Yeah, Great catch Lotiki! I'm Michael Horn? Yeah right. It's called CUT and PASTE. Us Mac users use it often. Not one question answered. Nice work guys. Truly.

I can see u guys hi-fiving each other in front of your X-Box's after work, giggling into your headsets. But, I'm afraid your cloudsong, has clearly been "zerged" here.

www.youtube.com...

"We got him this time! That pie-plate gluin' S.O.B.!"

BY all means please continue....this is entertaining. Almost like watching midgets at a strip bar.



[edit on 30-1-2008 by AGENT51]

[edit on 30-1-2008 by AGENT51]

reply to post by AGENT51


Michael Horn by any other name is still Michael Horn. I supposed ye ol' "ban hammer" will descend again. None too soon I hope.

Originally posted by MrPenny
reply to post by AGENT51

 

Michael Horn by any other name is still Michael Horn. I supposed ye ol' "ban hammer" will descend again. None too soon I hope.

I'm not Michael Horn. Therefore, I cannot be banned. Nice try though.

I'm actually a true skeptic of this case who has asked a few questions that no "skeptic" here as answered. Thats it.

Now I get labeled as Michael Horn. Great work guys. You've really done your homework. Lest we forget I posted my entire resume a few posts ago.

You call this investigating?

As new member to this forum, I am finding out more and more that most of the "skeptics" and investigators" here, are not truth-seekrs, but teenagers looking for some kind of cyber-battle. I've got better things to do.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by AGENT51]

[edit on 30-1-2008 by AGENT51]