is every Meier photo a fake ?

reply to post by internos


What happened does indeed sound like a CULT.

Bill Meier had no clue that he did see actual Nazi generation saucers and
what they actually were.
He must have had handlers orchestrating events and media and publications.

From the start at Roswell.. it is evident the ET card is being played
to hide the Tesla UFO and Free Energy.
Getting Spielberg in on the action years later.
The stakes are too high for anyone to disclose the Tesla source.
Many other scientists like Dr Moray that made excellent energy
devices had suppressed investments.



[edit on 9/25/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

reply to post by TerraX


Hi there.

That is a very important site. They make 4 different sizes of container lids ranging from approximately 9" to 18.5". Using this data will enable us to determine the four possible heights of the tree using a simple ratio calculation. I haven't actually performed the calculations yet. This will all be part of my next update to the IIG Meier report which should be online next week if I get the time to finish writing it up this weekend. I have been able to identify around 80% of the objects used to create the "space ship" known as the "Wedding Cake UFO".

Thanks.

-Derek

Originally posted by Springer
I guess it all comes down to a real need to believe, for whatever reason. Maybe people have an empty spot inside them or in their lives and they get some sort of comfort from things like this? Springer...

You could be right but I think it's a little more complex. I think most people, and I'm certainly one of them, are suckers for mysterious things. People have a basic natural need to solve/explain things. The UFO phenomenon certainly facilitates the need for answers. Some people are satisfied with a degree of information while others are not. This in turn creates friction and a continued thrust towards answers.
There are also those people who have seen a UFO and subsequently start looking for answers. What better way to find answers in those who claim to have first-hand knowledge such as Billy Meier.
In any case, it's sociology like you point out.

reply to post by Aspie


I borrowed this pic from you Aspie
Just to show what i mean....
___________________________________________________________________________



You can see here on this picture what is wrong with it.
Forced Perspective and nothing else.

This UFO is supposed to be far behind the tree, look at the zoomed in part and you will see it is alot closer to the camera than that.
It's even within the branches of the tree, well ofcourse it could be a mini-ufo with mini-aliens (not mexicans).
As Aspie said, it has probably been rigged with fishingline.

Is every Meier UFO picture a HOAX?
I can still not answer that clearly, but if we all use some LOGIC and we follow that string of LOGIC we come to the conclusion that in all Probablility they are nothing else than HOAXES.

Now, dont say i told you so, but using forced perspective is old.
It was used in many of the earliest Sci-Fi movies.
So Billy Meier is not the inventor of that style of photography.

Who put the line between the saucer and the tree branch.
Such an ornate saucer can't be made unless life size.
No one said why is the UFO blurry in the old days.
Technology improved using our tax money.
Using the cloaking card payed off, now accurate photos are suspect.
Old Nazi era saucers in Switzerland.. whats so strange about that.

reply to post by zorgon

Come on, Ron, the guy has serious problems of credibility

To be sure... but then so do 98.3 % of all other "UFO' stories. The difference with this one it has so many angles and a lot of effort to produce evidence... so it won't go away. So we are destined to repeat history over and over every time someone finds it again...

The difference with this particular UFO story is that people fail to see the evidence that say that it is a hoax.
The only angles visible here is the amount of deception from Mr.Horn and his ilk.

I'm not attacking you Zorgon
I find many things you do to be right, and you have alot of knowledge.
However in this case i believe you put your trust/belief wrongly.
This case would not be a repetition if people would see what has happened over the years.

Spokes persons like Mr.Horn revives things like this case.
Here one could wonder why? Money? Fame?
Doesn't really matter, it is wrong, it is not the TRUTH.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne

Who put the line between the saucer and the tree branch.
Such an ornate saucer can't be made unless life size.

It was Aspie who put that line there as an illustration.

As the ornate saucer thing goes....
I dont have much knowledge when it comes to photography, but however even i can see what is wrong within that picture.
As you yourself stated "Such an ornate saucer can't be made unless life size."
If that was as far away as it "seems" to be, you wouldn't see any "ornaments" at all due to hazing from the distance.

And also you clearly see one tree branch going behind the "saucer".
That places this "saucer" within the treebrances and alot closer to the camera.

reply to post by NightVision


Ok, you can continue to say the same thing, and so can I (which you obviously don't bother to read. So, I'll save myself further work for those who are beyond understanding. Clearly the rest of the readership here gets my point.


[edit on 25-9-2008 by jritzmann]

reply to post by jritzmann


Watching you work this hard to prove your argument to one critic says a lot.
All I said initially was that in my humble opinion, I thought you could've done a bit of a better job duplicating the Meier photos. There's some problems with distance hazing in a few of them. Somehow you have confused this with "I'm not getting your point". Oh, I get your point, trust me. Perhaps many of ATS's readers cant properly recognize the relevance of distance hazing but I and others can. I know its popular to jump on the "this is a hoax!" bandwagon without taking a good hard look at both sides, but thats just the way I am. I will not let you get a free pass just because Meier may have made some models.

Even if the Meier case is fake, its still upon you to make a decent duplication if you claim hoax with your photos. I look and the photo comparisons you made unbiased and make my own assumptions. And please do not confuse stars on your posts with reader comprehension. Skipper1975's "Galactic Federation of Light" Thread has plenty of them. And please do not confuse my critique of your photo duplications with an absolute belief in Meier. I would expect more from an investigator like you.

Remember, you accused me of being Michael Horn just because I critiqued your duplications. That's a bit much dontchya think?




[edit on 25-9-2008 by NightVision]

reply to post by NightVision


There is no distance haze in any Meier photo. Thats a demonstrable fact. I'm not trying to convince anyone of any thing. I have said for years, do it yourself and find out. You can critique all you want the duplications, but it's obvious you didnt do your own, and continue to dream Meier's have any distance haze. Not much I can help you with there other then to say to get an education in digital imaging and photography - and while you're at it some knowledge of repeat scanned and multi-generational/multi-compressed images from printed books.

While youre at it, ake the calls and find out how many quotes are wrong or misrepresented.

So, you can say you "get it" but obviously not. So I'll end my conversation right here. You were accused of bring Horn because much like him, you poke and then malign the individual when you get a response..with...more of whats already been covered and answered. The problem with you and him, is that:
1) you refuse to acknowledge answered issues.
2) Both of you seem to thrive on the fight, and negative attention.

Ultimately it's a waste of time. But none can fault me for trying.

So, I'll treat you like I do Horn. With silence. So the rest of you know, this guy is on ignore. I tried. This is more along the lines of taking on the guys with the "badge" then actually doing the work.




[edit on 25-9-2008 by jritzmann]

Well the blurry ones are still around.

Incredible UFO Close Up Picture

From: sperry377
Added: August 13, 2008

One of the best I've ever seen. Just found it the other day on a UFO website.

El Paso, Texas. On August 8, 2008 William Gertrudis spotted something unusual in the sky. "I saw a flying craft of some kind, dead silent going at extreme speed but able to quickly change directions." He described it as silver/white, oval in shape and "about as long as a Greyhound bus." Gertrudis, 62, who photographs wildlife as a hobby retrieved his camera from his car and proceeded to take several photos but the object proved elusive. "I knew my shots were going to be hit or miss," due to the irregular pattern of flight, "but I'm grateful I got one good one."

Gertrudis, who lives just outside El Paso with his wife and 3 dogs, was not alone as a witness. At least 6 others from around the region reported an unusual disc flying that afternoon. "I was always the guy who would laugh when I heard about people seeing flying saucers," Gertrudis said, "but I guess it's time someone else laughs. What I saw didn't seem of this earth."

www.ufoevidence.org...

A one photo video and close up... like some in Billy Meier video.

And the video with "They are out there".. I should say
they are right here.

Illuminati Airlines flight 17.. courtesy of JP Morgan and Nikola Tesla
some 100 years late.
I just wonder how many Illuminati think tanks are trying
to figure out even left over Tesla material. Too bad normal
education has nothing on Tesla.. the 20th century Maxwell.
Electrical engineering is straight from the Maxwell paper.
Imagine electrical momentum engineering and electrical
generation from Dr Moray's Lithium stone.

ED: Apparently this location was a Nazi saucer roost in 1946.
Von Braun at Ft Bliss (Gertrudis 's backyard) from 1945 to 1951,
and most probable head of the American saucer program.
A Mt. Franklin location had saucer within twenty feet showing a
slot between upper and lower half.


[edit on 9/25/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

reply to post by jritzmann


Putting me on ignore simply because I disagree with some of your findings is an incredibly immature way to have a proper debate.

Originally posted by jritzmann

 

There is no distance haze in any Meier photo. Thats a demonstrable fact. I'm not trying to convince anyone of any thing. I have said for years, do it yourself and find out.

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. A closer look at this Meier photo does reveal some degree distance hazing between the camera and the object. IIG west's grand canyon recreation (which clearly shows varying degrees of distance hazing in the background and foreground) failed at being able to reproduce distance hazing between the camera and the object in my opinion. Degrees of distance hazing are available in the foreground and background of both photos.

This doesn't mean that the Meier photos are real UFO's and not models. It just means that the individuals who are reproducing the photos need to do a better job. Its just a fact.




I'm sorry this upsets you enough to put me on ignore. Deny ignorance.




[edit on 25-9-2008 by NightVision]

reply to post by Balez

It was Aspie who put that line there as an illustration.

As the ornate saucer thing goes....
I dont have much knowledge when it comes to photography, but however even i can see what is wrong within that picture.
As you yourself stated "Such an ornate saucer can't be made unless life size."
If that was as far away as it "seems" to be, you wouldn't see any "ornaments" at all due to hazing from the distance.

And also you clearly see one tree branch going behind the "saucer".
That places this "saucer" within the treebrances and alot closer to the camera

Well.. in that one, one does not see much detail in that photo as I assumed
it was the one from a close up. Again, why make models.. take a
sharp picture.. then haze it behind a tree... just take a photo with
the tree in front of you.

Truly interesting, I can see why such a great wealth of material
has been reviewed so much. Glad to be apart of it now.

Clearly.. I see the branch in front of the saucer...
I guess its all in the way one wants to state things and doctor
original photos.

Tomfoolery...

Well Best to all.. I got to look at some Stan Meyer circuits now.

reply to post by jritzmann



Come on man you know you can't convice people who don't want to be convinced.

A child could see those are faked. It blows my mind that a grown adult cannot make a educated decision by just looking at his photos for 2 seconds.

reply to post by rocksarerocks


Rocks, my debate with Ritzmann is not over the authenticity of the Meier photos. It is over the quality of the photo reproductions made by him and IIG west. Please read thru threads thoroughly before making judgements.


[edit on 25-9-2008 by NightVision]

Horn's documentary, "The Silent Revolution of Truth," was named that by a Plejaren child.

True story.

The Plejarens, according to Horn, had a contest for the kids to name his movie. Meier told him this.

If you believe Meier's photos, you have to believe that story because they are all born of the same person. There is no separating the photos from the story behind them is there?

Do you believe that story?



[edit on 25-9-2008 by Jeremy_Vaeni]

[edit on 25-9-2008 by Jeremy_Vaeni]

This photo biz is not for me but just to identify something:

This photo from above.

The aura around the saucer... this is the 'haze' that is identified.
I see this aura or haze in many videos.
Is the haze a sign of fakery or just a occasional aura.

Because it comes and goes might be due to the propulsion.

I see it in a video posted on ATS, a dark object speeds across
an airfield.

ED: The top one, didn't know it was one jpg,


[edit on 9/25/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

reply to post by NightVision


Sorry to "butt-in" between you and Ritzman

my debate with Ritzmann is not over the authenticity of the Meier photos. It is over the quality of the photo reproductions made by him and IIG west. Please read thru threads thoroughly before making judgements.

I know that many somehow confuses their work, and what the purpose of it was.
It was not about quality of the models used, it was to show that there is a way to reproduce the way of making the picture itself.

Now for those who feel that their work on this is not valid, because of the model used was not a look-a-like model it still demonstrates the purpose of the reproduction and in no way disqualify their work.

However in my opinion i feel it was important that they did not reproduce the model for this, it was important to show that it works with any type of object.

The result was that they proved it was not impossible to to reproduce the picture in itself.

Ah... I'll stop rambling now.

reply to post by rocksarerocks


Yeah I know. Ya gotta give it a try though. The distance hazing comment is what sets me to laughing. He doesn't even know what he's looking at and wants to argue the point.

I can't complain, the vast majority of people understand the issues and judging public response, the ones who don't are becoming few.