is every Meier photo a fake ?

reply to post by jritzmann


Hilarious. Hey, when someone critiques your work, or demands a higher standard, you can always put them ignore, right? Ignorance defined.

The photo I have shown should be proof enough to display that Meier, even if he is a hoaxer, is a better hoaxer. The standard at which you and IIGwest made duplications need to be raised...period. You won't get a free pass from me just because Meier made a few models. Think about it.



Furthermore I find it intriguing that it is generally acceptable on ATS to call something a hoax without being challenged, but not generally acceptable to demand a higher standard from those who are debunking the hoaxers.



[edit on 25-9-2008 by NightVision]

[edit on 25-9-2008 by NightVision]

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


The "aura" you're seeing is essentially a compression artifact, and has nothing to do with the actual event. Any image with compression may have this kind of aberration, not just UFO shots. The photo you see is also likely a photo scanned from a printed book. It would most likely be "averaged" to remove the Moire pattern which will in some cases (perceptually-dependent on resolution) blur the edge. That edge then falls prey to compression too. It's blurred it slightly outside the edge of the "ship" The end result is an aura around the outer edge.

EDIT: Also, with online video, compression again can cause the effect you mention. In a moving object, you can get a "trail" effect, along with the edge effects.

Hope that helps.









[edit on 25-9-2008 by jritzmann]

"You won't get a free pass from me just because Meier made a few models. Think about it. "

I know you're not addressing me but I'm thinking about it and I'm wondering what your point actually is.

If you concede that Meier made a few models, faked some stuff--why are you willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the older stuff? Why, because to your eye it looks real and your eye can't possibly be wrong so instead of calling a hoaxer a hoaxer you'd rather spin it so that he originally had real photos and then hoaxed?

That's ridiculous. You're saying you believe Meier in one circumstance because you like what you see but the rest is crap because you don't like what you see. That argument has zero to do with the evidence and everything to do with your sense of yourself.

If you're not saying that, if you're only saying Jeff et. al. need to be held to a high standard of proof that Meier was hoaxing those original photos--why? Why should they bother investigating it in the first place now that Meier has provided absolutely, positively hoaxed material? I mean sure, it would make sense to "prove it" back then but after the wedding cake crap, why waste the energy now?

The only reason I can find brings us full circle: Because you really, really want those original photos to not be hoaxes or else you were duped--and that's impossible!

Face it: You were duped. I was duped. Granted I was a kid--but I was duped! At this point why are we not demanding justice? Why are we arguing over redundant investigations?

The interesting thing is Mr Meier is laughing all the way to the bank on this one. It is amazing people believe this, and even George Adamski is getting revived, even though his aliens come from the planet Venus.
To all the contactees who are still out there: You have filmed and photographed the ships, why not film the aliens? Or better yet, interview an alien while being filmed. I have noticed there are films and video of the ships, but there are none of the aliens (unless you count the catalog models of Mr Meier). Even Carlos does not have any video of his aliens, although plenty of shots of his model, I mean ship.
As I have been stating, the UFO subject is the laughing stock of people like Stephen Hawking. Wouldn't it be nice to clean this up and get a brilliant mind like his to back up the researchers out there and add some needed respect?

I guess it is too much to ask for.

Originally posted by kidflash2008

As I have been stating, the UFO subject is the laughing stock of people like Stephen Hawking. Wouldn't it be nice to clean this up and get a brilliant mind like his to back up the researchers out there and add some needed respect?

I guess it is too much to ask for.

I'm afraid the reality is that there are laughing stocks on both sides of the fence, my friend (a.k.a Bill Nye the skeptic on one side, and Carlos Diaz on the other). This is why I have been demanding a higher standard from everyone, even the skeptics (to do do their homework and make better photo recreations), and from those doing the filming of UFO's.

As it stands right now, most of the skeptics' egos are too big to take constructive criticism and the hoaxers and are too attention hungry to stop. When you take a few steps back and get some perspective, it starts to look like two sides of the same coin.

reply to post by NightVision


Hello NightVision.

What you are seeing is not distance hazing. What you are seeing is image degradation. The Meier photographs available on the web are generally JPEG compressed images copied from websites of scans from books made from lithographs. All of the images on web of Meier's images are at least five generations removed from the original source. For example, back in the days of VHS the recording of a television show would lose 2/3 of the originally broadcast image quality (200 lines of resolution for VHS compared to 525 lines of resolution for the broadcast). Then if you made a VHS copy of the VHS recording you would lose more information and then if you made a VHS copy of the VHS copy of the VHS recording you would lose even more information, and so on. This is known as image degradation. This is how all of the Meier images on the web are. They are copies of copies of copies which lose resolution with each copy which adds an overall softness to the image which gets misinterpreted as distance hazing when it is actually image degradation.

The photographs on the IIG website are all much closer to the original source and are therefore much higher resolution than any of the Meier photographs. The IIG photographs are either the original digital file if taken with a digital camera or they are 600dpi scans of the original photographic prints. You are most likely correct in that there is no distance hazing in the IIG photographs, but if you were to download an IIG photograph, print it out, scan the print, resize it to approximately 320x240, and then save it as a JPEG then you would see the "distance hazing" that the Meier photographs seem to have.

-Derek

reply to post by NightVision


Not judging you whatsoever, it was directed at the other people..my apologies.

Everyone who believes this guy, read below. Billy has been destroyed over and over on the internet. I guess he was forced to make a fool out of himself and publish fake pictures though.

Source:

www.iigwest.org...

Dinosaur Photo Deconstruction
CLAIM: Billy Meier Published Photographs Of Dinosaurs That He Claims Were From A Trip He Took Into The Distant Past

IIG’S FINDINGS: Photographs Are Actually Of An Illustration From A Book About Dinosaurs

Billy Meier claims to have traveled onboard one of the Plejaran space ships from time to time. During one of these alleged trips the Plejarans traveled back in time to the age of the dinosaurs. Meier then released this photograph as proof of his traveling back in time:






If this really was a live action picture of a Pteranodon catching, or releasing, prey then it would be amazing. However, it isn’t. It is actually a photograph of this illustration:






As you can see the Meier photograph of the dinosaur is the same as the illustration, albeit in much lower quality and resolution. This illustration is by Zdenek Burian and was published in 1972 in the book Life Before Man, which was written by Zdenek V. Spinar.




We are not certain where Meier first published his photograph of a dinosaur, but it has never been denied as being an authentic Meier photograph by Meier or any of his proponents.

This is an example of what appears to be Meier creating "evidence" to support his claims that was unable to be verified until the Internet came into wide usage.



[edit on 25-9-2008 by rocksarerocks]

Originally posted by NightVision
This is why I have been demanding a higher standard from everyone, even the skeptics (to do do their homework and make better photo recreations), and from those doing the filming of UFO's.

This is the problem NV (not picking on you, just pointing something out), there is zero distance haze, it's compression from reproduction, not haze. That fact is why the experts are worn out by demands from people who don't understand the technology. Why would anyone waste their time on proving something that is already a fact?

Your "demands" are like demanding a mechanic replace the fuel injection system on your car because of poor gas mileage even though he tells you it's the sensors that control the injection system, not the injectors themselves, causing the poor mileage. Just because you don't understand the technology at work doesn't make the mechanic wrong.

Our mechanic is probably going to charge you for replacing the whole injection system even though he only replaced a $25.00 sensor and you'd never be the wiser...

Fortunately here at ATS our experts are honest. They just get worn out and grumpy when people keep demanding new fuel injectors.

Springer...

Originally posted by derekcbart


The photographs on the IIG website are all much closer to the original source and are therefore much higher resolution than any of the Meier photographs. The IIG photographs are either the original digital file if taken with a digital camera or they are 600dpi scans of the original photographic prints. You are most likely correct in that there is no distance hazing in the IIG photographs, but if you were to download an IIG photograph, print it out, scan the print, resize it to approximately 320x240, and then save it as a JPEG then you would see the "distance hazing" that the Meier photographs seem to have.

-Derek

reply to post by derekcbart


I'm not completely sure I agree with you that what I see in the Meier photo I posted is 'not' distance hazing, but given that the generational quality of the Meier photos, this is certainly noteworthy.

In regards to your Grand Canyon reproduction, I must respectfully say that even after looking at the high resolution photos, I still feel the need to demand a higher standard of reproduction. However, I do salute you and your team for taking the time to do this.






This is not a critique on you personally, I'm just going off what I see here. Thank you for your inquiry and not turning this into a personal Ritzmann crusade battle. I look forward to seeing more of your work.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by NightVision]

Originally posted by Springer

This is the problem NV (not picking on you, just pointing something out), there is zero distance haze, it's compression from reproduction, not haze. That fact is why the experts are worn out by demands from people who don't understand the technology. Why would anyone waste their time on proving something that is already a fact?

You've made an incorrect assumption that, I don't understand the technology. It is my suggestion that it would behoove the reproducers of these photos to show in their own creations how generational reproducing can produce such an effect. It didn't see any effort in IIG's presentation to show this obvious effect.

Originally posted by Springer

Fortunately here at ATS our experts are honest. They just get worn out and grumpy when people keep demanding new fuel injectors.

Springer...

Fair enough, But am I supposed to apologize for demanding a higher standard?

[edit on 25-9-2008 by NightVision]

reply to post by derekcbart


Derek-
I hope you're getting through but I fear it's to no avail. I think it should be noted that a single individual is the only person demanding "higher standards" of reproduction, but never has said what those "higher standards" are.

Model-check.
Mono filament -check.
Camera-check.

Thats all the "tools" needed.

Whats funny is the "higher standards" don't seem to apply to Meier, when he's been caught faking pictures of "aliens", rayguns, and WC "ships". He certainly hasn't provided "higher standards" of evidence...thats for damned sure.

So where *is* the "standard" there? It's hilarious. The people who don't want to "get it", never will bud. You can try though.

reply to post by NightVision


Thank you.

I know that I have mentioned this on ATS before, but I'm not sure if I have on this particular thread. The James Underdown "UFO" photographs were never taken as part of the Meier Case investigation. They were taken for a completely different project that never came to fruition so we decided to incorporate them into the Meier investigation. We never sought out to specifically replicate any specific Meier photographs. We just thought that they would be a good comparison to show how easy it is to fabricate "UFO" photographs. BTW, the James Underdown "UFO" is actually a Mr. Coffee coffee pot lid suspended by a fishing line. That's it.

I've seen his photographs on some sites where people have tried to explain how they could have been created. Some people have said that the object was obviously thrown, some have said that they could see the paste up that was done using Photoshop, but no one has ever realized (without my telling them first) that it is simply a coffee pot lid held in place by a fishing line. That is all it takes to create "UFO" photographs that are comparable to Meier's.

-Derek

reply to post by derekcbart


Okay no problem. Fair enough. In regards to the artificial hazing of Meier's photo's, why not take, or reproduce a photo of your own, then scan it, or compress it to show this artificial hazing effect?

admin edit: Let's not call each other out please...


[edit on 25-9-2008 by Springer]

??? I'm confused. Who called who out? I think you might have edited the wrong post, Springer.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by NightVision]

Originally posted by jritzmann
Because for the past 3 years now David Biedny, Derek, and myself among others are consistently maligned and slandered, for pointing out what this "case" truly is.

But I saw no one "consistently malign and slander" you in this thread... In fact till you showed up I did not see you mentioned?

That would mean you came a hunting... no?

Originally posted by Balez
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.

Well considering I have not stated any opinion either way in this case except that they aren't 'fuzzy'... I have not put my "trust/belief wrongly". In fact this is the first time I even looked at the case The other threads were just such a feud that I stayed away...

This one started out more 'friendly". I was never fond of the "Hatfield VS McCoy" type continuous arguments... but sometimes its funny to watch





[edit on 25-9-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


Nope, I was directed to this thread by another member who alerted me to inaccuracies being stated about the work I did. However you leave out the misstatements as part of your post. The slanderous remarks are from the Meier camp itself...not usually here.

Thats all. However an ignored member tended to make me extend my stay. I guess I'm supposed to just allow misstatements and let people think whatever they want, independent of what I actually did or said.

This has really given me food for a new blog post...high time I suppose.



[edit on 25-9-2008 by jritzmann]

Originally posted by kidflash2008... people like Stephen Hawking. Wouldn't it be nice to clean this up and get a brilliant mind like his to back up the researchers out there and add some needed respect?

BRILLIANT suggestion

Now would you please gather me 10 of the best case UFO cases that YOU would consider qualify for this presentation to the likes of S Hawking to be seriously studied... and I will make damn sure they get them...

Deal?

Originally posted by jritzmann I guess I'm supposed to just allow misstatements and let people think whatever they want, independent of what I actually did or said.

Well yes most likely... I am expected not to push the limit all the time here... gotten several slaps on the wrist for 'engaging the enemy' We're supposed to be 'taking it like a man' when the abuse flies... and you after all are a Conspiracy Master... so should be able to show more restraint...

I know its hard... my current avatar is in protest of recent 'events' but then some DO like the debate more than the actual work itself

reply to post by zorgon


I wouldn't waste my time with Ritzmann here Zorgon. He came here hunting for a fight. Not once did I make any misstatements about him or his work. He just gets defensive with no prodding. Next thing you know, he puts me on ignore once I start posting critiqued photos by IIGwest and calls in Springer in to put out the fire. I am honestly shocked at his immature behavior here in this thread as a representative of ATS. The guy literally cannot have a friendly debate. Derek C showed some serious class and didn't mind my questions at all. Now, i've been told i'm "calling him out". When does it end?

Now JRitz is threatening to blog about this thread and all its injustice on his website.

See a pattern here?


[edit on 25-9-2008 by NightVision]