is every Meier photo a fake ?

Well in my opinion you fake one you might as well have faked them all. If you destroy your credibility with a hoax, then you deserve all the doubt and unbelief you get.

reply to post by Aspie


Because that's standard operation in the Meierite camp. To enter a discussion under the guise of rational discourse, state that they're impartial or undecided, but not examine standard evidence that points to an explanation. To boot, it's heavily refuted as hearsay and conjecture....when their own "answers" have less evidence then the opposition data.

That's just how it works...and I've seen it for years in this case. It's really pretty bizarre.

reply to post by Aspie


dang did i strike a nerve ?

when clearly you have made up your own mind on the Meier case.

Please show me where in this thread that i have said that i have made up my mind ?

Anyone who sides on the fact that the pics are fake you decide to attack or ridicule.

did i attack you when you posted the picture of the UFO with a string on it ?

When someone points you to Derek's website you slag it off as disinfo

i never claimed any of Dereks work was proven as dis-info i merely suggested the possibility of it since i have not chosen a side in this fight like you have.

yet you are quite happy to get your own info and point people to Horn's site

i want people reading this thread to examine both sides of this case and if this thread is filled with nothing but the haters of Billy Meier than it is not a fair and balanced investigation. i may be guilty of not exploring every angle when confronted with evidence and i may have appeared to be one sided but that is not the case.

Horn's website is the most fictious site on the internet.

i could say that about every UFO site on the internet.



and since you are so good at putting strings on pictures of UFO's why don't you try it with these and and explain to everyone how a one armed manned was able to accomplish that

reply to post by jritzmann

Because that's standard operation in the Meierite camp. To enter a discussion under the guise of rational discourse, state that they're impartial or undecided, but not examine standard evidence that points to an explanation

so you are accusing me of being a Meierite because i have opened up a discussion that is impartial ?

WOW that is the the most ignorant thing i have ever seen you say on this site Mr. Ritzman and your judgement of my intentions is completely wrong.

also please explain to me how you can prove that i haven't examined the "standard evidence".......You don't know what i have done and to claim you do is also ignorant.

because there are so many haters of the Billy Meier case, i may have used their side of the argument more to tweak the evidence people have presented such as Derick and yourself in order to find the answers i am looking for and just because you have come to your conclusions does not give you the right to stop me from a continued "neutral" investigation.

That's just how it works...and I've seen it for years in this case. It's really pretty bizarre.

there seems to be two sides to that story from what i see

First image, the sun is rising/falling behind the mountain, and diffusing on the clouds. Orange, its nice.

But it appears the sun is behind the mountain, and definatley NOT directly above it, and behind the photographer., as it appears to be reflecting on the above UFO.

The second one(the one below), looks fake, in the same image.(gut instinct)




Also they are very in focus and the entire, surroundings are not, wich makes me think they are close to the lens.
[edit on 12-11-2008 by monkeybus]

[edit on 12-11-2008 by monkeybus]

[edit on 12-11-2008 by monkeybus]

reply to post by easynow


General rule of thumb: Once a faker, ALWAYS a faker. All of his photographs are doctored and there is no way to prove otherwise. This guy has no credibility.

Originally posted by easynow
so you are accusing me of being a Meierite because i have opened up a discussion that is impartial ?

No sir. I say that because no sane answer, nor amount/detail of contrary data seems to suit you. There's times where you just have to call crap...crap, because it is.

It seems pretty evident that you have not looked at all available contrary data, because if you had (and you seem like a lucid, thinking person) I'm confident you'd be seeing this case for what it is.

That you obviously don't, says to me that you haven't spent enough time looking at and studying the aspects of photographic techniques and disciplines as they apply to the contrary data...or you're not as lucid as I thought.

As I said, anyone bothering to understand forced perspective, distance hazing, and focal issues can understand the photos are not what they claim to be - VERY easily. I stand by what I have always said-understand these items or educate yourself in them-and I'm 100% confident you'll come to the same end as a lot of us have with this case.

That is, provided your deep seated desire for it to be real doesn't overshadow your perspective. Thats rule one: forget about desiring *anything* in this UFO thing, to be what YOU want it to. Go in open, but critical.

reply to post by Aggie Man


Exactly right. Think of a good UFO case being one you could take to a hardcore skeptic...not one that he can easily disprove.

A one armed man could quite easily do this.



There are people with no arms who can paint masterpieces you know.

reply to post by Aspie


Haha, thats brill

just to prove that i am not a Meierite here are the most damning photo's that i have seen and because of these photo's and the explanations behind them, i cannot choose the side of a believer.







also want to add that Wendall Stevens admits in one of his presentations that Meier had many models of ufo's around the house and there are pictures of Billy posing in his yard with the tree top that was used in some of the photo's.

reply to post by easynow


Those are pretty dam funny.

Almost fell off ,my seat.

I think its possible he saw something, something strange and never had a Camera handy

So he didnt want to be put in a loony bin, he faked them, so he could share his experiiance, the same way he saw it

reply to post by communicator


I was just thinking that not even a minute ago after reading the last thread I was in.

reply to post by jritzmann


just because i am skeptical of evidence(on both sides) does not give you the right to put a label on me as a "Meierite"

That is, provided your deep seated desire for it to be real

no deep seated desire here at all for it to be real and i find the label you have given me and that statement offensive and slanderous.

all i wanted from this thread was different opinions and the possibility of finding some truth to this case, not because i have a desire for it to be real but to make sure nothing was missed that could have been of importance.

so in the future please do not assume anything about me because trying to gauge a persons intentions and beliefs through a message board usually ends up being the wrong impression.

Ah the ray gun is one of the funniest things in UFOlogy. Always good for a laugh.
That anyone was to have taken it seriously is funnier still

Anyone know when was the last time Meier released a photo?

reply to post by Aspie


As far as I am aware, the last photo released by Meier was of the six-fingered handprint on a car. That was a few years ago. He seems to have given up on producing any physical evidence to support his claims for some time now. He has been concentrating on the prophecies and philosophies for many years now. Other than the six-fingered handprint I don't think he has released any photographic evidence since the 1980s, but I may have missed something. He was the most prolific from 1975 to 1983.

-Derek

Thanks Derek.

I was wondering because didn't he used to say he doesn't have the negatives any more. So he used this as an excuse to not have any pics tested.

If he releases new photos his excuse is blown. Unless he's become Modern Billy and uses a digital camera.

Originally posted by easynow
first of all i am not here to defend anything about this case and with me having a neutral stance about it, speculating my theory's about why these events occurred the way they did are only guesses and won't prove anything just like your speculation and guesses.

If you're not defending the case, why do you dismis possible explanations criticising Meier's actions? That's not being neutral. And as Aspie already pointed out you have a tendency to attack and ridicule those who have a negative opinion of Meier. That happend many times in thread. As Aspie also pointed out you dismissed Derek's website but pointed out Horn's and Deardorff's as a reasonable source. Neutral means that you don't take sides. Your contributions in this thread indicate otherwise. I think you have to be careful here Easynow, some people don't see you as 'neutral' and some might even begin to think you're liar as well.

i will say that i surely want to know the truth but both sides enforcing their conjecture based agenda's will amount to zero in the end.

Searching for the truth means you have to question the knowledge. Test the claims that are being made. Investigate, verify, corroborate. It's lenghty and difficult process, especially in the world of ufology.
You make it sound like I have an agenda which fell out of thin air. Let me tell you something Easynow, my "agenda" or point of view on Meier evolved over a decade or so. That's right, I've been reading up on him for many years. At first I even saw him in a positive way but over time after reading much information that changed to the negative. I can explain my motivation in great detail. Can you?

so ,unless some damning or affirmative new evidence is presented about the story line there is really no point to keep going at each other with these guesses but if you think something conclusive can come from that then i will keep considering yours and others, conjecture based viewpoints. and the answer to your accusation that i have not offered an explanation of why the photo developer's name was never released is unjustly because the speculative answer is in my last post to you

You know Easynow, I've 'been around the block' with these discussion forums and sometimes it's easy to see what kind of reasoning or strategy the other poster uses. I see posts as thoughts - thought-patterns someone sends out. If you look closely enough you can always see what someone is doing. You can see a person lure people into a debate, evade hard questions, blame other posters to various degrees while washing their hands in innocence. People often if not always leave a trace of their actions. Those actions show what these people are all about...

and just to be clear on this i am not ruling out your side of this discussion at all.

I hope you realise that there's a major difference between 'talking the talk' and 'walking the walk'.

reply to post by TerraX


trying to look into this case has gotton me labled as a meierite and now your calling me a liar so i have decided that i am done with this and will no longer be responding.