IIG's investigation of the Billy Meier HOAX

reply to post by easynow


Indigo_Child ignores these facts because he/she is a pseudo-believer.

No matter the evidence against their case, they won't be swayed, which isn't a true believer (one who wants to find the truth from the rubbish, Meier Included).

In the end it hampers all efforts to find the truth...if this is deliberate or not, well only one person knows this...

two different investigations have found evidence of a wire or string , and heck even without an enhancement you can see signs of a wire. it's obvious that you have selective vision.

Do you mean the investigation by Karl Koff? Whose had lines painted into the photo and the illustrator who did it also publically confessing it?

I am not familiar with other investigations. I am familiar of these though that were done on the original film and negatives itself:

Discussions were held with leaders in the field of research, including: optical science engineers, aeronautical engineers, computer programmers, laser specialists and photographic technicians and latest state-of-the-art equipment was reviewed and evaluated.

SNIP

Basically we started by examining the sample transparency or negative with a laserscope, the same way used to examine black and white negatives with microscopes to determine fakes before computer came along, and we made preliminary judgements about factors. Laser technology makes it possible for a skilled examiner to determine much before he ever goes to the computer. He can set up a grid, 10,000 lines per centimeter veritical and horizontal, and go back and forth scanning the whole picture. With the laserscope we can blow up even further to look at individual grains or color laminations in the film emulsion and make judgements particle by particle. Laser holography is then used to provide a 3-dimensional image from a 2-dimensional picture. And laser projection of the hologram is so fine that a 10th of a centimeter square can be blown up to many feet to view the grains and laminations in graphic 3-D. The finest suspension threads and expert retouching overlaps should stand out graphically. Homogenity of the grains and color layers can be studied carefully for deviations from norm.

SNIP

We still find no evidence of trickery in any of these photographs so enhanced. On the other hand, we find details revealed that tend more to establish the validity of the story told by the witness

Still another method referred to us by Ron Spanbauer of De Pere, Winsonsin was tried in judging the depth of field or distance of objects in the picture from the lens of the camera at the time photographs were made(SNIP) The Meier photographs from Switzerland analysed by this method were found to be consistent with the reported data, and with the photogrammetric and computer data generated

they did a great job proving the photos are nothing more than forced perspective using small ufo models. they also proved that the succession of the video has been tampered with in the part where the "beamship" disappears. it's very obvious that the tree limb is not in the same place before and after. clear sign of a Hoax

I have analysed the Japanese reproduction, despite using modern equipment and a whole crew, their imitation still looks like a small model in front of the camera. Although they have attempted to try and create perspective with the twig, it is clear that the model is not distant from the camera by analysing the z-axis of the frame. Moreover, notice how the model wobbles from left to right. They even having problems keeping it in a steady or in a steady motion. Now imagine if they start moving their pole it would be falling all over the place. This only goes to show that even with modern equipment and an entire crew, they still failed to reproduce his pictures.

No scientific tests are required to be done on this it is obvious using a very basic visual analysis. If it was submitted for scientific analysis it would be found out instantly. The original investigators did an exactly similar duplication using a pole and a small model, except their model was built to exactly the same specifications of one of the Meier UFO's. The photo-anayst who then viewed them on the computer could instantly tell that they were small-models and explained the features that gave them away.

Until any of these reproductions are not submitted for the same scientific tests that Meier's material had to undergo they will NOT be considered duplications. Sorry.

Wendall Stevens openly admits Meier had/has many models in his home and this picture proves that the ufo is not 20- 30 ft.... like Meier claims it is.

Yes, Meier had models built for small-model investigation and for his part in the movie Contact.

why do you ignore the testimony from his ex wife ?

The truth is my ex husband is lying regarding the ufo affair. when i saw the ufo pictures that looked like a wedding cake...i asked my self where did i see these lines before ? the underpart..i realized it was a lid from a trash can,,,i compared the lid from the spaceship and i identify these lines what is exactly on the lid.

Because she is not a credible witness. She is an ex-wife of Billy Meier who had problems with him. She has undergone lie detector tests in the original investigation where she told the investigators she did see the beamships. Then after the divorce she changes her testimony to defame Meier.

If you se Part 2 of the original investigation documentary I cited earlier, it says in that documentary itself she is unhappy with Meier, she is very rude to the investigators, and she had many fights with him and even destroyed many of his photos in rage.

So because this witness has personal issues with Billy Meier her testimony cannot be considered valid. His children, by the way, testify that their father is telling the truth and they have seen them beamships and interacted with the Plejarens themselves. This counter-balances his ex-wife's testimony. So if you are going to accept his ex-wifes testimony, why would you not accept his grown children's testimony? Who is really being selective here?

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by easynow

 

Indigo_Child ignores these facts because he/she is a pseudo-believer.

No matter the evidence against their case, they won't be swayed, which isn't a true believer (one who wants to find the truth from the rubbish, Meier Included).

In the end it hampers all efforts to find the truth...if this is deliberate or not, well only one person knows this...

I am going to ask very politely that you and others who are engaging in it stop the name-calling.

As hard as it is for you to accept - not all us accept that Billy Meier is a proven hoax. This does not mean we are "cult members or fanatics" or associated with Billy Meier or Michael Horn, or Billy Meier or Michael Horn ourselves, we just have reason to believe otherwise.

If this name-calling continues I am going to report further breaches to the staff.

This is a discussion of the evidence in this case. There are both arguments FOR and AGAINST in this case. I am on the FOR side, you are on the AGAINST side. I am presenting my arguments and rebuttals, likewise you present your arguments and rebuttals.

No more adhominem attacks, ridiculing and name-calling from either side from this point on. We are going to have a mature, intelligent and civiil discussion.

P.S., I am not a fanatic believer or associated with Meier in any shape or form. I am a highly educated man and am learned in Philosophy and Logic. I uphold science, reason and rationality as much as the "skeptic" claims to. No more personal comments past this post. Focus on the arguments and evidence.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child

Who is really being selective here?

i would have to say you are

these photos are more proof of forced perspective wich has been proven time and time again....who has selective vision here , you or me ?

reply to post by easynow


You are equivocating on my argument. I said to you that Meier's wife has later given testimony against Meier, and his children are giving testimony for Meier. You choose one as proof and reject the other. So are you being selective or not?



[edit on 18-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Hello.

This is going to be a general comment rather than a specific reply to some of the questions asked earlier.

Indigo_Child, how dare you say that I haven't investigated this case. All I have seen from you is copy and paste jobs from various websites that promote the Meier case. What actual investigation work have you done? Have you contacted the professors that Meier's supporters claim to have authenticated the trees in Meier's photographs? No, you haven't. If you had then you would have discovered that no one has said what Meier's supporters claim that they have said. Have you purchased DVD copies of the Dean Martin Variety Show to determine who may be "Asket"? Did you then search for and locate that person and ask her if Meier's pictures of "Asket" were actually of her? No, you didn't. If you had then you would have met Michelle DellaFave and discovered that she is still a singer and is still performing to this day. Have you searched through hundreds of dinosaur illustrations to see if you could find the source for Meier's Pteranodon? No, you haven't. If you had you would have discovered that the artist is named Zdenek Burian and that the illustration was from a book called "Life Before Man". Did you locate and purchase the original German language version of Guido Moosbrugger's book "And Yet They Fly" so that you could compare it to the English version? No you haven't. Do you have an open offer to personally pay whatever it costs for properly conducted High Definition film transfers of the Meier movies so that they could be examined properly since they were never transferred to videotape correctly? No, you don't, but I do.

I have spent far longer researching this case than I ever thought I would, and I still have much to do. The reason that it has taken so long (and also why I do not reply to message boards that quickly) is because this is something that I only do in my very limited spare time. People like Michael Horn can be very prolific and write many articles to post on websites because that is all that they do in the world. Horn's profession is as the North American publicist for the Billy Meier Case. If he doesn't publicize the case then he cannot sell DVDs or give lectures and that is how he supports himself financially. I do not work for the IIG. I am an unpaid volunteer for the IIG. This is the difference.

Many skeptics, such as myself, view their promotion of skeptical thinking as a form of consumer protection. There are people in the world who will take advantage of you so that they can make money off of you. Skepticism offers people the tools to examine various claims rationally and to protect themselves financially.

It appears as though you are no longer rational. Look at my work. I have never said "I have won this. Period." Indigo, you did. You are the one whose mind appears to be closed.

And finally, since you earlier quoted Michael Horn's ridiculous press release entitled "Top Skeptic RETRACTS Hoax Claims - Helps Prove Meier Case Real!" let me explain something to you that Michael Horn certainly doesn't seem to understand. He thinks that my statement "I will also agree with Horn that the photograph section of the short version of my lecture was the weakest part of my presentation." means that I retracted my statements concerning the case. Just because I thought a section of my presentation was not as strong as other parts of my presentation does NOT mean that what I said was wrong.

-Derek

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by easynow

 

You are equivocating on my argument. I said to you that Meier's wife has later given testimony against Meier, and his children are giving testimony for Meier. You choose one as proof and reject the other. So are you being selective or not?



[edit on 18-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

since the children only have $omething to gain by advocating this story i would not consider their testimony admissible as any kind of proof.

Popi's testimony has to be considered since she was there and knows what the trash can lid would look like.

why do you choose one as proof and reject the other ?






more clear proof that the ufo is not 20-30 ft. in size.



s530.photobucket.com...

why do you ignore the fact that this wedding cake ufo has been proven fake and the parts of it already identified ?

selective thinking perhaps ?

reply to post by derekcbart


Derekcbart,

I do not believe I ever said you did not investigate this case. So the entire first paragraph is a strawman. I do not belittle your investigative efforts on the Asket and Nera pictures or the Dinosaur picture. If you read closely I have already conceded that these are most likely hoaxes, and added that there maybe even more pictures either likely hoaxes or unfalsifiable. I do not believe I have made any appeal to these pictures to argue my case for Meier. I think what you have overlooked is the possibility that these fakes were either implanted as Meier and his organization claim, or even fabricated by them to support his genuine travels in time and space.

I do not know who did what in the IIG investigative team. You said you worked on the Asket and Nera and dinosaur pictures. I think you did a good job and I find your research if not irrefutable, compelling enough to consider the pictures most likely hoax. My problem is not with your side of the research, but the other side. Namely:

The Photo duplications:

I already demonstrated in the OP that these are not real duplications and fail on all technical counts when compared with Meiers material. Moreover, they have not been submitted for vigorous independent scientific analysis like Meiers material was.

I also have a problem with the strawman that by IIG running their duplications through photoshop they have replicated the scientific tests. This is a blatant lie on just how vigorous the tests done in Meiers photographs and videos were. Anybody can read the scientific report and watch the original lab footage to see IIG are lying.

I also see no attempt by IIG to have replicated the video. However, I took an attempt posted by Youtube poster attempting to replicate the effect using the same equipment as IIG: pole and string and deconstructed and debunked it in the OP.

You guys are kidding yourself if you think your duplications are valid. And the intellectual dishonesty is more than apparent with your constant refusals to submit your duplications for similar and independent scientific analysis. Am I correct? You guys publically refused to submit your duplications for independent scientific analysis on national radio?

The Metal sample evidence

I have a problem with IIG’s misrepresentation of Dr Marcel Vogel’s analysis and the slandering of his capabilities. I have already demonstrated in my OP that IIG DID misrepresent Vogel. The chemical composition of metal sample was NOT known through electron scanning microscope, which even I know not being a chemist or metallurgist is impossible to know. The chemical composition was known through chemical spectroscopy. I have already cited what kind of tests the material underwent and linked the original lab footage.

IIG have deliberately misrepresented the metal sample evidence and Mr Vogel's expertise. Shame on them.

Wedding Cake UFO

I have a problem with IIG’s unsubstantiated claims that that the Wedding Cake UFO is in “fact” a trashcan lid with embellishments. The argument is so trite that even representing it makes me feel embarrassed on their behalf:

1. Something sticks out of the Wedding Cake ufo
2. Something sticks out of a trash can
3. Therefore they are the same

I defy you to go to any expert in logic and not be told that this argument is invalid. It is a formal logic fallacy.
If x is y, then x has the same properties as y. A trashcan lid does not have the same properties as the wedding cake UFO.

You failed to note the photo with the Wedding cake UFO hovering in front of a van. That one metallurgical expert estimates would take them $25,000 to build. I have already demonstrated in this thread that this is not a false perspective by showing what an actual false perspective looks like again by the youtub debunker that tries to replicate the same effect.

You also accused Meier of using a model of tree for the video where he zooms out from the tree with the Wedding cake UFO hovering in front of it. Suddenly you have a change of heart when Michael Horn presents forestry experts to confirm it is a real, full grown and mature tree and concede your evidence is weak. I personally think that you should have gone the full 9 yards and said, “I was wrong” Anyway now that you have accepted it is a full grown tree, then this clearly means the Wedding Cake UFO clearly is a large object and fully consistent with other photos taken of it(including the night time shots of its flying around the car and tree) While I agree with you that Mr. Horn sensationalized what you said, the effect is the same. You made an accusation very certain of yourself and then later after being proven wrong you denounce your own evidence as “weak”

I could go on and on with the misrepresentation and strawmans and lies that IIG has peddled(Want me to begin with the sound recording evidence) IIG has completely discredited itself in my eyes and cannot even hold a candle to Lee Elder and Wendel Steven’s original investigation.

You said something about consumer protection? I agree, but it is IIG that the consumer needs to be protected from. It is shown itself to be a disreputable pseudo-scientific organization, and if you indeed are a sincere researcher interested in the truth, you should not volunteer for such frauds.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

since the children only have $omething to gain by advocating this story i would not consider their testimony admissible as any kind of proof.

Popi's testimony has to be considered since she was there and knows what the trash can lid would look like.

Here are the problems in your above argument

1. You say that Meiers children have something to gain from the giving false testimony

- So does his ex-wife, "retribution" and how do you know she was not paid to give her testimony?

2. You assume the trash can lid is the Wedding cake UFO

- This is only a theory and an unproven and trite theory using embarrassing logic. It has already been falsified by the mass of empirical evidence gathered in scientific examinations that indeed corroborate the size of the UFO.

You keep repeating that you have proven it is a trashcan lid by posting photographs and declaring it is proof. It is proof of nothing. No matter how many times you repeat you have proven it, it will not be proof until you can demonstrate it conclusively and irrefutably.

Hi Derek ,
No one said you have not researched the case , how is it that you can find things in posts that we have not said and yet you somehow can't answer the one question I've asked you about five times now? I'd ask it again but I couldn't be bothered at this stage, you obviously have no interest in any one seriously pointing out a flaw in your research.

I thought the 'I have won' comment one of the most laughable parts of this thread. Just goes to show how childish the Meierites can be.

reply to post by Indigo_Child

You say that Meiers children have something to gain from the giving false testimony

do you deny the possibility for that to exist ?

So does his ex-wife, "retribution" and how do you know she was not paid to give her testimony?

the question is was she paid to lie or tell the truth ?

You assume the trash can lid is the Wedding cake UFO

it's kinda obvious to most people that it is in fact the container lid.

This is only a theory and an unproven and trite theory using embarrassing logic. It has already been falsified by the mass of empirical evidence gathered in scientific examinations that indeed corroborate the size of the UFO.

please specifficly direct me to the proven scientific evidence that show's and proves that indeed that the ufo is 20-30 ft.
(((no evidence from a Meier advocate can be accepted, sorry )))

denying the similarity of the lid and the ufo is embarrasing logic as most people will agree.

You keep repeating that you have proven it is a trashcan lid by posting photographs and declaring it is proof. It is proof of nothing. No matter how many times you repeat you have proven it, it will not be proof until you can demonstrate it conclusively and irrefutably.

i never said i am the one who has already proven it. this thread is about IIG and their evidence and from the looks of it i would say they have done a pretty good job in proving the wedding cake ufo is indeed a fraud of epic proportions.

so where is your scientific proof that IIG is wrong ?... where ?

saying it is not fake is proof of nothing













[edit on 18-4-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by Aspie


Then you must find the formal debate forums here - in which those who use evidence and logical arguments are judged to have 'won' or 'lost' the debate - truly "childish".

I'm not a Meier supporter. I have no real opinion on the case. I certainly do not consider the entire body of evidence presented in the case to have been "debunked", far from it. So I retain an open mind.

I think that the conclusion that just because some pieces of evidence may have been faked means that all the evidence must be discarded, is illogical and unreasonable. This doesn't take into account the fact that there are may who wish to discredit and undermine Meier who may have had a hand in introducing fakes among the real evidence in order to discredit him. Nor does it take into account that Meier is not the sole proprietor of his case any longer and so many people have had an opportunity to muddy the waters in this case. Therefore it takes an objective and open mind to sift through the evidence and to consider all possibilities. I find it interesting that Indigo, once a very vocal opponent of Meier, is someone who has taken great pains to carry out such an objective and open-minded investigation and has been compelled to recant his former skeptical stance.

I find it a real shame that so much of the opposition to the Meier case is based on opinion touted as fact. For instance, that something "looks like" a toy, or a model, to some is seen as substance enough to definitely declare it so. Also conclusions arising simply from a lack of imagination regarding possibilities have been rife - such as "Meier's ET were supposed to be spiritually advanced, therefore they wouldn't have weapons, so Meier is lying about having one of their weapons!", and the like. All this is hardly indicative of an intelligent scientific approach. And because a truly sound evidence based rebuttal to the Meier case has been woefully lacking, IMO, the rebuttals have instead shown extremely heavy reliance on ridicule, mockery and mob tactics which actually reveal a really deep weakness in their case.

And where evidence has been presented against the Meier case, it has often been drawn from far less credible and reputable sources than those who carried out the original Meier investigations and found him to be telling the truth. Yet, these sources are accepted with little investigation simply because they support the agenda of those who already decided that the Meier case should be dismissed.

On the other hand, I think Indigo has done a very good job of countering such arguments with some quite compelling evidence and I found the expose of IIG to be particularly eye opening which caused me to look into them further. I have come away from this thread with only a little bit more belief in the Meier case - I remain undecided, but openminded - but I also come away with a good deal less respect for IIG and the hardcore Meier opposition.

In conclusion, I am not sure about the Meier case. I really don't know. I suspect that there is a core of real ET contact and real evidence overlaid with so much rubble from the bitter battle against Meier that ensued that it is hard to discern exactly what is going on anymore. This is enough to put off most believers, which is no doubt exactly what was intended. There is much about the case that is troubling, but then again much of the evidence is quite startling. So, I retain an open mind on what I think is a very complex and multi-layered case.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by easynow



You're equivocating on my argument again.

You said you were not being selective. Then you went on and selected Meier's wife testimony over his children's testimony.

Then you said that his children have something to gain from giving false testimony and this is why you have selected her testimony over the children's testimony. I then reminded you that even his wife has something to gain - "retribution" and there is no way of knowing if she was paid or not for giving her testimony.

So again I'll ask for the third time: Are you being selective?

Regarding the Wedding Cake UFO. You have selected the statements of the IIG investigation which do not prove the Wedding cake UFO is a trashcan, merely say it is, over the original 5 year long investigation and extensive scientific reports that state the Wedding cake UFO is some 20-30feet in size.

So I'll ask for the fourth time: Are you being selective?

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Your post is a prime example of the "quality" of the rebuttals I was talking about.

The fact is that there is as much reason to trust/distrust the testimony of Meier's wife as there is to trust/distrust that of Meier's children. Yet you take one over the other, because it suits your agenda.

Indigo, on the other hand is simply pointing out that it's unreasonable for you to do this. And he's right.

You also say:

it's kinda obvious to most people that it is in fact the container lid.

I'm sorry but I really wince when I read things like this as it truly appeals to the lowest common denominator and is a truly worthless debating tactic. Appealing to what "most people" think, despite the fact that you haven't proven that this is what "most people think", is absolutely worthless because the truth is not established by a vote. It's meaningless. Bring evidence. It only matters what you can prove, not how many people you can drum up who hold the same opinion.

please specifficly direct me to the proven scientific evidence that show's and proves that indeed that the ufo is 20-30 ft.
(((no evidence from a Meier advocate can be accepted, sorry )))

Again, this is a very silly remark. If someone has examined the evidence and found the UFO is indeed 20 - 30 ft in size then they are fairly likely to become an advocate of Meier, even if they weren't previously. It's also hypocritical to say this as nearly all the evidence against Meier in this thread has come from commited opponents to Meier. So why the insistence on a double standard? Actually, it doesn't matter whether the evidence submitted comes from an advocate or an opponent, what matters is the quality of the evidence and whether it stands scrutiny.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


Finally an open minded and eloquent response from someone.
Thank you for your input.

I hope people will take the previous post by Malcram to heart.

Easynow, in your previous post :

You say that Meiers children have something to gain from the giving false testimony
"do you deny the possibility for that to exist ?"

So does his ex-wife, "retribution" and how do you know she was not paid to give her testimony?
"the question is was she paid to lie or tell the truth "

Here you are asking Indigo if he accepts the possibility of him being wrong about something but you refuse to accept that possibility yourself?
Whats wrong with this picture?



[edit on 18-4-2009 by Frankinmouse]

reply to post by Indigo_Child

Are you being selective?

i said it has to be considered and i never said that is the only think i am selecting

are you going to answer my question ?

do you deny the possibility of the children having $omething to gain ?

reply to post by Malcram

Bring evidence. It only matters what you can prove, not how many people you can drum up who hold the same opinion.

exactly !

finally someone thinking clearly

extraordinary f claims require extraordinary proof

this is something Meier and his advocated have not done, so there is no reason for anyone to believe this story. period

reply to post by Frankinmouse

Here you are asking Indigo if he accepts the possibility of him being wrong about something but you refuse to accept that possibility yourself?
Whats wrong with this picture?

once again..i never said i only accept that possibility

please quote me...please

stop twisting what i am saying to ridicule me..it ain't gonna work


how about you...

do you deny the possibility exists that the children have something to gain from all this ?

reply to post by easynow


As you previously stated, just saying something (and adding "Period") doesn't make it true.

There is, I'm afraid, much extraordinary evidence in the Meier case that resists debunking. Some of it can be explained away. Some of it can't, as this thread demonstrates.

But let me anticipate your intelligent, evidence laden and irrefutable counter to this post:

"No there isn't! Everyone knows that. Period!"


[edit on 18-4-2009 by Malcram]