It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Possibly, although the original investigators of Meiers case looked at all the toy stores in Meiers area they did not find another ray-gun similar to this. An interesting feature on the ray-gun is the apendage that runs from the bottom of it. I have never seen a toy like that.
It's not actually.
However, if it really is on a string, then why is this video from the 70's still yet irreproducable
that's because he made it himself...the handle or hand grip looks like a paint gun handle. he probably added the rest and that's why you can't find a duplicate.
how can you be so sure that it's not on a string ? where you there when the photo was taken ? i find it totally illogical to defend this picture when in fact you were not even there. that makes no sense.
it's not irreproducible...most people accept the obvious evidence that the majority of his story is B.S. so no further proof is needed.
even if someone did reproduce it...the advocaters of this story would still be in denial, so why bother ?
Originally posted by Frankinmouse
reply to post by easynow
I wasn't going to but I'll debunk this for you then you can stop regurgitating other peoples mistakes and assumptions and do some research yourself or at the very least stop making inane comments on this subject.
This is supposedly a carpet tack that fell off the model, then why does it appear in these two other photograps in different locations in exactly the same place on the object, has the carpet tack the uncanny ability to sense when a photograph is being taken and is afraid of being seen in the picture so falls off in fright landing on the deck of the object in a place it feelsa safe and secure OR is it a part of the ship. My bet is it's a part of the ship.
There debunked.
Originally posted by yeti101
rofl billy meir
it would be incredibly easy for him to prove those craft were real. One solitary clip of a craft flying over his head and landing would do. But then that would require more than a small model and string to pull off
Originally posted by yeti101
I think this thread illustrates how bereft of material the ufo community is that they resort to resurrecting meir and his models.
Originally posted by Frankinmouse
Easynow, well done you have disproved the Meier case. I congratulate you. Stellar piece of investigation that you have cut and pasted there.
Easynow, well done you have disproved the Meier case. I congratulate you. Stellar piece of investigation that you have cut and pasted there.
Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Originally posted by Frankinmouse
Easynow, well done you have disproved the Meier case. I congratulate you. Stellar piece of investigation that you have cut and pasted there.
Well come on then.... debunk the image that easynow has provided. It doesn't matter where it's sourced from. You sourced images too. What a lame argument. Surely if Meier is irrefutable, you can show us 100% why that is not a part of the Meier ship! Can't you?
IRM
First, let us discuss the claim that a scanning electron microscope could be used to determine the composition of the metal sample.
Even using magnification far greater than what Marcel Vogel used in his analysis it is still impossible to view the elemental, chemical, or atomic structure of an object using a scanning electron microscope. The resolution of the scanning electron microscope is simply not high enough to image down to that level. In fact, increasing the magnification of any object using any form of a microscope will not tell you what the object is made of. In order to determine the composition of an object you need to use a process such as
Originally posted by Frankinmouse
reply to post by easynow
How about taking your head out of the debunking hole for a little while and actually reading through some of the original material and the original investigations.
I'm off now thanks for the stimulating conversation.
Originally posted by Frankinmouse
Ok, first I sourced and image which I had noticed evidence which refuted IIG's "smoking gun" evidence of deception mainly that a supposed tack had fallen off the object ,as it appears in other photographs in different locations photographed at different angles it is unlikely that it is an object that has fallen off and more likely a part of the object. This is all I am claiming.This fact was never mentioned anywhere before so I can reasonably say I did a little investigation myself not just cut and pasted somebody elses work.