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.

 

New "Confirmation" and "Corroboration" of the Meier HOAX

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 05:30 AM
link   
A good site with some of Billy's contacts can be found here

www.semjase.net...

although i am still very sceptical pretty much what Gazrok said in his earlier posts is the way i feel about it.




posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Here is an interesting bit of information about some of Mr.Meier's prophecies.
www.iigwest.com...
Anyone care to debunk this gentleman's view ?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bursuc
Here is an interesting bit of information about some of Mr.Meier's prophecies.
www.iigwest.com...
Anyone care to debunk this gentleman's view ?


Hi Bursuc,

Basicly what Ike42 showed is that much of the information that Mr Horn categorized as prophetic was already available prior or just after Meier published it. What Mr Horn doesn't do is highlight those prophecies that were incorrect, and make no mistake those are also part of the information. One last intriquing bit of information. Ingo Swann, a 'remote viewer', published information regarding "rings of Jupiter" in 1973 after a "remote viewing session", 3 years prior to Meier's publication.
www.remoteviewed.com...

[edit on 31-7-2005 by TerraX]


d1k

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Does anyone else think the sounds Billy Meier produced from his UFO encounters sounds like the recently recorded radio waves from Saturn www.abovetopsecret.com... ?

I think they sound very familiar.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by d1k
Does anyone else think the sounds Billy Meier produced from his UFO encounters sounds like the recently recorded radio waves from Saturn www.abovetopsecret.com... ?

I think they sound very familiar.


Fascinating. The sounds are not so dissimilar.
www.nasa.gov...

www.theyfly.com...
under 'evidence' - sound recordings 'audio'



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
With permission, I am posting the following from James Deardorff and Jim Dilettoso that puts the burden squarely on Jeff Ritzmann to defend his "technological" debunking of the Meier film:

Hello List,

A while ago I said I'd get back to you on what a couple others had to say about the behind-the-brow photo (Bachtelhornli-Unterbachtel) analysis.

It doesn't look like the university professor friend of my friend will come through with any comment. Apparently the UFO aspect of it is too daunting for him.

The other person was Jim Dilettoso, who's into UFO photo analysis. So far he's just commented on using embossment software in such an analysis. Below is what he had to say on that.
 
Jim (Deardorff)

"After 2 weeks of careful study, searching forensic proceedures, published papers,and IEEE,& SPIE, I find no evidence that an emboss filter is the basis for any test.

Although emboss is derived from the family of "edge detection" filters, used in image processing and analysis, I have always viewed emboss as a "special effect" only. Not a test proceedure. But perhaps I had overlooked something.

An open-minded query into the possibility that there was some basis for using emboss as a precise and dependable tool.. bore no fruit.

At best, emboss filters are a subjective based effect used to create special effects on letters and images for artistic purposes. Photoshop and many other 'paint'programs have this feature as a fundamental effect. The resultant image may be interpreted as some kind of 'test', but there is no foundation data, or numbers, or comparisons, or normals...that exist to make ONE image that has been embossed...provide any kind of scientific conclusion.

...Concerning the images examined by Korff and Ritzman. I see no real science in what they claim. Neither their protocols or processes have any antecedents. I find it unfortunate that they get away with what they do, and people believe them. From the generation of image thay use, to the resolution, to the software and nomenclature, it is all even less than pseudoscience."



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Doesnt take a brain surgeon skippy...as I said to your "PAR" yahoo group....

"Youre taking imaging advice/opinions from a man who claimed to be able to do spectral analysis (i.e. determine the origin of any light...right
down to the filament) on lights in a video. An total impossibility.

Youre talking about a man who claimed color density separations
were "thermograms", when they were nothing but what equates to a now
antiquated posterization/color adjust/replace color operation.

I dont expect anyone here to actually examine and truly question
anything, but should anyone be inclined..get the software, learn it,
test it...really try it's limits, and find out what an edge detect
and emboss really can do. I personally find it f$%& ridiculous
that Jim gets away with what he does....so tit for tat there.

Hell just read the paper people:
www.rickross.com...

Oh...I forgot, thats just "disinformation".

The "tests" run by Jim way back when on the Meier pieces, are
totally unprovable (as well as some processes being highly
questionable)...as the data used no longer exists or is being
deliberated witheld.

It seems again that Horn and Deardorff dont subscribe to their
own "prove, and duplicate" stance."

Sorry you dont believe that obvious 1 frame over exposures are not an issue of stop motion/shutter hold....sorry you cant accept fact that a disc alters the form edge of a hill you claim it's "behind". Want it without the emboss? Wont make any difference...it's still there...and whats there...is there.

However, my outcomes, and many others are duplicatable. Will you claim that the animated gif here shows absolutely nothing? Are you really as simple as you sound?



Just go away Michael, youre friggin embarrassing.

PS-just so it's clear, the emboss is simply to bring out the obvious, and the subtle...it is not the "basis" of the study, or it's outcome.






[edit on 15-9-2005 by jritzmann]



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by 8Michael12
From the generation of image thay use, to the resolution, to the software and nomenclature, it is all even less than pseudoscience."


Good...then pony up your own "challenge" and get me a better generation copy...that *isnt* your DVD.

I keep forgetting...you dont have any.

I have to laugh when Jim says the word pseudoscience.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
As posted on the PAR board and sent to Jeff:

MH: I think that we're simply back to one of the core issues regarding the "skeptical" perspective on the case, i.e. intellectual honesty. I haven't been a very vocal critic of Jeff's efforts because I think that it's important for people who have some technical qualifications to examine and contribute their informed opinions about the evidence in the case. I am also not a photographic expert, nor an expert in any other technical areas. But I can think, reason and use common sense.

So, regarding Jeff's responses below, I have a few comments of my own.


> There is an object under examination, not a special effect.

JR: Thats a highly debatable statement...I'd call many of Meier's photos
and film "effects".

MH: Jeff calls them "effects" but fails to say, and demonstrate, what effects they are and how they were produced. Likewise, after all this time period, one in which Meier had comparably produced numerous photos, etc. with NO technology such as is available to Jeff, Jeff has failed to demonstrate his own ability to create such "effects" himself, something that should be rather easy for someone with the technical knowledge and ability, as well as confidence in his own conclusions, that Jeff represents himself as possessing.

>That object 
> is of sufficient size so as to appear clearly enough at a certain 
> distance from the camera, perhaps 1/4 mile away.

JR: That camera could also have that object appear clearly 4 ft away.
Youre estimate of 1/4 mile away is based on...what?

MH: Here we have such a patently fraudulent comment as to almost be unworthy of comment. For anyone possessing the film clip in question, let alone from even a few captured frames, we can tell that neither the hill nor the object when it's at the hill, are a mere 4 ft. away. When one watches the object return to the top of the screen, slowly growing in size, it's clear to any thinking person that this is not a little model a few feet away. Again, Jeff has had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate his opinion about this - and his common sense - and has failed.

But let's not overlook another obvious point here too, i.e. Jeff first infers that we're looking at an "effect" but now states that it's a model! When someone is desperate to be "right" - and in deep denial as to what the facts are - they will go to great lengths to protect their vested interests, i.e. their egos, sense of authority and most likely deeply held beliefs, fears and insecurities. In the same way as telling a lie requires a lot more "damage control" and mental machinations to not contradict oneself, people who feel the need to manufacture opinions designed to promote their agendas ultimately end up displaying their contradictions and illogic for all to see. We have just such a case here.

>Such an object, if it 
> was a "model" would still have to be of significant size and under
the 
> control of a number of parties in order to perform as it does on
the 
> entire sequence, i.e. at least moving fro the distance back up to
the 
> top of the screen.

JR: No, it could be controlled by one person, as the camera runs. I see
nothing to suggest significant size. Rather, the "wobble" is quick
and jerky as one would expect from a small object.

MH: Again, Jeff is not only seeing what he wants to see but trying to tell us what we should see...instead of what is clear for anyone to see. Contrary to what he says, the return flight of the object is extremely smooth and well controlled. And, again, we now have an object instead of an effect. And, again, we still have someone - a two-handed, technologically well-equipped someone - floating clumsy, self-contradictory theories but obviously completely unable to demonstrate them, i.e. to duplicate the evidence.

Like all the skeptics who ultimately get caught flat-footed at this point, Jeff has his excuses to offer but little else. Let's see, it's not "important" to him to duplicate the film, he doesn't have "time", has pressing volunteer work to do, etc. and whatever, the story will ALWAYS be the same and so will the obvious conclusion: HE CAN'T DO IT.

> We see no evidence of other parties, nor do we see any evidence
of 
> cables, etc.

JR: Because the film youre viewing is at best recorded by video off a
projection of the (possibly) original film. Your "original data" is
already 3rd generation. This is far more then enough to hide fine
filament tethers.

MH: Here come the excuses and "explanations" but, once again, where's the beef? Why didn't Jeff use these past few months to expose that sly one-armed hoaxster by duplicating the film instead of just blustering and jiving?

> So, since no collaborators have ever been found or come forward,
since 
> we're looking at only one of a number of Meier's films and since
the 
> Swiss Military Air Safety Monitoring Unit itself reported 236 UFO
radar 
> sightings right above Meier's land...would you like to tell us
what the 
> object is and your reasons for your opinion? Put another way,
would you 
> like to tell us what the object isn't?

JR: Where are the official reports by the Military on said sightings? I
dont mean Meier's say so or your own. I mean verifiable
documentation from the Swiss Air Force. Are they releasing such
documents to you or Meier? I highly doubt any military of *any*
country is passing out UFO reports to the general populace of the
world.
So where are the reports...not a website...the official reports,
scanned documentation, provable...you know...proof? Or is it...dare
I say...someone's say so.

MH: Right, where ARE those things? Well, Jeff, contact one of Meier's main critics and opponents Luc Bürgin and the MUFON-CES research group in Switzerland for them. But since Jeff is asking a lot of "where are" questions, designed to put the focus anywhere but on his own incompetence and failed "efforts", I again have to ask where are your films, photos, etc. duplicating, and effectively debunking, Meier's?

JR: What the object isn't?
It isnt many things...you need to be a bit specific. I've told you
my opinions, and shown you raw grabs from the film which I obtained
copies of, showing very questionable camera work....

what do you think it is?

MH: Well, Jeff, I think that most of us here already know what it is and what it isn't. And I think you've had a terrific opportunity, and more than enough time, to demonstrate your position that "it", i.e. the evidence and the case, is a hoax.

But I must add that I wouldn't want Jeff to be banned from the discussion or not have the opportunity to respond. I also want to say that I, for one, welcome Ike's comments and participation here. I don't require that people agree with me or us, or "believe" in the case, and I think that Ike demonstrated, no matter what his point of view is, that he's willing to do serious research into the case to try to come to reasoned conclusions.

I will say that his conclusions regarding the Jupiter information issue are quite flawed for reasons I've already stated, though I would reiterate them upon request. I will also add something that he, and probably the rest of the people here, don't know about regarding that issue. I spoke with Lee Elders about the Jupiter information and he told me that, even prior to publishing the information in Contact 115, Meier had told him and Brit (as well as possibly the other investigators) about "a moon of fire and a moon of ice" (Io and Europa) circling Jupiter. If Ike does want to rebut this he's certainly welcome in my book to do so.

And Ike is also certainly welcome to come forward and apologize for casting aspersions against both Stevens and Meier and admit anything from "I don't know" to "Meier was telling the truth".

The investgators had discussions about publishing the information from that discussion with Meier but were hesitant because they were afraid that if it turned out to be wrong they would look very foolish, which they would have. It's important to understand that Lee and Brit were the "skeptics" in the investigation compared to Wendelle Stevens and they had, and still have, their solid reputations and professional credibility as high level consultants to Fortune 500 companies, banks and governmental agencies to consider. Lee also told me about information that Meier shared with him regarding a pope who was poisoned that Lee had forgotten about until sometime later, when he was driving in Arizona, he heard the information about the pope's unexpected death on the radio and almost drove off the road as Meier's words echoed in his head.

The point here is that when people start to attack the character and credibility of the principals in the Meier case as a tactic to discredit the reality of it they completely lose the argument...and their own credibility. Jeff has self-destructed by his own hand, his self-contradictory statements and his failure to demonstrate his opinions by duplicating the evidence. And one more thing, not only did the late Wally Gentleman, director of special effects for Kubrick's "2001", rule out models, so did the two owners of the company that won the Academy Award for special effects for the movie "Independence Day". Sorry Jeff, sour grapes, and you get to drink your own wine (whine).

MH



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Well the plot sickens...the PAR group (Pleajarens are Real) on yahoo have no banned me from posting, as none of my messages show on the board, but I think the group members still get them, so here is what I replied with:

> MH: Jeff calls them "effects" but fails to say, and demonstrate,
> what effects they are and how they were produced. Likewise, after
> all this time period, one in which Meier had comparably produced
> numerous photos, etc. with NO technology such as is available to
> Jeff, Jeff has failed to demonstrate his own ability to create
> such "effects" himself, something that should be rather easy for
> someone with the technical knowledge and ability, as well as
> confidence in his own conclusions, that Jeff represents himself as
> possessing.
>
> JR: Hold on there cowboy. I have stated many times, how they were
> done, and why a camera reacted the way it did. I also found the
> glaring error in the official report regarding the make of camera,
> then looked into the properties of that camera. Believe it, I've
> done more then most would have for you.
>
> Duplicating the photos again, does not prove anything other then
> that they can be faked. It goes no distance in proving any other
> aspect of Mr. Meier's photos. (So really, youre not doing him any
> favors)
>
> If you check in the photos section here at PAR, in the processed
> folder, you will see 3 photos (shot1, shot2, shot3) that utilize a
> model shot at a short distance, also using another important prop
> which I'll leave for you to figure out. These to me, are better then
> Meier's because of where the object falls into the picture. The
> model took about 3 hours to build, trying to get the look of a
> beamship I always liked (it is neat lookin), and the pics took less
> then that to take. The model would have fit in my pocket, so no
> issue of being caught with any big apparatus. There it is. So now go
> ahead and deconstruct it, go ahead and try and find anything amiss
> with them. Were do you start? As a side note these images were
> scaled for web upload in PS/CS (although are plenty large enough for
> study) and were taken with a PhotoSmart 735 camera. These are what
> you wanted, now figure them out, and dont insult everyone's
> intelligence in the process.
>
>
> MH: Here we have such a patently fraudulent comment as to almost be
> unworthy of comment. For anyone possessing the film clip in
> question, let alone from even a few captured frames, we can tell
> that neither the hill nor the object when it's at the hill, are a
> mere 4 ft. away. When one watches the object return to the top of
> the screen, slowly growing in size, it's clear to any thinking
> person that this is not a little model a few feet away. Again, Jeff
> has had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate his opinion about this -
> and his common sense - and has failed.
>
> JR: Fraudulent? You might wanna watch throwing that word around. If
> it's so fraudulent, you certainly go on and on about it. Much like
> my emboss fiasco with Deadorff, who belittled and degraded what I
> did and my knowledge, yet still tries vehemently to disprove it
> after all these months. If I'm so damned inept,...stop jumping
> through hoops to prove me wrong, often going to ridiculous
> arguments, and lengthy studies. I'll bet you never do. But ya can
> high tail it out of ATS or FT when it gets hot...when we're "not
> worth your time". See above comments. Now use *your* comon sense.
>
> MH: But let's not overlook another obvious point here too, i.e. Jeff
> first infers that we're looking at an "effect" but now states that
> it's a model! When someone is desperate to be "right" - and in deep
> denial as to what the facts are - they will go to great lengths to
> protect their vested interests, i.e. their egos, sense of authority
> and most likely deeply held beliefs, fears and insecurities. In the
> same way as telling a lie requires a lot more "damage control" and
> mental machinations to not contradict oneself, people who feel the
> need to manufacture opinions designed to promote their agendas
> ultimately end up displaying their contradictions and illogic for
> all to see. We have just such a case here.
>
> JR: You show very well why you dont work in imaging. The model *is*
> part of the effect. Couple the model with the lens, and properties
> of the camera...THEN couple that with there being only ONE copy we
> have seen, which was shot off a screen while Nippon recorded that.
> The effect is the model, the blur of projection, and Meier's own
> camera. Please do get the terminology before you get into this
> discussion, and embarrass yourself. Even better, just lose the spin
> and comment on real issues for a change.
>
> MH: Again, Jeff is not only seeing what he wants to see but trying
> to tell us what we should see...instead of what is clear for anyone
> to see. Contrary to what he says, the return flight of the object is
> extremely smooth and well controlled. And, again, we now have an
> object instead of an effect. And, again, we still have someone - a
> two-handed, technologically well-equipped someone - floating
> clumsy, self-contradictory theories but obviously completely unable
> to demonstrate them, i.e. to duplicate the evidence.
> Like all the skeptics who ultimately get caught flat-footed at this
> point, Jeff has his excuses to offer but little else. Let's see,
> it's not "important" to him to duplicate the film, he doesn't
> have "time", has pressing volunteer work to do, etc. and whatever,
> the story will ALWAYS be the same and so will the obvious
> conclusion: HE CAN'T DO IT.
>
> The photos are posted, and it can be done. You want the film too? No
> problem. You'll no more like the result of that then the photos. No
> matter, thats what you want...thats what you'll get. However, it
> will be presented in the same fashion, so lets set the parameters:
> It will be recorded on film, and then projected and recorded off
> screen. It will then be digitally edited, and then presented here.
> Then you figure it out. No information on how it's done will be
> given, only that it will utilize models, tether line, and film. But
> you have pictures to contend with first.
>
>
> MH: Here come the excuses and "explanations" but, once again,
> where's the beef? Why didn't Jeff use these past few months to
> expose that sly one-armed hoaxster by duplicating the film instead
> of just blustering and jiving?
>
> JR: Because I dont devote the time to these silly arguments you do?
> I dont find this productive, and I personally believe anything I
> would present will just get me lambasted like last time. It's
> equated in my mind to banging your head against the wall. I had a
> little time on a hike, so you get some pictures. But will it matter?
> No. You are set in your belief system. You often state when cornered
> on the photo and film data's hard questions "but I'm giving people
> something better...prophetically accurate information!!" This time
> wont be any different. You and others will always find the way to
> ignore or belittle, or even halfway try and debunk anyone else who
> disagrees, not barring personal slander. For the record, I have
> never called Mr. Meier nor you a liar (which is the most
> contemptable comment to make to someone, I'd rather be called
> dumbf&*ck then that), but you have called me that several times. If
> you can look objectively at anything I present, then my time will
> warrant doing it. Otherwise, it's a waste of my time and yours. I
> believe that's why most people aside from CFIW havent bothered to do
> anything in regard to duplication...they just dont feel it's worth
> it.
>
> MH: Right, where ARE those things? Well, Jeff, contact one of
> Meier's main critics and opponents Luc Bürgin and the MUFON-CES
> research group in Switzerland for them. But since Jeff is asking a
> lot of "where are" questions, designed to put the focus anywhere but
> on his own incompetence and failed "efforts", I again have to ask
> where are your films, photos, etc. duplicating, and effectively
> debunking, Meier's?
>
> I shouldnt have to contact anyone, you making the claim and
> presenting it as evidence, see, master researcher, that makes it
> *your* issue to present hard data to back up YOUR claims. Not mine.
> So where are they??? Dont give me some lame attempt to switch the
> issue, I asked you a legitimate question. And as far as your bait
> and switch, see my pics in folder and statements
>
> MH: Well, Jeff, I think that most of us here already know what it is
> and what it isn't. And I think you've had a terrific opportunity,
> and more than enough time, to demonstrate your position that "it",
> i.e. the evidence and the case, is a hoax.
>
> JR: I dont recall ever saying the H word. But that appears to be
> your guess at my opinion...you psychic?
>
> MH:Jeff has self-destructed by his own hand, his self-contradictory
> statements and his failure to demonstrate his opinions by
> duplicating the evidence. And one more thing, not only did the late
> Wally Gentleman, director of special effects for Kubrick's "2001",
> rule out models, so did the two owners of the company that won
> the Academy Award for special effects for the movie "Independence
> Day".
> Sorry Jeff, sour grapes, and you get to drink your own wine (whine).
>
> JR: Well I cant very well go back to Wally and validate that
> statement now can I. For the record, he did not "rule out" anything,
> he said he believed expert knowledge may have been used, and if not,
> then "this would have to be real". But we have no idea what he was
> shown, and I have to surmise that he wasnt shown the highly
> questionable, less then good wedding cake ship shots, or
> the "landed" beamships. What specific data was he shown?
>
> Your effects company that was involved in ID4, was this not the same
> one that said, presented by Sean Morton, the Adrain pictures were
> also legitimate? The same pics I found strings in right? Yeah. Well
> champ, I know some folks in Hollywood, and I'll be contacting your
> FX group to ask some questions about your statements. I'd like to
> know who specifically I should ask for. If nothing else I'll be
> calling Tricia Ashford to find out. Once I do and (get permission)
> record the interview (if anyone is ever found) it will be posted.
> Then we'll see who is drinking what.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Michael's reply to above...I'll have to wait til my reply to this following post is posted somewhere at PAR, as I said my posts no longer appear on the board at PAR/yahoo.
---------------------------------------------------------
MH:Let's bottom line it here. You're saying that Meier faked/hoaxed his
photos, film and video. You've haven't proved that - nor have you
proved that the five other photographers faked theirs.
You've haven't proved that the photo (and other scientific) experts,
investigators and researchers who basically say that they, and the case
are authentic were wrong.

I'll leave technical comments alone for the most part but I'll
reiterate that your saying the film in question has a model (and hill)
only four feet from the camera is laughable. And your style of jumping
around about other things when I pointed it out, instead of
specifically addressing that glaring idiocy, isn't impressive. So, for
the record, are you still saying that it's a model and that it and the
hill are no more than four feet from the camera?

You have a huge emotional charge about the case for some reason. For
you it isn't and never will be true. Fine. We're past that and any
thinking person who has actually researched the case, let alone taken
the trouble to meet the people, walk the land and utilize their own
critical thinking faculties, is past it too.

Nonetheless, I can't wait to see you duplicate the film, the photos,
the video, the sound recordings, etc. After all, if ONE of Meier's
films, for example, is the real thing you've got a real big problem.
------------------------------------------

Note, NO mention of my points made in the reply. The words "twisting in the wind" come to mind.

~Jeff



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
JR, what do you need for absolute proof for the UFO phenomena or in particular the Meier case?

How could you confirm if something is legitimate and not faked?

I'm not saying one way or the other since i'm pretty much still on the fence here.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Ground,
For me no proof in needed of UFOs in the sense of something outside our reality visiting this reality, or our "planet" as it were. I firmly believe there are such beings, and that it's still very much an enigma.

The Meier case I have very little hope for. If Mr. Meier ever did have any sort of experience, which I believe that he might have had at some point, he's mucked it up so bad that we'll probably never know the truth.

My point in the entire Meier story is that this subject is far too important to muddy the waters, as I feel the Meier case does. It's laden with hokey evidence, ridiculous excuses and either poorly backed data or no hard data at all. Just reports on evidence that is now "lost" or "stolen". Not one original picture nor film exists for study by independant sources, not one out of 1,200 photos.

When the "facts" are presented, you find that they are more like unsubstanciated claims. (such as the Swiss Air Force reporting many UFO radar blips above Meier's home) There's just no hard data to back them up. Just like the metal sample reports...there's no metal sample to go with them...it's mysteriously vanished...just like the original photos, film and negatives. All we're left with is umpteenth generations of film and photos, and an ambiguous sound recording that could be anything (my best guess is a 32 comb delay pedal in feedback...but who knows)

This from what is touted as "the best documented case ever", the "most important case in UFO history". When the "facts" are presented, you find that they are more like unsubstanciated claims. (such as the Swiss Air Force reporting many UFO radar blips above Meier's home)

What gets under my skin is the American rep on this case constantly challenging the UFO community to study the case and then provides no original data to test, or to duplicate the pictures (which I have done) to match the contention of how you think they were made originally.

It all matters not, because no matter how you present your study of the films, photos or duplicate the data, you'll just be chastized for it, and your findings ignored.

But what does one expect from the little wicked stepchild of UFOOLogy.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 01:57 AM
link   
As sent to Ritzmann privately earlier today:

Let's start here, since it's indicative of painfully flawed ethics and investigative skills on your part. There's no point in proceeding until this is cleaned up:

JR: You take alot of liberties when you say that a quote like "if
this is real" and claim it to be a person saying the case is
authentic. I'll say it again, there has not been an investigation of
the Meier case yet that has been done by investigators with nothing
to gain. Thats a big point.

The 5 other photographers? There comes
the question of, did they actually shoot their "claimed" photos
themselves? Let's not forget the Walters case in FLA.

MH: Since we're clear that you're saying it again, it is now incumbent upon you to prove your allegations regarding the dishonesty that you accuse the investigators of. This is no small matter. And it's both telling and unfortunate that it's the slimy tactic that Ike fell back on when he couldn't find any way to prove that Meier actually had faked the Jupiter information, or to explain Meier's foreknowledge of the key Io information.

Unlike you, I know Lee and Brit Elders, as well as Wendelle Stevens. David Froning came to a presentation of mine at the Biltmore hotel in Los Angeles around 1990, that's where the quote I attribute to him was made to an audience of 450 of the hotel's corporate clients who came to see my presentation. I contacted him about 1 1/2 years ago to confirm that I recalled it accurately and that he stood behind it. I did and he did. He's a physicist of excellent reputation. Lee and Brit Elders had a lot to LOSE in researching the case. You should do some serious homework on them and the level of the people and businesses that entrust them with access to their highest levels of confidentiality and security.

Likewise, what proof do you have that Wally Gentleman lied or had his words misrepresented? Aren't you at all aware of the process that Gary Kinder went through to contact and get the sign off from each of the experts he quoted? HAve any of those experts sued Kinder or the publisher for misrepresentation, etc.? What's your professional reputation compared to that of Michael Malin, Eric Eliason, Marcel Vogel, Steve Ambrose, Robert Post, Nils Rognerud, Nippon TV and what allows you to slander and liable them?

As far as the other photographers are concerned, I know at least three of them. Do you know ANY of them? Have you interviewed them to get your own take on their honesty and integrity?

In the most polite terms that your nasty statements deserve...who the ***** do you think you are to make those kinds of unsubstantiated charges? And just what kind of credibility does a person who does such unjustified and sloppy things deserve?

Further, if all of the experts would have come down with the opposite opinion and said that the case and the evidence was a hoax...would you be claiming that they did so out of some still unsubstantiated profit motive? But isn't it BECAUSE highly qualified people with more to lose than to gain authenticated and supported the case and Meier that you're trying to discredit them? Isn't it simply because you just can't handle the truth and the problems it poses for your belief system and ego?

You criticize my investigative and/or research skills so I'll make sure that everything YOU say is corroborated and in evidence, just as you like it and just as it should be. As I said, you have an obvious bias and agenda that you reveal as soon as you open your virtual mouth.

Now, so that we're clear here, since you are the one casting personal aspersions instead of providing proof, either substantiate your charges against the investigators, experts and other photographers or withdraw them and apologize for it. Maybe you'll eventually "get" what the Meier case is about, i.e. absolute personal self-responsibility, honesty, truthfulness and accountability being some of the key elements.

It's not about being perfect or never making mistakes. But if you want to be taken seriously you have to clean up your attitude and conform to a much higher standard of integrity than this.

MH

Just what I need after a 3 hr. drive....but onward...

MH: Let's bottom line it here. You're saying that Meier faked/hoaxed
his photos, film and video. You've haven't proved that - nor have
you proved that the five other photographers faked theirs. You've
haven't proved that the photo (and other scientific) experts,
investigators and researchers who basically say that they, and the
case are authentic were wrong.

JR: You take alot of liberties when you say that a quote like "if
this is real" and claim it to be a person saying the case is
authentic. I'll say it again, there has not been an investigation of
the Meier case yet that has been done by investigators with nothing
to gain. Thats a big point.

The 5 other photographers? There comes
the question of, did they actually shoot their "claimed" photos
themselves? Let's not forget the Walters case in FLA.

I'll ask again so you can dodge it: WHERE ARE THE SWISS GOVT. UFO
REPORTS???

MH: I'll leave technical comments alone for the most part but I'll
reiterate that your saying the film in question has a model (and
hill) only four feet from the camera is laughable. And your style of
jumping around about other things when I pointed it out, instead of
specifically addressing that glaring idiocy, isn't impressive. So,
for the record, are you still saying that it's a model and that it
and the hill are no more than four feet from the camera?

JR: I never said the hill was 4 ft away. Where you got that is more
evidence of your spin to denounce anyone who see it differently. The
suspended model is not very far nor is it very large. The hill is
the simple scene it was shot near. You can argue all you want that
it's behind the hill at some point, but as I demonstrated, it isnt.
If it were to drop behind the hill completely, then I'd have to
reevaluate that hill as a real object. Will we ever be able to say
even more about it? I wouldnt, as the copy available to the public
is so poor, there's not much more that can be said. It's effectively
been "lost" so that all we have is a recording off a screen. We as
the interested public will never see the original, because that
would be "saying too much", and might show more evidence then the
Meier camp would want.

MH: You have a huge emotional charge about the case for some
reason. For you it isn't and never will be true. Fine. We're past
that and any thinking person who has actually researched the case,
let alone taken the trouble to meet the people, walk the land and
utilize their own critical thinking faculties, is past it too.

Nonetheless, I can't wait to see you duplicate the film, the photos,
the video, the sound recordings, etc. After all, if ONE of Meier's
films, for example, is the real thing you've got a real big problem.

JR: I have a huge emotional charge? Thats saying alot for a guy who
couldnt get his contractions right in the first paragraph...I can
practically see that little vein popping out on your forehead. (jk)
Seriously, who's dodging what issues here? I pointed out several
things, and brought pictures (that you've been crying for since this
started) once I shoot video and show that can be done too, rather
easily, believe me thats enough for me. I dont intend to live this
case right down to the letter to prove a point. I think if you had
your way I'd be pressed to grow a beard and saw off an arm. No
thanx. If you choose to believe it, thats fine by me.

Why am I so adamant about the case? Because you have "challenged"
and made claims to open "any and all" evidence. But when taken up on
such "offers" you have nothing to back up your "challenge". You've
managed to avoid quite a bit here Mike, from the pictures I posted
to the alledged swiss air force UFO reports, to every other
accusation and question you posted including the question of who to
contact at your FX company who you continuously say the case photos
are real????

...yet, I'm "jumping around" and "doding". You must have a very odd
sense of conversation not ot mention reality...or it's just your
style of spin.

If you dont want this...dont ask for it. Or better yet, pray I dont
call in to your next radio appearance.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 03:01 AM
link   
One more little item for those of you who may actually be thinking your way through this and trying to find out the truth of the matter. You’ll notice that Ritzmann keeps demanding more info re the Swiss military report, insinuating, of course, that it either doesn’t exist, is a lie told by me, or the person who originally published it.

And while I suggested that he contact the Swiss MUFON organization to determine the matter for himself, which is his responsibility, he instead prefers to whine, complain and insinuate. All of this is consistent with his lack of credibility and ethics, of attacking other people and the facts with no regard for either, or for truthfulness. His comments regarding Meier, a man he’s never as much as spoken a word to in his life, are further evidence of the skeptic/debunker mind set, which demands that things conform to their very arbitrary demands, all of the facts in evidence be damned. No accountability, just a parade of an over-wrought ego.

But the truth of the matter is that even if he found out first hand that the Swiss military did indeed confirm the 236 UFO radar sightings right above Meier’s land…it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference to him. The one offering the excuses would still be him. There’d be another attempt to discredit even that information – or the Swiss military for heaven’s sake - or to jump to another point and try to pile on it in the same manner. In the same pathetic, intellectually dishonest way he tries to minimize and dismiss the sound recordings that were found to be IRREPRODUCIBLE at three top-level sound studios including the Naval Undersea Laboratories in Gorton, Connecticut! Of course, neither he nor anyone else, here or elsewhere, have ever duplicated them with any means – including guitar amps or whatever.

Look, do any of you really think that a one-armed man living in a tiny, rural Swiss village is capable of perpetrating and maintaining a “hoax”, with six categories of still irreproducible physical evidence and volumes of, yes, prophetically accurate scientific and world event related information – for over 40 years – and stump a military investigator, two international private investigators and a whole host of scientific experts? How? Why? With what technology? With what accomplices? With what money? To what end?

I’m afraid that Ritzmann is the unwitting poster boy for why humanity as a whole cannot be directly approached and contacted by a more advanced civilization. Combine arrogance and attitude and here we sit, on the brink of blowing up our planetary home and wiping most of humanity off its face. But let me congratulate Ritzmann and the mind set that he represents because they may have actually “won”. In January of this year, the Plejaren informed Meier that, unfortunately, there wasn’t anything else to be done by them on our behalf as we’d demonstrated, conclusively, that we don’t (and won’t) learn from the method of choice that they employed, i.e. the 30 years or so of prophecies and predictions, which were intended to alert us to the hell we’d bring upon ourselves if we didn’t wake up and make some serious course corrections.

As usual, in the face of an opportunity to evolve and discover more about life and how to really live it, we prefer to shoot the messenger, follow demonic, bloodthirsty religions and equally degenerate “leaders” and consider ourselves the anointed ones who are authorized to invade other people’s lands and murder them.

The Meier case was and is far less about ETs and UFOs than about our future survival, something that is lost on the majority of people and especially held in contempt by the self-appointed “authorities” such as Ritzmann, and the other skeptics, who freely make endless disingenuous demands and assault the character and motives of people who stand so far above them in purpose and integrity that they’d end up with stiff necks if they ever tried to look them in the eye. Best that instead of attempting the impossible in that regard, Ritzmann should take a look in the mirror and ask himself if maybe, just maybe he squandered a very rare opportunity to both LEARN and to HELP because he valued cynicism, unfounded character attacks and swaggering around with his inflated ego above all else.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Thanks for sharing that with us at ATS Michael. Bill Hamilton of course is the man who indepth amongst other Scientists - interviewed Dan Burisch, -- the scientific guru of Groom Lake, A51 -- S4. A Man who worked with and on "J-Rod".

Dallas



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Good job Mike, again, for not answering the points, but rather making personal attacks again. As usual, you also ignore points made at PAR. where my posts are no longer posted because I disagree with you.

Go ahead, make your backhanded comments, but the truth is, you dont answer a damned point, you evade them. Youre full of it.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
Good job Mike, again, for not answering the points, but rather making personal attacks again. As usual, you also ignore points made at PAR. where my posts are no longer posted because I disagree with you.

Go ahead, make your backhanded comments, but the truth is, you dont answer a damned point, you evade them. Youre full of it.


That has been my observation as well Jeff but I guess from Mr Horn's perspective any critique is viewed as an attack. Perhaps you also noticed that when it comes to other material out there in the world of ufology, Mr Horn, like Billy Meier, turns into a debunker himself. So somehow they feel justified to comment negatively on other material without providing any substance but develop a sort of rage when the favor is returned or when to many serious questions are asked. These are the kind of people you're dealing with.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
In terms of outright nerve and dishonesty, it just doesn’t get any more brazen than this. The same guy who attacks and attempts to assassinate the character, integrity and credibility of others is now playing the victim! Kind of like the man who kills his parents and then begs leniency of the court because now he’s an orphan.

BTW, you’ll notice that Ritzmann said that he never mentioned that the model could only be four feet away but here’s his comment that I reproduced in post #1689413 and that he OMITS when reproducing the rest of the content in post #1691983:

JR: That camera could also have that object appear clearly 4 ft away.
Youre estimate of 1/4 mile away is based on...what?

I call people who do things like that deceptive liars. Is that a “personal attack” or an accurate description of someone who lies? I mean, what a wimp. Meier has dodged 21 attempts on his life for telling the truth and Ritzmann is crying like a baby because his deceptive and cowardly lies are being exposed. Well, pardon me.

Again Ritzmann ignores his own statements and wants to put the burden and blame on me, and anyone else, which means that he underestimates not only my intelligence but YOURS. So, once again, let’s start at the beginning. Here’s the premise upon which Ritzmann’s position and challenge rests, i.e. that all of the work done by the investigators and experts, and all of these people themselves, was corrupt because it was motivated by financial profit:

JR: You take alot of liberties when you say that a quote like "if
this is real" and claim it to be a person saying the case is
authentic. I'll say it again, there has not been an investigation of
the Meier case yet that has been done by investigators with nothing
to gain. Thats a big point.

I have demanded that he back up his unsubstantiated slander and we get his “victim” complaint instead. I call that cowardly, dishonest and despicable behavior, I hope that’s clear enough.

Of course, here he hurls further innuendos without ANY proof:

The 5 other photographers? There comes
the question of, did they actually shoot their "claimed" photos
themselves? Let's not forget the Walters case in FLA.

This is the kind of slimy, parasitic person that occupies himself with trying to debunk the Meier case, and the people involved in it, while being completely unwilling to be held accountable for his own words and behavior. If there was a trial, and this man was called as a witness just how credible would he be, how long would it take in cross-examination to shred his credibility and ethics? Right, not long since his own words, that he can’t substantiate, impeach him.

And why is Ritzmann attacking the investigators, experts and other photographers? Because the overwhelming preponderance of evidence in the case – still ongoing for more than an amazing 63 YEARS – proves that it’s authentic. Be aware that there were 15 witnesses, including Meier and his ex-wife, who all completely passed lie detector tests attesting to the truthfulness of Meier, the UFOs, ETs, etc. There are more than 120 witnesses overall, including a retired UN diplomat who personally vouched for Meier, his truthfulness and integrity (who would do that for Ritzmann?). All that the jealous, resentful and bitter opponents of the case can do is attack the people involved – without ANY substantiation - and hope that no one will focus on their pathetic and dishonest tactics. For Ritzmann, a HUGE issue is…that the make of the camera was misspelled, by one letter, in a document. In his world I guess no one makes typos…but they slander the hell out of people to make themselves feel important.

And of course they make demands for evidence examined by scientists and experts years ago who, even then, had the credentials and credibility to examine and authenticate it that Ritzmann still doesn’t. But he’ll still complain that HE hasn’t seen the negatives or whatever, more insinuation about the experts, more vain attempts to put himself at the center of importance, which has only allowed us to clearly see the tactics and character of this poseur.

So, Ritzmann tries to dismiss a six-year long investigation by top-level professionals and doesn’t offer one word to back up his noise. He then insinuates that the questions haven’t been answered about the evidence and the principals in the case to his satisfaction. That’s really too bad, isn’t it. Anyone here can look into the case in great depth and draw their own conclusions, pro or con.

But if you want to launch unjustified personal attacks on people who’ve done serious, credible research and put their lives and reputations at risk in the process, you damn well better have the proof and be willing to back it up. Trying to skirt the issue of your own incompetence, mean-spiritedness and lack of personal character and credibility won’t fly. Behave like a despicable parasite and that’s exactly what you’ll be called…simply because it’s accurate and perceptible to anyone who reads your own words.

BTW, you’ll also notice that there are complaints about me and/or Meier discounting other unnamed UFO cases but the authors of those statements fail to provide proof for those presumed cases. Do you see it anywhere here? They confuse hearsay with proof and, since there’s nothing even remotely close in content, credibility and duration to the Meier case, do you think for a minute that their “cases” would withstand even their own peculiar kind of “research” and tests of credibility? What a bunch of jokers!

It appears that Ritzmann’s own words best describe his own work, “laden with hokey evidence, ridiculous excuses and either poorly backed data or no hard data at all”. Add to that his lies and unfounded attacks on people who’ve actually done the work that he’s too lazy and inept to do and it’s clear that all that this small-minded individual is really interested in is doing is a hatchet job. And regarding his threat to call in to a radio show I’m on, be my guest and be prepared to have your miserable, jealous lies and worthless character revealed in the process.

So I need to now focus on getting ready for my lecture tour on the Meier case in Australia. For the record, nearly one million people in 80 countries have now visited my site to look into the case for themselves. And, returning to the main point of my posting these last couple of days, the work of the original investigators, and the scientists and experts that have authenticated the this monumentally important event in human history, stands, not withstanding the cowardly, fraudulent and despicable attempts to slander the parties concerned by one very transparently inept, jealous and dishonest individual here.

The Meier case is either true or it isn’t. If it’s true…what does that mean to you?



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Yawn yawn yawn.

I escaped the Meir syndrome when first his models were discovered, second his wife/girlfriend/mate from another planet was outed and finally when Captain Scarlet and the terrifying deathray gun pictures were published.

Would it not be possible for Mr. Meir to get some new pics or videos and give them out for analysis then it would stop all this bitching.


Crack on, its solved !!

Maybe Mr Meir should have said that he wasnt allowed to take pics n stuff like some others on here say.

That statement is as just about believable as some of his videos.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join