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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
"Yawn, yawn, yawn" oh really. Then why waiste your time and his with a response?

The Man has bent over backwards to accomodate all questions from our ATS Members, questions he knew the answers to after his discussions with Billy. He can't, I presume, answer questions Billy has not mentioned his answers to.

Stop trying to find fault if that's what is happening here. Michael's been honest through these last months on ATS and just about all Debunking people have tried to trip him up.

Give it a rest and read his stuff (again?). Listen again to His answers and then make your opinion without robbing Michael and Billy of there true belief -- of what Billy said happened.

respectfully
Dallas




posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
First, I would like to thank Michael for taking time to first post his information and to sustain the ongoing discussion. Similarly, regardless of the state of deterioration in the discussion between the two, I think Jeff also deserves some gratitude for his continued participation.

As it has been acknowledged by Michael, it is truly up to the individual critical thinker to come to his/her own conclusions. However, it should be noted that an individual's conclusions have no bearing whatsoever on the aboslute truth surrounding the case.

To Michael and Jeff:

You are obviously both highly intelligent individuals. It is almost a shame to watch the eventual intrusion of ego from both sides and the resulting personalization of what was an otherwise educational discussion.


While this is simply human nature in action, I honestly believe you are both capable of independently moving away from the ego-driven personalization and returning to an objective discussion of the core issues at hand.


There is nothing wrong with saying, "Yes, Mr. X, I do believe you have a valid point with reagrds to issue N, but it does nothing to address the questions put forth by observations X, Y and Z." This not only serves to keep the discussion about the issues, but also sets an example of conduct to be followed by other members at ATS.


Please accept my apologies should the preceding comments sound self-righteous in any way. I will be the first to admit that from time to time I also let my ego interfere with discussions, and that it is much more difficult to "walk the walk" than to simply "talk the talk." So please excuse any misinterpreted lack of humility on my part, as I cannot honestly say I would have reacted any different then either of you should I have been in your place.


Returning to the issues, I refer to the following exert from the original post:


Originally posted by 8Michael12
Please consider:

1. Swiss Military Airspace Safety Monitoring Unit informed Swiss ufologist Luc Bürgin and the MUFON-CES research group about recorded data pertaining to radar sightings of unknown flying objects in the Swiss air space. According to their information, 236 UFO radar sightings took place in the airspace above the land of the Swiss confederates between the 25-month period from April 1, 1993 to April 31, 1995. Particularly noteworthy were the clusters of UFO radar positions above the Zurich highlands — precisely in the area where Billy Meier has his contacts.


Objectively this alone would seem to represent a rather significant documented bit of evidence which would indeed support Meier's claims.

It took me less than five minutes to locate the designated radar sightings contact for MUFON-CES and write a brief, polite e-mail requesting some assistance in locating any existing documented substantiation of the 236 radar contacts acquired by the Swiss Govt. over the aforementioned time frame.

I would like to say that such action requried a nominal investment of time and did not require hurting anybody's feelings.


Thank you once again Michael, for your years of dedicated research, the effort required for the consolidation of your research, and your willingness to share it with us.
One behalf of one, lone person in search of the truth, you have given me the plenty to consider. And thank you, Jeff, for reminding us of the necessity to question everything, and of the danger of accepting anything at face-value. Regardless of one's views, opinions, or beliefs as they pertain to this case, these are valuable life lessons.


Lastly, subjectively speaking, IMHO there is more than enough evidence to at the very least warrant deep consideration of the following:


Originally posted by 8Michael12
The Meier case is either true or it isn’t. If it’s true…what does that mean to you?


Indeed a question that merits introspection and consideration, independent of one's views, opinions, and beliefs.


I will post again if and when I hear back from MUFON-CES.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8Michael12
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.


Victim? LOL, where the hell do you get that? More later....


Originally posted by 8Michael12
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?


Umm, that was copied and pasted from your reply, mine dont get posted anymore, and I dont get a copy, remember? If I had to weed out your remarks and get a clean post, I might have missed or overwrote it. Either way...so what? Saying something could have been 4ft away is some crime? It was more to bring question to your contention (based on...nothing) that the object is a 1/4 mile away. So...anyway, whatever. I dont see your point, it wasnt any iron clad statment, nor a real spear in the side to anything. You seem overly fixated...for me copying what you posted in reply. Might wanna check with your moderators about that.


Originally posted by 8Michael12
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, youre suckin that out of your thumb...who the frigg is cryin? Not me...maybe you. Mental note: 4th time this guy has called me a liar for pointing out faults in the case.


Originally posted by 8Michael12
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.


When you make the claims, back them up...it's that simple. It's not my burden to prove your claims. Get that thru your skull.

Well, lets see, if you see a UFO and photograph it, and then "hire" or partner monetarily with an analyist, be it selling the photo, or video, whatever...then dont you think that effects the outcome? This was a huge, huge stink with Bruce Maccabee in Gulf Breeze, when he was paid to write a book and conduct investigations. They drug him thru the mud, and he's a serious researcher with more years in this then any of us. He's a good man too.
But, if he did accept money...was it wrong? To me, yeah. Not because of how it might or might not have effected him in his outcome, but the outlook in the community that is already volitile enough as is. People think, "how can he say it's fake or not if he accepted cash for study on the pictures?" I say the same here. There was money to gain, and I say, lets do it with someone who has nothing to gain. At all. Do it clean or dont do it. Thats my point. Not that the Elders, Col. Stevens, or anyone else is dishonest (although I have no way to say if they are or not). It's the point that monetary issues have clouded and effected the public perception of the investigation. Are you saying that none of the original investigators made money off the books, videos, etc?


Originally posted by 8Michael12
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.


Firstly, lets tally the knives: liar, slimy, parasitic, jealous, resentful, bitter, pathetic, dishonest...I think this is a new record. Anyway...
I think "attack" is a rather strong word. I'm not attacking anyone but the "evidence". I attacked no experts. What I said was their words are being put forth as "proof" and they are not "proof" statements. Read them, and see if one said 100% real. It's "if this is real" but Mike cant accept that, because Mike just regurgitates his facts along with venom.

For the record, the camera listed was "Malcolm" when in fact it's Nalcom (and for those counters on the sidelines thats 2 letters and a big error) Why is it such a big deal? Anyone looking to reproduce data as long requested by Horn would need the camera information. I only found out what the real cam was after calling out to Eastman House, and speaking to their lead archivist. No one had done this before? Odd for such a "thoroughly researched case". Again, I'm not slandering anyone, I'm stating my opinion, and I've always prefaced with that. I'll state my opinion no matter how much you seem not to like it.


Originally posted by 8Michael12
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.


Add poseur to the list. Again, the experts questioned and quoted dont say it's real....I mean how many times does this need to be said. Youre portraying this point over and over, but in reading them, I dont see anyone saying something as concrete as you make out. No, I havent seen the negatives, nor has anyone all these years as far as I know. Theyre gone. So are original prints...I mean these are all your words. Does no one else think that someone outside those in the inner circle should have been able to examine these at length? I'm talkin full fledged investigation. Not an opinion. I dunno, maybe I'm crazy, but scientist or not, expert or not, I always want more then one scientist doin work on medcine before I swallow it. I want more then one scientist studying the cure for cancer, and when one finds it, doctors are going to demand proof from several scientific groups...I mean, thats science. Duplicatable results outside the discoverer's.


Originally posted by 8Michael12
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.


Again, I dont dismiss it, I find it suspect, in my opinion. Things look very much like models on a string, and your experts say they arent...right? Well ok, I'd like a second opinion on that. Wouldnt the rest of you? Are you prepared to make your mind up on one research group's say so? I aint.

I dont offer one word to back it up huh? Ok, then what is the frame by frame of the film I posted in here? I studied the camera, the film, how it works, and called people more versed then I in them, to know what to look for. I found those earmarks. I showed them, and I explained them. And thats only one instance. I offer much to back what I say. However you dont. Again, there's no presented proof of the Swiss Air Force reports. There's no original negatives or film or photos (yet you offer full and complete access to the case data)...does anyone else see the one-sided irony here or is it just me?


Originally posted by 8Michael12
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.


I didnt call anyone names, or personally attack anyone. You on the other hand, have many times to many people. (add incompetant, and mean spirtited to the list) I have been upfront and honest about what I found in photos and film, and my opinions on it all. G'head folks, read what I've written here and at PAR...be my guest. Mike is really just trying too hard to piss me off and make me go away. Rememeber people go after you when you make serious points. Not when youre a moronic loser....they just ignore you if you are.


Originally posted by 8Michael12
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!


I dont know or care about this, it aint my scope of study...but I've seen over at PAR several posts about another contactee and how PAR (Meier-ites) were at a word war with them...I dont know what any of that was about. Two big kids on the block I guess.


Originally posted by 8Michael12
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.


Ya know, I'm going to start thinking you dont like me. Lies? Where? What? Man, I just dont get it. Youre way friggin out there for me. I'm too lazy, but this guy cant even do enough research to find out the camera isnt even listed right...LOL...right? The radio call isnt a threat, if I can get through and have prior knowledge you'll be on C2C or whatever, I'll be on the phone. Better yet, if I'm such a loser, get me on a show with you...lets make a debate out of it. I'm totally in. (Add inept and miserable to the list..LOL...I know, but I slander people right? LOL...damn.)


Originally posted by 8Michael12
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.


Whats a million people mean? Maybe they're just goin for a laugh? Maybe theyre curious? I mean this guy goes on and on about 63 YEARS!!!.....1200 PHOTOS....I mean does that make it real? Believe me I know alot of the UFO community has left the case for dead, and I prolly should too...if no one pays attention, then it can live forever. But new fish are always coming into the case green, and getting half the story. I mean what I've done is nothing, there's plenty of people out there that have really tore into this case and found questionable stuff too. I aint alone, which is one good thing.

I dunno what else I can do, if you read back I asked some questions about the evidence that just doesnt get answered, so I'll go on my own to find out. All I get for asking is more venom spit in my face, so whats the smart thing to do? Quit asking and go find out. Just take note the evasive and nasty replies...yeah I've made a couple backhanded comments too...but damn people, wouldnt you? I mean...look at him. You just cant disagree or make any contrary points. I'm sure the experts at PAR will have looked at my duplications of Meier photos as Mike has asked for, and I'm sure theyre diligently studying them...but like always, they'll come back to bite me, with some wierd twisted up way of turning around on me. These people are good at what they do. But nonetheless, I fulfilled part of the request, and did ask I was asked or "challenged". So...whatever.

Sincerely your
slimy,
parasitic,
jealous,
bitter,
pathetic,
resentful,
lying,
poseur,
~Jeff



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   
MH, you are bound to get warned with such insults, JR, I admire your pattience with Mr Horn.

MH, what evidence would you like to provide us? besides a link to your website? what about a site that can provide a little bit more substantional evidence?

I'd also like to see the results of the polygraphs on Mr Meier and his ex-wife.

To me this case is looking more and more like a hoax, i'm not dismissing it as a hoax yet.

But please refrain from personal attacks since they will almost surely result in warnings and this topic being locked.

A million visits is not a big deal, if they were unique visitors, yes, it very well could be an achievement at most, my simple Geocities site about a game modification made over 6000 hits, I am not sure how many are unique visitors or not, I suspect the majority are repeat visitors who are fans of the mod and people checking out my profiles in my instant messengers.

So please leave out gloating about your site's hits



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Just a reminder to refrain from personal attacks and bickering. And please stay 'on topic'.

Thank you.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I took a look at the recent posts and first want to thank the people who are now seriously looking into the case on its own merits. I also want to acknowledge comments about how to note what is good evidence, what may not be, what can be proved, what can’t etc. I do try to make it clear that the Meier case has factual and speculative information, i.e. that which I can show is true and that which I can’t. I also maintain that the preponderance of evidence of authenticity is overwhelming and that each person will have to decide that for themselves.

I also have something else to add for your consideration but first, how can I resist making a few comments to JR’s post?

JR: No matter how this thing unfolds, there's always gonna be an excuse.

MH: Regarding my dispute with JR, I think that his own words above correctly describe his approach and attitude towards the case.

JR: 1,200 in amount does not make a case authentic as an unknown.

MH: I find it intellectually dishonest to make a statement like that one and not give some other comparable examples, which would at least show that, indeed, a man who took over 1,200 clear, daytime photos with up to four craft moving in sequence across the sky was instead photographing/filming KNOWN objects. So, yes, absent proof to the contrary it does qualify them as unknowns.

JR: Bruce Maccabee has concretely proven one of Meier's most famous films to be nothing but a tethered model, it's available at his site.

MH: And the above statement is simply a lie. To the contrary, the complete film clip puts to rest any doubt about models being used. And the film mentioned has been shown through analysis to be authentic: “In the 18 March sequence Meier filmed the spacecraft circling a large tree in front of a farmhouse. The sky was overcast with a low ceiling, and occasionally light snowflakes fell. The motion of the spacecraft looks suspiciously like it is tethered from above as it appears to circle the tree and then to swing back and forth over the tree, except that on three occasions the spacecraft changes its motion abruptly with no change in the tilt of the vertical axis of the ship. If it was in fact tethered, one would expect the vertical axis to tilt as the tether point above was moved. In another measurement it was found that the tilt angle of the vertical axis in one oscillation sequence was sufficient that the axis crossed within the frame and would have put the tether point within the picture. No tether point source was revealed, in one of the final oscillation sequences the object appeared to pass directly over the top of the tree, and it is clearly seen that the tree was swept over in the direction of the spacecraft, or appeared to follow the spacecraft as it passed. Clearly no model could have produced this effect. When we revisited the scene we found that the tree had died and was cut down."

JR: As far as the sound recordings, I have taken said sample to some sound engineers I work with quite often. 2 out of the 3 said they believe it to be a delay/echo 1960's tape delay in feedback. However, with the incredible amout of variables in such a device's output, it would take quite some time to find the correct setting to achieve a near identical sound. The devices used (including the microphone), the settings of the delay device, the output speaker, and the distance of the mic to the output source all would have to be known to produce the effect. All of these are unknowns. Sound has an exceptional amount of variables such as this...and is very difficult to pin down to make an exact duplicate. I'm not surprised it hasnt been duplicated, as it's almost like looking for a needle in a haystack. I'm sure thats something the sound report didnt mention that the sound engineers most likely knew already. I personally had an old tape delay that would produce very similar sounds, and I recognized it almost immediately.

MH: Here we have the substitute of “belief” for analysis and avoidance of the facts of the analyses done by known, accredited sound professionals, plus JR’s insinuation that he knows that this is a hoaxed recording. He neglects to mention the 15 witnesses, including an undercover policeman…and that there were four separate events when the recordings were made. Now why does JR omit ALL of the troublesome little details that simply contribute to the overwhelming preponderance of evidence of authenticity in the case? What is his agenda, is it to discover what’s true or to keep people from finding it out by selectively disregarding all of the supporting, credibility enhancing details of the case? And…where are his or his “experts” sound recordings to show us just how easily Meier “hoaxed” his?

JR: My opinion? Anyone with a nominal level of optics knowledge can figure out the photos with Photoshop and basic data of the camera Meier used (if that data is even true).

MH: And just what is it that he “figured out”?

JR: But dont ever expect to get copies of original negatives, nor pictures. Horn can make excuse after excuse, but with the claims he touts of this case, that information should be available. Thats it. Period. But it isnt.

And yes, that makes one very suspicious, and rightly so.

MH: Now, while we’re playing JR’s game and focusing on his demands and criticisms, it’s time to draw attention to the obvious, i.e. we have photos of the hand and fingerprints recently discovered and, even better, the evidence is still available for testing. So, if JR was anything but a disinformation agent, and he was really as interested in finding out if the case was true or not (the only thing that matters), wouldn’t he go and examine the prints for himself and/or get some other qualified people to go along to do it? Oh, it’s not his area of expertise? So it doesn’t matter if it’s true, it only matters that he find things to gripe about, which are ALWAYS present in this imperfect world…though he’d try to have you think otherwise and to, definitely not focus on the question of the truth of the case. BTW, I’m sure he can get scientific experts to examine the prints for free, since he (later) states that a new investigation should be done where “no money” is involved.

And as far as one being “very suspicious, and rightly so” I think the guy making the claims here – and not backing them up – is the one to be suspicious of.

JR: Duplicate the pictures? While it proves nothing, it's definitely do-able.

MH: As JR has indicated, he first contacted me sometime last year, so why in all this time hasn’t he duplicated those “definitely do-able” pictures? In a comparable period of time, Meier took HUNDREDS of photos. Oh, I know, it “proves nothing”. This guy is a textbook poseur and disinformation agent, voluntary or otherwise.

JR: With the attachment focus set near infinity, that disc isnt more then 2-3 feet away in either of those shots.

MH: A definitive…and unsubstantiated statement from a guy who simply still doesn’t prove it. How much clearer does this need to be?

JR: I dont blame Mike for leading people more towards the writing, as I have read some myself lately. While I personally believe it does not come from any aliens, and I dont buy into Meier one little bit, there's alot of wisdom in his words....notice I say HIS words, because I believe he, not pleadians wrote them (or dictated).

MH: We are getting to the heart of the matter in so far as JR’s real position is concerned, i.e. he has very strong “beliefs” and it’s very clear that he colors his criticisms with them, a very unscientific way to proceed from a guy who claims to be scientific.

JR: He's a smart man, a rather worldly man who at times preaches alot of peace and love stuff...and I dont care who that comes from, we need all of that we can get. I dont really believe it all, and not in the least the "prophetic" stuff. But the idea of changing the way the world is going by realizing how stupid war is, and trying to realize how important each of us is? Thats not bad advice...now is it.

MH: Here JR gives a broad brush dismissal to the “… ‘prophetic’ stuff” without providing any specifics, when the amazingly specific (and accurate) predictions and prophecies in the case that appeared in unalterable documents and copyrighted, published books are indisputable. No, he certainly doesn’t want to focus on that. It’s not only outside of his area of interest, it confounds and contradicts whatever certainty and “authority” he’d like to project.

JR: Such is religion. And thats what I tend to believe Meier tried and somewhat succeeded in doing.

MH: So JR again presents what he “believes” and, in the process, indicates his ignorance. Had he actually read the available information, and troubled himself to meet the people involved, religion is the last thing that he would have associated with Meier or the case.

JR: I'm all for peace, and love, but dont sell it to me in a model flying saucer.

MH: Here we have it in his own unsubstantiated words, it’s “a model flying saucer”. And people here wonder why I’ve blown my top with this guy and his phony representation of himself as an objective “expert”. Where has he proven that Meier used a model?

JR: People paint masterpieces with their toes, Jeff Healy plays guitar like a God and he's blind as a bat (on his lap with two hands), so forget the bullcrap notion that he's so damned disabled. I've seen him put that camera on a tripod with whats left of an arm and his good arm. He's capable, and it's seen on tape, so drop it.

MH: What an idiotic insult to anyone with any disability! Well, I guess if you can put a camera on a tripod you can hoax six categories of still irreproducible physical evidence. It’s like saying to a guy in a wheel chair, “Hey, if you can bend down and tie your shoes, you’re ‘capable’ of running a marathon.”

When people have an agenda to debunk and discredit someone they go to great – and often obviously prejudicial – lengths to do so. Is someone paying this guy to muddy the waters or is his own fear of the unknown, of being wrong, the motivating factor?

JR: Well, lets see, if you see a UFO and photograph it, and then "hire" or partner monetarily with an analyist, be it selling the photo, or video, whatever...then dont you think that effects the outcome?

MH: More crap. Meier didn’t “hire” anyone, period. The real question may be, “Who hired Ritzmann to defame Meier?”

JR: This was a huge, huge stink with Bruce Maccabee in Gulf Breeze, when he was paid to write a book and conduct investigations. They drug him thru the mud, and he's a serious researcher with more years in this then any of us. He's a good man too.
But, if he did accept money...was it wrong? To me, yeah. Not because of how it might or might not have effected him in his outcome, but the outlook in the community that is already volitile enough as is. People think, "how can he say it's fake or not if he accepted cash for study on the pictures?" I say the same here. There was money to gain, and I say, lets do it with someone who has nothing to gain. At all. Do it clean or dont do it. Thats my point. Not that the Elders, Col. Stevens, or anyone else is dishonest (although I have no way to say if they are or not). It's the point that monetary issues have clouded and effected the public perception of the investigation. Are you saying that none of the original investigators made money off the books, videos, etc?

MH: More unfounded, unsubstantiated and inaccurate innuendoes and some of the most idiotic nonsense imaginable. First, there’s nothing illegal, immoral, unethical or even questionable about someone selling the rights to their story…one that still captivates people 30 years later. And what on earth can you criticize the investigators for who put up their own money – and their reputations – to investigate a controversial case that two of them thought was a hoax when they started? For sheer stupidity, it’s hard to top this idea of “let’s do it with someone who has nothing to gain”. How do you now get qualified scientific experts to do lengthy investigations/examinations without being paid for their time? As I said before, let HIM get qualified experts who will fly to Switzerland and examine the handprint evidence for free.

The real point is that JR is AGAIN accusing people of fraudulent, financially motivated actions, conclusions, etc. without providing one shred of evidence that it’s true. For people to have “made money off the books, videos, etc.” is neither a crime nor evidence of the dishonesty that he is, effectively, accusing them – and me, by his definition – of. There’s a huge difference between doing something FOR money and making money from something AFTER you’ve done it. Let’s remember that the books, videos, etc. are in demand BECAUSE of the amazing case, so if the people make money after the fact it’s because there’s something of VALUE to people who buy it.

If anyone here is troubled by my pointing out JR's obvious "shortcomings" please show your integrity and be equally vocal about the kind of smear tactics, broadly applied to good, dedicated people without one shred of evidence. That’s the real offense, the character assassination, the masquerade as an “objective professional” when you’re an agenda driven “believer” and disinformer who is out to attack the people involved in the case without ANYTHING to substantiate your dirty approach.

JR: Add poseur to the list. Again, the experts questioned and quoted dont say it's real....I mean how many times does this need to be said. Youre portraying this point over and over, but in reading them, I dont see anyone saying something as concrete as you make out. No, I havent seen the negatives, nor has anyone all these years as far as I know. Theyre gone. So are original prints...I mean these are all your words. Does no one else think that someone outside those in the inner circle should have been able to examine these at length? I'm talkin full fledged investigation. Not an opinion. I dunno, maybe I'm crazy, but scientist or not, expert or not, I always want more then one scientist doin work on medcine before I swallow it. I want more then one scientist studying the cure for cancer, and when one finds it, doctors are going to demand proof from several scientific groups...I mean, thats science. Duplicatable results outside the discoverer's.

MH: “inner circle” “full fledged investigation” “more than one scientist”, etc. This is the magician’s trick again, to distract you from the FACTS and the TRUTH of the case so that YOU won’t find it. We have a hard choice here. Is JR just ignorant and uninformed or deliberately trying to deceive us? Just who is or isn’t in this “inner circle”, what constitutes a “full-fledged investigation” if not a six-year long one and are David Froning, Eric Eliason, Robert Post, Marcel Vogel, Nils Rognerud, Steve Ambrose, Nippon TV, Steve Singer, Jim Dilettoso, Peter Gimer, Rick Coupland, Robin L. Shellman, Wally Gentleman, just “one scientist”?

JR: Again, I dont dismiss it, I find it suspect, in my opinion. Things look very much like models on a string, and your experts say they arent...right? Well ok, I'd like a second opinion on that. Wouldnt the rest of you? Are you prepared to make your mind up on one research group's say so? I aint.

MH: So, if I’m a little less than impressed that this incompetent fellow, who passes himself off as some kind of an expert, finds something “suspect” and says absolutely stupid things like “things look very much like models on a string”, please pardon me. But this isn’t the STANDARD by which the investigation and research was conducted. The investigators didn’t concern themselves with what things “look like” but with what they could be shown to be or to not be. And they were shown to not be models or trick photography. Naturally, our genius friend here has yet to substantiate his claim that they are models, big surprise.

JR: Rememeber people go after you when you make serious points. Not when youre a moronic loser....they just ignore you if you are.

MH: Okay, a great point well taken, maybe that is why people have gone after Meier for all these decades – and why we should ignore JR.

JR: Whats a million people mean? Maybe they're just goin for a laugh? Maybe theyre curious? I mean this guy goes on and on about 63 YEARS!!!.....1200 PHOTOS....I mean does that make it real? Believe me I know alot of the UFO community has left the case for dead, and I prolly should too...if no one pays attention, then it can live forever. But new fish are always coming into the case green, and getting half the story. I mean what I've done is nothing, there's plenty of people out there that have really tore into this case and found questionable stuff too. I aint alone, which is one good thing.

MH: This is more of where the façade of credibility falls away from JR. Now he’s actually referring to the opinions of the unnamed so-called “UFO community” and the anonymous “plenty of people out there that have really tore into this case and found questionable stuff too”. A really unprofessional, non-credible guy who certainly wouldn’t make these lame references if he weren’t so out of ammunition.

Okay, if you don’t see now what a vacuous, unsupported, prejudiced “case” JR presents then I can’t help you. But I said that there was something else that I wanted to put into evidence in the case mainly because there are people here who are indeed open minded enough to see that there was something quite worthy of serious investigation, not the agenda driven, character assassinating hatchet job that JR has treated us to.

Meier spent time at an ashram in Mehrauli India in 1964. He actually took his first photographs of Asket’s UFOs there (up to eight of them). It was here that Phobol Cheng, her grandfather and everyone else in the community saw the UFOs and Meier walking and talking with Asket. 34 years later, Phobol, now retired from the UN after 14 years representing Cambodia in the General Assembly, came forward and gave an interview attesting to all of this. (More can be read about this at www.tjresearch.info.) This may prove to be yet another opportunity for JR to attempt to slime another person whose credibility is light years beyond his own. I can just see it now; he’ll suggest that she and Meier concocted a plan – 34 years earlier! – to come forward and lend credibility to his “hoax”!

Now, since Meier took the photos over 40 years ago, in a remote part of India with no ability to make models, trick photography, etc. let alone deceive all of the witnesses there, and since he was interviewed in the New Delhi Statesman newspaper at the time…I simply ask that those of you, who even for a minute have thought that this is a “hoax”, take this information into account and THINK this through. Here’s a little more info from a post by Jim Deardorff (www.tjresearch.info):

“Hello List,

Recently I re-listened to the Laughlin video-tape talk by Phobal, which I
feel makes a very powerful statement, and picked up some points I had sort of forgotten about. So I thought some of you might want to refresh your memories on it, too.

Phobal was very much a contactee of Asket, but of a very special sort. Not only did Asket contact her in her bedroom at bedtime, suddenly appearing in the room, causing her to feel right at home as if with her mother (she was 8 years old then, and her parents were back in Cambodia) and then to fall right asleep, but after quite some time of doing this Asket imparted some information telepathically to her. Part of it was of a psychic nature, which made Phobal more understanding of the world around her, gave her a capability of discerning if a certain person was happy or sad and why, and made her more observant of people and visitors to her grandfather's ashram.

So this was how, at age 8 to 9, she had observed Billy and noticed he was different; her contacts had prepared her for that. She first considered him a friend, at the ashram, only after she saw him walking with Asket, because by that time she had been visited by Asket a lot and considered her a good friend. She naturally had been told not to talk to strangers, especially men.

A piece of the telepathy was that sometime in later life Phobal would have a meeting of some sort with Billy (this was after she had learned at the ashram who Billy was). And Billy had later been told the same.

So Asket's contacts with her evidently had as a main purpose preparing her to meet Billy later in life, and, I presume, to tell her story later to interested persons, in support of Billy's contacts, as she did at Laughlin.

An item I had forgotten altogether is that when she saw the photo of Asket in the Elders' photo-book, she knew it didn't look like Asket, not only because the hair was blonde instead of dark, but because Asket looked about half way in between Caucasian and Asian. So she fully supports what Meier was told by Ptaah, that those (and some other) photos from the space trip
had been tampered with or hoaxed before Billy got them back from the fellow who had had them developed.

Another item -- that Asket was only around 5'1" tall.

Another item: that the head gardener at the ashram had also seen Asket's ship(s) a lot of times, and had seen Asket walking with Billy, and had reported all this to Phobal's grandfather. I'm sure if Hesemann had been able to locate this gardener 35 years later and bring him to Laughlin to tell what he saw, he would have.

A video tape well worth reviewing!
From the video "The Reopening of the Billy Meier Case," Collector Series Vols. 2 and 3, taped at the International UFO Congress in Laughlin, NV, on Feb. 23, 1999.

Available from: International UFO Congress, Inc.,
9975 Wadsworth Pkwy #K2-504
Westminster, CO 80021 USA; Telephone: (303) 543-9443; Fax: (303)
543-8667; E-mail: ufocongress@msn.com .

Jim”

Now if you who aren’t put off by someone “making money”, you can get the video and see if you find Phobol to be credible. Finally, before I head off to the airport, the total number of VISITORS to my site is about 1,000,000 and the total number of HITS over 4,000,000. I don’t mind mentioning, or even bragging about, it since considering the kind of efforts by disinformation specialists like JR, who masquerade as “objective researchers”, it’s no small accomplishment for there to be growing interest in the case, as witnessed by the huge volume of emails that I get from people all over the world who’ve taken the time to write.

Cheers!

MH



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   
I mean why even reply...I've answered these same points over and over. If anyone is interested (and you'd have to be crazy at this point) just read the posts and pictures from before.

Michael is just going to continue this childish behavior of name calling and...whats even funnier to me...repeating points I have already addressed and answered. Over, and over. He absolutely wont now, talk about the duplicated pictures, that utilize techniques described alot through all this. Whatever...like I expected anything anyway.

But, Michael wont answer to the real questions....he'll rather insult and berate a working imaging professional of 20 years, about his choosen field, when Michael himself has no idea what imaging is. Thats what I find funny as hell.

I read Dr. Maccabee's report. Anyone can read it here:
brumac.8k.com...

"The comparison between the motion of the UO and the motion of a pendulum with a movable suspension point (in order to change the nature of the oscillation from planar to conical and mixtures of the two) has been made. The model hypothesis is that a small UO, perhaps a foot in
size, was used along with a several foot high tree that was cut down afterward by Meier or that was a potted tree that Meier moved to the spot and then removed afterward."

Does he say it's a model in a string? Nope, but his work certainly speaks it, and his above quote is followed by another statement...he's quick to give the nod to Deardorff's 'plausible deniability'. He tells you to be the judge...however all data points to his conclusion statement, and thats good enough for me to say thats the answer....because thats what it says. But from Horn's standpoint, even data saying that means something else. But, it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...Mike would have you believe it's a cat.

Once again Horn has called me a liar, and I'm getting intensely sick of it...so knock it off.

My direct questions still stand, but you refuse to answer them. You've sufficiently shown your a$$ here, so why not just answer them, if you even can (like an adult).

[edit on 20-9-2005 by jritzmann]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
I mean why even reply...I've answered these same points over and over. If anyone is interested (and you'd have to be crazy at this point) just read the posts and pictures from before.

I read Dr. Maccabee's report. Anyone can read it here:
brumac.8k.com...

[edit on 20-9-2005 by jritzmann]


Excuse me jritzmann but you will have to look for another support source.
Mr. Bruce Maccabee is now Commander Maccabee as he names himself claiming he is a contactee for the Asthar Sheran Command since 1988.
Did you know this ?

The surprising revelation was made by Maccabee himself in 2000.

brumac.8k.com...

Of course these statements by former Dr. Brucer Maccabee disqualify himself as a reliable scientist and researcher. The authenticity of commander Maccabee's claims is a different story for a different discussion.

Sorry but your source is simply not trustable.

Mysraki



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Excuse me jritzmann but you will have to look for another support source.
Mr. Bruce Maccabee is now Commander Maccabee as he names himself claiming he is a contactee for the Asthar Sheran Command since 1988.
Did you know this ?

The surprising revelation was made by Maccabee himself in 2000.

brumac.8k.com...

Of course these statements by former Dr. Brucer Maccabee disqualify himself as a reliable scientist and researcher. The authenticity of commander Maccabee's claims is a different story for a different discussion.

Sorry but your source is simply not trustable.

Mysraki


Mysraki,

Bruce Maccabee never claimed to be a contactee and/or channeling Ashtar, if he made any reference it would be a "tongue in cheeck" statement (a joke). He did mention that he encountered a woman once after one of his lectures (if I'm not mistaken) who had a message for him from Ashtar. Maccabee wrote this down in one of his articles and I think you can find it on his homepage. So Mysraki, be careful not to label sources untrustworthy to quickly, you run the risk of looking untrustworthy yourself.

TerraX



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Guys, you've already been asked to keep it civil and refrain from personal attacks. Keep it in mind. It's not necessary nor will it be tolerated.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysraki

Excuse me jritzmann but you will have to look for another support source.
Mr. Bruce Maccabee is now Commander Maccabee as he names himself claiming he is a contactee for the Asthar Sheran Command since 1988.
Did you know this ?

The surprising revelation was made by Maccabee himself in 2000.

brumac.8k.com...

Of course these statements by former Dr. Brucer Maccabee disqualify himself as a reliable scientist and researcher. The authenticity of commander Maccabee's claims is a different story for a different discussion.

Sorry but your source is simply not trustable.

Mysraki


Um, no, your obvious ignorance of what exactly Bruce maccabee was writing about in the above links disqualifies you as an observant, thorough researcher and poster. Maccabee no where in the above links claims to be a contactee. Had you actually read your own link, you would have read the fact that he was simply relating experiences and observations of people he knew who claimed to be able to channel aliens. The whole piece he wrote was a mix of dry humor, sarcasm, honest observation, and speculation into the supposed channeled messages of two contacees, one who was a good friend of his who claimed Ashtar had a message for him.

So you discredit yourself by not actually reading the obove article.

Ritzman in my opinion has done an excellent job refuting the so called "evidence" on the Meier case. Any serious, rational Ufologist knows that photographs, no matter how good, are not "proof", only possible evidence to support a UFO sighting. Even the McMinnville photos, which have passed even the most stringent anaylisis (and unlike Meier, the Trents had negatives availble to be anylized) are not proof, they are pieces of evidence. I have seen nothing convincing in Meier's claims, no real, independant and competant investigation or analysis. Meier is little more than another New Age con man.

And I myself am a strong believer in the extraterrestrial hypothesis of Ufology. I believe in the existance of ETs and that governments worldwide know. I believe a spaceshop crashed at Roswell.

But I dont believe a word of Meier's ridiculous claims.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TerraX

Excuse me jritzmann but you will have to look for another support source.
Mr. Bruce Maccabee is now Commander Maccabee as he names himself claiming he is a contactee for the Asthar Sheran Command since 1988.
Did you know this ?

The surprising revelation was made by Maccabee himself in 2000.

brumac.8k.com...

Of course these statements by former Dr. Brucer Maccabee disqualify himself as a reliable scientist and researcher. The authenticity of commander Maccabee's claims is a different story for a different discussion.

Sorry but your source is simply not trustable.

Mysraki


Mysraki,

Bruce Maccabee never claimed to be a contactee and/or channeling Ashtar, if he made any reference it would be a "tongue in cheeck" statement (a joke). He did mention that he encountered a woman once after one of his lectures (if I'm not mistaken) who had a message for him from Ashtar. Maccabee wrote this down in one of his articles and I think you can find it on his homepage. So Mysraki, be careful not to label sources untrustworthy to quickly, you run the risk of looking untrustworthy yourself.

TerraX


Unfortunatelly you are not properly informed nor updated TerraX. Quoting
Maccabee's own words in August 4, 2005 : "Anyway, I have some direct experience with "contactees" since I am apparently one of them."

"Yes, quite to my amused chagrin (if such is possible) I was
directly and unexpectedly contacted by the universally (!)
famous Ashtar Command. (I don't know if even Adamski can claim
this... honor...). Bruce Maccabee."

www.virtuallystrange.net...

It's useless to ignore the facts. Bruce (Commander) Maccabee is not qualified nor trustable to evaluate the Billy Meier's case.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Mysraki,

Maccabee made a joke, he inserted the word in the link you provided, which you didn't copy by the way. "Gulp" standing for tossing a bottle down. You're mighty quick in judgement.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   
mysraki, i'm afraid the other posters are right, I don't know this Maccabee very well, I have heard little about him, but he used quotation marks to imply his sarcasm, it's obviously meant in Sarcasm.

I was once a big believer in the Meiers case, but I have serious doubts now, I want to believe there is a human race who cares about our well being who is much more advanced than us, but not unless we have solid evidence the nordics even exist and are benign, we have nothing, but our believes, ofcourse.

We as UFO researchers need to stay objective and take a more neutral stance in these cases.

Michael Horn, I again ask you for some good evidence BESIDES the pictures, videos and soundfiles that we can look at, if you are not too consumed in waging your little war with JR here...



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   
There you go again making Debunkers and skeptics feel the pain of truth again. Good Stuff Michael -- great stuff !

Dallas



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TerraX
Mysraki,

Maccabee made a joke, he inserted the word in the link you provided, which you didn't copy by the way. "Gulp" standing for tossing a bottle down. You're mighty quick in judgement.


A joke you say ? Now you are a psychologist yourself interpreting what Maccabee was thinking claiming to be a contactee. Give me a break.

What Maccabee said is said and nobody will reverse that. It's useless your effort to covert and conceal Maccabee statements unless you are some kind of lawyer for him or maybe a follower.

The man is a well known excentric ufologist who has been involved in dubious cases in the past like the Ed Walters / Gulf Breeze story or the infamous Canada Guardian UFO Footage etc. His credibility and reputation has been always controversial due to his inconsistent judgements.

Here the situation is clear as water. Maccabee VS. Meier, Contactee VS. Contactee. The same old story repeats again. By the way Billy Meier has never recognized any other contactee named Adamski, Fry, Menger etc. as legitimate, only himself. According to Meier all contactees of all times
are fakes and charlatans as well as their evidences. Only himself is the
real thing, you see what I mean ? Same old boring story.

Just to clear things I did quoted the (gulp) expression by Commander Maccabee in my post as I just copied-pasted the statements. It seems that
" somebody " convenientelly edited my post for some reason. Fortunatelly
I included the link to the article.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Unlike English, Fowler, Leir, Bennewitz, Lazar, Burisch, Hamilton, McDonald (late), Sturrock (late), and a few others, you seem to respresent a good point of view.

Mix up the facts with nonsense and names, though you seem knowledgable just too knowledgable. Great to have you around though. I feel you can add to our discussion on the EBE/UFO side.

Thanks --
Dallas



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Dallas, what exactly is great stuff? unfortunatly all of Michael's claims are unsubstantiated.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
When interesting things (points) are brought up from our members, that I at least had not thought of or didn't think enough about prior, I say good stuff.

GrOuNd_ZeRo, let's be clear as we usually are, I feel no-one has any pure evidence yet. At the same time when someone presents something new and interesting I believe if truthful we are progessing. OK?

Dallas



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
:nods: I gotcha.

I didn't mean to attack you but i'm quite skeptical at the moment.

BTW, was Meiers the only one to claim he had contact with Pleidans?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join