It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Meier Case on C2C

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 03:22 PM
The Meier case is definately an interesting one iv followed it on and off for 4 years and i still can't make my mind up 100% both Gazrok and the other guys are very true in a lot of the things they say and the same with Michael

couple of things Michael

1)Does Billy still recieve visits from the aliens on a regular basis
2)has Billy ever taken a lie detector test (i'm guessing he must have at some point)

Thanks for any info


posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 04:20 PM
The five-fingered babe in the gold lame track suit was, as I understand it, a Plejaren.

The contacts are ongoing, I was told that there were two wehn I was over in May. There is an ongoing translation project that they are involved in with Billy to clean up inaccurate word translations from the earlier contacts. Of course, these transcripts are still out there and a matter of record so should there turn out to be discrepancies in the forthcoming ones that would be altered in any way to make Billy "look good" it would be easy to discern.

Billy and about 15 other people all took lie detector tests, separately, and interestingly enough...all passed 100% for truthfulness. That means that all of the questions, which were pertaining to things like "Are there UFOs coming to visit Billy?", "Have you seen the UFOs?", etc. (I don't have the questions handy now but I think they're around here somewhere), were answered truthfully...and affirmed Meier's claims. His ex-wife was one of the pther people who took and passed the lie detector test too.

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 04:44 PM
Thanks for the quick reply Michael im questioned out now lol


posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 11:58 AM
Who administered the lie detector tests? Where are the reports on these? Who hired and paid for said tests? Where are the question sets?

I dont see any information anywhere on the net about them.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 12:17 PM
I think all the info is in the book on the preliminary investigation. I have it and, time permitting, I'll rummage around and see if I can find the info. If I don't come up for air in a day or so, feel free to email and remind me, I'm teaching a few classes.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:49 PM

Billy and about 15 other people all took lie detector tests, separately, and interestingly enough...all passed 100% for truthfulness. That means that all of the questions, which were pertaining to things like "Are there UFOs coming to visit Billy?", "Have you seen the UFOs?", etc. (I don't have the questions handy now but I think they're around here somewhere), were answered truthfully...and affirmed Meier's claims. His ex-wife was one of the pther people who took and passed the lie detector test too.

Of course, it should be noted, that lie detectors only prove the subject BELIEVES he/she is telling the truth. They do not make the statements true in and of themselves. I imagine that David Koresh actually BELIEVED he was Christ, but it doesn't make it so...
Just had to clarify that....

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:55 PM
Hi there, you know it seems funny when police investigations for Murder put a suspect through a Lie Detector test and that person passes, they seem to look elsewhere for the killer.

Thanks for that info Michael. I'm sure some investigators will want more but others will need less.


posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok

Billy and about 15 other people all took lie detector tests, separately, and interestingly enough...all passed 100% for truthfulness. That means that all of the questions, which were pertaining to things like "Are there UFOs coming to visit Billy?", "Have you seen the UFOs?", etc. (I don't have the questions handy now but I think they're around here somewhere), were answered truthfully...and affirmed Meier's claims. His ex-wife was one of the pther people who took and passed the lie detector test too.

Of course, it should be noted, that lie detectors only prove the subject BELIEVES he/she is telling the truth. They do not make the statements true in and of themselves. I imagine that David Koresh actually BELIEVED he was Christ, but it doesn't make it so...
Just had to clarify that....

Well yeah, in addition to this story from Parascope:

In which apparently the 2 primary investigators in the Meier case fail a lie detector test. I wrote the examiner for more clarification, however it's been so many years since then, that he said he no longer knows where the results are for more information then he gives in the interview.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 08:26 PM
If I am willing to take my time to provide requested information and then it's already getting a rather intellectually dishonest thrashing, there's no point in my wasting time.

Second hand reports by some guy who claims that he tested the Elders but doesn't say that they actually failed the test, and can't seem to find it now, casts more doubts on his credibility than theirs.

As I mentioned long ago, skeptics will continually raise the bar and then, as it appears to be the case here, they will often dismiss their own new standard and...raise it again.

Remember, part of what was said, long ago as well as more recently, by the principles in this case is that humanity just isn't ready for - and as Jack's characted says in the movie - "can't handle" the truth.

I've always been happy to provide any information that I have access to in the case but I won't waste my time doing so if people who request it don't also hold themselves to the highest standards of integrity and credibility.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 09:10 PM
Just wanted to post this, as it's been a bone of contention in another forum, and Mr. Horn I'm sure will refer some to it.

This is from Meier's motion film shots, a few kilometers east of Hinwil, Switzerland, where Meier lived in 1975-76.

Supporters have long said and vehemently defended the notion that a beamship "jumps" from one spot to another in the sky, instantly. Not only that, but appears to be in the same 2 places at the same point in time.

The following still frames tell a much different story then that of supporters. The frames were captured from DVD, at DV2 quality. No color adjust, no level adjustments, no enhancements. Simple frame by frame. (Text and markings inserted in photoshop) The time stamp is on the actual film I captured, and it's useful to this study of the "jump".

It has many times been said that Meier's "jump" beamships are a product of stop motion shooting with a home movie camera. Move the object through the frame, while shooting, then turn off the camera. Move the object to a different portion of the frame and start the camera again. Boom, your disc has "jumped" across the frame instantly, in fractions of a second. Stop motion was done by Harryhausen in Hollywood many years before, and it was a well known trick.

Many of Meier's "jumping" beamships show signs of stop motion. Tree branches will often cease movement at a "jump" point, as well as lighting fluctuations indicating a slight time passing between the "instant" jump.

The following set of still taken from such footage illustrate double exposure, and stop motion perfectly.

This is a frame grabbed early in the footage so everyone knows where it is, and what it looks like. It will move up and almost out of frame in our next shot. Note the tone, and color. Not just the disc color, but the overall shot.

Got it? Ok, next we move to just before the jump. Note the time stamp.

Next, the jump...the instant of inception. Take notice that the disc has appeared to jump to just above the ground below...however, it's only half exposed, and is dim and nearly see-though. The bottom edge of the disc at top is still seen, as it's already gone it's full exposure previously. In effect, when the camera was shut off, it shut down on these 2 frames. When started again, a double exposure 1/2 and full occur as in keeping with a sudden shutdown of a filming camera. You get a slight backpedal of frames for the camera to utilize it's full potential of film.

Next, the full overexposure of the doubled frame, which was exposed twice. The brightness is a result, only on this frame, at precisely this frame. Even this disc is now doubled from the previous frame and shows itself darker then it should be (because now it's been exposed 2 times in the same frame, and it's evident once we're out of the doubled frames...

And finally, back to the single frame exposure with the camera again running at full blank film. Note the disc is back into it's normal darkness and the sky has returned to normal tone and brightness.

This is clear evidence of stop motion, and shutter exposure associated with ceasing the camera, and restarting. It is plain, evident, and very clear to see. Show this film to anyone who knows super8 and they'll tell you, investigate it for yourself.

I for one can tell you I learned alot about this camera, one being that in the "official report" it's referred to as "Malcolm FTL" There is no such camera. The correct model is Nalcom FTL, which I found out after calling Eastman House and speaking to their research archivist. I have to admit, I knew little about how these cameras operate, as I dont deal with them on any consistent basis either in the workplace nor in my UFO activities.

But talk to enough people who are freaks for these types cameras and you learn a hell of alot. Did you know it actually films back and front, then the film is actually split at development to make up it's full length of reel? Thats just one of many interesting things. I'm really pretty fascinated by the camera all by itself.

In my opinion, and from what I've learned and seen regarding this particular piece of footage, is that use of stop motion was used to make the ship "jump". Therefore, one could surmise the ship is a model about 3-6 ft or slightly more from the camera, with a lens that is lended to a wide field of view, making the ship appear distant...however the overall poor quality lends itself to that as well. I would guess the ship is roughly 4-5 inches across.

Some would argue the ship goes slightly behind the hill at one point. I stongly disagree: The following is that frame whereby the ship appears to disappear below view of the hill. Using PhotoShop to adjust input levels from baseline image: 0/1.14/172 and applying emboss at 500% at a level of 1, you can see the craft is in front of the hill. It was argued that the emboss made it look as I rotated the relief and angle of light in a 180 rotation to show it appears no matter what the source or direction.

So, in fact, it's always in front of the hill. But due to the overall poor quality, it's not evident to most.

This is about as much as anyone can do with this film. The original is "lost", and the best anyone can get these days is a filmed version shot off a screen by Nippon TV. (And is the one seen on DVD and video) To my knowledge there is no original footage left...this is all we have, and one has to work with the best this case can offer. And this is it.

I'm sure as I type here that many will disagree with my study on this piece, so do the research for yourself. Take the steps to find out on your own, you certainly dont have to sit an listen to me or anyone else. Talk to the people who know the camera, it's behaviors, and it's filming properties. Dont take the stand of one of Meier's supporters on another board I recently spoke with who said "film is film"...implying it all cams and film behaves the same way. If you do your dilligent homework, I'm confident anyone can see exactly what I have shown here.

This is but one piece of film, and there's many more pictures and film that Meier took that needs to be examined just as critically. Thats right kids, if youre gonna sit back and yell, do the the DVD and do it yourself.

Unless information or original film or stills come my way, I'm done with this case. Thats enough.

My thanx to Mike Horn for his assistance and Brit Elders for permission to use the still frames from the film.

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 01:10 AM
Well, I am not a technical film expert so I will leave the exact technical explanations and rebuttals if any to them. You should know that the object, which appears in the distance (some say it dips behind the hill briefly, Jeff says it stays in front) RETURNS from the lower positon near the hill to top of the screen. Of course it gets progressively larger as it does so. For anyone who actually has seen the film, it's pretty difficult to imagine that the object, which is tilted at an angle and remains there quite steadily, is any kind of a model. Obviously, it's one thing to claim that something's a model and quite another to prove it and to submit a duplicate film using the same known equipment...which NOBODY has to date.

Getting back to the object in front/slightly behind the hill. That hill is a fair distance away, conservatively speaking about 1/4 mile. Now anyone can see that the UFO is also at that distance (confirmed also by its return flight) and therefore - an unsupported flying object of considerable size - and certainly no model.

A little logic here, please. If something is a small (whatever that means) model close to the camera it certainly isn't going to appear 1/4 mile away or so as much more than a dot. And, of course, we have to deal with its slow return to the top of the screen with no possible means of doing so.

While Jeff might like to leave the impression that he's "solved" the hoaxing of a film, the facts of the case, even the simple explanation I provided, don't allow for it. Further, you have to rely on both his and my description of a MOVIE film that a few frames can't, by definition, include or account for. If you want to know for sure, you'll have to look at it for yourself, and analyze it as well.

Perhaps one day, after contemplating the huge body of still irreproducible evidence, you'll conclude that the case is authentic. You'll reflect on the brilliant analysis of a couple of movie frames, etc. and recall that, as easy as it's suggested to be, even Jeff didn't go out and SHOW us how easy it is to none of the skeptics have, for the simple reason ain't that simple. It might be simple IF it had indeed been a model. But it simply wasn't.

You'll recall that the skeptics kept asking for proof, then dismissing it, then asking for more, then claiming this or that about the evidence but always failed to be able to duplicate or debunk it. And you'll realize how impossible it would have been for one single man, with one arm, living in a rural Swiss village to have accomplished all this, and so much more that you still don't even know about.

And if you too end up spending 26 years or more researching the case, long after all the skeptics have thrown in the towel trying to figure out how something far bigger than themselves occurred on this planet, maybe you'll also understand that this gift was meant for humanity to discover, understand and learn from, not to be beaten to a pulp by the egos of people who brought their fear and cynicism, instead of curiosity and honest critical thinking, to the table.

For those of you who understand what I mean, who are curious to know the truth, you'll find it.

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 02:04 AM
Exactly what I thought I'd get. This is after all what Mike and his friends on the yahoogroup told me to do. Buy the DVD and then do the study. So thats what I do.

Then they dont like the result, so we go round robin for days on end. I've been doing this for far too many years to have someone who hasnt a clue, to tell me what I'm seeing.

And again, the burden of proof is NOT ON US. There are issues with the evidence that has been brought up time after time, and again, it's met with more spin then a Kenmore on monday night.

It doesnt matter. Wanna duplicate the films? Ok, soon as I find a Nalcom FTL you can bet your bippy I'll be buying it. You'll then say it looks nothing like it, or expect me to have it put through the same "analysis" as originally done on Meier's.

And that being the case, you're going to have to provide source material too, other than some crap copy of a copy recorded off a screen by Nippon. It's only fair that both should be subjected to independant analysis sent through a 3rd party to prevent inside interference. Only then will anyone and everyone know the real outcome.

Oh wait though...I forgot, you dont have any original footage...but of course we not making the wild claims are obliged to provide original footage to you.

I see how this works.

There will always be a glitch, a hook, another damned excuse, or (if I hear it again I'll friggin scream) "plausible deniability".

Who needs the aggravation...I mean, who the hell cares? I edited my post below because the more I think about it...the more I debate this crap the more credence I give to something I personally feel doesnt deserve it.

[edit on 24-8-2005 by jritzmann]

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 02:15 AM
nevermind...not worth it.

[edit on 24-8-2005 by jritzmann]

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 09:25 AM
Help me... I am really confused.

It just seems to me that if you wanted to assist your friend in his efforts that it should be somewhat straightforward to just offer up some little tidbit that would quiet all of the skeptics.

With the access you seem to have, exactly how hard could that be?

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 10:20 AM
By defintion the skeptics will never be satisfied. But for anyone capable of reasoning and research the case is right there awaiting you, most of it for free. I have said, and still do, that if you took all of the (still irreproducible) physical UFO evidence out of the case, the higher standard of proof is in the information, which, again you can research for free...but you have to do it for yourself. (See: and

Read the photo analysis document and the sound analysis document. Wouldn't you like to know how a farmer can record sounds, outdoors in front of 15 people in an open meadow, that specialists from three professional sound studios couldn't reproduce and determined came from a single, UNKOWN, rotating sound source that simultaneously has rising AND fallen sounds that create discreet, organized pattens?

It really is all there but if someone's simply invested in grumbling and complaining about "wasting" their time, well, best that they shouldn't waste it. Each person has to decide for themselves...but research, thinking and logic are defintiely required.

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 10:31 AM
Each person does have to decide for themselves...true. I just can't see how anyone can take it seriously after seeing:

1. the earlier hokey photos (such as the "wedding cake" UFO and matchbox car).
2. the "Asket and Nera" hoax, and the "Swiss MIB" explanation.
3. the "time travel" photos that were actually artist renditions from a magazine.
4. the even hokier "ray gun" pics and the gold lame' wearing, quite human-looking "aliens" (complete with 5 fingers, not 7).
5. tethered model UFO "video"
6. the utterly ridiculous "eye of God" photo.

etc. etc. etc.

Not to mention the fact that you'd have to believe that these aliens, who claim to want to help us, claim we're not ready, etc. etc., have sat idly by for over 50 years, offering trivial "predictions" (such as what the highest mountain actually is) instead of meaningful ones (such as "hey, watch out for the tsunami!). Personally, I wouldn't trust these Plejarens to watch my roast in the oven, let alone the future of the human race!

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 11:09 AM
I appreciate Gaz' colorful though inaccurate efforts to keep the conversation/debate going. People who do their own due diligence will decide for themselves, as I said. BTW, the "eye of God" is a TERM used to describe the particular formation, not meant to be taken the poor debunkers forgot to discover when they were tripping all over themselves to discredit Meier.

As for the ray gun, what do you think made that hole in the tree when you examined it? Oh, you never went over and you didn't examine it for yourself, I see. And the wedding cake ship photos aren't well explained by Deardorff, and the video of it on the DVD isn't enough to blow your socks of and the explanation/analysis of the UFO circling the tree isn't accurate, etc.?

As for your not trusting them to watch your roast or anything else, hey, I don't know about you but I don't need a baby-sitter, just someone that pointed the way clearly enough for anyone with half a brain to realize that - in all our brilliance - we're spectators to the destruction of our own world, our country included, because, well - we're just too smart to be taught anything, aren't we?

After all, this isn't done the way we think it should be and, after all, as our current state of affsirs demonstrates - WE should know.

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 11:22 AM
Yes, we all know it is nigh but impossible to make a hole in a tree...
It's impossible to make fingerprints on a car too...or a sound recording, etc.

I honestly would like nothing more than the Meier case to be absolutely, 100% true. Sadly though, the best debunking evidence comes (as I mentioned above) from Billy himself....

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one...and simply allow everyone to see for themselves. If I am in "denial" or ignoring the obvious truth of Plejarens...then they have nobody to blame but themselves, for repeating the same nonworking tactic for over half a century, and not making themselves publicly known when it is well in their power (if they exist) to do so....thereby achieving their stated goal. Shooting holes in trees and leaving handprints on car hoods isn't really all that helpful.

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 11:34 AM
Agree to disagree but your statement about them having themselves to blame for effectively not convincing you is a dereliction of your own self-responsibility - the core teachig of the case. Since I've found the proof quite convincing, and ever-increasing numbers of people are doing so as well, it's not at all as you would want us to believe.

I'll further add that last week my little site got about 350,000 hits from people in 44 different countries, and I got tons of email from people who for the most part are focused on the important stuff, very few people hang themselves up on the UFOs, most already get that the case is...real.

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 11:36 AM
Keep in mind Gaz that Deardorff is not any sort of imaging aficionado , again painfully evident. One read at his site will tell you that.

The film of the wedding cake ship and the tree I always found hysterical when Meier asks on camera that the ship move.

"Oh, thats not possible?" he then replies to thin air.

Of course it's not possible. It's in frame when the camera starts, and in frame at the end. No, it's not possible, because it cant move. It's more or less wired to the tree. One shot shows the tree down to the base, in a field devoid of trees, with blades of grass that in scale should be 8 inches wide and 4 ft tall. Evidently Swiss trees are dwarfed by Plejaren enhanced mutated grass.

The Hofhalden sequence shows the same attachment and affinity that Plejarens have to my opinion, the *same* tree (albeit fluffed a bit) seen in other locations.

Mike is right, all people have to do is look and use reason.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in