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.

 

Meier Photos Replicated

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Hi Guys

i know there is quite a few meier threads but i was sure none had this website on them this guy from california pretty much copies meier's ufo photos with asingle use camera no problem at all just shows you how easy it can be done

interesting stuff

Graham

www.iigwest.com...




posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Looks pretty good. Does this dude have one of his arms lopped off though?
Not taking Meier's side, just trying to keep it fair.

Peace



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
LOL that's a point i bet he could do it even with one arm just goes to show they can be done after all

Graham



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Looks pretty good. Does this dude have one of his arms lopped off though?
Not taking Meier's side, just trying to keep it fair.

Peace


And will the person who made the photographs submit them to the same rigorous testing that Billy Meier did with his?



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Here is another thread about someone doing the same thing:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Made ufo's from pie plates and such and made pretty good photos.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Graham
Hi Guys

i know there is quite a few meier threads but i was sure none had this website on them this guy from california pretty much copies meier's ufo photos with asingle use camera no problem at all just shows you how easy it can be done

interesting stuff

Graham

www.iigwest.com...


IIG photos are hoaxes themselves.

Don't get excited. Those photos posted by IIG as replicas for the Meier's
UFO photographs are double exposure digital photos processed with a graphic design software. Despite the claims by IIG the UFO models were added later to the backgrounds using a common computer program, nothing elaborated here, they used a digital camera and the process is so simple that can be made by any kid these days.

In order to make a proper and professional debunk of the Meier's photos at least a similar camera with a similar film must be used. Then the negatives must be presented for analysis. Too much to ask for the IIG
cheap debunk.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Just because something can be faked doesn't mean it never happaned.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I do wonder if Meier's negatives have been examined or reproductions. As I understand, right now he has no negatives and probably never did due to the type of camera he used. His camera was also 'broken' and stuck on the 'infinity' setting. Yeah, it's beyond doubt.......not.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual
Just because something can be faked doesn't mean it never happaned.


I agree with this statement. Duplicating a picture doesn't imply that you "solved" the case.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysraki
Despite the claims by IIG the UFO models were added later to the backgrounds using a common computer program, nothing elaborated here, they used a digital camera and the process is so simple that can be made by any kid these days.


And how do you come by this knowledge? You are 100% completely wrong, as I own copies of IIG's photos complete with behind the scenes shots showing the model on a stick, ladder, string, etc. They were shot all on location.

So, try again.

You can present the data that shows them to be digital composite anytime now.

While youre at it, try and show this one to be a digital composite, which is another model shot. (not from IIG, but in answer to shooting models and making them look far away, and even behind "trees".)




posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   
yep as stated on thier site:

"All of the photographs taken by the IIG are single-shot, single-exposure with no digital or laboratory manipulation.
"

Graham



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by mysraki
Despite the claims by IIG the UFO models were added later to the backgrounds using a common computer program, nothing elaborated here, they used a digital camera and the process is so simple that can be made by any kid these days.


And how do you come by this knowledge? You are 100% completely wrong, as I own copies of IIG's photos complete with behind the scenes shots showing the model on a stick, ladder, string, etc. They were shot all on location.

So, try again.

You can present the data that shows them to be digital composite anytime now.

While youre at it, try and show this one to be a digital composite, which is another model shot. (not from IIG, but in answer to shooting models and making them look far away, and even behind "trees".)



So you own those IIG's photos behind the scenes during the alleged recreations ? That's great !! Now we may have a good debunk here if it's true what you claim. Just present those photos behind the scenes showing those models and strings attached, same that IIG never presented in their website. Give us something, a link to your website were we can see those
recreations being made or whatever, then it will be a proper debunk.

I made my own test using Photoshop on those IIG photos from the website and simply none of them checked as actual scale models but double exposure images concluding a cheap debunk. If I'm wrong you have the word, show me the real thing.

I have seen many good debunks to the Meier's photos through the years
including the ones that Wendelle Stevens recreated in the 70's during the original investigation in Switzerland. That only proved that indeed Meier's photos could be replicated but not that the originals were fake, not for a fact and the case remained in controversy.

The IIG attempt is just an old fashioned debunk that has not provide anything substantiable to the debate, digital photos mean nothing.
I would like to see a real good debunk to this story if there's any new
and not the same repeted arguments focusing in a single issue recreating pictures and not in the whole context of the case.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Well if it means anything, I like Meier's pictures better, the lightning looks better on his and they are more creative...if fake...IMHO though



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysraki

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by mysraki
Despite the claims by IIG the UFO models were added later to the backgrounds using a common computer program, nothing elaborated here, they used a digital camera and the process is so simple that can be made by any kid these days.


And how do you come by this knowledge? You are 100% completely wrong, as I own copies of IIG's photos complete with behind the scenes shots showing the model on a stick, ladder, string, etc. They were shot all on location.

So, try again.

You can present the data that shows them to be digital composite anytime now.

While youre at it, try and show this one to be a digital composite, which is another model shot. (not from IIG, but in answer to shooting models and making them look far away, and even behind "trees".)



So you own those IIG's photos behind the scenes during the alleged recreations ? That's great !! Now we may have a good debunk here if it's true what you claim. Just present those photos behind the scenes showing those models and strings attached, same that IIG never presented in their website. Give us something, a link to your website were we can see those
recreations being made or whatever, then it will be a proper debunk.

I made my own test using Photoshop on those IIG photos from the website and simply none of them checked as actual scale models but double exposure images concluding a cheap debunk. If I'm wrong you have the word, show me the real thing.

I have seen many good debunks to the Meier's photos through the years
including the ones that Wendelle Stevens recreated in the 70's during the original investigation in Switzerland. That only proved that indeed Meier's photos could be replicated but not that the originals were fake, not for a fact and the case remained in controversy.

The IIG attempt is just an old fashioned debunk that has not provide anything substantiable to the debate, digital photos mean nothing.
I would like to see a real good debunk to this story if there's any new
and not the same repeted arguments focusing in a single issue recreating pictures and not in the whole context of the case.


Okay, it has been a LONG time since I have posted to ATS. I usually just monitor what people are saying about Meier, Horn, and the IIG. But what mysraki is saying is just so absurd I have to post.

Mysraki you are just 100% wrong. You have never contacted the IIG about how we did the photos. Jeff did. I sent Jeff the behind-the-scenes photos as well as 600dpi scans of our admittedly fake photos so he could analyze them. BTW, our 600dpi scans are far higher quality than anything Meier has. We also have the original negatives, which is another thing that Meier claims to not have.

The IIG website is going to be overhauled in the near future and we were going to put our behind-the-scenes images there, but if someone can tell me how to post an image here I will do so. Or Jeff, since you already have the images, you have my permission to post them here.

Derek Bartholomaus
Independent Investigations Group
Steering Committee



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Hi there.

Here's one more thing for you.

Below is posted a direct link to a hidden "easter egg" page on the IIG website. This page was created in December 2003 and was never designed to be shown to the public. It was for internal IIG amusement only. The "snark" factor is pretty high, but it makes the point pretty well that we did NOT make our photos using double-exposures or any digital photoshop manipulation. Also, some of the links at the bottom of the page do not work because the site map was altered in 2004.

Enjoy.

www.iigwest.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Well if it means anything, I like Meier's pictures better, the lightning looks better on his and they are more creative...if fake...IMHO though


Yes, much more creative, I mean, what hoaxer would think of sticking his flying saucer sticking out of a tree hovering about 25 feet off the ground?...very original...

I don't understand why the Meier debates are continuing. The idea that an intelligently controlled craft would hover in a tree is just preposterous.

Edit: Typo

[edit on 22-9-2005 by shorty]



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Well if it means anything, I like Meier's pictures better, the lightning looks better on his and they are more creative...if fake...IMHO though


Soo true... And i thought its only me who felt so



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Well, if aliens wanted to proof they are real, they would do something to proof so, and if it takes flying around a tree, then they solved the problem...



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Well, if aliens wanted to proof they are real, they would do something to proof so, and if it takes flying around a tree, then they solved the problem...


Do you seriously think that?

If they're intelligent enough to build such craft one would assume they're intelligent enough to know that the best way to make themselves known would be to fly around a crowded area, to intercept a shuttle or plane, or any number of other things, besides fly into a tree.

It also seems quite clear that they don't care or not whether people believe, they appear to make little attempt to camouflage themselves, and at the same time little attempt to show themselves. I think most likely they really don't care what we think.

Would you? If you were an ET race visiting another planet for whatever reason (besides making public contact, which they obviously aren't here to do) would you really care if a relatively primitive race knew you were there?

I think the idea that they flew into a tree to add to volume of proof makes no sense at all, especially as it failed. How many people believe these are certainly genuine? Very few seem certain, therefore "Operation: Let's fly into Earth trees" has failed.

That explanation really doesn't make much sense.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by derekcbart

Originally posted by mysraki

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by mysraki
Despite the claims by IIG the UFO models were added later to the backgrounds using a common computer program, nothing elaborated here, they used a digital camera and the process is so simple that can be made by any kid these days.


The IIG attempt is just an old fashioned debunk that has not provide anything substantiable to the debate, digital photos mean nothing.
I would like to see a real good debunk to this story if there's any new
and not the same repeted arguments focusing in a single issue recreating pictures and not in the whole context of the case.


Okay, it has been a LONG time since I have posted to ATS. I usually just monitor what people are saying about Meier, Horn, and the IIG. But what mysraki is saying is just so absurd I have to post.

Mysraki you are just 100% wrong. You have never contacted the IIG about how we did the photos. Jeff did. I sent Jeff the behind-the-scenes photos as well as 600dpi scans of our admittedly fake photos so he could analyze them. BTW, our 600dpi scans are far higher quality than anything Meier has. We also have the original negatives, which is another thing that Meier claims to not have.

The IIG website is going to be overhauled in the near future and we were going to put our behind-the-scenes images there, but if someone can tell me how to post an image here I will do so. Or Jeff, since you already have the images, you have my permission to post them here.

Derek Bartholomaus
Independent Investigations Group
Steering Committee


Well, finally you decided to come forward Mt. Bartholomaus an acknowledge
your own debunk for the Meier photos or at least in your own limited imagination wich don't change the perception that all your replicas result
of low average.

As I see you're an amateur. I suggest you take sometime and learn The
True Art Of Debunking. You must inderstand that a recreation or replica means literally that and in this Meier case in particular require for you to transport yourself and use the exact technology and equipment Meier used in the 70's that is a similar photographic camera with similar film etc.

Sure, you are using digital technology, computer, scanner, dpi's, high resolution. You are cheating taking advantage of modern techonlogy Mr. Bartholomaus, that's not valid and proved my point here.

You must also build exact scale model replicas to be photographed wich
will require an invest of money just like the replicas Wendelle Stevens made in the 70's during his investigation. Of course you will not travel to Switzerland just to prove your point, that would be simply too much.

Your exposure was just an attempt that proved nothing but the fact that
UFO photos can be hoaxed and we have seen these samples thousands of times through the years so you are not bringing nothing new here. If you aspire to be a real debunker of the Billy Meier case you would need to debunk the whole case wich is milestone and speak volumes. It will probably take you years.

If you are not interested in investing money, time and resources then why don't you forget the whole debunk thing, let the professional debunkers do their work and make your life more easy.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join