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.

 

Billy Meier called the New Nostradamus!?!?

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8Michael12
As for parasites who slander people and quote unknown sources as their "experts", such trash is the mark of desperation...and lousy character. For those who may be interested, as difficult as you may find it to believe, there are parties who create false charges and persecute, even prosecute, people based on them for reasons that have nothing to do with the alleged "crimes". Interestingly enough, in the case re Stevens, it's quite telling to note that there is neither prior nor subsequent evidence of any such behavior as he was prosecuted for...a statistically improbable occurrence based on the well known and established patterns and behavioral records of proven perpetrators.


You make your living off this kinda garbage and I'm a parasite...again with the projection. *sigh...whatever. I quoted what's publicly available. Ask yourself why someone would put themselves out there with a statement like that without it being true. What are they to possibly gain? More crap from you guys? Nobody wants that, nor needs it.

Now you pretend to know the behavioral patterns of felons huh? Man your talents never cease. Again, the court documents are public record, but thats not even my issue. My issue is there you have someone telling you forthright that Stevens made comments that the pictures were faked and they knew it. But, you decline comment. Maybe you arent as dumb as you look. (Since you see fit to call me everything from a parasite to a liar without any clear reasoning, I figure what the hell)


Originally posted by 8Michael12But when one runs out of ammunition, as the Ritzmann defamer did long ago, character assassination, slander/libel and non-responsiveness to the very well-established, well-documented research and investigation in the case - by people with stellar qualifications - is to be expected. Thus, he doesn't disappoint us and, again rises to the lowest levels of our expectations.


Oh, with every post he reveals his deep seated desire to trash me, but he has no substance. Can you regurgitate anything new? We've been over your "investigation" and "solid documentation" complete with your misquoted out of context garbage. Get a new bag, this one's getting old.

Michael, why dont you try something new, and try and get a handle on why you believe that an out of focus perspective of an alledged landed craft looks like it's 6 inches across, and made of found objects, why the focal length of the camera tells us it's no more then a foot away from the camera (and therefore out of focus with objects it's "supposedly" right next to, then tell me how scientists can tell you it's a real craft massively bigger then the focus tells us. Are you so sucked in you cant admit it, or too lazy to really find out???

Thats ONE picture. Just one. If you cant do that much, youre no researcher as you claim to be.




posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Gee thanks for the info on copyrights Mikey. I think we pretty much got that one figured out. Registration certs. There's the truth. Now how come I cant find anything published by Meier that matchs your dates. Oh yeah dates. Now I'm no Mathmetician but at least your dates are starting to match up. Just not with Billymeier.com or FIGU.
Meier is allegedly born 1937. According to you this contact has gone on 64 years since age 5. Well that works but not if you go to BM.com. There it states 56 years. According to that site it is still 1998. Ya see what I'm gettin at here Mike. And why cant I find anything published by Meier in 1958. Shoot even BM.com doesnt have anything published before 1966 and thats not Meier but some other contactee.
Its called gettin on the same page.
Go back to the beginning of this thread and read through your posts and see how the date thing has me stumped. You'd be more believable if you'd stick to one story and not keep changing as the facts came out.
I'd like to think there was some truth to this but you're makin it tough.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Hi there friends and welcome to this short tour through the dark and dank den of these dastardly denizens of the deep. Yes indeed, watch closely and see how skillfully they support their desperate claim that the Meier case is simply a hoax. Thrill to the stunning logic that seeks to deliberately dismiss the more than 1,200 still irreproducible UFO photos, the 9 films, the four sound recordings, the stunning video, the metal samples and seven-fingered hand prints, the 120+ witnesses, the 15 who took lie detector tests and the retired UN diplomat, along with the five other photographers, the Swiss military, the voluminous, multi-topic prophetic information and, as they say on TV, much, much more!

You'll be awed by the broad brush attempt to smear every credible scientist, researcher, investigator and expert who participated in this many years long, very expensive, detailed investigation...none of whom could find evidence of any hoax. Watch as no slander is too extreme, no charges too wild and no credible evidence offered to support the wild and wacky claims by our ersatz experts who solve the greatest hoax of all times...all without leaving the comfort of their armchairs!

If you only get that sinking feeling when you think about Atlantis, well, think again, these guys will stoop to unbelievable depths in search of mud to smear and stones to throw from the cellars of their glass houses. But wait! Remember that everything light needs some darkness and everything dark is a stage for lightness so...a round of applause for our players, unenviable as their self-chosen roles may be, let's at least offer a few cheers for their willingness, even enthusiasm, to embody and express the greatest possible, starkest contrast to that which is clear, credible and illuminating! Hip, hip, hooray!

And now back to our regularly scheduled bickering. Gents, the stage is yours, please don't disappoint and please remember that NOBODY is allowed to go out of character and publicly endorse the Meier case!

Now, as you were slaying...



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Now right there is why noone is going to take you seriously. Instead of addressing the issues raised you blather on with the same dimwitted childish remarks. I have said before that I for one wouldnt call Meier a hoax because he may well believe this whole sordid mess. And as such anyone can take an aspirin and if their minds are firm in their belief then their chances of passing a polygraph increase. Which is exactly why it is inadmissable in a court of law. And if even one of the photos is shown to be suspect then the whole 1200 are suspect.
As I said.......you're the one making this difficult for me to get my head around it. And that post above does nothing to further the case.
But then I can't get by the math either. Hows about 2+2=5.
So if you want to refute the skeptics here present some evidence. Not just boorish behavior.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
8Michael12

I followed your advice, went to your site, googled "Billy Meier" and read page after page after page of testimony, witness, etc., saw all the photographic evidence. I am still on the fence...could be, maybe it couldn't...

But I do have one burning question that kept coming to me again again as I perused the information...

If Mr Meier had actually had all these meetings with the Pleiadians from Erra, and was allowed to take all these photographs of their craft, why is there not one photograph in existence of Mr. Meier meeting with a Pleaidian? If there is, I missed it.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Hi BostonBill,

A brief reply before I go off to teach.

We have to consider that if we are truly dealing with advanced beings, as even physicist David Froning indicates, then they may just be a tad smarter than we are and have some good reasons, from their perspective, as to why no such photos were permitted. First, we might consider that since they say they are humans virtually indistinguishable in appearance from us, nothing would be proved and, to the contrary, the downside would be further derision (for not meeting whatever expectations we hold), claims of hoaxing, or even more cultic worship of "angels and gods" in spacesuits, which is how our major religions got started in the first place.

This case is fundamentally about self-responsibility, about our taking back our power from everyone we've given it up to (politicians, religions, governments, etc.) so we don't need more people to focus our attention on in that way. You may notice from all that goes on here (this forum), and other places, that people are very loathe to take responsibility but very quick to slander, spread gossip and disinformation and basically ignore the mountain of evidence that absolutely compels reasonable people to think things through. It won't matter how irreproducible the evidence is, how many experts support it, how many witnesses and other photographers there are and how much prophetically accurate information...they'll basically treat it as if there's NO solid evidence or proof, that is the depth of personal irresponsibility, fear and dishonesty that some people operate from.

Others may just be slow learners, or simply not ready for a reality outside of their comfortable paradigm. But you won't find ONE of the skeptical persons here who has actually walked through the necessary, even "elementary" steps as Wendelle Stevens has long ago pointed out (and which still holds true). If they did and really came up with solid evidence to the contrary, which somehow eluded Stevens and two top-level, professional counter-espionage investigators (and their associates), then their opinions would carry some weight and not simply float off fueled by their flatulence.

Okay, so I like words but they're not off the mark. Bottom line, either the case is true or it isn't. And while some people are too dimwitted to get that over 1,200 photos in this case are not hoaxed, are not of models or created through special effects, etc., that little fact alone is well worth contemplating, as is the fact that the photographer (who also presented ALL of the other evidence in the case) is a one-armed man who didn't sit on his fat rump in front of a computer pontificating, he lived, and continues to live, this amazing story, well witnessed and documented by significant numbers of credible people and attested to by the voluminous, still irreproducible evidence itself.

And so, whoever has been playing this game with us (for the past 64 years) has been doing so with remarkable patience and a benevolence hugely uncharacteristic of our own species. They apparently consider that more important - to us as well as them - than photo opportunities we might otherwise wish for.

Best,

MH



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Hey was I just plagarised? I thought there was a new policy here. MH musta ignored that one. Now we have a new title for MH to add to his unimpressive resume. Thief.
BostonBill- you will notice that MH in no way answered your question so I will.
There are no pictures of Billy and aliens cause there are no aliens. Just some pictures of dancing girls taken from a TV.
If you go back through this thread you'll see that he doesnt answer questions just keeps blabberin the same old same old. What about the 1200 photos the 15 witness' yadayadayada.
Sounds like a circus barker(ref. Jritzman) and what did ya get for that quarter? An empty pocket.

[edit on 1/3/06 by longhaircowboy]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Circus??? Did somebody say circus??? Hey, if he gets to play carnival barker, so do I.



Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends. We're so glad you could attend... come inside... come inside!



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   


You have already voted for jritzmann this month.


Sheesh... and today's only the 3rd?



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Brilliant! Brain Salad Surgery.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Hey! If you'r ereferring to my DVD it's only $29, not $29.95. And I think that y'all should come to Laighlin in feb. to see if Ritzmann's right...or if I am! P.S. When you correct the price, please email me the poster for my collection.

MH



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by 8Michael12
When you correct the price, please email me the poster for my collection.
MH


Sorry, corrections are extra and not included in the price of admission.

Emailing the poster would require my $250.00 minimum and a ticket to Laighlin.

:::putting on straw hat and picking up cane::::

Now move along sonny ya bother me.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by jritzmann]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
And you're accusing ME of being in it for the money? Hey, I can get your work some much needed exposure cause, like they say, even bad publicity is good publicity and, let's face it, you didn't go to all that trouble just to show your work to seven people here. As an artist myself, I know that we relish the opportunity for the world to see our work, so here's a golden chance. Where else could you get the target of character assassination to actually promote it?



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by 8Michael12
And you're accusing ME of being in it for the money? Hey, I can get your work some much needed exposure cause, like they say, even bad publicity is good publicity and, let's face it, you didn't go to all that trouble just to show your work to seven people here. As an artist myself, I know that we relish the opportunity for the world to see our work, so here's a golden chance. Where else could you get the target of character assassination to actually promote it?


You're unbelieveable. Of course I'm in it for the money, it's my job. Not a (at best) questionable UFO case. I'd say we're much different "artists".

You'll have to excuse me when I laugh at your "promotion", when I've done work for major headlining music acts, NFL and MLB teams, Radio stations, TV stations, motion picture stars, and so on, so sorry if you thought I was some college kid looking for exposure.

Trouble?? Thats 15 minutes...thats not trouble. It's a parody...not character assassination, lets not be ridiculous.

I think I'd have an issue with someone who's called me every name in the book promoting me.






[edit on 4-1-2006 by jritzmann]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   


Very good photo if hoaxed ^





Michael, what is your opinion on these? To me they just scream toy car and dustbin lid, badly taken.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Hi Spreadthetruth,

Let me comment on the bottom two photos of the craft referred to as the "Wedding Cake" ship. These really drive people nuts and rightly so as they just look "wrong", i.e. neither fit our ideas of what a UFO "should" look like nor seem to work perspective wise, etc. As far as the garbage can lid theory and all the rest of it goes, the real problem is that there are not only good daylight distance shots but an excellent video wherein Meier zooms in on the object from over 300' away as it howevers in front of a full grown tree. The UFO is clearly a large, three-dimensional object and not a model so the other photos, such as the ones you've posted, that look "hoaxed" complicate the issue.

But there's also this to consider, no one has ever come forward with the supposed "model", or even duplicated it to this day. It probably can be done but with the technology known to have been available to Meier at the time such a sophisitcated, well machined model is out of the question. For instance, look at the bottom of the craft with the various objects in the center of it. In another photo I've seen these are extended out and look like some type of crystals. This is all VERY fine work, as is the work regarding the globes around the ship and other crytal-looking objects on the rim, which are all visible in other daytime photos. If I recall correctly, Wendelle Stevens inquired of a metallurgist what it would take to make the object and he said that the problem was that the metal appeared to be soft (rather than something hard like steel) and to attach all of the globes (VERY well machined items themselves) would need to be done by a heat process that would in itself distort the metal - if it was indeed a small model.

So we are left to ponder the craft and those photos and come to our own conclusions. Anyone who would have made such a fine object, or objects as there are some photos of larger and smaller versions, would likely have taken credit for it/them by now and/or have catapulted themselves from the lazy Swiss countryside into stellar levels of the special effects world. But objects ("models") of this quality still don't appear in films and certainly if, as Ritzmann and others like to imply at the drop of a garbage can lid, this was all about the "money" for Meier, and presumably his invisible, never having been found accomplices, then he wouldn't be hanging around his little farmhouse for the past 31 years dodging some 21 would be assassins. And, speaking of Ritzmann, considering the skills that he claims to possess in so far as "duplicating" Meier's photos...I am less than impressed with his failure to make me look considerably better than I do in his poster above, notwithstanding the source material he had to work with.

As for the photo at the top, and others that you can freely find at www.theyfly.com, etc. Stevens did very extensive testing on the photos and there is a free document on my site that covers some of it. There is also a CD available that is more extensive. BTW, here is a comment I found from Stevens regarding something I had asked him about the photos, "The photographs that we tested were positive photos made from positive slides in a positive to positive process we were able to use in Switzerland. That put our photographs tested in the same generation as a positive print from an original negative. Of course an original negative or an original positive would be much easier for measurements of energies, because there is much loss in the transfer of subtle energies through rephotographing such as printing a negative, but we were pleasantly surprised to learn that ALL was not lost, that we could still detect evdence of the original energies in the copies. The better the copying lens the more subtle energies are transferred.

I think that after the 3rd generation too much of the subtle energies, such as heat, RF, X-Ray, ultra-violet and sound energies would be lost in the transfer by rephotographing. The original image would always carry by far the strongest subtle energies.

If you had the original image of an inert model and it did not show any of the subtle energies mentioned above, it would surely be suspect."

I hope that helps. Feel free to pose more questions as I will do m¥ best to answer them.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8Michael12
This is all VERY fine work, as is the work regarding the globes around the ship and other crytal-looking objects on the rim, which are all visible in other daytime photos. If I recall correctly, Wendelle Stevens inquired of a metallurgist what it would take to make the object and he said that the problem was that the metal appeared to be soft (rather than something hard like steel) and to attach all of the globes (VERY well machined items themselves) would need to be done by a heat process that would in itself distort the metal - if it was indeed a small model.


If it's any indication, some of the found items to construct the Cakeship have been identified:


credit: Turkey UFO Page

Note the texture, and size, and you'll get a good idea of scale. I think going off the premise that it's all metal is a bit premature. If the craft were all evenly chromed, then that'd be a different story, although that doesnt rule out vaccumm metalizing (but how would Meier have done that).

Bottom line, it's the tone of silver paint. It's a metallic paint...the tone is the same as such. There's no machining.

No metallurgist would know from a picture if it was metal or not. Thats complete guesswork. I could put up half a dozen props you'd swear were metal by looking.

It's also not that complex a model. I've built props that are much more detailed. Hollywood had done it long before Meier.

Found parts are also a part of modelmaking. Many of the models you see in Star Wars, Bladerunner, and even The Day the Earth Stood Still, are from found parts. It's been a common practice in modelmaking, again since way before Billy Meier's photos and films. It's referred to as either kitbashing, when using other parts from other models, or found object modeling when using household objects such as the Weddingcake ship.

Some shots of the ship show a small object close to the camera. Obviously seen here:
www.tjresearch.info...

and with the small tree (either a railroad model tree or bonsai), here, evidenced by a shot that shows the true scale of the tree and ship...when youre looking at the grass. Going from the "fully matured tree" stance, these blades of grass would be about 5 inches wide...it's a miniature tree. This "tree" also seems to walk about the countryside to pose with UFOs in various locations. One can see that this location and those above dont hold the same geography.
www.tjresearch.info...

With enough looking the found parts used to make the UFO can be tracked down. Found parts have been identified in antique movie props that are older then Meier's photos, so one could surmise that these parts can be found too. Being in Switzerland might pose a bit of a stumbling block, but if they exists on earth, they can be found.


Originally posted by 8Michael12I think that after the 3rd generation too much of the subtle energies, such as heat, RF, X-Ray, ultra-violet and sound energies would be lost in the transfer by rephotographing. The original image would always carry by far the strongest subtle energies.


And how exactly does regular film capture such "subtle energies"? Did Meier use Infra red film? What I see in the official report is nothing more then color indexing. Not evidence of "subtle energies".

I should know this kind of report comes from aman who claims he can do spectral analysis on video. Sheesh.



Originally posted by 8Michael12And, speaking of Ritzmann, considering the skills that he claims to possess in so far as "duplicating" Meier's photos...I am less than impressed with his failure to make me look considerably better than I do in his poster above, notwithstanding the source material he had to work with.


The skills are obviously there...but I'm a designer/commercial artist, not God.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by jritzmann]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Now we have some new mysteries.
7 people have viewed this thread over 6000 times? Hows that?
Wendelle Stevens expert photo analyst? Cant find any creds for this.
The FX company? 2 producers who have yet to respond to my inquireies.(ok this isnt new but is troubling)
And the statement about the models. I can think of quite a few movies with more convincing space ships. And they all came out before Meier bought his first camera.
Anyhow as usually MH is entertaining if nothing else.

[edit on 1/4/06 by longhaircowboy]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Spreadthetruth,

P.S. I think that you can gain a more comprehensive understanding of both the Wedding Cake ship and other issues regarding the plausability of a hoax from:

www.tjresearch.info...

www.tjresearch.info...

And to Ritzmann, I copied the poster and think that I'll include it in my presentations since it is such a well thought out rebuttal to my research! Thanks!



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8Michael12
Spreadthetruth,

P.S. I think that you can gain a more comprehensive understanding of both the Wedding Cake ship and other issues regarding the plausability of a hoax from:

www.tjresearch.info...

www.tjresearch.info...


Yeah go read that. Especially when it's a Meterologist trying to refute an optical analyst. Thats a good read.


Originally posted by 8Michael12And to Ritzmann, I copied the poster and think that I'll include it in my presentations since it is such a well thought out rebuttal to my research! Thanks!


I look forward to the royalty checks since it's then going to be used commercially.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join