Billy Meier called the New Nostradamus!?!?, page 13
Pages: <<  10    11    12    13    14    15    16  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 8-1-2006 @ 09:28 AM by Iseekthetruth
Originally posted by PennKen2009
well i dont really believe in 'sooth sayers' and what not so i still cannot say I believe in this guy and his stuff, this is my opinion and as I see it, I respect all of your opinions and have read them completely and I still do not believe what this guy has to say. You know the ancient Greeks had things called oracles who got high on wine and drugs and could 'tell the future' I dont agree with all that Bush has said, of course who can? And I dont think Bush will create a 3rd world war, i mean yeah he's all for going to Iraq and wherever else and getting the world cleaned of terrorists and what not, but he's not gonna go bombing like France or any other random country without cause. Oh and I dont believe in Nostrodaumus either.

[edit on 12/9/2005 by PennKen2009]


PennKen, you're obviously not aware of what Bin Laden has told the world--that he believes an Islamic jihad against the United States must take place because the U.S. is supporting Israel in a military way (selling them weapons, etc.) and that we have invaded Islamic territory and keep our bases on land that they consider holy ground. So, it is becoming a Muslim versus Christian conflict from their standpoint. Look at the increase in Muslim terrorist attacks the world over since Bush invaded Iraq...

And Meier did not predict the U.S. would bomb France. He predicted that Muslims would take over France from within and that they would then use France's weapons against other countries.


reply posted on 8-1-2006 @ 11:36 AM by 8Michael12
P.S. Jeff, why not throw in one of these: www.tjresearch.info...

Since we all know that this was just a (never found, seen, produced, discovered, etc.) model that Meier photographed both in the daytime and at night in various locations - and we know that you're a former model maker - why not set one up and also capture the effect of the objects behind you reflected in those "ball-bearings"?

You'll probably find Deardorff's information regarding the reflections helpful:

"The event of Oct. 22, 1980. Around 11:30 that morning the craft seen in the photo on the left, Fig.
came and hovered very low over the parking place at the F.I.G.U. Center in Schmidrüti, Switzerland. From what Meier was told, this was one of a new series of ships that the Plejarens had recently developed. In taking the pictures, Meier stood with his back to a structure called 'the carriage house,' whose image shows up reflected from the attached sphere-like structures. It might at first be thought that these highly reflecting structures around the craft's perimeters had perhaps been Christmas-tree ornaments on a model UFO. However, the reflecting convex surface on the far left in the middle tier of 'spheres' is seen to be a hemisphere (see enlarged version), not a sphere. The 'carriage house' seen in the reflections is located some 100 ft to the south of the main residence. If Meier was standing just in front of it, with his back to it as he took this picture, then the (7-m) craft was about 44 ft from him. Thus his own image doesn't show up in the spheres' reflections, as it might have if he had been situated some 3 ft away from a model UFO."

You can refer to Deardorff's photo composite and/or the map posted on this forum to confirm the distances involved. Since I have been at this location innumerable tiems over the past five years, I can attest to the accuracy of his, and the map's/photo's accuracy.

But as I said, take your time.


reply posted on 8-1-2006 @ 12:58 PM by jritzmann
what are you putting the screws to me to do it in 24 hours?

Good luck...you nor I have any idea how long Meier worked on models if in fact you might wanna consider they are just that.

I have posted these before:




Maybe you'd like to chew on these awhile, and tell me all about them. I have some family stuff to do, which I deem more important then shooting flying saucer models today, but rest assured you'll have them plenty soon enough (not that it'll make any difference to you as it'll result in much the same stance as you took before, which will lead us again to you saying that we wont submit them to analysis...which leads me back to saying when you submit Meier's to independant analysis so will I.

So, you can see why I'm not in an all fired hurry.


reply posted on 8-1-2006 @ 01:47 PM by 8Michael12
I think the bottom ones are better than the top, very good model shots, considering all things. I'd like to see the close ups, the ones comparable to the tree series linked from:

www.tjresearch.info...

as well as something similar to what I have on my homepage, and of course your version of the wedding cake ship.

Now, as for submitting them for analysis, I do have to point out that Meier's were submitted and that the protocos and results were documented both in writing and some on film in "Contact". So, why don't we give the benefit of the doubt to all the professionals who particiapted in, and singed off on, the analysis and the protocols that eliminated models in Meier's case? You have access to the parameters that were used to determine distance from the lens, haze factors, pixilation and other things that ruled out models in Meier's photos. Now, since you say that you did use models, why don't we see if your photos would indeed fool the same kind of analysis?

If Meier's were bogus, shouldn't your photos result in the same analysis?

And yes, we do actually have a very good idea of what kind of time, facilities, resources, moey, tools, etc. were available to Meier to make models. We even have photos of the one he tried to make and of the one that the investigative team had made and photographed. Since the investigative team was also in Switzerland during many of the times that Meier went out to take rolls of photos, day and night, we can accept their findings that no models were ever used or found. And let's remember that two of the investigators are top-level, counter-espionage, private investigators and Stevens is a military-trained investigator. What would we have to beleive about their competnece and honesty to discredit their investigation...that is unknown to the high level international clients that trust them, their integrity and honesty?

Let's not take anything away from your efforts, which I think are very good. Let's just be fair in acknowledging the absence of models for Meier and the existence of legitimate testing results, all of which took place long before people were even attempting to duplicate his photos.

Submitting yours for the same testing will answer those questions.



reply posted on 8-1-2006 @ 02:29 PM by 8Michael12
Just to clarify the point re the testing. The first thing to do is to consider if the parameters used at that time to test Meier's photos would be valid standards and protocols for determining whether the object is a small model or a large object at a given distance from the camera, etc. If you accept that the standards and protocols are valid, for 35mm photos on film, then you apply those standards to the testing of your photos. If you state that they were incorrect then you have to prove why they are.

If the standards are valid, then you would have to accuse the investigators and scientists of falsifying the tests to make it appear that Meier's photos passed the tests, and you'd have to prove your accusations.

Or, if you think that the tests proceeded backwards, i.e. that determinations of the characteristics in Meier's photos were first made and then, falsely used to establish the standards for their authenticity, you'd have to prove that too.

Since this really is a pivotal moment in the discussion, to stop short of the comparative testing would be to cede to Meier that his photos were indeed of authentic, large objects (UFOs) and yours, however nice they are for model shots, do not meet the same standards.

For those who wish to refer to the document on my site regarding the photo analysis, you'll find much specific information on the protocols, parameters and equipment used that precedes this statement:

"We now run aspect size tests on the UFO image and then begin analyzing all the data. We can now say the object is this big, it is moving this much, and it is doing this. And we can tell within a very small percentage how far away it is in distance, and is it moving or not moving, and which direction. We can definitely tell whether it is a small object at a slow velocity or a large object at a much higher velocity. We can also set up programs to tell us what the shutter speed of the camera must have been and other characteristics of the snapshot and how the picture was taken."

Thus, we can determine if you have indeed duplicated Meier's photos...or just the "effect", something entirely different...as I'm sure that you'd agree.


reply posted on 8-1-2006 @ 03:58 PM by jritzmann
Michael-
Read your posts. However you give far more leniency to the original photo analysis then do I.

I do not personally believe that analysis, simply by the virtue of pictures such as the wedding cake over the van, or shots such as:
www.tjresearch.info...

Where the object is CLEARLY close, and therefore small, and to boot in the above linked shot, the ground is NOT even shown! Leaving any researcher or analyist worth his salt to question, "is it on a table or being held by something they dont want us to see?"

These issues are prevailent in MANY of Meier's shots, either the craft not moving away from a tree, or focus that telling us it's MUCH closer then alledgedly reported, to highly suspect light/cloud/environment changes in motion picture film "beamship jumping away" segments. These are all issues that should have raiser serious eyebrows with the "team" but apparently it didnt. That leads me personally to believe the core investigators had something going on more then trying to authenticate anything.

Thats my bottom line. Thats my belief, and I have solid reasons why I believe that, explained above. It's not slander, nor maliciousness, it's my professional opinion based on 20 years of professional imaging work under my belt, both in photography, CGI, print and digital manipulation and illustration.

We have technology at our dispense these days light years (no pun intened) past what was available to people in the 70's.

I say Meier, IIGWest, and myself all put our original negs and prints to the same modern day advanced technology.

You as the American rep for the case have been unwilling to do that.

At the same time you say that me being unwilling to submit mine to you for testing is as good as saying I believe the Meier case to be real, I could as easily say you not submitting Meier's originals to the independant party, modern testing, is evidence of you not wanting to submit his for fear that they will in fact be found as small models.

See how that works? So thats my stand. With regard to this subject, you said the shots had never and could never been duplicated. They have been. Now it's another step, submit them for "analysis". By whom? The Meier "Team"? Do you think that would be objective? By that same notion, was the original investigation? If mine pass the "tests" that would cast doubt upon Meier's being "real"...and I again doubt that your investigators would submit to that.

So, turn about is fair play. Meier submits his, I submit mine (original negs, and prints), to a party choosen by an independant party. A party who couldnt care less about the outcome. Not one you choose, nor I.

Thats the terms. And theyre fair as they can be.

I'll have your wedding cake ship shots within a week or so, as I am swamped with side projects..all the parts are here so I can assemble them this week at night.
Pages: <<  10    11    12    13    14    15    16  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 6 days ago with 63 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 14 days ago with 60 member flags
New UFO footage from my hometown
  Posted 18 days ago with 34 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 9 days ago with 31 member flags
The Dyatlov Pass Incident--Russia\'s Mountain of Death
  Posted 16 days ago with 28 member flags