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: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
MH- is there a photo in the 799,800 set that shows the bottom of the craft or the ground? This would be helpful. And just from an amatuer standpoint those pictures are poorly centered. If the intent was to get a shot of the craft why not put it in the center.
Stevens was a military trained pilot not investigator/photo analyst. If you know of references that show that I would be happy to check them out as I have been unable to find them.




posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
btw, just for clarity this is the model used for series 2.

One of the original filming miniatures from 1956's "Earth vs The Flying Saucers", model by the famous Ray Harryhausen, a prized item I aquired some time ago.




posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
BTW, you mentioned that "all" you did with Photo Shop was sizing the picture of the models. I admit to being very unfamiliar with such technology but it seems to me that there should have been no use of Photo Shop whatsoever, am I missing something?

Now, a few things in response. Let's please remember that this (wedding cake UFO) is the SAME object that appears in the pages at www.tjresearch.info... Figures 3., 10., and 11. show the underside of the craft. And there are numerous other shots of this same craft.

Figures 7., 8. and 9. show it at a distance (as is also clearly revealed in the video) so it should be obvious that it isn't a "six-inch model close to the camera", so I don't know why you want to continue to make such erroneous claims. If the object in 8. and 9. was six inches in diameter it would barely be visible at all at the distance of hundreds of feet...obviously. So what are you talking about here?

Next, the photos submitted for analysis were not of this craft, they were of the standard disk type craft that you are trying to emulate. Therefore, to attempt to avoid submitting your photos for analysis based on your argument appears to be simply avoidance. Your argument might have some merit if Meier's photos were NOT analyzed but the fact of the matter is that they were, and you've done nothing to discredit the validity of the protocols and standards employed in the testing.

While you may think that there were "highly suspect" aspects to the films you haven't read all of the analysis and haven't apparently checked with Nippon TV as to their conclusions, since they also analyzed the film.

So your innuendo, your "belief" about "the core investigators had something going on more then trying to authenticate anything" is both suspect and evasive. Since there's nothing about the Meier case that is based in, or requires, belief, I suggest that you don't offer your beliefs and unsubstantiated charges agaisnt a whole team of people without being able to prove ALL of it, thanks. And may I also say that at the time that the analyses were done, you had approximately - ZERO years of experience, as opposed to numerous professional personnel who had decades and decades of it.

And while we have technology available to us now that wasn't available to anyone then - the same goes for Meier, even more so. So there's no reason to think that Meier, without technology, fooled everyone with the state-of-the-art technology of the day. And surely you shouldn't be afraid to submit your work for the same analysis.

So first things first, you submit to the same standards as Meier's were, then we can discuss further testing - if your photos pass those tests.

To be clear, please don't attempt to wiggle out of the same testing being done on your photos as was done on Meier's. It simply puts you back with IIG in the "we duplicated the EFFECT" category.

Of course, I have to ask why there's been any delay in the wedding cake shots, Meier shot rolls of pics of them in all sorts of locations and conditions, as he did with his other 1,200 photos.

Now, for interested parties, here's just a small excerpt from the photo analysis document that shows the effort, detail and integrity of the process and those who undertook it. If one reads the preceding and succeeding parts of this document, one will be hard pressed to assume any kind of hoax, collusion, ineptitude, etc. as is suggested by Jeff in his attempt to not have his nicely done little model photos revealed - long before the process would need to be completed - for what they are.

"...While searching for a computer laboratory to try some of the basic computer analysis steps, we came into contact with INTERREPRO, A. G., on the outskirts of Basel, who could apply some techniques with their equipment that we hadn't encountered before. They could put our original 35 mm or enlarged 4"x5" negative into their HELL Chromograph DC 300 scanning computer where an Argon laser beam scanned our negative 400 lines per centimeter, so fine that it looks between adjacent color granules and adds the average color in between in a new negative created in the computer.

This same machine was programmed to scan the enlarged negative the same way, and simultaneously create 4 new individual color separation negatives, perfectly indexed, for preparation of plates for a 4-color printing process. These 4-color separation negatives for Meier photo number 200 were than taken to SCHORI REPROS in Bern for set-up and making of printing plates. This is done at 60 lines per centimeter, standard poster print grade, (although 80 lines is possible), because printing at a greater density requires finer and more expensive plates, which can then only be printed on very hard special paper.

Even the 60-line poster print, however, was quite spectacular and revealed detail not available in the original with a strong magnifying glass.

We still find no evidence of fraud or trickery in any of these photographs so enhanced. On the other hand, we find details revealed that tend more to establish the validity of the story told by the witness.

While this development was going on and the procedures were being worked out, another of the Meier photographs of the alien spacecraft was sent out to Design Technology of Poway, California for a conventional photogrammetric and computer analysis similar to the method used by Ground Saucer Watch of Phoenix.

First, they examined the image field visually and microscopically to qualitatively evaluate the sharpness of the image of the object and the scene, and they found no discernable difference in image sharpness. Then color separation and black and white negatives were made at magnifications of 1 to 10. The resulting negatives were processed by a scanning microdensitometer yielding density contour plots. Examination of these plots did not reveal any details which would cast doubt upon the authenticity of the photograph.

Then the print, color copy negatives, and color separation black and white negatives were carefully examined for evidence of double exposure, photo paste-up, model at short range suspended on a string, etc., and nothing was found to indicate a hoax

Evaluation of the location of the shadows and highlights in the photograph verifies that the object and the scene were apparently snapped under the same conditions of illumination.

A surprise came when the analysts found many small black specks, apparently caused by dirt on a previous positive, or the print. Their presence indicated that this print was either a second-generation print from a color negative copy or that the original was a copy negative from a positive transparency, and not a negative as was inferred. I immediately got in touch with Mr. Meier to inquire about the original negative and learned that the original picture was in fact a positive transparency, and that the negative from which this print was made was produced from the original transparency by Kodak of Geneva. This tended to confirm the accuracy of the rest of the findings of Design Technology.

Design Technology concluded that the object in the photograph must have been a large object photographed some distance from the camera.

Design Technology holds contracts with NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the U. S. Navy. they also do subcontracted work for General Dynamics Engineering, the aircraft and submarine builders of San Diego..."



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8Michael12
BTW, you mentioned that "all" you did with Photo Shop was sizing the picture of the models. I admit to being very unfamiliar with such technology but it seems to me that there should have been no use of Photo Shop whatsoever, am I missing something?


Yeah, but thats beside the point. The images have to be sized for net ease of display. Theyre sized and compressed for ease of viewing.


Originally posted by 8Michael12
Now, a few things in response. Let's please remember that this (wedding cake UFO) is the SAME object that appears in the pages at www.tjresearch.info... Figures 3., 10., and 11. show the underside of the craft. And there are numerous other shots of this same craft.

Figures 7., 8. and 9. show it at a distance (as is also clearly revealed in the video) so it should be obvious that it isn't a "six-inch model close to the camera", so I don't know why you want to continue to make such erroneous claims. If the object in 8. and 9. was six inches in diameter it would barely be visible at all at the distance of hundreds of feet...obviously. So what are you talking about here?


It's not hundreds of feet. Therefore it's not that big. You see a zoom and hear a zoom, and believe it must be hundreds of feet away. You can do the same thing with a small model. Zoom full wide angle and then zoom into fill the screen. Thats it. It's again the zoom that fools you to believing it's vastly far away. Far, but not that far...and small enough to be perspectively forced. The zoom and distance, couple with a small model. Just hold on for a bit and I'll show ya.

Originally posted by 8Michael12
Next, the photos submitted for analysis were not of this craft, they were of the standard disk type craft that you are trying to emulate. Therefore, to attempt to avoid submitting your photos for analysis based on your argument appears to be simply avoidance. Your argument might have some merit if Meier's photos were NOT analyzed but the fact of the matter is that they were, and you've done nothing to discredit the validity of the protocols and standards employed in the testing.

OH, so now these photos havent been thru analysis? You've maintained all this time such photos were all proven beyond a resonable doubt to be authentic? Ok, so fill me in, which photos now are in the "good" pile?

Either way makes little difference. The analysis doesnt need me to discredit it, it does so on it's own by reasons I already stated.


Originally posted by 8Michael12While you may think that there were "highly suspect" aspects to the films you haven't read all of the analysis and haven't apparently checked with Nippon TV as to their conclusions, since they also analyzed the film.


The film itself? Or the film shot off a projection screen? Because so far as I've seen, thats all that anyone has ever seen of that "film". Lets not forget Nippon also produced a film about all this, and again is not a independant. There was still more to gain by it being real.


Originally posted by 8Michael12So your innuendo, your "belief" about "the core investigators had something going on more then trying to authenticate anything" is both suspect and evasive. Since there's nothing about the Meier case that is based in, or requires, belief, I suggest that you don't offer your beliefs and unsubstantiated charges agaisnt a whole team of people without being able to prove ALL of it, thanks. And may I also say that at the time that the analyses were done, you had approximately - ZERO years of experience, as opposed to numerous professional personnel who had decades and decades of it.


This has to take the cake. Because I was out playing ball with my friends at that age I'm unqualified. Do we see where this is going folks? I'm not being evasive. I told you, and laid out the parameters..now youre pissed because it doesnt suit you. Tough...wanna prove this case? Submit the negatives and lets go. Otherwise, save the windbag spins.


Originally posted by 8Michael12And while we have technology available to us now that wasn't available to anyone then - the same goes for Meier, even more so. So there's no reason to think that Meier, without technology, fooled everyone with the state-of-the-art technology of the day. And surely you shouldn't be afraid to submit your work for the same analysis.


Again, who's going to do the analysis? Dilettoso? LOL..yeah. What technology did I use? A model and a camera. Try again pal. So lets see, we're gonna get someone you choose using antiquated technology to do these shots huh? Yeah, there's the Meier-believer's version of fair and balanced.


Originally posted by 8Michael12So first things first, you submit to the same standards as Meier's were, then we can discuss further testing - if your photos pass those tests.
To be clear, please don't attempt to wiggle out of the same testing being done on your photos as was done on Meier's. It simply puts you back with IIG in the "we duplicated the EFFECT" category.


Again, done by who?? IIG stands by the same premise I do. You put Meier's negatives and originals up, we'll put ours up. Modern day tech. 3rd party independant of you, me, IIG, Meier, etc. If youre so damned sure, whats the problem??? Who's wiggling here???


Originally posted by 8Michael12Of course, I have to ask why there's been any delay in the wedding cake shots, Meier shot rolls of pics of them in all sorts of locations and conditions, as he did with his other 1,200 photos.


From my standpoint, Meier would have been planning to shoot. I wasnt. Again, IF you go by the model theory, you pretend to know how long it would have taken Meier to make it? Gimme a break. Youre running out of mileage with that one. Models take a certain amount of time to make, and it could have taken Meier more then a week. You have no idea. So lighten up.


Originally posted by 8Michael12Now, for interested parties, here's just a small excerpt from the photo analysis document that shows the effort, detail and integrity of the process and those who undertook it. If one reads the preceding and succeeding parts of this document, one will be hard pressed to assume any kind of hoax, collusion, ineptitude, etc. as is suggested by Jeff in his attempt to not have his nicely done little model photos revealed - long before the process would need to be completed - for what they are.

"...While searching for a computer laboratory to try some of the basic computer analysis steps, we came into contact with INTERREPRO, A. G., on the outskirts of Basel, who could apply some techniques with their equipment that we hadn't encountered before. They could put our original 35 mm or enlarged 4"x5" negative into their HELL Chromograph DC 300 scanning computer where an Argon laser beam scanned our negative 400 lines per centimeter, so fine that it looks between adjacent color granules and adds the average color in between in a new negative created in the computer.

This same machine was programmed to scan the enlarged negative the same way, and simultaneously create 4 new individual color separation negatives, perfectly indexed, for preparation of plates for a 4-color printing process. These 4-color separation negatives for Meier photo number 200 were than taken to SCHORI REPROS in Bern for set-up and making of printing plates. This is done at 60 lines per centimeter, standard poster print grade, (although 80 lines is possible), because printing at a greater density requires finer and more expensive plates, which can then only be printed on very hard special paper.

Even the 60-line poster print, however, was quite spectacular and revealed detail not available in the original with a strong magnifying glass.

We still find no evidence of fraud or trickery in any of these photographs so enhanced. On the other hand, we find details revealed that tend more to establish the validity of the story told by the witness.

While this development was going on and the procedures were being worked out, another of the Meier photographs of the alien spacecraft was sent out to Design Technology of Poway, California for a conventional photogrammetric and computer analysis similar to the method used by Ground Saucer Watch of Phoenix.

First, they examined the image field visually and microscopically to qualitatively evaluate the sharpness of the image of the object and the scene, and they found no discernable difference in image sharpness. Then color separation and black and white negatives were made at magnifications of 1 to 10. The resulting negatives were processed by a scanning microdensitometer yielding density contour plots. Examination of these plots did not reveal any details which would cast doubt upon the authenticity of the photograph.

Then the print, color copy negatives, and color separation black and white negatives were carefully examined for evidence of double exposure, photo paste-up, model at short range suspended on a string, etc., and nothing was found to indicate a hoax

Evaluation of the location of the shadows and highlights in the photograph verifies that the object and the scene were apparently snapped under the same conditions of illumination.

A surprise came when the analysts found many small black specks, apparently caused by dirt on a previous positive, or the print. Their presence indicated that this print was either a second-generation print from a color negative copy or that the original was a copy negative from a positive transparency, and not a negative as was inferred. I immediately got in touch with Mr. Meier to inquire about the original negative and learned that the original picture was in fact a positive transparency, and that the negative from which this print was made was produced from the original transparency by Kodak of Geneva. This tended to confirm the accuracy of the rest of the findings of Design Technology.

Design Technology concluded that the object in the photograph must have been a large object photographed some distance from the camera.

Design Technology holds contracts with NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the U. S. Navy. they also do subcontracted work for General Dynamics Engineering, the aircraft and submarine builders of San Diego..."


While I can find no listing of Design Technology in CA, the bottom line to cut thru all this is that they made CMYK color separations (something done alot these days, I do it every day myself) and examined the prints, and their subsequent separations. They also "averaged" pixels, or what we'd call today averaging. While this may not degrade the image, or alter it so much on the outlook, it will obscure fine detail by averaging and adding colors (pixels). It's a way to enlarge and try and make up the difference...emphasis on "make up". The computer makes up the parts you dont have to fill in and make the overall image not as degraded. If there were a slight, fine thread barely visible (if at all by the naked eye or loop) that thread very possibly would be obliterated by averaging.

High resolution scanning: (400 lines per centimeter) we now have 9600 DPI scanners. Again, this doesnt do much when youre looking at film's emulsion limitations. You might have been able to examine edges better, but not after averaging. This was all a fancy way of saying they high res scanned and enlarged. There's no menion of what exactly was done to determine that there was no evidence of "trickery". Just that they were "examined".

Whats the end result? If the camera's original emulsified film didnt catch the string, they wouldnt see it either. It could have been far beyond what computer technology of the day could realize. Thats far cry from calling it real.

Now add averaging pixels for blowups to that. I'm not surprised the light and shadows match...so do mine. When you shoot a real object under the real sun, thats what ya get. No big deal.

So, laser scanned, averaged, enlarged, and looked at. And?

The scanning microdensitometer, gave them density contour plots...now thats really interesting to me personally, because you know what that means Michael? If those plots were assigned levels they just did an emboss. You recall the hell I caught from your resident genius for using an emboss? He said they were worthless...remember??? (He's wrong, but thats another story)

If they didnt assign levels, they just reduced it to vectors. They edge enhanced. We can edge enhance FAR better then they could those days. Maybe they assigned colors to the plots...so what? That might prove it's a 3d object. Again, so?

I dont expect you to understand any of this, if Photoshop is beyond your technical scope. The end to me is that they scanned enlarged, averaged and possibly embossed.

We're alot further then that these days. Dont flip the wriggling over on me pal, my challenge to you is to submit his negs and prints for current and independant analysis and so will I, and while I dont speak for IIG, I'll bet they would too.

The "analysis" you provide doesnt show me that much. Largely written to impress, but there's not that much between the lines.

Maybe youre more impressed with big words and talk of high technology then I am.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I provided excerpts from the photo analysis and as far as I can tell, admittedly not being a technical genius, there is nothing fraudulent about their process, the equipment or the personnel involved.

And since they laid out the type of equipment, processes and protocols used, there's no need as I see it to use Diletosso to perform the analysis, just someone using the same protocols. Isn't that called the scientific method? That seems simple enough to me so why the heck didn't YOU suggest it instead of trying to dance away from it?

If anyone's trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes here it's you. As I said, you MIGHT have had a case if Meier's photos - as well as films, sounds and metal samples, etc. - hadn't been analyzed and so much information about all of the component parts and personnel been published quite openly. And yes, the point is that at a time that you had no experience in all of these techniques neither did Meier but the people who investigated and examined the evidence did. And to my knowledge none of them have come forward today refuting their previous conclusions, despite the fact that they'd all still have 20 years of experience on you.

Yes, I'm sure that you are far more knowledgeable than I in technical matters, and more so than the other persons on this forum, but that's absolutely no reason to give such a lame excuse, which really amounts to attempting to discredit everything and everyone by innuendo. No, I don't buy it and if there are any other people here with integrity they shouldn't buy it either.

Because you didn't have access to legitimate testing performed years ago is no reason to attempt to discredit it, and that's primarily the case you are trying to make. By that standard we might as well through out ALL tests doen on ALL things prior to your access to them, even if they're lost, stolen or no longer in existence. Wow, a very scientific position.

And also once again, your argument about the wedding cake video really is nonsense. I wonder if you've actually SEEN the video or are just theorizing because you, being a model maker and/or special effects person, could create an illusion that no one else has detected in this 20+ year old video. In other words, you're running a modern day version of, "Well, are you going to accept what you see with your own eyes, or believe the version of it I want you to believe?" You really do credit Meier with some amazing, sophisticated, deliberate and daring abilities at special effects, model making and deception.

And if you read the analysis you'd understand that Stevens randomly pulled several photos from different rolls of film for analysis. He logically concluded, after those photos were positively authenticated, that the rest of the photos on those rolls were also. Now maybe you want us to "believe" that Meier, who took photos that were shown to be authentic, would somehow go to the trouble (actually be able) to include hoaxed photos on the same rolls...not knowing which photos would be chosen in the first place! Yes inded, a guy who actually takes photos of real UFOs should risk hius reputation by...making models and photographing them? Are you serious?

You sure do go to a lot of trouble to avoid the obvious, which you do effectively concede. Your photos are those of models. When they are examined using the same equipment and protocols as already authenticated Meier's they will, in short order, be confirmed as such. You will have ended up showing us how nicely you can "duplicate the effect" of Meier's photos and we will still have in his photos - as is clearly stated in the analysis - large, unknown objects.

Try to throw everything off by criticizing the original work and you just discredit yourself.

Again, I urge anyone here interested in this process, and this pivotal point in the discussion, to actually read the photo analysis for themselves. Please, even if you're at about my level of technical sophistication, see if your common sense tells you that the people involved risked their reputations by misrepresenting any aspects of the testing. See if your common sense tells you that a one-armed farmer, living under all the documented conditions that Meier was known to contend with, could have, in any way, and for any (so far never realized) reasons, made such sophisticated models - and photographs, films, video, sound recordings, metal samples, etc. - as to fool the equipment and its operators and the experts.

Refer to the scientific experts who examined and authenticated Meier's evidence - all produced without anything even close to today's technology - and see if their conclusions seem reasonable. Notice that none of them gave us the kind of attitude that Jeff is trying to pawn off, a blustering defiant avoidance of putting his work to the test as Meier's was.

And do know that this isn't the first time that someone has claimed to duplicate Meier's evidence but has run like hell from putting it to the test.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   


Next, the photos submitted for analysis were not of this craft, they were of the standard disk type


Now let me get this straight. The 'wedding cake' photos have not been analysed. But they are the ones you're now using to argue the case for analysis? I mean you talk about analysis and then link to pictures that weren't analysed. Is that about right or am I really confused?

Why do you keep insisting JR is trying to avoid having his work analysed. It seems to me you're the one doing that. I have read over all the posts here and he has offered many times to 'I'll show you mine if you show me yours' and all you do is rant about photos that weren't even included in the analysis. Why dont you offer up the evidence to the same level of inspection that JR has so many times stated.


[edit on 1/8/06 by longhaircowboy]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8Michael12
I provided excerpts from the photo analysis and as far as I can tell, admittedly not being a technical genius, there is nothing fraudulent about their process, the equipment or the personnel involved.


No, not by what you posted (the process that is, I dont personally know the people)...it's just lame. By that I mean it cant walk the walk. I explained it to you, and like always, you dont refer to the fine points. You never do. You continue to evade the points, and it's making me tired.

But to use your own spin, if you dont see anything fraudulent, then you now as much admit that my treatment of the film using density contour points applied as values to be correct? Jim will be so dissapointed to hear that. How's the shoe tasting these days?


Originally posted by 8Michael12And since they laid out the type of equipment, processes and protocols used, there's no need as I see it to use Diletosso to perform the analysis, just someone using the same protocols. Isn't that called the scientific method? That seems simple enough to me so why the heck didn't YOU suggest it instead of trying to dance away from it?


Who's dancin? You want to mount a analysis using antiquated technology? Go ahead, I perfer to get to real answers using the latest technology available. You wanna go my way? We submit BOTH. YOUR move.


Originally posted by 8Michael12If anyone's trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes here it's you. As I said, you MIGHT have had a case if Meier's photos - as well as films, sounds and metal samples, etc. - hadn't been analyzed and so much information about all of the component parts and personnel been published quite openly. And yes, the point is that at a time that you had no experience in all of these techniques neither did Meier but the people who investigated and examined the evidence did. And to my knowledge none of them have come forward today refuting their previous conclusions, despite the fact that they'd all still have 20 years of experience on you.


Your excuse here is so lame I cannot fathom your point. Because I wasnt old enough to be what I am now, youre going to try and make me obsolete? What a pathetic attempt. Stop while youre behind. Now we're gonna judge who's better by age? Christ just stop...I'm not even going to belabor how dumb this is. You cant stand on what I've presented to you, so now I'm not experienced enough to see the obvious. Get over it.



Originally posted by 8Michael12Yes, I'm sure that you are far more knowledgeable than I in technical matters, and more so than the other persons on this forum, but that's absolutely no reason to give such a lame excuse, which really amounts to attempting to discredit everything and everyone by innuendo. No, I don't buy it and if there are any other people here with integrity they shouldn't buy it either.


I'm not discrediting anyone, I stated my belief, based on my experience. I duplicated pictures, you dont wanna go tit for tat. Thats your problem. But if you think for a second youre going to spin me as being the one who wont pony up, you got another thing goin on, and ought to seek help. I'm all about it, you on the other hand want to deny putting your convictions where your mouth is.



Originally posted by 8Michael12Because you didn't have access to legitimate testing performed years ago is no reason to attempt to discredit it, and that's primarily the case you are trying to make. By that standard we might as well through out ALL tests doen on ALL things prior to your access to them, even if they're lost, stolen or no longer in existence. Wow, a very scientific position.


Thats not the position I make nor am trying to make. I have stated OVER AND OVER my points of disagreement. You tout over and over....over and over the 1200 pictures, hoardes of metal, how abundant it all is...then when someone asks you for it, you DONT HAVE ANY. Thats lame as hell, and to scream about a report done in the 70's by alot of the people who've promoted the case isnt going to cut it. REAL investigation goes back as technology gives us new insights. YOU choose not to do that, but rely on what you are told and turn the blind eye to what we could discover.



Originally posted by 8Michael12And also once again, your argument about the wedding cake video really is nonsense. I wonder if you've actually SEEN the video or are just theorizing because you, being a model maker and/or special effects person, could create an illusion that no one else has detected in this 20+ year old video. In other words, you're running a modern day version of, "Well, are you going to accept what you see with your own eyes, or believe the version of it I want you to believe?" You really do credit Meier with some amazing, sophisticated, deliberate and daring abilities at special effects, model making and deception.


I showed you what it took to do the pictures, so I'm not labeling Meier any FX artist, nor would it take one. If you cant get the idea that I used a string and a model, then I truly feel for you. You said yourself the wedding ship wasnt even analyzed, so you can totally negate the idea I put forth? No, you cant, because either you dont get it, or you refuse to get it. Either way, your issue. Good luck with that.


Originally posted by 8Michael12And if you read the analysis you'd understand that Stevens randomly pulled several photos from different rolls of film for analysis. He logically concluded, after those photos were positively authenticated, that the rest of the photos on those rolls were also. Now maybe you want us to "believe" that Meier, who took photos that were shown to be authentic, would somehow go to the trouble (actually be able) to include hoaxed photos on the same rolls...not knowing which photos would be chosen in the first place! Yes inded, a guy who actually takes photos of real UFOs should risk hius reputation by...making models and photographing them? Are you serious?


Are you? Are you going to tell me he snipped negatives at will? Or chose them from a pile? Several places I have read that negatives were cut or stolen. Think about it, doesnt take a genius.


Originally posted by 8Michael12You sure do go to a lot of trouble to avoid the obvious, which you do effectively concede. Your photos are those of models. When they are examined using the same equipment and protocols as already authenticated Meier's they will, in short order, be confirmed as such. You will have ended up showing us how nicely you can "duplicate the effect" of Meier's photos and we will still have in his photos - as is clearly stated in the analysis - large, unknown objects.


Concede what? That theyre models in my shots? Of course they are. Oh, concede "defeat"? LOL...in your dreams. Perhaps if you were so sure of your cae, you'd submit these wonderful pictures for independant modern analysis NOW instead of trying to whiz down my back and tell me it's raining.


Originally posted by 8Michael12Try to throw everything off by criticizing the original work and you just discredit yourself.


How exactly does that work? Because I dont agree, and speak about it, I'm immediately a moron...is that how your mind works? I'm seriously starting to worry about you.


Originally posted by 8Michael12Again, I urge anyone here interested in this process, and this pivotal point in the discussion, to actually read the photo analysis for themselves. Please, even if you're at about my level of technical sophistication, see if your common sense tells you that the people involved risked their reputations by misrepresenting any aspects of the testing. See if your common sense tells you that a one-armed farmer, living under all the documented conditions that Meier was known to contend with, could have, in any way, and for any (so far never realized) reasons, made such sophisticated models - and photographs, films, video, sound recordings, metal samples, etc. - as to fool the equipment and its operators and the experts.

Refer to the scientific experts who examined and authenticated Meier's evidence - all produced without anything even close to today's technology - and see if their conclusions seem reasonable. Notice that none of them gave us the kind of attitude that Jeff is trying to pawn off, a blustering defiant avoidance of putting his work to the test as Meier's was.

And do know that this isn't the first time that someone has claimed to duplicate Meier's evidence but has run like hell from putting it to the test.


::::Looking at my legs::::

Hmmm, I dont seem to be moving. What I do see is yet another refusal to submit what you call the best evidence ever to an independant party with the latest technology to determine what you say is already true. You shouldnt be showing yourself here like the cornered dog, snarling at me. If what you say you actually believe, you'd have no issue with it. You'd put me right in my place, but quick.

Unfortunately youre unwilling to go the distance for something you so staunchly defend.

Speaks volumes.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
As stated before, Meier's photos that were tested PASSED the tests. It's up to anyone who might care about this to read the analysis. You admit that your photos WOULDN'T pass those tests and, therefore, the tests are "antiquated"?

Let's take the logic a step farther. If your photos don't pass the tests now...will they then pass them in 20 years with even better technology? If Meier's photos pass the tests now...will someone else, with an axe to grind like you in 20 years, come around with the same lame argument as yours and challenge them, ad infinitum? At what point do we accept the best possible evidence that withstood the challenges of the best available equipment and personnel of the time, which wasn't exactly stone age?

What you're really trying to say simply insults everyone who can think straight, by your "logic" any and all testing, done on any and all photographs, at any time in the past, using the same "antiquated equipment" and parameters, by any and all experts (who must have had ulterior motives) was obviously flawed, is irrelevant and yielded false results. Obviously, indeed, why didn't I realize that before? Let's throw out everything from that time period...primarily because you weren't there to oversee it.

But the REAL reason you attack the methodology and results is because it authenticated Meier's photos, as the examination and analysis of the sounds authenticated them, as did the metal sample analysis, etc. So what do you do? Sour grapes, that's what. Attack ALL the methodologies, standards, parameters, equipment and personnel, to whom you ascribe ulterior motives. Attack all the witnesses, lie detector tests, prophetic information, etc. After all YOU'RE the "expert", you're the "model maker" and here some old Swiss guy with one arm has accomplished - simply by pointing the camera and pushing the button - what you can't, what you can only hope to duplicate as "effect".

And when your idiot remarks about duplicating the sounds with an old guitar amp are challenged, why you break into another tap dance. No, the sounds aren't physical evidence, blah, blah. You're a phony, plain and simple.

And you think that your sarcasm and bullying accomplishes something even remotely resembling a credible challenge? You're really a piece of work. And you're the poster boy for every self-impressed, resentful, jealous wannabe who can't stnad it that some "nobody" is so many light years ahead of him. Do I recall correctly from a year or so back, that you wanted to go and photograph the craft yourself, that you gave great reasons why you should be invited to do so, or was that yet another genius who fancied himself more qualified than Meier to get the job done?

How come NONE of the other experts, even ones who had issues with some of Meier's evidence, e
ver accused him, the equipment and everyone involved in a hoax? How come they didn't cop the same arrogant, self-important, infantile, posturing that you do?

So back to square one, nice little model photos, nice "effect". Will they stand up to the testing that authenticated Meier's? No. You want to bluff somebody, it ain't me pal. I know too much about the case, the people involved, the witnesses, the information and the credibility of it all. So go ahead and be the poster boy for all that's stinks about the way that people act when their fragile egos are threatened. I hope that you DON'T have to confront the reality of the case, just what would you do with all of your specious arguments and phony "expertise" collapsing in on you? It won't be pretty, so stay in denial.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by 8Michael12
I hope that you DON'T have to confront the reality of the case, just what would you do with all of your specious arguments and phony "expertise" collapsing in on you? It won't be pretty, so stay in denial.


Phony? Oh ok, so my 20 years of work in this field, that which I make my living doing, is just phony huh? You claim to "know" all about this case, but can in no way shape or form talk to me about the imaging specifics. Or even Photoshop for that matter. And I'm phony. You really need help.

How dare you. That was without a doubt the last straw of garbage I'm taking from you.

Youre nailed, because you cant/wont pony it up. You cry and cry about how great this case is, then wont back it up when the chips are down. All your insults and personal attacks on me arent going to save your argument. Be pissed at yourself, sir.

You attack me, because you cant attack the specifics of this topic, and thats where your problem lies.

When you can stop behaving like a child and act like an adult, I'll be waiting for you to submit your data as I outlined, and I'll comply with that.

My guess is you'll never do it. Maybe denial is more your bag.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
i think theyre actually pretty good ritzmann, but i betcha you cant fake this one:







peace



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   
As i stated on the previous page, post in a civil manner. And cease immediately with all personal snipes and attacks.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by 8Michael12
Oh yeah, one more thing. Thanks for showing us the model by one of the legendary model makers of all time, Ray Harryhausen. DId you use it because you're not as good a model maker as Harryhausen? Now, since you have, do you think that ANYONE (who can see) doesn't see the VAST superiority of the Meier so-called "models", i.e. real UFOs, as clearly displayed both on my site (see photos 171 and 200) and the wedding cake photos on Deardorff's site, let alone Meier's 1964 photos from India, such as 136 at www.tjresearch.info...


I didnt use it because it was what it is, I used it not even in connection with this matter. Those pics were posted months ago for an active demo here. I'd say it's far superior to Meier's in that there's no wobbly edges or gaping seams. Could I do one like it, sure. It's a simple model, but I wouldnt even compare myself to the legend and pioneer that is Ray H.


Originally posted by 8Michael12Has it crossed your small, jealous mind that the Meier UFOs in his photos are light years AHEAD of the professionally made model you used - in detail, quality and believability - over that of the renowned expert Harryhausen's? That being the nakedly OBVIOUS case, why, if Meier's were indeed models, didn't he get himself straight to Hollywood and make a fortune in special effects? Why didn't he accept the three different movie offers to do so? Why didn't he replace Harryhausen?


As I said, no gaping seams and parts that have fallen off. Why didnt he go to Hollywood? Because he aint good enough. Because there's more money in starting a religious belief then making movie FX back then...who the hell knows.


Originally posted by 8Michael12What an idiot! You post a close up of an obviously inferior model and are too hell bent on attacking Meier to realize that YOU just made the case for him! Any honest person can see that, so thanks for doing the job for me.


I did nothing for you, youre evading again the issue that you wont submit to current analysis. As for calling me an idiot, your own idiocy is showing more with every post you write...just keep mouthing off and talking smack you cant back up BECAUSE YOU WONT SUBMIT ORIGINALS FOR ANALYSIS BY TODAY'S STANDARDS!!! You lose!!! Try again.


Originally posted by 8Michael12Oh, by the way, why did you need to use Photo Shop AT ALL? Meier didn't. Yeah, the one-amred guy shows you for the fool you are, once again.

Nice try but you're a loser, and a very envious one at that.


I used PS to size the pictures for web display, thats all. If you knew as much as you think you know, you'd realize that. This from someone who claims to know so damned much about this case....you sure as hell dont know jack about the images. Thats obvious, if you cant figure out the terminology, nor even photoshop, then why are you talking to me and showing your ignorance to that area? Keep digging a deeper hole pal, keep up with the namecalling and childish behavior. You're truest colors are showing.

YOU do so because you cant back it up. All the namecalling and immature behavior cant change the fact that you have no idea what youre talking about in regard to these films and pictures...it's a joke.

Answer on the facts and points I have put to you over and over instead of getting bent and calling names....thats the sign of a loser. Lets see your stance on the plots....hell, anything but this childish drivel.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
STOP the sniping now or you will be removed from the conversation. If you can't present you're point of view without childish name calling then DON'T PRESENT your point of view uniutl you can.

Got it? I've warned you I don't want to do anymore than that.

Springer...



[edit on 1-9-2006 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
8Michael12

Oh dear, a bad penny showing up and deju vu: Fortean Times forum, Paul Kimball's blog, Dr.Salla's forum, now here (these are the ones I've observed and know about). Can all these witnesses be wrong? Or will you justify your "style" as necessary harsh truth, or purposely making people angry in order to make them THINK!

I have a question for you about Meier's predictions and will shoot it to you if you're still around and when this photo discussion comes to a close. (Although as I recall, you last told me you would no longer acknowledge me since I was a whining, complaining, passive-aggressive, game player . . .or something like that)



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by vogelfire
I have a question for you about Meier's predictions and will shoot it to you if you're still around and when this photo discussion comes to a close.


Closed as far as I'm concerned, as he refuses to submit photos or negatives as I have agreed to do. Another one of his "challenges" met, and then he pretends he knows what the protocols are for antiquated testing when he cant handle photoshop.

But, since he backs out of modern testing, it's just circles from here.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Michael is a "known" entity eh? I am assuming you fellows have encountered him on other sites based on the posts above.

I have a news flash for Michael... Your name calling, failure to respond to legitimate challenges of your theories with anything other than crying like a child and calling people names IS officially OVER. Understood?

ATS is not here to be your bully pulpit. ATS is here to search for the truth and seperate it from all the NOISE, as it stands right now, you are only adding to the NOISE.

Get on track or go elsewhere.

Springer...

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Yea he's a known entity alright. The only forum where he doesn't behave like this is the yahoo forum for Plajeran lovers. It's like a Jim Jones thing only they already drank the koolaid and it isn't deadly. Its mind numbing.
Like him accusing JR of a lack of logic. Man far as I can tell he's the one who is out of touch with reality and logic. And he never answers the questions asked here just ignores them and repeats the same thing over and over.
Hope ya didn't scare him off Springer.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
Hope ya didn't scare him off Springer.


I don't think this is about scaring off Michael, nor is that truly a worry. Michael is a salesman for . Billy Meier is not a not a UFO phenomena, he's a [ADMIN EDIT: Removed links to crap] sold by whomever has been granted the rights

Michael Horn is the Authorized American Media Representative for the Billy Meier Contacts


That doesn't sound like a credential as an unbiased researcher to me. That sounds like someone with a vested interest in proliferating a hoax, or at least "selling" the Meier information without acknowledging the overwhelming amount of evidence that contradicts Meier's claims (or, in many cases, shows exposes Meier's Fabrications -- Dinosaur picture, anyone?).

I think Springer's dead on -- if Michael wants to post here, he had better be ready to discuss the veracity of his claims in a truthful manner.

Either way, I still want to see more of jritzmann's photos


HOWEVER... getting back to what this thread started with -- the mention of Billy Meier on WTOP radio in Washington, D.C., I noticed on Michael's biography page[/url] that he lists "WTOP" as a "recent media appearance.

I contacted David Burd, the feature-writer that prepared the story for WTOP's "Water Cooler" segment (described to me as "an offbeat news segment" for things you don't normally hear about). He said that Michael never appeared on the broadcast or was mentioned in it, nor does he recall Michael ever "appearing" on WTOP.

So, if this is what Michael calls a "media appearance" in his bio, then that might explain some things.


Centrist




[edit on 9-1-2006 by Centrist]

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Yeah certainly does explain things. Like the phantom Design Technologies that jritzman can't find and the supposed FX house which have as of yet responded to my inquiries. Or the ever changing dates concerning the prophecies. Explains quite a bit.
Btw is there somewhere to listen to the segment?



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I see, a little touchy here aren't we? It's okay to put up derogatory posters, maul and vilify Meier, impugn my motives, i.e. lower them to the same kind of financial materialism that has infected the majority of bottom feeders of this world but, hey, I better not call anyone an idiot. Is that your standard of fairness here? No problem, I recognize people who are more honest than me when I meet them...nice meeting you all. And really, what would one expect from heroes of LOGIC and TRUTH?

Okay, on with it. Let's simply (and perhaps for the umpteenth time) offer some of the facts of the case. You get to decide for yourselves what you think .

According to the "logic" being thrust at us by Ritzmann, any and all equipment used by experts (and the experts themselves) in the fields of photographic, sound and metal analysis, with which countless tests have been made leading to scientifically valid determinations, previously accepted as credible, must be dismissed - if Meier's evidence was ever included among the testing and, heaven forbid, validated by it. Conversely, all is well with the equipment and the experts if Meier's evidence DIDN'T pass the tests.

This means that we should dismiss the following ("antiquated") equipment simply because it was known to have been used to analyze and validate Meier's evidence:

Electron Microscope
Micro Densitometer
Vidicon Tube
Interferometer
Infraredometer
Digitizer
Image Process Computer
Zeiss Microscope
YOOL Laser System
Simmons Gamma/Alpha Emission Tube
Grinnel Computer Graphics Terminal GMR-37
Tektronix Computer System 4081=peripherals
Fairchild CCD-2 Digital Camera
Singer zx-2 Digital Camera
CMX-700 & 340 Computer Video Graphics
Scanning Electron Microscope
Laserscope
HELL Chromograph DC 300

And we should likewise dismiss these companies, their ("antiquated") equipment and personnel as no longer credible:

Hamamatsu Systems
COMTAL
De Anza Systems
Ramteck Systems
ComTol Systems
Evans-Sutherians
Spatial Data
FORTH Systems
JPL
NASA
IBM
USGS
INTERREPRO, A. G.,
SCHORI REPROS
Spectro Dynamics
Eidgenossisch Maerialprufungs und Versuchsanstalt
Boeing
McDonnell Douglas
Swiss Military Air Safety Monitoring Unit
Uncharted Territory
Design Technology
Kodak
De Anza Systems
Excalibur Sound Studios
Naval Undersea Sound Lab
Photo Color Studio
Nippon TV

Specifically, we should negate the qualifications and contributions from these experts, and others, slandering them if necessary, and it will be necessary for certain HONEST PEOPLE such as are found here (how am I doing, banned yet?):

Marcel Vogel
Robert Post
Michael Malin
Wally Gentleman
Steve Ambrose
Nils Rognerud
Steve Singer
Jim Dilettoso
David Froning
Robin L. Shellman
Lt. Col. Wendelle Stevens, USAF (Ret.)
Lee & Brit Elders
Tom Welch
O. Richard Norton
Maj. Rudojph Pestalozzi, USAF (Ret.)
Dr. Walter W. Walker
Jun-Ichi Yaoi
James Deardorff
Steven Williams
Howard Ilson

Because we are not threatened in our knowledge of the truth we have no problem acknowledging Ritzmann's photos for what they are, very good, even excellent photos of a model UFO. Unfortunately, Ritzmann obviously feels very threatened by the work of a one-armed man who's been presenting physical evidence (yes, still irreproducible until tests prove otherwise) for 42 years, and prophetically accurate information for 55 years.

Of course, we are also told by the emperor-skeptic-in-chief that Harryhausen's model is actually a better, more convincing one than the real deal shown in Meier's photos! I think that this puts me in the position of informing some dwellers of deep denial that their emperor has no clothes, and poor eyesight as well. But if you can be talked into believing that the Harryhausen model even comes close to the UFOs Meier photographed...well then, I guess you can stay comfortable in those "beliefs", highly valued as they are also by Ritzmann, certainly above the expert opinions of qualified scientists.

You know all the rest regarding the volumes of evidence, etc. yet you know but a little of its substance, since the majority of the 25,000 pages are still in German.

I should mention that, contrary to what you assume here, I'm not interested in a popularity contest and I don't mind going head to head with people even though I am illogical, and can't back up my stupid claims, etc.,

The difference between me and, as far as I can tell, every one of you, is that I've been pedaling crap for 27 years now. I work on every aspect of it because I recognize it as the most important story in all of human history. None of you have troubled yourselves to take what Wendelle Stevens calls the "first elementary step" in a credible examination of the case, which isn't hard to do since the people involved are still around and the contacts are still going on. But I'm too lazy, have far too many excuses and think that my concocted "challenges" are brilliant and unique. Hardly, look at the other forums where other wannabes were offering the same stupid nonsense. And the funny thing is that you haven't seen me on the lecture circuit presenting your expose of this great Meier "hoax". Gee, I wonder why? If this is such a financially lucrative field, heck, why don't I take a shot at it? I mean, come on down!

Why haven't I showed up? Simply because I'm a hypocrite and a poseur, comfortable sniping away from my computer instead of getin' all gritty out there.

Now an admission from me. I get involved on these types of forums when things are otherwise on low demand, and the reason is to see if there are really any credible challenges to the case. It may surprise you to know that I even challenge Meir from year to year when I see him. As you can see, I've been on a number of these wildlife refuges and, so far, nothing of real importance has occurred, present company included. The "best" things are the photos from Fortean, IIG and Ritzmann simply because they are all good model shots...that still won't pass the tests Meier's did...




top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join