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: 18
0
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
Please excuse my repeats. I'm still trying to learn the ropes of posting on this forum.

Regarding Ritzmann's generalizations, I would invite those with inquiring minds to read about the reasons in www.tjresearch.info/BillyYes.htm#macpend as to why a model couldn't have behaved in the way the UFO did, and why the tree involved was a large one in front of the house in the distance.

Also, it wouldn't hurt to go over the web page in enough depth to understand how Maccabee correctly deduced that IF a model had been involved, swinging over a small tree, that tree would have been some 50-ft away from the camera, and the tree would only have been 2 1/2 or 3 ft tall.


Yeah, a tree the residents of the house said never existed. Ever.

You also creatively miscontext 50 ft distance.
Dr. M says:
"The comparison between the motion of the UO and the motion of a pendulum with a movable suspension point (in order to change the nature of the oscillation from planar to conical and mixtures of the two) has been made. The model hypothesis is that a small UO, perhaps a foot in
size, was used along with a several foot high tree that was cut down afterward by Meier or that was a potted tree that Meier moved to the spot and then removed afterward."

I would tend to put different measurements in there, but thats another story. This was listed under "conclusions" on the paper.




posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   
longhaircowboy, yes Wendelle Stevens is retired USAF, but he is certainly more than that! He has dedicated many years of his life to researching UFO cases, and he was a lead investigator in the Meier case when the contacts began in 1975. To my knowledge, he is highly respected as a researcher in the world-wide UFO community.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Man this just keep getting better and better!!!
2:39 a.m, here and I can't sleep just refreshing this page lol.

"yeah is that good"



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Some of you, if you are interested, can also follow a long discussion
about Meier's photographic evidence that took place on the Plejarens are Real Yahoo forum between Jeff Ritzmann, Michael Horn,and Jim Deardorff. It begins in late July 2005 and runs well into August. The dynamics become, as you will see, very fiery and very frustrating.

I wonder if Jeff and Jim will accomplish anything productive this time . . .good luck! Can either one of you provide the link to this thread starting with the subject "As I Suspected"? I don't seem to be able to.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by vogelfire]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Yeah I read about that somewhere but for some reason i can't see to find that forum by simple net search. A direct link will be really appreciatted.

Note: still hoping this thread don't end like all the others (about this topic) in the "limbo"



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Manny, here's the link. I don't seem to know how to format correctly yet, though. You'll need to type it into your address bar:groups.yahoo.com...



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
If that were the case then why did Mr. Burd send me an email stating the opposite. Oh don't stop now. I just sent him an email about the above post.
I can hardly wait to see what his reply is.
SNIP


I would just like to add that I have sent David Burd the exact same information, which was posted on the Yahoo Groups message board. I will let you know of any response I receive.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by vogelfire
I wonder if Jeff and Jim will accomplish anything productive this time . . .good luck! Can either one of you provide the link to this thread starting with the subject "As I Suspected"? I don't seem to be able to.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by vogelfire]


I for one have no idea where it is. I'm sure it's back in there though.

I seriously doubt anything productive is going to come out of this, you'll see what I mean.

Zep-That Icon is wicked...is there a large version of that anywhere?

[edit on 11-1-2006 by jritzmann]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Vogelfire the reason I stated that about Stevens is because first Horn and then Deardorff keep trying to use him as a photo expert which he is not. I have searched far and wide for some reference to Stevens photo expertise and all I come up with is: retired fighter pilot/ UFO researcher. Stevens looking at all the Meier pictures doesn't make him any kind of expert it just means he had a lot of time on his hands.

[edit on 1/11/06 by longhaircowboy]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
JRitzmann posted:

Zep-That Icon is wicked...is there a large version of that anywhere?


It is isn't it, though I can't take credit for it. It's from the artist Ken Martin. Here's a link: www.artofkenmartin.com...



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Thats a stunning piece. Layout reminds me of Nagel. Thanx for the link.




Originally posted by Zep Tepi
JRitzmann posted:

Zep-That Icon is wicked...is there a large version of that anywhere?


It is isn't it, though I can't take credit for it. It's from the artist Ken Martin. Here's a link: www.artofkenmartin.com...




posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
JRitzmann wrote:



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
its angular size was not very much larger when closer to the camera than when farthest away.


You said it right there. If it's not much different, then it cant be going around a large tree can it? If the tree was so large, then logistically it would have to go farther to get around it, therefore making the disc smaller.

I also dont agree with the amount of swing. There's really no determining factors in judging that. If it's a forced perspective shot, and a very dark, bad light-metered one at that, I dont see the information being very solid. Dont get me wrong, it's not directly in front of the camera, but I dont believe it's 50ft away either.

The operative question again is, where is the tree? Where is the memory by folks living there, of the tree? How about not only the issues there but the obvious "wobble" in some spots??

Both are non-existant.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by jritzmann]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Zep Tepi, you may have noticed that I tried to get Michael to address the excellent challenges and questions of your post on page 11. No such luck, eh? Since Jim Deardorff is also an expert and advocate of the case, perhaps you can get him to respond. He's usually very direct.

longhaircowboy, I understand now what you saying.

Jeff, I gave Manny the link to the PAR "fray" a few posts above. I just don't know how to format it so you can just click on it. Right, you and Deardorff may just get into the same old "fray" and end up in more circles. You're not going to say he's right, and he's not going to say you're right. A sure prediction!



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by vogelfire
Zep Tepi, you may have noticed that I tried to get Michael to address the excellent challenges and questions of your post on page 11. No such luck, eh? Since Jim Deardorff is also an expert and advocate of the case, perhaps you can get him to respond. He's usually very direct.

longhaircowboy, I understand now what you saying.

Jeff, I gave Manny the link to the PAR "fray" a few posts above. I just don't know how to format it so you can just click on it. Right, you and Deardorff may just get into the same old "fray" and end up in more circles. You're not going to say he's right, and he's not going to say you're right. A sure prediction!


Well, I dont intend to go round and round. I got business to get done which I've procrastinated getting done due to my embroilment with Horn (which is continuing in email...which is good because I can use my
"delicate" language. LOL)

At some point I have to get back to real life and let these people go round and round on their own. As I said before, I grow so tired of this....but the model building is fun.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by vogelfire
You're not going to say he's right, and he's not going to say you're right. A sure prediction!


Noted.

I'll tell ya, after last time, I have to say NO amount will get thru to him. If one cant see it in black and white (and color), animated and not, then I cant help em.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
OK I emailed Mr. Burd about the supposed email that he sent to Horn which Deardorff posted. This is what he had to say:
Consider me out of this conflict. Argue amongst yourselves.
All I asked was for confirmation of that email. I didn't ask him anything weird just could he confirm the email. So I guess we only have MH and JDs word. But since MH didn't post it here but JD did it now becomes a third party 'conversation' which is.......say it with me class.....hearsay.
If you can help me out here Centrist please do so. I'm no legal person just a humble chef/poet/UFO researcher. Which reminds me, that wedding cake UFO doesn't look like any wedding cake I ever made.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Thanks for the link vogelfire, weird forum format they have there though.

Note: the photo of the alien girl looks a little weird I have to say and doesn't look like the one they say was from dean show so maybe someone can post the photos comparitions I have it but don't know how to insert it here.




posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Vogelfire posted:

Zep Tepi, you may have noticed that I tried to get Michael to address the excellent challenges and questions of your post on page 11. No such luck, eh? Since Jim Deardorff is also an expert and advocate of the case, perhaps you can get him to respond. He's usually very direct.


Yes I noticed that, thanks very much for your comments and that you tried to get Michael Horn to respond. I thought he would selectively ignore my post and that is exactly what he did


If Jim Deardorff would like to comment on my post here, he is more than welcome to.

Thanks again.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Jim wrote:
its angular size was not very much larger when closer to the camera than when farthest away. /quote

Ritzmann wrote:
You said it right there. If it's not much different, then it cant be going around a large tree can it? If the tree was so large, then logistically it would have to go farther to get around it, therefore making the disc smaller.

Jim writes:
I'll try once more. If a tree is just 10 ft away, say, and an object is swinging above it transversely (from left to right), 5 ft to the left and back until 5 ft to the right, etc., its angular size remains about constant throughout its swings. If it swings towards and away from you, however, and is closest when 5 ft away and farthest when 15 ft away, then when it's closest its angular size will be 3 times as great as when it's farthest away. Nothing like that is seen in the movie segment. Instead, one finds that its angular size is only about 20% larger when closest than when it's at its furthest, on its to-and-fro swings.

Bruce found that only if you place the tree about 55 ft away, with the object on its to-and-fro swings oscillating between 50 ft and 60 ft away, will the difference in angular size in those two positions reduce to about 20%. (That's 60/50 - 1).

That's if the craft were a model, in which case the deduced length of the string, and the apparent point of suspension just above the top of the movie frame, determine that such a model must be about 1 ft in diameter.

If you have ever suspended an object from a 25-ft long pole, you know how impossible it is to keep it from bouncing up and down noticeably. Then try it with a 60-ft pole.

Ritzmann wrote:
I also dont agree with the amount of swing. There's really no determining factors in judging that. If it's a forced perspective shot, and a very dark, bad light-metered one at that, I dont see the information being very solid. Dont get me wrong, it's not directly in front of the camera, but I dont believe it's 50ft away either.

Jim wrote:
The amount of swing was determined from the transverse swings, as above (knowing the pendular period). From the movie, one can then tell that the amount of swing was about the same when it suddenly switched to a to-and-fro oscillation. This is strongly suggested also by Fig. 6 of www.tjresearch.info/BillyYes.htm, where the extent of the craft's underside was quite large as it was closest to the camera.

Ritzmann wrote:
The operative question again is, where is the tree? Where is the memory by folks living there, of the tree? How about not only the issues there but the obvious "wobble" in some spots??

Jim wrote:
First let's settle the tree's distance, if the craft had been a model.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join