It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Billy Meier called the New Nostradamus!?!?

page: 20
0
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
I wish I could get a statement from Jeff saying that he understands that the length of a pendulum determines the time period of its swing. If he can understand that, he could go back and understand how Maccabee, in 2002, determined the approximate distance from the camera that an assumed model UFO would have been. It would also help if he were to read Maccabee's website article on this at: brumac.8k.com...
as well as my own at www.tjresearch.info/BillyYes.htm. He shouldn't mind reading Maccabee's article as it's written in sort of a pro-UFO-model tone.

How bout this Jim, I shoot a model on a string, oscillating around, say a common object. I'll measure the distance and everything. Then I put the film up on the web so you can see and download it. Then you tell me how long the string is. Deal?

The period of swing is based on what notion? Length of oscillation? Do believe that to be a constant?

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
I wish I could get a statement from Jeff saying that he understands that the length of a pendulum determines the time period of its swing.

You're assuming that the mass of model is concentrated to a point source, thereby making the period of the pendulum solely a function of the length of the string, i.e., a simple pendulum. If that were the case, you would be absolutely correct. I disagree that it is.

The mass of the model and mass distribution relative to the center of gravity is unknown, right? Therefore, the distance of parts of the mass of the model relative to the pivot point are unknown, right? Therefore, this isn't a simple pendulum, it's somewhere between a physical pendulum and a simply pendulum. Without the mass and size of the object, there's no way to calculate the moment of inertia, right? So how can you calculate the period of a physical pendulum without that?

In other words, your statement is only correct if the object in the film has a very tight mass distribution around the center of gravity. If it doesn't (and probably would not with a hollow model) then your statement is not correct.

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 02:57 PM
I think theyre going of speed of oscillation, which isnt a constant. The speed can vary greatly and the actual size and wieght of the model are just as you said, unknown.

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:08 PM

Originally posted by jritzmann
I think theyre going of speed of oscillation, which isnt a constant. The speed can vary greatly and the actual size and wieght of the model are just as you said, unknown.

Physics does dictate the the period of simple pendulum is defined by the length of the pendulum (assuming the mass is concentrated to a point source at the end of the string).

Here, we have a much tougher problem. The object's properties are unlikely to be accurately quantified using a simple pendulum model. Not only is the length of the string going to be indeterminate due to the unknown mass and mass distribution, but assuming that the object in question is a small model, then it will be greatly influences by wind resistance and induced motion from whatever is suspending the string supporting the model.

EDIT:

Another thought -- how do we know that the pendulum is only travelling in two-dimensions? If the pendulum is moving in a circular or elliptical pattern, then the period as seen in two dimensions will appear larger. Also, if the model is relatively large with respect to the diameter of the circular orbit (or semi-major axis of the elliptical orbit) than the apparent angle subtended by the object from the viewer's observation point will not change enough to be measurable on the film. Again, more variables that cannot be accounted for.

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Centrist]

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Centrist

Originally posted by jritzmann
I think theyre going of speed of oscillation, which isnt a constant. The speed can vary greatly and the actual size and wieght of the model are just as you said, unknown.

Physics does dictate the the period of simple pendulum is defined by the length of the pendulum (assuming the mass is concentrated to a point source at the end of the string).

Here, we have a much tougher problem. The object's properties are unlikely to be accurately quantified using a simple pendulum model. Not only is the length of the string going to be indeterminate due to the unknown mass and mass distribution, but assuming that the object in question is a small model, then it will be greatly influences by wind resistance and induced motion from whatever is suspending the string supporting the model.

EDIT:

Another thought -- how do we know that the pendulum is only travelling in two-dimensions? If the pendulum is moving in a circular or elliptical pattern, then the period as seen in two dimensions will appear larger. Also, if the model is relatively large with respect to the diameter of the circular orbit (or semi-major axis of the elliptical orbit) than the apparent angle subtended by the object from the viewer's observation point will not change enough to be measurable on the film. Again, more variables that cannot be accounted for.

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Centrist]

But ya know what...all of this is far deeper then it needs to be. Read Dr. M's report, and see all the other inconsistent issues with the film.

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 06:09 PM
Along with Underground Video's statement is a photograph showing one of Billy Meiers alleged Pleiadian beamships taken in 1981. After computer enhancement and careful scrutiny, it has been shown the Beamship is really a miniature model made out of an upside-down cake pan, disconnected copper hose fitting, a bracelet, carpet tacks and various other identifiable objects.

The Meier photograph of the beautiful Pleiadian alien, Semjase, turned out to be a photocopy of a model from a Sears Catalog. Another one of Meier's photographs, where he allegedly traveled into the future aboard a Pleiadian Beamship to photograph the aftermath of a 9.0 earthquake in San Francisco showing the toppled Trans-America building, turned out to be a realistic looking painting from a geology magazine article about earthquakes. On top of these damning examples, every single one of Billy Meier's photographs of Pleiadian ships have been shown to be of third, fourth and even fifth generation(photographs of photographs) This means the he likely airbrushed suspension wires and other signs of fraud. There is not one example of an original, first generation Billy Meier photograph. On top of that, it has been shown that the reflections on some of the Pleiadian ships are not consistent with the position of the sun, indicating possible superimposition techniques. To top it off, a reporter found a bunch of miniature models exactly matching many of the Pleiadian ships shown in his photos. His ex-wife has come out to denounce him as a fraud as well. The evidence is overwhelming that whole Billy Meier story is unquestionably, absolutely, completely and totally 100% BOGUS. Case Closed!

Billy Meier and his cohorts, have made a lot of money out of this scam. I applaud Underground Video for seeking the truth about the Billy Meier scam and disassociating itself from any involvement with Meier. Billy Meier has done more to hurt the legitimate field of UFO research than any other person alive today. It's really a shame.

www.geocities.com...

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 06:39 PM
Jeff wrote:
How bout this Jim, I shoot a model on a string, oscillating around, say a common object. I'll measure the distance and everything. Then I put the film up on the web so you can see and download it. Then you tell me how long the string is. Deal?

Jim writes:
It has to be in a movie or a video of the movie so that one can, with a stopwatch, time the period of each pendular swing. OK? Read Maccabee's article if you don't want to read mine. He found successive periods of its apparent swing to be: 4.54, 4.1, 4.3, 4.6, 3.9, 4.2, 4.87, 4.9, and 4.9 sec. The period, T, is the time for one apparent back-and-forth (or circular) swing. The pendulum equation gives the length of the pendulum (length of string) to be L = g*T*T/(4pi*pi). (The asterisk signifies to multiply.) Use consistent units (e.g., g=980 cm per sec per sec., T in seconds, L is then in centimeters, 30.5 cm per foot). Except for quite large oscillations, it doesn't much matter how big the swings are.

Is this your first exposure to the pendulum? Maccabee gives a little appendix that explains the simple high-school physics of it

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 06:49 PM
Centrist wrote:

You're assuming that the mass of model is concentrated to a point source, thereby making the period of the pendulum solely a function of the length of the string, i.e., a simple pendulum. If that were the case, you would be absolutely correct. I disagree that it is.

The mass of the model and mass distribution relative to the center of gravity is unknown, right? Therefore, the distance of parts of the mass of the model relative to the pivot point are unknown, right? Therefore, this isn't a simple pendulum, it's somewhere between a physical pendulum and a simply pendulum. Without the mass and size of the object, there's no way to calculate the moment of inertia, right? So how can you calculate the period of a physical pendulum without that?

Jim writes:
To first approximation you find the string is, say 14 ft long, giving a model UFO to be about 1 ft wide and, say, 6 inches high. Then if you assume that the assumed model's center of gravity is 4" from the model's bottom, not 3" or in the middle, then you refine your calculation to be 13 ft 11 inches. But since the periods of the swings vary considerably, and your estimate of 14 ft was plus-or-minus two ft in the first place, you don't worry about the uncertainty you are mentioning.

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 06:54 PM

Originally posted by jritzmann
I think theyre going of speed of oscillation, which isnt a constant. The speed can vary greatly and the actual size and wieght of the model are just as you said, unknown.

The "speed" (period) of the oscillations is what one measures. Its variations from one apparent swing to the next is known. See previous post.

The weight of the assumed model doesn't enter into the equation. This is due to the fact that a heavy ball will fall just as fast as a lighhter ball if you drop them.

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Centrist
Another thought -- how do we know that the pendulum is only travelling in two-dimensions? If the pendulum is moving in a circular or elliptical pattern, then the period as seen in two dimensions will appear larger. Also, if the model is relatively large with respect to the diameter of the circular orbit (or semi-major axis of the elliptical orbit) than the apparent angle subtended by the object from the viewer's observation point will not change enough to be measurable on the film. Again, more variables that cannot be accounted for.

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Centrist]

The period of the pendulum is practically the same whether in simple harmonic motion (back and forth) or circular or elliptical. E.g., see www.marcdatabase.com/~lemur/vk-pendulum.html

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
To first approximation you find the string is, say 14 ft long, giving a model UFO to be about 1 ft wide and, say, 6 inches high.

I think it's much more likely at one-armed man holding a stick probably had a string about three feet long (I'm of the opinion that Billy was using a fishing rod or something similar -- very low weight and easily handled by one hand, despite its length). I would agree that the size of the object would likely be about 1 foot in diameter, given the widespread speculation that the craft is made from household objects, such as dishes, bowls, etc. Also, I don't see one-armed men climbing trees to hang their models, so a 14 foot length seems excessive.

Based on the remainder of your assumptions, we then introduce a tremendous amount of error into the periodicity of a 2-dimensional simple pendulum vs. a physical pendulum. As well, you still must account for the weight of the object and mass distribution. If the object was a dinner plate with a metal topper, it's hard to know where the COG is; and, therefore, the range of error is going to grow as the string lengths gets smaller.

Also, this doesn't account for a three-dimensional motion when the object is swinging in a circular or elliptical orbit.

Just out of curiosity, why choose a 14 foot string as the starting assumption?

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
The period of the pendulum is practically the same whether in simple harmonic motion (back and forth) or circular or elliptical. E.g., see www.marcdatabase.com/~lemur/vk-pendulum.html

Perhaps you can explain how that reference proves your point. I don't see it as being apparent from the link you posted.

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Mindsite
Along with Underground Video's statement is a photograph showing one of Billy Meiers alleged Pleiadian beamships taken in 1981. After computer enhancement and careful scrutiny, it has been shown the Beamship is really a miniature model made out of an upside-down cake pan, disconnected copper hose fitting, a bracelet, carpet tacks and various other identifiable objects.

That stuff comes from Kal Korff. None of it checks out. The "upside down cake pan" has instead been claimed by others to be a garbage-can lid, which its interior surface also doesn't resemble; the "disconnected copper hose fitting" instead shows a circular structured opening to one of the 50 or so reflecting spheres; the "bracelet" is ten times the diameter of the "hose fitting," which would make it some 10 inches in diameter, quite a bracelet!; Korff's "carpet tacks" instead look like relatively small bronze spheres that reflect the "carriage house" in front of which Meier was standing as do the larger spheres. Korff apparently didn't attempt to explain the main feature -- all those reflective spheres on three tiers, perhaps because they seem to be structurally connected to each other.

When Korff wrote his anti-Meier book, and Underground Video repeated his claims, they didn't know of the video that Meier took in 1981 of one of those "wedding-cake" craft when it was posing in front of a tree on a hillside. Twice Meier zoomed the camera lens in and out on it, and one can then see from the changing focus of the intervening ground, that it was a large object in front of the distant tree. The sound track is consistent. The only saving feature for the negative skeptic is that the craft never moved; the video doesn't show its departure. I have this video; a part of it is shown in Michael Horn's DVD, "The Meier Contacts, Part I. It's also shown on a video tape from the 1999 Laughlin Conference.

Much more could be said on this. Meier's photos taken while he was perched on one of those craft when hovering just above tree-top level are very telling. you could view them at www.tjresearch.info... (Figs. 4 and 5).

This is enough for now. The other claims were equally false or misleading.

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Centrist

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
To first approximation you find the string is, say 14 ft long, giving a model UFO to be about 1 ft wide and, say, 6 inches high.

I think it's much more likely at one-armed man holding a stick probably had a string about three feet long (I'm of the opinion that Billy was using a fishing rod or something similar -- very low weight and easily handled by one hand, despite its length). I would agree that the size of the object would likely be about 1 foot in diameter, given the widespread speculation that the craft is made from household objects, such as dishes, bowls, etc. Also, I don't see one-armed men climbing trees to hang their models, so a 14 foot length seems excessive.
...
Just out of curiosity, why choose a 14 foot string as the starting assumption?

Centrist,

You'd need to read over the previous posts. And it seems that you also need to review the basics of the pendulum. In order for your assumption to merit consideration, you'd need to assume that the film Meier shot was subsequently padded with repeated frames such that the film length would be about 2.3 times longer. Then everything would move correspondingly slower in the movie, and the pendular period would be about 1.9 sec. This then would be compatiible with a string about 3 ft long.

posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 12:04 AM
Jim,

It seems the 'weddingcake' craft had a little damage.

www.tjresearch.info...

One of those golden bits is lying on the horizontal rim, left of center. Like it broke off.

posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 12:30 AM

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
In order for your assumption to merit consideration, you'd need to assume that the film Meier shot was subsequently padded with repeated frames such that the film length would be about 2.3 times longer. Then everything would move correspondingly slower in the movie, and the pendular period would be about 1.9 sec. This then would be compatiible with a string about 3 ft long.

I'm not a photographer or filmmaker. Why is that?

posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 01:09 AM
Lets get a video posted this weekend. Then we'll see.

I want to try and finish the cakeship this weekend too. I'm going out sunday to hunt a good railroad tree.

Until then, no one is going to understand a damned thing anyone else is trying to say. Pictures are always worth a thousand words.

BTW, that wedding cake outside the house shot. One only need to remember this: if the house is out of focus, and the ship is as large as they say, then whey is the entire far edge in as perfect focus as the front. It's total impossibility.

Not to mention this:

Just look at that texture match. The fine detail of the luggage clasp and fine edged collet. So obvious it makes one sick.

[edit on 13-1-2006 by jritzmann]

posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 11:50 AM

Originally posted by TerraX
Jim,

It seems the 'weddingcake' craft had a little damage.

www.tjresearch.info...

One of those golden bits is lying on the horizontal rim, left of center. Like it broke off.

We don't know what that is., nor the object resting on the right side of the main flange. We also don't know what the blue thing is on the lower left flange atop one of the 100 or so red markers that occur along the edge of the main flange, in Fig. 21 of And Yet... They Fly. And we don't know why the "spheres" in the middle of the three tiers seem to be flanged hemi-spheres, not spheres. We don't know what the patterning is or represents, if anything other than art, on Korff's "10-inch bracelet."

It wouldn't surprise me if the gaudy, ornate style of this class of craft was designed with purpose in mind to look so outrageous in the eyes of skeptics that none would be forced to look into the evidence of its reality if it would threaten their belief systems. I.e., more plausible deniability. Such skeptics don't believe that some aliens could be smarter than we are, and ethical enough to have a strategy, which includes deception, that they would employ in order to remain covert but nevertheless put their presence across to those who can accept the possibility without forcing themeselves upon others.

posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 12:30 PM

Originally posted by jritzmann
...
BTW, that wedding cake outside the house shot. One only need to remember this: if the house is out of focus, and the ship is as large as they say, then whey is the entire far edge in as perfect focus as the front. It's total impossibility.

The photo in Moosbrugger's book (Fig. 23), from which your post showed a cropped enlargement, seems to be the best one in that series with Meier having held the camera very steady for that one. The central focus seems to have been on the craft. If its width was 7 meters, then Meier was about 44 ft away from it, standing with his back to the carriage house. See www.tjresearch.info/Wedcake.htm (Fig. 2). Various f-stop settings then would allow the depth of field to be large enough that both front and edge of the craft to be in very good focus, and even the edge of the house behind, on the right, to be in good focus.

Not to mention this:

Just look at that texture match. The fine detail of the luggage clasp and fine edged collet. So obvious it makes one sick.

[edit on 13-1-2006 by jritzmann]

You're assuming it's a luggage clasp or collet. I think we've all read of many UFO cases in which the UFO resembled some man-made object (bell shape, banana shape, hamburger shape, boomerang, airplane without wings or tail, missile, etc.). That can then give the negative skeptic a "way out." I think that technology many thousands of years ahead of ours is capable of achieving this "magic."

Regarding that "carpet tack," have you noticed that the three such similar objects going around the right side all look different if examined in detail? The third from the right has a spherical "head" on it. The second from the right does not, in my opinion, and the one on the far right certainly does not, but instead has an end that loops back upon itself.

It makes one sick to think that anyone would fall for this alien deception, while remaining silent on every indication of genuineness!

posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 01:15 PM
[edit on 13-1-2006 by vogelfire]

top topics

0