Billy Meier called the New Nostradamus!?!?

Good to see the project is still going!

Please try to not show us how everything was done at first , instead just post them as if they were to convince us they are real.

This just keep getting better!

Regarding the Meier case witnesses, some of you might be interested in checking out a project Jim Deardorff is working on as follows:

www.tjresearch.info...

"I've worked up a draft form of a list of Meier-case witnesses, which shows
what types of events each witnessed, where it's referenced (including
on-line references since so many of Stevens' books are out of print), which
ones have attested to their witnessesing through signed statements or
interviewing, and where to find a photograph of them."

Wow, this thread is getting slow again

Where is J.R? I know as soon as he post his project this thread will continue better than ever.

Manny,I'm wondering, too. JR was supposed to have to have been here two weeks ago? It sems as if he's either stalling or just plain disappeared, leaving us in the kind of limbo you mentioned. But the Jeff I know would not do that, I hope!

No he wouldnt.

While I usually have some minutes during the day at work when I can sneak on for 3-4 minutes, I'm not getting home till this time each night, which isnt leaving me alot of time to do a shoot. I mean literally none. It'd only take 1/2 hour or so to do, and truthfully I just aint had it. This is a HUGE time for my workplace, and truthfully, what little time I have left on sundays I devote to artwork (something I dont get to do enough of...not work art, MY art.)
Let me get thru the next week or so and I'll make some shots, right now the schedule is so full it aint funny, and I'm bushed.

btw, stalling isnt in any plan, as I've already provided daylight, clear model shots. (Hell even Horn said they were "very good"), this is just a different model. K?

[edit on 1-2-2006 by jritzmann]

[edit on 1-2-2006 by jritzmann]

Originally posted by jritzmann
No he wouldnt.

While I usually have some minutes during the day at work when I can sneak on for 3-4 minutes, I'm not getting home till this time each night, which isnt leaving me alot of time to do a shoot. I mean literally none. It'd only take 1/2 hour or so to do, and truthfully I just aint had it. This is a HUGE time for my workplace, and truthfully, what little time I have left on sundays I devote to artwork (something I dont get to do enough of...not work art, MY art.)
Let me get thru the next week or so and I'll make some shots, right now the schedule is so full it aint funny, and I'm bushed.

btw, stalling isnt in any plan, as I've already provided daylight, clear model shots. (Hell even Horn said they were "very good"), this is just a different model. K?

[edit on 1-2-2006 by jritzmann]

[edit on 1-2-2006 by jritzmann]

Hey friend!

Do I have it right? Are you working on shooting thewedding cake model or somthing else?

Yeah, the wedding cake "ship". Model has been built for some time, it's just taking the time to shoot, on a good day.

I completely understand the delay.

The IIG has had the desire to recreate one of Meier's films the way we think it was done for quite some time. We have the model, the camera, the film, the location, but we just haven't found the time. Unlike people like Mr. Horn who seem to have all of the time in the world to talk about Billy Meier, the IIG is an all-volunteer organization involved in several simultaneous investigations. Being on the Steering Committee I am more involved than several people in the group, but I am still only able to devote five days, at most, per month on topics the IIG is involved in, and most of that time is used via email discussions. Most people are only available to do things one day out of the month and that is usually to attend the monthly meetings.

Yeah, I know that it sounds lame to the believers, but that's just the way it is. Some day the IIG will finally make the film. In the meantime, I am really looking forward to seeing what Jeff comes up with.

I hear ya. It's a full time job just keeping up with some of the people that have so much time on their hands...I got a family and job to concern myself with.

My other issue is location on the shots, the one place I'd shoot them at is 1/2 hour away, but it's *perfect*. Thats where I'm goin, because I want a comparable landscape and vastness..I firmly believe thats half the reason Meier's photos (the cool ones) look as good as they do. Shot over a long landscape adds so much to the effect. (See the wedding cake film, then compare it to being shot in front of the main house...big difference..well not that the film is all that impressive, but it looks better then the kooky landing shot)

[edit on 2-2-2006 by jritzmann]

It's about location. Yet here's what Michael has to say on today's PAR forum:

"I took a look at the ATS forum where Ritzmann had mentioned duplicating
the Wedding Cake ship photos some weeks ago. You have to laugh at how
the delay in posting the photos is attributed to other pressing
commitments, time constraints, family and work matters, etc. All this
from a two-handed guy with all of the luxuries of today. Perhaps
someone should tell him that Meier was taking care of all of his
obligations, under far more difficult conditions, with one hand, but
would, often on short notice, go out for a couple of hours and return
with a camera full of actual UFO photos and/or films.

It would be funny if the skeptics weren't so pathetic."

Well unfortunately, Meier has time apparently to go for hours of "contacts", and get all his "work" done too. Likewise he didnt drive 40 miles to work, work 14 hour days and pursue private interests linked to a real career. I choose to make my life count for something more then proving a UFO case to be nothing but models and stories. In other words, Meier was alot more interested in making his case then I am about disproving it. Why do ya think that is?

Oh right. Meier sold the story and to this day makes money off those who believe it. Ah well at least he gets paid when he's being called all those awful names by the people who think he's a fraud...thats more then I get for the abuse from believers.

Trust me, I knew the all powerful blowhard would be pounding for the pictures...but the fact stands...Michael has NO idea how long it took Meier to build the model then actually shoot it. How gullible to say someone can go out and come back with a roll of photos....good gracious....another example of his "logic". Michael always likes to say he had no accomplices...who's the chick with the raygun? Oh, right, a pleadian. Yeah.

Michael was too much of a wussy to stay here and hack it out with us, so he purposely got himself banned after multiple warnings. He wanted out so he could evade the pointed issues people were asking him about and get away, and maintain himself as a message board martyr. He took the easy way out, I think it might be the only one he knows.

Whats funny is I already posted model shots...whats his hang up on new models? It's just another fake ship. And what did the one I already showed...do for Horn? Nothing..didnt change any perspective, lessen any intent, or prove a damned thing to him and the believers. Would *any* amount of my shots do anything for them? Not in my opinion...it's a lost cause. I say, let em go. Let em believe it. I'm past caring.

So, whats the motivation for taking time out of my already busy day, or maybe possibly (please..please) a relaxing weekend to go shoot?

To post them here, and be berated by believers, to again be called a liar or coward because I wont submit them till Meier submits his (to a 3rd party independant analyst using modern technology), or to have Horn shout from a yahoogroup board to here, because he isnt mature enough to handle himself on ATS?

Can you see how futile it is? Do you possibly see where spending time with family or doing other things I love, or work, just might look better then faking more photos to try and add my puzzle piece to solve this joke that's been a dead issue for most serious researchers for over a decade? Everytime I shoot, thats a minute I could have spent with my family I havent seen awake in a week. I could give a "you know what" less about how fast he thinks I should be shooting. You forget, I've shot pictures for him before, and once before that.

I'll do the shots because I said I would. I know people get a kick out of em. But you have to know I'm pushing a boulder uphill, in a rainstorm...what difference is it really going to make...in the end, none. Believers are so incredibly blinded they refuse to see...and there's not a damn thing you or I, much less some pictures are going to do about it. It's their religion, and ya know what, they can have it. What I've noticed is how quick they are to pound on anyone else's religious beliefs, but let someone stomp theirs and boy, look out.

Look, I'm tired, I gotta eat, and I got a headache after a 16 1/2 hour work day.
As much as Michael wants to believe how important he and the case are, he's not, and never will be to me. He got his first shots from me quick...now he can be on my clock.

His belief in the case and being it's mouthpiece here in the US must be what he thinks defines him as a person.

My refusal to be suckered and showing him again why I wont be, does not define me.

JR,

Which of the wedding-cake craft scenes will you be attempting to model? It sounds perhaps like the one you have in mind is where the craft just sat motionless in front of the tree in the distance, which Meier also took video-tape footage of. If so, will you be attempting to replicate the distance effect when he twice zoomed in on the craft and then zoomed out?

It would be interesting if you could come close to replicating the case during which Meier was perched on one of the wedding-cake craft while photographing another one that was located behind one treetop and in front of another. I have in mind his photo #836 shown in Fig. 4 of www.tjresearch.info/wedcake.htm. Perhaps someone who remembers how to post an image here could post it. This was situated above the forest grove shown in Fig. 6.

According to Christian Frehner of FIGU, Meier shot it and some ten other photos on that occasion with his 35mm Ricoh camera of 55mm focal length, and no zoom lens. Using the camera equation and taking the length of one of the cones on the Norway spruce to be 6 inches, I find that the nearer tree top was some 19 ft away from Meier's camera. So modeling it could involve coming across a couple of freshly fallen spruce trees, sawing off the uppermost 7 ft or so of one and 20 ft or so of the other, sticking these tops in the ground, the taller one about 40 ft behind the other, suspending your model behind the nearer tree top, and photographing them from about 19 ft away from the nearer tree top. You'd need to select a location where nothing else showed in the background.

Would this be too much work to try?

Jim -
Should you mention the tree in the foreground is not the same type as the one the "ship" is "hovering" around?

Should you mention that tree has NO cones on it?

How about that the tree's stalk / trunk, which is seen as near to the top as the one in the foreground, is nearly 3 times the thickness of the foreground tree? That thick that close to the top?

How about that the closer tree was "rammed" by the ship, causing it to break off? Yet, that broken off tree shows a clean cut? And dont try and say shots 851-853 are that tree in it's fallen state. If wind or storm, or natural cases broke the tree, Meier could have done nothing more then sawed off the fallen tree top. But alas, the tree top seen in 862 is still shown cut off from the rest in 851-853. That continuity thing is a pain isnt it?

Did you want to mention that same tree shows some similar artifacts to the Fuchsbüel series tree shots of some 5 years or so earlier, only a bit stripped down and scragglier looking?

How about the more simplistic explaination, that the tree is again the one (or one similar) to the model tree used for Fuchsbüel, small UFO model, and the top of a treetop cut off and used as a foreground prop.

But again, what a wonderful fairy tale to explain the top of the tree cut off to be used as such...the "ship" cut it off.



[edit on 4-2-2006 by jritzmann]

Jim,

I think you deliver both options yourself. ( www.tjresearch.info... )

"A peculiar event occurred soon after Meier took these pictures and Quetzal had taken the craft down for Meier to dismount. Quetzal took his ship back up and, accidentally or not, rammed it into the nearer tree of Figs. 4-5, causing the tree to break off some 25m up, and causing its uppermost two meters to break off also. Meier realized the downed tree was the same one whose top he had just photographed, which the 3.5m craft was on the far side of (in Fig. 4). Considering this to be evidence that would substantiate the event, he mentally contacted Quetzal to ask if he, in his craft, could drag the downed portion of the tree to the edge of the forest where he could photograph it, and Quetzal obliged. After the wedding-cake craft had departed, Meier then took several photos of the downed tree, and especially of its uppermost portion, which he hauled back with him to his residence. Upon comparing Fig. 6 with Figs. 4-5, one can see that it is indeed the very same treetop in all three images.

However, the treetop is not the conclusive evidence Meier would have liked it to be, as the skeptic who ignores all the other supportive evidence could just claim that Meier had hacked off the treetop after the tree itself had been, for whatever reason, downed, and then stuck the treetop into the ground atop a hill to photograph along with a never-discovered UFO model dangling from a line just behind the treetop, using a distant treetop as background."

I must say that I find the broken off treetop rather suspicious. ( On a sidenote, the Plejarens and trees don't seem to go well together. ) This is theoretical, but Meier could have used a rope and the tractor displayed in fig. 6 / photo #862 to take the treetop of by blunt force. Just swing a rope around the top and connect it to the tractor. A branch or trunk in the 1 to 2 inch range can be easily broken off this way, even by using physical force and weight from one man. The cut however would be very rough.
I realise Jim, judging from your comments, that you allow the skeptical approach but you're also leaving the 'plausible denialbility' option open. I do have another comment and it might be not of any importance. In photo #862 the treetop is displayed leaning on the tractors's side, look at the background. I see a thick forrest of trees. Photos #836 and 838 only show two treetops. A bit unusual wouldn't you say that Meier caught only two treetops in a heavily forrested area?
I have another question regarding photo #843. Is it my faulty observation or is the photograph in question taken extremely close to the ground? The grass appears very close by.

Originally posted by TerraX
In photo #862 the treetop is displayed leaning on the tractors's side, look at the background. I see a thick forrest of trees. Photos #836 and 838 only show two treetops. A bit unusual wouldn't you say that Meier caught only two treetops in a heavily forrested area?

They're always a "lone tree" in Meier photos of this type. He'd have been hard pressed to shoot only the tops of 2.

I for one would love to post the side by comparison of the similar artifacts between the 2 separate "events" and "trees", then again I dont think I'd get permission again,and I'm all too familiar with the copyrights. I can email it to whoever asks.

By all means JR I 'd be interested in it so you can email me with em.

( On a sidenote, the Plejarens and trees don't seem to go well together. )

This has also puzzled me TerraX. Somehow these advanced people can sail the vast expanse of interstellar space without hitting anything yet when they get here the trees seem to jump right in their way.

I for one would like to see a single "wedding cake" ufo photo, where it gives me the impression that a human being can get inside something so small.

all of these ship photos seem so weird to the eye, especially the one in front of the house, there is no way someone can get inside that thing, just look at everything else around it, especially the windows on the house. Unless of course the house has "Giant" windows.

J.R I hope you get to do one of the shoots in front of a house for comparison.

Originally posted by jritzmann
Jim -
Should you mention the tree in the foreground is not the same type as the one the "ship" is "hovering" around?

You may be correct that the rear tree is not the same species as the nearer tree, it's hard to tell, I mentioned the cones on the foreground tree top because they're pretty good markers of size. I don't know if the craft was hovering around the more distant tree or not, only that it was located somewhere between the two.

Should you mention that tree has NO cones on it?

Can't see them, anyway. If you try to simulate the situation, it shouldn't matter what kinds of coniferous trees you use. But it should be kept in mind that the Norwegian spruce doesn't develop any cones on it until it has gotten pretty mature. So the height/size of the two trees involved in modeling it needs to be taken into account , as it would enter into the difficulty of hoaxing it.

How about that the tree's stalk / trunk, which is seen as near to the top as the one in the foreground, is nearly 3 times the thickness of the foreground tree? That thick that close to the top?

Since that doesn't make sense, I'd guess that the width of the rear tree stem is merely difficult to discern because, though its left-hand side shows up OK, its right-hand side seems to be lost within the darkness of the shade of its branches. It's also quite likely that another tree top stands behind that rear tree, but does not extend quite as high. Many times I've observed a fir tree, within a group of several, whose trunk and/or foliage looked extra dense, before noticing that I was viewing from an angle in which the trunk or stem of a second tree situated close behind it was nearly obscured.

How about that the closer tree was "rammed" by the ship, causing it to break off? Yet, that broken off tree shows a clean cut?

Photo #862 shows a broken off top, and no evidence of having been sawed. The lighter color of the stem where its bark had peeled off some during the break supports this conclusion. Photo #853 may show the same irregular break on the piece it broke off from, or perhaps the upper portion in that photo shows two adjacent pieces from the top that had broken off; it's hard to tell since they're lying on the ground with branches flopped over the stems.

And dont try and say shots 851-853 are that tree in it's fallen state.

Oh, you think that's a different tree? I don't see why you need to assume that. Wouldn't it be easier for you to claim that Meier came across that fallen tree and noticed the broken-off top lying there, and thence thought up the whole story? Now you have to have Meier coming across some different felled tree and using its top?

If wind or storm, or natural cases broke the tree, Meier could have done nothing more then sawed off the fallen tree top. But alas, the tree top seen in 862 is still shown cut off from the rest in 851-853. That continuity thing is a pain isnt it?

The match looks good to me. Flip yourself around and view the downed tree top of #853 from above, with the tree's fallen top up, and compare this with the view of it leaning up against Meier's tractor in #862. In both notice the cluster of 30 or so cones along the stem near the top. Just below this, in both, notice the cluster of 8 or so cones on the rather short branch extending upward and to the left. Below this on the left, notice the longer branch also extending outward on the left that contains some 15 cones, in both photos.
On the right, notice the one rather long branch sticking out with 4 or 5 cones on it (they don't show up too well with the tractor's yellowish color in the background); that branch also shows up in both views. Finally, notice the branch in #853 sticking out towards you as viewed from above; it has only a few cones on it in each of the two views. That's the same top, no doubt about it, in both #853 and #862.

Did you want to mention that same tree shows some similar artifacts to the Fuchsbüel series tree shots of some 5 years or so earlier, only a bit stripped down and scragglier looking?

JR, this is getting ridiculous. That abies alba (European silver fir) of the Fuchsbuel series of photos didn't show any cones, and doesn't ever have any cones looking at all like the long cones of the Norwegian spruce (picea abies). Further, that abies alba had a "stork-nested" top whose vertical growth had ceased, causing its side growth to become more dense in compensation, whereas this downed tree still had a healthy top.

So, does all this mean that you have no intention of trying to simulate these treetop Wedding-cake-craft scenes?

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
You may be correct that the rear tree is not the same species as the nearer tree, it's hard to tell, I mentioned the cones on the foreground tree top because they're pretty good markers of size. I don't know if the craft was hovering around the more distant tree or not, only that it was located somewhere between the two.

So if thats the case then these 2 trees out in nowhere should be easily seen...seeing as one has been snapped off. So where are they? Where's the rest of the tree that was snapped off

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
Can't see them, anyway. If you try to simulate the situation, it shouldn't matter what kinds of coniferous trees you use. But it should be kept in mind that the Norwegian spruce doesn't develop any cones on it until it has gotten pretty mature. So the height/size of the two trees involved in modeling it needs to be taken into account , as it would enter into the difficulty of hoaxing it.

Ok so if it's such a mature tree, as to be that hieght, comparable with it's foreground brother, why no cones? They'd be readily seen.

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
Since that doesn't make sense, I'd guess that the width of the rear tree stem is merely difficult to discern because, though its left-hand side shows up OK, its right-hand side seems to be lost within the darkness of the shade of its branches. It's also quite likely that another tree top stands behind that rear tree, but does not extend quite as high. Many times I've observed a fir tree, within a group of several, whose trunk and/or foliage looked extra dense, before noticing that I was viewing from an angle in which the trunk or stem of a second tree situated close behind it was nearly obscured.

I dont see any other tree, and it's be seen thru the sparce branches of the second tree.

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
Photo #862 shows a broken off top, and no evidence of having been sawed. The lighter color of the stem where its bark had peeled off some during the break supports this conclusion. Photo #853 may show the same irregular break on the piece it broke off from, or perhaps the upper portion in that photo shows two adjacent pieces from the top that had broken off; it's hard to tell since they're lying on the ground with branches flopped over the stems.

No, what I see is a broken tree, with the piece shown by the tractor already off of the main felled tree, and then laid in line with the main tree. You cannot see that upper portion's (shown by the tractor) cut off.

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
Oh, you think that's a different tree? I don't see why you need to assume that. Wouldn't it be easier for you to claim that Meier came across that fallen tree and noticed the broken-off top lying there, and thence thought up the whole story? Now you have to have Meier coming across some different felled tree and using its top?

Nope, the treetop seen in the craft pics and the one by the tractor are the same. What I have doubts of is if the cutoff saucer portion matches up with the main felled tree. It might, but thats really here nor there. Either way we dont see the whole tree together past it's break. It's already cut at the craft porton.

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
The match looks good to me. Flip yourself around and view the downed tree top of #853 from above, with the tree's fallen top up, and compare this with the view of it leaning up against Meier's tractor in #862. In both notice the cluster of 30 or so cones along the stem near the top. Just below this, in both, notice the cluster of 8 or so cones on the rather short branch extending upward and to the left. Below this on the left, notice the longer branch also extending outward on the left that contains some 15 cones, in both photos.
On the right, notice the one rather long branch sticking out with 4 or 5 cones on it (they don't show up too well with the tractor's yellowish color in the background); that branch also shows up in both views. Finally, notice the branch in #853 sticking out towards you as viewed from above; it has only a few cones on it in each of the two views. That's the same top, no doubt about it, in both #853 and #862.

You misunderstand. See above..and again it's not a big point. Either way we dont see the treetop in the craft sequence attached to it's main felled body.

Originally posted by Jim Deardorff
JR, this is getting ridiculous. That abies alba (European silver fir) of the Fuchsbuel series of photos didn't show any cones, and doesn't ever have any cones looking at all like the long cones of the Norwegian spruce (picea abies). Further, that abies alba had a "stork-nested" top whose vertical growth had ceased, causing its side growth to become more dense in compensation, whereas this downed tree still had a healthy top.

There are no cones on either "tree" in either sequence. ONLY on the cut off branch. There are similar shapes and gaps in the Fuchsbuel tree and the far tree in this sequence. If it's a model tree used for shots and hidden or stored, maybe stuffed into somewhere, it'd be ratty just like the far wedding cake tree. That tree is ratty...disheveled looking, and again shows some similar aspects.

Look the bottom line is I beleive this is nothing but another fake tree with a small model attached. The model is even leaning away from the tree, suggesting the support wire rigged into the tree is not strong enough to support the model of the craft. He found the felled tree, cut the top off it, and if you'll notice the height of the cut off portion next to the tractor, it's just the right size to stick in the ground and shoot past it to the second fake tree and model. Same old trick, forced perspective.

Same old lost or missing trees, same old props, same technique.

Originally posted by Jim DeardorffSo, does all this mean that you have no intention of trying to simulate these treetop Wedding-cake-craft scenes?

No sure, if ya want that, I have to hunt or make a good model tree. I've got a great model railroad shop fairly close, lets see what they want for one. Wanna pitch in?

Originally posted by TerraX
Jim,

I think you deliver both options yourself. ( www.tjresearch.info... )

"A peculiar event occurred soon after Meier took these pictures and Quetzal had taken the craft down for Meier to dismount. Quetzal took his ship back up and, accidentally or not, rammed it into the nearer tree of Figs. 4-5, causing the tree to break off some 25m up, and causing its uppermost two meters to break off also...."

I must say that I find the broken off treetop rather suspicious. ( On a sidenote, the Plejarens and trees don't seem to go well together. ) This is theoretical, but Meier could have used a rope and the tractor displayed in fig. 6 / photo #862 to take the treetop off by blunt force. Just swing a rope around the top and connect it to the tractor. A branch or trunk in the 1 to 2 inch range can be easily broken off this way, even by using physical force and weight from one man. The cut however would be very rough.

TerraX,

Somehow your solution doesn't sound simple or feasible to me. The tree was one within a grove of tall trees, some 50 to 100 feet tall, judging from what Meier reported and from the photo of the forest grove. It wasn't at the edge of the grove, from what Meier reported. It's impossible to toss a rope up through the dozens of branches of neighboring trees to get it in place around the top part of a taller tree within a grove. Instead, the tree would have to be climbed. You seem to be thinking in terms of a rather isolated, short tree.

For obvious reasons, I can't agree with your idea of someone pulling on a tree near its top to cause it to break off some 50 ft above the ground where its trunk was still about one foot thick, judging from photos #851 and 852.

I realise Jim, judging from your comments, that you allow the skeptical approach but you're also leaving the 'plausible deniability' option open. I do have another comment and it might be not of any importance. In photo #862 the treetop is displayed leaning on the tractors's side, look at the background. I see a thick forrest of trees. Photos #836 and 838 only show two treetops. A bit unusual wouldn't you say that Meier caught only two treetops in a heavily forrested area?

Since he was perched on one of the craft when he took those photos, and his camera was oriented somewhat upwards, only the tops of the tallest trees showed up. I, too, would have appreciated it if he had pointed his camera downwards somewhat, but then he might have failed to show the whole tree top in the photo. Worse, his photos then may have shown the outer edge of the craft he was sitting on. Somehow I suspect that was a no-no for him to do.

I have another question regarding photo #843. Is it my faulty observation or is the photograph in question taken extremely close to the ground? The grass appears very close by.

They were looking uphill to view the craft posed in front of the rather distant tree. Beyond the first rise of the ground the slope was less and the ground not visible for quite a ways until it continued upwards a bit more steeply. I don't know how far away the top of that first rise in the ground was, perhaps only 30 feet? It seems to block the view of the lowermost part of that tree's trunk, which I had estimated was some 230 ft away. In the foreground you mention, one can see what look like rocks within the field; at least, I think they look more like rocks than wildflowers.