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: 29
0
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Habit_Burger

Originally posted by Shroomery

If you're so convinced this was how he did it it shouldn't be hard to reproduce ?


Are you missing something? Didn't he post some photographs that are WAY MORE CONVINCING than any of Meier's photos?

I'm a little confused -- why do you say it shouldn't be hard???? From the looks of those pictures, it WASN'T.

jritzmann, those pictures are amazing. I'll bet you could fool as many people as the Meier freaks with them.


First of all, I just pointed out that they were fake, nobody was ever able to do that with meiers pictures. In 60 years! And, on the last UFO conference they apparantly showed new Meier material, I haven't seen it yet however.

Nobody stated it was impossible what jritz did. Anyone can find a model and take pictures of it. That doesn't make them real or convincing.
You jumping the gun shows how gullable people really are, they jump from one conclusion to the next just because something looks real to them. If a picture changes your view in a snap like that, it's you who's missing something.

The setting is very important. And Meiers setting was very impressive to say the least, nobody ever found models or the tools to help them with these pictures.
What is more impressive is that he never had test-shots, or failed shots. Always full sequences of pictures/negatives. Ofcourse, you'll have to take the photo-shop owners word on this. Or the 100's of others who came to visit Meier (out of interest, not to lie down beneath a golden pyramid) who also noticed all sorts of strange things (Meier dissapearing in front of their eyes, the spaceships themselves, his telekinese). Ofcourse, those people are all nutty cult-followers I suppose and the story that these pictures were stolen is ofcourse easier to digest for a skeptic.
I can't blame you, the first time I read the book, 15 years ago, I felt the same way. It's not the pictures that convinced me of Meiers story, but everything surrounding it, especially the message they are trying to make clear and the way they do it. The rest of the story is merely supporting evidence.




posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Why are so many of Meier's ufo's swinging back and forth like swinging from a pendulum? Who is holding that string? Why are so many of his ufo's sitting in trees or bushes? It looks so fake, its laughable.

His hoaxes just muddy the waters.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Crying victory over what really? You stating that you're right? Well I'm stating I'm right.

And thanks for bringing those pictures up, excellent example of your focal point.

In both of them you focus on the ship, because there are trees at varying distances, we can guess how far the object is away.

in deck1-1 the first line of trees is already blurry, the line of houses on the other side of the street is even more blurry, wich means the object was in front of the trees. Therefor, it's a small object.


So I guess that you'd say the blur amount between these two is indicative of significant distance eh?




Originally posted by Shroomery
Second picture (deck3-1). Same here. The object here is even smaller, so it should be further away. The trees in the back are out of focus however, just as those in the front, so the object is somewhere in between. It's too small to be real and at the same time inbetween the trees.


LOL...so somewhere between the background and foreground. How perceptive. You've managed to pin it down between 12 inches and 120 yards.


Originally posted by Shroomery
Also notice that the 'bleed' or reflection only occurs on the lower side, wich could mean it is a motion blur of you throwing it up. I could be wrong.
But it's still a good example, as the "bleed" is far too big for an object that looks so far away. Wich again points to a motion blur of a small object closeby.


Wrong again. The object was not in motion whatsoever. Your "bleed" theory is bleeding to death. I'm still waiting for your solid examples of all this.


Originally posted by Shroomery
I also said to compare large objects and small ones at varying distances, you gave 2 small objects at varying distances in a different setting. And basically, you can always come up with an exception. But that doesn't mean it's foolproof,as your examples pointed out.


Oh, an exception....I see...

So, since your such the expert here, lets apply those same issues you have with mine, to this:
www.tjresearch.info...

Small object close or what?


[edit on 9-3-2006 by jritzmann]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by highhorse313
Why are so many of Meier's ufo's swinging back and forth like swinging from a pendulum? Who is holding that string?


Maybe the chick in the gold foil jumpsuit.



Originally posted by highhorse313
Why are so many of his ufo's sitting in trees or bushes?


Maybe theyre nesting.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
So I guess that you'd say the blur amount between these two is indicative of significant distance eh?


Not working



Originally posted by jritzmann
LOL...so somewhere between the background and foreground. How perceptive. You've managed to pin it down between 12 inches and 120 yards.


Yes exactly, wich means the object is far smaller than the trees in the background. Clear enough for you?


Originally posted by jritzmann
Oh, an exception....I see...

So, since your such the expert here, lets apply those same issues you have with mine, to this:
www.tjresearch.info...
Small object close or what?


At first sight no. I don't see how this is related to yours ? You don't have anything to compare with in the foreground.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Well, I'd hope that the disc appears to be smaller then a massive tree...like Meiers. Again, there's no point proven here, other then your focal instances dont work very well. The image is fixed, so now you can tell me that the blur on the house roof is significantly different then the disc edge.

So you cant say anything about Meier's obvious close shot of the Wedding Cake landed huh?

There's a shocker.

[edit on 9-3-2006 by jritzmann]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
"What is more impressive is that he never had test-shots, or failed shots. Always full sequences of pictures/negatives. Ofcourse, you'll have to take the photo-shop owners word on this."

We and you don't really know that because a lot are missing or so they said. Also like you said it yourself we need to take, not the photo-shop owners word but the word of the people that questioning him. Is there a document or record of that?

That is the problem with this case a lot of the so called proof is just "take the word for it" and if I am understanding correctly that is the problem you are pointing out with J.R. (you can't take his word for it) even though it's not just words he is actually presenting something (or at least trying) so why we have to take your word for it when you are not even presenting anything or a least try to back up your claims with concrete proof?.

"his telekinese" ? If you meant "Telekinesis"

Telekinesis: is essentially the ability to move an object on the physical plane using only psychic power.

I didn't know he has that ability.

Where I can read about it? or we have to take your word for it?



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
First of all, I just pointed out that they were fake, nobody was ever able to do that with meiers pictures.


Huh? everyone has done that with Meier's photos, no? That's what your big hubbub is about... bub? But you knew jritzmann's photos were fake. So what are you trying to prove?


Nobody stated it was impossible what jritz did. Anyone can find a model and take pictures of it. That doesn't make them real or convincing.


Then why were all you guys ragging his butt for the pictures? From what I saw, jritzmann's pictures proved that using just a model and a camera, the pictures that Meier took could have been hoaxed. Personally, I think jritzmann's pictures are MORE persuasive than Meier's, since Meier's pictures look much more fake.

Oh no... you're not going to tell me that they made them look fake to make them look more believable?


You jumping the gun shows how gullable people really are, they jump from one conclusion to the next just because something looks real to them. If a picture changes your view in a snap like that, it's you who's missing something.


I don't see your point. I actually am starting to doubt that you have one. Jritzmann's pictures prove that with just a model and a camera, you can take the pictures that look as good or better than Meier's. I think that makes sense, if you consider that jritzmann's pictures were taken with film and camera that's probably more modern than Meiers...

In other words. Great evidence that Meier hoaxed his photos jritzmann!!!


The setting is very important. And Meiers setting was very impressive to say the least, nobody ever found models or the tools to help them with these pictures.


Wouldn't he have destroyed his models and tools?


What is more impressive is that he never had test-shots, or failed shots. Always full sequences of pictures/negatives.


Whoa! What about the rolls of burnt film that the Gaiaguys found in Meier's barn showing test shots of models?



Ofcourse, those people are all nutty cult-followers I suppose and the story that these pictures were stolen is ofcourse easier to digest for a skeptic.


You're saying that the "easy" route is to believe that some pictures of objects that look like they were put together with household knick knacks?

Well... hell yeah. Especially since Meier's stuff appears to be total crap.


The rest of the story is merely supporting evidence.


No.. I read most of that and watched the dvd from "theyfly.com". I also saw a Meier presentation at the orange county MUFON meeting last december. It was funny, though, because everyone was laughing at the guy by the end and he was telling us how he converted everyone and that we were all believers. My wife thought that it was actually a UFO comedy act and I tried to explain to her on the way home that the guy was serious.

I think Billy Meiers IS an interesting guy. I don't think he's ever met people from outer space, though.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schmidt1989
What a load of schpleigenheizen!


I could have not put it better... Once in a while a bunch of new "prophets" comes along ... and booom... the media goes nuts... as fara as i know the WTC was not destroeyd in 1986..it was HIT... big difference...the destruction happened on 2001... but off course where were the prophets ??? i'll tell you where...pakcing their pockets with the money they get from lost ppl who believe whatever they hear... as long as it isnt God or Jesus cause thats is "dumb and stupid"...


I wonder who documented those 21 "assassination attempts" ???



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
how can anyone get by the plastic laser guns and tin foil space suits ? He got caught with the cake pan flying saucers in his garage for crying out load !!!
and his alien friend was a model from a catalog !!!

its one thing to want to believe, and another to believe everything you read because its on the net

one of my fav billy pics





posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
Well, I'd hope that the disc appears to be smaller then a massive tree...like Meiers. Again, there's no point proven here, other then your focal instances dont work very well. The image is fixed, so now you can tell me that the blur on the house roof is significantly different then the disc edge.


I think it's you who doesn't understand what I'm saying.
When I say small I meant SMALL, not below average, but MODEL size. There, that clear enough?
My focal point is exactly where it needs to be, I think you forgot about it while taking the pictures.


Originally posted by jritzmann
So you cant say anything about Meier's obvious close shot of the Wedding Cake landed huh?

There's a shocker.


You make alot of noise, but other than putting 2 fake pictures up of models, what have you accomplished really?
I'm still not sure what you want me to spot on the weddingcake picture. Just like you apparantly.

Oh and about the pictures of the female being, it's a picture done to discredit him.. He never said it was his, if he had them on photo he wouldn't have drawn them on his website.

So there's a good chance the picture of the gun is just as fake, just like the one with the model cars. I've never seen those on any of the websites, please point me to them.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by jritzmann
Well, I'd hope that the disc appears to be smaller then a massive tree...like Meiers. Again, there's no point proven here, other then your focal instances dont work very well. The image is fixed, so now you can tell me that the blur on the house roof is significantly different then the disc edge.


I think it's you who doesn't understand what I'm saying.
When I say small I meant SMALL, not below average, but MODEL size. There, that clear enough?
My focal point is exactly where it needs to be, I think you forgot about it while taking the pictures.


Originally posted by jritzmann
So you cant say anything about Meier's obvious close shot of the Wedding Cake landed huh?

There's a shocker.


You make alot of noise, but other than putting 2 fake pictures up of models, what have you accomplished really?
I'm still not sure what you want me to spot on the weddingcake picture. Just like you apparantly.

Oh and about the pictures of the female being, it's a picture done to discredit him.. He never said it was his, if he had them on photo he wouldn't have drawn them on his website.

So there's a good chance the picture of the gun is just as fake, just like the one with the model cars. I've never seen those on any of the websites, please point me to them.



Clueless as the day is long.
So, the raygun is fake huh? Funny, that Billy would be in one shot actually holding it, and claims to have used it to put a hole thru a tree???


I suppose him actually holding it doesnt do you any good...thats too damn clear for ya.

As far as the fake Asket and Nera shots (later to be proven to be shot off a TV of entertainers on a variety show)...they were the "real deal" until he was caught, then it was that they were fakes made by the MiB.

Again, no comment on the focus issue, just more backlash B.S. What do I want you to do on the wedding cake shot? Apply your "thinking" to it same as mine. You wont, because you know the outcome.

I'm done, youre so far out there I cant argue with a person so totally out of touch.


[edit on 9-3-2006 by jritzmann]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
WOW!! nice post.

nice photo and there you can see the size of the windows compare to a human size. Now if not optical illusion of somehow please tell me how anyone could it fit into this thing:

www.tjresearch.info...

Note: was he flying when he did this photo because.......

www.tjresearch.info...

I don't know how to upload photos here but you can see if the 799 photo is the size he want you to believe it's then in photo 800 was he in the air?


Again:
his telekinese" ? If you meant "Telekinesis"

Telekinesis: is essentially the ability to move an object on the physical plane using only psychic power.

I didn't know he has that ability.
Where I can read about it?



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Yeah sure, you pull technical mumbo jumbo out of your ass but when someone else does it it's BS right?
Goes to show how indepth your tests really were. Just by yelling BS doesnt mean you are right. But that's all you ever do here.. as long as you spew enough nonsense and ridicule you can cloud the real subject. Here's a hint, go watch outfoxed, I think they're looking for people like you.

Anyway 'll leave you and your boyfriend to enjoy the powertrip.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Ever since I saw the big, glossy books that were published in 1984 or thereabouts, I've revisited the whole Billy Meier issue every so often. We're talking over 20 years now. Every time, I look to see if there's any new or better evidence available, and I'm disappointed every time.

It's the same thing I say about the Ten Commandments. If they're so great, they would have caught on by now. With Billy Meier, if the evidence was good enough, there wouldn't be any controversy (except in some limited circles where people see conspiracies behind every corner - wink wink). The Pleiadians would be on the cover of Time Magazine, and we'd all be studying their sciences and philosophies. But that hasn't happened.

I personally believe that the legitimate "news media" is diverse enough that if there was an undeniable truth floating somewhere around Meier, somebody would have picked it up and run with it. They aren't all conspiring to keep the story quiet. That's not their job. There job is to sell newspapers and magazines, and a little thing like solid proof of aliens is a pretty good scoop. What has happened, though, is that nearly every person or reporter who has researched the story has discerned a stink. Evidence that just fails the tests. Too much happening "off screen" that has to be accepted as fact. Too much backpedaling to make inconsistencies fit the story.

If you accept the notion that this world-shaking story of alien contact is being freely offered to the the people of Earth, like a gift, why does it feel like somebody trying to keep a secret? Why do so many EXCUSES have to be made? Excuses about the camera. Excuses as to why the aliens never allow themselves to be directly examined or questioned. Excuses why we don't get good quality video of a ship approaching, landing, and aliens getting out. These are simple, little things that would stop all the controversy. But they never happen. Why? Well, you can only draw your own conclusions.

Over the years, Meier has promoted himself as an Indiana Jones-type seeker of antiquities (The Book of Jmmanuel), a UFO contactee, and now a soothsayer. What next? Las Vegas entertainer?

I suppose the sad part of the whole thing is how many people want to believe so badly that they overlook the obvious problems and put their entire support behind the guy. But... what the heck. Who am I to tell other people how to live their lives? If they end up wearing Nikes and covered with purple sheets, it won't affect me in the slightest.

So, 22 years and counting for me and Meier. Maybe someday he'll come up with something I'll feel like buying.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Belive Billy all that you want! This guy has been proclaimed a hoaxter several times! But then again its not my decision to tell people what to belive. Everyone has the right to belive what they want just like Jehovas witnesses! But Billy is a fraud!



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Yeah sure, you pull technical mumbo jumbo out of your ass but when someone else does it it's BS right?


There's a difference, your "technical mumbo jumbo" is garbage you want everyone to believe to try and prove some point. Where as I'm the only one putting up actual data to back up my "technical mumbo jumbo".

I guess my "technical mumbo jumbo" as you call it seems to be based in reality. Where as yours seems to come from that...other place you mentioned.



Originally posted by Shroomery
Goes to show how indepth your tests really were. Just by yelling BS doesnt mean you are right. But that's all you ever do here.. as long as you spew enough nonsense and ridicule you can cloud the real subject. Here's a hint, go watch outfoxed, I think they're looking for people like you.

Anyway 'll leave you and your boyfriend to enjoy the powertrip.




And there ya have it. When all hope is lost to facts and solid photographic proof (despite their attempts to say "thats not Meier's...those are frauds made by someone else!!"...then ya show the picture with Meier and the item!) and one that dispells thier own version of focus, of distant and close objects they go for the throat.

You've proved my point SO much better then I ever could have. I guess that last bit is some veiled attempt at calling me a homosexual...I'm sure my wife of 15 years will appriciate that laugh. Go back to school little one...those kind of insults when you cant win work better there.

Bye!

[edit on 9-3-2006 by jritzmann]

[edit on 9-3-2006 by jritzmann]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Shroom-

Anyone can find a model and take pictures of it. That doesn't make them real or convincing.

keeping saying that over and over(like Dorothy).
Who knows you may end up in kansas with the rest of us.


Ofcourse, you'll have to take the photo-shop owners word on this.

Actually Manny it's even more hearsay than that since we only have somebodys word that thats the word of the shop people.

One more time for the mentally challenged-
www.brumac.8k.com...

[edit on 3/9/06 by longhaircowboy]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
That is very intresting to here. I think i am going to do some more reasarch on this subject.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
LoL, I finally found what I wanted to say about this picture and I didn't know how: this is good:

Optical illusion:

thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr...

Reality:

thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join