Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Billy Meier called the New Nostradamus!?!?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
centrist if your trying to say i'm Michael Horn your wrong. If a mod wants to check my IP you will see i'm from Australia.

I can't prove it's all real, i'm just saying i've been looking at the information for about one to two years in my spare time and I find it realy interesting. I haven't read any information that seriously debunks Meier so I continue to visit the FIGU site and read the info, including the posts on the forum. Occasionally I make a post there and wait for an answer, and even less frequently I write a question to Billy of anything that i'm curious about and the admin forwards them to Billy and maybe a month later I get a short response.

How am I a cultist? I don't understand. I just like the way Billy thinks, and I think the info on the website can hardly be called extreme.

Is the stuff in the link bellow extreme?
www.figu.org...

You can be critical about all these things, but I think some people like you are just being unreasonable.

And I think your arguments are weak.




posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
Look past? Why do I have to "look past" fake pictures and film?? No, I have absolutely no reason to take him for any shred or reality when he tries to "fool" the world with pictures and UFO tales. No way. You fake one thing, youre done. I have no reason to believe anything after or before.


"Fake one thing and you're done". Hmm, that should put a lot of people out of work including the president. Come to think of it, most politicians would be out of job in no time.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by solarstone
I'm suprised so many people are dogging Meier, and I think it's sad that some people deny themselves the time to explore the case on their own since they made the decision to believe the few paragraphs written by the skeptics. Now i'm sceptical too but I thnk people are treating it like something that guilty until proven innocent. There's a lot of information available without having to pay for it.


Funny that you seem to forget that Meier slanders and discredits a lot of people himself without the least bit of substance. For a prophet he has a mighty foul mouth.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by solarstone
jritzmann the photo's have never been proven fake. When I say to look past them I mean that they're not the most important aspect of the case.

I've seen the pictures at www.iigwest.com... and I don't know how you can compare them to Meiers. The shots by IIG should have been taken in an identical (or very close to) environment together with a replica of the UFO, and using an identical camera and lens as the original. I don't think this is scientific proof the case is a hoax.
[edit on 15-12-2005 by solarstone]


Many of the photos dont need to be "proven fake", as they show a small object close to the camera, by virtue of the focal distance, and telltale signs of a close object...therefore a small model. There is even one shot, that shows the found objects that the models were built from (wedding cake ship), and some of the photos clearly show matchbox cars, or model cars. Believe me, a 12 yr old can see these are not legitimate photos.
I proved beyond any doubt the use of stop motion in one of Meier's films, showing a half stop exposure and a single underexposed frame where you can see thru the "craft".
So...please save me the idea these havent been proven fake...they have been, it's just that some refuse to accept the truth because theyre into this guy so deep they can see out.
Here's some I did using the same make camera, and replica ship (I'm an ex-prop and set designer/fabricator by profession:





To me, these present better then Meier's as I know forced perspective, and can make the model appear far and even behind far objects.

Whatever, does it even matter? No one from the Meier camp would ever accept it.

You say it's not the most important part of the case, yet it's what brought it to public attention, and is still aggressively defended. This is an argument that skirts several issues.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Wow, take a break for a couple of days and look what the cat drags in. BEFORE I gave my 2+ hour presentation the other night to MUFON in Orange County, CA, I asked the group (a full room, I might add) to raise their hands if they were skeptical of the Meier case or thought it was a hoax. Well, it looked like a forest with a wind blowin' through it, everybody seemed to have their hands up, waving away. It wasn't surprising, MUFON has been a vocal opponent of the Meier case for decades.

But when the moderator had to ask me to end the evening since it had gone past time, it seemed to me that it was pretty hard to find too many skeptics left, as was the case at the other two MUFON events that I did. The thing is that when people actually see and hear the information and evidence in the case, those with still functioning braincells have a rather hard time dismissing the compelling nature of it...or even trying to float the kind of idiotic, uninformed, speculative "explanations" that proliferate on these types of refuges for the jealous and frightened among us.

Now I'm glad that there are still armchair experts, and a few cry babies, out there to keep the controversy going and make all sorts of wild and unsubstantiated claims but, gosh, I truly wish they'd show up at one of my events and display their genius for the assembled masses to be dazzled by. It just doesn't happen, though I can understand that not everyne is able to come to the places I speak. I also understand that lame explanations about reproducing the photos and sounds might impress the gullible but they simply don't accord with facts. Doncha think that if these guys could duplicate the sounds with their guitar amps that they WOULD have by now? Puhleeze, just more biilge from the coulda, woulda, shoulda crowd. And yes, the same goes for their claims re the photos.

Now, since folks here seem to be a bit lazy about specifics (let alone logical THINKING abilities), I'm posting this info that's also freely available - along with the sounds - at my site so that any among you who are open minded and capable of understanding can contemplate...and of course take your potshots at these scientific experts, their methodology, etc. Oh yeah, as it says below, the analysis was filmed and part of it is in the 1980 movie "Contact". But don't any of you DARE to try to purchase it, or anything else pertaining to the case, cause I don't want you to:

1. Spoil your record of refusing to get the documentation of the investigation
2. Support my lavish lifestyle
3. Punch holes in your idiot arguments
4. Show that you have an ounce of credibility between you (you know who "you" are, I think)

So, have at it:

UFO Sound Recordings

Semjase’s Beamship During a Demonstration Flight

Another sound analysis that was filmed with professional cameras on high-grade 16 mm film was performed in the Excalibur Studios in Studio City, California. There, Nils Rognerud and Steve Singer, sound engineers and designers of electronic systems, worked on a Hewlett Packard spectrum analyzer (Model 3580) that contained a memory unit, a dual-channel oscilloscope, a multi-track mixer with amplitude output, and a full-frequency sound-control panel; they studied and analyzed a 30-second segment of the aforementioned sounds and a longer segment of the spaceship sounds that were recorded in front of fifteen witnesses.

This tape recording was made on July 7, 1980, in Ober-Sädelegg, Switzerland. There, the sounds of the new Variant III ship were recorded for forty-eight minutes in front of fifteen witnesses with a total of four cassette recorders. Meier had three recorders with him: an Aiwa with an audio suppression unit, in order to prevent distortions of the excessive decibels by means of limiting, as well as two smaller and cheaper portable cassette recorders without volume suppression. Meier positioned himself approximately sixty to eighty meters below the point from which the sounds in the sky appeared to come.

Meier’s wife Kalliope used her own Aiwa recorder. She and Jacobus Bertschinger, Engelbert and Maria Wächter, Eva Bieri, and two of Meier’s children remained approximately 488 yards west of the position taken by Meier, who had gone to a point on the other side of a group of tree trunks that can be seen on the first of the Ober-Sädelegg photographs taken on March 8, 1975.

On this day, the sounds were so loud that two members of the D. family, who lived a half-mile away, ran out to see what was causing all of the noise. They came just in time to observe the final minutes of the recording operation. Several inhabitants of the small hamlet of Zinggen, approximately three kilometers away, ran up the mountain in search of the source of the strange noise, which had been heard by many of the inhabitants. The sounds stopped when the new arrivals appeared on the scene.

From Meier’s position, the noise was a deafening screeching sound that was so loud that Meier had to lay the recorder on the ground so that he could wrap his jacket around his head. Even after doing so, he had an excruciating headache that lasted for hours. Until the next day, he was unable to hear anything and his eyes hurt. The recordings made by Ms. Meier from a half-kilometer away were clearer than the tape that Meier had made at close range. The distance was so great that we could not understand each other at the scene, even when we yelled; therefore, we had to send runners back and forth.

Now, the sound specialists examined this new segment of the recorded sounds and found the same as the previous teams. They found these sounds to be truly unique in three respects:

1. There were at least thirty or more discrete frequencies in a random and constantly shifting mix that ranged from 4 to 2170 Hz, but varied on average between 470 and 1452 Hz.

2. The amplitude of these frequencies was also constantly changing, whereby the dominance alternated.

3. The wave shape was also constantly changing in a random, periodic rhythm that caused a characteristic beat. The wave pattern in the oscilloscope showed this constant and random shift in frequency, in which the principal waves of all frequencies came together in perfect synchronization at one moment, only to travel at the next moment in different directions and stages, thereby generating different patterns—at one moment seemingly moving in a cluster in one direction and, at the next moment, in the other direction. Then they gradually expanded until, for one moment, they formed a mutually precise and evenly distributed pattern, only then to move again into different relationships. Although these changes appeared to be random and were not repeated in a particular order, they always appeared in geometric relationship to one another.

Two other sound engineers and a synthesizer sound specialist joined the analysis team, and the sounds were reexamined, this time for possible duplication. All of these specialists agreed that the character of the sounds was unique and that any type of synthesis, if in fact such was possible, could produce only portions of the recordings we had examined and that duplicating only part of the sounds, even in a short linear segment, would be impossible. The number of traveling and constantly shifting discrete frequencies and constantly changing amplitudes, which were shifting in relative dominance, exhibited duplication problems that exceed the abilities of a current state-of-the-art device!”

Sources: Lt. Col. Wendelle C. Stevens: “UFO contact from the Pleiades, A Preliminary Investigation Report”; “A Supplementary Investigation Report”; Ing. Alfred Buberl: “Worauf warten wir noch?” (What Are We Waiting For?)

Sound Analysis

The strange whirring sounds of the Pleiadian-Plejaran spaceships could be recorded several times on tape, for example, twice during the spring of 1976 (at the Frecht Nature Preserve near Hinwil on Good Friday and at Schmärbüel-Maiwinkel on April 14th), and, finally, on July 7, 1980, in Ober-Sädelegg near Schmidrüti (a copy of this recording can be purchased as an audiocassette from FIGU). Regarding the first recording, Wendelle C. Stevens writes: “As they (Eduard Meier and a few eyewitnesses) arrived at the aforementioned location, they all waited for more than an hour. Then Meier walked alone approximately one hundred meters into the meadow clearing. There he stopped, positioned his tape recorder, turned it on, and held the microphone up in the air. According to Hans Schutzbach, a strange whirring, buzzing noise, which was constantly changing, sounded from approximately thirty meters above them. The noise was a kind of mixture between a jet engine and a high-speed saw processing a piece of metal in many variations. The noise increased and decreased in intensity and pitch, apparently in a random sequence, and sometimes, it completely died away, only then to return to its full intensity. . . The tones clearly reached the witnesses in spite of the wind. The noise lasted approximately ten minutes, and then it stopped when intruders arrived on the scene in a VW ‘Beatle’. Its two passengers looked at Meier with great interest. One looked through a pair of binoculars. A moment later, another man came along, accompanied by a German Shepherd on a leash. Two motorcycles approached from a different direction. Everyone was interested in the clearing where Meier stood and above which the very loud noise could be heard. It turned out that the two men in the Volkswagen were forestry workers. The man with the dog was a plain-clothes cantonal policeman. The arrival of the others was surprising, since no one else had been present when the group (i.e., Billy’s companions) arrived.

Normally, Meier does not hear such loud ship noises, certainly not for such a long time. At the most, there is usually a very short noise when the spaceship lands or takes off. This demonstration was intentionally given for the purpose of the tape recording.

None of the other eyewitnesses saw any type of spaceship, but Meier said that he could see it from below and observe a strange effect. As the sound went up on the scale, the ship became more transparent, and when the pitch became lower, it looked denser again.

Since they themselves had not seen the ship, the witnesses began to discuss the incident and speculate upon how this could have happened. They took Meier’s tape recorder, along with the tape, back to the same location and positioned it in the same manner as Meier had done. Then, they adjusted it to full volume. This time, the sound seemed to come from ground level and was quite soft. It was certainly coming from the loud speaker of the recorder. The sound was so weak that, in order to hear the sound at almost the same volume, the witnesses were forced to stand more than twice as close to the device as they had on Good Friday. They looked for signs of loud speakers that could have been hung in the trees, but they found nothing.

On April 14, 1976, Eduard Meier was contacted by his extraterrestrial visitors, summoned to a particular location, and asked to bring his camera and tape recorder. He followed their telepathic directives and reached the area of Schmärbüel und Maiwinkel, south of Bettswil.

He did not have to wait very long-due to a Swiss Army military exercise in the area, he was late in arriving–and already heard the familiar spaceship sounds. Searching the horizon, he spotted the extraterrestrial ship, a 7-meter Variation 111 Version flying northwest inside the hillcrest. Shortly thereafter, he heard the sounds of a jet fighter. He took out his camera and shot pictures of the approaching spaceship. Then he saw the jet fighter, a Mirage 111 of the Swiss Army, heading straight for the Pleiadian ship. He turned on the tape recorder and continued to take pictures of the attempted interception. As the jet fighter approached the round ET ship, the spacecraft quickly ‘shot’ up, allowed the jet fighter to pass, and then returned to its original position. This maneuvering continued in this manner for twenty-two passes by the jet fighter. During this time, Meier took fourteen pictures of the ET ship, ten of which included the jet fighter. The first picture of this series was taken at 4:14 p.m. and the last, at 4:24 p.m. He recorded a little more than six minutes of this skirmish.

Jim Dilettoso, our research consultant, took samples of this noise to Peter Gimer and Rick Coupland of Micor in San Francisco. There they performed tests in the audible range, from 20 Hz to 2000 HZ. They found twenty-four characteristic frequencies within the audible range and eight outside of it. They found all thirty-two frequencies concurrently at different amplitudes and volumes. All thirty-two tones are somehow produced simultaneously. In a time matrix, the amplitude of some frequencies increases, while that of others decreases. It was observed that the amplitude periodically increased by ca. fifty decibels and then decreased by ca. forty, and at other times, just the opposite was the case, which produced the characteristic beat that was audible. Other normal sounds were audible on the recording, but there were no signs of a tone-on-tone tape dubbing. All frequencies were clear and stable, and they were regularly lined up along the frequency scale.

A portion of these recordings was also given to Robin L. Shellman, an undersea sound technician, who studied them with a spectrum analyzer (a state-of-the-art device) built by Spectro Dynamics in San Diego. The demodulation showed that one must be dealing with a rotating device—249.6 U/min. modulated at 4.16 Hz.

The high-speed device produced a sound that began at 520 Hz and increased in steps up to 990 Hz, only then to decrease again down to 520 Hz in the same frequency steps. The tonal groups comprising 520 Hz disappeared together at 520 Hz and reappeared at 600 Hz, only to disappear again at 720 Hz. At 990 Hz, however, they reappeared and were very strong. The same occurred in the other direction. The condition remained stable for a moment and then shifted again. This shift was somehow random, but nevertheless constant. At certain times, the high-speed device was still, and a deep, throbbing beat was audible; and then the high-speed rotation began again, and the sound increased rapidly to a high vibrating crescendo in the upper 50,000 U/min. range or higher. Simultaneously, the slower 249.6 U/min.-rotation again became audible. The vibration was produced by the high-speed rotation of approximately 29,000 U/min., which accelerated to over 59,000 U/min. This was most certainly not a normal sound!

These sounds were brought to the Naval Undersea Sound Center in Groton, Connecticut, where Steven Williams and Howard Ilson–both from NU.S.C–used different equipment to obtain visual data representations. Initially, they identified all sounds that did not originate in the target object. Three conventional airplanes were discovered, two of which were propeller-driven. The third was a single-engine jet. Frequency graphics were prepared, and attempts were made to find consistencies in the ‘sound archives’. The first airplane to be identified was a ‘Pilatus Porter’, a light, single-motor Swiss Army reconnaissance plane. Its ‘Doppler effect’ showed that the plane was flying at approximately forty to fifty knots, which corresponded to the actual progression on the tape recorder, but which also corresponds to the normal speed of an airplane on a reconnaissance flight.

The second plane was identified as a Junker JU-52, an old tri-motor transport plane that was built in 1933. And again, the frequencies of the plane motors exhibited a linear movement, calculated with the Doppler shift. This plane moved away, turned slightly, and then flew off on its way toward the recording.

When we listened to the tape ourselves, we never heard these sounds, which is why we had to examine this information. One can imagine our surprise when we discovered that the Swiss Army Pilatus Porter planes were routinely used for reconnaissance flights; and even more astounding was the confirmation that the Junker planes, JU-52 Transporters, were still being used for skydiving flights and that one had been used on this day in the area of Bettswil! All of this fit together perfectly.

The third plane was a single-motor Mirage jet fighter. With respect to conventional plane sounds, no unusual characteristics were determined. Furthermore, background noises that were discovered included a small barking dog, a crowing rooster, a European police siren, and some clicks and vibrations, possibly the clicking of a camera shutter release.

In this study, no consistency of the targeted sound of the spaceship was discovered in the ‘sound archives’.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Again, my comments in bold.


Originally posted by 8Michael12
Now I'm glad that there are still armchair experts, and a few cry babies, out there to keep the controversy going and make all sorts of wild and unsubstantiated claims but, gosh, I truly wish they'd show up at one of my events and display their genius for the assembled masses to be dazzled by. It just doesn't happen, though I can understand that not everyne is able to come to the places I speak. I also understand that lame explanations about reproducing the photos and sounds might impress the gullible but they simply don't accord with facts. Doncha think that if these guys could duplicate the sounds with their guitar amps that they WOULD have by now? Puhleeze, just more biilge from the coulda, woulda, shoulda crowd. And yes, the same goes for their claims re the photos.

Nice, just continue to "poo poo" away everyone who brings hard data at you (like I did on the PAR board with regard to the film footage, which was later posted here in entirety, to which you promptly dissapeared.

Now, since folks here seem to be a bit lazy about specifics (let alone logical THINKING abilities), I'm posting this info that's also freely available - along with the sounds - at my site so that any among you who are open minded and capable of understanding can contemplate...and of course take your potshots at these scientific experts, their methodology, etc. Oh yeah, as it says below, the analysis was filmed and part of it is in the 1980 movie "Contact". But don't any of you DARE to try to purchase it, or anything else pertaining to the case, cause I don't want you to:

1. Spoil your record of refusing to get the documentation of the investigation
2. Support my lavish lifestyle
3. Punch holes in your idiot arguments
4. Show that you have an ounce of credibility between you (you know who "you" are, I think)

So, have at it:

UFO Sound Recordings

Semjase’s Beamship During a Demonstration Flight

Another sound analysis that was filmed with professional cameras on high-grade 16 mm film was performed in the Excalibur Studios in Studio City, California. There, Nils Rognerud and ....

Oh god, blah blah blah....we've read this crap a million times. When are you going to finally answer the hard questions??? With your every fact regurgitating post you continue to dig yourself so much deeper into the oblivion.

Lets face the currently standing "fact" Horn: When someone does ask legitimate questions, and present data, you attack them personally or professionally till they give up in disgust. Will you ever answer direct questions or continue the baseless personal insults, and continue to be the Court Jester of "Ufoology"? Wanna talk some more about the sound that alledgedly was heard so far away yet a dog barking can drown it out??? How gullible are you exactly?
[b/]


[edit on 16-12-2005 by jritzmann]

[edit on 16-12-2005 by jritzmann]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
Oh god, blah blah blah....we've read this crap a million times. When are you going to finally answer the hard questions??? With your every fact regurgitating post you continue to dig yourself so much deeper into the oblivion.

Let me add to this. Michael, instead of wasting so much space with your cut and paste snowjob, perhaps next time you will just link to the text that you copied. You know that old Aerosmith song, "Same old song and Dance"? Michael, it's the same old song and dance.

Where's the documentation to prove any of the claims you make in that paper? Wait... better yet, how does that prove that the recording is the sound of an alien spacecraft? We'll get to this moldy pile of Swiss cheese later...


Lets face the currently standing "fact" Horn: When someone does ask legitimate questions, and present data, you attack them personally or professionally till they give up in disgust.

This is where you have to admire Michael's ability to "deny evidence". More importantly, when the going gets tough, Michael just changes the subject. Where was his stinging rebuttal of the photographic evidence? Not forthcoming, it appears. Michael's primary argument for the authenticity of the photos is that no one can reproduce them. Yet people have reproduced them, over and over again.

But rather than deal with the question of the metal sample or the photographs (which were the topics of discussion while he was away), he reemerges from his stunning victory over MUFON's Orange County section...



I gave my 2+ hour presentation the other night to MUFON in Orange County, CA . . . But when the moderator had to ask me to end the evening since it had gone past time, it seemed to me that it was pretty hard to find too many skeptics left, as was the case at the other two MUFON events that I did.

Wow! Two hours and you converted them! Oh, wait... you said that at the end of your presenation "it was pretty hard to find too many skeptics left." Are you insinuating that you convinced a large number of MUFON members that the Meier claims are geniune? Or did everyone leave before you finished your presentation, thereby making available skeptics scarce? Too bad no one from MUFON is here to tell us whether your assertion is truthful. Hmm.

Ok, now on to your creative writing.... the sound analysis.

1 -- Show us proof that a place called the Naval Undersea Sound Center even existed in Groton, Connecticut and conducted the alleged analysis. Are you claiming that this was part of the U.S. Naval Base at Groton? Or the Electric Boat Shipyard? I've contacted both and neither has any record of a "Naval Undersea Sound Center" ever having been affiliated with either of them. In fact, searching Google, Yahoo, Lexis Nexis, and the Derwint database find no mention of a "Naval Undersea Sound Center", except in your sound analysis. I'll give you one last shot, too -- was this a private company that was not affiliated with the U.S. Navy or U.S. military?

Then, there's the problems with your sound analysis. Back when that sound analysis was first fabricated, you guys didn't realize that people would be able to find the physical inconsistencies with it... for example..



The first airplane to be identified was a ‘Pilatus Porter’, a light, single-motor Swiss Army reconnaissance plane. Its ‘Doppler effect’ showed that the plane was flying at approximately forty to fifty knots, which corresponded to the actual progression on the tape recorder, but which also corresponds to the normal speed of an airplane on a reconnaissance flight.

The plane in question would have been either a Pilatus Porter PC 6 or PC 3. These were the only single-engine planes used by the Swiss Military for reconnaisance in the late 70's early 80's. The only problem is that the stall speed of both of these aircraft, flaps down, is over 50 kts. The cruising speed of the PC 6 aircraft on patrol was 117 kts (the PC 3 was cruised in the same speed range, as well). Thus your statement is wrong -- 40-50 kts was not "the normal speed of an airplane on a reconnaissance flight", as that speed would have caused the aircraft to stall and fall. Thus, the sound analysis is inconsistent with the stated results.



A portion of these recordings was also given to Robin L. Shellman, an undersea sound technician, who studied them with a spectrum analyzer (a state-of-the-art device) built by Spectro Dynamics in San Diego. The demodulation showed that one must be dealing with a rotating device—249.6 U/min. modulated at 4.16 Hz.

This is false statement. The "demodulation" showed that one must be dealing with a rotating device?



demodulate

v : extract information from a modulated carrier wave

How was the 4.16 hz modulation of a carrier wave having a frequency of 249.6 U/min (which, by the way, is 4.16 hz) proof that a rotating device must be involved? Also, how exactly was this carrier wave recorded? There was no sound recording system available to the public in 1980 that could record a sound having a frequency of 4.16 hz. I doubt there is one now, some 25 years later. There certainly are no microphones available for this, either. Or were you just making this up? The wow and flutter of a 70's era tape deck could have accounted for a 4 hz modulation of a recorded tone... where's your data showing how they calibrated their instruments to account for the deficiencies of the recording apparatus?



Simultaneously, the slower 249.6 U/min.-rotation again became audible. The vibration was produced by the high-speed rotation of approximately 29,000 U/min., which accelerated to over 59,000 U/min. This was most certainly not a normal sound!


Obviously! Because this story is a pure, unadulterated fabrication! You state with conviction that "the slower 249.6 U/min.-rotation again became audible". But 249.6 U/min equals 4.16 hz. As I mentioned before, no recording equipment COULD have recorded 4.16 hz, not even modern-day digital equipment available to the professional sound market. Even more evident of your blantant lie is that human hearing CANNOT detect 4 hz! That sound could not have become audible.

Game over, thanks for playing.

The pictures -- hoaxed. IIGwest, jritzmann, and others have proven that using the same equipment as Meier, his photos were easily reproduced. Some of the photos were pictures taken off TV shows, others were pictures of paintings.
The metal -- hoaxed (yes, Meier combined melted solder with ground-up crystals he either bought or found and let it solidify to make the "metal", the crystals were just interesting crystals that Meier found -- he must have liked the monazite crystal he found, because he ground down some of it to mix with the solder)
The sound analysis -- fabricated. The source of the sound may remain a mystery, but your analysis is clearly flawed. The sound could, quite easily, have been recorded from a commercial source. The witnesses? You have no proof that any ever existed.

Are we done yet, Michael? Or do you want to look even more foolish by discussing the fictional contact notes?



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Oh boy, so much to do when these guys get all stirred up.

Well, let me throw a few things out there in no particular order.

Regarding duplication of the photos, only a complete fool would try to state that either IIG or Ritzmann duplicated Meier's photos - simply because they won't submit them to the same analysis, done by competent scientists, that authenticated Meier's. Obviously, the hapless characters at CFI-West/IIG would have jumped at the opportunity to prove that they could duplicate more than the "effect" of Meier's photos, as would Ritzmann, if he could as well.

It's kinda, almost, sort of funny that they have nothing even remotely as convincing as the photos at www.tjresearch.info... with those lovely reflections gleaming in what's OBVIOUSLY a full-sized craft right next to a full-sized tree for comparison. But you guys are into denial and kidding yourselves so I'll bet you will actually attempt to rationalize that away.

Now regarding the sound analysis, I've put the questions you posed out to people more well informed about that part of the investigation and report back when I get the answers, since I am not the author of the report but, just for the record, are you claiming that Robin L. Shellman, steve Ambrose and Nils Rognerud also didn't exist, weren't capable sound engineers and or falsified their reports on the sounds? Do you say hte same thing regarding Michael Malin, Robert Post, Eric Eliason, David Froning, Wally Gentleman, Nippon TV, etc.?

And as for "game over, etc.", does that mean that you and/or any of the other armchair experts here are going to duplicate the sounds for us, outside under the same conditions and with the same equipment and produce the same results that Meier did? After posting his little photos perhaps Ritzmann will whip out those rusty amps and show us how it was really done, we're all waiting I'm sure. By the way, since he mentions his photographs and films, I wonder if he'd be/have been offered $1,000,000 by Universal for his ability to make "sapce ship films" as Meier was by them (and two other studios). I know, I know "who said he was this and who said that, etc.?"

And really, I mean REALLY, are you guys so much in denial that you don't recognize that information published in copyrighted books, unalterable documents and even my little DVD ($25 plus $4 shipping and, specially for you guys, a debunker's tax of an infinite amount that I can't even reproduce here) constitute PROOF that it was indeed published BEFORE the foretold, specific events occurred or do you have another twist on reality even more spectacular than Meier's evidence itself?

As for MUFON, contact them yourselves and be sure to tell them that you've solved the "hoax". After all, they're an organization long opposed to the Meier case and should be very sympathetic to your brilliant arguments. You ccan also ask them about the size of the crowd, level of interest and how many remained, etc. And yes, I do suggest that intelligent people who are presented with evidence, proof, logic, common sense, etc. can, over a 2-hour period, actually begin to change their rpejudiced opinions...but I doubt that either Ritzmann or IIG's pictures would hold their attention for very long. Give it a try though...if you want to put your money where your mouths are.

And no, making dumbnuts statements such as, "The pictures -- hoaxed. IIGwest, jritzmann, and others have proven that using the same equipment as Meier, his photos were easily reproduced. Some of the photos were pictures taken off TV shows, others were pictures of paintings.
The metal -- hoaxed (yes, Meier combined melted solder with ground-up crystals he either bought or found and let it solidify to make the "metal", the crystals were just interesting crystals that Meier found -- he must have liked the monazite crystal he found, because he ground down some of it to mix with the solder)
The sound analysis -- fabricated. The source of the sound may remain a mystery, but your analysis is clearly flawed. The sound could, quite easily, have been recorded from a commercial source. The witnesses? You have no proof that any ever existed," obivously doesn't make it so, especially since it's simply wrong and unsubstantiated.

You must have an AWFUL lot investied in some way to be trying to obfuscate as much as you do. But as they used to say in the music biz, the hits just keep on coming and, so far with nearly 4 million people around the world looking in on the case, not all of whom I'm sure simply accept it, no one has offered proof of a hoax...just like you guys.

Bu perhaps a little diversionary contemplation is appropriate here. It goes like this.

Let's say that a guy, it could even be one of you intellectual giants, made the claim that ETs were visiting him. When pressed for proof he offered none but he still kept making the claim. Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect him to provide proof for it? What would reasonable proof be? Would it be an irreproducible photograph, 5 photos, 10, 100, 300, 700, more than 1,200?

What about a film, or 2, 4, 7 or 9 films? How's about a still irreproducible video? What if he claimed to have recorded the sounds once, twice, three times, four times? Would that be enough...especially if they too were irreproducible? And if this guy wasn't the only one to see or photograph or record the sounds of the ships, how many credible witnesses would it take, one, 10, 15, 30, 80, 120+?
How many would have to pass lie detector tests besides hm, 3, 5, 9, 13, 15?

And if this guy also had metal alloy samples, and if a top level, genius of a scientist videotaped a lengthy analysis of the alloys and deemed them irreproducible and beyond terrestrial technology, might that not be worthy of consideration?

And if a physicist who'd been in the aerospace-defense industry for 25 years likewise took the man's information and evidence seriously, along with a number of other credible scientists...might not the man's detractors be seen to be suffering from a terminal case of sour grapes, jealousy and denial?

And if this man also produced volumes of prophetically accurate information, easily confirmed by anyone with a computer and the abilty to think (I'm not intentionally trying to leave any of you out here but, hey, s**p happens) that stood on its own merit even without hte ET/UFO evidence, might that not be of stellar importance to anyone but Luddites and religiously addicted skeptics?

Well, fellas, the few of you here who are obviously getting ulcers over the fact that a one-armed guy has effectively tied you all up in knots must be having quite a time of it. I mean, there's isn't one among you whose life will be the subject of this much interest, psecualtion, controversy - and value to humanity in the long run but WITHOUT you guys, and your small-minded ilk throughout history, life just wouldn't be this much fun, now would it?

I mean what would Galileo have done without the church of his day, like you guys and yours today? How could we possibly imagine a world in which jealous, narrow minded people strenuously avoid the cynical, irrational, denial of facts despite their overwhelming preponderance? But unless you can do a lot better than you have, your relevance will be limited to entertaining mainly likeminded late night computer addicts, at least up unitl the point that few of them start looking at the case themselves and start thinking for themselves, as it appears that people around the world are now doing in consistently growing numbers.

So, as I said, I'll get back to you with the sound report info as soon as I get it but in the meantime keep ranting and remember...there's also the seven-fingered handprints, still etched into the surface of the car in Switzerland to account for. However, knowing how loathe you guys are to invest in anything informative about the case, I doubt that we'll be seeing your sorry, chair bound butts over there anytime soon to "debunk" them.

Y'all have a real good weekend and try to keep your collective blood pressure under control.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   


You must have an AWFUL lot investied in some way to be trying to obfuscate as much as you do. But as they used to say in the music biz, the hits just keep on coming and, so far with nearly 4 million people around the world looking in on the case, not all of whom I'm sure simply accept it, no one has offered proof of a hoax...just like you guys.


No Michael. Lets cut through the load of denial and lies you keep serving. Refer back to my post and show me YOUR evidence. Your cult keeps denying real evidence and misstates facts. Lets see...

I wrote:



Show us proof that a place called the Naval Undersea Sound Center even existed in Groton, Connecticut and conducted the alleged analysis. Are you claiming that this was part of the U.S. Naval Base at Groton? Or the Electric Boat Shipyard? I've contacted both and neither has any record of a "Naval Undersea Sound Center" ever having been affiliated with either of them.

and you attempted to distort my comment and change the subject...

You wrote:



are you claiming that Robin L. Shellman, steve Ambrose and Nils Rognerud also didn't exist, weren't capable sound engineers and or falsified their reports on the sounds?


My questions were quite clear. Why can't you answer them?

How about this:

I wrote:



no recording equipment COULD have recorded 4.16 hz, not even modern-day digital equipment available to the professional sound market. Even more evident of your blantant lie is that human hearing CANNOT detect 4 hz! That sound could not have become audible.

And you responded with:




In a court of law, your response is called an "adoptive admission by silence". I will take it as such here.

I could go on and on, but there's no need. You know that in the eyes of reasonable people, you are selling lies and frauds for $25 + shipping.

Then, here's where you make yourself really look like a fool...



You must have an AWFUL lot investied in some way to be trying to obfuscate as much as you do.

No Michael, I do this in a search for the truth.

But I'll give you some credit... you once wrote (in this thread)...


Okay, for what it's worth, I represent the case VOLUNTARILY, as in for free, gratis, at no charge, etc. I produced my DVD, do my research including traveling to meet and interview the prinipals in the case, etc. on my own dime - and I average about 6-10 hours per day doing it. But since this is a country that worships money, and is filled with pea-brains who accuse everyone else of the same low-life values for which we're becoming world famous...what should one expect?


So you say you're not in it for the money?

Answer these questions --

1 -- do you pay Billy Meier, FIGU, or any other party for any rights they have conferred upon you in connection with Billy Meier's photographs, writings, stories, or other information created, owned or develop by Billy Meier in the U.S. or elsewhere?

2 -- do you pay Billy Meier, FIGU, or any other party a licensing fee of any kind for the right to market Meier's material, or for any rights they have conferred upon you in connection with Billy Meier's photographs, writings, stories, or other information created, owned or develop by Billy Meier in the U.S. or elsewhere?

3 -- do you pay Billy Meier, FIGU, or any other party any commission, royalty, or other such compensation or percentage of sales or profit of any kind any rights they have conferred upon you in connection with Billy Meier's photographs, writings, stories, or other information created, owned or develop by Billy Meier in the U.S. or elsewhere?

4 -- would you make your "proof positive" available to the public, at no charge, via the internet?

These are two very simple questions to answer. In fact, they are multiple choice -- yes or no.

Edit: One more thing -- if you're not in it for the money, take MUFON's "best evidence" challenge. Are you willing to let people judge your evidence?

Centrist

[edit on 16-12-2005 by Centrist]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Centrist
So why does this station, through a very good and credible reporter, decide to give time to Billy Meier?


Have you actually gone to the reporter or the station and asked them?


jpl

posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Hi all,

I was hoping for some technical input on possible methods Meier might have used to produce his "stuff"... IF one took the viewpoint he is a fraud.

However, the responses on this forum have me laughing LOTS

I truly did not expect the "stuff" presented here...

NO... i'm NOT Michael Horn. Perhaps he got a real kick out of that one !!
And... whether one is seen to be "lurking" or not, depends on how "paranoid" the observer is. I suspect that most of this forum's audience could be defined as being in this category, eh?

(as being lurkers that is, mind you, the paranoid part also seems to fit now that i think on this?)

So far, the only intelligent response to all this is would be:

Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life here !!
or...
You can lead an Earthman to knowledge, but you can't make him think!!!

Unless of course, someone actually wants to take a REAL stab at the original questions...??

Until then,
Thanks for the entertainment !!!

Kindest Regards,
JP



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Centrist- once i got to the $1,000,000 universal offer i couldnt stop laughing long enough too read the rest......go ahead Mike lets see some proof of that claim. How bout the contract, surely they offered some written tender. Thats how they do it. Oh man. It just keeps gettin better...hahahahahahaha



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Now hold on there, Mr. Centrist, talk about being rather selective, how come you didn't notice this "Now regarding the sound analysis, I've put the questions you posed out to people more well informed about that part of the investigation and report back when I get the answers, since I am not the author of the report..." or this "So, as I said, I'll get back to you with the sound report info as soon as I get it but in the meantime keep ranting..."?

Ya see, I think that when people raise good points and challenges that I owe it to them and myself to get the answers from the people who would or should know the answers better than I do. And so I forwarded your question, nonetheless, mine to you still stand. What you do is play a rather obvious game, basically ignoring everything that you can't deal with. Since there's a mountain of evidence here, it's kind of easy to do because so much of it has already been offered to you and I already know so much of it that I even forget occasionally how much of it I've put before you geniuses...and how much of it you'rve ignored..

Now, as for all of your junior lawyer nonsense, you've received my answer in the paragraph that you quote, i.e. I do this on a voluntary basis. One reason I do it is that, knowing that Meier is for real, I felt that the least I could do to step up to the plate is to put myself in the position to not only disseminate the info but to get a miniscule taste of the kind of idiocy that anonymous, cowardly jerks throw out on internet forums, especially since he's dealt with the real thing from people who don't want to just assassinate his character but his life as well.

And I have to admit the value I used to receive from jousting with easily controllable types like you has diminished. It no longer serves to get me all fired up, you're far too predictable, transparent, obvious, etc. The fact is that you're in a box of your own making. You CAN'T get any of the "commercially" available material since to do so would be to enrich me or some other party in this matter. You can't even purchase it anonymously because any argument you'd like to offer based on it would reveal that you did the unthinkable and succumbed to somehow supporting the case and my princely existence! I mean there are various things, information, proofs, that you can only get and learn about from the other material and now it's withheld from you because of your own arrogance and lack of credibility. Is there anything more pathetic than armchair experts, using anonymous screen names, trying to argue the merits of a case so monumental and long lasting - and having to do so without having much of the available documentation and self-evident evidence and proof?

Wow, talked about a guy who's trapped like a rat!

But since I'm not much of a coffee drinker, and I used to use these types of interactions as caffeine substitutes, I'm kinda disappointed that it's become more like that ol' Sanka drink.

But I still can't resist dangling some cheese out there just to see a few of my friends run around in circles displaying their ignorance.

And I thiink that JP has the right attitude, laughter, and lots of it!



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   


You CAN'T get any of the "commercially" available material since to do so would be to enrich me or some other party in this matter. . . .
having to do so without having much of the available documentation and self-evident evidence and proof?


Oh.. so you're admitting that you only "sell" the "evidence" of Meier's hoax? You are certainly one of the most pathetic con men I've ever come across. What you're clearly said is that no one who doesn't buy your "evidence" will ever know the truth.

Yet you fail to realize that the evidence we get "for free" shows enough to determine that Billy Meier's pictures were the result of a no-so-elaborate hoax. The evidence shows that your published "analysis" of the sound recording is, at best, inaccurate; and, most likely, completely fictitious. The evidence shows that the metal sample was nothing more than a concoction that Billy Meier made from solder and minerals he found.

Cut the lies and the balogny. Post the evidence. Answer the questions. Your empty rhetoric has gone from silly to just plain nonsensical.

Centrist


[edit on 16-12-2005 by Centrist]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Ok I've stopped laughing now.
He certainly is good at ignoring me. Called in some chits with the local media whom I know through nothing concerning this topic. I live near Orlando and after talking to these folk it seems likely that had somebody at Universal studios offered Meier any kind of position they would know. After all thats what they do. On average there are over 500 people bangin on the doors of the personnel office any given day in Orlando. They are there to apply for the one job opening in the tech dept. They are not one armed swiss 'farmers' with a camera and a cult. These are well trained and educated people. And they would do it for a lot less cash. This is such an everyday thing that it doesnt even make the last page of the paper anymore. I'm sure JRITZ can elaborate on this as well.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   
My gosh, I guess I was misunderstood...again. Okay, pay attention now, regarding this

- Oh.. so you're admitting that you only "sell" the "evidence" of Meier's hoax? You are certainly one of the most pathetic con men I've ever come across. What you're clearly said is that no one who doesn't buy your "evidence" will ever know the truth.

MH: No, no! What I'm saying is that only YOU poor guys would have to buy the stuff - because eveyone else with half a brain already gets/understands it. And those that need, or are interested in more, get the other material, just like in real life. Geez, try going to school and not buying the text books! But remember, there's no "con" cause you CAN'T buy the stuff and no one's trying to sell it to you! You're shut out, the door is closed, you're banned from the store, etc. and you might as well keep on making yourselves look like monkeys carrying on about things that other people already KNOW the facts about.

I may start leading tours through this forum so that people can see the photos that Ritzmann thinks compare to Meier's and hear about how the sound analysis is all wrong, etc. You guys can form something akin to the flat earth society all over again so that we have something to laugh at during these trying times.

- Cut the lies and the balogny.

MH: Do you mean bologna or, as it's commonly spelled, baloney? You're welcome.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   


What I'm saying is that only YOU poor guys would have to buy the stuff - because eveyone else with half a brain already gets/understands it.


And yet that theory fails miserably. If that were, in fact, true, then someone who had studied the "evidence" which is only available for a fee, then at least one of those people would be citing to it in defense of the validity of Meier's claims. No one has done this, so this is just another pile of rubbish you're peddling to sell DVD's.

Also, if your presentation to the three MUFON groups was so persuasive, why have no MUFON members come out to extoll the veracity of your claims? Yet, none have.

After all these years, if there was evidence that proved that Meier's claims were supported by "proof positive", then your claim would be corroborated by respectable, reputable people -- not proven liars and convicts.

But don't flatter yourself in thinking that I'm "spinning my wheels" arguing with you. I don't ever expect a straight answer out of you or a single word of truth. But those of us who have analyzed Meier's claim see right through you -- you perpetually evade the facts and counter them with lies. You attempt to confuse people by claiming that Meier's claims haven't been proven as a hoax, even though they have and you refuse to admit it. All this, so you can make a dishonest living, tricking those who want to believe into spending their money on the fraud you perpetuate.

So, don't believe that I'm debating this topic with you. Understand that there are people who believe the truth is paramount and we should be ever-vigilant to minize the number of people who are victimized by your scheme.

So, if you choose to continue wasting everyone's time here... ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

You said --


I'll get back to you with the sound report info as soon as I get it


Fine. Get back to us then.

And in the meantime -- don't forget these questions, as henceforward, I will not engage in discussion with you. Each time you post, I will repeat these and other questions posted in this thread that you have not answered...

1 -- do you pay Billy Meier, FIGU, or any other party for any rights they have conferred upon you in connection with Billy Meier's photographs, writings, stories, or other information created, owned or develop by Billy Meier in the U.S. or elsewhere?

2 -- do you pay Billy Meier, FIGU, or any other party a licensing fee of any kind for the right to market Meier's material, or for any rights they have conferred upon you in connection with Billy Meier's photographs, writings, stories, or other information created, owned or develop by Billy Meier in the U.S. or elsewhere?

3 -- do you pay Billy Meier, FIGU, or any other party any commission, royalty, or other such compensation or percentage of sales or profit of any kind any rights they have conferred upon you in connection with Billy Meier's photographs, writings, stories, or other information created, owned or develop by Billy Meier in the U.S. or elsewhere?

4 -- would you make your "proof positive" available to the public, at no charge, via the internet?

5 -- you're not in it for the money, take MUFON's "best evidence" challenge. Are you willing to let people judge your evidence?

In other words, Michael. Your time for debate is over. Answer questions and provide evidence. To be fair, though, if any of the "proof positive" appears in your "for sale" literature -- state exactly what that material is and exactly what it proves.


jpl

posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
"Obviously! Because this story is a pure, unadulterated fabrication! You state with conviction that "the slower 249.6 U/min.-rotation again became audible". But 249.6 U/min equals 4.16 hz. As I mentioned before, no recording equipment COULD have recorded 4.16 hz, not even modern-day digital equipment available to the professional sound market. Even more evident of your blantant lie is that human hearing CANNOT detect 4 hz! That sound could not have become audible."

As stated previously, the 4 Hz wave was modulated using a higher frequency carrier wave. Although we cannot hear the 4 hz, we certainly can see it on an oscilloscope (or whatever) especially if sampled before any low frequency restrictive filters (& speakers) within the playback device.
Any such low frequency components of the resulting combined modulated wave can then be analyzed like those within the audible frequency range. Depending of course, on the frequency response of the analyzing equipment.
In fact, using this modulation technique, one could have waves of almost any duration, stretching into days per cycle if one wished.

AND... using either old or new types of recording equipment!!

This is pretty standard stuff... and pretty basic as well.
Any decent engineer or tech would know this...

Just a comment, on the technical side.
JP

[edit on 17-12-2005 by jpl]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Centrist,

I don't think you will be getting any proof any time soon. Mr Horn still has to provide proof to the IIG / JREF who challenged him 648 days ago and offered him one million dollars!

On the other hand, Mr Horn could be trying to get a better price. Who's offering one million and one penny?

Really, this discussion is going nowhere. It has all been discussed in previous topics with similar disappointing results.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8Michael12
....Meier doesn't engage in online or other correspondence at this time for many valid reasons having to do with his work, his time demands, his lack of fluency in writing in English, etc. He has designated me as his representative to do such things and I'll do the best I can.....



I have spent the evening going over the "evidence", reading your website, reading debunkers sites, reading old threads..anyway It is now midnight here and I have come to the following personal conclusions:

1. The evidence in inconclusive. For every piece of evidence you present there are other explanations. Not saying I believe every other explanation.. There can be no absolute proof with out absolute proof.

2. Where is Billy Meiers? You say he does not participate in any correspondence partly due to his lack of English. There are many German sites and even Swiss-German sites that would love to have Mr. Meiers as a guest. Even here there are German speakers. I speak Zuri-deutsch myself and with thousands of members I bet someone else does as well...

3. The "stunning proof" on the BM site is not....Those fingerprints are not conclusaive evidence.....a saliva sample may have been conclusive evidence..but not this.

Just my two rappa worth

Liebe Grussli
D





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join