It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by longhaircowboy
Its Probably best he left this thread anyhow as he didn't seem to be accomplishing much. Just lots of rhetoric and no answers to the real questions. But I did like reading his posts. But then I love fiction.
It's like a prize fighter being down for the count and getting up 1/2 hour later saying, "yeah I showed him who's boss".
Originally posted by 8Michael12
From what Ritzmann wrote it's clear that he's both a liar and a fool.
Originally posted by 8Michael12One should first familiarize themselves with the credentials and comments of the scientists and experts on record. There are accepted standards of scientific proof, which also recognizes the absence, in most cases, of 100% "proof". So there are percentages and probabilities that are weighed and taken into account, which include various categories and standards of evidence, upon which people make their determinations. When Vogel said that he couldn't reproduce the metal, or Froning gave a nod to Meier's sources for their knowledgeability of the source of Meier's information on propulsion, these weren't armchair amateurs like Ritzmann speaking, they were highly qualified scientific experts.
Originally posted by 8Michael12Since the bottom line issue here is whether the Meier case is true and authentic, Ritzmann's pathetic arguments and submitting Mickey Mouse pictures that can't compare, even at first glance, to such as are found at www.tjresearch.info... www.tjresearch.info... www.tjresearch.info... www.tjresearch.info...
www.tjresearch.info... www.tjresearch.info... only shows that the poor fellow suffers from a deep envy and frustration, as well as an inability to grasp the totality of the case. In fact, he can barely, if at all, address the totality of the case because he'd have to attempt to indict and smear everyone involved in doing so. That means not only all the scientific experts who stand infinitely high above him in expertise and credibility in numerous areas, but the 120+ witnesses, 5 five other photographers, Swiss Military, etc. Plus, he'd have to argue against the unarguable, i.e. that Meier has indeed published huge amounts of specific, prophetically accurate information prior to the occurrence of the specified events. If Ritzmann has shown any wisdom at all it is in not trying to argue with copyrights.
Originally posted by 8Michael12And his preposterous, unprofessional, insipidly jealous statement regarding "etching cream", made as it was without him ever actually seeing the hand print evidence first hand himself, shows what a loser mentality we have here.
Originally posted by 8Michael12When the individual and collective evidence, in all categories, is taken into consideration and weighed, including Deardorff's mathematical probability of a hoax calculations, any reasonable, objective person, capable of logical thought will have to give the nod to Meier, and to the case standing up to the highest standards of proof as it is determined.
Originally posted by 8Michael12
We do thank Ritzmann though for being the poster boy for all the illogical, envious, disingenuous, small-minded snipes who would say and do anything - in violation of all evidence and logic - to attempt to discredit the case, as well as any of its supporters. And, for what it's worth, we also might note how the actual numbers of such fools has now dwindled down to Ritzmann himself, simultaneously acting as their/his apparent sole representative, unless someone else wants to argue for the distinction.
You have already voted for jritzmann this month.
Originally posted by jritzmann
Oh it's not just me pal...there's plenty more where I come from. No, when I see bull**it I call it. I've called you out over a bunch of issues you refuse to acknowledge, but rather just keep taking your personal swipes and name calling.
I can take it...knowing it's for a good cause. The truth.
Originally posted by longhaircowboy
I think your photos are better than Meiers. Where can I sign up for your cult?
Originally posted by longhaircowboy
The answer is here:
UFO Contact From Planet Koldas:A Cosmic Dialogue by Carl Van Vlierden
My suspicion is that Meier read this and it inspired him. If you can find it read it. It came out before Meiers claims. It concerns a South African electrician who had some remakable experiences that sure do parallel others not the least of which is Adamski.
Originally posted by 8Michael12
First, I don't time my visits here to anyone else's. As this is a form of practice for me, I like to come here periodically and see what the challenges are. Time permitting, which obviously varies, I respond.
It seems that Centrist was rather touchy about my accurately describing Ritzmann as a liar simply because...he lied. His first statement regarding the hand prints and etching cream is a lie and, as we'll see in a moment, not the only one.
Originally posted by 8Michael12Now, if Ritzmann admits that there are "Many on the list I dont question, and again you evade the issue. It's NOT the credentials I question, it's your interpretation and misuse of their statements." then it looks to me like he is admitting that the case is genuine, since that's essentially what they are saying and what the preponderance of evidence, which he doesn't address, shows.
Originally posted by 8Michael12As far as Robert Post is concerned, I have always quoted him full well knowing that there were two sides to his story because I also wanted to see if people would actually do some research and find that he was virtually the only one who expressed both a strong pro and con. If so, they would be able to honestly weigh his comments against all those of the other experts that were not conflicted. And other people have indeed referred to his positions. So when Ritzmann points to this as "...but ONE example. These people are highly skilled folks, but you totally misrepresent their standpoint...and when one digs in to actually follow up on your quoted crap...it's not even remotely standing." then he is obligated to support his other objections AND account for the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that supports the authenticity of the Meier case. Fair is fair...and necessary if one is to be honest.
Originally posted by 8Michael12And this statement gives us clear insight into what is motivating Ritzman, "Saying my shots dont compare is an understatement. Theyre better. Seeing as the ground is visible in all shots, the focus and foreshortening is correct, and what a surprise, theyre original photos! None of which Meier has. But I'm not out to be 'better', it's simply to show it can be done, and done as good if not better. I'd say youre a little biased." Well, I know he has some supporters here but really, does anyone think that there would be a six-year long investigation using state-of-the-art technology to "investigate" his photos and that the controversy would rage for 63 years? I don't think so. And what is the credibility of a guy who makes such claims when anyone can see the superior quality of Meier's photos, or simply refer to the analysis which shows, plainly, that they were neither models nor paste-ups, special effects, etc. This is the same kind of deception that CFI-West/IIG tried to pull off, i.e. duplicating the EFFECT of Meier's photos, which simply means that THEY and Ritzmann have been the ones trying to HOAX Meier's authentic photos!
Originally posted by 8Michael12But wait, all the other experts that were referred to, why has Ritzmann selectively not attacked them? Let's remember that he conceded that "Many on the list I dont question..." What is that telling you? If he doesn't question them, and they are authenticating Meier's evidence, then isn't that what the bottom line of this discussion is all about, the authenticity of the case?
Originally posted by 8Michael12So how important does that make my not catching the proper spelling of the camera? Does it negate what the experts said? I don't think so.
Originally posted by 8Michael12As for this, "Deardorff is NOT an imaging professional, etc." Deardorff has numerous pages of very well thought out, solid analysis of Meier's photos and films and the simple fact that two forestry experts both independently identified the tree in the photos I referred to as a mature, full-sized abies alba makes any argument about the size, and therefore the authenticity, of the UFO futile. So if it's a full size, real object what is Ritzmann still carrying on about? Maybe it's this, "Saying my shots dont compare is an understatement. Theyre better..." Maybe it's a rather large ego issue, one that has clouded Ritzmann's objectivity, to put it mildly.
Originally posted by 8Michael12As for the report from the Swiss government, I don't have any further details, nor do I have a demand for a retraction from them. Just another piece of evidence to consider, take it for what it's worth. And, considering the overwhelming amount of varied and specific evidence in the case, which, let me remind you, spans 63+ years, it's a rather solid case by any standards.
Originally posted by 8Michael12As for this expression of what happens when someone stays up too late seething about things, "Youre yet to produce them just as you've never produced a shred of proof on your statements about the 'Academy Award winning FX house' that was so stumped by the Meier photos!!! Who were they?? (Funny, since I called him on this last time, he has removed mention of any FX house on his site....hmmmm...caught in the act?)" My "shred of proof" is that this is a report of my own investigation and experience with Uncharted Territory, witnessed, of course, by the producer who introduced me to them. So just what act does our paranoid friend think he's caught me in? Well I don't know but I can almost bet that there's a barrage against UC coming from someone who DIDN'T win an Academy Award for special effects.
Originally posted by 8Michael12Now, since I'm going to call Ritzmann a liar again, I hope that Centrist will rely upon his understanding of the accuracy of that term. "I merely state that it can easily be done with such a product...at least I dont tout it as 'evidence' before any 'analysis' is ever done on it. The fact is, this can be reproduced using an ordinary human hand. If the person making the prints has never been fingerprinted by authorities, there will be no record of the prints...yet another loophole for you to jump through and scream plejaren or grey." Now, to be specific, Ritzmann doesn't KNOW that this is true since he's not seen the evidence, so he's making a false statement. How does he know that it can be "easily done" "reproduced using an ordinary hand"? These are, therefore, false assertions and lies. If Ritzmann wanted to be truthful, he would have qualified his statements and said, "I don't know, I haven't seen the evidence but PERHAPS they COULD be, etc." But what do you expect from a guy who claims that the experts are wrong, the investigators were fooled and it's HIS photos that are "better"? Are you beginning to see his agenda here?
Originally posted by 8Michael12As for, "You mean Deardorff's 'plausible deniability', etc.?" no, I mean Deardorff's plausible deniability (the need for which Ritzmann certainly demonstrates) AND everything else that overwhelmingly weighs on the side of authenticity. So where is Ritzmann's answer for all of that, for all of the prophetically accurate PUBLISHED, COPYRIGHTED information, for the sound analysis, etc.? Well, maybe it's answered with "Many on the list I dont question..." So why is he wasting his and everyone else's time?
Originally posted by 8Michael12MH: "We do thank Ritzmann though for being the poster boy for all the illogical, envious, disingenuous, small-minded snipes who would say and do anything - in violation of all evidence and logic - to attempt to discredit the case, as well as any of its supporters. And, for what it's worth, we also might note how the actual numbers of such fools has now dwindled down to Ritzmann himself, simultaneously acting as their/his apparent sole representative, unless someone else wants to argue for the distinction."
JR: "Oh it's not just me pal...there's plenty more where I come from. No, when I see bull**it I call it. I've called you out over a bunch of issues you refuse to acknowledge, but rather just keep taking your personal swipes and name calling.
I can take it...knowing it's for a good cause. The truth."
Okay, let's be rational here. If Ritzmann said, "Many on the list I dont question..." and if they are credible experts who have effectively supported the authenticity of the case - which is THE POINT of all of this - is it really being too harsh to call someone a fool who goes to such lengths to flail around AFTER they have effectively conceded the case's validity? You can't have it both ways so a little honesty, please! At what point does a person wake up to their own contradictions and illogic and decide to move on to the more important aspect of the Meier case, i.e. what does it mean to us, what are we supposed to do with the information, etc.?
Originally posted by 8Michael12And, as for poor TerraX and his selective account, he fails to mention that Meier's contacts - and UFO photos - were first PUBLISHED and PUBLICIZED in 1964 and that one of the main witnesses (who actually qualifies as a contactee herself) is still alive...and has validated Meier's story completely. It also is no small matter that she is enormously credible, as anyone who saw and heard her speak about this would know, and she is a well-respected, trusted person being a (now retired) UN diplomat. BTW, she doesn't go by some phony screen name like UNX, she uses her real name, Phobol Cheng. As for "TerraX" selectively ignoring the whole story regarding Meier AND Asket meeting with Adamski, well, it should be sufficient to say that TerraX has a Jones about Adamski that, talking about hoaxes, should really interest Ritzmann if he wasn't so intent on finding allies for his personal gripe against Meier.
As for the rest of Ritzmann's complaints, it seems to me that once you have effectively conceded the authenticity of the case, as he does above, the rest of his problems with it are things that he can attempt to both clarify and resolve for himself, if such is possible.