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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   

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.



I agree Michael Horn most likely was not accomplishing much when you consider jritzmann has done such good work at debunking and accomplishing some of the things Mr. Horn claimed where not possible. (Re-creating Photos etc.)

I still have respect for anyone willing to come to ATS and go toe to toe with their detractors.

But that only means I admire character not that I agree with the subject matter. I do wish we had more people like Mr. Horn to come to the table and argue their opinions.




posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Yeah it's good that Horn comes here to get his behind handed to him, however, you have to realize that his master spindry will translate this way to his "Plejarens are Real" forum on yahoo, where he is revered as a sort of warrior for truth...as if there were such a thing in the Meier case...(and yes, this is actually what he said, copied and pasted...just so you all really know what he thinks of you, and anyone else who disagrees)

From: Michael
Date: Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:30 pm
Subject: Back at it michaelhorn812
Offline
Send Email

I'm back engaging some folks in a couple of online forums. If you need
something to put you to sleep at night:

www.samharris.org...
t=997&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

www.abovetopsecret.com...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and when told "hey good job" or something to that effect, his reply was....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael
Date: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:24 am
Subject: Re: [Plejarens_are_real_2005] Re: Back at it michaelhorn812
Offline
Send Email

Thanks Jay, glad to be out there irritating the masses.

MH

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you see, no matter what, a Meier supporter will "win" the argument, as they lack the grey matter to figure out they could ever "lose" an argument.

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".



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Okay, just strolled through the neighborhood and couldn't resist.

Regarding having someone's behind handed to them on a platter, I know it's not polite to laugh at the less fortunate but it should be pointed out that these are some of the experts, scientists, facilities and equipment used that authenticated Meier's physical evidence:

Marcel Vogel
Robert Post
Michael Malin
Wally Gentleman
Steve Ambrose
Nils Rognerud
Steve Singer
Jim Dilettoso
David Froning
Robin L. Shellman
Lt. Col. Wendelle Stevens, USAF (Ret.)
O. Richard Norton
Maj. Rudojph Pestalozzi, USAF (Ret.)
Dr. Walter W. Walker
James Deardorff
Steven Williams
Howard Ilson
Uncharted Territory
USGS
JPL
IBM
Boeing
McDonnell Douglas
Naval Undersea Labs
Nippon TV
Swiss Military Air Safety Monitoring Unit
De Anza Systems
Excalibur Sound Studios
Spectro Dynamics
COMTAL
INTERREPRO, A.G. (HELL Chromograph DC 300), Zurich
SCHORI REPROS, Zurich
Design Technology (contracts with NASA, JPL, U.S. Navy General Dynamics Engineering)
Photo Color Studio, Zurich
Eidgenossisch Maerialprufungs und Versuchsanstalt, Zurich

6 categories of still irreproducible physical evidence:
Over 1,200 photos
8 films
1 video
4 sound recordings
Metal alloy samples
Seven-fingered hand prints

120+ witnesses (including retired UN diplomat)
15 witnesses who took and passed lie detector tests
5 other photographers

55 years of specific, prophetically accurate information corroborated by the events themselves
Defeat of all top international professional skeptics and debunkers

As for the impolite laughter:

"Hi, I'm Jeff, wanna see my UFO photos? They're just as good as Meier's, honest, really...stop laughing! Okay, you asked for it, here are the experts that say so:"

1.
2.
etc.

Happy New Year, really...even to jealous losers who end up holding their own behinds.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   


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".

and guess what he just did. I love this guy. he brings a smile to my face in an other wise dreary day. Thanks Mike.
Now go back through the thread and answer my questions. You know all the ones you ignored.
Anyone wanna guess what he'll say to that?



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I can tell you with the stunning accuracy of Meier....he'll berate and or ignore you.


You guys do a check on what the "experts" did or said about Meier's "evidence"...LOL...most just offered an opionion, not any "analysis" per se. G'head, read up on what was actually said....you'll find their comments to be of "if this is real", or to that effect....yet again and again, the supporters will tout this as concrete "proof" of "analysis.

Yet another shining example of the fantasy.

My photos? Mine are available (with negatives) to an independant agency or scientific inquiry as soon as Meier's are as well. When you can muster up original Meier negatives, for the same tests and same submission to an independant authority on imaging...I'm right there with em.

One thing I found so highly amusing was your Yahoo group asking when I uploaded them to the Yahoo group..."when did Billy take these new pictures, anyone know about them?"

Lets hear about who actually paid for the lie detector tests, who did them? Who paid for analysis on photos? Who asked for the pictures to be doctored by one of the contracted imaging companies? Care to comment on the obvious stop motion / double exposed film footage posted about at length here on ATS awhile back? I've yet to hear your prosaic explaination about that one.

Stop regurgitating what you've been told and do some real work. I feel like the Merovingian in the Matrix...
"do you know why you are here?...you think you know, but you do not...you came here because you were sent".

Of course, the supporters have been "wiping their a** with silk" for a long time using the "plausible deniability" fantasy...expect to see more of that when all the chips are down folks. It's their end-all excuse.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Btw, lets not forget that some of what the errand boy listed above has yet to even be examined, fingerprints (ones that can be made from etching creme), a non existant metal sample (only a report to say anything about the non existant sample...nothing to back it up...essentially worthless), etc.

Read in print and on the web what was found out about Dilettoso and his "analysis", in the real media:
www.rickross.com...

Not to mention the remark that one expert was used to alter the photos.

Of course this scathing truth is unpalatable to the dutiful errand boy.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
From what Ritzmann wrote it's clear that he's both a liar and a fool.

One 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.

Since 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.

And 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.

When 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.

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.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Michael,

Now you're just plain out of line. Don't come around here calling an ATS member a "liar and a fool". Jritzmann posted comments from one of your so-called "experts" that exposes your "proof" as plain, old false statements.

Go back to that "expert" and get him to make a public statement supporting your position or stop spewing your empty rhetoric and hyperbole. You've been contradicted by your own expert. Don't accuse the fine people here of anything other than exposing your own deceptions.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Centrist-really, it's ok...it must've hit pretty close to the mark to get him so riled up huh?
I am SO totally used to this kind of answer and swipe directed at me. When these people can no longer argue with facts, and you duplicate their "evidence" like they asked you to, this is what you'll get.


Originally posted by 8Michael12
From what Ritzmann wrote it's clear that he's both a liar and a fool.


You know Michael, calling me names isnt going to get you anywhere. To call someone a liar in a public published forum is not only actionable, but you would have to do something youre not used to: actually prove someone is a liar. You like to throw that word around quite a bit, and it's going to bite you in the a**.


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.


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.
Lets take Robert Post of JPL:
------------------------------------
"Robert Post: JPL photo laboratory for 22 years, was the head of that lab in 1979, and oversaw the developing and printing of every photograph thatcame out of JPL at the time: "From a photography standpoint, you couldn'tsee anything that was fake about the Meier photos. That's what struck me.They looked like legitimate photographs. I thought, 'God, if this is real,this is going to be really something.”OK, let's take a second look at Robert Post. http://j_kidd.tripod.com/b/125.html..."Light Years" also quotes authorities such as Robert Post, head of the JetPropulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, as saying: "From a photography standpoint, you couldn't see anything that was fake about the Meierphotos... I thought, God, if this is real, this is going to be really something."

Or is it? In an interview with The Examiner, Post recalled that several years ago, Wendelle Stevens visited him at JPL and requested an expertopinion on the pictures. Post acknowledges he was fascinated by the images,but was unable to perform a scientific analysis for two reasons: First, heisn't a photo analyst but rather the operator of a photo processing lab("like you take your film to K-Mart", he said); and second, the pictures weren't originals but rather copies of originals - perhaps even copies of copies of copies. Such multiple copying tends to obscure delicate details,making it hard to detect evidence of fraud - e.g., threads supportinghubcaps.In addition, when Post examined some images with a magnifying glass, herealized "a lot of the pictures weren't really photographs at all - theywere lithographs," or high-resolution ink prints made from photos - and,hence, were worthless for purposes of analysis. Furthermore, the photoswere " a lot fuzzier than the stuff on the lithographs, and I thought thatwas a little strange." For that and other reasons, Post began "to think,`Nuts, maybe this guy is just a con man.' That's not the kind of guy I wantto have anything to do with." In 1983, Stevens was convicted of childmolestation in Pima County, AZ. He is now serving time in the Arizona StatePrison and declined to be interviewed. But he did send The Examiner acryptic letter in which he said a "number of high officials...have taken apersonal interest in some of the things we were doing, but they couldneither support nor tolerate them officially."Stevens' conviction triggered a wave of paranoia among Meier buffs. Somephoned Vicki Cooper, editor of California UFO Magazine in Los Angeles, and said Stevens "was `set up,' that certain witnesses were being killed," said Cooper, who is not unsympathetic to Meier's claims. "I was discouraged and disgusted with the people I was talking to."
---------------------------------------------------------------
The *real* story behind the expert "validation". This is 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.


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.


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.

I cant address the case? I cant address it like you, because I wont gloss over inadeqacies by saying "so what?" or not even be familiar enough with the case after (how many years Mike?....20 +?) to know the camera make in the "official report" is wrong??? No sir, if YOU want to sit back and read reports youre fed thats fine, I choose to follow them up and find out the truth...not the truth they feed me in a report. Everything I have stated about this case can be followed up by anyone...you above anyone cannot say the same for yourself.
I'll say it again, so you can get it through your obviously thick skull: Deardorff is NOT an imaging professional. So stop touting him as some sort of expert in that field. He has degrees in Meteorology...not imaging. To boot, I've gone head to head with him, and his interpretation of images and film are provably wrong. I proved him wrong and was repeatedly attacked personally rather then debated with data.

I'll ask *again*, where are the govt. documents proving the Swiss military saw *anything* over Meier's compound??? 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?)


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.


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.


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.


You mean Deardorff's "plausible deniability"? Whereby any hoaxed photo and film could be real...that the aliens just want to make it look fake?? LOLOL....damn, they must be teachin how to grasp for staws over in Meier-ite land these days.


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.


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.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   


You have already voted for jritzmann this month.


Great post -- too bad I can only vote for you once a month



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   

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.







posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Yes excellent post jritz. I have gone over what horn calls evidence many times and it just keeps adding up to .........nothing. My guess is the real truth is just $29 away. And I think your photos are better than Meiers. Where can I sign up for your cult?
I'd be happy if Mr. Horn just answered one of my questions, heck I'll even let him pick the one.
And I find it strange that when I read the 'expert' testamony I get the distinct feeling that they are doing their best to be vague and he sees 'proof'. Butter or guns I say.
Oh and heres a little something Centrist might find interesting- earlier I happened to be scanning the Who's On and noticed a strange thing. I watched Centrists name vanish and then Horn showed up so I kept watching and he posted the above then Centrist showed back up and Mike vanished. Coincidence? Is it possible that he watches to see when he can post without anyone(Centrist,jritz,etc) else being on here?
just askin.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
I think your photos are better than Meiers. Where can I sign up for your cult?


LMAO!!!
Classic.

As far as Mr. Horn trolling to see when no one is on, it wouldnt surprise me, but he's always looking for the last word. James Deadorff was challenged several times when I was on the Plejarens are Real Yahoogroups board, to stop in and debate me in real time regarding a piece of footage that is clearly stop motion, and shows signs of a half step double exposure. I showed in depth here (with permission) and there that what Deardorff calls a "jump" was nothing more then turing off a cam and moving the model. Deardorff then came in with a frame he says shows the disc in 2 places in one frame. An impossibility he said if it were a model. Well, he negated to show a frame where the disc was only 1/2 exposed at the bottom...a sign the frame was caught at 1/2 exposure when the shutter stopped. The next frame showed NO disc at top frame, and the bottom image was then solid, as it had been fully exposed.
Totally textbook.
For a couple days he attacked me personally, and got to a creepy level of asking where I lived, and worked. I said if he wanted to debate the issue and could stand up against what knowledge I have after being a working digital, commercial imaging professional for this many years, to come to the chat room and lets hash it out.

He never showed...ever. I sat around that chat room for 5 hours one night.

"Thats my dinner hour", he said in excuse.

5 hour dinners are obviously as solid an excuse as "plausible deniability" is.

Look at what one of the "experts" said about what he was presented with...copies of copies, or lithographs. Ya know what, thats hiding something, less resolution, less data...more to hide. Why were these "experts" shown these pictures this way?

To get the answer they (the case supporters) wanted. An open ended "wow" or "if this is real..." Believe this, the whole case from the get go was very well calculated, and controlled, and disseminated as the supporters wished it to be. It was never a "wide open" case, closed case, exclusive investigators, no outsiders or detractors.

The bottom line is this, you see a name in a report, and you want the real answers...you find that person, you call em, and you see if they'll talk to you about whatever work they were claimed to have done on whatever evidence. You'll find many times they're words are being twisted, or edited for the proliferation of a positive outcome in the favor of the person claiming this or that. YOU, any of you, have the ability to look past the case and report and make the calls and find out what really is going on.

Look at the camera in the official image report from the Meier case. They called it the "Malcolm FTL". I couldnt find one to save my life. So I called Kodak Eastman House, the largest and most formidable, and catalogued historic camera collection in the world. I find out through Eastman House's head archivist, there is no such thing as a Malcolm FTL... it's called a Nalcom FTL. I'm now a proud owner.

Was the error on purpose? Why did Horn, a self professed "researcher" of 27 years, not find this error in 27 years...that I find immediately after going into research on the actual camera to duplicate pictures?

Because some people's aspect of research, is memorizing facts, not actually tracking down hard facts. Have I been to the Swiss countryside? Nope, would love to go, but right now the Meier case doesnt bode heavily (despite how much I talk about it) on making a trip like that. In many ways, the data can be reached from where you sit, doing just what I explained. The more I see and talk to people involved, the less inclined I am to go meet Billy...because there's not much he can say to counter what I see in his "evidence". He could be the nicest, most sincere guy in the world...I still wouldnt believe him without VERY good solid provable data...and he hasnt got any to show. Believe me, I've asked.

There's only one defense leveled by supporters when confronted by the direct questions:
"Youre not qualified enough"
"Youre a liar"
"Youre a fool"

It goes on and on. They can be shown data in black and white, and they refuse to accept what it is.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Right on. 27 years huh? Well I've been following the UFO phenomena since the sixties and that includes Meier. I would be more inclined to say the McMinnville photos were real before the Meier ones. Just on the surface they don't look right but I'm no photo expert. just an amateur sleuth. My interest is in the truth whatever it is.
It would seem that our name calling friend cant seem to find a wagon to hitch to that doesnt lead to a dead end. Exercise guru? Musician? Meier mouthpiece? Will he ever get off the ground? Anyone seen his exercise stuff or listened to his music? I have. Its all available in the 10 cent bin at the local buy/sell/trade. And thats exactly what it's worth.
His experts? Stevens. Delittoso. Expert at what? Boeing? They make planes what could they contribute? JPL. Searched their archives no Meier there. It's just too easy to research these things nowadays. Not like the good ol days when I had to spend hours in a library and on the phone hunting down people, sources, etc. For the past 40 or so years I've poured over thousands of Ufo sightings,photos,reports,books(most of which I still have piled up around my cave) and I gotta tell ya Meier is not the most convincing. There's just too much missing(negatives, original photos, metal samples).
To jritz and Centrist-keep on truckin cause the truth is out there and I intend to find it. You guys are good.
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.

[edit on 12/28/05 by longhaircowboy]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
I hear ya on McMinnville, I have long held them to be authentic, until someone can figure it out if it truly is a fake...but I just got a good feelin about them. (Although I suspect it could be a relative of German disc technology...somehow)

I'll have to hunt that book. Sounds interesting. But, if you have read about Meier, you know he'd traveled extensively, and studied alot of religious material (as well as being the worlds only real contactee, his other claim to fame is finding the "talmud jmmanuel", another sorted tale of a lost, and still "lost" manuscript, again widely dismissed by theologians as a fake.

The guy just continued his quest for fame and cash on to UFOs and aliens.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   

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.


Your suspicion might not be that farfetched Cowboy. Meier basicly came forward with his contact story in 1975 and as you probably know many ufological accounts existed prior to that. It certainly could have "inspired". Meier had knowledge of these cases and before Mr Horn challenges me to 'proof it', the answer is right there in Meier's publications. In one of his bulletins he showed correspondence with a German "saucer society" who asked him to do a lecture, it's my bet he was a member.
But there are clearer signs. Meier states in one of his contact notes that he read Adamski's - Inside The Space Ships, he had his own copy of the book! There's more. Adamski did lectures all over the world, guess who visited him while he was in Switzerland? ...That's right, Billy Meier. Meier even asked to have a personal meeting and was granted that. This information is in Meier's own publications.
Meier knew a lot about what was going on in the world of ufology, sadly that didn't "inspire" him to make positive comments about his "colleagues", quite the contrary. Meier made so many highly degrading comments about Adamski, and I'm going to be a bit rude here, that the only thing missing in Meier's tall tales is an alleged time-travel in the past with his ET contacts and them altogether urinating on Adamski's freshly dug grave.

Meier isn't a 'team-player'. Practically everyone who came forward with a contact story is commented on negatively, usually such persons are labeled as lairs, cheats, frauds, schizophrenics or suffering from delusions. (Not Meier of course who spend some time in the funny farm himself.)
In the past I addressed these issues with Meier supporters why so many contactees are labeled as false in the Meier information, that's when I met Mr Horns acquintance. On the surface he might seem as a promoter of ufology but on discussing other material with him I discovered that the only thing he promotes is the Meier case, nothing else. Items he lists that strenghten the Meier case such as 'witnesses' or 'other photographers' are not accepted in other cases. For instance, Adamski had 6 eyewitnesses who signed an affadavit supporting a part of his claims, Meier's version is that Adamski used his 'phenomenal powers of suggestion' (hypnosis) to influence people to see things that weren't there. At the time Mr Horn surprisingly agreed with Meier's claims eventhough it is not (scientificly) proven in the slightest. Next I had to prove Horn wrong of course, I guess you people know how this act goes......

[edit on 29-12-2005 by TerraX]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I always enjoy reading you TerraX. I read some of your posts on that other web site about Billy Meier. You are worthy of knowledge in my opinion. Some aliens have a saying, "The 27 devours the 22, and the 36 devours the 27." Adamski had something to do with the number 22 which is part of the number 226. The Germans, who are not the Pleadians but who are monitored closely by the Pleadians, have to do with the number 27. And the Pleadians have something to do with the number 36 or 316. Note that Billy's current contact is 163 years old. These three groups are not going to say nice things about each other or about each others contactees. And yes, they do lie. Billy Meier may believe everythiing he hears and says. But that doesn't make it true. Then again, maybe he knows he is spreading disinfo.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Terrax-
That whole situation is case in point as to why I have said for years how "orchestrated" the case is, even from it's inception.

It's always gated, and there will always be (even nif it's far reaching) an excuse for why this cant be presented:

Why the "ship" cant fly from the "tree".

Why the horizon, tree movement, sunlight and clouds change when a ship "jumps" on film (these things happen when you shut the camera off and restart it)

Why photos of Asket can circulate for years, then when caught as being a photo of a TV showing the Dean Martin show suddenly those pictures are "altered" by the notorious MiB. (Meier of course said he knew this, but forgot.)

A metal sample "dissapears" *after* analysis, is alledgedly done...so no more can be done, nor checked.

No original photos or negatives "exist" according to our illustrious American representative. No way to check them using today's advanced technology. Only the "say so" of Dillettoso, and some open ended comments from real experts (who were mostly shown lithographs of photos, which are useless for any analysis or study).

The "tree" seen in a more then a few shots (claimed to be different trees) are no longer there, and no sign they ever were. In fact people living withing eye proximity have said on the record there never was a tree at one location. Of course, Meier claims the Plejarens "eliminated the tree", as well as wiped the memories of those who might have seen any tree...oh, except for Meier.

The Plejarens make use of technology to make their ships appear to be tethered models on a string.
(Yes, it's really claimed, called "demonstration flight")

Dillettoso claims to be able to do spectral analysis on videotape, and film, photos. Physical impossibility. As the man said, it's like testing Abraham Lincoln's painted portrait for his DNA, the image and the man have no connection other then interpretive appearance. Yet in it's 3-dollar word report, the photo and film analysis doesnt say much. In fact, some of it doesnt make any sense at all. It seems to be written to sound like serious work is going on, but the end figures dont add when when looking at the same photos mentioned.

Just a snippet of the myriad of what I see to be obvious orchestration to hide the innacuracies, right from the get go. Finding them isnt all that difficult if you wrench yourself away from the charisma of the case.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
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.

Now, 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.

As 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.

And 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!

But 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?

So 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.

As 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.

As 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.

As 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.

Now, 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?

As 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?

And as for our last little exchange:

MH: "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.?

And, 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.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   

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.


Either youre a complete dolt who has no idea what a lie is, or youre trying desparately to prove a negative. I havent lied about a damned thing. Although the next time you conjecture about anything, I'll be sure to be there to call you a liar.


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.


No I am not saying the case is genuine....christ you are such a spinster. I dont question their credentials, I QUESTION YOUR USE OF THEIR STATEMENTS...does that get it through to you? Theyre qualified people in their fields, but your use of their open ended statements is NOT "analysis" as you portray it! Get it or shall I explain it to you again?


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.


Riiight, you were just testing us huh? No, another lame excuse your caught red handed in. You withheld and misrepresented his statements, and did not quote him fully or appropriately. Thats a con, and youre caught. Dont give me this "I wanted to see if you'd catch it" garbage. I have supported every stance within my convictions about this case over and over. You refuse to listen, because you dont want to hear. Or, maybe youre witholding your real opinion because you want us to research it out of you...LOL...man youre unbelieveable...I'm shocked you even typed that lame excuse for misrepresentation.


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!


Your "analysis" has been seriously questioned, there's documented statements of data alteration, experts shown lithographs instead of the original raw data...you call that an analysis that can be counted on and should be considered airtight? Some of the photos I've seen are OBVIOUS small objects close to the camera by virtue of focus...thats it, period. There's no other explaination for that. You nor anyone else can rewrite optic reactions to your liking. I have no idea what your statement of me and and CFI west trying to "HOAX" anything, as you challenged us to duplicate the photos. We did. Then you ask that we submit them to the same analysis, which I for one would do, when Meier submits his to the same independant analysis. Original negative to original negative...OH, but he doesnt have any. Riiiight.You lose again.


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?


I've said again, and again, so lets repeat it for the hard of reading: "No I am not saying the case is genuine....christ you are such a spinster. I dont question their credentials, I QUESTION YOUR USE OF THEIR STATEMENTS...does that get it through to you? Theyre qualified people in their fields, but your use of their open ended statements is NOT "analysis" as you portray it! Get it or shall I explain it to you again?" ~Me.


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.


Nope, but it's another roadblock to those wanting to duplicate the pictures to answer your challenges. Another roadblock for those who want to investigate the camera. And another example of your lack of research and fact checking.


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.


Identifying a tree in a photo as a full grown tree is fine. It's a photo. Yeah, it *looks* like a real tree. But where is any evidence of it being there? Why is it shown in 2 locations? Does it walk? If any forestry people looked at it, what theyre going by is the shape and form...but that depends on how mgood a photo they were shown. Again, a sorely lacking piece of "evidence". Again, Deardorff is no imaging professional, and it shows.


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.


Oh, so now finally the admission that there's nothing to back it up. Take it for what it's worth? Ok, it's worth nothing. At all. Much liie the metal sample report and experts shown lithographs.


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.


Finally again, an admission of a name. Now comes the part where I ask who looked at the photos and what photos, and what resolution of photos. Who do I contact? And saying they couldnt do it without CGI, doesnt really mean much if they dont have prop artists and modelmakers on staff....they wouldnt have any other way. But, lets see what they have to say.


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?

How do I know it can be done? Because I'm capable of putting my hand down in a puddle of etching creme and laying it on a car hood, and then adding another finger length to the handpint with my fingers. Thats how. There's no assertion nor lie, just factual statements that it can be done to the degree seen in the currently available photos. You want so badly to catch me in something, you'll again go to any length...but when youre not trying to pull something over, you have nothing to worry about. I'm gonna sleep good tonight.


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?


Show me the books where it's copyrighted before the date. You've yet to. Go talk to Ike so he can set ya straight on that. My area is imaging, and your falling way short in that dept. And if thats the case, why do I bother with reading drivel that Meier says he wrote so many years before an event. If one area is highly suspect if not totally untrue, why would any part of it be real. As I said, not my field...I do imaging, and with all the crap to wade through in that dept, I put little stock in predictions you talk about. There's only so much time in a day.

And as for our last little exchange:


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.?

I've answered to this failure of yours to understand a simple statement as much as I'm going to, go back up and re-read it till it sinks in. If you cannot grasp it, after it was put in black and white initially, then nagain here, youre hopeless. I DONT QUESTION MANY OF THE EXPERTS CREDENTIALS, BUT THE STATEMENTS PUT FORTH BY YOU. Including the shining example of "testing" us all to see if we can find you out on Mr. Post. That will be your constant excuse when I talk to some more people.


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.


Ya know folks this is what happens to you when youre so used to believing your own crap. Once you repeat something no matter how absurd enough times you actually believe it yourself...just like Mr. Horn. Youre as adept at misrepresenting my statements as Posts. Youre completely hopeless. One difference between me and Mr. Post is I wont allow you to spin my words to your liking. You lose again.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join