Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

page: 76
18
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


I'm not a "Meier believer". At most I'm a Meier "could be'er". And I still appreciate that reproductions of the photos and videos would need to be accurate both in using the same tech as was originally used and in achieving the same results. I haven't seen that successfully accomplished as yet. And I think it's reasonable to expect that, don't you?

Also, the heavy use of mockery and insults - made with near impunity it seems - doesn't do anything to strengthen the case against Meier, at least, not among reasonable open-minded people. Quite the opposite.




posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Does it truly escape your mind that the stars come because this HOAX has been debunked dozens of times and people who employ critical thought are exasperated from all the promotion of and attempts at keeping the money stream going?


The fact you use that Lear interview as support for your paranoia/religious like beliefs says it all.


Sheesh.

Springer...



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer


No it doesn't "escape my mind". I have considered that. But I have observed the phenomena in this and many other threads and I find the level of starring in some cases to be absolutely unfeasible, under normal circumstances. I came to that conclusion before I saw the Lear video. That's my opinion.

And what are you insulting me for? I'm not even a Meier supporter, so why try to tar me with the "religious" tag? I'm a supporter of free objective discussion and the right to hold our own opinions and require that "debunking" meet basic standards, not be based on poor research, or poorly done experiments, or on mob mentality and rank ridicule.

That seems pretty reasonable to me.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
I have observed the phenomena in this and many other threads and I find the level of starring in some cases to be absolutely unfeasible.

Please use the ATS Issues Thread to bring up this or similar concerns... but please be certain to provide some type of evidence for claims.




And what are you insulting me for?

You here, in this thread, insulted Springer, myself, the other ATS admin, and staff, by purporting to believe, and assist in spreading, the unsubstantiated claims, lies, and insults from John Lear.


For those keeping track, misteroldschool received a warning for his over-the-top categorizations of the Meier proponents in this thread. However, I now see his point, that the Meier case has evolved well past the evidence to those who support the fraud.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Malcram
 


Does it truly escape your mind that the stars come because this HOAX has been debunked dozens of times and people who employ critical thought are exasperated from all the promotion of and attempts at keeping the money stream going?


The fact you use that Lear interview as support for your paranoia/religious like beliefs says it all.


Sheesh.

Springer...


I keep seeing this statement postulated by the skeptics as if there is some conclusive proof that Meier's case is a hoax, and I have not yet seen any.
Where is this proof? I have read the entire thread, and some other threads, and still have not seen this much stated proof.

All I have seen so far is that the Dinosaur, Asket and Nera pictures are most likely fake and so far neither I, or the other Meier supporters, or even Michael Horn and John Lear for that matter have refuted that. We accept the possibility that the evidence has been contamined, but this does not mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater. There still is a huge mass of evidence that has not been explained, and until that is not forthcoming, we are not going to accept that Meier is a hoax.

I will mention the two major argumments again which need to be disproven

1) Irreproducibility of Meier's photgraphs and videos using small models and strings, or in the case of the sound and metal evidence, using 70's technology.

2) A 5+ year long independent investigation into Meier's case, consulting the best experts/scientists in the world and using state of the art equipment at the time, producing hundreds of pages of scientific reports which show that Meier's case is valid:

- The UFO's really are 20-30 feet in size
- There are no strings, wires or supports
- The UFO's really are at an extreme distance from the camera and a great altitude above it
- The UFO does indeed show evidence of putting out an artificial field and riding the earth's magnetic field as Meier attests
- The sound sample is indeed beyond the technology of the time
- The metal sample has indeed been fabricated with technology beyond the technology of the time.

These are our strongest arguments and until they are not debunked satisfactorily we will continue to maintain these arguments. To actually state positively that Meier is a hoax without actually proving it, cannot be considered valid by any rational and objective person.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Will someone please throw this thread in the garbage for the love of god!!!

Are you people honestly still talking about this? You want proof? Have you seen the ray gun? He lost all credibility with me making that toy monstrosity. ITS A TOY!!!! That alone should be proof enough!!!!!!!! I bear my tin foil hat whenever I can but honestly how can any self respecting UFO enthusiast beleive this crap? Not to mention the man states that he is the only one that has ever had contact.... WTF is that? Any abductees here? Anyone ever have contact before?? My point exactly... Anyone here seen him fire the ray gun? Anyone? No? Then why you still talking.... Sheesh... I never say this but where is Phage when you need him....

[edit on 22-4-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

For those keeping track, misteroldschool received a warning for his over-the-top categorizations of the Meier proponents in this thread.


Such as in this post - which has not been deleted - which contributes nothing but insults and name calling and has somehow garnered a quite astonishing 40 plus stars in an unbelievably short time, something that usually takes the very best OPs of the very best threads quite a bit longer to achieve. Yet there are very few actual posts in support of it.


But I agree, any more I have to say in response I'll post in the Issues thread.

The main thing I want is fair play and the right to discuss Meier without having to automatically accept it's a hoax and been successfully debunked. I don't accept that has been achieved yet, and so I remain open-minded on that case. I want to make up my own mind.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
And I still appreciate that reproductions of the photos and videos would need to be accurate both in using the same tech as was originally used and in achieving the same results. I haven't seen that successfully accomplished as yet. And I think it's reasonable to expect that, don't you?


No I do not think it's reasonable. Quite the opposite. Because as I said it will never cease, once someone goes there a little bit, it will keep going and going...there's no end, because certain people WANT to believe, for whatever reason.

Forced perspective has been around for many many MANY years, and has nothing to do with the "technology of the time", we've seen it time and time again. Christmas ornaments, pie tins, trashcan lids, gold foil wrapping paper and funny little home made toy foil covered rayguns so not need to be bound by a "tech time line" of any sort.

Sorry, there's no modern magic at work, it's the same thing, a model in forced perspective, either mounted or hanging from a really light lb/ test of monofilament.

What's seems unreasonable to me is that people still can look at this case and think that any tiny part of it could even possibly be real. Maybe Ole Billy didn't set out to become rich or famous, heck maybe he's just a lonely farmer who needed some attention or wanted something different out of life, I dunno. Perhaps he though he would take some photos and tell some feel good stories and that would be the end of it, but as it grew he got deeper and deeper that he had to keep the lie going and twist it (trash can lid excuse, anyone?) as much as he could.

No matter, in the end it's still a slap in the face to serious Ufology, and makes those of us that take it serious look like loons, along the same lines as Blossom (this time they're really coming) Goodchild, Bob (where's my degree) Lazar, John (you can breathe on the moon) Lear, etc, etc, etc...

As Obi-Wan would say "These aren't the UFO's you're looking for. "



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


The ray-gun photo is not proof that it is a toy. That is based on your interpretation only, and my interpretation differs from yours. Similarily, different people will have different interpretations. So this establishes that we cannot find any proof based on interpretation and thus this is not a valid argument.

A valid argument would be if you could actually locate the actual gun in the picture and prove that it was available to Meier during the time the photograph was taken. The independent investigation team in the 70's did not find any such gun in any store, any toy supplier in all of Switzerland.

I analysed the gun in my previous thread and illustrated its many unique design features that are not to be found in terrestrial guns designs during that time. Also do not ignore supporting evidence

1) The gold-metallic suit is similar to industrial-based gold-foil used for spacecrafts and satellites. It turns out a gold-foil like suit is the best insulation against space radiation and heat from onboard electronics in a spacecraft(consistent with the space-suit explanation)

2) The oval shaped hole through the tree Meier used the gun on, which was parched and smoothe as glass according to the investigators who examined the tree. They also found everything within the line of fire of the gun from where Meier claimed to shot his weapon was parched, and twigs were broken in between as if a ray had passed through them.(consistent with the ray-gun explanation)

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Then answer this. Did he ever fire it in public? You think an advanced race of alien beings would use foil on an interstellar craft?????????? WHAT!!!!!! One spec of sand hitting that craft would destroy it....

The Tin foil hats are off now!!


[edit on 22-4-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

What's seems unreasonable to me is that people still can look at this case and think that any tiny part of it could even possibly be real.


Well such people do exist, I'd like to hear what they have to say and make up my own mind free from getting caught in the crossfire of ridicule and sneering, getting labeled "religious" etc, just because I'm open to listening.



No matter, in the end it's still a slap in the face to serious Ufology, and makes those of us that take it serious look like loons


I understand that perspective, I really do. But unfortunately, that's the same reason why many scientists will not entertain looking into the ETH or UFO's at all. You look down on those who consider Meier might be legit, others look down on you for considering ET/UFO's at all. You don't appreciate it being looked down on, I'm sure, neither do those whom you ridicule. Why can't we all just get along? LOL. In any case, if the evidence against Meier is so strong, there should be no fear of open discussion about it without, ridicule, censorship and deletion of threads etc. Responses like this just make the case against Meier look weaker.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Here's some more facts:

In spite of all the efforts and the fact this thread has hung around the top (latest) of the largest Aliens/UFO forum on the internet only 71 people have bothered to actually look at it over the past THREE DAYS. Based on the star counts of the posts that attempt to address the truth of this HOAX, the VAST majority have done the research, seen the phony pictures along side their real counterparts (the dinosaur for one) and have shared their opinion about the falseness of this HOAX with stars.

I will also point out that Indigo child is getting very close to violating the "Posting by Proxy" clause in our TAC. He is aping the very same ridiculous arguments M. Horn attempted to use here each and every time he was banned. We don't tolerate the posting of banned people's words by others here.

I am very close to simply shutting this and every other Meier HOAX thread down and banning the whole ridiculous topic. It's a pointless waste of time and energy.

The continuous and ludicrous demand for duplication will no longer be tolerated. It is as failed an argument as has ever been tossed out in desperation. The fact is, to those who have even a basic understanding of photography, they have been duplicated and completely debunked. If you are incapable of understanding that, well, that is your business but we are tired of reading it. I invite you to go start a BIG Billy Meier website and debunk the debunkers all you want.

NOBODY wants to go through the time and effort to exactly reproduce FAKE UFO pictures, there is no value in it. Simply to satisfy those who lack the critical thinking ability to be able to review the FACTS of the case is not motivation enough.

It's no different an argument than to say that because mr.old.school. can't do brain surgery, brain surgery can't be done (I could be wrong he may be a brain surgeon, I abuse his name for example only).

The REALITY is that mr.old.school. apparently doesn't want to devote the time and resources needed to learn how to perform brain surgery, so he declines, but rest assured, brain surgery is certainly done on a daily basis.


The parroting of banned people's arguments that only attempt to serve to promote a known HOAX ends today, right now.

Springer...




[edit on 4-22-2009 by Springer]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


You misunderstood. The gold-foil like suit is not for the space craft itself, but it is a fabric they use for their spacesuit. I showed some research in the deleted thread that even we are considering gold-foil spacesuits for the future because gold has been found to the best protection against solar radiation and heat.

The actual substance they use for the spacecraft itself is the metallic alloy they gave a specimen of to Meier. It is able to withstand very high temperatures and collisions from space debris.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Yep. Just like I said. This is the way it always ends. It's just a waste of time and effort that accomplishes absolutely nothing. It would be nice if there was something new to say about it. But there never is.

Oh, well.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
Yep. Just like I said. This is the way it always ends. It's just a waste of time and effort that accomplishes absolutely nothing. It would be nice if there was something new to say about it. But there never is.

Oh, well.


Actually there was something new in the last thread, but you'll never read it because it's been deleted. IIG were shown to have dismissed evidence without even having bothered to examine it, and Derek of IIG admitted as much, immediately before the thread was erased. But I agree, it seems that Meier threads and anyone who isn't willing to accept it must all be a hoax receive intense ridicule and opposition and this heat is used to justify terminating the discussion.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 



The parroting of banned people's arguments that only attempt to serve to promote a known HOAX ends today, right now.


I am not sure I understand the reasoning here. Michael Horn used certain arguments to support the Meier case, and I am using similar arguments, therefore I am "posting by proxy"? The reason the arguments are similar is because they arguing from the same evidence supporting Meier's case, and not because I am in cohoots with Michael Horn.

If we go by that reasoning then it means everybody who is using similar arguments against Meier is in cohoots with one another, Karl Koff, IIG and everybody else that has used similar arguments.

There can be no ownership of an argument. An argument is just a rational perspective on something. The ontological argument for the existence of god in Philosophy for example has been argued by Indian Philosophers, St Anslem(Islamic philosophers) Descartes and recently in modal logic, are they all aping each other?

P.S. I agree you should ban all Meier-related discussion on this board. It is clear that any Meier support is not allowed here, so why continue this farce? What is the point of this thread if free-discussion is not allowed?

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Agreed. I wish there was a way to have an intelligent discussion on this case, but it always results in personal attacks without objective thought. Truly mind boggling, considering we're all after the same thing: The truth.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
A valid argument would be if you could actually locate the actual gun in the picture and prove that it was available to Meier during the time the photograph was taken. The independent investigation team in the 70's did not find any such gun in any store, any toy supplier in all of Switzerland.



That's not a valid argument, that's a ridiculous and impossible argument. Noone could EVER prove that it even if they magically found the gun that it was available to Meier on the date the photo was taken, this is beyond all reasoning, period, and only proves my earlier point about the time machine. Since they only looked in toy stores when it's obvious this was some home-made hack job only proves how crooked an "investigation" is was.

Out of curiosity, did they happen to search wig shops in "all of Switzerland" for a matching style like the "Alien" is wearing? Also, are there any pictures of the "Alien" with both arms in the same shot? Or ever the left at all? Isn't that the arm that Billy is missing? Just curious.




1) The gold-metallic suit is similar to industrial-based gold-foil used for spacecrafts and satellites. It turns out a gold-foil like suit is the best insulation against space radiation and heat from onboard electronics in a spacecraft(consistent with the space-suit explanation)


Here, I got a present for you :



Simple crinkle some up real good, tape it to your shirt, and your silly home made "raygun" and voila :



There, mystery solved!



2) The oval shaped hole through the tree Meier used the gun on, which was parched and smoothe as glass according to the investigators who examined the tree. They also found everything within the line of fire of the gun from where Meier claimed to shot his weapon was parched, and twigs were broken in between as if a ray had passed through them.(consistent with the ray-gun explanation)


Where Meier "claimed" to have shot... mmmhmm... funny how the same standard of proof does not apply when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


The photo you posted is rather bad quality and because of the sunlight it hard to see/make out. There is a better one indoors which looks slightly better and the closest similarity I can find is industrial gold-foil in the space and telecommunications industry. In any case, as said earlier, it is just your interpretation that the gold-foil suit is gold wrapping paper. I do not share that interpretation. So nothing can be proven by any of these interpretations either way.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Ok I think this one is going to do it. Indigo_Child.. Tell me... What is the ignition temperature of wood?






top topics



 
18
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join