[HOAX]Michael Horns Billy Meier photos[HOAX] from C2C tonight

reply to post by Bspiracy

He has unequivocally never called himself that. A messenger but not a prophet.

Well, the prophet himself seems to differ.....

taken from raphael-labro.org...

Billy: I was born in 1937 and similar to Jmmanuel (Christ), in a stable 2000 years ago, I too started life in a farm environment as the son of a Swiss farmer from the hinterland of Zurich in Bülach. Not far away from Hinterschmidrüti, actually only 24 kms. I’m the reincarnation of Ezekiel. I was born a prophet. At five years old, extraterrestrials started to communicate with me.

TRASH CAN LID: it is NOT a match.

Yes, it is a perfect match.


more detailed information can be found here

And here are your answers:

"-videoA: Billy stands in front of the camera, walks behind and zooms across a field to the wedding cake ship":

You need to pay a bit more attention "he is not standing," he is on his knees first then gets up to walk back, this helps create the false perspective view of the model stuck on the tree.

"-videoB: 4 ships at once"
www.forteantimes.com... how it was done.

"-VideoB_2: One ship on two places on one frame of film."

Actually that is an effect in the film which proved that it was a model, I think Dereck already explained this.


"-Testimony I linked in my previous post and the credibility of the witness and description of her life experiences."

How valid can a testimony be of someone who remembers something that occurred decades ago when they were 9 years old? Take a look at this and tell me what is so amazing about it.


"A while later the same thing happened, but this time she would come and pat my head; she would sit at the edge of my bed, put my head on her lap, and, I could say, sing me to sleep, but she didn't sing. She didn't use -- there were no words, it wasn't a tone even, it's not a humming. There was some high pitched tone that was so beautiful to my ear that I would right away fall asleep."

Her neigbor perhaps? Oh please!

Sorry there is nothing special about that testimony, frankly, by looking at her body language in the video, she looks like someone who is trying to force a story that she doesn't remember accurately.

To a child someone can create a huge impact on their lives (especially if they are half asleep). Here is an example:

This is what she said about Billy.

"I remember when I was nine years old when I first noticed him, out of all the people he had these strange eyes that were so penetrating when he looked at you or when he looked at me, that it goes right to your inner core."

When she was 9 it seems that everyone she met was special.

I hope that helps!

reply to post by Phil J. Fry

Doh - never saw the words prophet come out of his mouth. I guess I have to eat it there..

Trash can: I'm looking at the pic that is a side by side and it isn't a match. I see more ridges on the trash can than I do the ship... The finish isn't close to the same either. I'm sure we're looking at the same thing so how can we be disagreeing on this point?
It is close though for sure but still not a duplicate.

I'm reading the links in response too the second post and wil get to that soon

-----------
MANNYP4:

Video A
Kneeling or Standing, there is no false impression of the distance zoomed. The ground elements are real, the tree is real and even if he was laying down it still wouldn't make the distance zoomed not the distance zoomed.

videoB: 4 ships at once: Those images are how the Jeff R images look. Yes they are close but there is not the same atmospheric continuity in the emulated pics compared to Billy's. A very nice try though.

One ship t copies 1 frame:
I'll have to find what you are referring to. I don't see how that could prove a model. If every frame has an image but one frame has two.. I guess if there's a technical reason I need to see it.

The testimony rebuttal:
She describes more of what was in her life than how you paraphrased it. She isn't relating just one or two experiences, she related a "period" within her life. More than just a day or two. The experience she had lasted for quiet a while. She doesn't exhibit any traits with her movements that indicate lying or forcing. She nervous..

b


[edit on 29-1-2008 by Bspiracy]

Bspiracy,

Please tell us something about your qualifications as a visual effects/videography/photography/modeling expert, in order for everyone to know what you base your opinions on.

dB

[edit on 29-1-2008 by davidbiedny]

reply to post by Bspiracy


Well, ok, just for the fun of it, let's take a closer look at the garbage can lid.



There are 4 "rings", which is the same amount as on the "beamship". Actually these are not garbage cans, but industrial barrels (pe-deckelfaesser in german), usually used to store the food for the livestock and very common here in germany and in the swiss. The bottom ring has exactly the same size on both pictures and the handles are at the same position and have the same form. Sure, all barrel makers here could have stolen the design from the pleiades, but i guess, that would be a bit unlikely


And come on, do you really believe, that

is a raygun ?

The guy is a clown.

Since I'm not going to talk about this anymore, lets us let the real drum lid do the talking:




Note the lines, where the hand pull is located, and the retainer ring covering the lip.

Same. Identical. Done.

Originally posted by jritzmann
Since I'm not going to talk about this anymore, lets us let the real drum lid do the talking:

With all due respect, Jeff, your last post was 15 posts ago. No one on this thread has yet shown indisputable proof. The trash can lid in question originated in Canada from A Figu Forum poster. Not from Billy Meier's farm. Billy's wife is on record as verifying Billy's claims. I do agree, the trash can lid does look similiar, but until a recreation can be made this case is still open. Hastily created photo reproductions will not suffice.

More insults have been hurled out by "skeptics" here than anyone who is interested in a true investigation. Thats fine. It just hurts your credibility to been known as an un-biased investigator.

Ive seen an analyzed the Hi-Res reproductions. Bottom line: The skeptics here, unfortunately, have not been able to successfully reproduce the craft and photos. This has nothing to do with belief/non-belief in the story.





[edit on 29-1-2008 by AGENT51]

Originally posted by AGENT51

Ive seen an analyzed the Hi-Res reproductions.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by AGENT51]

Agent51,

Please tell us something about your qualifications as a visual effects/videography/photography/modeling expert, in order for everyone to know what you base your opinions on.

dB

reply to post by davidbiedny


It's not an opinion. It just a fact. The photos haven't been able to be reproduced to the standards required for validation. I respect the work and effort put into the reproductions, but it doesn't meet certain requirements (see earlier post and photo comparisons). To answer your question about my qualifications: I work with model makers and miniature set-designers at a studio in Carson, CA. We've done work for Spider Man 3 as well X-Men and Lord of the Rings to name a few. I learned how to take photos and develop film from my grandfather, Sammy Costello, who was a photographer for the Chicago Sun before he died. As well, I have a B.A. from the Art Institute, San Diego, CA in graphic arts and have been using photoshop and Illustrator daily for the past 12 years.


[edit on 29-1-2008 by AGENT51]

Faking it or not.

Bill's stuff looks true blue blur...why can't others come close.

Very consistent with past UFOs and the present day blue blurs.

Now if one could perfect the blue blur then fakers might have a chance
but the large ion thruster is evident as only a dark dot on one saucer.

Sure Billy faked true phenomena he knows nothing about or how
to show it. I'm going to make one just a dot, then people will know
its fake.

Real as any today... which we deny of course, wink wink.
Denial of the Tesla saucer design is an INSIDE JOB.
So far the score on breaking INSIDE JOBs is zero broken more to come.

ED: Well Agent51 if you do studio work then we would not want you
faking a real thing would we. Duplicate one million volts ac and see
what you get, studios don't have enough money?



[edit on 1/29/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

reply to post by AGENT51

The trash can lid in question originated in Canada from A Figu Forum poster. Not from Billy Meier's farm

Fine, let's play.

The person holding the lid is Philip McAiney, the date of the photo is somewhere between 1998-1999, right ?
Well, coincidentally this Philip McAiney was a guest of Eduard Billy Meier between 1998-1999 as can be seen here
(just scroll down to 1998)

And now that this is clear, please start with timetravelling Meiers dinosaur pics, please. I'll even show you at least one of them - look :



Your turn.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by Phil J. Fry]

AGENT51,

On the topic of models, tell us, do you find this photograph to be of a genuine, large-size set of objects, or models?



If you think they're full-size objects, please give us your professional opinion about the reflections and depth of field issues.

dB

[edit on 29-1-2008 by davidbiedny]

reply to post by AGENT51

Doesnt matter where it originated from. It was available during that time, widely, and matches the "WC ship" to perfection. That cannot be argued, unless one simply doesn't want to see it.

You continue to argue the point that the photos have not been duplicated, and they have, not just by me, but others.

Supporters want a replica, not photos. I'm interested in how it was done, not making replicas. Finding all the found items to put together a WC replica would take a long time to do, considering the timeline, and where the photos originated.

And, it's not the point. The point is, the consistency of the replicated effect and image.

Over at a Meier message board, my replicated photos were confused for Meier's, with members asking when the photos were taken as they had not seen them before. Their moderator had to tell them they were mine.

If you choose to ignore this, then really no one, and no amount of anything is going to satisfy you.

Thats ok. Believe whatever you want as thats totally your prerogative. But, I don't like my intelligence being insulted, and many others don't either.

Part of the reason I get so aggravated and nasty about all this is the refusal of people to accept the obvious, and give in to the desire for it to be true. The other is the constant barrage of insults, which I can guarantee you I never started until it was heaped on me. I'm usually pretty composed until I'm insulted or worse. The gloves come off at that point.

I'm human.

Regardless, more then enough has been shown and documented to have people decide. Like I've said before, if this were applied to any other case, we'd all have long dismissed it. The reason this case comes back is not due to amazing evidence, but it's promoters and wild claims.

I've no doubt this case will live for years to come, because there's always going to be those who refuse to acknowledge contrary data, and *want* to believe, more then they actually *want* to know.

I'm more then satisfied that David and I have done our part, and now we've moved on from any further digging into this "case".

reply to post by johnlear


But I thought they'd actually discovered the models he used for the pics and videos in his garage or some such?

J.

reply to post by mazzroth


Couldn't have said it better.

What is up with those that still believe this guy?

I mean he took a photo from a TV screen of an actress and claimed it to be an authentic picture of an alien woman. He said he went back in time, met Jesus and dinosaurs. His UFO's have been proven to be container lids.

Come on.

I guess nonstop fakery is a lucrative profession because he keep going...and going...and going...

Yes, McAiney was a resident. Yes, There is no denying a strong resemblence.

"....Where the resemblance ends, however, is that there is comprehensive structure on the craft's underside, obviously not present on the garbage-can lid. There is an outer circumferential ridge around the top of the garbage-can lid where the visitor's right thumb and forefinger straddle the ridge), not present atop the wedding-cake craft. There's also a flange around the bottom base of the craft, not present on the garbage-can lid. A skeptic must assume that someone somehow snugly attached a flange to the base of the plastic lid, somehow smoothly filled in and leveled the top of the lid, before adding arrays of complicated adornments on top, and then also assume that all the camera depth-of-field considerations can be ignored. These are unreasonable assumptions in view of either the great difficulty for any hoaxer to achieve the result seen (apparently no one has tried to duplicate this craft in the form of a model), or the several points of undeniable reality brought out by the daytime photos and videotape of the wedding-cake craft we have already viewed. In addition, the garbage-can lids are made of black plastic whereas the wedding-cake craft were a reflective silvery color in Meier's daytime photos and a reflective golden color at night. Thus, the garbage-can lid hypothesis fails to fit the data on far too many important points."

Bottom line: Recreate the craft and then you've got an argument.

Originally posted by AGENT51
Bottom line: The skeptics here, unfortunately, have not been able to successfully reproduce the craft and photos.

This is what always confuses me about the Meier case.

With regard to dozens of faked photos that surfaced with the O'Hare UFO sighting, no one needed to "reproduce" the images for a unanimous conclusion of hoaxes and fakes.

With regard to the Haiti UFO videos, no one needed to reproduce the scene in order for a unanimous decision that it was a fabrication.

And with regard to the lights over lake Erie, ATS members didn't need to recreate that for nearly all participants to believe the video wasn't showing extraordinary unknown objects.


My question is... why is the Meier case special in this regard? Why are those who believe the Meier material to be valid insisting that those who do not come up with absolute recreations of the photos in question?


[edit on 29-1-2008 by SkepticOverlord]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Overlord-
To me, it's a failsafe tactic. No one is going to actually take the time to make a replica, and if they did, no replica would be sufficient anyway. So, it's a stall tactic, as well as the likely hood that no one cares enough to take the time to prove it to them.

And, in my opinion, they know this.

Every point made during simple duplication will be ignored, as it has been here by supporters. They cannot define why exactly the duplicated ones aren't correct to their eyes (or don't exist, as has been said here, even after being posted here), other then it's not a replica...as if the ship had anything to do with the end result.

Agent51 claims to work in a model shop or be familiar with that area at least, so for him to say there's other things on the ship that aren't there on the lid...well of course. It's an assembled piece, which he should well know in his claimed profession. No one is saying Meier just shot the lid...much was added to it (obviously).

We've identified a lot of other pieces, which I've posted before. Within scale, these items match the scale and ratio of the "ship" within the idea of it being a assembled model.

So...why am I going to build a replica again?

And, whats the point in wasting time trying to convince the devout. The idea is seductive to try (hell, I did), but it's futile.

Therein lies the logical fallacies with the Meier supporters we're all familiar with. They'll run you around in circles saying how open to other possibilities they are...but it's a ploy. A safeguard.

And round it goes.


[edit on 29-1-2008 by jritzmann]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by AGENT51
Bottom line: The skeptics here, unfortunately, have not been able to successfully reproduce the craft and photos.

This is what always confuses me about the Meier case.

My question is... why is the Meier case special in this regard? Why are those who believe the Meier material to be valid insisting that those who do not come up with absolute recreations of the photos in question?


[edit on 29-1-2008 by SkepticOverlord]

Great question. If the models being made in question are so easily fabricated, Why would it be so hard to duplicate them? Also a recreation of the Haiti UFO video is not comparable as it was made in a 3-D program and not in 3-D reality. Meier's "models" were made long before that technology existed. I'm not saying I subscribe to the Meier story, but the debunkers just havent done a good job, that all I'm saying.

Originally posted by AGENT51
If the models being made in question are so easily fabricated, Why would it be so hard to duplicate them?

Why isn't a reasonable photo analysis and evidence of the materials used enough? Such analysis has been accepted and used to discredit a long list of hoaxes.