It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Billy Meier HOAX Documentary - Very odd UFO Footage/ Can it be debunked?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:30 PM
I never know whether to jump into a Billy Meier thread or not. What usually happens is they go round and round until people start insulting each other, with few if any people enlightened in either direction, or changing their opinions.

And at the end of the day, what do we really have? Not much, if anything. Just the same old stuff, endlessly rehashed. Yay.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:50 PM

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Malcram

you may notice that statement was in quotation marks. That means someone else said it. Read the OP.

Deny Ignorance!



Yes, the OP said he "believed" that Meier had "faked some things", but you actually said it was "proven" that he had "faked some things", calling Meier "a fraud". Which is why I asked you to prove it was "proven". I'm aware of accusations against Meier - aren't there always? - and everyone is entitled to their opinions, but "proof" that he faked things is something else entirely. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just asking you to back up your statement.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Malcram]

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Malcram


Yes, the OP said he "believed" that Meier had "faked some things", but you actually said it was "proven" that he had "faked some things", calling Meier "a fraud". Which is why I asked you to prove it was "proven". I'm aware of accusations against Meier - aren't there always? - and everyone is entitled to their opinions, but "proof" that he faked things is something else entirely. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just asking you to back up your statement.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Malcram]

Heres one for you.

Now if he emphatically claims its a photo of a dino, that afterwards has been proven to be a fake, then he has faked material. Now if he said this is a recreation of what i saw in the past then why fake a photo to create an example rather than just saying it looked closest to this and then show a picture from a book?.

If a person lies occasionally that doesnt mean everything they say is a lie, but you can question their validity and character...

However if some one (like Miers) has extravagant claims and is proven to have lied about and faked evidence of some of these amazing claims (even just adamantly claiming 1 fake as real is enough irregardless of weather latter they claim its a recreation of a 'true' previous event) then any other amazing claim they also put forward or have put forward previously suddenly becomes VERY VERY suspect.

Someone with genuine experiences wouldnt create a fake and then claim the fake proof as real evidence for their experience since to do so would risk their credibility, most people understand this. Either Meirs is a fake or hes a genuine contact who was really really stupid and started faking stuff and inventing claims based on a single or a few minor UFO sightings he had.

Either way both dont help his credibility much at all.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:11 PM

Originally posted by BigfootNZ

Hi. I'm not sure I agree that someone who had a genuine experience hypothetically might not also fake certain elements of evidence. I can think of several reasons why they might do so. It damages their credibility if this is proven to be the case, but it doesn't mean their other evidence is not worth bothering to examine and should all be dismissed out of hand,
which appears to be the attitude of some.

Thanks for the link, it's interesting, but I'll need to look into it more to determine if it's "proof". What I mean is: is this actually a Meier photo? Do we have evidence he used it or presented it as evidence? The article is rather vague on this issue. Clearly the photo is based on the drawing. However, to me, it's not a direct photograph of the drawing. There are differences, as if it was a photo of a drawn copy of the drawing, if you see what I mean? I know many people would have liked to discredit Meier, and so, introducing fake "Meier" photographs which could later be exposed in order to discredit him would be an obvious tactic. So we need to link the photo directly to Meier. I'll keep looking. I have no problem at all with Meier being proven to be a hoaxer. I just want "proof" of this to actually be proof, rather than simply accusation and assumption.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Malcram]

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:22 PM
Billy Meier claims that other alien races, like the greys, are disinformation and hoaxes. Then what about the Barney and Betty Hill case?
Who is lying? If not both?

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:33 PM
reply to post by noroman

Hi. Why should anyone be lying? Why does holding conflicting opinions or experiences mean someone is necessarily lying? If Meier had no experience of the grays and his ET's (if they were real) didn't talk about them (for whatever reason) then that might explain his conclusion. One of them is wrong, certainly, but it doesn't mean anyone is necessarily lying.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Malcram]

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:46 PM
reply to post by Malcram

Have you read any books from Billy M? He states that the pleidanes told him that the grey alien race is disinformation and hoaxes...Sounds pretty straight forward for me.
Anyway, just a critical view from me on good old Billy...I think he is a nutcase, but then again, thats just my opinion...

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:52 PM
reply to post by noroman

Yes, but if we say the Pleideans are right, then we are necessarily saying they exist LOL. And if we say Betty and Barny are right, then we are saying Greys exist. Either way, some ETs would exist. If Meier just repeated what he was told by the Pleideans and it turned out they weren't telling the truth it's not Billy that lied, nor did Betty and Barny. My point is that this doesn't have to involve either party you mentioned being "liars".

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Malcram]

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:37 PM
reply to post by BigfootNZ

Thank you for posting that Bigfoot. I am afraid IIG's investigation is a prime example of what is called pseudoskepticism. They were challenged by Michael Horn to submit their duplications of Meier's evidence for scientific scrutiny, just as Meiers material was, but they refused to. It will now become very apparent why they refused to as I systematically debunk their claims.

The Dinosaur picture

The claimed original and alleged sourcel:

IIG claims that Meier faked this image because they resemble one another, but if one looks closely one will find:

1) The original lacks any of the texturing and the detail in the alleged source
2) The background and the strokes visible in the alleged source are not visible in the original
3) The limbs of the alleged dinosaur are very thin on the original, but not in the alleged source.

IIG claims this because of the low quality and resolution of Meiers camera. In which case why hasn't it demonstrated that it can using a similar low quality and resolution replicate Meiers picture exactly? Until that is not forthcoming this cannot be accepted as proof.

I do personally believe though that it possible that this a hoaxed image and taken from the alleged source, but possibly taken to support his dinosaur trip.

Asket and Nara pictures


Alleged source of original:

There is something fishy going on here with the IIG's representation. The first image is from the 1983 book. Then there is a reprint of this image in a different book in 1991, in which another image appears which was not in the former.

It says in the end:

I asked one of the original investigators, Lee Elders, about the publication of UFO…Contact From The Pleiades Volume II. Here is what he had to say:

"[Billy] supplied the material that was analyzed. I have letters from him stating that he was thrilled with the presentation. We gave him a couple hundred books at his request. I still have the letters saying he and the Pleiadians were happy the book had been done. In fact, the publication was mentioned in the original contact notes."

So, for at least 18 years, from 1983 to 2001, these photographs of "Asket" and "Nera" were promoted and published, multiple times, as being his Plejaran extra-terrestrial contacts, but then in 2001 these same photos were now described as "malicious hoaxes" and the only thing that changed was that the apparently original source material, The Dean Martin Variety Show, was released on home video.

Did you spot the misrepresentation? Lee elders was talkng about his book published in 1983, which Meier and his Pleaidians verified, in which the second photograph which IIG has deconstructed was not in it. Lee elders said nothing to verify the 1991 book, which was by another author. Thus IIG have misrepresented his quote.

I still think it is possibly that Meier did not take a picture of Asket, and this photo was hoaxed to support his contacts. It seems odd that the Pleaidians do not allow themselves to be photographed at other times, and then would allow Meier to have a face-shot of Asket.

UFO Photo duplication

IIG accepted Michael Horn's challenge to duplicate Meier photos using models but refused to submit them for scientific testing. It will become clear why after we compare Meiers best pictures and IIG's side by side:







More Meier:

Also see these side by side:

It does not take a photo expert to see that the IIG fail on all technical counts: In their replicas it is obvious the UFO is a small model suspended above the groumd by 6-7 feet pole close to the camera. At others the model is right in front of the camera suspended by a fishing pole. A very basic test of this photo by calculating focal points and distances of these objects will expose them in an instant. These are the kind of tests Meiers photos had to undergo and on a far more vigorous level.

In Meiers photo you can clearly see these UFO's are suspended very high in the air and would require huge cranes to put them there(Somehow I think if Meier had a portable crane it would be noticed
) His UFO's are rather large and are a significant distance away from the camera so as to make a possible pole or a crane visible in the camera frame. If subjected to a test calculating focal points and distances etc the size of the UFO would be shown to be significantly large(ruling our small models)

There has been no attempt by IIG to duplicate his videos, but there are some pseudoskeptics who have tried. Let us compare

Here a Meiers original video

The deph perception is very clear and to give us perspective somebody even walks underneath. It is obviously not a small object dangled in front of a camera. If I can see replications of this footage then I will believe it could be a hoax, until then the skeptics need to work VERY hard to reproduce this stuff. It would seem if professional organizations like IIG are failing miserably, then this strongly supports the validity of these actually being genuine beamships who are in contact with Meier.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by Indigo_Child

thank you Indigo! Why cant we argue the footage?? I knew i shouldnt have started this thread, just for the mere bashing it would cause. I tried.
So cant we honestly bring your reasons why you think its fake, due to videography reasons, not what they believe of the person? Credibility is an issue, i know, but thats why i asked not to have a character critique, if possible. You can argues peoples tales and truths, but we have EVIDENCE here that should be analyzed and so far nothing can be debunked by anyone here. Im not trying to disrespect anyone, but lets try for the sake of what the truth could mean in this field.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:22 AM
EBM's stuff is real. We've been through the debate here year after year. But I, and Stevens' know EBM's contacts, photos and videos are the real deal folks. "Ray Gun" and all.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:50 AM
In case anybody was confused I've corrected the previous post. I had repeated the Asket and Nara picture twice in the links. Now when you click on the first one you see the original Asket picture published in 1983.

Just a remark on these pics. I have reason to suspect that Meier is no longer in control of his own case and that his organization maybe fabricating new material(contacts, articles, photos) in his name. Randolph Winters revealed this in a public talk(available on youtube)

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:49 AM
the raygun debunking thread:
ats discussion

search the site for billy meier and/or michael horn, you'll be reading for weeks

and with that, I'm leaving you with illustrations from books, catalogue models, Dean Martin actresses, toy guns, broken tack spaceships and whatever other silliness the meier case brings.

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:24 AM
reply to post by Indigo_Child

another great post I/C - I'm with you. Plenty of professional debunkers have come after him, hoping to make a name for themselves - I don't know of any who didn't go away with their tail between their legs. Some of them, having scrutinised all the evidence, ended up becoming his strongest supporters.

And let's not forget - this whole case is not just down to one person's word. There's a whole group of people who have witnessed sightings first hand, often 5 or 6 present at a time.. but all the material is out there, for each person to examine & interpret as they see fit

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:15 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:14 AM
wow great the thread is back open for discussion. i didnt put the "HOAX" in the title of the thread, but if we could get any discussions going again just on the UFO videos, that would be great. thanks everyone!!

posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Annee
I believe Billy's story - I believe he was contacted.

However - I don't believe Billy had actual physical proof. I believe he created "proof" to back up his real experiences.

This is similar to my feeling as well. Perhaps the first few photos were legit, but so much of it is clearly fake IMO.

When one looks at the evidence with no preformed conclusion it really does appear that the older photos are quite impressive and compelling, whereas the later photos (ie "wedding cake") are almost comically amateur and are in my opinion obviously fake.

That really makes no sense - if someone has already demonstrated that they're capable of creating some very solid and compelling fake photos, why would they then proceed to create second-rate fake photos that even a child could debunk?

To me, this implies that either:

1) All the photos are faked, and two different people were involved in the creation of these photos - a very skilled faker in the early photos and a bumbling amateur in the later photos. This doesn't make much sense.

2) The individual involved had a genuine experience early on and took some legitimate photos, and later decided to fake photos in order to hang on to the "fame" he had acquired (or some similar motivation).

The main "oddity" about this whole case is how widely varying the quality of the photos is. Some of them are extraordinarily compelling, among the best in the field, whereas others are so comically fake that they have served to discredit all the compelling photos.

(edit: just realized this is a dead thread. Sorry for the necro)
edit on 28-1-2013 by BrandonD because: oops

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in