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.

 

IIG's investigation of the Billy Meier HOAX

page: 12
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by easynow
 


As you previously stated, just saying something (and adding "Period") doesn't make it true.

There is, I'm afraid, much extraordinary evidence in the Meier case that resists debunking. Some of it can be explained away. Some of it can't, as this thread demonstrates.

But let me anticipate your intelligent, evidence laden and irrefutable counter to this post:

"No there isn't! Everyone knows that. Period!"



yep your right just saying something doesn't make it true

so that means Meier's claims cannot be taken as truth. period



Some of it can be explained away


it's been more than just "explained away"

selective logic on your part



But let me anticipate your intelligent, evidence laden and irrefutable counter to this post:


your 1st mistake was assuming you know what i believe about this case and what i do not.

2nd mistake is putting words in my mouth to justify your own reality


3rd mistake is you have provide Zero contributions to either side of the discussion other than your opinion.....you got anything to add or are you just here for obfustication purposes......


if not i see no reason to even acknowledge your posts any longer


have a nice day













[edit on 18-4-2009 by easynow]




posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Easynow,

You initially presented his wife testimony as proof that is Meier is a hoax. I am glad common sense has prevailed and you realise it is not proof - but evidence that Meier could be a hoax.

Anyway just as Meier’s wife’s testimony has to be considered, likewise Meirs testimony, the testimony of his children, the testimony of some 200 witnesses needs to be considered as well.

Now what is wrong with the testimony of his wife?

* She is a hostile witness(technical legal word) she has hostile feelings for Meier, she has in the past argued with him and even destroyed his photos in fits of rage.

* She has given counter-testimony in the past to other investigators.

So her testimony has no credibility.

Moreover, Karl Koff is a publically known liar and fraudster and who also has hostile feelings for Meier and has fabricated material to defame him.

So neither his own testimony or his investigation is credible.

If we considered testimonial evidence alone then the testimony FOR Meier far outweighs by a wide margin the testimony against Meier.


extraordinary f claims require extraordinary proof


I have debunked this fallacy in my thread, “Debunking Pseudoskepticism” It is what I call a null hypothesis fallacy. That is where one arbiters the limits of what is ordinary and what is extraordinary(possible and impossible) in the world and what constitutes evidence and what doesn’t. This same fallacy is being used in this thread by rejecting the vigorous scientific investigation of Meiers materials and the documentation it produced because it is outside of the null hypothesis.


The people who have masqueraded around as sceptics in this thread, and you have intimated the same, will not capitulate even if we produced infinite evidence to support our claims. This demonstrates that all these discussions so-called skeptics enter demanding proof/evidence are just farces. They have already closed their mind to the possibility of the ETH hypothesis. In this case the possibility that Meier is actually a genuine ET contactee.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


I'm completely open to the possibility that I may be wrong, in fact I am investigating something myself that I am not sure of but I can test using equipment and methods availible at the time.

Nobody is trying to ridicule you,
Here's some quotes from you...

you don't honestly think that's real do you ?

not only does it not look real..it looks like it was bought at K-Mart

it's so obvious that it's on a string..it's not even funny

you know ...Meier rhymes with Lier....

sorry but the results show that the wedding cake ufo is a complete fraud/fake. 100 % FAKE ..........stop denying it.

Thats hardly open minded.

Show me in any post that you have made that you even hint at the possibility that you may be wrong. I have only ever said that its possible or there is a likelyhood for these things to have occured they way they claim. In my argument with DerekCBart I pointed out a possibility that he may be wrong in his argument about someting he claimed about the wedding cake ship, he has so far refused to comment despite multiple requests. Possible means that its possible it may not be true also.



[edit on 18-4-2009 by Frankinmouse]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
It's hard to look at these images without feeling deeply suspicious...I guess a mechanical trigger mechanism on a 'ray gun' beats a button...




Anyone reminded of the old rock bands, Boston or Kiss?




These guys might be witnesses, but they also illustrate that a 'one armed man' can have assistants...






posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


your avoiding the question..

do you deny the possibility exists that the children have something to gain from all this ?

why not answer the question ?



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Good grief does anyone actually read the previous posts or just see the title of the thread and post their preconcieved notions???



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankinmouse
 


i have fallen to the side of the fence that believes the photos are nothing more than forced perspective using models of ufo's

it is just my belief and my beliefs do not prove anything.

however...

IIG has proven the wedding cake ufo is a fake. the parts have been identified and his wife admits it is a container lid.

that combined with other investigations my position will not change unless Meier shows some new evidence that proves his extrordinary claims are true .

don't assume i don't think there might be some truth to his story


why have you not answered my question


do you deny the possibility exists that the children have something to gain from all this ?



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Kandinsky,

There is nothing wrong with suspecting something is a hoax. I mentioned in my OP itself when I first saw these pictures I suspected it to be a toy and the woman was wearing gold-foil. I also went though the phase of rejecting the case just because of what I felt could not possibly have been an ET weapon and spacesuit. The original investigators of Meiers case also suspected the possibility.

However, just because something may seem possible, does not mean it is true. You have to follow up on your theories and see if you can turn possibility into fact.

The problem in this thread many people are just posting photographs that they find objectionable and unbelievable as proof and leave it at that. They do not stop to even consider that they could be wrong.

I have examined further beyond my aesthetic issues with the ray-gun and the spacesuit and have found that the possibility that they are genuine to likely to be true.

1. It turns out the gold-metallic looking suit is the ideal fabric to insulate against space radiation and solar heat and heat produced onboard electronics in a spacecraft

2. It turns out that that the ray-gun is a unique design and there is no such toy to be found.

3. It turns out that the tree that Meier tested the ray-gun on is parched around an oval shaped hole, which cannot be produced with a drill and the hole goes right through to the other side and is as smoothe as glass. It also turns out everything within the line of fire from the distance was parched as well and twigs were broken in between as if something had passed through them.

So it does indeed become very probable that this really is a genuine ray-gun and the gold-suit really is a spacesuit.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


your avoiding the question..

do you deny the possibility exists that the children have something to gain from all this ?

why not answer the question ?




Of course I don't discount that possibility, Kaliope's testimony is not proof of a hoax only evidence of a hoax, of course the reverse is true that any testimony from Meiers children or others ( there are many people who have given evidence to support Meier) is also not proof of the truth but evidence of the truth which by the way far out weighs the witness testimony againts him.

And why has no one answered my question that refutes IIG's statement about the wedding cake? I've proved here on this thread that they may be wrong about a particular piece of evidence ! look back through the posts.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Frankinmouse]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I agree with you Kandinsky, but "suspicion" is not "proof", I'm sure you would acknowledge that? That's the problem with these "intuition" based rebuttals of the Meier case. They're not based in logic or a scientific approach but on suspicion, doubt, and lack of imagination as well as liberal doses of mockery.

They are the inverse equivalent of the intuition based acceptance of flimsy evidence as proof of ETs by "wild eyed believers".

"I just know it was an alien craft"

"I just know it's a toy"

"No human could build a craft like that, it must be Alien"

"It's obviously a model"

Our speculation, suspicions, gut feelings and opinion are essentially irrelevant. What matters is what we can prove and the evidence we bring forward for that purpose.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Billy Meier seems to be an excellent and multi-talented craftsman. He can build UFO's, fabricate unknown metal substances, engineer sounds, all with one arm. The man deserves an award

You know, that's the one thing that really drives me nuts trying to figure out.
Indeed, all with one arm.

Personally, I'm not a supporter of Meier, however some of those photos of saucers/disks in the air are pretty darn good. But those ones with the dinosaur, the rayguns, spacesuits, etc.. are abysmal and laughable, to say the least.

Majorion



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I agree with you Kandinsky, but "suspicion" is not "proof", I'm sure you would acknowledge that? That's the problem with these "intuition" based rebuttals of the Meier case. They're not based in logic or a scientific approach but on suspicion, doubt, and lack of imagination as well as liberal doses of mockery.

They are the inverse equivalent of the intuition based acceptance of flimsy evidence as proof of ETs by "wild eyed believers".

"I just know it was an alien craft"

"I just know it's a toy"

"No human could build a craft like that, it must be Alien"

"It's obviously a model"

Our speculation, suspicions, gut feelings and opinion are essentially irrelevant. What matters is what we can prove and the evidence we bring forward for that purpose.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Malcram]


Exactly, I have put forward a analysis that refutes a piece of evidence from IIG but I can't get a replyfrom Derek or anyone else,not even an admission that it's a possibility, all we are getting is Thats rubbish and it dosen't look real, or cut and pastes from Kal Korffs fabricated hoax nonsence ,that is not discussing the subject rationally.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Frankinmouse]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Thats true when there is a picture, such as some of the ufo and NASA ones, where one of the possibilities on a list of several or many, including a real siting of a ufo, is automatically adapted and therefore the psuedo-skeptics think they've successfully debunked something on one possibility. Many of these cases have corroborating evidence such as testimony as to what this did, yet is still ignored.

But in a case where there is not only pictures to explain the objects, ie. the dinosaur photo from the book, but a case can be made up based on various things, one does not have to debunk the photos direct. Ets have a problem with our civilization, or rather lack of it, and credo style religions or control of the people is something that makes us sheep, and co-consipirators with the most criminal psycho leaders and the real people they represent, the neo-cons and bildenburg cartel, that lead to billions suffering unbearably. Ets havn't come to give us a new religion. Some are spiritual, and development of psi alone increases spiritual work, but if an et is credo based, its a renegade. That is something I know is true, but theres too much in this case. He himself admitted to producing some of the evidence.

I do believe there is something involved in his case. His predictions for example are unusual. But I've also watched Dan Burish talk about the looking technology that was apparently passed around. This was one of the things I was so upset about that I had to email Bill from Project Camelot a few times, and discuss my problems with Dan's interviews. The main point is, if he is connected to the cartel in any way, and if this is a black op project, that he is either directly involved with, or MC'd into, there are other explanations for the predictions themselves.

There is a common sense debunking of this that can be done, along with listing possibilities and probabilities. There is also a possibility that he had true experiences in his early life and some continual contact but was forced to cooperate with their control techniques (the religious stuff) and their planting what can logically be assumed is false evidence.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Many of you fail to remember that "poppy" billys wife actually took a lie detector test on these ufo sightings and she answered in favor of billy. The test came back as positive.

If we really want to debunk his wife, get her to say these "accusations" against billy meier on a lie detector. See how fast she falters. Because without it it dramatically improves billys credibility since most people fail to notice poppys own lie detector made with the other members of figu and billoy included.

Regarding Wendelle admitting that billy used models. I demand you to show me proof of this exerp. If you dont then i demand you to retract your comments.

easynow please to save trouble for other colleagues, provide a link or proof of your accusations such as these tests and enhancements. Or how can anyione take you seriously if you never provide your source.

Regarding Kal Korff. Any referances from him is considered a joke even from skeptics nowadays. Kal Korff is delusional and lying. I dont blame indigo or whoevercommented him porbably causing a hissy fit because he didnt get a ride in the spaceship.

The weapons of these alledged ETs indigo brings up a valid point. It is a basic fundamental god given right to defend yourself or another life against another person or animal/mammel/etc.. Like i stated in my forst post in the other topic. If this toy gun was such a joke, show us 1 picture of it resembling anything at that given time. And if you think you can do a good job replicating it and clim you can make this gun out of your materials, then do it so you can shut us up about this debate.

Soloist. You claim you work for an industry of modeling, care to show your credentials and me giving a quick call to prove that you work there. An interesting fact about me. Bluffs dont work. If you expect that i wont call you out on bluffs i will. Ofcourse if you do actually work there i see no real reason why you should object. As always this rests upon you, but if you choose to decline then i sure hope you can fabricate this of any similarity.

Also if you can prove the gun is a fake beyond a reasonable doubt then duplicate the oval smooth as glass burn through the tree that this gun causes alledgedly.

The korean pictures is SO bad that its so easy to see it as a model clearly defined by the outer lines. Billy meier if it was models seemengly erased that or did a very good job hiding it.

People often say that they are EASILY duplicated hoaxes. Give us the believers or strandlers 1 single photo that matches the comparability AND put it to a scientific photo analysis using very latest early 1980 technology. This means no computer, no photoshop, no CGI. If you do manage to replicate this. Go to Hollywood or Uncharted Territories and apply for a job. You deserved it.

Skeptics or Self Proclaimed ufologists are nothing more then just made up titles. It doesnt serve a real purpose. A ufologist anyone can be this. There is no degree that gives you this title formally. A Skeptic is a simple title that only means you dont believe it or your not provided with details to make a educated/academic conclusion/suggestion/point. How can you be taken seriously if you still fail to provide evena single photo of a model ufo and a model tree. How many years have you had to duplicate a single photo? If this was such a hoax and an easy one then make one. Stop arguing and make one so you can get us to shut up.

There is more people leaning towards believeing this story mainly because the skeptics or oppositions of this case have yet to provide a single photo/video/metal/sound replica that this case provides. How can you expect us to take you seriously. Sure the photos sometimes look pretty bad. All the more reason and easier for you to duplicate. People say this case is closed. How can it be closed with no haox proof??

I remain open minded, but i still have yet to witness concrete proof and is willing to get scientific analysis on statements.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


Mistiq,
making assumptions about the intentions about ET's who we don't even know for sure exist is pointless. This discussion is about actual evidence, your beliefs while valid for you have absolutely no bearing on what we are discussing.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


I agree in that there are often complex cases reduced to a false choice between black and white

1) Meier is lying about everything.

2) Meier is telling the truth about everything.

What I like about the OP and Indigo's approach is that, unlike the vast majority of the rebuttals, he understands that reality is often complex and the truth can be - and usually is - a blend of the two, or of many elements.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child


3. It turns out that the tree that Meier tested the ray-gun on is parched around an oval shaped hole, which cannot be produced with a drill and the hole goes right through to the other side and is as smoothe as glass. It also turns out everything within the line of fire from the distance was parched as well and twigs were broken in between as if something had passed through them.



Just saw that you talked about the hole in the tree, so I'll restructure this post.

The supposed tree:



This looks nothing like what you just described...

The burn marks are mainly at the top, which is very typical of a normal fire burning and the hole size varies as well.




[edit on 18/4/09 by Chadwickus]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Thanks, although Indigo is the OP, I'm just chiming in. Anybody else care to actually have a rational discussion without entering in their beliefs into the argument?
Malcram did you see my posts to derek from IIG about the piece I was talking about?
What do you think?

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Frankinmouse]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
frankinmouse its nice to hear a rational explanation and admitting we dont know everything isnt it


BTW what is OP? I just want to make sure i understand this.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


The billy meier case is based on videos and pictures so lets stop talking about the oval shaped hole the raygun shot into a tree when there is no evidence to back this up.
You keep saying that you most likely dont believe the raygun to be real and yet you keep talking about this oval shaped hole.

Also you say that the skeptics keep talking only about the raygun, dinosaur, spacesuit and wedding cake UFO and that we should look at the rest of the evidence but you cant just discard this evidence as it makes up a large part of the case.

When i started reading about the limitations the aliens placed on the evidence that could be gathered i began to become skeptical. Why couldnt he film them landing and getting out of one of these crafts?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join