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.


IIG's investigation of the Billy Meier HOAX

page: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:00 AM
reply to post by EffEcTiVe_UniT
Fair enough, EU. In that case, I think Meier must have been very clever & showed great ingenuity.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Sam60]

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:20 AM
A debatable topic is how would he pull it off by himself. If he hoaxed it then he must have devoted mass amounts of time. Plus we cant forget his 30+ books he publishes, his peace meditation on weekends, time for family. And so on. So it WOULD be plausible that he would have had help. But none of his surrounding accomplices has any profession that comes close to the information/evidence he presented. So this poses a problem for "skeptics"

BTW whats EU?As in Europe?

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:54 AM
The dinosaur picture is clearly a photo of the drawing that IIG found in a dinosaur book. Bluish sky, creature is the same size, even its prey looks similar. Meir claims his photo is actually a live shot of a real dinosaur during one of his trips back in time to the age of dinosaurs. What are the chances that a live shot could looks so similar to a drawing? Also his photo doesn't make much sense seeing as how the creature's lower jaw is messed up and it apparently has a hole across its stomach.

Can't believe so many people flagged this thread and gave the op so many stars.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:56 AM
This is you years ago (2004):

First, you said you were first a believer, then you became a non-believer, arguing really well disproving Meiers. You used the same arguments which people are now trying to show you here, but you choose to ignore them.
Now you return as a believer? Something smells fishy here!!! Do you have an on and off switch?

Does Michael Horn have a new DVD out or something?
Oh crap he does!!!!

Btw, don't pay attention to Meier’s fantasy tales; you need to pay attention to the excuses he came out with after all the mistakes he made.
When they questioned him about the toy ray gun, that looked so cheesy, that is when he came out with the excuse:

Oh it's 600 years old, but at the same time he said that the Plejarens are millions of years ahead of of us in technology.
Therefore, a 600 year old gun from millions of years ahead of us cannot possibly look like an earth child toy from the 50’s!!!! 600 years ago they were still millions of years ahead of us in technology. Ironic, isn’t it? The excuse if just flawed.
Especially when Meier also said that they now really small, modern ones controlled by thoughts in order to excuse the bad looking toy gun.

Here is an example of another mistake when Meier was first asked how long they took to get to earth; he said something like few hours.
Then he later said they now take no time, it's instant with their thoughts, and they accomplished that in like a mere 40 years. lol So freaking funny.

“According to Santilli, a set was constructed in the living room of an empty flat in Rochester Square, Camden Town, London. John Humphreys, an artist and sculptor, was employed to construct two dummy alien bodies over a period of three weeks:

Santilli’s film was proven to be fake and Santilli himself said that he used a dummy in the film, what response did Meier have when was asked about the Santilli film:

An excerpt from a talk between JHWH Ptaah and Billy Meier about the Roswell Incident
256th contact of May 13, 1996:
Billy: "... Another question: Florena told me that I should ask you about the name of the illness the 16-years old girl, who was so slanderously presented as an extraterrestrial in the Santilli film, had caught. What was the girl's illness?"
Ptaah: "Proterie. ..."


Jim Dilettoso which Michael Horn has presented as one of the main investigators to have proven the Meier’s photo to be real was now asked in 2009 what he thought of the WCUFO photos, and responded, " "Oh, those are clearly models." a model close to the camera. Also he says (as all the other investigators when asked now in 2009) that he was misquoted. Did you read about that?

Horn was misquoting everyone!!!!

In his new DVD, Michael Horn edited the film of the supposedly jumping UFO to hide the branch which was moving then suddenly stop because this showed that it was a cut and paste job and a fake video. Remarkable!!!!!! He pays attention to the mistakes and tries to cover them up in order to sell his DVDs.

Btw, the tip of the toy gun was identified and found in a toy photo, it’s in another thread here, look for it same exact thing.

Again pay attention to the excuses and you will understand better what the Meier game is all about!

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:06 AM
reply to post by EffEcTiVe_UniT
I used EU to indicate you, instead of writing Effective Unit


posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:30 AM

Originally posted by EffEcTiVe_UniT
A debatable topic is how would he pull it off by himself. If he hoaxed it then he must have devoted mass amounts of time.

He did have a mass amount of time. The guy has a disability. And from what I understand quite often he took off on his own taking pictures. Practically all the pictures he toke were between 1975 and 1981. Nothing after that. There are some shots from India in 1964 (if I'm not mistaken). After 1981 he had all the time in the world to work on the contact notes and other written material.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:39 AM

Originally posted by EffEcTiVe_UniT
Michael horn from what i have seen seems to be a nice peaceful mind.

Sh*t. I nearly lost a gulp of my morning coffee when I read that line. Geesh, just look on the web and find some of Horn's posts on various forums or correspondence between him and other researchers. 'Aspie' put mail from Horn on his website. Nice peaceful mind? Just read his words when people disagree with him.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 04:39 AM
reply to post by TerraX
I agree & that's the point I was getting to. Meier's hoaxes required a lot of complex, awkward work. However, none of that work required advanced techniques or knowledge. That work just required creativity & ingenuity & plenty of time.
I also wouldn't describe Horn as "peaceful". Horn is feral.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 05:41 AM

First, you said you were first a believer, then you became a non-believer, arguing really well disproving Meiers. You used the same arguments which people are now trying to show you here, but you choose to ignore them.
Now you return as a believer? Something smells fishy here!!! Do you have an on and off switch?

Perhaps you have just come into this thread now and have not read the preceeding post or did not read the OP properly. I said in the OP that even I was initially phased by the ray-gun and wedding cake UFO and I had concluded it was a hoax. That was in 2004. However notice that even in 2004 I said:

I am an open-minded person, and will reconsider, if you can produce evidence that I can verify. As I said, I find this case very interesting, but delving deeper and deeper into it, I am finding out that it is very transparent on the inside.

Finally, having said the above. I would like to say, that I have pointed out above, that my beliefs are based on the observable phenomena, and change according to it. If any more evidence is forthcoming that can counter-balance the evidence against him, I will gladly consider. However, for now, I am concluding: HOAX

A few posts back I mentioned this 2004 post myself to indicate that I am an honest researcher and will only go where the evidence takes me. This was to allegations that I was somehow associated with Michael Horn, or Billy Meier.

What you call an "on/off" switch is called having an open and scientific mind that can reevaluate new information and adjust its views accordingly.
In 2004 I had not not seen most of Meier's videos, I had not read the mass of scientific reports, I had not seen the original documentary and lab footage, I had not seen the pitiable IIG duplication effort. Now with all this new evidence in front of me, the previous view I had have been falsified and I have rejected my own earlier conclusions.

This is a strength not a weakness. A good scientist, researcher and a philosopher will always constantly reevaluate their opinions and arguments and never become emotionally invested in their opinions. I think have a background in Philosophy and most philosophers have this incredible knack for changing their mind. How can you really expect the opinions of somebody in 2004 will remain the same 5 years later? The problem that I have found with people here is they stick to their opinions and do not explore other possibilities. This is not healthy. If you're still holding onto the same arguments and views 5 years later, either you have reached enlightened or you have blocked your mind.

The posters who have posted in the last few hours do not appear to have read the preceeding posts. We have already extensively covered the ray-gun, Wedding cake and Dinosaur picture. Please try to participate in a discussion by reading earlier posts. It shows courtesy to the people who are already involved and have covered those issues.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 05:59 AM
reply to post by Aspie

I think what you overlook is that I have said in the same post, "This is unfaslifiable" and I have asked for somebody to produce evidence that it was posted earlier than the event it predicted.

Then you said I had been seduced by Meier's spiritual teachings and compared that to Heaves's gate and WACO. You are aware the last guy used exactly the same argument and compared me to an Islamic fundamentalist? His argument was torn apart with embarrasing ramifications for him.

I actually disagree with a lot Meiers teaching especially about the Chakras not existing, there being no afterlife and other things. It conflicts with my Sanskrit teachings, which I respect more than Meier's teachings. However, there are some teachings that I do respect. Likewise, I respect some teachings in every religion and philosophy. I even find some positive points in Satanism believe it or not.

Anyway this is is getting really personal and you are breaching ATS rules by making such accusations. Stick to topic and discuss the evidence.

I have not personally attacked anyone in this thread and nor have the rest of the Meier proponents. The attacks are significantly one-sided and coming from the same usual suspects. I look like an angel compared to some of you guys and im not really

Anyway as said earlier we are going to have a mature, civil and intelligent discussion. If you cannot do this, please leave the thread.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:23 AM
reply to post by EffEcTiVe_UniT

It is possible that all of his town is in on the conspiracy. I can imagine a scenorio where everybody is given a task to do: manufacture toy gun, manufacture metal, manufacture gold-suit, manufacture metal.

The problem is an argument from possibiities does not establish it is true. I think many of the posters on the Anti-Meier side should realise this, because far too many of them are still passing of their opinions as defacto fact.

Once we have a possibility it becomes a testable hypothesis. It can be tested either through a thought experiment or an actual experiment. It never just ends at just asserting a possibility. That is not science, it is faith.

Anyway here is the problem with the crew hypothesis. Too many cooks spoil the broth. On the contrary this broth is still going since the 50's, which either means that there are not too many cooks or that too many cooks do not spoil the broth.

However, we have to be openminded and accept that while unlikely, maybe too many cooks did not spoil the broth. Still if we do, there were too many cooks in the IIG duplication efforts and in the Japaense duplication effort(an entire film crew) and still duplication was not possible.
So it makes no difference if Meier had a crew or not. The fact still remains his pictures, videos remain irreproducable. The fact also remains his metal sample and sound sample were impossible to produce with state of the art technology of his times, and possibly still they cannot be reproduced.

Thus the crew hypothesis, is not only unlikely, it is a moot.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:59 AM
This is remarkable. So many people trying to debunk with no true knowledge of the mission. The op has proved his point about iig but all the skeptics keep coming in with all the old arguments. There seems to be a lot of fear involved in the skeptics corner and no real accumulated knowledge of the subject matter. Over these years I notice new fake photos coming to light that I have never seen before. Created by whom for what purpose?

I have been reading the Meier material for some years now and still have not scratched the surface. So for someone to come to a conclusion that it is all a hoax(that seems will never go away) is quite extraordinary.

The argument that Meier is in it for the money is ridiculous. The effort going into all this debunking is grounds for a conspiracy debate in itself.

Here's one, how about Benny being the 2nd last Pope and then a Petrus Romanus being appointed outside of Rome. This one presides over the fall of the Catholic Church. Benny a bit old to go much further. Italy is in dire trouble and apparently will sink into the sea and that could be why a Petrus Romanus is appointed.

Goodluck plausable deniability is always there for those right up till the end.
Johnnyrobbo _javascript:icon('
')why wont this post?

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 07:05 AM
reply to post by TerraX

Yeah I read some of that and my interpretation of it is aspie being very discourteous and downright arrogant. eg I would'nt waste 20 mins of my time reading any Meier material. Now thats what I call incisive investigative journalism.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 07:47 AM
reply to post by johnnyrobbo

I think your assessment is mostly accurate. There are really two sides in this debate each with a different debate emphasis

1. Anti-Meier

Common arguments:

1. The Asket and Nera and Dinosaur pictures are proven fakes
2. The Ray gun and the gold-foil suit look laughable
3. His photos and videos are obviously small models using strings, anybody could produce them


Lots of scoffing and ridicule of Meier and the Meier proponents
Rejection of all counter-evidence
Personal attacks

2. Pro-Meier


1. If some photos maybe fake, it does not mean everything is fake
2. Irreproducability of Meier photographs and videos using small models and string
3. Hundreds of pages of scientific reports assembled in a 5 year long investigation using the best scientists in the worlds validating Meiers evidence and his testimony


Deconstruction of Anti-Meier arguments
Consideration and analysis of all possibilities/hypothesis
Evidence-focussed approach

I think what has been categorically established in this thread is that Meier's case is far from an open and shut case, and actually has a high level of validity. Many intelligent and rational posters are realising this now. Indeed, it is not hard to miss that the arguments against Meier are weak and often childish and immature and the arguments for Meier are based on very hard evidence and science.

I think Malcram said this the best to the effect of "I have come away from this thread with more belief in Billy Meier's case, but far less respect for IIG"

It is difficult for an objective reader not to read this thread and arrive at this conclusion. In my mind IIG has been exhausively and utterly debunked with very embarrasing ramifications for them. I urge posters to refer to this thread in future discussions when IIG's or Karl Koff's material is used agaisnt Meier to expose just how fradulent they are and their lies against Meier.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I also figured, that even if they are fake, perhaps not all of his material is fake. It is possible that Meier or his organization fabricated some evidence to create interest, but genuine contacts were going on.

I hear this argument a lot, and I'm just going to counter it with the good ol' saying:

"Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me."

You can't even get that right. It's

"Fool me once, shame on...

shame on you.

A fool me can't get fooled again."

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:30 PM
Holy Monkey!

This thread has exploded in the last 24-36 hours since I last logged in. I only have time to address the comments regarding Marcel Vogel at this time.

Indigo, you posted this YouTube video as one proof that Vogel did not use a scanning electron microscope, but actually used spectrometry:

[Edit: for some reason I cannot get the YouTube video to embed properly. Here is the URL for the video: ]

At 33 seconds the following is said, "Marcel Vogel, a research scientist with IBM, tells us about one piece of metal that he examined under an electron microscope." At 5 minutes 35 seconds Marcel Vogel says, "as one goes to a higher magnifications on this specimen, one will see other fascinating details."

BTW, the second video you posted has been removed from YouTube, so I'm not sure what it was supposed to show. Based on your timing that you mentioned ("Watch segment 2:05") I think you are referring to Part 4 of Contact. I have the film downloaded and you are correct that a spectrometer was used for this part of the metal analysis. However, it was not done by Marcel Vogel, it was done by an actual metallurgist in Arizona. This segment also shows that the metal sample consists of silver and copper and nothing else significant. This is what I mentioned earlier. I reference this section in the IIG report on the metal:

Announcer: "Next, Stevens takes the metal fragments to be examined under the electronic spectrometer to determine the components. Preliminary examination of the metal has been done in Switzerland."

Analyst: "We have little marker bars here that we can line up on each peak as they come up. This one indicates that we have silver there. Over here, let's see, we've got some copper. A small amount of copper. That looks about all that's in here at the moment."

Wendelle Stevens: "The big band here is silver though?"

Analyst: "The big one is silver."

So, once again, the evidence shows that Marcel Vogel did not use a spectrometer to determine the composition of the Meier metal sample. It only states that he used a scanning electron microscope to determine the composition of the Meier metal sample.

Frankinmouse, I just re-watched the section of Silent Revolution of Truth where Vogel discusses the printout that claims to show Thulium (at around 1 hour 5 minutes). This is credited in SRT as being from Contact, but it isn't. The earlier video is from Contact, but I don't know where this piece of video comes from. It also contradicts itself. In Part 4 of Contact, the narrator says, "later analysis of other fragments also reveal small amounts of Thulium." In the piece of video where Vogel points to the chart he says, "The elements that we found were totally surprising. The major element which is shown here was the rare-Earth metal thulium. It was totally unexpected."

Here is the image of Vogel pointing out the existence of Thulium:

Here is the image of Vogel pointing out the existence of Silver:

Now, to me, it looks like there is more silver in the analysis than thulium. Also, since the books and videos contradict Vogel's claim that there was more thulium than other elements it makes me question what is going on with Vogel's statement. I would also like to know what video his Thulium discussion is from since it isn't from Contact.

I will address other comments later when I have the time.


[edit on 19-4-2009 by derekcbart]

[edit on 19-4-2009 by derekcbart]

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I also figured, that even if they are fake, perhaps not all of his material is fake. It is possible that Meier or his organization fabricated some evidence to create interest, but genuine contacts were going on.

I hear this argument a lot, and I'm just going to counter it with the good ol' saying:

"Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me."

You can't even get that right. It's

"Fool me once, shame on...

shame on you.

A fool me can't get fooled again."

what are you blathering about?

"Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me."

IS the correct saying.

and indigo, you lost ALL credibility, when you linked a product sale I believe on page 14 or so. So take you Billy Meier sales pitch somewhere else, please.

Also, "experts" can be bought. They do it daily here in the US judicial system.

It all comes down to opinion, and your lack of imagination, and what a person can do when theyve lost a limb, and are on disability, and can spend 24/7 working some models, and camera trickery.

But....., I don't believe, and can't believe, and won't believe ANYONE is dumb enough to believe some of the pictures you are touting as genuine.

I mean...just to try and argue that the toy gun is real, is beyond my comprehension. All I CAN do is laugh. All he had to do was video him firing it. Also why is Alene's(sp?) face cropped out of the photos? I suppose so her/his super secret alien identity remains hidden?

Anyway, I am now sure this is a sales pitch. Just another go around to try and milk this story for a few more rupies.

BTW... to say I use alot of smiles and emotes. Have a gander and your posts. Good LORdy!

I counted over 30 odd smileys used by yourself in 18 pages.

I'd caculate your smiley to post ratio, but I have better things to do.

Can we move this to Skunk Works already?

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 04:08 PM
Indigo Child, I have said all along that Meier is running a cult over their in Switzerland, so what's your problem? And when you mentioned crackpot spirtual teachings I said that's how Waco and Heavens Gate started, which is true, so what's your problem with that?

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 05:16 PM
MANNYP4, your wrong. The ETs are not millions of years ahead of us in technology. Spirituality yes. Technology only 2000-3000 years ahead. Who know that gun could be a prototype since i t WAS 600 years old at that time. Another interesting point to bring up. Have you personally seen an ETs weapon? No you havent. Wendelle stevens hunted down every toy shop to find a gun that could be thast toy gun. No such thing in switzerland.

Regarding to the gilr in santilli film. Boy you like to jump to conclusions if its easier for you huh. They point out the event in roswell about the female having proterie. Even to this day figu members still isnt even sure what that condition means. We attempted to research but we could not find an answer. And about this girl being represented in the santilli film is just that. She is being represented. Meaning shes not there. Meaning this isnt real. Its just a reactnactment. If you would have heard santilli talked about him having brief periods of the REAL film WITH the ACTUAL girl with proterie in the REAL pieces of film. Ofcourse you overlooked this and anxiously jump to your conclusion.

Regarding to the event of Jim Dilettoso, i would like to kindly ask for proof about him stating that these are models.

BTW good mornin people

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 05:26 PM
It's going to scare a lot of folks to find out their sacred addiction to their description of the world and that it's so called laws mean as much as a car without tires.

For the new coming understanding of science there will not be laws or theories. You will stop looking for proof, because non exists, but few will understand this now. Our cultures addictions to linear thought forms makes issues like the Billy Meier case nothing but an excuse to argue, finding evidence in both directions to keep people running around the tree until they turn to butter.


Newer understanding has not broken up through the crust of our ignorance yet, so we have wars of politics, ideologies and beliefs. In reality there is no discordance other than what we imagine.

The new science will not deal with facts like we think of facts. Reality is much richer. Much much deeper.

We will discover soon that it is much more important to understand with your heart than with a ruler of measurement.

Read the Meir information.

Put it into the context of real circumstances.

Account for the imperfections of current human nature.

Account for our illusion of intelligence.

Use a laboratory of the world inclusive of our coming knowledge of what consciousness really is and how far short we fall in our sciences and quest for proof. A little sociology, cultural anthropology, psychology, Particle Physics, Optics, Cognition and reality studies. Historical anthropology, cosmology and all other sciences that in our youthful ignorance we have yet to bring together. We will not have knowledge until this is done. Everyone has a piece, but no one is willing to put it all together. We cling to our egocentric like children afraid to let go of the innertube in the pool. Forever bound to our limitations.

Here is an example that will ring true to those who believe in the bible.

There is no evidence God wrote it, himself or by the hand of one who wrote it. None. Many have tried. Interestingly enough the only thing left is the reality of the quality of what is said.

Many who did not have direct with the holy spirit have changed the words and some have taken the words themselves and built huge institutions from them for their own ideologies and power. This is in the face of the original words not to do this. But we are children with brains ruled by ego and self importance until now. That is soon to change.

Many to not subscribe to religions but believe in God. They believe in a better way of living with others in harmony and love. They have no proof, as the scientist would demand, but act on what their hearts are seeing.

Many times what the heart sees is contradicted by what the eyes see with mere photons reflected off matter of varying density and spectral frequencies. Reality is infinitely deeper than what we only see and can measure.

Some will deny the so-called real world to follow their hearts. You cannot give evidence enough to stop someone who knows in their heart they are doing good. Forget ego here. When someone risks life to save another it is not ego. Ego is shaking in the corner.

If you could but see, with true vision and not only of the eyes, you would see there is no disagreement.

Even here.

Put down the ruler, your gun, your affidavit, throw away your hard evidence. It means nothing here any more.

We are about to change.

Believe what is in your heart. It is the correct mode of operation for a world now gone mad with separations and egocentric paradigms.

In our little thing here on ATS, try to understand why you and your friends hold so dearly to their ideas, even in the face of so called evidence.

I believe in the bibles core. Not the ignorance it has collected over generations of ignorance. The core. The quality of the message. I believe in any doctrine that has the core of love, because I know love is what it all is.

I believe in the spirit of Billy's friends from the stars, not because of photographs and films, or the evidence those who from ignorance believed faked material would help us see it in our hearts, but because I see the core.

You only find the core when you look and study it all without preconception. Without egocentric addiction. Without ideas of true and false.

The information is way beyond our science, logic, laws. It is the feeling collected in your heart over hundreds of hours of reading, watching, studying and experiencing it all.

You do not need proof your mother loves you. ( would you believe a scientific study of your mothers love more than your experience?) It comes from a lifetime of the "quality" of her acts. No proof can exist for that, yet it is itself the proof.

The person who started this post believes with his heart. I believe he believes with his heart. Even to the extent he takes such a beating from deadening opinions and evidence that is only evidence of little events and not the whole story. My heart believes in Billy too, but don't foolishly ask me to prove my mother loves me.
His heart makes him brave. You should celebrate such bravery, not try to prove it is wrong. Look closer than the photos young ones. It is so beyond the pictures and deeds of those who are yet to understand and would rather follow than take responsibility for their own spirit.

Those who would have such passion to prove someone or some thing wrong, study your reason within yourself of why this is important to you. You might find something deep that will grow your heart. Yes, even those who would have simple anger, are protecting their hearts or what they believe.

We can let go of this soon when we find it is "us together" is the promise of our species.

How much easier this, than a terrorist lay their anguish down in the name of peace.

Show them how it's done. I know we can all do this because I have it on good authority. Our heart.


new topics

top topics

<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in