IIG's investigation of the Billy Meier HOAX

page: 19
23
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
Meier's case is very interesting and controversial. There are many witnesses, in a way its similar to James Gililand's ranch with countless testimonies of visitors. But didn't he claim to be the reincarnation of Jesus? That was very hard to swallow. Also, some of the basic ideas regarding the earth only supporting 500,000 did seem too close to the Georgia Guidestones and the whole nwo thing.

His background itself seems to be cia. I've thought about his case for a long time. I think some of the photos can't be debunked because they're geniune.
The nazis appeared to have some advanced science and ets appeared to work with them, though I believe in the capacity of espionage and damage control.
I think the nazis had ufos.

M Kultra MC is the conclusion I've reached. He could very well be consciously conducting a top high level fraud, secretly backed by the cartel, which explains George Green and more. Or, he could be MC by the elite and cia. Or, he could be a special operative with compartmentalization that isn't aware that they've conducted the hoax around him. Something is happening there, but what?


You know what - we are together on this one.

I also noticed similarities with Krishnamurti teaching about trusting your power only to yourself - do not believe in gods, find truth in yourself.

I like Meier and Krishnamurit and I hope they (particularly Meier) are not involved in MK-Ultra. We would never know anyway.

By looking at all of it - I say - WE CAN NOT TELL FOR CERTAIN - we have to find it out ourselves.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by FIFIGI]




posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by davidbiedny
 





Here's a useful little lesson for those of you interested in learning how to understand the world: ANYONE who tells you that they have the answers to ANYTHING in some sort of a definitive way, be extra cautious of them


Thanks for the advice.

I shall apply it to the statements of all those in this thread who have repeated ad nauseum definitive claims like:

"Meier is definitely a hoaxer! There is no truth to his case. Period!".

And instead, I shall retain an open mind.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
FIFIGI you know Krishnamurti :O

In my opinion, he is a mentor, its amazing to how much you can learn from him. He is a true thinker at its best. For any of you who are seeking spiritual enlightenment i strongly suggest you youtube him.

Beware that there is another Krishnamurti a very very grumpy one though. So look for a peaceful quiet person one.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by EffEcTiVe_UniT
Where in the hell did you read about him using force upon when he was a leader. And he doesnt concentrate on himself barely. He concentrates more on current events, your own thinking, the spiritual teachings and so on. Anything but himself.

Meier's spiritform is called "Nokodemion". It's in the Meier mythology. You can read it here; futureofmankind.co.uk...
Scroll just over halfway down.

676. Thus he came back out of the Arahat Athersata spirit level for the sake of his peoples, who followed no creational laws and commandments at all, to bring his peoples to reason and therefore to rationality. 677. That was 12,000,000,000 years ago.
678. As he had to recognize his peoples’ lack of understanding, he decreed a logical use of force, because the people were so degenerate that their senses and aspirations were, with all murderous means, only after boundless power.

Notice the "HIS" peoples? Did you really think I was making stuff up?



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   


The Dinosaur picture The claimed original and alleged source: 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 is 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 don't have any photo-editing software to see if I can take the alleged source and view in low resolution to see if I can get Meiers image. Anybody want to give it a go?


Never one to shirk a challenge....


[img]
[/img]

Ok- so I hadda be a showoff and do better.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by EffEcTiVe_UniT
I feel i need to repeat this again just so you can get it in. Billy Meier Does Not Want To Be A God, Nor Praised Like One.

Why than, according to his information, did Meier's spiritform "Nokodemion" create "new peoples"?
futureofmankind.co.uk...

But now the question remains open, where did, for example, Nokodemion come from, who not only established and engendered new peoples, rather he also created new peoples, who he then equipped with an advanced knowledge.

I read somewhere that we here on Earth are descendents of those ET races created by "Nokodemion". I suppose you and the other Meierites are in luck. The Creator lives in Switzerland. Me, I think he's a total fruitcake and the people that buy his stuff misguided.

Open your eyes.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TerraX
 


Dont get all worked up when it is pointed out that you misinterpret what you read. Take it easy and digest it works wonders for the mind. By the way your wrong again. I'm going to bed seeya later.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by EffEcTiVe_UniT
Derek im assuming that your with IIG from your signatures. This can be so easily used on you. You have more money then me/indigo/billy meier/etc.. so you could have EASILY paid off some scientists to work with you.


Wow. You really don't know much about the Independent Investigations Group. First, it is a non-profit organization. No one is paid as a member of the IIG. It is an all-volunteer group. Our bank account holds the incredibly massive sum of $3,000. I cannot actually afford to pay for the HD transfers of the films, but I am willing to go into debt in order to finally have the films transferred properly. I am also willing to do this because the IIG cannot afford to do so.

Secondly, I am the principal researcher and author of the IIG Billy Meier Report. Others in the IIG have assisted and proofread my writings, but no one else in the IIG is actually investigating the case.



I looked at the script you had in your website about page 214 about analysing the metal sample. I have that year 2001 book and i could not find it.


The reason you could not find it on page 214 is because it is not on page 214. The IIG webpage clearly says "Pages 215 and 216 of the 2001 book And Yet…They Fly! state the following:"



Cold fusion is how it was made. Supposively. If this was just so easy then simply make a piece of rock that would display those certain reflections or colors. Since your an organization im sure using some of your funds can aid you in this.


Again, why would you need cold fusion to create a metal sample that consists of nothing more than silver and copper? This is fairly common to find.



Regarding the negatives, i could not tell you as i dont know what happen. Alledgedly it was misplaced or stolen. Which keep in mind something this big of a story (hoax or not) government officials would like to minimize any exposure.


Why would the government be interested in "minimizing any exposure" if the case is a hoax?



Regarding to the dilatosso statement about discrediting on the pictures. The documentary that lee/brit elders conducted in the 2nd part of the test results located here. Jim himself conducted that there is clearly a difference witha model and a real ufo.


Please go listen to The Paracast and the Culture of Contact audio links. When you do you will learn that Dilettoso only examined ONE photograph and not multiple photographs like it has been suggested.



Not only that but in this video it reveales the whole part of the metal analysis. Meaning that before Dereks clip on his site cut off it did not say the part about the finding of the rare earth metal thulium.


There is nothing deceptive about the editing of the clip on the IIG website. It is the narrator who says "Later analysis of other fragments also reveal small amounts of Thulium, a rare-Earth element that is difficult and costly to extract here." As you can see, the comment about Thulium is from a narrator saying that it was found in other fragments. There is no actual coverage of this discovery. It doesn't even mention that Vogel found it.



Derek, will you submit your photos to the same testing as what billy meier went through?


I already said that I would, but that it would be pointless to do so because the tests that were done were to determine whether there was image manipulation or not, and there would be no evidence of manipulation discovered if the photographs were single exposures.

-Derek



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by johnnyrobbo
 

Sure, make your point by proclamation. Typical Meierite behaviour if you ask me. Nighty night sailor.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Notice how Derek ignored my previous post and continues to peddle the same lies by IIG on the metal sampe. They haven't even read the scientific report on the metal sample. How can they debunk something they have not even researched.

As I said IIG is a fraudulent and pseudoscientific organization.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]


I'm sorry to have to do this, but...



I will probably buy the article that you mentioned, but if this report is the "end all, be all" of the scientific analysis of the Meier metal sample why is it not referenced in any of the other books and videos about the Meier metal sample? And why did the videos that you linked to, which you claimed to prove your point, not say what you claimed that they had? They actually refuted your position and supported my position. Why are you ignoring that?

-Derek



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


This is one of the more frustrating aspects of the Meier case. Both sides refuse to keep emotion and insults out of the game.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by derekcbart
 


Appeal to authority fallacy.

Go and acquire the metal sample report.

The fact that you have not read this, but still have made many accuasions against the metal sample and are telling people here, "it's only copper and silver" and slandering the late Vogel by saying that does not know his chemistry is actually an outright admission that

1) You did not research the evidence at all
2) You misrepresented the evidence and blatantly lied.

Whether Meier is a hoax or not is another matter, but one thing that has categorically been established here is that IIG has hoaxed an investigation into Meiers case. You have not even looked at the evidence.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by derekcbart
 


Appeal to authority fallacy.

Go and acquire the metal sample report.

The fact that you have not read this, but still have have made many accuasions against the metal sample and are telling people here, "it's only copper and silver" and slandering the late Vogel by saying that does not know his chemistry is actually an outright admission that

1) You did not research the evidence at all
2) You misrepresented the evidence and blatantly lied.

Whether Meier is a hoax or not is another matter, but one thing that has categorically been established here is that IIG has hoaxed an investigation into Meiers case. You have not even looked at the evidence.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]


It's about time the standard for investigators be raised. Kudos, Indigo. I have been carrying this flag around here for a while now. I have been called all sorts of nasty things for it, but I'm glad someone is at least willing to stand up and keep the skeptics honest. There needs to be a balance here, regardless of whether or not a case is hoaxed.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


BTW, the purchase/download links on Steelmark Online are no longer functioning and the links to the Metal and Audio Analysis take you to the Photograph Analysis page. I have emailed them asking if these documents are still available for purchase and/or download.

I will let you know what their response is.

-Derek



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by derekcbart
 


Derek-
You're playing into their game of "you haven't done enough". Whats glaringly obvious is they haven't done *anything*, but yet try to hold you to some imaginary standard.

Here's a clue for you: You'll never meet their imagined standard. These people refuse to see through even the most basic issues, and you expect that throwing more factual data collected firsthand is going to do anything for them?

Save yourself the aggravation, these people have bigger issues than belief in some long dismissed UFO case. The problem with UFOlogy in general is acknowledging these anonymous internet dregs, and validating them with responses.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


I'm not a Meier proponent, but I think it's perfectly obvious that your claim that the OP hasn't "done anything" to argue his case is absurd, considering the lengthy evidence heavy posts he has produced. So that's a false accusation.

And frankly, Indigo is right, for IIG to presume to claim to have done a thorough investigation of Meier sufficient to pass judgement and even to dismiss evidence it hasn't even bothered to look at yet, speaks volumes for the poor quality and bias of IIG's work and raises serious questions about the credibility of their report on Meier. Frankly I'm stunned to be reading now that Derek has never before accessed this material. The requirement for proper, thorough research is hardly "a game" the OP is trying to get IIG to "play", nor is it an "imaginary standard". It's a very basic standard, apparently unmet! It's what they should have done in the first place, but evidently failed to!

And responding to the exposure of IIG's lack of research on this issue with personal attacks is no way to mend this breach in their credibility. If anything, it widens it.

As I said earlier, I have come away from this thread with only a little more ground for belief in Meier - I remain uncertain - but with a lot less respect for IIG and the quality of the arguments of the committed Meier "debunkers".

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by derekcbart
 


Derek-
You're playing into their game of "you haven't done enough". Whats glaringly obvious is they haven't done *anything*, but yet try to hold you to some imaginary standard.


If you look closely, this whole issue is not about whether the Meier case is a hoax, its about keeping the skeptics balanced and honest. What you are saying is more ego-based, rather than fact based. Simply asking for IIG to present a straight forward analysis lacking personal opinion shouldn't be too much to ask.



Save yourself the aggravation, these people have bigger issues than belief in some long dismissed UFO case. The problem with UFOlogy in general is acknowledging these anonymous internet dregs, and validating them with responses.


Quite ironic that you continually validate these 'internet dregs' though. Long dismissed? Check any Meier thread recent and past. You're inflammatory posts are peppered all over them. If you feel your work is valid, then it does not need defending. That argument is well past its prime.

...and accusing people of being 'Meierites' or 'Michael Horn', just because they feel these skeptics could do a better job is not going to make you, or IIG look any better.


[edit on 20-4-2009 by NightVision]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
You guys are still talking about this!?!?!?!? I figure this one would have been thrown in the trash by now. The ray gun alone gives it away. Can we please move on to actual evidence instead of elaborate hoaxes?

I say trash this thread.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by jritzmann
 


I'm not a Meier proponent, but I think it's perfectly obvious that your claim that the OP hasn't "done anything" to argue his case is absurd, considering the lengthy evidence heavy posts he has produced. So that's a false accusation.

And frankly, Indigo is right, for IIG to presume to claim to have done a thorough investigation of Meier sufficient to pass judgement and even to dismiss evidence it hasn't even bothered to look at yet, speaks volumes for the poor quality and bias of IIG's work and raises serious questions about the credibility of their report on Meier. Frankly I'm stunned to be reading now that Derek has never before accessed this material. The requirement for proper, thorough research is hardly "a game" the OP is trying to get IIG to "play", nor is it an "imaginary standard". It's a very basic standard, apparently unmet! It's what they should have done in the first place, but evidently failed to!

And responding to the exposure of IIG's lack of research on this issue with personal attacks is no way to mend this breach in their credibility. If anything, it widens it.

As I said earlier, I have come away from this thread with only a little more ground for belief in Meier - I remain uncertain - but with a lot less respect for IIG and the quality of the arguments of the committed Meier "debunkers".


Do I need to use the facepalm graphic again?

The Vogel analysis of the Meier metal sample is quoted in multiple books and videos which I have examined and discussed in detail here: www.iigwest.org... All of these documents and movies say that Vogel used a scanning electron microscope to determine the composition of the metal and the only time that a spectrometer was used they discovered it was nothing more than silver and copper.

Now, IF the Steelmark document, which was previously only available for pay-per-download and is now not currently available for any form of download, is the ONLY thing that people should be looking at then please answer for me why it has not been referenced in the Wendelle Stevens, Lee Elders, Guido Moosbrugger, and Michael Horn publications?

I am very curious to read this document that lays all of the previously published research to waste. However, if I do get the ability to review this document and it does not say what you claim it says what will be your response then?

-Derek





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join