IIG's investigation of the Billy Meier HOAX

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Michael Horn misrepresents real experts who have commented on the case by misquoting them and many times taking their statements out of context to suit his own biased view of the case.




posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
The ray gun has always made me giggle, replete with all it's 60's sci-fi embellishments. It could have come straight off the Barbarella set. That foil suit ain't half bad either eh! Sexy!

Meier only had to perform one simple task and the world would have believed him. Fire the bloody thing!

IRM


[edit on 15/4/09 by InfaRedMan]


He did, if you care to look into the evidence|?

Sorry for short reply.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by Nohup
 


That is like saying just because the murder suspect was found at the scene of the crime, with the weapon of the crime and fingerprints on the victim does not mean that he is the murderer


That's not what it's like. If we're talking about a simple, everyday thing like murder, which we all pretty much agree exists, then we can use circumstantial evidence to help prove it. Even so, having multiple videos and witnesses wouldn't hurt.

But when you're talking about attributing one thing or another to something we can't even agree exists, like aliens from other planets, we'll all have to go the extra distance. Circumstantial evidence just won't cut it.


A magicians trick can be explained. There is not a single magic trick that cannot be explained. Meier photographs cannot be explained. ...

Wheres the trick?


Assuming that happened exactly has you say it does, I don't know. But like I said, just because I don't know, doesn't mean it wasn't faked. That's why it would be so important for him to provide additional evidence that backed it all up. Like multiple photos, taken from different cameras, by neutral witnesses. That would be a big help. Not unimpeachable, but at least a start. No photo or video will ever be complete proof of anything, no matter when they were created, because people have been faking photos ever since it was invented.


And then there is the metal sample an alloy containing rare metals and other metals and have marks showing microengineering when observed under an electron-scanning microscrope.

Wheres the trick?


Maybe there isn't any. From what I understand, the examination never proved that it was extraterrestrial. Just unusual, which doesn't prove anything. Again, it would really help if there was footage of an alien landing in a saucer handing the metal sample to Meier in the presence of disinterested witnesses, it was tagged and labeled and the entire chain of evidence was followed into several independent labs, whose results could be compared. That's forensic science, plain and simple.

Still, if the metal sample still exists, and the dog didn't accidentally eat it, I wouldn't mind seeing additional tests done on it. I'll look at that evidence, too. Maybe somebody can unequivocally prove it's not of this Earth. So far, though, no one has. Unusual doesn't automatically mean extraterrestrial.


The most reasonable explanation here is that that Meier is genuine. He is in contact with the Pleaidians and these UFO's are indeed beamships of the Pleaidians.

Why try to evade the most simplest explanation?


That's hardly the simplest explanation. Even if what you say here was completely verified, how, exactly does that lead you to that conclusion? I don't see it. Because the "aliens" said so? Do you believe every alien you talk to (or Meier supposedly talked to, if you believe the official story, since it's doubtful you were personally there)? Now you're going to prove to me aliens never lie? Good luck with that.

Here's a little test. What, exactly, proves that Meier talked to aliens from the Pleiades, as opposed to say, for instance, human time travelers from the future? You know, if I was a time traveler, I'd make up all kinds of fanciful stories, possibly to keep my mission secret or to minimize damage to the timeline. Would this work as a possible alternative "explanation?"

Because if "time travelers" is just as good or maybe even a better explanation of the events as "aliens," then basically nothing has been proven. We're back to our favorite of all answers, "I don't know."

And I don't know, because like I said, that last bit of evidence is always lacking. You apparently feel free to leap over that credibility gap and buy the entire story. Which is fine. Do what you want, if that's what makes you feel comfortable. If you're just absolutely dying to have an explanation of some kind.

Personally, I'll just stay on my side of the gap until whoever is making the claim builds me a nice, solid bridge to cross over. I've got time. I've been waiting for over 20 years already. Although I have to say that the longer it takes for them to come up with the undeniable proof, the more unlikely it appears that they will.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Nohup]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
One thing I find quite weird if Billy is a hoaxer, is why would he spend some much time producing brilliant footage and photo's to perfection using unknown techniques etc, then produce obvious as plain as day dodgy fakes. Something does not smell right with the whole story! Definitely sounds like 1. Meier wanted to get out of the limelight, 2. Meier was forced out of the limelight.

My spidey senses are going mad!



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

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.



I would attribute those 3 differences to blow out, ie a camera on high exposure and with a strong light source on the printed image. Or even we could postulate that BM's recorded the the picture on film or slide then photoed the film playing back the image, which would cause similar effects.

1: the images texturing and detail is identical. every thing from the light patterning to even the bounce light on the belly and groin, which due to exposure would blow out to white (especially if it was a photo of a photo projected onto a surface or played on a TV screen).

2: blurring and blow out (contrast) would wipe em, saying there two different images but ignoring the fact the images contrast exposure and focus is horrible, is just wrong.

3: Blow out again the white or lighter background colors seep and encroach over the darker ones and when you have a thin or fairly thin dark object surround or flanked by brighter shades this blow out (id rather call it 'bloom' since thats its simulation is in 3d games is) makes the darker ares appear thinner. smaller.

The biggest issue i have with it is that you can see with your eyes that the image has no depth to it, it looks just like a photo of a flat page, Even a heavily blurred photo has depth to it.

Why would BM take a high speed photo of a Dino, I say high speed since the fish... if you will notice is caught perfectly while in motion, and isnt blurred more than the pterosaur as youd expect it to be if it was being dropped, it would to my mind appear alot more streaked than it is, hell even the Pterosaur would be alot more streaked if the camera wasnt set up for highspeed photo taking... yet the image is out of focus... that just doesnt compute, his camera is setup for high speed photography yet it wasnt focused at all.

Which also makes me think was his camera able to take highspeed motion photos?, since i can assure you that image is far far to crisp (even in its blurred state) for the logical actions taking place it in, ie a dino swooping (given the way its wings are set id say it, if real, was either gliding in or attempting a stalled dive) while releasing a fish.

If I was to hazard a guess id say the book as photoed turn into a slide then projected onto a projection screen then that was photoed out of focus, the result is a high contrast image with blow out/bloom and a lose of recognisable surface detail.

Gonna superimpose those two dino images and post it.

As for the supposed more authentic small photo of the Pleadian... if you look at it and IIGs suspected source you will see she not only has the same (im assuming their earrings or big earlobes) between them but they also happen to have the same little folded bang of hair on the left hand (viewers left) side of her face. And what really gets me is the fact the two women share the same identical really large cheekbone structure.

They are the same woman and hence the original small picture is not authentic.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

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."



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
There is an excellent documentary on Billy Meier's case produced by his organization which presents some remarkable evidence which either most people at ATS have not seen or have overlooked.


And therein lays the problem Indigo. That's like saying the SS has produced a video to prove that they were really just nice guys. It cannot be impartial or subjective! The whole idea of the organization is to promote Meier and his assertions regardless of the truth. Under those terms it can hardly be considered 'evidence'. It is blatant propaganda!

You should be intelligent enough to understand this or are you just pushing common sense aside because it resonates with what you wish to be the truth?

IRM



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Whatever the truth is about Meier i do find it interesting for all the bellicose rantings about how easy it is to make fakes that are j *just like* Meier's, the fact is no-one so far has managed anything that looks 70% as good as Meier's photos and footage..

Doesn't mean I believe Meier but then again, I am also extremely sceptical of the claims by many nay sayers about how *easy* it is to reproduce Meier's pics..

[edit on 15-4-2009 by FireMoon]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankinmouse
 


That bottom pic was a good laugh. I honestly don't know what was faker, the ufo, car, or the tree.

I always did find it interesting that he used to meditate inside a 7-10 foot or so pyramid made of copper. Supposably the copper helps to eliminate the radio, tv, other signals that the brain picks up. Making it easier to concentrate and relax your mind for easier and quicker meditations.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
It is indeed possible that this is a Pleadian ray gun, and if we think it looks tacky, well then Pleaidians have tacky ray guns
- what are we expecting ET ray guns to look like?


Come on Indigo, I think the Meier's case is interesting and certainly has one or two credible points, but the ray gun? That's beyond gullibility for me, the red nozzle and entirety of the gun is clearly plastic and far too flimsy to handle high energy lasers (hell I bet the thing can't even shoot water).

The whole Billy Meier thing crashes and burns right here for me. Oh and wedding cake anyone?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Well I did a couple of little photo match ups...
First the supposed Pleadian Photo.




Supposed Authentic small photo on the left, A croped version of the photo where IIG said BM got the image from on the right. The Colored circles are to show the areas of interest between the two photos. The Purple V is to show where you can see in the 'authentic' photo the same dark shadowed V in the source photo where the bang folds under. To me the biggest proof is the large Earrings/Lobes... I mean their identical.

The second image is this one...



The bottom is the original supposed real photo of a dino, the top is the supposed IIG source image from the book, it has had its contrast and brightness ramped up real high then Gaussian blurred around 9.0 points in Photoshop as well as having been rotated and scaled to fit the supposed 'authentic' version as best i could, without over doing anything.

It wasnt a perfect match when scaled or rotated but considering the 'authentic' one if it is a fake photoed from a picture in a book or from a projected slide there would be noticeable perspective differences (even if just slightly angled) and I didnt want to distort the Dino Books image apart from rotation and scaling since that could be used to debunk my debunking attempt
.

The Colored circles are once again showing areas of note with similarity, the chest area and groin patchs are self explanatory so i didnt circle them.

What took me as surprise is places like the corner of the mouth (purple circle) where it went from the short blunt stop of the original artwork to the long curve like BM's image as well as the noticeable black outer edge on the throat and gullet very similar to the BM version. Also note the feet, both images share identical form and shape ie extended pinky on the lefthand one and the triangular shape and the just noticable raised pinky one on the righthand one.

Also most stricking is the lumped areas on the upper back edge of the Dino (the blue and yellow circles).

Also note the Fish, and the fact both versions have a just noticeable remnant of the fishs fin seen in the original artwork.

Another oddity to me is that in the BM photo their is a colored area marked by the Arrow with a ? on it... this would mean the Image is a photo of a photo of a supposed authentic dino (since i assume this is either a table or some other object behind or on top of the image.. If this is just a photo of a supposed real photo where or why hasnt the original been printed?.. or maybe its a UFO's porthole... sorry just had to say that


Also the dark green circle shows the area i believe to be the faint orange blur on the BM photo above the mouth.

Now i'll just say the top image is not an exact duplicate of the BM photo (of course) on the bottom. I couldnt attempt that unless I had the the original Books artwork and a proper camera, hence why the outline isnt exactly the same, the blur and contrast/brightness hike was enough to get similar looking results but real blowout or bloom is outside my abilities, and I wanted to alter the Dino Books artwork image with as few steps as possible.

Any discrepancies from the silhouette to me would be from perspective differences, if indeed the 'authentic' photo was a fake and just a photo of the Dino Books Artwork.


[edit on 15-4-2009 by BigfootNZ]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I heard that the governament made fakes and pubished in meier's name to discredit him .... I think that could be the option u should work on



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
That dinosaur photo made me laugh. The ray gun is second place....How cou8ld anyone actually believe this old farmer...oh well...when you want to believe so bad...you will fall for anything.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:53 PM
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?


excellent points of view.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
it amazes me how incredibly sure the debunkers of this thread assume things they actually have no solid proof for. Sure, the ray gun look fake. Sure, some of the photos have most likely been hoaxed. But lets face the facts. Have you ever seen benny hill? There is a specific episode, superteach it was called as i remember. In that episode benny hill was a teacher at a blackboard. One of his students assumed something for no reason and he wrote ASSUME on the board in big letters, circling ASS U and ME. He said, never ASSUME because you make an ASS out of U and ME. I think this applies here. Skepticism is a good thing. It keeps us from being fooled by the unreal... but...

Too much of it can wall you off from the possibilites around you. For instance the ray gun. Indeed, to me it does look hokey. But as the thread creator has said how are we to judge the asthetics of an extraterrestrial species? We can't. We can only ASSUME. And judging them by our standards is patently absurd. As for many of his photos THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO REPRODUCE THEM WITH THE TECH AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME. That is a fact. And even though there are some that a most probably fake, that still leaves the others. And even ONE other should make you wonder...



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


I could cough up better photos than Billy Meier, but they would be real.

What is so hard about ET, is it like algebra or something.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I've been through this case a thousand times and have been on both sides of the fence.

The one thing that has the most leverage on my opinion is from the people who have actually gone there, investigated and spoke with the witnesses and have come up with their own conclusion. So far, they mostly agree it's real.

Evidence has been tampered with and been planted in this case so all the "look at this photo" is nonsense.

Good luck in your quest towards a decision if you haven't made one.

b



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
i find it odd that billy claims to be the only person in the world who has had contact with an ET race, pleiadian or not. i watched an interview of billy stating "everyone else claiming to have contact with aliens is crazy. i am the only one" or something along those lines. any thoughts on this? there seem to be countless cases of contactees who claim to have been visited..



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


I have a bat under my bed. No Whitley Strieber moments for me.

They can knock on the door like anyone else. No kidding---PC



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
There is so much confirmational bias being displaying in this thread from people supporting the Meier case under presumption that the weaker aspects of the case must be deliberate misinformation planted by government organizations, ergo Billy is not responsible for the weaker aspects or frauds. Essentially, it's grasping at straws.

What we are really seeing is an admission of obvious hoax under a veil of denial and misdirection.

"If I can explain away the parts of the story that don't fit and make me feel uncomfortable, everything will be okay again and it will feel right to be justified in my beliefs".

It's called cognitive dissonance.

IRM





top topics
 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join