IIG's investigation of the Billy Meier HOAX, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 23 times


reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 01:47 AM by derekcbart
Oh, boy.

I haven't been on ATS recently and I just found out about this. I don't have much time, but let me point out a couple of things.

First, Frankinmouse, good job at trying to find a similarity on the Wedding Cake UFO. Unfortunately, you didn't look very closely.

Here are the two images:



Please look at your "smoking gun" that shows what you claim is the same object as the adjustable shelf pin. Now, look at the bottom row of spheres and count counter-clockwise. Where the third sphere should be there is a gap. The row of spheres is not continuous. Now look at the other image showing the adjustable shelf pin that is laying on top of the second tier. Look at the bottom row of spheres and count counter-clockwise. Do you see a gap in the spheres? No, you don't. I don't know what the object is that you are pointing to, but it most definitely is not the same object that I have identified as an adjustable shelf pin because it is in an entirely different area of the Wedding Cake UFO.

Next, Indigo_Child, regarding Marcel Vogel using a scanning electron microscope to apparently discover Thulium in Meier's metal sample. It seems as though you did not read the footnotes on my report on the metal: www.iigwest.org...

Here is an excerpt:
"Page 57 of the 1983 book UFO…Contact From The Pleiades Volume II states the following:

The next challenge was to find an expert in optical and electron microscope study techniques (microscrophy) [sic] who was familiar with various levels of scientific knowledge in crystal and metal technology. The search had its frustrations. But eventually a man of eminent qualifications was found, Marcel Vogel, a senior scientist with a major industrial research center."

"Pages 199 and 200 of the 1987 book Light Years: An Investigation Into The Extraterrestrial Experiences Of Eduard Meier state the following:

Before the golden-silver triangle had disappeared from the possession of Marcel Vogel, the IBM scientist had placed it under his $250,000 scanning electron microscope and turned on a video tape to record his findings. The tiny specimen held very pure silver, and 'very, very pure' aluminum, plus potassium, calcium, chromium, copper, argon, bromium [sic], chlorine, iron, sulphur [sic], and silicon. One microscopic area revealed 'an enormous mélange of almost all of the elements in the periodic table.' And each was exceedingly pure."

"Pages 215 and 216 of the 2001 book And Yet…They Fly! state the following:

In one small area in the middle of the sample (blown up five hundred times), he found two parallel grooves joined by furrows, precise hairlines somehow micro-machined into the metal. But even more surprising to him was that the major element present in that small area was the rare-Earth metal thulium."

It should be very plain to see that it was actually Marcel Vogel himself who said that he used a scanning electron microscope to determine the composition of the Meier metal sample. It is, of course, impossible to determine the composition of an object using magnification, no matter how great the magnification.

Also, please remember that Marcel Vogel was a chemist and not a metallurgist and his metallurgical analysis is therefore useless. An actual metallurgist did examine the Meier metal with a mass-spectrometer and found "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."

So, a real metallurgist using the proper equipment finds nothing extraordinary about the Meier metal sample and a non-metallurgist using the incorrect equipment finds something extraordinary about the Meier metal sample. Who are we supposed to believe again?

-Derek


reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 02:38 AM by InfaRedMan
reply to post by derekcbart


Nice observations! There appear to be pins dropping of this baby everywhere. Must have been due to all those anitgrav units!



IRM


reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 03:33 AM by Frankinmouse
Originally posted by derekcbart
Oh, boy.

I haven't been on ATS recently and I just found out about this. I don't have much time, but let me point out a couple of things.

First, Frankinmouse, good job at trying to find a similarity on the Wedding Cake UFO. Unfortunately, you didn't look very closely.

Here are the two images:



Hi Derek,
thanks for the reply, I had indeed noticed that, but in the very same photos you will also notice that the top deck of the object appears to extend upwards in the first one compared to the bottom picture, this for a start means that if it's a model there are two versions of it or the model is adjustable( bearing in mind that Meier said the top deck extended on most ships) if it is not a model then the deck obviously moves in at least one direction. Also in the other two photgraphs I had linked to ,the object in question is undoubtedly in the same position under the the gap in the top row of spheres as the "tack" that you are talking about. It is not in alignment with the bottom row of spheres but if the bottom or top moves then that is irrelevent.

Also if you look at these pictures you can see that the so called bin lid flap is not in the same place in relation to the bottom row of spheres in each picture which suggests that something is moving on the object.





I am not grasping at straws here, you have to admit that the only thing we can tell about the object is what we can see on the photo, in my opinion as the object appears in three photo's under the top row of spheres in the same position then there is a good likelyhood that it is the same object. I did try to find out from FIGU if anyone knew or had evidence that the parts of the ship rotate but no one knows as far as I can tell. Anyway the bottom line is that it may move which would explain the discrepancie. Another possibility is that there is more than one gap in the spheres. At the very least you have to admit the possibility that you could be wrong.

As for the Vogel testimony I have to agree with you ,I do not understand how you could tell the composition of a metal sample with an electron microscope . The video narrator in one of the movies says that metalurgical analysis detected Thulium but there is no evidence to back it up other than Vogels testimony.
Peace

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Frankinmouse]

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Frankinmouse]

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Frankinmouse]



reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 07:07 AM by Frankinmouse
reply to post by da_beast_666

No one has proven the majority of the evidence to be hoaxed. If they had this would't be going on for 30 years, there would be no threads about Billy Meier. There are only theories as to how he may have done it. No evidence. As ayone who defends the case will tell you there are some questionable elements but there is a mountain of eveidence that was investigated years ago that was verified to the best of their ability.


To Sam60
1. prove it, show me a real alien weapon.
2. prove it, make a suit out of foil wrap, take a picture and compare it to Billy's.
3. Prove it, make a wedding cake ship that looks like that and photograph it in 20 different locations, take a video and compare this to Billy's.
4.Yes it looks like a photo from a book.
5.Yes it looks like singers from a show
6.That has already been proven to be untrue.
7.Lets see your recreations. No one else has done it and subjected them to the same testing that Meier went through in the 1970's.

There are a couple of dodgy photo's that cause everyone to spaz out and ignore the rest of what is on offer to investigate, Meier has said that these photo's and others were tampered with. It is at the very least a possibility.

Anyway this thread is about IIG's investigation of the case so if you have nothing to say about it then there is no need to make comments.

I'm finished with the thread but please discuss the thread topic or don't bother with it at all, there's plenty of other Meier threads you can randomly scream hoax at untill you are blue in the face.


[edit on 16-4-2009 by Frankinmouse]


reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 07:09 AM by Indigo_Child
reply to post by InfaRedMan


That is not a problem really. What the video does is present evidence FOR Billy Meier and it is just as permissable as IIG presenting evidence AGAINST Billy Meier. How else are we going to obtain the evidence FOR or AGAINST without going down there to Switzerland ourselves?



reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 08:04 AM by Indigo_Child
Reviewing this thread and for the latest posts I found a common fallacy being used by the anti-Meier proponents:

Argument from/Proof by assertion: It is a hoax, because it is.

This is circular reasoning and is clearly is not valid.

Let us now look at the most objectionable evidence and the arguments(which are rehashes of the above argument) presented

1. Ray Gun : It looks fake

2. Wedding cake UFO: It looks like a trashcan lid

3. UFO photos and videos: I could easily reproduce this!


Ray Gun

1) The proponent states that an alleged 600 year old ET ray-gun does not look like a 600 year old ET ray-gun.

Do you spot the problem in this reasoning? How does the proponent know what a 600 year old ET ray-gun would look like for certain?

The opponent is also not looking at other evidence presented pertaining to the ray-gun, this is called selective-reasoning.


1. The original investigators searched every toy supplier and every store for Meier's ray gun. They also searched costume and clothes suppliers for an outfit for the gold-foil like suit as well as look for materials that could appear like it. They found nothing.

2. The hole that was allegedly burnt into the tree that Meier shot at(which is still parched) had an oval hole which went right through the tree, it was smoothe as glass, and there was no drill that can drill an oval hole found.

3. The investigators tied a string around the trunk of where the hole was and then went as far back as possible into the forest. They found that everything in the line of that string through which the alleged ray passed was parched, and the twigs broken in between as if a ray had passed through it.


Wedding Cake UFO

The opponent states that the Wedding Cake UFO is a trash can with some paraphernalia stuck on it.

This is a myth that has been peddled by IIG. IIG never proved that the wedding cake was a trashcan lid, instead they argued for “vague similarity” between a trashcan lid with a produence appearing to sticking out of it. They state that there is a similar protrudence in the wedding cake UFO and then conclude that the trash can and the wedding cake is the same.

This is a fallacy in formal logic. If x is y, and then x will have exactly the same properties as y. One cannot conclude that x is y just because they believe x is similar to y. If that is the case I could say "fog is the same as smoke, because it looks kind of similar"

Again by selecting reasoning IIG has dismissed the other evidence about the Wedding Cake UFO:

1. The original investigators estimated the object to be at least 10m in diameter

2. A top metallurgist has said that it would take $25,000 to build the thing

3. The UFO's underside has a very intricately designed bottom with very fine perbutations in it which seem to emit light or energy. (This is interesting because most UFO's underside is often described to be aglow.)

Meier has taken night time shots of the Wedding Cake UFO around a car and tree. These are admittedly very poor quality as one would expect from a 70’s consumer camera at night. IIG has dismissed these as being “obviously a toy car and a model tree” but again has not proven it.

Sorry guys but you cannot make statements containing truth claims and not prove what you are saying.

UFO photos and videos

The opponent states that they can easily reproduce Meieirs photographs and videos.

As we have seen already with the UFO photographs and Videos, IIG and others who have attempted to reproduce them have failed to reproduce them. They have even refused to submit them for the same scientific testing that Meier’s material had to undergo.(That is because even to the naked eye the vast technical differences are clear)

Again if x is y, then x has the same properties as y. The kind of properties we are looking for in a real reproduction are:

1. In Meier’s photographs it is very clear these UFO's are suspended a significant altitude over the ground in most of these videos and the sky is clearly visible.

2. The UFO's make sudden movements or disappears and reappears from one spot to another without a frame missed. Special effects experts and video experts from Hollywood and Kodak have analysed this and confirm there is no cutting - this is all happening in real time.

3. The UFO's are clearly of large size and not small models, and they even have lights on them which flash on and off in one video as the UFO is descending.

4. All the UFO's have the characteristic bobbing motion which cannot be produced with a string, which if used would produce a swinging and shaking motion.

So the kind of properties we are looking for in a reproduction

1. High altitude at a long distant with sky clearly visible in the frame

2. Sudden movements, or disappearances and reappearances of the UFO from one spot to the other without any cutting.

3. The simulation of a smoothe bobbing motion of the UFO

Now remember actual academy-award winning special effects experts have publically stated they cannot do this without resorting to modern CGI. So it is no surprise that every effort so far to reproduce these photographs and videos with small models, even by a whole organization hell-bent on disproving this case, has failed.


Now save us the rhetoric and prove your claims. Until that is not forthcoming Meier is far from proven a hoax. And anybody that continues to assert that in knowledge of all of the available evidence is just being plain ignorant.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]


reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 09:29 AM by Indigo_Child
Some more evidence on the Wedding cake UFO



The opponent claims that this is just a trick of perspective photography created by holding up a small model right in front of the camera, as this pseudoskeptic here attempts(he's the same guy that claimed to reproduce Meiers video in the OP)



Note that in his replica he has the model right up against the camera held by his left hand(of screen) and it is clearly visible it a small model held up right against the camera, which creates a flat depth perception. Now compare it with Meier's photograph, the right side and left side is clearly visible. Is he holding it from the top? It is not right in front of the camera but there is a distance between it and the camera, which means that if he was holding it from the top, his hand would be visible in the frame. Hence this clearly, if a model, is a large model.

To actually calculate the size of the object one would need to run it through scientific testing. The original investigators apparently did this and calculated that it was a 10m long. When submitted to experts who viewed the image they said it would take 25,000 dollars to build it.

Also note the intricate detail on the bottom which negates the trash can lid hypothesis, it has very fine tube like structures in an ordered pattern, which appear to emit light/energy.

To corrborate this object is large take a look at this video of the wedding cake UFO hovering in front(or indeed stuck if its a model) of a tree:



The camera is an extreme distance away from the UFO and the tree and still the UFO is clearly visible as having large magnitude even from this extreme distance. Thus implying if this indeed is a model, it is very large model and a lot of construction work has gone into it and in that time this would have required a Hollywood budget to build. The second part is if this is a large and presumably heavy model then how is it attached to the tree? It does not seem attached but looks to be hovering in front of the tree.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]


reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 11:33 AM by Indigo_Child
Perhaps you might care to explain why the top of the vehicle under the large "UFO" is not in shadow and instead shows lighting highlights? And also why the "UFO" is out of focus while the vehicle is not?


If the UFO was right in front of the camera it would be sharpy in focus just like the replica. I have noted in all videos the UFO and photos always has a slight blur around it and this is consistent with the UFO being encapsulated in an artificial field that would distort light thus explaining the absence of the shadow and slight blurryness of the UFO.


As for the laughable video of zooming in and out of a "UFO" stuck on a tree -- perhaps you would care to explain why the tree to the left is gray due to atmospheric perspective of the moist high-humidity air? The "tree" with which the "UFO" is apparently having intercourse is darker, thereby closer to the viewer than the tree to the left which is lighter, and farther away from the viewer. How can this be? Is the tree to the left a massive giant in a deep valley, or is the central darker tree very-small with a UFO model haphazardly glued to it at a silly angle?


The tree on the left in the background is even more distant from the camera than the the tree in the foreground. Also Note that the left-tree is behind a hill. This is why it appears out of focus and grey. If Meier took his camera even futher back even our foreground tree will start to look the same.

I am not going to boast but as I have studied video production I am well aware of how objects in the background from a distance appear to become out of focus and the objects in the foreground appear to be in-focus. If the UFO and indeed even the tree were small models, when Meier zooms out at the extreme distance they would become so tiny that they would disappear from frame. The fact that they are still in frame at the extreme distance the camera is at, and interesting the tree begins to look smaller, but the UFO still appers to have large size, clearly suggests both the tree and UFO are large. This would be born out in a scientific analysis as well using focal points and distance calculations. Indeed experts have verified that the Wedding Cake UFO is indeed a very large object.

I had thought we were done with these silly Meier apologies?


These are not apologies, because the skeptics have failed to show Meier is a hoax. So by presenting evidence in favour of Meier we are not apologising for anything, we are simply making his evidence available for the inspection of others. I have indeed noticed that people who state he is a hoax say it with so much certainty and then expect all discussions to terminate because they have spoken. It doesn't work like that. If he is a hoax, prove he is a hoax. Don't just say it and expect everybody to bow.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]


reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 12:27 PM by Frankinmouse
reply to post by derekcbart


To answer a previous question, IIG stated that Marcel vogel could not have detcted Thulium with an electron microscope, this is correct but there is video footage in The silent Revolution of Truth clearly showing Vogel pointing out the spike of Thulium on a spectral analysis print out.
In fact wasn't this pointed out to you personaly before in a letter this year from Michael Horn when you claimed the same thing? ( just found that bit of info by accident )
Why bring that up when the statement is misleading ,you must have seen the footage and were then reminded of it again by Horn.

I'm calling Shennanigans.

Why is it so bloody hard to just admit at least that you don't know if it's a hoax or not?


reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 12:37 PM by 24694244
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
not only does it not look real..it looks like it was bought at K-Mart


Possibly, although the original investigators of Meiers case looked at all the toy stores in Meiers area they did not find another ray-gun similar to this. An interesting feature on the ray-gun is the apendage that runs from the bottom of it. I have never seen a toy like that.

I am not saying it is not a toy, but from the photo alone it cannot be said if it is a toy or a genuine ray-gun. It in unfasifiable.

Now unless you can show me what a real ET ray-gun would look like, I think this argument is going to get very tired.


Only my second post, so I feel a little "gobby" saying this... but..

why does it need a trigger? How does a trigger operate a non-mechnanical device? It seems extremely inefficient engineering, given that inside the casing there would therefore need to be a pivot assembly (to hold the trigger and provide an axis to move around), and a linkage assembly so that the trigger could operate the firing mode...

Why not a simple squeeze button built into the handle, which would also greatly improve accuracy?

I would conclude that the "trigger" is simply to provide a reference point, for people unfamilair with what it is... eg a pointer as to what this strange device is... "Its a gun!"

As for the dinosaur... hmm... ok, find a painting of a common bird. Or take a photo of one yourself. Now try to recreate that photo again, such that the angle (in this case, 1/4 on from below left) is the same, as the bird flares in the same manner, with the mouth open at the same degree, and the same "plumage" or underside colouring.

I'd wager that flying dinosaurs of that type numbered, in any one location, in their dozens at most,. The chances of taking a photo of a low-count animal, that happened to exactly match a painting... sorry. The chances are so fantastically small. My point above is that even when the necessary subjects number in their thousands at any one location it is improbably small a possibillity to recreate a prior image...

The other point is... why does "alien" clothing and fashion tend to model the then-current/previous generation sci-fi fashion designs, and/or use current textiles?

Examples. 60/70 fashions of the year 2000 showed us in silver lame suits, or Grecian style robes. What do we wear? Much the same textiles as we did in the 60/70s, albeit different cuts and patterns. But the textiles are the same. Oh, but we do have Gore-Tex, teflon, etc. Its not inconceivable that advanced cultures would improve on textiles, much as we tend to do?


reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 12:39 PM by Frankinmouse
Originally posted by mister.old.school
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Some more evidence on the Wedding cake UFO



Perhaps you might care to explain why the top of the vehicle under the large "UFO" is not in shadow and instead shows lighting highlights? And also why the "UFO" is out of focus while the vehicle is not?


As for the laughable video of zooming in and out of a "UFO" stuck on a tree -- perhaps you would care to explain why the tree to the left is gray due to atmospheric perspective of the moist high-humidity air? The "tree" with which the "UFO" is apparently having intercourse is darker, thereby closer to the viewer than the tree to the left which is lighter, and farther away from the viewer. How can this be? Is the tree to the left a massive giant in a deep valley, or is the central darker tree very-small with a UFO model haphazardly glued to it at a silly angle?



I had thought we were done with these silly Meier apologies?

[edit on 16-4-2009 by mister.old.school]



The reason the van is not in shadow is because there are allegedly three different variations of sizes of this ship, this is supposedly a smaller craft if I remember correctly, it is not hovering over the van it is between the van and camera.
As for the tree, you have a good point but I don't know how big either of the trees are, I'm also not sure exactly what variation size that craft is supposed to be. Which may explain it if it is smaller than the full size craft. Then the tree with the ship dosen't have to be enormous anyway.

And on and on we go.....


reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 01:21 PM by Frankinmouse
reply to post by derekcbart


Are we going to get a reply from you Derek about my counter argument and the fact that you are repeating something again that you know is untrue to discredit the Meier case?




reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 01:26 PM by Indigo_Child
reply to post by mister.old.school


Simple, the background tree is much larger and it is also lower. We can only see the top portion of the background tree. I think if you look close you will find some faint glimpses of other tree further in the background.

Simply put if the tree in Meiers video was a model tree from the distance of Meiers camera the tree would disappear out of shot. Thus the tree is clearly large(smaller than the background one) and the UFO is henceforth clearly large as well.

Then we have the photograph of the wedding cake UFO clearly indicating its size.

If you still think it is fake despite the evidence to the contrary then I am sure it will not take you too much effort and time to set-up a model tree in the distance with a small model UFO and then see if you can reproduce this picture. All my knowledge of photography and physics tells me you cannot
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



UFO in Riga, Latvia?
  Posted 18 days ago with 9 member flags
Empty Plane Theory
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags
Obama\'s College Classmate Speaks Out!!!!
  Posted 11 days ago with 4 member flags
Machu Picchu: Hidden face?
  Posted 16 days ago with 2 member flags
Possible alien at Russian Machine plant ?
  Posted 13 days ago with 2 member flags
Massive US Troop Movements In California Raise Russian Concerns
  Posted 14 days ago with 1 member flags
Ghost in kitchen - [HOAX]
  Posted 10 days ago with 1 member flags
KISSFM Records Strange Noise
  Posted 11 days ago with 1 member flags