IIG's investigation of the Billy Meier HOAX

reply to post by mister.old.school


Actually I did a search online on the tree and it turns out that even IIG was forced to retract the claim that the tree is a model because of how stupid it made them look:

Top Skeptic RETRACTS Hoax Claims - Helps Prove Meier Case Real!

Investigator had claimed that Billy Meier used model tree and model
UFO to hoax famous, still irreproducible UFO photos and films

LOS ANGELES, CA - In a stunning development, Derek Bartholomaus, a lead case investigator for CFI-West/IIG, the Los Angeles based, international professional skeptics organization, has retracted his claims, featured in the new film The Silent Revolution of Truth, that Swiss UFO contactee Billy Meier used a model tree and model UFO to hoax his still irreproducible UFO photos.

Bartholomaus’ claims, which are the foundation of his presentation in the Special Features section of the new film, The Silent Revolution of Truth, posited that because some of the trees that Meier photographed with the UFOs were similar they must be the same, model trees.

Shown below is the composite of three of Meier UFO/tree photos that Bartholomaus used to try to substantiate his claims that they were proof of the same model tree. He drew the red and green lines to try to illustrate the perceived similarities on the right side of the trees, which, upon close examination, are not at all exact or clearly indicative of the same tree. And, in his carefully scripted presentation, he also ignored the glaringly obvious dissimilarities on the left sides of the trees, never mentioning them at all.

And, at no time over the past seven years, has Bartholomaus or his organization ever presented as much as one photograph, or any other evidence, of the existence of such model trees…anywhere. It has already been established, by six different professors of forestry, that the trees shown in Meier’s numerous photographs, films and video, are mature, full-grown trees (see: www.theyfly.com...).

After going on record with his unsupported and unscientific conclusions, Bartholomaus made this surprising, historic concession:

“I will also agree with Horn that the photograph section of the short version

of my lecture was the weakest part of my presentation.”

- Derek Bartholomaus, lead investigator CFI-West/IIG

SCIENCE!

One problem with Meier is that for all the talk of scads of evidence, we actually only have a little bit of evidence, and the quality is not that great. So here's a little science-y investigation for somebody do (besides me, because I'm so lazy), with the evidence that we actually have.

Hypothesis: One explanation for their being so many types of "beamships" is that in order to film the same type both close up and far away, it would be necessary to create exact scale models of one ship in various sizes for different distances. (i.e., to film a ship far away, you use a tiny little model, but close up, you need a much larger model)

If I was going to do a really good hoax, I'd build several identical ships. One would be full-sized, another a meter or so across, half that size again, and then maybe a tiny one only a couple of centimeters across. This would be so I could show a continuous sequence of the ship at a distance, approaching, and then finally landing. It would be very difficult, requiring a lot of skill and possibly the use of both hands. It would be much easier to make different types of ships with different sizes.

Test: Examine the available (poor quality) photos. See if the types of the ships are always roughly consistent (allowing for zooming, etc.) with the distances at which they're purported to be. Example: The classic saucer used on the "X-Files" poster. Do we have any photos of it where it is very, very far away, or very close? Or the "wedding cake" ship. Are there any photographic examples of the wedding cake ship being very, very far away? Unless it was actually sitting on top of a tree, I imagine that one would be too large to hang from a fishing pole.

Result: It would be very suspicious if the various types of ships always stayed at roughly the same distances according to their type, and could suggest that the "farther away" ships are actually quite small, and the "close up" ships are much larger, in an attempt to simulate distance.

Somebody look into that for me, could you? I'd be very interested in the results. Thanks a lot.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Nohup]

reply to post by Nohup


Watch this documentary again: www.guba.com...

And watch segment: 63:53. It zooms on the trigger. It is a long trigger indeed, but note that the trigger is unlike any other trigger on guns or toys, it is slightly curved to the left. I can notice an interesting design element as well. The gun is designed to be gripped from the bottom by the hand and note how the hand itself is locked into the gesture of a gun with the index finger pointing straight out to aid the pulling of the trigger. Also note how the handle slants to the right.

An odd design feature is the appendage that comes from near the nozzle.
The red nozzle itself I think it a safety lock on the end of the of the gun, because when watching the video with Billy the nozzle does not appear to be on the gun anymore. This is when he supposedly used it.

This clearly does not look like any gun design on Earth. To be honest I quite like it now

Also note that the gold-foil suit looks nothing like foil at all. It looks like a metallic gold fabric and shown earlier the closest similarity we have(only by comparison) is industrial gold-foil used in spacecrafts and satellites. But this one looks far more metallic and stronger than any gold-foil we have.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by ZeroGhost



Well said ZeroGhost,
The main problem with debunkers is not that they don't believe in the evidence ,it's ok not to believe but they put forth their arguments as if there is no other alternative. The problem is compounded when you have debunkers fabricating evidence as Kal Korf did. IIG at least have stated on their website that they believe the probability is that evidence was hoaxed, although even on this thread they have blatently lied about Marcel Vogels evidence, most of the other contributers that usually show up on these threads just scream hoax and have no room for argument.

To the ray gun and space suit guys, get over it, you cannot logically argue a point based on assumptions about a possible technology you know nothing about, or even worse just because you don't like it!

By all means post and say you don't believe in the evidence but the people who have been trying to figure out how this was done for 30 years have failed to do so on the most compelling evidence, so register your thoughts but accept that you cannot say for sure that you are right.

Peace

Wow talk about beating the ldest, deadest debunked UFO hoax in the history of mankind.

Meier himself went back on his word on the dino picture, and said it was planted by "the government", to discredit him.

So by MrMeiers account the dino pictures were indeed fake.

Asket, is obviously the Dean Martin Dancer, and the picture was taken of meiers television set.

As for the other pictures, they have been replicated, done better and then some.

Also why do these beam ships have problems navigating around trees? 25% of the pics I see are models crashed into(glued onto) small bonsai trees, which many were found in billy's possesion.

As far as the wedding cake ship. ,,,,, Are you kidding me. ROFL.

The plastic toy gun and tinfoil suit, double rofl.

Give it up. This case has been thoghourly debunked sooooo many times on this sight, any mention of the name Meier or his research should be banned. Thats just my opinion. I mean if we really want to "Deny Ignorance", why do we let it continue to spread like a plague.

The ONLY way we will get to the truth is weeding out the stuff that is most likely a hoax, let alone DEFINITELY a HOAX.

Is this OP Micheal Horn doing another round to try to raise some bucks?

If not, this is a truely , truely sad case of wanting to believe in something so bad, one cannot see whats directly in front of thier Face.

HOAX, imho , of course.

one more...Billy Meier...LMAO.

Is this OP Micheal Horn doing another round to try to raise some bucks?

You're saying we should ban all discussions on Billy Meier case because it's proven to be a hoax? By whom? I do not see any proof.

All I see is that Dino and Asket pictures are suspect and possibly fake. I even accept the possibility that they could be fake. I also think the responses given by FIGU in reponse to them are apologetic.

However, I have yet to see any reproductions of his photos and videos and I have already thoroughly debunked all attempts. You claimed that you know of reproductions, alright then, cough it up.

When I am satisfied he has been debunked I will let go of his case. It is fairly easy really just reproduce his best photos and videos using small models and a camera.

By adding laughing icons and "ROFL" after every sentence does not make your points any stronger, but it does do a lot to diminish your credibility.

I am fairly sure this discussion is possible without anybody ridiculing each each other and accusing them of being part of some secret cabal. You accused me of being Michael Horn, I could in turn accuse you of being Karl Koff.
Come on don't be silly. We can discuss this evidence objectively and intelligently and that is what I am doing

So I will pretend you did not accuse me of being Michael Horn. Now, how about that conclusive proof that Billy Meier is a hoax?

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Actually I did a search online on the tree and it turns out that even IIG was forced to retract the claim that the tree is a model because of how stupid it made them look:

I'm not claiming the tree is a "model" at all. I'm claiming the obvious atmospheric perspective problems prove the video is contrived.

I don't care "what" the smaller tree is, the other tree is impossibly gargantuan in proportion.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
However, I have yet to see any reproductions of his photos and videos and I have already thoroughly debunked all attempts.

This is the same disingenuous argument used by (spit) Michael Horn.

One need no "reproduce" hoaxed photographs and videos to prove they are hoaxed. One need merely analyze the attributes and show the numerous assailable issues. To suggest that one must reproduce horrid fake photos as the only means to discredit Meier is the tactic of those invested in promoting same.

By supporting known fraud, you are presenting yourself as a fraudster.

reply to post by mister.old.school


Oh you're not now

Well in that case if it is not a model then it is real, which means that there really is a large object hovering above the tree. Again experts who have run these photos through vigorous scientific texts are saying the same thing. It is not possible to have a tree, hang a small model on it, and then zoom out from an exteme distance and still have it in frame looking like an object with magnitude.

But like I said if you don't trust logic and physics or the scientific experts who have analysed it. Then reproduce it using a small model, attached to the top of a tree and a camera at an exteme distance. It wouldn't be too hard: glue some plates together, find a tree in a field somewhere put it on the tree and then go back an extreme distance and start filming.

Dude if it was that easy by now IIG would have had done it and parded it on their website. Instead they ended up retracting their claim completely.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Again experts who have run these photos through vigorous scientific texts are saying the same thing. It is not possible to have a tree, hang a small model on it, and then zoom out from an exteme distance and still have it in frame looking like an object with magnitude.

We're discussing a video here.

Do you have a reference or link to that? It would seem exceptionally odd that an "expert" would say such a thing. You're attributing qualities to the video I do not see. Perhaps there is a higher-quality edition available. If so, please provide link.

Then reproduce it using a small model,

The disingenuous argument of a fraudster again. No such endeavor is needed to prove the contrived nature of the Meier materials.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
However, I have yet to see any reproductions of his photos and videos and I have already thoroughly debunked all attempts.

This is the same disingenuous argument used by (spit) Michael Horn.

One need no "reproduce" hoaxed photographs and videos to prove they are hoaxed. One need merely analyze the attributes and show the numerous assailable issues. To suggest that one must reproduce horrid fake photos as the only means to discredit Meier is the tactic of those invested in promoting same.

By supporting known fraud, you are presenting yourself as a fraudster.

As I said before you want to make statements that make truth claims and have the luxury of not having them tested.

Read what you wrote above. You do not need to reproduce hoaxed photographs and videos to prove that they are hoaxes. Actually you do, and at least IIG was honest enough to attempt it. You don't even want to attempt it.

You claim that by analysis of the "assailable features" it is enough to prove an image is a hoax. Well how do you know your analysis is correct? You can only know your analysis is correct if you test it. Isn't that the scientific method? Hypothesis, experiment, refine hypothesis.

Anyway going by your "analysis" earlier about the other tree you have already shown you do not understand basic laws of the science of photography. Those who undrstand more than basic laws, such as professional photo experts at Kodak and in academy award winning special effects teams have conducted analysis on the photographs and vidoes and have verified that they are not small models, there are no strings or wire supports, there is no cutting in camera.

So why do you expect us to trust your layman analysis over the analysis of qualified experts with years of experience in the field? Come on do you really expect that?

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
So why do you expect us to trust your analysis over the analysis of qualified experts with years of experience in the field? Come do you really expect that?

Why? Easy, my position is from the standpoint of logic and common sense. Something that has been lacking in the posts from nearly all Meier apologists.

You may need to consider that I may be a "qualified expert"?

You keep referring to "numerous" experts, will you link us to your references? And please, do not link us to Horn's summaries or his "announcements".

reply to post by mister.old.school

You keep referring to "numerous" experts, will you link us to your references? And please, do not link us to Horn's summaries or his "announcements".

That's gagging the witness. Where else am I going to get evidence from? Michael Horn is the media representative of Billy Meier and he presents all his evidence which has been investigated by the highest experts in the field in the original investigations conducted by Lee elders and his team in a 5 year long investigation embroiling thie best government organizations and labs such as Nasa: Jet propulsion lab.

You wanted to know about the scientific tests done in Meiers material. I advise all readers of this post to read this report of just how vigorous the scientific tests done on Meiers photographs and videos were and how the top experts from all around the world were consulted for this investigation:

Scientific Analysis of Meiers Photographs and Videos


A summary of the tests:

* Microscopic examination of the film to a very high magnification(500 diameters)
* Microdenitometric of film using various scanning programs
* Scanning electron microscope examination of film
* Laserscopic examination of film
* Computerization of the raw data for storage on computers
* Videographic display of stored data, examinations and analysis programs used

Some excerpts(I am typing this, because it is a PDF)

Discussions were held with leaders in the field of research, including: optical science engineers, aeronautical engineers, computer programmers, laser specialists and photographic technicians and latest state-of-the-art equipment was reviewed and evaluated.

Basically we started by examining the sample transparency or negative with a laserscope, the same way used to examine black and white negatives with microscopes to determine fakes before computer came along, and we made prelimanry judgements about factors. Laser technology makes it possible for a skilled examiner to determine much before he ever goes to the computer. He can set up a grid, 10,000 lines per centimeter veritical and horizontal, and go back and forth scanning the whole picture. With the laserscope we can blow up even further to look at individiual grains or color laminations in the film emulsion and make judgements particle by particle. Laser holography is then used to provide a 3-dimensional image from a 2-dimensional picture. And laser projection of the hologram is so fine that a 10th of a centimeter square can be blown up to many feet to view the grains and laminations in graphic 3-D. The finest suspension threads and expert retouching overlaps should stand out graphically. Homogenity of the grains and color layers can be studied carefully for deviations from norm.

(Emphasis - mine)

We still find no evidence of trickery in any of these photographs so enhanced. On the other hand, we find details revealed that tend more to establish the validity of the story told by the witness

Still another method referred to us by Ron Spanbauer of De Pere, Winsonsin was tried in judging the depth of field or distance of objects in the picture from the lens of the camera at the time photographs were made(SNIP) The Meier photographs from Switzerland analysed by this method were found to be consistent with the reported data, and with the photogrammetric and computer data generated

For analysis of the moving picture sequence of the Pleiadian spacecraft filmed in color in super 8mm format by Eduard Meier we turned to Mr Jun-Ichi Yaoi of Tokyo, Japan,, a world recognised expert in the film and television industry, now working as an officer in Nippon Television Corporation.

The 12 June sequence filmed near the Berg-Rumlikon in the forenoon shows the spacecraft hovering over a country road as the filming is being done from a slight rise about 200 yards away. Three cars are seen to pass beneath just beyond the hovering object. The film was stopped and vertical lines drawn marking the front and rear of one of the automobiles. More vertical lines marked the edges of the spacecraft and we find that the spacecraft is apparently twice the size of the automobiles(about 10 feet for the auto versus about 20 feet for the spacecraft). This checks with the witnesses stated size of the spacecraft. Both the auto and ship seem to be in the same focus. A branch extending into the picture frame is seen blowing indicating a wind of about 15 knots, if the spacecraft were a model on a line it would have to swing in this much, which is clearly not the case

As described earlier. The tests that were done on Meier's photographs and videos were vigorous and exhaustive and the highest experts in the field were consulted and state of the art equipment was used. Although to me it seems the first tests itself was conclusive, the investigators did not stop at one test, but subjected it to every single test and analysis that was scientifically possible and the Meier photographs and videos withstood test after test.

What would have happened if IIG had submitted their duplicates for similar tests? It would have fallen at the first hurdle. The strings would have been exposed even without a laser analysis.

Now I resubmit Meiers evidence to you replete with the scientific reports. It is obvious that we at ATS have dismissed his evidence without proper examination and now given the new insights into his case, we need to rectify our previous mistakes and examine this much more seriously and in more detail.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child

I did a search for gold-foil to see I can get anything similar to the Pleadian gold suit.

plenty of options for the explanation of the Gold suit...



Space Blanket

Google

Manufacturing

First developed by NASA in 1964 for the US space program[1], the material consists of a thin sheet of plastic (often PET film) that is coated with a metallic reflecting agent, usually gold or silver in color, which reflects up to 97% of radiated heat.[2][3]

In the US, space blankets are made by vacuum depositing a very precise amount of pure aluminum vapor onto a very thin, durable film substrate.

more options...






what does this prove ?....it proves that it could be fake, there was plenty of gold material he could have used. unless of course you believe the Pleaidians gave us the material....

I want conclusive proof if people are going to claim that the dino pic is from the illustration. "Looks like" is not enough. A demonstration that using the illustration you can duplicate Meiers pic exactly is what I want.

will this satisfy you ?.........












without a doubt...they are the same picture. stop denying it. anyone can easily see that the picture was from the book.










[edit on 17-4-2009 by easynow]

[edit on 17-4-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by easynow



I don't know what else you can do easynow, it's so obviously faked, and I'm sorry you've needed to go these lengths to prove it.

I would say he was a patholigcal liar, particluarly when you listen to the drivvle about his pre-plaeidian days as a Indianna Jones. An incredible attention seeker with a disorder and access to tinfoil, childrens books and toys r us.

reply to post by zazzafrazz

I don't know what else you can do easynow, it's so obviously faked, and I'm sorry you've needed to go these lengths to prove it.

yea i don't know how much more i can do but, i am working on a do it yourself wedding cake ufo kit. ...lol....all material included to have your very own, for a low price of $29.95 ......can't beat that deal !

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

video.google.com...

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by easynow

 

I don't know what else you can do easynow, it's so obviously faked, and I'm sorry you've needed to go these lengths to prove it.

No, these are exactly the kind of lengths needed to prove ones claims and to seriously investigate something.

Easynow, I am not unreasonable. I accept your evidence that the Dino pic is likely a hoax. I have never said I was not open to this possibility and intimated myself that they are probably hoaxes fabricated to corroborate the contacts. I am not sure if it was Meier who fabricated it, or his organization. It is rather unfortunate that they felt they had to do this and it has muddied the waters. I also do not believe the apologetic explanations his organizations give out.

Now regarding the gold-foil. Yes, that is exactly what I said before that the gold-foil is similar to the one used in spacecraft for insulation from radiation and heat. They are creating space blankets today, but were they creating them 30-40 years ago and were they readily available in Switzerland? You need to show this as well.

In any case as I said earlier even the space-grade gold-foil does not have the same consistency as the gold-suit Alena is wearing. Note in the second pic where we can see the suit more clearly, it appears metallic. It does not appear like a blanket wrapped around Alena, but an actual suit of gold-metallic like consistency. Again recall the original investigators searched costume and clothes suppliers, stores and for fabrics which would appear and behave as the same, and they found nothing.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Aren't the Plaeidians from a hotter dryer environment? why would they have heat suits when visiting a humid cooler environment? hmmm When I go to Asia (the climate change is all I can think of as similar experience) I strip off to minimum becasue of sweat, I dont bake myself in a lunar suit.

They would not have a loose fitting kmart tracksuit style. It would likely be organic and form fitting, at a guess, with no 'my mother has sown elastic into the sleeve'
The pattern of clothes is HUMAN experience projected into the style, cloth, elastic tracksuit in style.
It is the stylish endeavours of a demented 60 year old Swiss.



[edit on 17-4-2009 by zazzafrazz]

reply to post by zazzafrazz




Sorry I laughed, but Alena was not here on a tourist visit where she would have to don clothes for our climate. Her gold suit is a space-suit, and as I demonstrated earlier this kind of suit is the ideal suit to protect against heat produced from onboard electronics in a spacecraft and radiation and heat out in space. We also have plans or at least considering creating gold-foil space suits.

Anyway I have to go out for a while, so I will respond to your replies to my post later.

Oh, dear.

Indigo, I originally had a begrudging respect for you. I didn't agree with your conclusions, but you seemed to want to analyze my analysis semi-objectively. And then you decided to start quoting the lies that Michael Horn posts on his website.

Let me make it very clear to all of the new people reading this thread who have probably not read all of the other ATS Meier threads. The IIG, and myself in particular, has NEVER retracted ANYTHING we have ever stated on the topic of Billy Meier. Michael Horn likes to make stuff up on a regular basis. One of his favorite things to do is write to various skeptics and say that he is going to send out a press release saying that the skeptics said something that they never did and then when the person refuses to acknowledge the email Horn then sends out a press release saying that the skeptic said something that they never did.

For example, on July 10, 2008 Michael Horn wrote the following email to me:
"Please acknowledge that your findings and conclusions were again (as in the model tree argument) incorrect."

Here's another example from July 12, 2008:
"From: Michael Horn
Date: July 12, 2008 8:45:43 AM PDT
To: Derek Bartholomaus
Subject: Capitulation

Derek,

I am planning on posting an article regarding your and CFI-West/IIG's capitulation in the matter of the UFO on the hillside film clip taken by Meier.

I will be stating that you have failed to support your premise, with any evidence, that the object is a model and that it was somehow manipulated by Meier.

I will further be stating that it is virtually impossible, for a number of reasons, for the object to have been a model and that neither you nor anyone else in your organization have succeeded in even coming close to duplicating it.

And I will also state that, since you have clearly claimed that the object was a model and not a real, unknown flying object, not under the control of Meier or anyone else on earth, that it clearly fulfills your challenge regarding paranormal phenomena.

If there's anything incorrect in the above please notify me asap.

MH"

Because I refused to respond to such an asinine and childish email he then puts out a press release saying that I retracted my statements. The level of intellectual dishonesty in such behavior is astounding.

Now, if you want specific examples of how Michael Horn routinely misquotes people please take a look at this section of the IIG report: www.iigwest.org...

Here are some examples:
Horn's statement: "Six professors of forestry looked at Meier's photos and looked at the trees and each one determined that the trees are full size mature trees and not models."

Prof. Hansen's response: "I have not "authenticated real trees", or made any other definitive statements about these photos. My observations are being misrepresented, and my name and affiliation are being used without my permission."

Prof. Jensen's response: "An estimate of tree height (actually only the top portion of a single particular tree) that I made several years ago in good faith has been taken out of context and misused to purport things that I did not intend. Further, my observations have been misappropriated and misapplied to photographs that I have never seen and situations that I have never reviewed. I want to assure you that I have never purported to authenticate any photos of alleged UFOs for Mr. Deardorff, Mr. Meier, Mr. Horn, or anyone else. Nor have I ever purported to determine the authenticity of any trees in any photos of alleged UFOs for anyone."

Jeff Ritzmann has also tracked down people Horn has quoted. Here is one example from Dr. Malin:
Horn's selective misquote of Dr. Malin: "I find the photographs themselves credible, they're good photographs. They appear to represent a real phenomenon. If the photographs are hoaxes then I am intrigued by the quality of the hoax. How did he do it?"

Dr. Malin's statement: "It really doesn't matter whether they're real or not. If they are real, the occupants don't want to have any substantive contact with us, and certainly they're not offering me a lift to Mars 8^). So screw them! If they're not real, who cares if some nut in Switzerland can make good fakes?"

Also, at the 2008 X-Conference Jeff Ritzmann, David Biedny, and Jeremy Vaeni met Jim Dilletoso and asked him about his analysis of the Meier photographs and he said that he only ever analyzed one photograph and not multiples like Michael Horn implies. Next he was asked what he thought about the Wedding Cake UFO and he said "Oh, that's clearly a fake." You can listen to it on The Paracast: www.theparacast.com... and The Culture Of Contact: media.podcastingmanager.com...

Now, as far as the raygun goes, well all of the components have already been identified in this ATS thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

As far as my IIG report goes, nothing presented here so far has caused me to rethink any of my analyses. If you look at the pteranodon photos and think that they are different from the pteranodon illustration then there is nothing I can do to change your mind. The same goes for the pictures of Asket and Nera. When you have the person in the photograph tell you that she is the person in the photograph and you don't believe her then there is nothing I can do to change your mind. We haven't even discussed all of the "predictions" that Meier claims to have made, but which have been shown to have been post-diction or just completely wrong. Or the audio recordings which were interpreted completely wrong.

I am perfectly willing to adjust my findings when sufficient evidence is brought to my attention. That is the way that the scientific process works. And I have provided updates to the reports to clarify statements that were made. If anyone ever provides sufficient evidence to overturn any of my findings I will post it, but so far no one has.

BTW, I am still not actually done with the report. I still need to get the film analysis, the raygun analysis, and the timeline of Meier events completed. I cannot believe how long it has taken me to finish this report, but that is what happens when you only deal with this on a very part time basis.

-Derek