It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Billy Meier What A Joke!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Meier has absolutely no desire to be "believed", let alone worshipped.


your right , he just has lots of webpages , lots of books written about him (which he doesnt get any money from of course
) and is after the $1m off randi




posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   
www.rense.com...

I found an interesting story about Randi and Meier, in which Randi claim that a child can duplicate the photos and video's but yet refuse to do so.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by acidhead
yes i am

do you not know what tin foil is ? do u not know that the tree could have a bar comming from it and supporting the back end

how do u even know it has a rear side to it ?

Tin foil would be out of the question (it would be a crinkled mess). Again, this ship has been photographed up close and from many angles, and there are structures on it where one could discern it being a 3-D, and definitely metal, circular object. Feel free to prove me wrong and produce the same results Meier achieved using 12-foot cardboard models covered with tin foil...lol! Sorry, the idea just appears comical to me.


why doesnt the ufo fly around ?

Good question, although you may not be satisfied with the answer. Meier says he communicates with them verbally but also telepathically. I can't prove it either way, especially the latter, so let's file this under the "speculative" category.
In a later segment from the same video clip I linked to earlier, you could hear Meier conversing (alegedly) with one of the ETs in Swiss German dialect named Quetzal, who is supposedly standing off to the left side of the camera. The ETs are said to be responding back to him telepahtically. Meier verbally says "Could you please make the ship go around the tree. You are always keeping it in the same place." There's a pause for a couple of seconds, then Meier says in a forlorn tone, "Well, okay." The implication here is that they rejected his request, as in many other cases where Meier wanted them to provide more convincing evidence. Going back to my earlier post on "plausible deniability," the reason may become apparent in that, making the ship move around the tree on videotape would provide nearly undeniable proof that their ships are real and most people would be forced to accept their reality, something the ETs do not desire. For more on this deniability factor, check out Professor James Deardorff's article on it, with regard to the Meier case, at www.tjresearch.info....


a small swiss village where there are lots of fields and hardly any people to witness you mean ?

No, I mean the single, long, winding road that meanders its way up to Meier's residence in Schmidrueti is liberally pocketed with many houses from where people would easily be able to see him toting models, balloons, or model-supporting arms on his moped.


so who writes his webpages , produces his films etc etc ?

FIGU, the group which comprises people of varying backgrounds and professions, voluntarily helps Meier to publish his writings which are accumulating on a daily basis (now over 25,000 pages). They began a website in the late 90s to present some of Meier's (and their own) material (www.figu.org). As a non-profit group under strict Swiss statutes, FIGU provides their financial reports to two accountants and publicizes their statements for anyone to see. Meier spends his days working on his property and his nights writing until early morning hours.


if he is talented enough to zoom a camera with 1 arm whilst holding the camera steady , while adjusting the focus i think he is clever enough to tie some string around a tree and dangle a disc shaped object

If you can show me string and proof that it is close to the camera, I'm all ears.


did you notice on the videos that the 1st one swung like a pendulum in a figure of 8 , the second and 3rd videos where just zoomed in at something with a sky background - nothing at all for reference

i want to see this object fly overhead and then land behind something of a known size

Judging by the responses I've heard over the years, I think that no amount of proof is really ever going to be enough in this case. Do you know of any other UFO case where the alleged aliens provided metal samples from their ships in varying states of processing and which were analyzed by scientists and said to be currently irreproducible on Earth, and actually produced a publicly available movie on it shown through the electron scanning microscopes? I don't.


you do not know the size of the tree and your statement of the ufo being 3.5 meters isnt a fact

Right, I don't know the size of the tree. But based on having seen enough fir and wettertanne trees over there, I know they're not like 6 to 10 feet tall, especially given the amount of zooming he did clear across the grass. The ship was "said" to be 3.5 meters. I think I did say that.

As far as your comment on the "Amazing" Randi and Michael Horn's attempt at getting him to put up his alleged reward money for proof of ET existence, that is Michael's personal deal and has nothing to do with Meier, so don't go accusing him.

Typical capitalistic thinking here in the good ol' US of A... always thinking money is involved. Really, get over it already.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   
What I do not quite understand the logic of is the following:

1) The aliens let Meier film their spaceships, but do so in a way, that they could be interpreted as hoaxes.

on the one hand, but on the other hand:

2) "the alleged aliens provided metal samples from their ships in varying states of processing and which were analyzed by scientists and said to be currently irreproducible on Earth, and actually produced a publicly available movie on it shown through the electron scanning microscopes"

If I understand correctly in the first case they do not want the proof of be conclusive and in the second case they want the proof to be conclusive.

I am puzzled...



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by gzhpcu
What I do not quite understand the logic of is the following:

1) The aliens let Meier film their spaceships, but do so in a way, that they could be interpreted as hoaxes.

on the one hand, but on the other hand:

2) "the alleged aliens provided metal samples from their ships in varying states of processing and which were analyzed by scientists and said to be currently irreproducible on Earth, and actually produced a publicly available movie on it shown through the electron scanning microscopes"

If I understand correctly in the first case they do not want the proof of be conclusive and in the second case they want the proof to be conclusive.

I am puzzled...

This is another point you would have to decide on your own what to make of it. Despite the inexplicable results obtained from the metal samples, there will always be an element of skepticism, especially when the metal samples suddenly "disappeared" after they were analyzed. It now can be considered by some to be more like videotaped hearsay than tangible, irrefutable evidence. (Meier received more samples in 1993, of which I have photographs, but he will not release the samples for study until somebody can professionally analyze them..somebody who can also be trusted with their handling.)
According to what I've read in Meier's/FIGU's material, the desired result of the evidence was to induce a controversy which would actually get people (particularly scientists, agencies of government, etc.) to really wake up and pay attention to what was going on in UFO-related concerns.

Read the section on UFOs - Beamhips - Flying Saucers near the bottom of this bulletin for more on the controversy: www.figu.org/us/figu/bulletin/no1.htm. It will probably come off as the convenient cop-out for most, but I can't say either way what you should think of this. It's really up to you to decide.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   


did you not see this picture in my other post or did you ignore it

the tree as u put it is 3.5 meters , the ufo in the pic is roughly the same width as the tree - which is roughly the same as the car (we know cars are roughly 3 to 4 meters in length by the fact we see them daily)

the car is out of focus ??? for the car to be out of focus so much then the car must be alot closer to the camera than the ufo - this would make the ufo a long way off into the distance and a lot larger - UNLESS ITS MINITURE

if your taking pictures of miniture objects and using a lense for close up and small objects then it doesnt take much distance to put things out of focus - on a larger scale it would be in focus

sorry - and as if that car is real


[edit on 23-6-2004 by acidhead]

[edit on 23-6-2004 by acidhead]



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by acidhead

did you not see this picture in my other post or did you ignore it

Again, I don't ignore posts. Though I try, I can't respond to every single posting, especially those that only have a subjective accusation and no questions.


the tree as u put it is 3.5 meters , the ufo in the pic is roughly the same width as the tree - which is roughly the same as the car (we know cars are roughly 3 to 4 meters in length by the fact we see them daily)

the car is out of focus ??? for the car to be out of focus so much then the car must be alot closer to the camera than the ufo - this would make the ufo a long way off into the distance and a lot larger - UNLESS ITS MINITURE

if your taking pictures of miniture objects and using a lense for close up and small objects then it doesnt take much distance to put things out of focus - on a larger scale it would be in focus

I never said the tree was 3.5 meters. I said that "it is said" the ship in the video footage was 3.5 meters. It also seems like you missed my earlier posting where I said:

"This clip, btw, is just a fragment of a much longer piece. Meier used one of the first consumer video cameras on the market in Europe in 1981 (a SABA) and said that this unusual "Wedding Cake" style ship was a 3.5 meter unmanned remote ship. Other sizes of this identical craft were 7, 14 and 21 meters (don't worry you'll see them in an upcoming photo journal produced by Steelmark publishing)."

Do the math. 21 meters is almost 70 feet! Meier photographed all of these sizes with his still camera. His newer still camera(s) had variable focus, unlike his earlier single-reflex camera that was stuck on the inifinity setting and with which he photographed his earlier shots.

[edit on 23-6-2004 by Aurelius]



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   
so this tree is over 21 meters wide ???



i think not , maybe the aliens made the tree grow with the vintage toy raygun they brought with them



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   
by the way - all these people who live in his village who cant see him making cardboard ufos , how come they all cant see huge 21meter flying saucers over their little town ?

why is it only some poor lonely 1 armed man taking pics of these things ?



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by acidhead
so this tree is over 21 meters wide ???

i think not , maybe the aliens made the tree grow with the vintage toy raygun they brought with them

Where are you guys getting your figures? The ship, on this particular day, was said to be 3.5 meters, not 7!!!

If you're going to throw nothing but sloppy, half-baked comments and questions at me, those will definitely be ignored.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   


here is an image of a close up object with a huge object behind it - looks kind of different wouldnt you say

dont threaten to ignore me - i dont actually care if you do or dont , it will just prove that your refusing to accept the obvious



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a man has a story that is basically unbelievable

he takes pictures of things that are beyond us and does them in a fasion that they look fake - he could create the perfect video that blows everyone away but he doesnt

he makes his pics look like they are swinging on string , makes pics like they are just zoomed in and pretending to be flying past the camera , makes pics like they are hung off trees and makes pics like they are models

you go outside and try to make a large picture look like a miniture - its hard , he does it all the time - think logically why his pics look like minitures if making normal sized objects look like minitures is hard -

when you have an amazing story - but his footage looks like models then the chances are pretty much probable that they are models - dont u think?



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by acidhead
a man has a story that is basically unbelievable

he takes pictures of things that are beyond us and does them in a fasion that they look fake - he could create the perfect video that blows everyone away but he doesnt

he makes his pics look like they are swinging on string , makes pics like they are just zoomed in and pretending to be flying past the camera , makes pics like they are hung off trees and makes pics like they are models

You tell me with a straight face that the photos at www.steelmarkonline.com/ufo_photo_gallery.htm look fake. I find it hard to believe that you would. Do you know what distance and atmospheric hazing is, which can be easily seen in many of Meier's shots indicating distance? How do you account for that?


you go outside and try to make a large picture look like a miniture - its hard , he does it all the time - think logically why his pics look like minitures if making normal sized objects look like minitures is hard -

Do we have exact parameters to work with in determining if the photo in question is a fake? Have you taken a photo -- at night, with a flash -- of a car somewhat close to camera with the focus directed at a larger object way behind it, using a similar camera model? Meier was always told they shield their ships from sight in any given direction and could even direct the "view" only at his camera or his face in order to keep others from seeing it. Could the ship have been across a road and that car (with its unaware passengers) was moving past the frame, hence the blur? If we don't have exact parameters, you and I can't say with conviction that it "should" look any differently than it does, now can we.


when you have an amazing story - but his footage looks like models then the chances are pretty much probable that they are models - dont u think?

Many of his photos have ships that are very obviously distant and large. Why don't we agree to disagree on this point since I have read all the documentation done by experts in photography who say with confidence that the objects in his photos are large and at a considerable distance from the camera -- even the computer calcs agreed with this conclusion. Are you going to easily dismiss those analyses just because Meier's contacts don't fit your paradigm of how contact with an ET civilization should occur?

If you get to know this case, you'll find that the photos are merely a catalyst to make one dig a little deeper. When they do, and actually pick up and read some of Meier's books, one will be further engaged in trying to figure out how a simple, Swiss farmer can accurately predict scientific discoveries and world event related information years before it is discovered or happens. This will lead the person down an entirely new road of thinking and discovery which easily dwarfs the photo evidence by orders of magnitude. But most never reach this point and choose to wallow in the mire (pun intended) of his material proof, which appears strikingly incredible to some experts, and horrendously fake to others. That's why I will only spend so much time wallowing in the mire of the photo evidences, etc. They will never be 100% proof of anything.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   


You tell me with a straight face that the photos at www.steelmarkonline.com/ufo_photo_gallery.htm look fake. I find it hard to believe that you would. Do you know what distance and atmospheric hazing is, which can be easily seen in many of Meier's shots indicating distance? How do you account for that?


what pics have the ufo in atmospheric hazing ? i can see the shading on the floor but not on the ufos ??



Do we have exact parameters to work with in determining if the photo in question is a fake? Have you taken a photo -- at night, with a flash -- of a car somewhat close to camera with the focus directed at a larger object way behind it, using a similar camera model? Meier was always told they shield their ships from sight in any given direction and could even direct the "view" only at his camera or his face in order to keep others from seeing it. Could the ship have been across a road and that car (with its unaware passengers) was moving past the frame, hence the blur? If we don't have exact parameters, you and I can't say with conviction that it "should" look any differently than it does, now can we.


that car is blured by focus and not motion blur , also the rest of it about the aliens hiding their ships is quite an amazing story for why other people dont see them in his little close village , how fitting


Many of his photos have ships that are very obviously distant and large. Why don't we agree to disagree on this point since I have read all the documentation done by experts in photography who say with confidence that the objects in his photos are large and at a considerable distance from the camera -- even the computer calcs agreed with this conclusion. Are you going to easily dismiss those analyses just because Meier's contacts don't fit your paradigm of how contact with an ET civilization should occur?


if many of his pics are so obviously distant and large - how come we are arguing about it ?
when i see a picture of a car or a video of a car - it looks like a car , it looks real , it doesnt lie about its size , its depth , its speed etc etc
his pics and videos should do the same - instead they throw up familiarities about other things like "pendulums" , "models" , "bits of tea sets superglued together and painted"

actually the thing that totally told me was fake was the ufo noise mp3
i know my # about synthesisers - inside and out , i can program modulars , can program fm synths etc etc , that sound was not recorded outside by a loud object - trust me , i have tried to record things outside and it doesnt work very well unless you have alot of expensive equipment
the sound had total bass depth , had hardly any noise considering it was taken in a field
my educated guess would say it was an old analog synth like a korg ms-20 or similar played in a room and close mic'd or maybe even directly into the tape deck itself

but..

maybe your right - maybe he is visited by aliens

until i see a pic of a 21 meter ufo casting a large shadow on the floor or a video of one flying from a distance to upclose with something in the background to show you its not all camera zoom then i think we shall just dissagree

[edit on 23-6-2004 by acidhead]



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
in ref to this pix:



Canton Zurich - 14 April, 1976 - A Swiss Mirage Jet fighter is called in, makes 22 passes, forcing the craft to make evasive maneuvers.


this is pretty interesting in itself,

is there any written reports on this specific incident?

Who called in the Mirage?


(as for the Mirage would of it been possible to fly back with it's wiring melted?)





quote from site:
"photo has a twig in the foreground providing a reference point for analysis. Notice the field depth of the photo over the valley. This photo would be almost impossible to fake, especially in 1976!"

that leads me to my next question?

If Meier did fake these shots, then how easy was it in the 1970's to make photos like this?



more analysis

this site has some great enlarged pix


jra

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   


You tell me with a straight face that the photos at www.steelmarkonline.com/ufo_photo_gallery.htm look fake.


they look fake... at least the ones i've seen larger versions of. It doesn't help that those photos on that link are all 220x147 in size. Makes it kind of hard to say anything about them when the UFO's are 4 pixels wide.

But this photo: www.steelmarkonline.com... i've seen a bigger one of this one somewhere. This one always looked fake to me.

Years ago when i first read about this guy and the Pleiadians. I found it very facinating and wanted to believe in it, but after i saw the photos, it really killed the whole thing for me. I just can't believe the guy anymore. As much as i'd like to believe his story. I just can't. Not when the pics that i've seen look a bit off to me.

In regards to the photo of the UFO and car. The car totaly looks like a little toy car because the amount of blur on it. It is not motion blur because motion blur would be directional. This blurry car has a consistant blur all around it. You say one of his cameras focus was stuck on the infinity setting? Well then from what I know. When on that focal setting, everything from 4 feet away from the camera to infinity should be infocus. The only other way he could get a blur like that on an object would be to adjust the aperature which controls the DoF (depth of field), but then again the focus on the camera would have to be working well to make sure the focal plane is on the ship. So that brings us back to why is the car blurry. Well i'd say it is because it is 4 feet or closer to the camera lens.

Again like I said. I'd like to believe this guys story because I find it very facinating, but I just can't. Not with photos like these. It was stated that the aliens also wanted him to make the photos appear that they could be fakes? I'm not sure who said it, but I remember reading that somewhere on this thread. That just seems like to convienant of an excuse for fake looking photos.

Maybe it's all true or maybe he's just an old man having fun with a camera and writing sci fi. Either way i'm not going to believe it until I can see one for myself or some one takes dozens of consistantly good photos.

[edit on 23-6-2004 by jra]



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 05:27 PM
link   


tell me they are not little nuts and led's on the bottom of it please ,

also note the high luminence of the car and the total lack of reflection in the ufo's mirror like underside





quote from site:
"photo has a twig in the foreground providing a reference point for analysis. Notice the field depth of the photo over the valley. This photo would be almost impossible to fake, especially in 1976!"


if you look near the bottom - there is a ridge - how hard would it be for someone to throw a ufo into the air and duck between that ?



[edit on 23-6-2004 by acidhead]



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by acidhead
what pics have the ufo in atmospheric hazing ? i can see the shading on the floor but not on the ufos ??

The distance hazing can be seen either as a bluish or greyish tint on the metal skin of the object and is caused by an object picking up moisture, dust and vapor in the air between the object and the observer (ever look at a buildings or mountains in the distance?). When the photo journal from Steelmark becomes available, you will see this very clearly, even though it is still seen in some of the photos on the web.


that car is blured by focus and not motion blur , also the rest of it about the aliens hiding their ships is quite an amazing story for why other people dont see them in his little close village , how fitting

Yeah, but the problem is, many people in his town DO see the objects. Meier is well-known for having attracted a large amount of sightings in his area. And the pictures are still coming from other eyewitnesses.


if many of his pics are so obviously distant and large - how come we are arguing about it ?

First, I was just saying that there are more photos in which the objects are near known objects that are far away, and couldn't be classified as "miniature", which you feel strongly about. Secondly, I wouldn't say we are arguing about anything, but rather sharing strong opinions.


actually the thing that totally told me was fake was the ufo noise mp3
i know my # about synthesisers - inside and out , i can program modulars , can program fm synths etc etc , that sound was not recorded outside by a loud object - trust me , i have tried to record things outside and it doesnt work very well unless you have alot of expensive equipment
the sound had total bass depth , had hardly any noise considering it was taken in a field
my educated guess would say it was an old analog synth like a korg ms-20 or similar played in a room and close mic'd or maybe even directly into the tape deck itself

I can't believe how easily you dismiss this. Really. This sound is incredibly unique. Are we both listening to the same sound? Here it is, just in case: www.steelmarkonline.com/download_files/Beamship_sounds_from_Billy_Meier.mp3. I owned several Roland, Korg and Ensoniq synthesizers in my past too and know a lot about tweaking oscillators and waveforms. I made many sound patches in my day. Meier's sounds were professionally analyzed by the best of the best in sound engineering (really, you have to read this: www.theyfly.com/PDF/UFOSoundRecordings.pdf.)
The engineers determined there was no way he could have made those sounds without using very expensive synthesizers... expenses way beyond his means. 32 alternating frequencies, 24 in the audible range, 8 in the inaudible range. I'm sorry, but you just don't get that on a korg ms-20, an arp, a moog, what have you. They were also able to detect bird chirping, a chain saw, and other outside noises common in his area. I think you can even hear the birds right in the beginning of the clip. Again, you and I have no clue as to how loud that sound was (which, btw, attracted other witnesses from miles away). So again, can you really say with conviction that the sound could not have been recorded outside unless you have all the data present?

Meier recorded his first sounds in 1976, then later in 1980, outside in front of dozens of witnesses. His wife recorded them too, in fact, further away from her and the recorder, Meier said the sound was so loud and penetrating that he had to wrap his jacket around his head as he was getting a "headache."


but..

maybe your right - maybe he is visited by aliens

until i see a pic of a 21 meter ufo casting a large shadow on the floor or a video of one flying from a distance to upclose with something in the background to show you its not all camera zoom then i think we shall just dissagree

Yes! You hit the nail on the head. We don't have to agree, which is fine by me. At least we're talking about it and taking a closer look at it.


jra

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 05:42 PM
link   


...almost impossible to fake, especially in 1976!"


What makes it impossible to fake? Just because it was done in the 70's? Sure they didn't have PC's and Photoshop back in the day, but all the terms and names of tools are based upon the real world equivalents. For example the term "superimposed" comes to mind. It was a term (and a method of photo editing) long before we all relied on digital technology.

Photo editing has been done since the early days of photography as far as I know. Sure it's hard to to well, but definately not impossible.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   
so whats up with this?



www.iigwest.com...

this was part of a challenge to try and recreate the Meier photos,

I wonder why it took em 20 years or so?

.....can someone show me a real UFO for comparison please



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join