Billy Mier contact [hoax]

had to post this reply as i had to go to work after that last fiasco so here ya go buddy deebaunk yer heart out

www.steelmarkonline.com...


Photo #228 fir a starter would be nice....

Originally posted by stirling
had to post this reply as i had to go to work after that last fiasco so here ya go buddy deebaunk yer heart out

www.steelmarkonline.com...


Photo #228 fir a starter would be nice....

Simple! Models on a string. This has been replicated many times before. Actually, its not that hard to do once you have the models and a bit of fishing line. We know he done this because the de-bunked footage of the ufo going around the tree was done the same, only that time he used a model tree, that was never actually at the site of the footage

You must know that some of the known faked footage used string and a model. A good example of this is the footage where one of the ufo's vanish, the appears again. You can clearly see the cut in the footage when it vanishes and appears again. Its an old special effects trick used on tv.

So, we know that he used this method on his well known hoaxed footage/photos. So, this could be replicted quite easilt once you know what you are doing.

Meiers photos at the begining did not look that bad, but the more confident he got, the more ambitious he got, and thats when he evidence became truely shocking, and made it easy to see how he was doing this. Its a mix of models on a string,model tree's and illusion.

You get a model tree, and put it say twenty feet away, then stick a ufo to it, and there you have a tree that looks far away with a ufo stuck to it. What makes this even more unbelievible is the fact that these tree's are not even there. His excuse for this was the paladiens erased the tree's and peoples memmories of the tree's lol lol

When Mr horn says that these photos and footage have not been replicated, he is lying. They have been replicated many times.

replicated?
please enlighten...Link to proof?
Do you see a string in the photo #228?
Show where string is attached to what it is hanging FRom...perhaps sobody else has debunked this, and you may wish to goggle their work....
Also explain how one armed individual could manipulate such trickery in 228 ...
have you even tried to manipulate a 35 mm camera with one hand?
I think a better debunk is in oprder anybody can SAY oh he did it with string and models,
its so obvious, but truth of it is there have been people who have admitted they couldnt prove the phtots false...
I have to agree that meiers american rep is a shyster....
I am not so sure that the whole episode is bogus however
be that as it may i have picked out a photo among many of meiers works and it remains for you to either produce the methods (with apropriate diagrams .
explain it at least, or either that you may wish to produce a duplicate photo which you yourself vouch that you have produced with just one hand ...this, of course would be the most impressive of all.....
Cretinly a better reply than oh string i call string!\ yahn a yahan a string......

Man!
I enjoy the Meier case, and I like the photos, but the films have been well replicated using nothing but string and models. Just do a youtube search, it's been done and done well. What always seemed so fakey to me, was the craft stuck in the tree photos(and films), it don't move, it's just stuck in the tee. And it's the same tree in all the shots, and now the tree is disappeared. It's a fun case, but sadly to me, I am now convinced it's not true, though I wish it was. of course replicating evidence does not mean the evidence is fake, but it does show how it could be done. I've kinda moved on to the Romanek case now, because I think this one is true.

Originally posted by stirling
replicated?
please enlighten...Link to proof?
Do you see a string in the photo #228?
Show where string is attached to what it is hanging FRom...perhaps sobody else has debunked this, and you may wish to goggle their work....
Also explain how one armed individual could manipulate such trickery in 228 ...
have you even tried to manipulate a 35 mm camera with one hand?
I think a better debunk is in oprder anybody can SAY oh he did it with string and models,
its so obvious, but truth of it is there have been people who have admitted they couldnt prove the phtots false...
I have to agree that meiers american rep is a shyster....
I am not so sure that the whole episode is bogus however
be that as it may i have picked out a photo among many of meiers works and it remains for you to either produce the methods (with apropriate diagrams .
explain it at least, or either that you may wish to produce a duplicate photo which you yourself vouch that you have produced with just one hand ...this, of course would be the most impressive of all.....
Cretinly a better reply than oh string i call string!\ yahn a yahan a string......

Did you actually read a word i said? There are two movies clips that meier hoaxed. One was the ufo going round the tree, and footage where the ufo vanishes then appears again. Now, how do you think he got those ufo's in the air? Thats right, with string or thin wire. Can you see the string or wire, no, you can't, but that does not mean its not there.

Ok, here are some links to ufo's on a wire or string, but to be hinest, i do not se the point really because your mind is made up

Have you noticed how footage of a moving ufo that meier took wobbles, just like this footage. The footage below has been replicated perfectly. There is no doubt about it. But i bet you say its not convincing, even though they look the same. Can you see the string? now, you can't.

And before you say "replicate yourself" i don't have too, because its all been done before im afraid.

reply to post by tom502


Yeah, that footage makes me laugh. He clearly used a model tree, and the sad fact of the matter is, he used the same model tree in different locations. All he done was stuck a model to the tree, most prob with glue. And what a suprise, none of those tree's are in the location lol Here is some more footage. If the OP still says that they have not been replicated, then he is just delusional. Erm string or wire comes to mind

Ho whoa here i merely ask for the diagram or other explanation of photo 228 specifically is that to much for you to come up with?
The other photos movies i am not privvy ti watch as my costs run already 150 and mor5e per month to operate this connection...soon to increase again by the look of it...
even a little bit of freedoms expensive these days im afraid....
back to subject explain please photo i mentioned you gave me my choice, now you dont want o go into full ebunking detail....
i could have chosen a moving picture but didnt...
so what you have posted is not relevant to my choice s it.your parameters i might add....

Originally posted by stirling
Ho whoa here i merely ask for the diagram or other explanation of photo 228 specifically is that to much for you to come up with?
The other photos movies i am not privvy ti watch as my costs run already 150 and mor5e per month to operate this connection...soon to increase again by the look of it...
even a little bit of freedoms expensive these days im afraid....
back to subject explain please photo i mentioned you gave me my choice, now you dont want o go into full ebunking detail....
i could have chosen a moving picture but didnt...
so what you have posted is not relevant to my choice s it.your parameters i might add....

Its not my fault you can't see the videos. The video's explain how he done it perfectly. I don't need to make diagrames or do my own footage becaus it has been done many times. But you will never believe this, and thats the sad thing abaout this debate, is your mind is not going to change, no matter what i post, so what is the point.

I have explained perfectly why these ufo's in these certain photos and footage were on a string. There is nothing more to say really. We all know he used models. You only have to look at the wedding cake photos and footage to know this. It has been posted countless of times of people doing the same thing and getting their footage to look exactly the same as meier. What else can i say on the matter.

Come back when you have decent internet connection, then we shall go from there

Look at the photos on this website link

The last link is a very good attempt to duplicate the shots that have made the meier case .
To the expertise of your link i must bow, the evidence is plain to see that billy could have hoaxed the entire sequence over years.
It is aparent that the photos shown are sufficient quality and clarity to be replications with standing.
Thus i must give credit where credit is due...
Unfortunately thats not to you jay. but to the photographer who actually did the debunking.
You get a C minus for being able to Google.
Poor Ptaah hell be so dissapointed when i tell him.....

reply to post by stirling


Stirling
I did not have to replicate it, because it has been done before. I remember when the secret nasa transmissions footage came out. Yes, at first i thought i was seeing someone strange, but i was not exactly going to replicate it to come to a consclusion. There is no need, we have the internent, and just like reading a book, you can learn alot from other people, and there investigations into this subject.

One thing you ahve to realise, is i am very into the ufo subject, and i do believe that something odd is going on here, something we can't explain. Off course some of these ufos could be ET, but then again, we just don't know 100%

Originally posted by stirling
The last link is a very good attempt to duplicate the shots that have made the meier case .
To the expertise of your link i must bow, the evidence is plain to see that billy could have hoaxed the entire sequence over years.
It is aparent that the photos shown are sufficient quality and clarity to be replications with standing.
Thus i must give credit where credit is due...
Unfortunately thats not to you jay. but to the photographer who actually did the debunking.
You get a C minus for being able to Google.
Poor Ptaah hell be so dissapointed when i tell him.....

Kudos for admitting that in the end
S&F for a good read and laugh tonight for me

The Meier case while interesting and entertaining, to me, is more likely a hoax, because of the "bad" photos and films, along with the "contact". Now, if Meier had presented his "good" photos, and simply claimed he took these, but that's all he knows, I think he'd remain somewhat credible. But the story of the contact and the ETs showing off their ships for him to photo, makes it so unbelievable, because if this were so, he'd been able to take some REAL good photos, and film, that leaves no doubt. He could have taken a perfect photo of a landed ship, with him in front of it. His landed ship photos are terrible. And the stuck in the tree pics and film is so bad it's funny. As we do know, he did make many "nice" distance pictures. But the contact story just makes it more unbelievable. Because we would have real photos, of quality, upclose, in perspctive, etc. If the ETs wanted to have photos taken for "proof" which is what he claims, they could have done a much better job.

I have always been skeptical of billys claims as they are way fantastic.
However he did manage to fool many serious and earnest investigators for some of the time.
I still withold judgement on the whole case for the reasons that it is still very possible contact was made very much earlier in billys life, and he was forced to keep making up more to add to the mundane (if you could call contact mudane)facts by those who crowded into his simple life seeking answers which he couldnt provide..
It is obvious he is not as well educated in some fields as he should have been to supply realistic information.
Much of whaat i know of billy meier is from Wendel Stevens who investigated billy for a long time. as well as Coral and Jim Lorentzen.

There are unexplainable incidents still to be debunked.
Yet the shear volume of information which has been produced by Meier makes the case very hard to take seriously.
Michael Horn is also a very obvious sounding shyster who has wrangled a dubious place in the annauls of UFOlogy.
Are they here?
The answer is an emphatic YES!
Not because of the Mier case, but because a very dedicated and sincere group of people got the word out in the initial UFO flap years of the early fifties.
It is a great pity that the UFO researchers of today virtually ignore the testimony and truths that people like Keyhoe,bravely tried to set before the american people.
Perhaps Billys story is all hoax,but there remain loose ends which will be debated for time to come...specially if M Horn has the control of the US representative angle.
As for the self proclaimed experts..like JM well,id like to see one origonal piece of evidence or proof that wasnt taken from some others work.and intelligence.Simply parroting others is hardly the challange you raised when demanding a forum to show off your great intelligence.Though why you couldnt start your own thred on the subject i still dont get quite....but i hope you are happy with this one.
By the way, Stan Fullhams predictions all three, have been vindicated by at least one expert......the jury is still out.........

reply to post by stirling


What part of the meier case have not been de-bunked? Can you see the problem here, and why the subject is a bit of a joke. I don't think, and there is no evidenc whatsoever that mieir was visited by ET. All we have here is a man who decided to take fake photo's and movies of ufo's. The more confident he got, the more laughable his evidence got.

As for his so called predictions click here

There is nothing in this case at all. I just wish people would stop being brainwashed by this sort of crap and start looking at the decent ufo cases out there.