To All of You Who Doubt The Billy Meier (HOAX): Watch this.

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Jay-morris
 





I knew the evidence must be out there that meier made this prediction(WWIII)




You still have not addressed the heads of state prediction. Will yoh admit you were wrong, and in fact, Meier was wrong?


Billy: .....Should Man fail to act against the fulfillment of this prophecy, a new and extremely destructive weapon will be built that will produce disastrous consequences in the next world war. One important factor in this scenario is the criminal neglect to monitor the Earth from space. .....

Anybody can see it, billy talked about prophecy not prediction....It is you who said that meier made WWIII prediction in 2006. When infact Meier prophecised WOrld war III in many years including 2006. So your claim that he made prediction for 2006 is baseless. Even IIG didnot show where MH says" World War III was predicted by Meier for 2006 and came true"...
IIG in their website presented only half of the full info which seems for the reader that MH indeed commented on the fulfillment of WWIII prediction..While if you read the newsletter sent out by MH(available on IIG's website too), which reads as

Please also consider the following regarding specific, documented prophecies published by Billy Meier on February 3, 1995 (and in "And Yet They Fly!", 2001, "And Yet They Fly!", 2004, "The Meier Contacts" DVD, 2004):
"New weapons will once again create quite a stir, and so will the death of 4 heads of state who will die within 7 days from each other. These then are the last danger signs, which foretell that within merely 2 years of these events the long-feared world war will indeed erupt, unless terrestrials finally gain mastery over their reasoning to stop all these ills."
Pinochet (Dec. 10)
Niyazov (Dec. 21)
Ford (Dec. 26)
Saddam Hussein (Dec. 30)
(While Pinochet and Niyazov died 11 days apart and not within 7 days of each other, an actual error of 4 days, would a wise person not pause to consider the improbability of someone coming this close,11 years in advance?) If it's not clear as to how accurately our dead end path has been foreseen by a more advanced race, and just how collectively stupid we (and especially our leadership) are, then perhaps it really is hopeless.
I prefer to think that it's still possible to make some necessary, positive changes but time is running out. If you now understand that it is really up to each individual to wake up and take back our power from the forces that otherwise will lead us all to destruction then you must act.

I suggest sharing this information with at least three people that you think would be interested in knowing about it.

I also suggest contacting your elected representatives and demanding that no more troops be sent to Iraq...or any place else.


As you can see, MH suggested that we have come close to the fulfillment of the WWIII prophecy..If you have read anywhere that MH indeed said that WWIII prophecy was fulfilled in 2006, i would like to see..Could you also present the FIGU email you received on WWIII issue...

"Vanishing UFO" i will discuss this in later posts, first let us clear WWIII issue.




posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Jay, your not understanding the intent of my post. I know nothing about the Billy case. I could care less. That's not the point. The point is you cannot use the ability to recreate something as proof that it was hoaxed that way.

The only thing that does is show how it 'could' have been done. That's not proof.

True evidence would be to have found the actually items used for the hoax hidden away.. camera, string, cake whatever or eye witness accounts of people actually seeing Billy do the hoax. This may have been done in Billy's case i dont know.

I'll I'm saying is just because you have the ability ro recreate something does not constitute proof in and of itself.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mahigitam
 


Ok, even if it was a prophecy and not a prediction, it was wrong. For a start Pinochet and ford were not heads of state at the time, and if i am correct, the prophecy said heads of state, and not heads of state and former heads of state, which again renders the prophecy usless. And whats the bests 4 heads of state will not die within seven days of eachother.

As for Mr horn, i never listen to what he says because he is a proven liar when it comes to the case, and to be frank, he is a creepy person. Like i said before, on the they fly website he still has the "never been replicated" words on his site, which is a complete load of rubbish.

Again, the more you post, the more i see a Meier hardcore believer pretending not to be a Meier hardcore believer, which i find really sad


Again, lets move on, as the predictions, or prophecies are pretty much usless!

Tell me about the vanishing ufo, and why we clearly see the cut in the footage when the ufo vanishes.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 





Jay, your not understanding the intent of my post. I know nothing about the Billy case. I could care less. That's not the point. The point is you cannot use the ability to recreate something as proof that it was hoaxed that way.


Did you read a single word i said? The reason i brought up the replicating of the footage is because most Meier believers still believe it can't be replicated, and that is a load of rubbish. Mr horn has been saying the same thing for years, and still says it, even though he knows its rubbish.




The only thing that does is show how it 'could' have been done. That's not proof.


I never once said that this is proof. The proof of a hoax is in the photos and the footage, and if you bothered to read the thread, then you will see what i have posted regarding to this case being a hoax. I only posted replicated photos just to prove to the Meier believers that they can be replicated, simple as that.




True evidence would be to have found the actually items used for the hoax hidden away.. camera, string, cake whatever or eye witness accounts of people actually seeing Billy do the hoax. This may have been done in Billy's case i dont know


Read the thread, then reply again.




I'll I'm saying is just because you have the ability ro recreate something does not constitute proof in and of itself


Double sigh!



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Jay-morris
 




Ok, even if it was a prophecy and not a prediction, it was wrong..prophecy said heads of state, and not heads of state and former heads of state


Here we are discussing on whether MH sent out a newsletter claiming that the World WarIII was fulfilled in 2006 or not. To that, we can surely say "no" as his newsletter clearly supports that. What may be wrong here is that of MH's speculation in listing the heads of state(neither in the prophecy did Meier mention "the death of 4 present heads of state who will die within 7 days from each other)...his newsletter is his opinion/speculation as is clearly expressed in it, but we could not find any statement by MH claiming otherwise...




on the they fly website he still has the "never been replicated" words on his site, which is a complete load of rubbish


To my knowledge, this "never been replicated" arguments actually originated in 2001 as Vaughn Rees, lead case investigator at the time for CFI-West/IIG declared that Meier's photographic evidence was an "easily duplicated hoax"....but after 3 years produced not so convincing photos of UFO models. He was later replaced by Dereckbart...So initially the topic circled around "replication/duplication".

Now we can discuss on what actually real " replication" means ?

[1] Did they replicate the visual effect of the Billy Meier's UFO pictures/videos superficially ?
[2] Did they replicate the visual effect of the Billy Meier's UFO pictures/videos with accuracy and precision ?
[3] Did they replicate the Billy Meier's UFO pictures/videos that matches with the original results from Photogrammetry method ?
[4] Did they replicate the complex interactions of the environment with the alleged UFO object in their pictures ?
[5] Did they use the same photographic equipment as Billy Meier ?
[6] Did they replicate the Billy Meier's UFO pictures/videos/audio results that have gone through rigorous scientific testing ?

I think the debunkers have replicated Billy Meier's UFO pictures/videos which doesnot satisfy points [2], [3], [4] & [6]...
We have to be careful here, as there are some photos of IIG & other persons that are good and can be perceived as a big object in the photo. At the same time there are also photos which can be easily spotted as small objects close to the camera...So if we want to really "replicate" & "debunk" Billy Meier's UFO pictures/videos, they should satisfy the points [2], [3], [4], [5] & [6]...If we are not serious and just want to claim the other is a fraud or a hoaxster, point [1] is enough...which as JohnPhoenix said, doesnot count as an evidence at all...

We have to choose, whether we just settle for point [1] or satisfy [2] - [6] and thus proving Meier's UFO pictures/videos/audio are easily duplicated hoaxes...




Again, lets move on, as the predictions, or prophecies are pretty much usless!


What do you mean by "useless"...so you dont have any problem with a person predicting & publishing things about past, future, science, medicine, inventions, discoveries naming of objects/things, ...& being right all the time with very good accuracy....Are you OK with the argument that Meier has paranormal abilities ? If you want to discuss on this, i would post some of the corroborated info which i have researched myself and available here.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Vanishing UFO - BERG-RUMLIKON,12 JUNE,1975

There are many photos and other videos taken on the same day, same place, same scene with the same alleged UFO

[1] In this scene wind is blowing the top of a small tree,more than strong enough to sway any model suspended on a line.( I couldnot find what tree's top Wendell is talking about, as the footage available on internet is many generations away from the original. May be he is referring to the supposed thin branch swaying in the wind?)

[2] 28 seconds into the sequence the ship "BLINKS OUT" and is gone for 30 seconds and the it returns the same way.

[3] The moment of dissappearance was carefully analysed on the videotape copy taken back to japan.They were unable to detect any SPLICE in the footage and there was no change in the scene the time during which the ship was absent,but the branch stopped shaking in the wind and there was one lighter frame at the time of blink out and another at the time of return. There was no visible evidence of splice.


[4] One of the still slide transparencies showed a slightly out of focus top of a movie camera on a tripod in the foreground of the picture with the ET ship above and well beyond the camera.This was one of the four selected still photos put to vigorous testing blown to 22" * 28" professional high quality photographic prints without finding any evidence of a line,or any model or any other kind of faking.


[5] On the far side of the OAT FIELD ,a perimeter access road of lighter SANDY MATERIAL ran around the edge of the field & then turned towards the camera position & came uphill.IN one of the pictures the angles are such that the perimeter access of lighter color is REFLECTED in the shiny under surface of the near rim flange of the ship.

This reflections would have been IMPOSSIBLE to achieve with a model because of height angle necessary to acquire that reflection of the road.The reflective surface would also have to large to reflect the image seen in that picture.


[6] In this series of still pictures,the object is seen doubled and even triples in size in the original slide transparency from the first frame to the frame of ships surface reflecting the road,in an unbroken sequence,with no change in focus definition,thus demonstrating that the object was well beyond the infinity setting of the camera.

Again a very large model and impossible setting for rigging the scene and to carry such a huge model on a moped by one man with one arm.

Note: Meier gave his original film reel(8 reels stitched together) to Austrian TV station. When it came back he was unaware of any switch until the Japanese team wanted to see the splices where he joined the 8 seperate rolls together, and he could not find the actual splices on what he thought was his master copy.

So it can be assumed that when the film roll was given to Austrian TV Station, they must have manipulated with the rolls and copied again onto the original filmroll, which in the end seems to us the film -roll has been spliced and joined, which by the way was not found when investigated by Nippon TV experts.



Source:
Supplementary Investigation Report, pg 255

P.S : If anybody is interested to see the Photogrammetric & diagramatic analysis done on Berg-Rumlikon photos by the American and Japanese team taken on the same day. I would gladly post them.
edit on 28-3-2011 by mahigitam because: add
edit on 28-3-2011 by mahigitam because: add



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mahigitam
 


I remember in your first post on this thread you wrote this



many are alreay stuck to their opinions, so my post is specially addressed at those who wants to find out the truth or to those who are interested to know whether they made any errors or logical fallcies in their inquiry on this case....Let us rip the case apart and investigate every claim & evidence from both sides..and most of all let us not personally attack any persons for having oppsosing beliefs,views or opinions..let us respect each other and point out the mistakes the other makes & rectify them and move on...which is the only way we can know the truth...


You pretending to be open on both sides of this debate, when clearly, as we have seen, you are not. You are totally one sided on this debate, and no matter what i, or other people say, you are not going to change your opinion. Of all the things mentioned, i have not seen you question any of the Meier evidence, and that tell me, and should tell everyone who visits this thread a hell of alot.

Now, i don't expect you to come out and say that you are one of these harcore Meier believers, but people will just have to read all your posts to come to that conclusion.




Here we are discussing on whether MH sent out a newsletter claiming that the World WarIII was fulfilled in 2006 or not. To that, we can surely say "no" as his newsletter clearly supports that. What may be wrong here is that of MH's speculation in listing the heads of state(neither in the prophecy did Meier mention "the death of 4 present heads of state who will die within 7 days from each other)...his newsletter is his opinion/speculation as is clearly expressed in it, but we could not find any statement by MH claiming otherwise...


So why didn't FIFU deny this when i emailed them?This is the email i sent them



Billy Meier Predicted That Four Heads Of State Would Die Within Seven Days Of> Each Other And This Would Signal The Coming Of World War III


This is the reply


This is not a prediction but a prophecy by Billy Meier. It can be changed ifthe people in power do the right things to make the changes.


So they do know about it, and im sure it came from Meiers mouth.




To my knowledge, this "never been replicated" arguments actually originated in 2001 as Vaughn Rees, lead case investigator at the time for CFI-West/IIG declared that Meier's photographic evidence was an "easily duplicated hoax"....but after 3 years produced not so convincing photos of UFO models. He was later replaced by Dereckbart...So initially the topic circled around "replication/duplication".


See, this is what bugs me about you Meier believers. No matter how well the duplicated photos look, you will always say they are not the same as meiers, when clearly they are, and even better in most cases. So, we just can't win. Some of the meier photos are the worst fakes i have ever seen, but you Meier believers are so brainwashed by this case that you just can't see it. As for Mr horn, he is a liar, but i bet you will not even put that thought into your mind, even though he is a proven liar.

You see what im getting at here? You will just not listen, and this makes it almost impossible to debate with Meier believers





[1] Did they replicate the visual effect of the Billy Meier's UFO pictures/videos superficially ?
[2] Did they replicate the visual effect of the Billy Meier's UFO pictures/videos with accuracy and precision ?
[3] Did they replicate the Billy Meier's UFO pictures/videos that matches with the original results from Photogrammetry method ?
[4] Did they replicate the complex interactions of the environment with the alleged UFO object in their pictures ?
[5] Did they use the same photographic equipment as Billy Meier ?
[6] Did they replicate the Billy Meier's UFO pictures/videos/audio results that have gone through rigorous scientific testing ?

I think the debunkers have replicated Billy Meier's UFO pictures/videos which doesnot satisfy points [2], [3], [4] & [6]...
We have to be careful here, as there are some photos of IIG & other persons that are good and can be perceived as a big object in the photo. At the same time there are also photos which can be easily spotted as small objects close to the camera...So if we want to really "replicate" & "debunk" Billy Meier's UFO pictures/videos, they should satisfy the points [2], [3], [4], [5] & [6]...If we are not serious and just want to claim the other is a fraud or a hoaxster, point [1] is enough...which as JohnPhoenix said, doesnot count as an evidence at all...

We have to choose, whether we just settle for point [1] or satisfy [2] - [6] and thus proving Meier's UFO pictures/videos/audio are easily duplicated hoaxes...



What a complete load of rubbish. I have posted photos on here that show replicated photos that look like Meiers and better. Phil Langdon has replicated the footage perfectly using the same camera, and even using one arm. I really don't know how the hell you can say that some of the of the photos look small and close to the camera when some of Meier photos look exactly the same. The wedding cake photo about the truck, the wedding cake photo with the house behind it. You really believe that these are huge objects and not close to the camera? Unbelievable!!!




What do you mean by "useless"...so you dont have any problem with a person predicting & publishing things about past, future, science, medicine, inventions, discoveries naming of objects/things, ...& being right all the time with very good accuracy....Are you OK with the argument that Meier has paranormal abilities ? If you want to discuss on this, i would post some of the corroborated info which i have researched myself and available here.


Im sorry, but saying you have "reseached it" means nothing considering you are a Meier hardcore believer. You have believed everything so far, so why wouldn't you believe the predictions. Like i said before, his prophecy,predictions, whatever, hold no ground as most of them there is no way of knowing 100% when he wrote them, and this is true. So, i don't want to talk about that rubbish and stick to the photo/footage .




[1] In this scene wind is blowing the top of a small tree,more than strong enough to sway any model suspended on a line.( I couldnot find what tree's top Wendell is talking about, as the footage available on internet is many generations away from the original. May be he is referring to the supposed thin branch swaying in the wind?)


Why did Horn cut the tree out of the footage in the The Silent Revolution Of Truth? Becauae it clearly shows the cut when the ufo vanishes. Honestly, you do not have to be an exper to see the cut.Its not just the branch that proves that there was a cut, but lets start with the branch. Explain this to me. We see the branch swaying back and forth. When the ufo vanishes, the brunch moves from one side to the other without movement. How is this possible without the cut.

Also, the horizon moves down and back up, exactly on the frames that of the cut? how is this possible, without a cut?




[3] The moment of dissappearance was carefully analysed on the videotape copy taken back to japan.They were unable to detect any SPLICE in the footage and there was no change in the scene the time during which the ship was absent,but the branch stopped shaking in the wind and there was one lighter frame at the time of blink out and another at the time of return. There was no visible evidence of splice


This is a load of rubbish. When was the footage taken to japan to be analysed? either they are blind and couldn't see the cut, or they were simply not qualified. You don't need expensive software to see the cut. I just can't believe that you refuse to see this, and you talk about critical thinking?




One of the still slide transparencies showed a slightly out of focus top of a movie camera on a tripod in the foreground of the picture with the ET ship above and well beyond the camera.This was one of the four selected still photos put to vigorous testing blown to 22" * 28" professional high quality photographic prints without finding any evidence of a line,or any model or any other kind of faking.


can you post that slide photo or send me a link. Oh, and who tested it. Oh, and when was it tested?




[5] On the far side of the OAT FIELD ,a perimeter access road of lighter SANDY MATERIAL ran around the edge of the field & then turned towards the camera position & came uphill.IN one of the pictures the angles are such that the perimeter access of lighter color is REFLECTED in the shiny under surface of the near rim flange of the ship.

This reflections would have been IMPOSSIBLE to achieve with a model because of height angle necessary to acquire that reflection of the road.The reflective surface would also have to large to reflect the image seen in that picture.


Photo please!




In this series of still pictures,the object is seen doubled and even triples in size in the original slide transparency from the first frame to the frame of ships surface reflecting the road,in an unbroken sequence,with no change in focus definition,thus demonstrating that the object was well beyond the infinity setting of the camera.

Again a very large model and impossible setting for rigging the scene and to carry such a huge model on a moped by one man with one arm.

Note: Meier gave his original film reel(8 reels stitched together) to Austrian TV station. When it came back he was unaware of any switch until the Japanese team wanted to see the splices where he joined the 8 seperate rolls together, and he could not find the actual splices on what he thought was his master copy.

So it can be assumed that when the film roll was given to Austrian TV Station, they must have manipulated with the rolls and copied again onto the original filmroll, which in the end seems to us the film -roll has been spliced and joined, which by the way was not found when investigated by Nippon TV experts.



Again, i would like to see the photo that shows the road in the reflection. But i will say it again. when the ufo vanishes, you can see the branch shift from one side to the other, which is impossible without a cut. Here is the video below


See the top part of the branch when the ufo vanishes. Please tell me how this is possible without a cut?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
There is a fundamental problem in discussing the Meier movies and that is that no one has ever seen the original films.

The only footage of the movies that anybody has ever seen comes from a Japanese television crew who videotaped the films being projected on a screen in Meier's home. This videotaping of a projection added camera movement and focus issues that would not exist if the material were to be transferred professionally. I work professionally in Post Production on various television shows. I have repeatedly offered Michael Horn, Lee Elders, and Billy Meier to pay for properly done High Definition Film Scans of the original 8mm, and Super-8mm, films. I have been told that *no one* knows where the original films are anymore. Horn said that Elders had them. Elders said that Meier had them, and Meier never responded.

Because no proper transfers of the movies exist it is useless to speculate on what they do, or do not, represent. All that we can do is compare the basic movements to other types of objects. Phil Langdon has done the best job of this so far. When Meier supporters say that one of the films shows the UFO dipping behind a hill that is impossible to determine. All that can be shown is that one dark object (the UFO) intersects with another dark object (the hill), but there is not enough detail in the films to determine which is in front of the other. A professionally done high definition film scanning *would* be able to determine that, but nothing else will.

I really do wish that someone from the Meier camp would take me up on my offer to pay for high definition film scans of the original films. It would answer numerous questions about them. I would not even have to come in contact with the films directly if they were concerned about my involvement for some reason. I would simply arrange for the transfer session at the facility, have them deliver the films for transfer, and sit in the room observing the transfer. We would then leave with two hard drives of the scans: one for Meier's supporters to analyze and one for me and other skeptics to analyze.

-Derek



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by derekcbart
 


Hi Derek

That will never happen. Whatever excuse Meier or Horn come out with, the Meier believers will believe it, as has been shown many times before. They really don't have to convince these people, and while they are still making money, then they would rather keep it the way it is.

It really amazes me. These meier believers seem to act the same. You just can't debate with them



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Jay-morris
 





So why didn't FIFU deny this when i emailed them?This is the email i sent them Billy Meier Predicted That Four Heads Of State Would Die Within Seven Days Of> Each Other And This Would Signal The Coming Of World War III This is the reply This is not a prediction but a prophecy by Billy Meier. It can be changed ifthe people in power do the right things to make the changes.


Deny what ? They have precisely answered your question, that Billy made a prophecy but not a prediction. They dont answer unasked questions.




So, i don't want to talk about that rubbish and stick to the photo/footage .


To come to a conclusion on a case, one needs to gather all data there is. As clearly it is expressed by you that you are not gonna change your opinion and only stick to opinions on footage and photos and ignore the extensive scientific analysis done on them. It explains your attitude well.





Why did Horn cut the tree out of the footage in the The Silent Revolution Of Truth? Becauae it clearly shows the cut when the ufo vanishes.


Everyone knows that there is a cut, nobody denies it. At the same time, Billy insists that the beamship vanishes in the same footage. As i already mentioned in my last post, while the filmroll was given to Austrian TV station, the manipulation must have taken place by removing some frames and again copying onto the same roll. I am not asserting that the object in the footage is a big object just from watching it. We have to put it to scientific testing & then follow the evidence.




can you post that slide photo or send me a link. Oh, and who tested it. Oh, and when was it tested?

www.theyfly.com...




Photo please!


Its in the "Through Space and Time" photo journal. I cannot post copyrighted material and it is not my job to provide everything other demands. It is their responsibility to do their investigation & come to conclusion.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mahigitam
 






Deny what ? They have precisely answered your question, that Billy made a prophecy but not a prediction. They dont answer unasked questions.


Like i said, prophecy/prediction, whatever, and i find it funny that you name heads of state that are not even heads of state anymore. In the "prophecy" it said four heads of state, not two heads of state, and two former heads of state lol And like i said before, whats the bests this prophecy will never happen?

Anyone can predict WW3 because the way the world is, then of course there is every chance that there will be a WW3. Do you know how many people around the world through prophecy/predictions say we are heading for WW3?




To come to a conclusion on a case, one needs to gather all data there is. As clearly it is expressed by you that you are not gonna change your opinion and only stick to opinions on footage and photos and ignore the extensive scientific analysis done on them. It explains your attitude well.


How the hell can you say that when every single peice of evidence against Meier you dismiss? Its pretty obvious that you are one of these Meier believers that just won't have it any other way
Your mind is already made up im afraid, so you can stop with all this "critical thinking" rubbish. It might have worked at first in this thread, but we all pretty know you are a blind Meier believer





Everyone knows that there is a cut, nobody denies it. At the same time, Billy insists that the beamship vanishes in the same footage. As i already mentioned in my last post, while the filmroll was given to Austrian TV station, the manipulation must have taken place by removing some frames and again copying onto the same roll. I am not asserting that the object in the footage is a big object just from watching it. We have to put it to scientific testing & then follow the evidence.


So, you are telling me that the mistake cut was done exactly as the ufo vanishes? Unbelievable!!! No matter what excuse Meier comes out with when he has been caught out, you people believe it every time. Great critiical thinking skills there!




www.theyfly.com...


Lets start by saying you can't trust anything from that site, as it is well know that Mr horn has lied about the case and lied about expert testimony. As for jim Dilettoso, every debate i have heard about the Meier case that included him he lost. Also, this is a good read taken from here



OK, here are some updates.

First, I'd like to draw attention to some interesting developments around one of the "experts" involved in the Meier case, namely Jim Dilettoso.

A few months ago, Meier debunkers Jeff Ritzmann and David Biedny had a surprize meeting with Jim Dilettoso at a UFO conference.

You can read the full story at his blog [edit= blog now taken offline].

It appears that after having participated in the film "Contact", Jim Dilettoso has hardly been involved with the Meier case.

In fact, these days he is very explicitly rejecting some of his own "expert" opinion he expressed at that time on some of the Meier pictures. He also says to be quite dismayed about how Michael Horn is using some of his work which he considers "out of date".

Most interestingly, when the subject of the pictures of the "Weddingcake-craft" came up, Dilettose immediately made the following comment about them: "Oh, those were clearly models... yeah."

Since David Biedny was at the conference to record interviews for his Paracast radio show, they promptly did an interview with Dilettoso, which can be found at the link. See the broadcast of April 27, 2008.

In the interview, the WC is not discussed any further, and while Dilettoso is clearly trying to wiggle his ass out of the obvious Meier hoax, he also tries to save as much of his reputation as he can, by suggesting that some of the Meier material could still be authentic, blabla blabla, etc...

From the interview, we can learn that Dilettoso was not much of an expert at all, at the time of making "Contact". He was basically involved with a Rock&Roll band, and had some advanced equipment available, which got him involved with the Meier thing.

While he tries by all means to come across as honest and sincere, open to criticise the Meier case, the fact is that he actively participated in one of the most deceptive scenes of the film "Contact" (see previous post), where we see him sitting in front of a computer discussing one of Meier pictures that is colored, in what is said to be an advanced analysis of that picture.

It appears that the whole scene is completely bogus. The computer is not Dilettoso's or of any specialized lab, but was filmed at a computer systems company called De Anza Systems, where the Meier team managed to shoot some footage, while pretending they wanted to buy a computer.

According to Ken Dimwiddie, one of the technicians at De Anza Systems, who was present when Dilettoso appeared in the guise of a prospective customer, it was Dilettoso himself who assigned the colours on the computers read-out screen. In other words, the colours were NOT the result of an actual photo filter or computer calculation, but were introduced manually!

That this is what actually happened, was discovered by Kal Korff, who is so virulently despised by the Meier camp. You can read more about it here.

So notwithstanding Dilettoso's apparent "sincerity", he has clearly been involved in actively deceiving people about the Meier case.

In the article mentioned above, we also learn about William H. Spaulding, who is a true photo-analysis expert (see link), and who used advanced computer analysis to study Meier's pictures, at Ground Saucer Watch (GSW). His verdict on the pictures: "Total hoaxes".

Interestingly, in the interview, Dilettoso emphatically tries to make the point that at some stage, he was given the possibility to use advanced photo-analysis to research the Meier material, at military labs. He mentions this to support the idea that everyone was mighty "impressed" by the Meier pictures.

In fact, I see in it another indication that a secret organization helped to boost this case, in order to spread disinformation about UFOs.





Its in the "Through Space and Time" photo journal. I cannot post copyrighted material and it is not my job to provide everything other demands. It is their responsibility to do their investigation & come to conclusion.


Wow, The Plejarens came to earth to save us, or help as. And they chose Meier to spread the word. Did they say "you must spread the word through dvd's,t-shirts,cups,books, and make sure you copywrite all your stuff!!! " lol
You just can't see it!!!!!
edit on 29-3-2011 by Jay-morris because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by derekcbart
 





There is a fundamental problem in discussing the Meier movies and that is that no one has ever seen the original films.


Yes but we can happily select that footage/photo series which has good pixel information & is complex to replicate and see whether it is plausible at all.

We have Billy's Berg-Rumlikon event where he shot 2 videos and many photos. One photo of this series is tested extensively. ALso the WCUFO footage, where Meier employs zoom and even took many photos.

Even if the object in the scene is small model, hanging with a wire.. hoax will be revealed when scientific analysis is carried on it,from the data of edge pixels which gives its distance in the scene . But we haven't found it so far.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mahigitam
 


Please explain this photo then. While its clear that the ufo is close to the camera, there is also evidence that this is a model, by the fact that part of it fell off!





posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Hi Jay,
it's equally frustrating for people actually interested in discussing the Meier case to come onto forums such as these to give an opinion and to be completely ignored in discussions when pointing out the fallacies in arguments, I among others was involved in a discussion about the validity of IIG's research on this site before asking Derek to retract this very statement about the piece off the model or at least acknowledge that he was mistaken because the piece you are talking about appears on at least two other pictures with the object in different positions and in different settings, whether the photograph is of a model or a ship the "thing" you are referring to is a part of the object not something that has fallen off it. I'm not posting up the photo's again, I spent long enough the last time trying to get an answer from Derek and was completely ignored. IIG claimed a number of things which were untrue and when it's pointed out to them they won't admit it. I didn't want to get involved in the discussion my self but your last post really points out happens when you don't look at the rest of the evidence properly yourself but instead repeat some thing badly researched thats patently wrong...



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Also Jay,
regurgitating anything that has come from the mouth of Kal Korff is a waste of time if you want to question this case at all, he is a known lunatic with a grudge against Meier for over 30 years, all of the evidence for hoaxing in his book against Meier was fabricated by Korff, anyone can find the proof of this if they care to do a bit of research.
He is a habitual liar, nothing he says regarding Meir can be trusted. Google Kal Korff is an idiot.
edit on 29-3-2011 by Frankinmouse because: Spelling



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankinmouse
 


Really? sure looks like one of the golden clips has fallen out. What other photos show the same thing? Like i said before, thats only part of why this photo is fake. The "ufo" is clearly a small model close to the camera. But it does not matter what i say, as Meier believers will never believe it as they are so wrapped up in the case. They will even believe the BS excuses Meier comes out with when he has been caught out. I think whatever comes out of Meiers mouth, meier believers are going to believe, as has been proven in the past.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankinmouse
Also Jay,
regurgitating anything that has come from the mouth of Kal Korff is a waste of time if you want to question this case at all, he is a known lunatic with a grudge against Meier for over 30 years, all of the evidence for hoaxing in his book against Meier was fabricated by Korff, anyone can find the proof of this if they care to do a bit of research.
He is a habitual liar, nothing he says regarding Meir can be trusted. Google Kal Korff is an idiot.
edit on 29-3-2011 by Frankinmouse because: Spelling


Yeah, i know the Meier believers see Korff as a nasty little demon, but every time i have heard korff in a debate with a Meier believer/expert, he always comes out on top. Why is that do you think?
edit on 29-3-2011 by Jay-morris because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
The reason Korff seems to come out on top is because he blatantly lies every time he opens his mouth, and actually I've never seen him actually debate with any expert on the Meier case all he does is post up stuff on his youtube channell, the same channel where he claims to be a secret services Colonel for a super secret Isreali special forces unit in which he fights crime and terrorism around the world using super secret nano technology that he invented! He also worked on the star wars project and developed software to determine who shot Kennedy....I mean come on the guy is nuts...Korff actually paid the illustrator of his famous book to airbrush lines into Meiers photgraphs before publishing it. The illustrator actually joined a discussion here on ATS to admit that and is on record elsewhere stating the same..of course no one mentions that but they are happy to use Korffs "evidence" to debunk Meier. And we still have people like IIG misquoting information or putting up false information or like the detail I just mentioned and they won't retract it from their website...
You think it's frustrating debating this case....

Every photo that is available to the public can be found if you do a torrent search for billy meier, there's about 25gb of information in one file there that should keep you busy for a while including the excellent full investigation by Wendelle Stephens from the 1970's.

As for the size of the object in this particular photo, I don't know what size it is but Meier stated from the start in the 1970's that there were 4 sizes of craft from 5 ft drones to 21ft larger manned craft it was never stated what size that particular object was, but I agree it doesn't look like a very large object. in that particular photograph.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankinmouse
 


Thank you Frankinmouse for bringing your input to the table. It is as you have said, very frustrating on our side as well. Jay basically comes to tears trying to argue this case as a hoax and when can't convince me. I mentioned to him as well that Korff should not be trusted as he is a blatant liar.

I know Jay is going to say that I only join the discussion when somebody who agrees with me joins, and he is right! But I've lost interest in trying to argue with people like him because they are so closed minded. I have told Jay many times how this case has been tampered with and whenever he tries to prove me wrong he goes back to tampered with evidence....

As much research as he has done, well, he's been reading the wrong stuff....unfortunately.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Most people act like they have the Electron Microscope, Micro Densitometer, Vidicon Tube, Interferometer, Infraredometer, Digitizer, Laserscope & Image Process Computer equipment in-built into their Optical system...Such people ignore the scientific testing carried out by state-of-the-art labs around the world...all they need is their own opinions...As i said before, i will stand by my word, i would respond to only those posts that contain fair and intelligent critic..
edit on 30-3-2011 by mahigitam because: add





top topics
 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join