"NASA & "Billy" Meier: NASA can pick 'em!"

Aside from NASA's deep pockets and the fact that they waste taxpayers' money by the trillions I don't sett out to knock them, although I'm sure that NASA has probably more detractors than supporters. Just ask the millions that have been denied proper medical services and education, and the inadequately-paid teachers.

So when I become aware of material presented below, I have no pity for NASA. And they don't need it 'cause they've never looked back and don't seem to care when they screw up royally as they have done many times. For example: "Wikipedia: Hubble was funded in the 1970s, with a proposed launch in 1983, but the project was beset by technical delays, budget problems, and the Challenger disaster (1986). When finally launched in 1990, Hubble's main mirror was found to have been ground incorrectly, compromising the telescope's capabilities."

What happened to those highly-paid NASA geniuses. Was there a chain of command and was the person who made the first mistake fined for the cost? How about those who vetted his work?

I don't want to stray because the rest of this thread might actually result in laughs, and then again in wondering. Stay with me.

We all know about Eduard "Billy" Meier and how his efforts proved to be hoaxed. Or did they? There is plenty of evidence proving his photos and film fakes. For excellent examples go to YouTube and see the vast amounts of videos by Phil Langdon.

When I first became aware of Meier in the early 1980s while living in Los Angeles, I acquired the 2 photo journals published by Genesis III. I also bought the original BEAMSHIP video. When debunkers came on the scene in 1995 I bought "SPACESHIPS OF THE PLEIADES: THE BILLY MEIER STORY" by Kal K. Korff. I followed up on debunking efforts and I haven't stopped. I have a couple of unanswered questions that no one, not even Mr Langdon has been able to satisfy. But that's another story.

Here is an example of irrefutable evidence:
I don't know anything about this photo but it has to be one of Meier's


Simple solarization(? not sure of photographic process) proves a hoax


To get back on track and the purpose of this thread. I found myself at YouTube yesterday looking at a video that promised an update on "Billy" Meier by supporter Michael Horn. I didn't see a video updating anything so I started to read the comments which were 8 months old, current. When one of the replies mentioned the similarity between one of Meier's "Beamships" and Testors Area S4 UFO Revealed! connected with Bob Lazar Mr Horn piped in and said it was the opposite. Or something to that effect (I can take credit for mentioning this back in the '90s in nascent UFO forums, never received a reply from TESTORS). The replier said he could prove Mr Horn wrong and supplied a couple of links which when I visited them gave me the idea for this thread.

Here is the first link which will make you think about the mental stability of a NASA Engineer although what he says has to make you think about Meier despite the evidence against his photos/film. Since I do not accept claims of prophecy, the scientists in the second link may also make you think if everything connected with Meier is copacetic.

link removed by admin:
NASA Engineer Matthew Wieczkiewicz: The Billy Meier UFO Case Is Real


link and offsite content removed by admin:
Scientific Experts’ Comments on Meier’s Evidence
Excerpts from Author Gary Kinder’s “Open Letter to the UFO Community”


Below the above are 7 additional sources with similar, pro-Meier comments.

Then, finally, listen to synthesist Jonn Serrie's "THE TACHYON DIRECTIVE" from the 2-CD "CENTURY SEASONS: The Space Music of JONN SERRIE"

Phage, if you're interested, pipe in with your infinite wisdom
Ditto to James Oberg.

Out.

a reply to: klassless


Since you chose to spend some time on the making and deployment of the Hubble telescope, I suggest you get a better picture of that project. Catch a 1990 book entitled "The Hubble Wars: Astrophysics Meets Astropolitics in the Two-Billion-Dollar Struggle Over the Hubble Space Telescope", by Eric J. Chaisson.

Chaisson had some interesting things to say about the whole project. Having worked in the project, he strongly suggests that the mirror was purposely ground wrong because it was a copy of the type used by secret spy satellites and the spooks didn't want anybody to know just how good it could be. Further reading between the lines allows some thinking about other types of sabotage efforts that were part of, excuse me, the big picture.

I was just telling my 11 yr old the other day about the Hubble and how many problems I remember it having. I was a fairly young child when Hubble went up. My memory of it was it was needing repairs more than it worked.

It certainly is an interesting twist that the malfunctions were/could have been on purpose.

Either way I still enjoy the pictures Hubble has since given us. So many possibilities in those images.

a reply to: klassless

Even though he was a hoax there is still a large degree of mystery about Meier, it was the cold war and there was a lot going on including secret test's of aircraft etc, maybe he was a disinformation agent.

Then again though he had his gulf breeze moment with a model ship being discovered as well there are other matter's that have to be considered, were all of his story's fake or did he have a pathological need to continue what may have started as a genuine case?.

And come back to Gulf breeze the more recent US case, of course may people also saw light's and strange vehicles in the sky so is that one really just an open and shut case?.

a reply to: YachiruKusajishi

Now I feel really old, it was like only yesterday to me when the shuttle was up servicing it and the NASA astronauts were trying to fix it.
I also remember the russian's test flying these.
uk.businessinsider.com...

originally posted by: klassless

We all know about Eduard "Billy" Meier and how his efforts proved to be hoaxed. Or did they? There is plenty of evidence proving his photos and film fakes. For excellent examples go to YouTube and see the vast amounts of videos by Phil Langdon.

You could also check out my website that irrefutably exposes Meier's fraudulent space photos, prophecies,metal samples and plagiarized spiritual teachings.
www.billymeieruforesearch.com...

originally posted by: klassless
I have a couple of unanswered questions that no one, not even Mr Langdon has been able to satisfy. But that's another story.

May I hear those questions?

originally posted by: klassless
Here is an example of irrefutable evidence:
I don't know anything about this photo but it has to be one of Meier's

Simple solarization(? not sure of photographic process) proves a hoax

This picture doesn't belong to Meier. It belongs to a person "Adrain" from Miami, Florida who in 1995 claimed to be a Pleiadian contactee, and who was first endorsed by Randolph Winters (ex-Meier's representative) who much later realized that he was taken in by a hoax. For more info: www.futureofmankind.co.uk...

And on the matters related to Meier and NASA, here is my video debunking Meier's so-called genuine space photos purportedly photographed by him during his travels through space facilitated by ETs:

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: klassless


Since you chose to spend some time on the making and deployment of the Hubble telescope, I suggest you get a better picture of that project. Catch a 1990 book entitled "The Hubble Wars: Astrophysics Meets Astropolitics in the Two-Billion-Dollar Struggle Over the Hubble Space Telescope", by Eric J. Chaisson.

Chaisson had some interesting things to say about the whole project. Having worked in the project, he strongly suggests that the mirror was purposely ground wrong because it was a copy of the type used by secret spy satellites and the spooks didn't want anybody to know just how good it could be. Further reading between the lines allows some thinking about other types of sabotage efforts that were part of, excuse me, the big picture.

I appreciate your clarification but tons of money were wasted any way you look at it. So with the Hubble we could mind-blowing pictures. Who on earth benefitted and still benefits? Certainly not me. Who cares what the universe looks like? How about spending the money here, on earth so that we are not in unbelievable debt to China, Russia, etc.? The problem as to why NASA even exists rests on the taxpayers who are mindless and don't organize to tell Uncle Sam enough is enough.

The government has no business using taxpayers' money for non-governmental and wasteful agencies and, of course, NASA is not the only one but it is the most wasteful one.

Yeah, I got a bias against NASA.

originally posted by: YachiruKusajishi
I was just telling my 11 yr old the other day about the Hubble and how many problems I remember it having. I was a fairly young child when Hubble went up. My memory of it was it was needing repairs more than it worked.

It certainly is an interesting twist that the malfunctions were/could have been on purpose.

Either way I still enjoy the pictures Hubble has since given us. So many possibilities in those images.

Possibilities for what? Nice wall art, that's all. We, present humans, will never see the view with our eyes. No one is benefiting, it's just a celestial show. An expensive one!

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: klassless

Even though he was a hoax there is still a large degree of mystery about Meier, it was the cold war and there was a lot going on including secret test's of aircraft etc, maybe he was a disinformation agent.

Then again though he had his gulf breeze moment with a model ship being discovered as well there are other matter's that have to be considered, were all of his story's fake or did he have a pathological need to continue what may have started as a genuine case?.

And come back to Gulf breeze the more recent US case, of course may people also saw light's and strange vehicles in the sky so is that one really just an open and shut case?.

Gulf Breeze, those weren't models that Ed Walters used as there were many more witnesses. The model that was found in his house's attic was not his. Go here for an explanation exonerating Ed:
www.ufoevidence.org...
Ed Walters, The Model, and Tommy Smith
Art Hufford, MUFON Journal - Jan. 93, #297
original source | fair use notice

Here's the kicker: there's a thread titled "Gulf Breeze UFO Flap (Part I): Ed Walters, Photos of Unusual Clarity and Hoaxes..,or not...?" One of the replies by a member named Skeptical Ed mentions the 3-D photos proving Ed's innocence. Here is Skeptical Ed's reply, in brackets:

[originally posted by: Skeptical Ed

Ed Walters was given a 3-D camera which he did not handle and was set up by either Bruce Maccabee or someone associated with MUFON. The reason I'm not clear on everything is because it's been a long time although I still have the videotapes from the '90s.

The resultant 3-D photos are found in Ed's book and if you have free vision as I have you don't need a special viewer to see the photos in 3-D. You can hoax all you want with single photos but not so easy to do with 2 photos taken at slightly different angles to represent the separation of the eyes. The "UFOs" in the photos are way in the distance and the shrubery in front of the camera is in great 3-D.

Ed Walters was shown on the beach with his camcorder and the videographer showed a UFO in the distance with Ed in the foreground.

Look at this case with a grain of salt but not with an empty salt shaker!]

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

mahigitam: sorry about screwing up your reply with my messed up format. I'm not strong even on simple html. But I added this so everyone will know I'm replying to you.

We all know about Eduard "Billy" Meier and how his efforts proved to be hoaxed. Or did they? There is plenty of evidence proving his photos and film fakes. For excellent examples go to YouTube and see the vast amounts of videos by Phil Langdon.

You could also check out my website that irrefutably exposes Meier's fraudulent space photos, prophecies,metal samples and plagiarized spiritual teachings.
www.billymeieruforesearch.com...

originally posted by: klassless
I have a couple of unanswered questions that no one, not even Mr Langdon has been able to satisfy. But that's another story.

May I hear those questions?

1st question, though not really a question, it's an observation.
In the scene where the "Beamship" is seen gently "riding as on an ocean" then it dematerializes and a short while later it materializes. You can tell that there's been an edit (Meier claims the film laboratory he sent the film to for processing cut it up, so I can't comment on this edit) and Langdon does a nice job of imitating the footage. But he fails in one respect. In Meier's film there's a color shift affecting the ground before the craft dematerializes - turns dark green for an instant - and before the materialization. Langdon just flashes the whole frame!

2nd question, ditto.
In the scene where the "Beamship" is at the top of the screen just below what looks like an eave and it goes out of sight above the eave then it appears on the bottom of the frame just above the hilltop. It seems to me that the original dub of the film was not used so that you see the craft materialize complete. And Langdon achieves this also. But in the original videotape from 1995 which I had and may still have a dub of it, when the craft appears on the bottom it does NOT appear complete, it materializes slowly. You can see this if you play the tape frame by frame. The craft appears sequentially.

originally posted by: klassless
Here is an example of irrefutable evidence:
I don't know anything about this photo but it has to be one of Meier's

Simple solarization(? not sure of photographic process) proves a hoax

This picture doesn't belong to Meier. It belongs to a person "Adrain" from Miami, Florida who in 1995 claimed to be a Pleiadian contactee, and who was first endorsed by Randolph Winters (ex-Meier's representative) who much later realized that he was taken in by a hoax. For more info: www.futureofmankind.co.uk...

Well the picture may "belong" to Adrain but who took it? Where did Adrain get the models?

Researching space and the origins of the universe is significantly more important than blowing yet more money on the military and corporate welfare. In many cases often times the future of humanity is sacrificed for the sake of the minority that exist today so that they may retain their power and influence.

originally posted by: klassless

1st question, though not really a question, it's an observation.
In the scene where the "Beamship" is seen gently "riding as on an ocean" then it dematerializes and a short while later it materializes. You can tell that there's been an edit (Meier claims the film laboratory he sent the film to for processing cut it up, so I can't comment on this edit) and Langdon does a nice job of imitating the footage. But he fails in one respect. In Meier's film there's a color shift affecting the ground before the craft dematerializes - turns dark green for an instant - and before the materialization. Langdon just flashes the whole frame!

2nd question, ditto.
In the scene where the "Beamship" is at the top of the screen just below what looks like an eave and it goes out of sight above the eave then it appears on the bottom of the frame just above the hilltop. It seems to me that the original dub of the film was not used so that you see the craft materialize complete. And Langdon achieves this also. But in the original videotape from 1995 which I had and may still have a dub of it, when the craft appears on the bottom it does NOT appear complete, it materializes slowly. You can see this if you play the tape frame by frame. The craft appears sequentially.

They seem to be natural anamolies that would arise during slicing and joining of different films or parts of the same film. Answers to your questions could be found in the rebuttal provided by the film maker Daniel Drasin to Rhal Zahi, a Meier-supporter.
ufodigest.com...

originally posted by: klassless
Here is an example of irrefutable evidence:
I don't know anything about this photo but it has to be one of Meier's

Simple solarization(? not sure of photographic process) proves a hoax

This picture doesn't belong to Meier. It belongs to a person "Adrain" from Miami, Florida who in 1995 claimed to be a Pleiadian contactee, and who was first endorsed by Randolph Winters (ex-Meier's representative) who much later realized that he was taken in by a hoax. For more info: www.futureofmankind.co.uk...

Well the picture may "belong" to Adrain but who took it? Where did Adrain get the models?

It is thought that "Adrain" made that model(s) himself or he must have just used Meier's image for his montage.

originally posted by: klassless
Aside from NASA's deep pockets and the fact that they waste taxpayers' money by the trillions I don't sett out to knock them,

NASA's budget this year is 19 billion. They don't and haven't wasted "trillions."

although I'm sure that NASA has probably more detractors than supporters. Just ask the millions that have been denied proper medical services and education, and the inadequately-paid teachers.

Uh huh. Sure. the average public school teacher in my state costs the districts over $100K a year in salary and benefits. By what standard are they underpaid? The amount of money spent on medical care and education in this country is trillions, but not NASA's budget.

I don't want to stray because the rest of this thread might actually result in laughs, and then again in wondering. Stay with me.

All this and you haven't even gotten to your point yet. To make a long story short, you found out about Billy Meier and Michael Horn and out of ALL that information, fake though it was, you found some NASA engineer who initially thought it was real brought forward by that charlatan Michael Horn himself. Yiu take "evidence from Gary Kinder, another Meier apologist as gospel truth.

And for that you condemn all of NASA.

You're all over the map, bud. Sounds to me like you got snookered by Meier's cult, finally figured it out as the hoax that it is, and because some of the idiots who supported Meiers tried to use a couple of NASA engineers to bolster their case, you now accuse NASA of wasting trillions (which they never have had.)

Your conclusion makes no sense whatsoever.

originally posted by: klassless

1st question, though not really a question, it's an observation.
In the scene where the "Beamship" is seen gently "riding as on an ocean" then it dematerializes and a short while later it materializes. You can tell that there's been an edit (Meier claims the film laboratory he sent the film to for processing cut it up, so I can't comment on this edit) and Langdon does a nice job of imitating the footage. But he fails in one respect. In Meier's film there's a color shift affecting the ground before the craft dematerializes - turns dark green for an instant - and before the materialization. Langdon just flashes the whole frame!

I don't know if this is the scene or not. Whatever it is, it looks like it's on the film and not in the scene. It doesn't follow the line of the landscape in the foreground and it's not affecting the ground as you said. This is a screen grab of the frame before and the next frame with the darkened area.



If you copy the outline from the darkened frame onto the previous one, you can see it's above the ground.



I'm not familiar with 8mm film and the process, but maybe it's the glue used to splice since this blob is a few frames before the "UFO" reappears.

originally posted by: mahigitam

originally posted by: klassless

1st question, though not really a question, it's an observation.
In the scene where the "Beamship" is seen gently "riding as on an ocean" then it dematerializes and a short while later it materializes. You can tell that there's been an edit (Meier claims the film laboratory he sent the film to for processing cut it up, so I can't comment on this edit) and Langdon does a nice job of imitating the footage. But he fails in one respect. In Meier's film there's a color shift affecting the ground before the craft dematerializes - turns dark green for an instant - and before the materialization. Langdon just flashes the whole frame!

2nd question, ditto.
In the scene where the "Beamship" is at the top of the screen just below what looks like an eave and it goes out of sight above the eave then it appears on the bottom of the frame just above the hilltop. It seems to me that the original dub of the film was not used so that you see the craft materialize complete. And Langdon achieves this also. But in the original videotape from 1995 which I had and may still have a dub of it, when the craft appears on the bottom it does NOT appear complete, it materializes slowly. You can see this if you play the tape frame by frame. The craft appears sequentially.

They seem to be natural anamolies that would arise during slicing and joining of different films or parts of the same film. Answers to your questions could be found in the rebuttal provided by the film maker Daniel Drasin to Rhal Zahi, a Meier-supporter.
ufodigest.com...

Sorry, disagree with you. No anomalies here except the unidentifiable darkening of the lower landscape prior to the "jump" by the craft. I thought it also happened prior to the materializatioln but I didn't see it a while ago when I played my "BEAMSHIP" tape. And I also seem to be wrong about my second observation.

The video presentatioln from Rhal Zahis is a joke. Bad video. Langdon offers criticism in the comments.

originally posted by: klassless
Here is an example of irrefutable evidence:
I don't know anything about this photo but it has to be one of Meier's

Simple solarization(? not sure of photographic process) proves a hoax

This picture doesn't belong to Meier. It belongs to a person "Adrain" from Miami, Florida who in 1995 claimed to be a Pleiadian contactee, and who was first endorsed by Randolph Winters (ex-Meier's representative) who much later realized that he was taken in by a hoax. For more info: www.futureofmankind.co.uk...

Well the picture may "belong" to Adrain but who took it? Where did Adrain get the models?

It is thought that "Adrain" made that model(s) himself or he must have just used Meier's image for his montage.

So it is Meier's imagej!

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: klassless

1st question, though not really a question, it's an observation.
In the scene where the "Beamship" is seen gently "riding as on an ocean" then it dematerializes and a short while later it materializes. You can tell that there's been an edit (Meier claims the film laboratory he sent the film to for processing cut it up, so I can't comment on this edit) and Langdon does a nice job of imitating the footage. But he fails in one respect. In Meier's film there's a color shift affecting the ground before the craft dematerializes - turns dark green for an instant - and before the materialization. Langdon just flashes the whole frame!

I appreciate your effort but I really did not understand your solution. Below are 2 photos. I played my videotape dub of my original copy of the 1985 "BEAMSHIP videotape which I bought and sold. I dubbed it at SP to get as much quality as possible since the Japanese team that filmed Meier's 8mm film put up a sheet on the wall and projected the film on it. The Japanese film crew should have used a film-to-tape machine but vcrs were not readily available in 1985. They could at least have rented a real screen and the resulting Japanese film would have been superior, but a sheet it was and we're stuck with an okay video.

So I played my tape and froze it in two places and took digital photos of the TV screen. The white dot on the left side of the photo is a scratch on my TV. The frames are: the first photo shows the craft before the "ground effect" where ONLY the lower foreground darkens. The second photo shows the "ground effect" where the lower foreground darkens. Right after this happens the craft disappears. Notice that the upper half of the frame is not affected. Notice the time block. I took the first photo 2 seconds before the second photo.

Normal view

The foreground darkens

edit on 07/03/2016 by klassless because: To add text.

a reply to: klassless

Perhaps you can upload a better quality video.

Just curious, Meier has been shown to be a hoaxster. Why would you question a section of film that was likely spliced?

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: klassless

Perhaps you can upload a better quality video.

Just curious, Meier has been shown to be a hoaxster. Why would you question a section of film that was likely spliced?

The video I have is an SP dub of the original 1985 commercial release. It doesn't get better than that and you have to consider that videotape is in reality low resolution. My two frames as as good as it gets considering that they are digital photos taken off the TV. The video will not look better on higher quality video equipment. Perhaps it would if I could dub it to digital but it might not. Meier's original film should be dubbed directly to digital as was done with the Zapruder film where each frame of the film was enlarged to a 4"x5" negative and enhanced so that now you see detail that is superior to the original 8mm film.

That section of the film was not spliced. The splice occurs either before or after the "jump" as evidenced by the branch which is in the foreground which also makes you think that if the wind was blowing the way it's moving the branch and yet the "craft" is just gently riding invisible "waves". I don't know.

I don't support Meier but even after all the masterful debunking by people such as John Langdon who have gone out of their way to produce excellent results. But there are still some aspects that raise questions.

originally posted by: klassless

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: klassless


Since you chose to spend some time on the making and deployment of the Hubble telescope, I suggest you get a better picture of that project. Catch a 1990 book entitled "The Hubble Wars: Astrophysics Meets Astropolitics in the Two-Billion-Dollar Struggle Over the Hubble Space Telescope", by Eric J. Chaisson.

Chaisson had some interesting things to say about the whole project. Having worked in the project, he strongly suggests that the mirror was purposely ground wrong because it was a copy of the type used by secret spy satellites and the spooks didn't want anybody to know just how good it could be. Further reading between the lines allows some thinking about other types of sabotage efforts that were part of, excuse me, the big picture.

I appreciate your clarification but tons of money were wasted any way you look at it. So with the Hubble we could mind-blowing pictures. Who on earth benefitted and still benefits? Certainly not me. Who cares what the universe looks like? How about spending the money here, on earth so that we are not in unbelievable debt to China, Russia, etc.? The problem as to why NASA even exists rests on the taxpayers who are mindless and don't organize to tell Uncle Sam enough is enough.

The government has no business using taxpayers' money for non-governmental and wasteful agencies and, of course, NASA is not the only one but it is the most wasteful one.

Yeah, I got a bias against NASA.

Get off your high horse the money NASA gets is a drop in the ocean compared to other government spending.

FOR example in 2011

NASA's FY 2011 budget of $18.4 billion represented about 0.5% of the $3.4 trillion United States federal budget during that year[

There is NOTHING special about the Hubble/or spy satellites mirrors many ground based telescopes have way more advanced systems. Hubbles advantage is no atmosphere to worry about.

a reply to: klassless

vrill