[HOAX]Michael Horns Billy Meier photos[HOAX] from C2C tonight

Originally posted by AGENT51I respectfully disagree. May I suggest you put the pink soap down and join us?

You just made my argument for me. How ironic. And to answer you question; No. I think I'll keep the soap. How do you feel, by the way? Should we be concerned about those puking symbols you keep using?

reply to post by AGENT51


And by the way, you must be late to the game of all this, because it's all been posted long, ago. This is the model I used.



And, I wouldn't say I put any real time into the shots I did with it. Literally? A fishing line, a camera, a pin (to make an antennae on top the disc and attach the line to). Thats it. Loop the line over a tree branch, a pole, whatever, and shoot after you frame the shot as you want it. Took me less then 10 minutes.

Now, if I can do this in suburbia, imagine what I could do in the Swiss countryside. In fact, the Swiss landscape is even more conducive to shooting the forced perspective shots. If you'll notice, all of Meier's shots that look nice...are the ones with expansive forests or mountain ranges. The ones that look like hell, such as the Van shot, or the wedding cake crap, all shot without expansive backdrops of the majesty of the landscape.

I'm actually surprised no one's mentioned that. It's really very obvious. The wedding cake "gold" shots, I don't even see being shot outside, since there appears multiple spotlight reflections in it's surface elements. Could very well have been shot in the barn in front of a black backdrop and a toy matchbox style car.

Anyway, going to Switzerland anytime soon (unfortunately, because it looks like a great place to visit) isn't in my future. My list of priorities doesn't include going to Switzerland to further dismantle an already dismal excuse for a UFO case.

You pick your battles. I've traveled all over and spent thousands of my own money for cases I thought might have merit of some kind.

I don't see that in the Meier case. At all.

I'll be contacting Derek about housing all my info on the Meier case on the IIG site, so we can just direct those interested there...saves a lot of typing.

Originally posted by jritzmann
I'll be contacting Derek about housing all my info on the Meier case on the IIG site, so we can just direct those interested there...saves a lot of typing.

And the IIG will be very happy to add it to the (soon to be redesigned) Billy Meier Case section of the website. The IIG is hoping to have the website eventually become a sort of "one-stop-shopping" repository on various paranormal cases.

Originally posted by jritzmann
And by the way, you must be late to the game of all this, because it's all been posted long, ago. This is the model I used.

DUDE! Clip and wash your fingernails next time.

Originally posted by jritzmann


And by the way, you must be late to the game of all this, because it's all been posted long, ago. This is the model I used.





Thats it? LMAO! Thats your model? Let me respectfully LMAO! Ritzmann this is hilarious. And where is my wedding cake? Ho Ho Ho! Hey, hold up a little banzai tree in your other hand!

Thanks for making my day ritzmann.

Terrax-
Hey man, every nail I got is a potential guitar pick, and I'd been soldering volume pots all day...gimme a break!

JohnLear-
You're pretty entertaining too. Hey, they asked to see the model from this:



So there it is. I'm happy you find it funny that it's so easy to duplicate Meier's photos with such a tiny, simple thing.

Have a good weekend all.

Originally posted by jritzmann

JohnLear-
You're pretty entertaining too. Hey, they asked to see the model from this:

I would like to see the model of the wedding cake you made. Thanks.

Lear,

Seeing as you're asking for stuff...

How about WE ask YOU about your opinion of the image Derek posted?

You know, the one with the guy swinging around the steel wool on fire?

What's your thought about the guy standing in the middle of the ring in the Meier image?

Do you think that this is anything other than what it appears?

dB

Originally posted by davidbiedny

Do you think that this is anything other than what it appears?

Thanks for the post David. I am waiting for ritzmann to post his wedding cake model.

You know, if you going to support each other in trying debunk the Meier photos you need to build a couple of models and go over to Swtizerland and show how he did it.

This sitting around in your den whining on your computer all day long isn't going to hack it.

Your efforts here are convincing for the gulliable but highly suspect to the seriously informed.

But hey! Thanks for the post anyway.

reply to post by johnlear

Lear,

Seeing as you're asking for stuff...

How about WE ask YOU about your opinion of the image Derek posted?

You know, the one with the guy swinging around the steel wool on fire?

What's your thought about the guy standing in the middle of the ring in the Meier image?

Do you think that this is anything other than what it appears?

Why don't you simply answer this very simple questions, Mr. Lear ?

Lear,

We have indeed debunked any number of the Meier photos. I took one in particular and tore it apart, Jeff has done a number of them. I've clearly shown, in the photo I debunked, the black cloth that the "light fixture/ship" was propped on, as well as the fact that there are no light reflections on the cars beneath it. My findings are on the Paracast forums for all to see.

ANY yutz with functioning eyes and brain can take one look at the "night-time" "wedding cake" shot, and see the miniature car and tree, and the fact that the scene is being illuminated by photo spots, they are clearly reflecting in the spheres. Lack of depth of field, lack of atmospheric density, hell, man, you'd have to be stupid to find this image convincing.

The idea of having to go to Switzerland to debunk photos is obviously devoid of any flavor of logic, as is the notion that we should replicate them in order to show how they were done. Regardless, Jeff has already done that, with more than one photo. And the model you've made fun of - well, it was built by one of the best model guys in the industry - Ray Harryhausen - so if you feel comfortable denigrating the efforts of one of the greatest visual effects experts of all time, well, what can I say?

Only the most gullible yokels find this "case" to be compelling in any fashion, it would be so sad to see someone of your intelligence dumped in that box, dontcha think? Meanwhile, HornDog has publicly stated that the photos are not even important, it's the prophecies. And when that fails, it's the philosophy. And after that, who knows, the pickled cabbage and peppermint shnaps shots, whatever it takes to make anyone believe in this nonsense.

Meanwhile, as it's already been pointed out, you did not answer my simple question.

Perhaps you're not capable of answering a direct question, too much jet fuel over the years?

dB

[edit on 26-1-2008 by davidbiedny]

[edit on 26-1-2008 by davidbiedny]

[edit on 26-1-2008 by davidbiedny]

[edit on 26-1-2008 by davidbiedny]

Can any one say if a true UFO phenomena was ever captured by
Meier or we just take care of obvious model phenomena.

So nothing is real, all is fake real.

Or since one model is used all are phony.

Originally posted by davidbiedny

Perhaps you're not capable of answering a direct question, too much jet fuel over the years?

Maybe. Maybe too much cognac.

In any case I don't find any of your supposed evidence convincing.

The Meier case was real. The Meier spaceships were real. Any supposed debunking has not used real Meiers photos or faked the evidence.

I am waiting for ritzmann to post his model of the wedding cake.

Thanks for the post.

There's an old saying:

"Living like an ostrich, with it's head in the sand."

Denial is a sad thing, it's likely the cause of much of the sadness and adversity of our culture. One would expect older folks to have learned something substantial about the state of the world, but there's no fool like an old fool, so they say.

dB

Originally posted by davidbiedny
There's an old saying:

"Living like an ostrich, with it's head in the sand."

Denial is a sad thing, it's likely the cause of much of the sadness and adversity of our culture. One would expect older folks to have learned something substantial about the state of the world, but there's no fool like an old fool, so they say.

dB

I agree, we should move this thread along away from the nit pickers.

Meier apparently had valid material, then became a barker of show
when the saucers went somewhere else.

I saw the new dvd (free of course) and there is absolutely "nothing" new in it, it's just a cheap video recording of Mh going on radio interviews. No new photos, no new info, nada just the same yada yada he always does.

If Jeff or other skeptics only use those web photos, it's because for all we know there were never originals submitted by Meier. “Wonder why?” Stop saying that already! Do you have any non web photos to present? I thought so!!! And guess what? Those same web photos are the same ones that he is “selling” in the "NEW DVD." Anything to say?

Please stop with the comments about how people have not gone to Switzerland to investigate Meier! What kind of sick joke is that? "HELLO YOU HAVEN'T GONE EITHER!" So WHAT'S THE GAME ABOUT?

Why insist on having Jeff duplicate the wcufo? Are you getting a cut of the dvd sales profit or something? I mean demanding that is just MH strategy to continue doing promotions for this hoax (there is not a single time where he doesn't mention Jeff because he has no material left, the hoax is dead). Everyone knows this already. Can you duplicate Jeff’s photos? If you can't then that means they are real! See the logic here? Give me a f&*$^ break!

Jeff already proved that the effect Meier did was just a "False Perspective.” He doesn't need to proof anything else.

There is a guy with something in his hands doing a ring of fire by moving it around and they call that a ufo and ask you to pay for it, and you still don't say anything about it? You haven't seen the dvd, did you? It's understandable as it’s a waste of time and you know it. Again it's just Mh videotaping himself going on radio interviews and it contains the same "WEB PHOTOS" and same information as always. It should be called "PAY ME TO SEE ME TALKING ABOUT MEIER AGAIN".

Dereck if you had a verbal agreement with Mh about being included into the main video, maybe you can sue him. The way he made it is obviously misleading by just trying to answer your explanations with nonsense like always. He doesn't know anything about photos, videos, sound or nothing (this is not a fingernail case). He only keeps misquoting people from 40 years ago.

Why doesn't he present new material with new investigators it’s 2008 now MH, show us something new, I dare you! Like a new scientific analysis? Of course he wouldn't, he knows better. No scientists or expert in 2008 would say anything good after reviewing those obviously “False Perspective” photos. All the experts to who MH presents the photos to at present time (2008) will always say that it’s a hoax!

Claiming that an expert said positive things about the Meier case is not sufficient, why can’t the expert himself come forth and publicly say it? Like when you showed it to David Biedny and he showed us all that it was a complete fraud. Thanks David!

To all Meier supporters, please don't respond unless you comment on the photo of the ring of fire with the guy in the middle of it. This should be fun although I think any lame excuses should work for them. Like the lame excuse when he got caught using garbage parts and said that they transmitted thoughts into garbage manufacturers!!! That’s why they look the same, lol for the love of sanity. Trying to argue with people that can believe that is just useless.

Actually, it is a written agreement. And yes, by removing it from the body of the main film and only including it as a special feature they are in violation of the contract. However, I have no plans in bringing legal action against them. I'm actually quite happy that the DVD is out there because it finally enables me to speak publicly about the case and present even more evidence about it. I had been holding off on speaking publicly because I did not want them to re-shoot or re-edit the film based on what I had said. They actually did this twice within the footage that does appear.

For years Horn has repeatedly stated that the alleged audio recording of the beamship contained 8 inaudible frequencies and challenged anyone who claimed that it was a fake that they would have to recreate the sound with those 8 inaudible frequencies. Well, after the part of my presentation that showed conclusively that there was no way for an audio cassette tape recorder to record any inaudible sounds Michael shot an interview of himself and said "24 were indeed in the audible range. The 8 inaudible sounds were determined through the calculations in a formula based on the existing sounds." So, he just admitted on camera that there never were any inaudible frequencies recorded in the beamship recording. This is from Horn's UFOSoundRecordings PDF located on his website: "Jim Dilettoso, our research consultant, took samples of this noise to Peter Gimer and Rick Coupland of Micor in San Francisco. There they performed tests in the audible range, from 20 Hz to 2000 HZ [sic]. They found twenty-four characteristic frequencies within the audible range and eight outside of it. They found all thirty-two frequencies concurrently at different amplitudes and volumes. All thirty-two tones are somehow produced simultaneously." This certainly doesn't sound like the 8 inaudible frequencies were "determined through the calculations in a formula based on the existing sounds." It clearly says that the 8 "inaudible" frequencies were part of the original recording. This is what is known technically as lying.

The other example of Horn changing his story after interviewing me regards the Bugey Nuclear Power Station near Lyon, France. One of Meier's prophecies says "The danger of accidents in nuclear reactors will increase throughout the world. Regarding this subject, France in particular must be extraordinarily careful in every way, for one prophecy warns of a strong probability for an accident near Lyon." Then in 2005 Horn said "The emergency scenario, and the timely shut down of that exact plant, occurred on August 12, 2003." Well, here is what actually happened. In August of 2003 Europe suffered from the worst heat wave in recorded history. 75% of France’s electrical power comes from nuclear power plants. Most of these plants are located along rivers. Cool water from the river comes into the power plant for cooling purposes, the water is then superheated and then moved out of the power plant to a holding tank to cool down and then the cooled water is released back into the river. In August of 2003 the demand for electricity was so high that the power plants had difficulty generating enough electricity fast enough. However, the plants could generate more electricity if they could be allowed to release water that was warmer than normal into the rivers. On August 12, 2003 the French Government allowed the power plants to discharge their water one degree warmer than normal. That's it. There is no way to describe the situation as a nuclear power plant accident and the plant near Lyon, France was never shut down, nor was there ever any discussion of shutting it down. Well, after realizing that he had gotten everything wrong he found another article mentioning the station and said that was the predicted event. If two events are claimed to be the result of a prophecy then neither one is. In order to be a prophecy it needs to be precise and accurate. This wasn't.

People please. Look what we're doing. By arguing with morons we get tarred by the same brush. There's no more to say, and I for one have done all I intend to do. You post whats asked for, and it's ignored and more and more is demanded.

On what planet does this make sense? This is up to them to prove, not us.

Arguing this stupid excuse for a case as I told Derek the other night on the phone, is highly seductive. Because it's so easy, and you always wonder what the proponents like Horn are going to come back with next. When it comes back, it's so outrageous and most times untruthful, you cant help but reply.

And thats exactly what they want.

At this point they've run out of fuel. One need only look at the newly released "film" to see that.

Like my Pop used to say, "leave them enough rope and they hang themselves".

Derek will get all my info for IIG and he'll get his own info up as well. There's nothing more to be said.

So go ahead and throw the next barb Lear, or whomever. You're not getting another goddamned reply. I've answered everything since C2C a week ago, and thats enough.

[edit on 27-1-2008 by jritzmann]

Originally posted by jritzmann

People please. Look what we're doing. By arguing with morons we get tarred by the same brush. There's no more to say, and I for one have done all I intend to do.

So go ahead and throw the next barb Lear, or whomever. You're not getting another goddamned reply. I've answered everything since C2C a week ago, and thats enough.

Thanks for the input Jeff. I believe that your comment 'arguing with morons' is a violation of the T&C and it is also rude. The fact is we are debating, not arguing, and while I may be a moron, others in the debate may not be.

I see you didn't post your wedding cake model. Here, let me post it for you.





When you have a minute please make it fly around a tree like this:





Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by derekcbart

 

Derek, thats hysterical as hell. As far as I'm concerned, anyone putting any stock in this crap is an idiot.

By arguing with morons we get tarred by the same brush.

I realy am very sorry, but it's for some of that opinions of you, that i question your true motivations behind all this. And as a fact it makes me, in the end belive more and more that Billy Meier storys can be true but manipulated by "agents"!
Im terrible sorry.