by the way:  doesn't  this picture of the 'wedding cake beamship'

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo/Wedding_Cake_infront_house_B_L+highl.jpg

look just like billy meiers garbage can lid?

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo/garbage_lid_zoom+highl.jpg

see?  but what did billy say about it?

 he said that the aliens had lost the blue prints for the bottom of the space craft and that they ended up in the hands of people who designed garbage can lids...and what a coincidence, the exact garbage can that billy has in his own home?  what are the odds? haha.  here's it in billys own words.

When I [Billy Meier] asked Ptaah about this matter, he gave the following plausible explanation that seems rather clear to me although it does sound a bit peculiar at first. Anyone familiar with the dark and still unexplained stories about the "German Gyro Disks," respectively "Flying Disks," would probably concede that Ptaah's explanation does provide the truth.

Excerpt of the 254th Contact Report from Tuesday, November 28, 1995:

Ptaah: ". . . As far back as the 1920s we worked with flying devices you have named the 'Wedding Cake Ship,' but they were only available for operations on Earth toward the end of the 1970s. This particular type of flying device was designed specifically for the Earth, and for this reason we endeavored to transmit all of the necessary data regarding the vehicles' shape to terrestrial scientists, in the form of telepathic impulses, to assist them in developing flying disks on Earth.

The telepathic impulses were primarily directed to space travel technologists, as I shall call these individuals. This scientific group consisted mainly of German engineers, to whom we transmitted precise plans for the shape of the hull, along with some technical details we considered justifiable. These German scientists actually built experimental units using the plans that eventually led to the construction of somewhat workable flying disks. In accordance with our motives at that time, these disks were to be used to establish an air force that would be instrumental in achieving an early and worldwide peace. Political machinations, however, changed all of this very quickly into a war effort, which prompted us to discontinue the transmission of any further telepathic impulses to the German scientists. Moreover, these developments forced us to drop the project completely shortly after we intentionally transmitted some misinformation, which would render these flying disks ineffectual for war purposes.

Some copies of the blueprints somehow survived since we were unable to retrieve every one of them. This presented no problem, however, since the remaining blueprints were extremely incomplete when they vanished. This last remnant consisted essentially only of drawings which merely depicted the outer rim and undercarriage of the flying object. Details of the lower half and the upper structure were no longer included. And it is precisely this outer rim with its undercarriage that survived on drawings over the past several decades—only to reappear around 1965. This reappearance occurred without our knowledge, for we had long lost interest in what had become useless drawings as far as we were concerned. Until now that is. You informed Florena that some of you realized this shape of large container lids exist, which indeed look exactly like the lower rim and underside of our flying objects and had a more than fleeting resemblance to the same structural features. And since you yourself provided one of these covers to clarify the fact, it was very simple for us to compare the receptacle cover with construction details of the flying device. We, too, noticed the stunning similarity and began focusing our attention on this matter. We thoroughly investigated the entire situation and discovered that the old, newly re-emerged drawings were used for the design and production of these receptacle covers. [!!! LOL] The covers were completely different from anything the designers had previously produced. Normally they designed lids with simple lines and never with shapes that could be called futuristic and complicated. This, then, is how the shape of the container covers came about, which, as I mentioned earlier, strikingly resemble the lower rim section and undercarriage on our flying devices."

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo/Wedding_Cake_infront_house_tack_miss.jpg

this is also an interesting picture where you can see one of the carpet tacks, glued to billy 'the kid' meier's so obviously fake 'beamship has fallen off.  so they can travel accross the galaxy but haven't yet invented glue stong enough to hold that rickety craft together.

prove me wrong.  i dare you. 

thanks for the reply savio.  first of all, billy conceded that the garbage can lid was indeed an exact copy of the beamship base, but built to a smaller size.

i mean...what are the odds of these blueprints for this garbage can lid of falling into the hands of garbage can designers in the first place...?  and what are the odds of billy having the EXACT same garbage can lid in his own home???  billions to one probably.  my common sense tells me that this is completly improbable...  i don't know how anyone could honestly believe this cock and bull story.

you were talking about how hard it would be to make this garbage can lid look metallic.  i personally find it easier to believe that he somehow achieved this, rather than the ridiculous explanation that billy gave regarding the similarities.

why would the beamship need handles anyway?  what purpose do they serve?

as far as i am aware, billys ex wife DID say that he built this model from the garbage can lid. 

and it really wouldn't be that difficult to make that plastic garbage can lid look metallic.  how about sticking the reflective side of tin foil to a thin sheet of clear plastic cut to the size to fit the craft.

also, you didn't respond on the point i made regarding the very first picture i posted.  clearly the craft is in front of the car...considering that the car is severely out of focus and that the craft is in focus, it indicates that the craft is much, much smaller than billy claims it is.

again you didn't respond to the fact that on one of the pictures, a part of the craft has fallen off and is sitting on the side of the craft.

i'm not billybashing, i just want the truth.

rodionromanovichraskolnikov

this discussion is going no where, i'm sorry.  it's like arguing against the existence of god or heaven to a christian... there's no way you can persuade these people out of their belief.  in fact, half the sermons in church are exhortations to have more faith, and claims that all doubt is the cunning of the devil, or in this case 'the MIB trying to destroy billy meier'. 

right.  you wanted to speculate on how billy constructed the base of this craft.  i do nt know how he did it... but he obnviously did.  the man has a vivid imagination and certainly wouldn't be short on ideas, or enthusiasm.  i cannot believe that you are saying that it would be impossible to make that garbage can lid look metallic.  will you concede that this is at least possible?  is it possible?  of course it is. 

as i have stated before, the coincidence of that garbage can lid being in his own house is too great to just shrug off like you did - well unless you're a meier fanatic and your common sense is clouded by doublethink.  you brushed it aside as a 'mere' coincidence.

the first time i saw this wedding cake craft i laughed at how fake it looked.  given time, i bet you that i could come up with a 'beamship' far more realistic looking than that.  whether it was made out of a garbage can lid or not is irrelevant...it looks fake, my intuition tells me it's fake, and the photo i posted proves that is fake...or at least that it is much too small to fit billy and friends. 

bvy the way, you can see imperfections in the pictures...  for example where a part of the ufo has fallen off the craft. 

so, please answer my question.  is it possible to manipulate that garbage can lid to look metallic or not?  obviously, it is.  people say that it's impossible that people actually transported the stones of stonehenge all the way from the mountains of wales and built them up like they were lego bricks on salisbury plain - but they did.  nothing is impossible.

namaste

Hi Raskolnikov,

I have no intention of arguing. Is it the truth that we are looking for?

Christians rely on faith instead of logic and reasoning. If they use logic, they would have come up with the conclusion that “It is possible that Jesus is God and it is also possible that Jesus is not God”. This is because there is no solid proofs of any kind available yet.

We use logic and reasoning don’t we?

So, yes, it is possible that Billy could have engineered that “garbage can lid” into the ship base, and it is also possible that Billy did not fake the ship.

In order to judge that Billy used the can lid, we need proofs not speculations.

To this end, as I have perviously mentioned, we do not have even a single proof, so, we can only speculate.

Now, impressions are not speculations. Impressions cannot stand a case before a judge, yet, logical speculations will push us to think and consider the possibilities. How do we compare the impression of one to the impression of George Locas? Different people would have different impressions on the same subject.

If we understand logic, we will surely aware that “There is no way to prove something that does not exist.” That is to say, there is no way to prove that Billy did not fake the ship. The only way to find out the truth now is to speculate how Billy could have done it.

Yes, I would agree that there must be a way to engineer a “garbage can lid” into the ship base, but how? Can we do the same thing today with our latest technology? Recently, one model expert built a wedding cake ship model, well, the workmanship is still far inferior to the ship in the photos.

If we put the case before a judge, Billy will be pronounced innocent because of the lack of witness and substantial proofs/speculations. Or, Billy will get away by the famous judgment: “Benefit of the doubt”.

I suggest we continue trying to speculate how Billy could have done it.

Savio

Okay, now I'm officially confused.

Here is what I hear you saying: "The Wedding Cake UFO (WCUFO) in the video is real, yet Billy Meier, being particularly bored, decided one day to build his own small models of the WCUFO using garbage can lids, photograph them hovering around model cars, trees, etc."

Am I the only one who finds this utterly silly and nonsensical? Please clarify this for me Raskolnikov.

You apparently have misunderstood the excerpt from the 254th Contact Report. The "aliens" (the Plejaren) did not lose any of the plans (or the lids, if that's what you are referring to). The UFO plans of the early scientists were based, in part, on telepathic transmissions from the Plejaren. After some version of these plans turned up in 1965 (unknown to the Plejaren) and presumably ended up in the hands of some company, that company or possibly one of the designers within the company used the shape/deisgn of the lower portion of the device on those plans for the look of their trash can lid.

I'm not saying that this doesn't sound far-fetched, but it certainly is not beyond a reasonable realm of possibility (i.e. much better than odds involving a number with 48 zeros after it, as you say).

Why don't we work on trying to find out where Billy bought these garbage cans, who the distributor and/or manufacturer is, how common these cans/lids are in and around Switzerland, are they used primarily for storage of certain materials (that a person living with animals or on a farm would have), etc.  Before you try determing the unlikelihood of Billy having lids that "coincidentally" look somewhat like the lower rim of the WCUFO, it would be better to have some statistics to work with.

Why don't we try to handle one item at a time, in this case the above confusion regarding your statement that one object is fake, yet another object is (probably) not fake. That alone is just too important (and worthy of an LOL!! itself) to sweep under the carpet.

Secondly, we'll clear up your apparent misunderstandings with regard to the 254th Contact Report and what it is saying. It is not saying aliens lost blueprints. From this point on, we're going to have to be really clear about fundamental points like this before going any further and jumping around saying "What about this photo, and this photo, and this photo over here???"

One thing at a time.

Those are my thoughts. Now it's your turn to clarify my interpretation (and confusion) with regard to what you have said, which I would appreciate.

Thanks,

It's just a figure of speech, Raskolnikov. I'm basically interpreting/understanding what you're saying as such as such. Nothing definitive, just what I'm personally hearing. You're free to correct me on it (as you did).

I think when it comes to controversial things like the Meier case, we could all afford to be a little more persnickety to get to the facts.

Please show me where it is said Meier "wanted" to be like Billy the Kid. He was nicknamed "Billy" by a woman in Iran due to the western garb he was frequently seen in for a period of time (in his youth, like back in the 50s/60s).

You've seen all the other craft that Meier photographed in the late 70s. Several variations that were called "beamships."  The WCUFO was not a beamship and was only used for a short time at the tail end of his "photo opp" days in '81. 

Like I said earlier, there is no way that the object in front of the tree is less than the size of an average bedroom. I'd like to know how that crafty, one-armed Meier got the ship that size hooked up to a tree?

Look, if you and I brought that video over to a special effects lab, they would laugh us out of the room if we said if was 30 cm in diameter, no matter how "corny" or unconventional it looks. It's a simple matter of camera optics and math. Too bad you don't have the full video of the WCUFO in all its high-res glory, the one where you hear Billy (behind the camera) practically begging them to move the ship around the tree, but they declined.

Gee, I wonder why they wouldn't do that simple little favor for us, the ultimate recipients and critics of his evidence? After all, it would most likely be the piece de resistance of proof, right? A large, metallic object slowly rotating around a tree at a football field's distance from where he's standing...

Hmmm... is it to create the controversy that you, myself and others are engaged in right now? Is it to provide people more inclined to "believe" to investigate further and discover the real deal behind the shallow nuts and bolts of the UFOs, namely, the thousands and thousands of pages of amazing writings by this man that explain practically everything you would ever want to learn about in life? And does it provide those more inclined to scoff at it and laugh the freedom to stay comfy and cozy in their own belief systems and paradigms? 

Try thinking about that one for a little bit. I don't know about you, but the aliens in my imagination are much more intelligent, creative and clever than most would probably attribute to them.

No, not avoiding it there, Rask, just didn't get to it yet. We would have to take each photo on a case by case basis which takes a little time. I don't think the ship is in front of the car in your "smoking gun" photo. I think the blurry edge of the car is allowing a small portion of the WCUFO to mix/layer with it. You can easily say that if the WCUFO was in front of the car, being as sharp and clear as it obviously is, it would easily obscure and mask the car with a definitive, sharp edge. But it is not doing this, therefore I conclude it's behind the car.

Since the photo was taken at night, the camera's iris will of course be opened wider (to allow more light to enter inside the lens). This produces a much more narrow depth of field. The object in focus (the WCUFO) appears to be beyond the car and is said to be a larger version of this craft (14 meters). Any object, even a relatively short distance closer to the camera, like the car, would logically become badly out of focus due to the narrow depth of field.

Jim Deardorff did a comprehensive analysis on these photos you're asking about at http://www.tjresearch.info/Wedcake.htm. It's probably best to read his analysis first then come back and share your views and/or critiques.

Fair enough. We may never truly come to agreement, which is fine, but wherever possible, let's at least deal with known facts and figures in the case and not throw around sarcastic little  

You'd probably like to think you've hit a sore spot. But nobody's sore over here. I just wanted to make sure you had seen most of the available and crucial material in this case, hence the interjection on the video stuff.

Btw, about your feeling that I've "butt in" to your thread: Since I happen to be the only moderator here and since I happen to be the only one actually paying for this board to stay alive with my own ducats, I'd like to think that I have free reign in the conversations that occur on this board. If that bothers you, then plenty of other boards abound. But I'm enjoying the conversation about this stuff, so by all means, let's keep talking...

Hello Raskolnikov,

Your theory about the WCUFO in FRONT of the car is incorrect  because you've ignored or didn't notice something completely obvious. If you look

at the left side of the bottom of the ship you notice the crystals(red arrow) but on the right you can't see them(blue arrow). Now obviously if this "model" was in front of the car you'd see the whole bottom, not half/part of it. The bottom right of the ship is obviously eclipsed by the car, because the crystals on the right are not visible. so the car must be in front of the ship.

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/view/mb/file?username=steelmark&id=208052