Steelmark Online Forum Website Toolbox - Webmaster Tools
 
Register Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
Marc_Juliano

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 125
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMN
Nonetheless, the Billy case is almost definitely a turning point in my life. I have realised not to believe something simply because you want it to be true.

In search of truth, J.

Best of luck in your search, JMN.

__________________
Marc Juliano
V.P. Technology/IT, Steelmark
Forum Moderator
karlsult

Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #17 
It's quite obvious to see why member name E.T that asked the question thinks it is HAOX. Kal Korffs is not to be trusted... it has been said numerous times on several forums.

Michael Horn on the other hand is one of the persons you should trust. theyfly.com

Bye,
Karl
Barbarian216

Registered:
Posts: 18
Reply with quote  #18 
Good job, Marc Juliano, however some people will never be convinced of the truth. They are blinded by religious dogmas, status quo and egolistic stupidity.

Only when one overcomes his/her ego and observes nature, then awareness will be realized. Many of Billy Meier's presentations introduced by the Plejarens have a logical connection to earth humans demise and quest for resolution.

However the biggest problems lies with religions and those in power who intend to manipulate others to maintain the status quo. Even to the extent of destroying this planet as was done in the past.

Adysor

Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #19 
Some photos are really "hot" I should say and I neither believe in the case as true nor false. There are many things to consider about the case. Most of the claims don't really prove it authentic but at least has more chances to be true. If the photos can be faked with models doesn't mean that Billy Meier did fake them. There is also to consider the predictions and prophecies he wrote. About those also I think very few of them can be proven that they have been published before the events happened. Most of them have not been published before but after. Now there can be 2 sides of an answer here: first people can say, yes well he watched the events and then published them after claiming he predicted/prophecised the future events. The next claim can also be valid, that he really knew those events would happen before they did happen and didn't publish them for maybe security reasons and because people tend to react pretty weird when they are given such information, for example, if the future event is a negative one let's say, the people tend to work towards it's fulfillment. So both opinions are valid, therefore it cannot be judged. To the case, there are also many witnesses from Switzerland up to India. Who claim they met Billy Meier and that he said the same story about his mission many many years ago in his travels. They claim that they saw UFOs also when he was around. Now these guys don't get payed to agree with his "nonsense" and if they are getting payed, well it's up to the investigators to prove that. Then why agree with "nonsense" like this if they don't at least get paid a little sum of money or other goods w/e. So there is much more to the case than those photos which hold a lot of history and problems with models came when he agreed with investigators to photograph a model similar to the ships in his photos and then compare them.

But before ending this I want to put 2 things. Prophecies or predictions I don't know what they are but I took them from contact notes just to be curious that might happen in the near future(meaning 10-20 years). I don't know if they are correctly written, I took them from an english translation which I think is not authorized by the FIGU, so it goes like this:

---"Quetzal
12. Always presuming that the concerned Terrestrial technology develops further in this
context, and the still coming plans actually would be realised, then, in about the year
2025, a gigantic laser space telescope, made of many parts, will be brought into a
stationary Earth orbit, that primarily will serve in the discovery of planets in foreign
solar systems, for which reason it will also be named The Planet Seeker."

---"Billy 
Our scientists of astronomy say that the central Milky Way sun is about 45,000 light years
away from us.
But you’ve explained to me that this is an erroneous calculation and mistaken assumption,
as the real distance amounts to 10,000 light years fewer."

So I don't know if they already happened, at least the one with the central sun. And I don't remember from which contact notes they belong since I took them about 2 months ago and I didn't take notes of contact notes number, but feel free to search more. After all, only those who search and seek find.
I just don't wanna see you guys fighting,claiming, like fanatics, on each side, that he is either real or bad. Just look at it as a researchers, scientist whatever you want to call it. Attacks from each side is not an option of resolving this case.

Adrian.

__________________
Adrian
Adysor

Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #20 

Oh, I forgot to tell you guys who don't know. Please visit the FIGU forum. There is some information there...in fact there is a lot of info especially in the Question and Answer section.


__________________
Adrian
Marc_Juliano

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 125
Reply with quote  #21 
Good points, Adrian. Especially about attacks from either side (supporters or skeptics). Things as complex as the Meier UFO contacts should really be discussed logically and point for point, in a critical but mature way.

There are prophecies of Billy Meier that appear to fall into the speculative category because there is no demonstrable way to really prove that he wrote them down before the event occurred. But then there are those empirically verifiable prophecies that you just can't ignore.

A good example is Meier's contact report from 1991 about the "Iceman" who was discovered in the Swiss or Austrian mountains (which has been in circulation since the mid 90s) that clearly shows that it was copyrighted years before specific scientific discoveries were made and announced...particularly the information about how the Iceman died.

If you haven't read it yet, the story and the scans of Meier's documents are on Michael Horn's site. His Contact Block 13 was in print and circulated years before scientists came forward with information about how the Iceman died.

__________________
Marc Juliano
V.P. Technology/IT, Steelmark
Forum Moderator
morlam

Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #22 
After all the TALK I see on these forums and arguments concerning veracity i should tell you all that I actually tested Meiers claims over the WCUFO by actually remaking it!! Hows that for putting my money where my mouth is?  Check out the video preview i made recently for youtube on Mrmorlam1.

No more talk! I did it easily with one hand and documented it all. In fact i made it 4 times in total for various reasons.

Funnily enough it was Michael Horn who challenged me to remake the wcufo and so i did - much to his dismay it seems. He jumped to conclusions when Tony wharton gave him a sneak look at some first shots i took to start testing the cameras I had and proved that he is not a man to be trusted at all! I can prove that easily so go ahead and challenge me.

I also challenge ANY photographer to rebutt my claim that the car seen in the night time wcufo shots is not a toy since only a toy car will be out of focus like the ones seen in Billy's wcufo pictures. It was easy to prove by simply doing it. I took night shots of a real mercedes to directly compare with Billys pictures and my own and instantly proved my point.

I also found out how to take every wcufo picture by trial and error so there is no doubt now that Billy was an amateur photographer who knew exactly what he was doing.

BTW he sends his followers out on "missions" like going to the nearest bookstore, where he has an account, to get the latest info from astrophysics journals etc so he can concoct his contact notes that talk about things like black holes as if they are something to lend veracity to his claims. He never spoke about dark matter before the scientists proposed it! Even though these things are still just theoretical mumblings and have not been proved in any way shape or form. Do some homework (like maths) and figure it out for yourself like I had to years ago.

The final word is that if Billy's photos are presented as true and they turn out to be hoaxes it means he is lying and so is Michael Horn if he is supposed to have studied meier for so long and couldn't even spot the signs of fakery. Pathetic!
Marc_Juliano

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 125
Reply with quote  #23 
Hi Morlam,

Thanks for your research on Meier's photos. If you would, I'd be interested to see the best shots of the WCUFO that you have, preferably those that compare directly to shots taken by Meier (e.g. the WCUFO & car photos, the closeups with his (or a) house in the background, etc.)  Maybe you have a web site where they're all posted? YouTube is okay but doesn't give you nearly the quality of still images.

I'm sure as a photographer, you're familiar with depth of field (DOF), which takes its cues from aperture size among other things. You know that when it's dark, the aperture widens to allow more light through and that the result is a narrower DOF, which can explain the car or WCUFO being in or out of focus relative to the opposing object.

It's unfortunate your video of your WCUFO didn't use a camera that could focus properly when zooming up to the tree on the hillside. Actually, if you were able to get a camera similar to what Meier used (a SABA brand videocam or reasonable facsimile) with a similar lens and optical zoom, that would have been a much better test. You would then have been able to zoom in fully to the tree (at various documented distances) and test/contrast not only the apparent size of the tree/ship within the camera frame at maximum zoom, but also the duration of the zoom mechanism itself against Meier's, which can be very audibly heard in his video. That particular UFO in that shot was alleged to be 3.5 meters which well exceeds your small model and should show differently given comparable optics. If they show identically given the same specs and same zoom length, etc., then your case for Meier using a portable (say 1 meter or less) model might hold up. Until then, we proceed on the assumption that Meier's WCUFO is no less than the size of an average bedroom.

Regarding a lot of Meier's earlier photos, they also look way better than many of the IIG photos and other attempts at duplication that I've seen which don't show much distance cueing or hazing as is obvious in many of Meier's shots and the light fall-off and shadows look more realistic in Meier's, which indicate a larger object than a small model.

Btw, I don't know where you're getting your story about Meier sending people out on missions to the store(s). He usually always goes to the store himself. Ask anybody who's been there.

I do applaud your efforts at making a model and taking the time to set up shots that looks pretty close to Meier's WCUFO pics. But based on what I've seen so far, the camera optic specs and such still need to be more or less duplicated to recreate actual conditions for the test. But maybe you've done that? If so let me know.


__________________
Marc Juliano
V.P. Technology/IT, Steelmark
Forum Moderator
Michael812

Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #24 
To all,

Contrary to what our new friend, Phil Langdon, is enthusing about, his efforts have simply resulted in exactly what previous best efforts have, i.e. the duplication of the "effect" of Meier's photos. First though, let's give Phil some real serious congratulations on making very excellent models of the real WCUFO. 

What Meier enthusiast wouldn't want one of them?

But we do have to remember that a model is just that, a model. I have previously pointed this out (http://www.theyfly.com/newsflash5/tree.htm) and it still holds true. However, Phil did go to great lengths to try to make a convincing duplication, the problem is that there are obvious, telltale flaws that effectively leave Phil back where every other debunker and skeptic who tried to do the same also found themselves. But to be perfectly honest, it took a photographic expert, Chris Lock, to show me the obvious giveaways that clearly separate the real WCUFO from Phil's attempt.

Chris has already written a very detailed, precise analysis and comparison between Phil's efforts and Meier's evidence. We will publish this at my site when Phil and Korff can generate some serious attention sufficient to warrant a large public response. Let me explain this a bit before giving you a few points from Chris Lock's article.

Phil is now affiliated (no auditory pun intended) with Kal Korff, the more than slightly looney, self-professed enemy of the Meier case. Korff had approached me last year to do a joint DVD project with him, presenting the idea in the innocent framework of two people "respectfully agreeing to disagree" with each other, etc. It turned out that Korff intended it to be nothing of the sort. And while I proceeded in good faith for some time, Korff was working behind the scenes to create an entirely different and quite malicious product. I was alerted to this in time by a communication from Ptaah, as relayed by Florena to Billy and then to me.

Of course, for Korff (and certainly Phil, etc.) there is no Ptaah and the the Plejaren are likewise non-existent, etc. However, the information provided by Ptaah as to what Korff was really up to, and the warning for me to disengage as fast as I could lest I be unwittingly used in a rather vile campaign that Korff intended, is already born out in Korff's promotional material for what he now claims will be an ebook project, rather than a DVD. Should he indeed release this project , it will be very apparent that Ptaah, who of course "doesn't exist", nailed this one right on the empty Korffkopf, to coin a German pun here.

Naturally we have the dated email containing Ptaah's warning and recommendation, which I mentioned in an article of mine at the time: http://theyfly.com/For_the_Record.htm. Until recently I hadn't mentioned anything about Korff's mental illness, as Ptaah had clearly described it in the email, but it will be a matter of some brief discussion at a later time when Korff's mental imbalance will in itself become quite clear and evident to anyone who is interested in the matter. Not only have Korff's previous machinations regarding Meier's evidence been previously detailed by an insider (http://theyfly.com/newsflash93/KorffShort.htm) but even other skeptics, opponents of the Meier case, etc. regard him as out of his mind and someone to avoid.

Korff really has no problem with blurring truth and reality into his delusional lies, which is symptomatic of his paranoid mental state. An example, last year he wrote and told me that some 200 people had written him who specifically criticized me and my position on the Meier case, etc. However, I didn't receive even ONE such email myself, quite surprising in light of how easy enough it is to find me. In fact, since the whole proposed project with Korff was announced by him, and by me in my newsletters, etc., I received no more than about a half-dozen inquiries. Really, that's it.

This leads us to why I'm waiting to publish Chris' article, i.e. Korff, and Phil here, are both relying on me to do some serious promotion of their nonsense in order for it get broader exposure. That was obviously part of Korff's original agenda, as nobody pays any real attention to him and his delusional, self-important rambling. However, this time these guys get to do all the work and, if they get enough blips going on the radar we'll shoot them down, politely of course.

As to some hints about the content of Chris' article, a few quotes:

"...We will see that no hoax has been proven; merely a few somewhat similar, yet crude, effects have been created in these photos and video clips, although Langdon has produced a beautiful little model.

A generally accurate looking model used in a photograph, of course, does not prove hoaxing or use of a model in another photograph taken by someone else. At most it raises the question of whether this could have been done elsewhere. As for 'perfect recreations', that shows an incredibly lax standard of judgment as shall be shown. With the exception of the model itself, which is a good attempt at creating something similar looking to the WCUFO, these photographs cannot even be classified as 'recreations', let alone 'perfect'; they are merely attempts at reproducing some basic similar effects.

It is possible with modern technology and given time and know-how to make a convincing model of anything. But all that a convincing model evinces is expertise on the part of the model maker. "

"...After showing his small model against a completely different small fronded variety of fir tree from that in the Meier photograph the Langdon video asks, 'Does this mean my model is a large craft?' No, of course, it doesn’t. Just taking a model and seeing how you can make that look like the original does not in any way prove anything necessarily about the original, and most certainly not that the original was another model. By the same reasoning a model of Tokyo Tower proves Tokyo Tower is nothing more than a model. 

Proving something used to create a model is a model itself requires the most critical analysis. And this critical analysis the Langdon videos have not provided. What the videos do show is, it is possible to build a small (apparently 16”) model like the WCUFO, and more importantly, if you pay attention, that it is actually different in size from the craft seen in the WCUFO with van photograph. So let’s look at some salient features in the photographs."

Unfortunately, failed skeptical challenger, Derek Bartholomaus (DB), has again blundered, throwing in his lot with Langdon and Korff (and the very disgruntled, petty, Tony Wharton who has already sufficiently embarrassed himself). It wasn't bad enough that DB had to retract his foundational argument about "model trees" (http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/Top_Skeptic_Fixed.htm), it's reprised here by Langdon, which again brings the focus back on DB , who's also, like Korff, no stranger to dishonest tactics (http://theyfly.com/SkepticsCaught.htm). 

In fact, Langdon and Korff use DB's flawed and foolish photo composite to try to illustrate the model theory, which now makes it even more obvious - after reading Chris' article - just why Meier didn't and couldn't have used model trees.

So, when Chris writes the following near the end of his article:

"I would like to thank the makers and posters of the Langdon videos for so conclusively showing how different their model version and cropped Norwegian spruce are from the craft and trees seen in the Meier WCUFO with van photograph. A large difference in scale and size is evidenced. I’d also like to thank Langdon for his model and car photos that show so conclusively how bigger the cars in Meier’s photos are from the toys in Langdon’s videos." 

...he's not just being polite, nor is he trying to rub salt in Langdon's soon to be experienced wounds.

While it's not likely that folks such as Langdon, Korff and Wharton can actually understand, let alone appreciate, the kind of urgent and vitally important information in the Meier case, obsessed as they are with trying to duplicate/debunk his photos, after their now certain to come drubbing they may want to turn their attention to reading this article http://theyfly.com/articles/WILL_HUMANITY_WAKE_%20UP%20.htm and try to figure out how Meier "hoaxed" all that. 

Maybe their next project will be trying to duplicate volumes of specific, prophetically accurate information but I won't hold my breath.




__________________
Michael Horn
Authorized American Media Representative
The Billy Meier Contacts
http://www.theyfly.com
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!

Home | News | Products | UFO Photo Gallery | Free Downloads | Purchase Downloads
About Billy Meier | Chat Room | Forums | Affiliates | Events | UFO Glossary
FAQ | Media & Public Relations | About Steelmark