A cooperative venture with all who want to discover and know the truth about the Billy Meier UFO contacts in Switzerland, ongoing since 1942

This blog is an evolutionary result of the previous debate with and about Antonio Paris of API that he himself has effectively birthed through his expressed willingness to now openly explore the evidence in the Billy Meier UFO contact case. The premise expressed in the title, the focal point, will be the one I am also using in new my cooperative venture with MUFON, which will be linked from here as soon as the page is up on their site.

This discussion is open to all interested parties and especially to all those who have long disagreed with such claims, such as those here, and anyone who, for whatever reasons, think the Meier case is a hoax, isn’t sure, wants to know the truth, etc. For many years, skeptics of the Meier case have walked in the proverbial room, yelled, “It’s a proven hoax!” and stormed out…without ever substantiating their attacks, or the ones they were parroting. Now they’re all invited to come and stay a while, participate discuss, debate but to do so using the criteria that reasonable people use to determine the truth.

This means that we will proceed in a logical, fact-seeking manner. We won’t entertain unsubstantiated claims, or attacks on anyone, pro or con the Meier case. We want to use good, logical, objective, scientifically based and oriented methodologies and thinking in examining the evidence. That includes looking at any solidly based skeptical claims.

We shall also utilize certain very reasonable, reality based, detective-like skills and methods when considering circumstances and circumstantial evidence. Certainly we will want to respect, encompass and utilize any and all criteria that reasonable people use to determine the truth. The processes and criteria we will use in examining the Meier case will of course be applicable for examining any other claimed UFO cases, for those who wish to do so.

Why UFOs?

Why, if I’ve said for over 16 years that the really important parts of the Meier case are to be found in the prophetic information and ultimately in the spiritual teaching, is all this time still spent discussing UFOs? Many of us already take the existence of extraterrestrial life and their flying craft as established facts. But so far the world of science doesn’t, perhaps because they haven’t yet examined the best evidence or used the criteria that reasonable people use to determine the truth. To present incontrovertible evidence for the existence of, and contact with, extraterrestrial life forms would be unprecedented; it would be the most important discovery in all of science…and human history.

The fact of the matter is that this overall (and sometimes deservedly) much maligned, marginalized and tabloidized topic of UFOs has provoked a controversy for a reason. Let’s also realize that the reason isn’t for people to be chasing illusive lights in the sky, and thereby their own tails, nor is it to create careers for speakers and “UFO experts”.

UFOs exist, by definition, and the truth about what they are, who’s responsible for them and the reason for them is exactly what we want to determine. And I think we have a historically unique opportunity to do just that.

The Truth

To find and know the real truth is akin to discovering an inexhaustible treasure, one that is actually…free for all of humanity to partake of. That kind of stuff is not what the proponents of the old profit-motivated model of domination over others are really too thrilled about. Hence, they have seen to it that the term UFO has largely become associated with “evil aliens”, hoaxes, mere entertainment and all sorts of other deliberately misleading disinformation.

The truth is all that matters and will always, ultimately prevail. So let’s come together and see what we’ve actually got here. And let’s start by defining the criteria that reasonable people use to determine the truth and hit the road running by applying them to determining the authenticity of this photograph of the WCUFO, taken in 1981, with a 35mm film camera:

WCUFO extended cupola

WCUFO extended cupola

If we can agree that PhotoShop is a credible tool for this process, then the suggestion is to enhance the brightness of this image and perhaps lower the contrast.

What is the result that you get? Is it similar to what you see here? If so and you’re a skeptic, you now have to debunk…yourself.

 

117 comments on “What Are the Criteria that Reasonable People Use to Determine the Truth?

  • Very cool. Giving this my proverbial thumbs up. This case is all in the details so keep it up! The analysis that was done by the initial team in the 1970’s and early 80’s also carries enormous weight. But I think the best thing we can do going forward is to take care of the more controversial evidence such as the WCUFO (which is being done). As has been proven time and time again, this case is all in the details. It’s about learning how to THINK for ourselves. And yes, since the democratization of computers (which thankfully didn’t occur until after the case was properly analyzed by real labs first [some of the biggest]), we can now do this research for ourselves. Who can ask for more?

    Went to the center last year and am thinking of doing the same this year. Atlantis told me about his first hand experiences with Billy’s spiritual abilities which I found interesting. Not just talking about how that one time he burnt his finger prints into a penny and other such things in front of a bunch of people but how it actually took a lot of energy out of him and Atlantis was afraid for his father since the lights had dimmed to a dull glow in the kitchen where they all were after and Billy wasn’t looking so healthy. We didn’t get that bit of information in the books. I’m not sure how appropriate it is to share here so I’ll let MH decide on that.

    Anyways, cheers all.

  • I have a question about the WCUFO photo:

    What does the enhancement of the brightness prove? IMO it only proves there is a background and the object wasn’t photographed in front of a black sheet (for the sake of argument let’s exclude any other photo editing techniques available back then). But all the daylight UFO photographs of Billy Meier also have a background, so why is this such a big deal? The daylight photo’s are much better IMO, but you still have to ask the question what we’re looking at. Is it really an extraterrestrial craft or not? Figuring out the size of the object, like Wendelle Stevens did with other pictures, would be a useful thing to do. Enhancing the brightness of the WCUFO photo doesn’t reveal much if anything at all about the object itself, so what’s the point?

    • The point is that it reveals, first, that it’s NOT a model against a black curtain as the skeptics claimed in their broad brush, unsubstantiated, defamatory claims. If it’s NOT a model…what does that tell you?

      We can’t just “exclude any other photo editing techniques available back then”. When a person takes a photo that shows an UNKNOWN object floating ABOVE a road and he photographed it from ABOVE the object and NONE of that is apparent in the photograph WITHOUT using modern technology developed decades AFTER the photo was taken and the man never brought any of these facts to public attention himself AND he has 62 other photographs of the same (or companion) objects AND a five-minute video AND an expert in using state-of-the-art technology has indeed analyzed the evidence and proposed measurements for the object(s) – to say nothing of the fact that an eight year-old child can take that nighttime photo and get the same results as a photographic expert – pardon me but…WHAT PART OF THE SUPREMELY, SINGULARLY HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE of this don’t you perceive or are you simply taking it all for granted?

      • ‘WHAT PART OF THE SUPREMELY, SINGULARLY HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE of this don’t you perceive or are you simply taking it all for granted?’

        I’m SOLELY addressing the issue of what the BRIGHTNESS ENHANCEMENT of this PARTICULAR PICTURE proves. So I’m approaching this from a neutral position, like someone who knows absolutely nothing about the case. Try to imagine that. So, you give me this picture, I enhance it, see the background and stuff. What does that tell me?

        You say:

        ‘The point is that it reveals, first, that it’s NOT a model against a black curtain as the skeptics claimed in their broad brush, unsubstantiated, defamatory claims. If it’s NOT a model…what does that tell you?’

        I think I would say (still not knowing anything about the rest of the Meier case): ‘It tells me it’s not an object against a black curtain, but how does it tell me it’s not a model? When I look at the enhanced picture, I have no idea what the size is. It’s still too dark and I can’t really estimate distances and sizes etc. It could be small, it could be big.’

        What do you say?

        • You could of course try to duplicate it with a model…including concealing all the details on 35mm film. But since there are 62 photos and since Prof. Zahi has analyzed the daytime photos, given size estimates, etc., and done all of this with readily available technology, this photo doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

          On the contrary, this is the easiest one for anyone to test themselves. When has that ever been possible before…especially with all the people screaming/smoke screening about “originals”, “negatives”?

          But return to the idea that one should try to duplicate all of the facts about the nighttime photo with a model. Go farther, look at the details revealed about the object in the nighttime photo. Try to reproduce it/them. Even the best attempts by model maker Phil Langdon – with the benefit of years to study and work on trying to duplicate the object – completely failed to present those details. He also didn’t take the photo, and show us that he photographed it, from above a road, etc.

          The essence of this is that there’s so much revealed, so much said by this one photo alone…if one really thinks about it. And another thing to think about is that you’re looking at photographs taken in 1981, in a remote part of Switzerland not known for its profusion of local model making special effects experts who casually churn out photos, films, video, metal samples, sound recordings, etc., of extremely complex, unknown flying objects. I suggest not taking anything for granted and that you go right back to where this discussion first started, noticing that I titled it:

          Can You…SEE what You’re Looking At?

          The title, contemplate the title…

          • Then, still knowing nothing about the case, I might say: ‘Wait, what? You say you have 62 more daytime pictures, and someone actually analyzed them and gave size estimates and stuff? Why didn’t you say that right away, Why did you let me bother with enhancing the brightness of this picture when you have daytime pictures of this thing?’

            You see, my point is, it may be easy for anyone (well, not anyone 🙂 to enhance the brightness of this picture, but that doesn’t reveal/prove anything beyond the fact that there is actually a background, something you could see in an instance on the daylight pictures. It may be interesting, but that’s all. So, why make such a big fuzz about this picture while you have something better?

          • Then I’d say, “Well, why didn’t you…search my blog and website, etc.? You would have found this – from December 10, 2013: http://theyflyblog.com/can-yousee-what-youre-looking-at/12/10/2013.” Then I’d say, “Why do you expect me to hold your hand and do everything for you?”

            I may also add, “Oh really? A genuine UFO photo taken from a relative few yards away and from above it – which is unprecedented in all of human history – and you’re, what, yawning about it, asking what’s next?”

          • “Why do you expect me to hold your hand and do everything for you?”

            “You don’t, you simply have to point out what you’ve got, then I’ll try to figure it out”.

            I’m using the example of a person who knows nothing about the case to make it clear I’m solely commenting on what the point is regarding brightness enhancement of this photo and what it proves and not proves. I’m already going to great ends with this to make you understand this, but you seem to be unable to have a discussion about a single issue.

            “Oh really? A genuine UFO photo taken from a relative few yards away and from above it – which is unprecedented in all of human history – and you’re, what, yawning about it, asking what’s next?”

            NO! I said I couldn’t establish anything beyond the fact that the photo had a background, I wasn’t able to estimate the size or the nature of the object from this picture alone.

    • Simon,

      I think first off we need to stop acting like objects or even people look their actually size, height or width when in a photo. Even today with HD camera technology its not possible unless you’re at a close angle or maybe using the zoom effect. In some of those photos you can tell when Meier was at a far distance, close, up high, or on the ground. That’s just in plain view logic and thinking with common sense (Not saying you weren’t just speaking in general). Many of Meier’s photos seem to be focused exactly on the UFO’s in question which made some of the background pictures look very out of focus and blurred really bad seeming mainly because they were further from the UFO and Meier.

      I don’t think you can take a picture of a airplane carrier with a HD camera today let alone the low level camera Meier used and determine its exact size. I don’t know how photo analysis works in determining the size of an object, but the eye test doesn’t reveal it unless it’s next to an object who’s size can be determined. Just as Michael said in his response people come with unsubstantiated claims and then when they are proven wrong they either disappear or come with another story. They said it was a black curtain and they were proved wrong based on their claims. Simple as that.

      • That actually makes sense. But my point is enhancing the pictures brightness only proves there is a background, and not a black curtain. It doesn’t reveal anything about the size of the object.

        I don’t like it when so called skeptics make a lot of unsubstantiated claims about how Meier hoaxed everything. They need to prove that, and not being able to prove the objects on the pictures are ET craft doesn’t mean they are not. But I don’t like it either when something is presented as evidence in favor of the Meier case when it’s not. I always start with the neutral position when evaluating a claim, and there are simply a lot of things, also about the Meier case, I’m not able to evaluate for several reasons, so I remain in the neutral position. Regarding this picture: enhancing it’s brightness doesn’t tell me anything more then that there’s a background. But I honestly cannot say how big the WCUFO is, or that it really is an ET craft. So, why make such a big fuzz about this picture?

        • “But I don’t like it either when something is presented as evidence in favor of the Meier case when it’s not.” So you’re telling us that it’s “not in favor” of the Meier case, meaning it’s actually against its authenticity. I see.

          If you trouble yourself to read Prof. Zahi’s report on how he estimated the size of the WCUFO, and if you actually did some real homework – like experiment photographing different sized objects over a road – then you yourself could contribute to the discovery…rather than effectively complain because you haven’t been spoon fed every single, little detail. And – most likely because you’ve spent a good deal of your life in the computer age – you don’t yet show that you fully understand a number of things about what’s real and what isn’t.

          I suggest you go to the Prophecies and Predictions section of my website and look up number 127 in the 1958 Letter.

        • Simon,

          I understand what you’re saying, but it also seems that you’ve not done a lot of research behind the WCUFO investigation by Prof. Rhal Zahi. I think proving that this picture was not done in-front of a “black curtain”, which would have to be pitch black by the way was just to shut the skeptics up. Prof. Zahi also proved that those WCUFO’s are not models and tells their size you can find it on the link that Michael is giving you. So we can safely say both of the skeptics accusations have already been met. Prof. Zahi has to PDF documents of his research on the WCUFO and the Pendulum and he gives his analysis of how he came up with the sizes of the craft. I think you can find them on the link Michael is giving you and if your not satisfies with Rhal Zahi’s analysis you can also do your own.

          If you want definite proof that Meier’s case is real just go to the ongoing and past corroborations of the given prophecies and predictions by the Plejaren extraterrestrials in question. I think the skeptics run to the photos because they can have all day conversations on those and ignore the prophecies and predictions because it would be an open and shut case.

          • I’m aware of Rhal Zahi’s reports, but I didn’t read them yet, I want to print them out sometimes because I don’t like to read from screen. I’ve seen most of Meier pictures, I’ve even recently bought the new photo book.

            But I’m not commenting at all on Rhal Zahi’s report. I’m solely commenting on what the point is in brightness enhancing of this particular picture and what it proves and not proves. IMO it only proves there is a background so I don’t see why this photo is mentioned over and over again as seemingly strong evidence or something, rather then any of the daylight pictures. I wanted to have a discussion about this single issue, but I keep being bombarded with all kinds of other stuff I didn’t make a comment on.

        • Simon,

          Also here (http://www.theyfly.com/photos/images/f0829.jpg) is a photo of a WCUFO hovering over a vehicle. You can clearly tell the difference between the size of the two. Remember there was no video enhancing technology available to Meier at this time, so if this photo is not as clear as day to you then I don’t think the photo evidence will convince you at all. Site where the photo is (http://www.theyfly.com/photos/images/f0829.jpg.

          I hope Michael doesn’t get angry at me for taking away your self-responsibility and handing you information, but I’m just trying to provide some clarity for you. You can still do your own analysis of this picture as well as other.

          • Simon the whole point is quite simple that is continued to be missed over and over again.
            Let me get inside your head a little if you don’t mind, seeing as it’s difficult at times to see things from an obvious vantage point when you aren’t so used to them.
            The implication is that this WCUFO is an extraterrestrial flying craft, vehicle or whatever else you want to call it and not a model.
            This is the whole point of it all.
            Just forget the halo stuff for a second and concentrate on this statement ‘the WCUFO is a genuine and not a small model extraterrestrial flying craft, vehicle or device that is flown by an existing out of this world ET human beings who resides in another star system’
            Did you get this
            Did you understand what this means?
            This is real so do you get the enormous implication and remification of this simple revelation and factual statement?
            It is not some fantasy sci-fi Hollywood drama or an episode of startrek but something that is concretely tangible and real.
            Once more, the WCUFO is a 7m real ET driven to earth and parked above a wooden fence post and off the tarmac driveway vehicle or beamship that Billy has taken atop a hillside in the dead of night with the full cooperation and even encouragement of the ET plejaren flesh and blood human beings.
            I hope you got that I mean truly, verily and quite literally.

          • Matt, what the hell are you trying to do? Hypnotize me or something? I have no problem accepting alien visitation or understanding the implications of the Meier case being true (well, I don’t understand everything off course but you know what I mean).

            I solely ask the question what brightness enhancement of this single picture proves beyond there being a real background and not a black curtain, because I think it doesn’t prove anything beyond that. But tell me, how can you tell SOLELY from this brightness enhanced picture that it’s a large ET craft, a 7 meter craft, no less?

        • Simon,

          If you read more about the investigation done on that photograph its more than just showing that the picture was taken outside and not in-front a “black curtain”. The UFO was also investigated. Read the more about the investigation and what is being provided as evidence.

          • Simon this is why the Meier ET contact case demand people to think for themselves, to individually, out of their own freewill and volition, come to their own conclusion based on their own conscious effort.
            This is part of the spiritual exercise that this contact case forces (not that force!) you to do and no one can escape this.
            So to put it simply, to truly understand what the ramification of the enhancement of the photo is all about, you must also take into consideration other related and relevant information pertaining to these series of photos on top of understanding labyrinthine context that fits into all this.
            Sorry but I can’t put it any more simpler than that.
            You must experience it for yourself to truly know it.
            It doesn’t come overnight.
            It takes time, much thinking and deep contemplation.
            This is the way and the only way that people can appreciate what it all means in the end.
            So don’t just be stuck on that photo and based this whole case on it only.
            There is so much more to it than meets the eye.
            That “more of something’ is the task for you to figure out.
            Yes sometimes it does feel like a puzzle, this is why you need to see the devil in the detail as well as also see the forest for the trees and visa versa.
            I hope I am making sense without sounding like I need to prove something to you which is definitely a no no.
            Yes we become so accustom to speaking a different lingo even if its the same language that sometimes we forget what being on the other side of the fence was really like once we have crossed over so I apologise for not being clear enough for you to understand in simple terms.

          • Matt, what you say is exactly what I’m implying the whole time. The impression is being made that the simple brightness enhancement of this picture will lead to some stunning conclusions, like this object being a large ET spacecraft, while IMO that doesn’t lead to any such conclusions, and much more work is necessary. Size analysis, other pictures, who made the pictures, and the whole context of the Meier case and everything you also mention. Hence my question: what does solely the brightness enhancement of this picture prove beyond a real background?

          • Simon,

            Why not state just what you think the photo reveals?

            Is that an object known to you as a citizen of planet Earth?

            Have you seen anything like it anywhere since Meier’s photos taken in 1980 -1981?

            If what is revealed is an unknown object over a road and grassy area, what conclusions would you as a thinking person draw…especially in light of there being 62 other photos of the object and a five-minute video?

          • My point was about what a specific procedure could reveal about this picture and what not, but alright…

            You must know that I’m a Figu passive member and I’m positive towards the case as a whole. But I don’t want that to let that interfere when I’m ‘analyzing’ specific details about the case. Every time I have to start from the neutral position again, without any preconceived ideas at what conclusions I ‘should’ eventually arrive. When I look at the ‘unenhanced’ picture, I see a strange object, I can’t identify it’s nature or size. After enhancing the picture I see a background and a strange halo. I don’t know what the halo is and how it’s caused. My first impression is that the object is closer to the camera then the pole, but that’s inconclusive and I also still can’t make a clear estimation about the size of the object. So, my position after enhancing the picture is still that I don’t know. If I now jumped to the conclusion that it’s a model, or that it’s a large extraterrestrial spacecraft or anything else, IMO things go very wrong. If I’m consequent I would have to do the same regarding for example the Adamski pictures. They also show a strange object I’m unfamiliar with, but I can’t simply jump to any conclusions on the basis of that.

            At this point, I still have a lot of questions about this WCUFO picture, and also about the other WCUFO pictures before I can draw any really substantiated conclusions for myself. So for me personally the status of this particular subject is ‘pending’, as are many other subjects of the Meier case (and off course outside the Meier case). I takes a lot of time to resolve all those issues.

    • Hello, Simon.
      I think you have a valid point in your comments. Thank you for posting it. Please consider that I am not trying to convince you about anything, just sharing what I have found. I respect your opinion which is as valid as mine. And I will express my ideas it with my poor English trying to explain my point of view in simple terms. It is true that other daylight photos show a background landscape. So what it is special about this night picture that it also shows a landscape behind the ship? From my point of view there are two key points here: (1) There is a violet halo around this object and there is not a good explanation of why any object can produce it. This is a photograph in the visible spectrum, not infrared or ultraviolet, so why this halo is clearly visible? I have not explanations about it. (2) I think this is the most important point. In photography there is concept of “deep of field” in a photo. If you take photos at night, as Billy did, the diaphragm of your camera will be wide opened. In Billy’s daylight pictures the diaphragm was somehow closed or very narrow, specifically in the WCUFO in Billy’s parking lot with snow in the background. Deep of field is bigger if the diaphragm is narrow, and smaller if it is wide opened. Because of that, night pictures have a narrow deep of field. That means, objects that are in good focus are at almost the same distance from the camera. If you look other night pictures of the WCUFO, with a Car and a tree close to the UFO, the car and the tree are out of focus. It happened because the car and the tree were not at the same distance from the camera. In daylight pictures, the deep of field is much bigger. It means nearby object to the camera and distant objects will look in good focus. In daylight picture it is possible to use a scale model close to the camera, with a distant background and both could be in good focus. It does not happen in night picture. All that means that the referred picture of the WCUFO at night presented by Michael Horn, and analyzed by me, shows the WCUFO and the post below, both in good focus. It means both (WCUFO and pole) are at the same distance from the camera. These kind of posts (or poles), in the farms, are typically 1 meter high. So we have something at the same distance from the camera which we know it is around 1 meter high. And if you look at the WCUFO diameter, it is 7 times the length of this pole. So I concluded this UFO is around 7 meters width. There could be an error of around 10% in this estimation. It means this photo shows a flying big object with a mysterious halo around it. Can I prove it is an ET spaceship? I think I cannot, but I think it is not something that Billy made, or maybe any other known technology on earth can do. (and this is just my opinion, not necessarily the truth). Somebody may also think Billy made a scale model of a farm landscape, and the pole it is just a little stick. To me it makes no sense to do something so elaborated, to take a picture of it in the darkness that does not show this fabricated landscape, and also it would no explains the halo around the ship. I hope this explanation is clear, and please consider it is just what I think. Please keep sharing your ideas. I think debate like this is very positive.

      Regards,

      Rhal Zahi

      • Rhal thanks for your untiring efforts
        As a result of your efforts I have learnt so much
        Great work!
        Oh just one thing please
        Lets call an orange and orange and an apple an apple without being timid and shy about the telling the truth.
        Afterall we in the know know that that WCUFO is a real ET transportation flying/hovering/time and dimensional traveling craft.
        Your work is one other significant piece of the jigsaw puzzle that once again substantiated that fact even more.
        So I wouldn’t be too modest in refraining from making that qualification that it ‘may be’ an ET craft instead of just coming all out and saying that it is.
        Just a constructive criticism that I hope you understand

      • Hi Rhal,

        I think you got my point.

        The impression is being made that a simple action ‘anyone can do’ could lead you to some stunning conclusions about this picture, like this object being a large object or even an ET spacecraft for example. To me, as a layman in photography, it doesn’t reveal anything more then there being a background. I didn’t address the halo, as you say, it’s interesting, but like you I have no explanation for it so I cannot draw any conclusions about it.

        I haven’t read your reports yet and I didn’t do an extensive investigation into the WCUFO pictures, so I have hardly formed any substantiated opinion about it. SOLELY the brightness enhancement of this picture didn’t bring me anywhere close to a substantiated conclusion about the WCUFO, which is exactly my point: it takes much more then the simple brightness enhancement of this picture to reach any conclusions about the size and/or nature of the WCUFO, like an understanding of photography, the extensive investigation you did and the report you wrote.

        I hope this time it’s clear to everybody what I’m trying to say.

        Best regards, Simon

        • Simon,

          I suggest that you start to watch some very good…detective shows. The current “Sherlock Holmes” is a very good example.

          Fundamentally, we have to learn how to think. Things don’t exist in their own tiny little bubbles. And you’ve certainly been aware now for some time that there are 62 other photos and a five-minute video.

          When you’re presented with the pieces of a puzzle do you just…stare at one of them and not refer to, and try to assemble them into the whole picture?

          In this case, the WCUFO photo stands alone as a compelling, FILM photo of an UNKNOWN object that is revealed to be hovering ABOVE A ROAD.

          Would you be so kind as to NOT keep repeating what you haven’t done and maybe, perhaps, just…DO IT?

          • I try to make a very simple point and you just keep bombarding me with strawman after strawman after strawman and now you even have to resort to petty insult. If we can’t have a normal discussion in which we both actually address the topic under discussion, I’m done.

          • I think we all got your point but I don’t think you wish to respond to mine. Have you ever been…challenged in a college class room, for instance, to back up your position, consider unfamiliar information, stretch your comfort zone, etc.?

            And what on Earth’s so offensive about it, or about being encouraged to watch a good detective show, learn more about thinking, puzzles, etc.?

        • Simon,
          I am glad to know I got your point. I think you did not get mine.

          This UFO is 7 meters in diameter.

          Why? Because it is seven times bigger than the pole below it, which is around 1 meter tall. Both, the WCUFO and the Pole are at the same distance from the camera, so we can compare their sizes.
          How do we know the WCUFO and the Pole are at the same distance from the camera?

          Because of the “Depth of Field” of the photo. In night pictures, if both, the Pole and the WCUFO are in good focus, it means both are at the same distance from the camera.

          You may check what Depth of Field is here:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

          Rhal

          • Hi Rhal,

            Your explanation wasn’t really about the point I was trying to address, but actually went beyond that, so I didn’t feel the need to address it. But now we’re at it, your explanation is clear and I understand what your saying. Since I’m a layman regarding photography I do not feel entirely qualified to judge the validity of your analysis of this picture. Assuming it’s correct then we apparently have a floating 7 meter object above a pole and a country road. If we THEN place it in the context of the whole case it seems a reasonable conclusion the object is what Billy says it is: an ET spacecraft.

          • Hi Rhal,

            I have some additional questions about the nighttime picture:

            – Somehow when I look at the picture I get the impression the object is closer to the camera then the pole, yet indeed they seem about just as sharp. Also it appears to me the whole ship is in focus. If the dept of field is only small and the ship is 7 meters in diameter, shouldn’t only the part of the ship that is in the focal plane be in focus and the parts in front and behind the focal plane be out of focus? A depth of field of 7 meters apparently so close to the camera seems pretty large to me. What are your thoughts on this?

            – The ship is said to be self luminous. However the ship doesn’t seem to be radiating light with the same intensity over the whole surface. In fact, I strongly get the impression the ship is being lighted from the direction of the camera. There seem to be 2 or 3 reflections of light sources visible in the spheres and on the lower edge. Also there seem to be shadows. What is your take on that?

            Regards, Simon

          • Simon,
            My calculation, if this UFO is around 7 meters, it might be at 20 meters away from the camera. The Depth of Field could be 7 to 5 meter, covering the UFO, and showing it in good focus. Actually we cannot see the far side of the UFO to check if it is in focus. The pole should be in this range, since it is in good focus too. We cannot be sure if the pole is just below the center of the UFO, or may be a bit closer or a bit farther away. So the estimated size of 7 meters of this WCUFO could be between 5 to 8 meters.

            Billy reported this UFO radiated light at night from within. I think what we see here, in the lighting of the WCUFO, is a combination of its inner light plus reflections of distant country side light bulbs. We do not know the exact location when this photo was taken, so, unfortunately, we cannot go there and find this landscape, and check if this pole is still there. But I think it is clear that it is not for sure a scale model.

            Have you checked the investigations documents? I find the pendulum UFO fascinating, and maybe easier to read. I suggest you do the next step and check other photos and the pendulum UFO video.

            Rhal.

          • @Rhal:

            I see. I didn’t right away get the impression it’s like 20 meters away from the camera. But maybe that is a little bit elusive because of the darkness. I’m not sure about the light. Photo 870 of the WCUFO has the description: self luminous ship etc., It also seems to have at least two light sources from behind the camera reflecting on the spheres and edge, and some parts of the UFO are practically dark.

            I’ll check your investigations documents sometime, I already have them on my PC for a while, but there’s a long list of pending issues about the Meier case I want to figure out so I don’t know when I’ll read it.

  • Hello,

    I have done extensive reading into the Meier case for over 5 years. As stated there is no other case that comes close to it. Now Mr. Horn I have a question if you could direct to Mr. Meier or if you can answer it, about Andrew Basiago and his testimony. As well as the individual known as Capt. Kaye, which both of these men have similar stories.

    I have researched both cases and listened to hundreds of hours of interviews with Alfred Webre and Andrew. How much facts are in the claims these gentlemen make? I recently directed this to Andrew on his Facebook page with general statement of how his story does not fit in with the Meier case based on the data about humans and space travel. He was very defensive and I have a copy of the response.

    In so many words he says the Meier case is “hearsay” and how I could trust the data from the Plajarens. So if you could clarify my friend it would be greatly appreciated.

    • Hi Clarence,

      Thanks for your participation and questions. My opinions are as follows. First, it’s beyond bizarre that Basiago, who has zero verifiable evidence of any sort, calls the Meier case “hearsay”. As you already know, the evidence in the Meier case is staggering, verifiable, authentic and historically significant. Basiago is in my opinion just another one of those delusional beings roaming around making bizarre claims at the service – knowingly or unknowingly – of the behind the scenes manipulators of all the dolts who get wrapped up in UFO disinformation. Sure, we’ve all been to Mars, traveled in time but still keep our day jobs.

      Alfred Webre has made what one could loosely call a career from what one could also call the products of a very loose mind. I am quite familiar with the utterly delusional bilge and disinformation disseminated by him and his associates in the looney, corrupt, dishonest “exopolitics” organization. He and they have promoted every single phony, fake claim and charlatan in the UFO industry that they could find. This includes pathological liars like the so-called “Alex Collier”, whose main champions sill are Michael Salla and Paola Harris. They pummeled me online for daring to reveal that “Collier” was a fraud, a former IRS agent named Ralph Amagron, who both first gave me – and then later plagiarized and falsified – the Meier material (original 1,800 pages of Contact reports).

      All of these people are on a collision course with the truth and it’s best to not be standing too close to them when it hits. At some point, I just may get around to telling you what I…really think.

      Cheers!

      • Thank you Mr. Horn. If there is any thing I or others can do to assist in helping you please feel free to ask. I’m a artist/ illustrator and will offer my services for-the-free if needed. Hopefully the more I keep learning from this case, I can be in a position such as yours. As only one voice for the Meier material you have done a great job, but the community can not expect you to do it alone.

        If you like I can post the correspondence from Mr. Basigo with my rebuttal.

        • Thanks Clarence and please call me Michael. I only insisted on being called Mr. Horn by…my parents (okay, my daughter too) though, for some reason, retraining them proved futile.

          There certainly may be things you can contribute, though I’m not yet exactly sure specifically, your own initiative and contemplation will probably reveal them as well.

          Please do free to post the correspondence, I guess having an example of what unreasonable people throw about so freely in their delusional claims could offer some contrast, and possibly comic relief.

  • Billy Meier’s UFO extraterrestrial contact case is still ongoing and falls within the scope of aerial phenomena’s triage system to definitely qualify for API’s UFO documentary coming out next year.
    I would suggest Antonio to give the Billy Meier case the well deserved serious attention and inclusion in his 2015 documentary because frankly there exists no other case like it in the history of mankind.
    I am sure by Billy’s real contact case being included API’s documentary they would historically be the first such organisation in the 21st century outside of the Billy Meier support group to boldly go where no man has gone before to have dealt with a real UFO case and will go down in history as the first to break new ground on the subject of Ufology.
    Imagine what that would mean for API but more importantly for the subject of ufology and for the unequivocal truth regarding UFOs and ETs.
    Unbelievable

  • OK,

    LOL, sure thing Michael.

    So on Mars Anomaly Research via Facebook, hosted by Mr. Basiago, he posted a this:

    THE FIVE MARTIAN PRIMATE TYPES CITED BY ANDREW D. BASIAGO
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/MarsAnomalyResearchSociety/10152203069454135/?notif_t=group_comment_reply

    It was quite interesting, so after I read it I made a comment:

    CJ Goode III: Hmm. Interesting that the scientifically validated Plajarens contacts with Billy never mention any of this. Billy even asked if it was human life living on the other planets, and the response was no.

    CJ Goode III: Also testimony from Capt. Kaye does not for this or the Plajarens data.

    Mr. Basiago corresponds with this:

    Andrew D. Basiago: CJ, I dispute your methodology. First, I would distinguish my account from Billy Meier’s by noting that unlike Billy, I went to Mars, about 40 times, for the CIA’s Mars jump room program, which I served in from 1980 to 1984, and the fact that I went to Mars has been corroborated by two others who I was trained with in 1980 and who also went, namely, Bernard Mendez and William Stillings, who have given complex, detailed public testimony about their jump room experiences, some of it undertaken with me, under the aegis of Scott Mowry at the Awakening Center in Rainier, WA on 11/12/11 and 4/28/12 and Alfred Webre at ExuUniversity in Vancouver, BC on 6/1/12. I would put the direct, personal testimony of three US chrononauts above the ET contact experiences of a Swiss dairy farmer any day and not have a cow about what Billy says. Second, Randy Cramer [Captain Kaye]’s Mars account has just been taken and, frankly, it possesses story elements that cast it into doubt. For example, Randy states that the Mars sky is red when, in fact, it is blue and would have to have been blue for Randy to have breathed the Martian atmosphere unassisted by a respirator, because oxygen is a clear gas that refracts blue. I have consulted with Laura Eisenhower about connecting with Randy in a spirit of open inquiry and will do so without bringing any prejudices to the table but setting him up as an authority at this point when some of his facts are inconsistent with he having gone to Mars is unfounded. I am astonished that you would cite Billy Meiers as providing conflicting data. The data you provide from Billy Meiers is hearsay as you are quoting Billy citing the Plejarens. In my view, the propensity of the adherents of Meiers to cite him an an authority in inappropriate ways indicates cult indoctrination. Maybe that’s why Alfred banned you. When you corrected his grammar, maybe he felt he was being harassed by a cultist engaged in a collateral attack. Why would you cite Billy Meiers’ contact experiences with ET’s to contradict a US chrononaut who has been to Mars numerous times? Can you see that you are being absurd when you do so? Andy

    My last response I would like to note. Both Alfred and Andrew are lawyers. I was kicked off of Alfred’s page for correcting the grammar used by the UFO community concerning the word “disclosure” which means no-closure as “dis” is a prefix that means no. Now when I presented my response to Mr. Basiago everything went eerily silent after my post. In Andrews last statement about Alfred I basically dis-qualified both men through FRCP and showing they have no-knowledge as claimed “scholars” due to not even using a noun as it should be used.

    Ok, thank you Mr. Basiago. Listen your testimony is very intriguing. And I did not intend to say you are lying. I have listen to you and its very compelling. Yes with your testimony compared to Capt. Kayes I do see some discrepancy here between your accounts and his.

    As a person of intelligence Mr. Baisago I dont understand how you could ignore the Billy case as hear say. The same can be said about your accounts. For the UFO community to totally ignore a contact thats still going for over 70 years is whats disturbing to me. Photo’s which have been vetted as authentic, videos, sound and metal samples all vetted by scientific methods. No other case not even your sir has the data to back it up and thats a fact. A fact which seems to bother the UFO community or better threatens it. Then we have vetted predictions years in advance and thats not good enough. So the math states that out of all UFO cases Billy has a 1, because he has data and physical evidence to prove it abd its still ongoing!!! So basically your last stement about Billy is that he is a lie and your account is true based off of what you have said,

    Mr. Webre I have supported, bought his books. So if you have an open forum then its just that an open forum. The reason Mr. Webre booted me was not because of me being some “troll” is that I was correcting grammar including his. Now since I was using PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR, copyrighted by :David-Wynn: Miller Special Duty Federal Postal Judge known to prosecute judges, attorneys and police officers,
    I was booted because I was disqualifying him as a Judge with correct grammar. Under FRCP 44.1 it states right there all judges are actors in black robe.

    So if you claim to be a scholar and yet misrepresent the values of the words for the English language, and you were taught in 5th grade what a noun, verb, and adjective are then you are committing perjury. Knowledge of a FACT in this case the Latin and Greek VALUES set for words, while misrepresenting them is perjury.

    I find it interesting that after mentioning the FRCP and :David-Wynn: Miller both Alfred and Andrew either went quite or booted me completely. Oh to mention as well, After I made this post I started a new post thread on his page and it was deleted.

    Sorry for the length of this but I though it was important to put this out there. Thank you Michael for your time and patients.

    • Thanks Clarence.

      Good night, if people weren’t aware of the absolutely pathologically insane nonsense churned out by these disinformation droids…this should do it.

      And pardon me, Clarence, but I think you conclude with what is sometimes called a “Freudian slip”. These people really are/should be…”patients” in a secure, qualified, remotely located facility somewhere (Mars?). While I’m not qualified to treat them, except to some slapping’ upside their heads, such things have given me the opportunity to either develop patience or become a…patient.

    • Actually, the Plejaren claimed no “Human” life existed on those other planets close to us, they are not renowned for expanding on these types of issues. Just saying.

    • Best comment from Mr. Asiago, “unlike Billy, I went to Mars, about 40 times.”

      I guess he means to say that Billy’s Solar System trip that went to the various planets would make him a greenbelt compared to the tofu belt Mr. Sandwich has for his 40 trips through the chrono-Subway store with it’s Yoga Mats bread that leads next to the Mars Milkyway snack bar.

      Sounds like a recipe for a Basiago cheese melt sandwich. After having that 40 times anyone will think they traveled in time!

  • Dear Simon,

    You ask, “Enhancing the brightness of the WCUFO photo doesn’t reveal much if anything at all about the object itself, so what’s the point?”

    You missed the most significant thing that Professor Rhal Zahi’s sharp eyes spotted but he couldn’t explain.

    It’s the “Wedding Cake” beamship’s plasma “halo”.

    http://theyflyblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/F_0873_rgb-halo.jpg

    http://theyflyblog.com/can-yousee-what-youre-looking-at-part-2/12/14/2013

    Michael’s absolutely right. People won’t read long things, because, last year, I left a clue here:

    http://theyflyblog.com/whats-another-word-for-told-ya-so/07/09/2013/comment-page-1#comment-12802

    when I recommended the (English language) book, “Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis by Paul R. Hill”, written 19 (!) years ago. Sadly, almost nobody seems to follow Billy’s strident admonitions to “read books”. Until/unless they do, Earth is doomed. (And Billy only writes in German.)

    (excerpt)

    “There is really no secret as to what this illuminated and illuminating sheath of atmosphere around the UFO is. It is a sheath of ionized and excited air molecules often called a plasma. It has all the many characteristics of ionized and excited air molecules and has no characteristics not attributable to ionized and excited air molecules with expected contaminants. Thus, the illumination is tied to an air plasma. I am not suggesting anything original as it has been suggested by many that such is the case. Indeed, any physicist who has made a study of UFOs must know they are characteristically surrounded by an air plasma.” – Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis by Paul R. Hill

    http://www.amazon.com/Unconventional-Flying-Objects-Scientific-Analysis/dp/1571740279

    (review)

    “Paul Hill has done a masterful job ferreting out the basic science and technology behind the elusive UFO characteristics . . . Perhaps this book will help bring solid consideration for making all that is known about extraterrestrial craft publicly available.” –Edgar Mitchell, Sc.D., Apollo 14 Astronaut

    Since the Plejaren gave Billy unique photo opportunities, so far denied by the other ET groups here – and also denied us by our taxpayer-funded, corporatized, military/industrial complex (not “the government”!) criminals with their similar anti-gravity craft (eventually!) mentioned by Ptaah* – we can see this plasma halo really well on this cool, obviously calm, dark night. And the concomitant heat of the stationary, Plejaren, self-luminous craft makes a pretty plasma convection plume – if you can see what you’re looking at – even without being photographed using schlieren equipment.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convective_heat_transfer#mediaviewer/File:Thermal-plume-from-human-hand.jpg

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convective_heat_transfer

    I hope this has been of some assistance.

    Salome,
    Dyson

    *http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/gaiaguys/meiersb34.htm

    P.S. Bruce – thanks, as always, for your kind words and welcome contributions. There’s more than one good reason why I think I have to now distance myself from this venue, but my inability to correct all the many “errors of fact” – which my public attempts to convey Billy’s truth in English invariably attract – here on this blog by/for non-German readers, means that my presence here would naturally be interpreted as my tacit endorsement of those many, ongoing, uncorrected, factual errors. As Billy says, “…Wahrheitsverfemende meiden … Wahrheitskünder, oder sie versuchen mit allen ihnen zur Verfügung stehenden Mitteln, diese zu vernichten, zu schädigen oder gar zu töten.” (…proscribers of truth avoid…truth announcers, or they try to annihilate, to damage or even to kill them with all existing means available to them.)

    http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/gaiaguys/meierv6p379.htm

    • Looks, like intelligence, etc., can be deceiving at first. After all, you can’t tell what you’re looking at, a 74-page report doesn’t penetrate your consciousness but…to you it looks ike something “a kid would make.”

      So, presuming you’re even a bit older than a kid, make one and photograph it 64 times and make a five-minute video of it. Also, should you post here again, which you’re welcome to do, please use your real first and last name.

  • There’s always this discussion about the reality of the WCUFO photo in particular and that is easy to do it with Photoshop, a garbage can lid etc, but for me is important to remember that the guy has hundreds, not a few, not dozens, but hundreds of incredible photos, much of them analised at the time, in an era way before photoshop or any digital editors, even if we think on analog edition and model photos… the guy was poor and one handed, had no access to any advanced tecnology and still presented hundreds of amazing photos, dozens of videos, a sound extremely difficult to reprocude at the time, samples extremely particular examined by no incompetent, as many claim, but Dr. Vogel.
    The guy at least deserve more investigation!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *