UFO Swings like a Pendulum Do

Skeptics enter therapy en masse as 1975 UFO film authenticated!

Still reeling from the recent state-of-the-art photo analysis that confirms the authenticity of the controversial WCUFO photos and video taken by Billy Meier, in 1981, skeptics and debunkers are now faced with yet more unsettling news.

The long ridiculed, so-called Pendulum UFO film has now also been conclusively revealed to be…authentic. This UFO film, the first taken by Meier, in 1975, was attacked as a hoax and attempts were made to duplicate it by skeptics.

But once again, Mr. Rhal Zahi has done a painstakingly thorough analysis and video which, in addition to authenticating the film and the full sized UFO in it, reveal two instances of the craft “jumping”, i.e. actually appearing in two separate places within one frame of film!

And the evidence has been hidden in (almost) plain sight for nearly 40 years.

To quote Mr. Zahi from his conclusions:

“Maybe as implied by Occam’s razor*, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is generally the correct one, but in the Billy Meier case the hypothesis with a few assumptions, upon detailed investigation, becomes very complicated. An apparently simple explanation turns out in the end to be a very complicated one. No matter, the simplest hypothesis in the Billy Meier case comes forward day by day as the most likely correct explanation: that all of this was done by extraterrestrials.”

Zahi’s conclusions correspond to the statement given to me, in 2008, by Volker Engel and Marc Weigert of Uncharted Territory, the
 Academy Award-winners for Special Effects for “Independence Day”:

“But, to reflect on the statement that’s in the film, I also remember seeing a shot on the Super8 reel that showed a UFO circling around a fairly tall tree. According to that shot, we said that we can’t conclusively say whether it’s real or not, but it seemed impossible to stage that kind of a shot with a miniature (it would have to be hanging on a very tall crane, with wires – but even then the movements would be hard to achieve.) So, yes, in regards to that shot, we mentioned that we could definitely do it today with CG, but at the time these were supposedly shot – it would have been very hard, probably even impossible, to fake this kind of shot.”

*Occam’s razor is one of the most popular, frequently quoted rebuttals by skeptics to so-called paranormal claims. And of course they’ve smugly tried to dissect and dismember Billy Meier’s evidence with it.  They’ve now effectively turned this blade against themselves and their rigid, cultic beliefs. However, for anyone, skeptics included, who is sincerely interested in the pursuit of the truth…the shaving away of all doubts should be quite welcome.

49 Replies to “MINDBOGGLING!”

  1. What direct questions have you asked me ? you gave me some links to read i had already read them but i have read them again,

  2. “This is an UNREASONED comparison: The Bible has never been validated by science. Meier’s evidence has.”
    there you go again fourth or fifth generation or video recorded from a screen does not constitute scientific validation meier wont/can’t produce originals thats why most people who study ufology won’t touch his case and that’s it i am done with you

    1. Just for the record, I haven’t received the information I requested from you. Your offer to debate me is a silly, blowhard attempt to sound competent and knowledgeable. Your comments here show that you’re neither in terms of discussing the information.

      You’re certainly free to try to discuss things here but you’ve said nothing in your comments that show you even barely comprehend the evidence and the analysis in the particular blog you’re commenting on. It’s no surprise of course but it would be far more credible if you actually took the analysis, point by point, and attempted to criticize/disprove it.

    2. Photogrammetry, frequency analysis, x-ray diffraction, spectroscopy, reflective sphere analysis— These are the SCIENTIFIC disciplines to be refuted if your hoax claim is to be taken seriously. If Stanton Friedman, the (great-)grandfather of UFOlogy is held to this scientific standard, why shouldn’t some Know-Nothing-Norman such as yourself be? If you fail to address these sciences I think it’s safe to say the Meier case is “done” with YOU.

          1. Since most all of us have gone over this long ago, including Meier’s own comments on the unreliable space photos, etc., I’ll post this just so that our new, eminent “researcher” is on notice that showering the debunker and skeptics’ sites isn’t what constitutes real research. And this is the guy who wants to “debate” me on the case.

            I’ll also re-post the following so that this person understands just why any further, long disposed of nonsense won’t be considered for posting here:

            POLICY UPDATE:

            I will no longer post comments from wannabes, snipes and other dregs of humanity who think they can take cheap shots at Billy Meier with their baseless, idiotic, absurd attacks that have long since been shown to be utter garbage from demented minds possessed by those who, to a person, have never taken the time and trouble to personally go and investigate the case, the man, his character, his associates, etc., but have relied on the equally pathetic, envious skeptical wannabes who have preceded them for their despicable, defamatory attacks, which only reflect perfectly and accurately on their own characterless persons.

            I may periodically have to re-post this update but attaching it to Moshe’s idiotic comments seems like an appropriate place to start.

          2. They use the same name(Billy Meier UFO Case) but I found it odd that Derek would have replied to so many comments on his video page. Derek is smart enough to evade ANY form of discussion on the topic. He knows his limitations.

            1. His main limitation is the…truth. And the fact that he tries to capitalize on Meier’s name in order to lie, deceive and mislead people, will bring its own “reward” in time. I guess he hasn’t considered what that does to one’s reputation, legacy, credibility, etc.

          3. Or he’s a gamblin’ man. With the beard, he actually looks a little like(no, not Kenny Rogers) Kal Korff. I’m surprised more people haven’t mixed the two of them up. Probably why he chooses to hide in the shadows.

    3. Good and hopefully you’ll use the time to learn about the subject you claim to know about & realise that you don’t know at all.

      Just as MH said, another ‘Amateur Armchair Skeptic’. Not sure if I’m getting the pronunciation of the acronym for that right?

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.