Donate Button
Friday, March 29, 2024

The Billy Meier UFO contacts singularly authentic ongoing for 80 years the key to our future survival

MINDBOGGLING!

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

49 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chris L

“The craft ‘jumping’, i.e. actually appearing in two separate places within one frame of film!”
That is an excellent point to bring home Michael. No analog model maker has ever done this.

Simon

Michael, I have some questions: do you really think the skeptics are still ‘reeling’ from the WCUFO analysis, and do you really think the skeptics will become ‘unsettled’ by this new analysis and ‘en masse enter therapy’? Because frankly, I don’t think they give a sh#t.

In general: why are you always communicating in this bombastic tabloid style?

Simon

Why do you invest so much time in the (organized) sceptics? You know that their presuppositions and their ‘social status’ consciously or unconsciously prevents them from ever judge the Meier case as genuine. What do you expect from it?

With regard to what I called your ‘bombastic tabloid style’: by presenting claims about the case like that you also make it very difficult for yourself to retract any claims when you find out that you were wrong yourself, which can always happen and has happened, because your opponents will then probably attack you with the same aggressiveness when they find out. You end up in a situation where both sides will try to cover up their mistakes and find any tiny little mistake they can find from the other side and then blow this out of proportion. It’s just not very constructive.

Simon

Ok, off course what you do and how you do it is your business. I am not you and I also do not know what you have experienced in all those years. It’s just that what I read what you and the sceptics write about each other is pretty mean spirited sometimes, rather then a reasonable discussion about the material and I just wonder if it’s of any use to bother with those guys. Because they don’t seem to be the persons who want to know.

Your approach also seems to be in contrast with Figu’s approach, who do not really seem to make any attempts at all to approach all kinds of organisations, apart from some open letters now and then. In fact, if you ask certain types of questions I’m happy to even receive an answer 🙂

Tony

Simon,
There is nothing explicitly declared in the FIGU rules that discourages the dissemination of truth. We as somewhat modern Humans have now reached a level in our current evolution that now necessitates and obligates us to further understand the actual truth of our existence and to shy away from those eternal truths is contrary to Creational laws. Our logical and rational thinking processes often convolute the messages we are receiving from the Spirit which creates cognitive dissonance. This is a normal process to some extent, but eventually it MUST be overcome if we are to evolve our conscientiousness.

Simon

I’m relatively new to the case (since 2011) so I’m still in the process of getting to know it very well. I’d like to be very sure about my case before I would actively disseminate something, being able to answer critical questions and so on. It’s such an extensive case and it has so many layers so it takes a while.

Tony Vasquez - Professional Astrologer

There is nothing wrong with Michael’s approach towards skeptics of the Meier case/material. He speaks the truth, and the truth is never negative, harsh, nor “mean spirited”. When dealing with liars and defamers, one should never pull punches, nor hit with flowers, but instead, a mighty sword should be used to cut them to the ground.

Billy should be defended and promoted by all means, and by anyone with the courage to stand up in front of the dragon of lies and fight.

Dyson Devine

Tony, you’re a comedian.

Priding yourself on your encyclopaedic knowledge of the Meier material, you instruct us that, “the truth is never harsh”.

Please scroll down and try harder to inform yourself about the MOST BASIC aspects of the teachings you purport to promote.

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

pp.70-71

“The Hard Language of Truth

With the regular repetition of a striking clock, the harsh and rough-hewn language in Billy’s scripts is rejected. A large number of readers are bothered by this fact and prefer to turn to other books whose contents do not attack their psyche so fiercely but instead, soothe it like oil and balsam.” And so on.

Further reading:

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

Lift your game.

Dyson Devine

Simon, people who haven’t got a clue customarily seek advice and guidance from those they consider to be authority figures such as people with scientific credentials who position themselves as experts taking it upon themselves to have public “debunking” websites where fraud and charlatanism is to be exposed in order to assist ignorant innocents from being ripped off by lies and deceit. What better place for the Dark Order to fill with stooges? Where better a refuge for frightened schizophrenics unconsciously trying to battle their inner demons? So – in these days of an ever-extending Drake’s Equation, ever more spectacular crop circles and ever-less-deniable detailed computer analyses of Billy’s physical evidence – the self-styled professional “Skepics” play an increasingly important role as society’s “reality-instructors”, so, obviously, it’s increasingly important that they cease their naked calumny of Billy as soon as possible.

Sue them. Sue them. Sue them. We know that the evidence would easily stand up in court unless it was obviously being run by the secret society, and even if it was and the corporate media cooperated (a highly likely event, of course) unless there was a “legal” gag order somehow placed on the entire topic, truth might actually stand a chance this time – for a change.

Cheers!

Duke

Just want to point out in that esoterics, sooth-sayers, mediums, false contactees, conspiracy folks, or any other derivation of information that would otherwise make people believe any iota of self responsibility was a hopeless adventure provide the false history and false information to the double edge toothpick. After all, if Robert Boyle was a contemporary of Issac Newton then it should be obvious to folks that ANY mention of alchemy with Issac Newton AND WITHOUT ROBERT BOYLE should immediately treat it suspect if they spend the five minutes it takes to look it up Chemistry on the internet (if they fell asleep during high school). Word games is not an excuse to look up things are true and take five minutes to verify in the internet age.

That’s just the tip of the Iceburg as the esoterics basically rearrange the lettuce on the plate to look like a walled off salad then claim it to be something else entirely when digested. You can find this with a lot of stuff which Billy Meier does a good job of debunking it himself. Billy covers the gamut of everything you can imagine what can be discussed.

dm

And don’t forget that each film segment lasts less than 1/18th of a second.

Dyson Devine

Yes indeed. And “Each exposure is typically at 1/100 of a second or 1/300 of a second.” p. 9, http://www.rhalzahi.com/docs/pendulum-EN.pdf

Jeff Smith

Amazingly ridiculous. Mr. Rhal Zahi if you had any credibility in the first place it would be lost. Double image in one frame, you never heard of double exposure? What kind of expert are you pretending to be? You mention the hypothesis with fewest assumptions is generally the correct but then counter that with your conclusion “all of this was done by extraterrestrials”… To think that requires the most incredible assumptions ever. These “explanations” are made of nothing but assumptions while also ignoring the alternate and more likely possibilities for the same effects observed.

Jeff Smith

I won’t have time to spread the same message everywhere on the Internet. I’m the very absent minded professor type who doesn’t do well socially or remember when to eat, sleep, etc. but my discussions are primarily youtube locations like these
http://youtu.be/xdkevoQKaDE
http://youtu.be/8BI-pt3L9I4
and others I didn’t have links handy, I don’t quite remember.

My current thought is simple, has to do with mechanical movements of film advancing to each frame and shutter open/close. As the next frame is advanced, the only thing protecting timing of the exposure is the shutter being closed first and then opening for the exposure time. Normally this will not yield two different exposures, unless someone was trying to rig it for a special effect, such as manually stopping the film instantly while it’s running, sort of like throwing a wrench in the gears.

I am sorry I need to get back to my engineering work and spent too long already (days). I don’t know this “rebuttal” thing you mention, don’t routinely follow social rules like this so I wouldn’t know what to do if left to me. If I had funding to go off researching this I would be able to do things. My main problem is I’m not fast doing procedural things. I work without time being a component. and I don’t have room on my brain table to do very much at the same time.

Taro Istok

Jeff Smith. Another time sink. The links he left are of Phil Langdon’s debunk attempt and Rhal Zahi’s investigation of the Pendulum UFO. Viewing would not be complete without direct comparisons between Meier and Langdon:

https://youtu.be/SNlmFfb0ADs
https://youtu.be/gMFqSxX1b-g

Chas

What exactly is Mr. Rhal Zahi a professor in ?

Chas Charlton

I don’t find that as impressive as you do, maybe meier intended the road to show in his original photo but there was not not enough light for it to show , he had to be careful how much light he used as he would not want the fabric that is hiding the support that is holding up the object up to show, unfortunately for meier and you photoshop also shows that

Matt Knight

Chas,

Billy already perfected seamless, scientifically corroborated, daytime, full-size, no wires, no doubt, WCUFO photos… so, do tell why he would bother to use fabric & wires at night? I’m listening…

Maybe these ships have shields that can trap moisture particles mid-air so that they reflect any available light back in ways we are not used to seeing? You know, exactly as we see it in the photo! That would be more congruent with them being faster than light vehicles don’t/do you think, i.e., they can manipulate the space around them than your theory that is the only thing with flannel?

Chas Charlton

Why do you have to be so condescending and patronising with this real genius BS ? and why do you and other meier believers make such a big thing of him having one arm?, do a web search and see what some people can do with no arms, and as for him having nothing better to do with his time maybe he thought he could make a decent living of it, and the model has been reproduced and the five-minute video ? it never moves its just there stuck to a tree it may aswell be a photo.

And no you guessed wrong i am not religious

Chas Charlton

The youtube comments are there for all to see, “@Chas Charlton Hey fool, try and get that coward to debate me…he’s run from EVERY opportunity. Of course it’s no wonder when you look what happened when nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman debated me:” so i responded with the same , and i had i read the stuff you sent me before, i have read it again and my challenge still stands I will debate you anytime and we will find out who the real fool is.

Taro Istok

Ahh, it’s Merry-Go-Round Chas. Avoiding logic at every turn. It probably doesn’t really need saying but he’s a time sink. When confronted with scientific facts he just goes around in circles avoiding it. He launched a very passionate(however inarticulate) defense for my critical comments of Phil Langdon. I may have hit a nerve. He’s also harassed Rhal on his YouTube page about his investigations without the slightest sign of courtesy by even cracking it open. The typical skeptic tactic of trying to get the investigator to explain every little detail of his report in person. Time sink.

Chas Charlton

Ahh it’s the taro card reader you got any extraordinary evidence yet for your extraordinary claims yet? didn’t think so, that’s what hit the nerve. i asked you and Rhal one simple question and neither of you had a reply you just kept avoiding it that’s why i stopped interacting with you on you tube , and giving an answer like the bible is true because the bible says so won’t cut it , that was the level of your extraordinary evidence ” aliens are extraordinary miere filmed the aliens that was your extraordinary evidence .

Taro Istok

“giving an answer like the bible is true because the bible says so won’t cut it , that was the level of your extraordinary evidence”

This is an UNREASONED comparison: The Bible has never been validated by science. Meier’s evidence has. Until this scientific validation has been refuted(not merely disputed, but refuted) then it remains valid. How can you refute scientific analysis you are not even familiar with?

“The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about.” ~Wayne Dyer

Chas Charlton

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,

Chas Charlton

“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

Taro Istok

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.

Chas Charlton

All the evidence you need that meier did perpetrate hoaxes

Taro Istok

How can photos a man may or may not have actually taken be evidence for anything? It’s nothing but a distraction from the photos he actually did take and actually were scientifically analysed. Are you aware that your source, Derek Bartholomaus has been proven to be dishonest and unreliable?

https://theyflyblog.com/2014/06/24/skeptics-we-wrong-billy-meier-ufo-case-authentic/comment-page-3/#comment-160198

Taro Istok

Ops. My mistake. It may be one of Mahesh’s vids. Derek prefers to hide in the shadows 😉

Taro Istok

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.

Taro Istok

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.

Matt Knight

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?