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.
“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.
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,
Perhaps my new post today will further explain the method to my madness.
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,
First, please remember that those skeptics aren’t the only ones who read my blog…if in fact that actually do.
You are aware that as far back as 1951, Meier began to publish his prophetic warnings about the very deep and even deadly dangers that humanity now finds itself facing, dangers largely of our own making. So, for all these decades, Meier has warned and warned and of course not in a bombastic style. In fact, he doesn’t lecture, give radio and TV interviews, etc.
Since the core of the teaching in the case is about self-responsibility, I’ve taken it upon myself to be very proactive. I’m sure you’ve heard the term, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Of course part of the directives are also to not “missionize”, i.e. tell people that this is the only way, that they “must believe” something, etc.
Considering that I’ve been actively promoting the case since 1987, I haven’t had to make any significant retractions, certainly not about the accuracy of Meier’s material, maybe I came to a wrong conclusion but…so what? What’s at stake here is quite large and real. And your concerns about having to cover up mistakes, etc., are also not only unwarranted but any concerns about possible “embarrassment” you may have also pale in comparison to what’s at stake. We’re still a VERY small minority of people, those of us who are involved in this material. And I’m dedicated to changing that as much as I can. And my evidence, based on correspondence from all over the world, tells me that I’m being effective in reaching people.
I could care less about skeptical attacks since, yes, I do guarantee you, I have handled and can handle any challenges they throw my way. I would love to take ALL of them on, in a very public, live debate. I salivate just thinking about it.
Perhaps you feel frustrated about what you can do. I don’t know.
Simon, I don’t view life as a spectator sport to be lived on the sidelines, or a comfortable couch somewhere. As long as I am able to I will use everything available to me to bring this information forward to those who are ready for it, who want to know.
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 🙂
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.
What I find to be truly mean spirited is the false information that the skeptics deliberately publish on their websites about not only the evidence but Meier himself…and which they REF– — — USE to remove, despite being informed of its inaccuracy.
FIGU and I have different “jobs”. They publish Meier’s material and I promote it. Others may promote it too in their ways but why not also consider what Meier said a few years ago, i.e. that my efforts to disseminate the material were more effective than all other combined efforts…in the past 20 years.
Now, there’s nothing that stops you from…doing it your way. Any and all willing assistance is obviously not only welcome but needed, in my opinion. Lots of people consume Meier’s information. Not quite so many take further steps to share it appropriately, even by doing things such as I do when I post on news sites, blogs, etc., showing Meier’s prior publication of all these “new discoveries”. There are certainly lots of ways to involve oneself and, of course, just gaining personal knowledge from the material, without playing any other role, is perfectly fine.
And, please note, I’m happy to try to answer questions as promptly as I can.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
And don’t forget that each film segment lasts less than 1/18th of a second.
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
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.
I am not photographic expert…but it doesn’t take one to question why you haven’t provided any credible rebuttal to Prof. Zahi’s conclusions. Again, not being a photographic expert, I still have to ask how common it is to have a “double exposure” in one frame of 8mm movie film?
I think until you can produce a credible, detailed rebuttal of Prof. Zahi’s conclusions – and you may wish to also address his analyses of the WCUFO and the Energy Ships – your comments represent the very kind of assumptions that you’re suggesting.
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.
Rebuttal would mean that you present your argument to support your assertions. We notice that Langdon’s film was posted two years ago so we’ll let people compare it to Prof. Zahi’s own recent presentation. I should also inform you that I was in conversation with Langdon* at the time that he was making this attempt and, because I pointed out his own error in failing to have the UFO model hover motionlessly at an angle in his first attempt, he had to go back and attach a second string to create the effect in this video.
As anyone who’s actually investigated this case knows, Meier’s didn’t make a variety of attempts, he simply pushed the button and filmed the craft. Two-handed Langdon, in his fervor to prove Meier hoaxed his evidence simply couldn’t actually reproduce it, only the effect to some degree when he was helped by…me, a supporter of Meier’s.
I think your other work will prove more fruitful than hasty attempts to attack Meier’s authenticity by citing the work of a failed debunker.
*THe first part of an email from Langdon to me acknowledging what I just stated above:
”
Hi Michael,
I hope you are well.
I had to get back to you on the pendulum issue I raised last time.
I think I’ve got it.
The attachment to the side of the hull was the right thing to do it seems. As soon as I did that it worked perfectly every time. I think I got every movement in its right place in the sequence with all the characteristic speed and direction changes…”
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
What exactly is Mr. Rhal Zahi a professor in ?
He actually isn’t, that was my mistake. However, in this regard it’s unimportant. You ho have the protocols that he and Chris Lock used to test the evidence yourself, in accordance with the scientific method.
You can start with this one that only requires Photoshop:
https://theyflyblog.com/2014/06/15/billy-meier-ufo-case-prove/
Please use your first and last name for any subsequent posts.
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
Sure, that’s right. In 1980, a one-armed man living in the rugged Zurich highlands, on partial disability, raising a family and renovating a run down farm house, had nothing better to do than try to figure out how to outsmart the real geniuses like you, by first building an irreproducible model, then taking about 63 photos of it – including some from 40′ in the air – plus a five-minute video and, knowing that we’d invent Photoshop 30years later, he, etc., etc., etc.
Let me guess, you’re also a…religious person?
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?
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
Because ALL of this has long been handled, authenticated ad nauseous but you’re either too lazy to delve into it or incapable of reasoning your way through it. I noticed you didn’t comment on the 74-page analysis authenticating the evidence, nor on the earlier analyses authenticating the evidence.
Why make “…such a big thing of him having one arm?” Maybe because the entire body of evidence, information and single-handed accomplishment is beyond precedent setting. But you wouldn’t get that because, even with two hands, you couldn’t duplicate ANY of it…noir would you try, because you’re an armchair expert.
No, the model made by Phil Langdon is devoid of the real details that make the craft a large, unknown object but, again, you’re shallow perusal of usual skeptical bilge obviously didn’t extend into the deeper examination of the evidence.
So here’s the deal. We’ve had other people come forward with similar nonsense to yours, with the regurgitated claims of the long defeated skeptics. They had their shot and yo’ve had yours. So, unless you can do better, which of course you can’t, comments that simply claim that Meier hoaxed anything – without your OWN credible substantiation simply won’t be posted.
Now that doesn’t mean that you have to accept the authenticity of the case, or that you can’t disagree with the information in it, etc. But we’ve done our due diligence here and the shoddy claims of skeptics don’t hold up to the actual, detailed analyses of experts…and of course you can use their protocols to test the evidence yourself and NOT rely on anyone’s opinions.
P.S.
As to “why”, well, this was how you opened your comments on youtube about Meier:
“Michael Horn hey fool, Stanton Friedman knew nothing of the case and therefore it wasn’t a debate”
I think we know who the fool is.
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.
As I told you then, please send me via email your contact info, some personal/professional background, etc., and we’ll see if this is something worth arranging. So far though, you’re still in skeptical kindergarten and that won’t make for much of a debate.
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.
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 .
From here on I suggest that since you prosed a debate with me that you address the questions I asked you.
“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
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,
Sending me the info I requested of/from you.
“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
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.
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.
Of course he and all the rest have failed completely. There is ZERO evidence that Meier hoaxed anything. End of that story here.
All the evidence you need that meier did perpetrate hoaxes
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.
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
And an outright liar to boot:
http://theyfly.com/Skeptics_Caught.htm
Isn’t funny how some people simply salivate at any opportunity to try to harm, defame, attack, diminish others, etc.? It speaks to the misery of their own lives, as produced by their consciousness. 800 more years, oh boy.
Ops. My mistake. It may be one of Mahesh’s vids. Derek prefers to hide in the shadows 😉
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.
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.
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.
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?