The WCUFO and where It Can Take Us

See the 74-page Report on the Amazing, New High Resolution WCUFO Photos Here! 

Test the WCUFO Photo Yourself!

The photo immediately below is one of 63 photos that Billy Meier took of the WCUFO, using a 35mm film camera, in 1981:

WCUFO on the ground 1
WCUFO on the ground 1

This photo is a detail of a section of the craft as shown in Rhal Zahi’s video here:

Detail of WCUFO from Rhal Zahi's video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pjcbF1oK8Q.
Detail of WCUFO from Rhal Zahi’s video here.

Detail of WCUFO from Rhal Zahi’s video here.

This object was not made by anyone on Earth and no one has yet been able to duplicate it…in over 33 years. (For more  of the newly analyzed  photos of the WCUFO please click here and here . And this video report reveals more information about the nighttime WCUFO photo.)

The Plejaren extraterrestrial people who made and and fly this object, and the more familiar looking disc-type UFOs here, come from a far distant world and have been meeting with Billy Meier for over 72 years. They are not here to save, nor to harm, us. They hoped to get our attention with all of these flying craft so that we might pay attention to the more important content, the actual reason for their visits to our world.

The Plejaren presented an even higher standard of proof of their existence and advanced level of development in the prophetically accurate scientific information that they gave to, and which was published by, Billy Meier. Included in the information from them, and Billy Meier, are prophecies and predictions warning us of very specific, grave dangers we face on Earth, largely due to our own erroneous way of thinking, feeling and acting. We continue to update the new corroborations for that information on this blog.

For those who can then comprehend and appreciate the foundation of impeccable credibility established by the existence of information that preempts our “official discovery”, often by decades, we are asked to direct our attention to the spiritual teaching. It is this belief-free, non-religious teaching that encourages us to take full self-responsibility for every thought, feeling and action in our lives, to see things exactly as they are and to learn how to…think.

The teaching emphasizes that there are no outside forces, no imaginary gods, tin gods, angels, saints, saviors, masters, nor any earthly political or governmental “leaders”, priest, rabbis, mullahs, etc., that are responsible for us in any way. Only we ourselves are responsible for our own lives and our own destiny.

This of course has nothing to do with the imaginary “extraterrestrial presence on Earth”, “millions of contactees”, “alien abductions” and other false, misleading, fear and profit motivated machinations that are cynically and relentlessly promoted by the “UFO industry” and its hacks who have deliberately chosen to suppress, ignore and, attack the only authentic UFO contact case and its rich, freely given treasure to Earth humanity. They have succeeded to some degree in making the whole UFO/extraterrestrial topic a profitable form of…entertainment at the cost of the truth. This of course only succeeds to the degree that people have abdicated their self-responsibility and critical thinking in favor of inferior priorities.

However, in time humanity will awaken. How long that takes, individually and collectively, is solely up to us.

So perhaps you’d like to gaze upon those photos again and realize that before we concern ourselves with taking our own flights to the stars, we may want to visit the world of consciousness inside of ourselves and utilize the helpful assistance contained in the…instructional manual these visitors have given to us.

Please also see this further documentation:

 

And be sure to see the new film analysis confirming the authenticity of the so-called “Pendulum UFO“.

97 Replies to “The WCUFO and where It Can Take Us”

    1. Thank you for this, Stephen. I know I’ll be spending the weekend researching and contemplating this ship again. Salome

    2. I hate to be the wet blanket but you forgot to consider camera focal length. I’ve been working on something similar but I modelled the entire photographic environment. The background(Main House) is important. What I can tell you is that there are no configurations(UFO size/focal length) which can exactly match Meier’s photos that include the MH. Of the ones that are close, multiple configurations work. Some as large as 2.6m, others as small as 18-inches. This is NOT a simple piece of evidence to validate or debunk.

      1. Could the inability to match the focus be direct evidence of the UFOs radiation effects on film, or, in reality Taro? Are you factoring in the size of the reflection in the spheres as Rhal did, as I would imagine this would rule out the 18-inch match, no?

        1. If you look closely at Meier’s hi-res(#808) you will see that the UFO IS in focus. As far as I can tell, he used the outline of the UFO, probably where dark meets the white snow. You can see the starfish pattern on the cupola. But the surface finish of the silvery parts is a little diffuse. The CH is, deliberately in my opinion, blurred or seemingly out of focus. I have, experimentally, found a surface finish that matches the blur level as closely as possible. I also check everything in photoshop where I can align tests with Meier’s originals and flip back and forth for a solid comparison.

          1. Right, interesting. You’re saying the CH not being in focus in the reflection is not as a result of any settings on Billy’s camera.

            That leads me to thinking the anomalies could very well be evidence of the motion distortion effects on film, but, of differing vibrations over different parts of the UFO and especially the spheres in #808, possibly some other areas too, i.e., the area around the handle.

            If you look at the sphere detail of #808 the outline blurring doesn’t seem consistent with normal ranges of distance, e.g, the very right hand rim lip closest to us is in good focus, the sphere’s above aren’t and then the star-fished top section is in focus.

            I’m thinking these subtle and different vibrational effects on the image could reasonably explain why many describe these images as strange-looking and why Dilettoso missed the unique property of the WCUFO as his system tested for rough distances accurate to a few metres, but, not to detect these subtle, anomalous, variances.

          2. The simplest explanation for the blurry reflections is a rough surface finish. It’s possible there are multiple grades used across the construction. To me, it looks like the top and mid level spheres have a slightly rougher surface finish than the lower, main spheres. I think the differences in focus are due to the object’s location within the depth of field. The closer edge is slightly out of focus. So, the main spheres closest to the camera are blurred slightly due to this but mainly surface finish. Did Dilettoso analyse 808? Do you have a reference?

          3. By my eyes, the colour and light levels being reflected into the camera from those spheres is consistent with what I’d expect from highly-polished chrome/metal and not consistent with the amount of surface distortions needed to explain the focus variances from neighbouring background/foreground elements.

            Still think these variances are motion distortions, i.e., very fast and differing vibrations of different parts of the ship or some other type factors, electromagnetic, that distort the metal’s appearance.

          4. To your question Taro, Dilettoso said that he (probably his testing system as previously stated) thought the WCUFO looked “funny/not right” during his presentation below, which is a great watch for anyone interested in these details:

            Jim Dilettoso’s Methodology & Testing of Billy Meier UFO Photos: https://youtu.be/NrV63mZOSp8

          5. The sphere reflections are also consistent with a rough surface finish, duplicatable in a 3D modeller/renderer. I can see what you mean by “focus variances”. However, I think some of these variations are due to the amount of light on specific areas: The upper surfaces are well lit and thus have a bit of a “bokeh” effect. I believe it’s a by-product of the lens itself.

            Thanks for the link. I’ve only seen a brief clip taken from this talk. He’s a little hard to follow at times but good to have for a reference. Anyway, at 1:10:00 he says, “I haven’t tested the wedding cake pictures”. His general impressions from looking at the “digital pictures” are that there is a single light source, he estimates the UFO is about 5-ft wide and has different edge properties from other WCUFO photos. He suggests if Meier is making models he would have made several identical models and then gets into budgetary considerations for such a hoax and how skeptics have never addressed this. Good point but I’m not sure how he got 5-ft. Anyway, it’s a shame he hasn’t actually tested them.

          6. Yes, I didn’t consider the bokeh effect and thanks for the correction re. what Jim actually said.

          7. No problem. Over the years, I’ve learned just how tricky the UFO evidence can be. Plus, I’m a hard-ass with skeptics when it comes to accuracy so, it’s only fair I’m that guy here too.

          8. Asket’s explanation of how beamship’s work in CR 004 could offer an alternative to the only argument skeptics could reasonably make, i.e., that Meier built several metal models, costing millions in total and today’s money, to be wonky slightly differently in each one.

            The following is also interesting to me in terms of how the Plejaren recommend human beings navigate their interactions with others, including enemies (the macro and micro):

            “72. The beamship is surrounded by a radiation protection shield that causes every little current of air to glide off without pushing against it.
            73. The same thing also occurs in outer space, which simply swarms with inconspicuous particles.
            74. Thus, this radiation protection shield has the purpose of protecting the beamship against extraneous influences and resistance, without destroying or pushing against anything that collides with the shield.
            75. Anything that penetrates or offers resistance is simply deflected without pushing against it.
            76. Pushing against it would mean resistance and would remove the possibility of unlimited speed.
            77. Through the deflective quality of the radiation shield, another important effect is triggered which is of great and vital importance to the passengers.
            78. The deflection technique of the radiation shield simultaneously neutralizes the gravitational force of a planet.
            79. But this does not mean that gravity is simply destroyed, pushed aside or nullified.
            80. The air, as well as some rays or particles and magnetism, etc., are simply deflected in the same way; as a result, its own normal gravitational and attraction forces prevail within the beamship.”

            That’s a pretty good explanation of neutrality in my view, which does not, to me, mean no effect, nullified, but, is more akin to the idiom, “Like water off a duck’s back” or in the case of our discussion ‘Like gravitational/light effects off a WCUFOs side, front and back’ when photographed. Just to add, “Mirroring” is an effective psychotherapeutic technique and neutralises another’s psychic force, but, cannot be observed from the outside as looking unaffected.

            In Bulletin 004, it’s mentioned that the”…gravitational force on ERRA is 3% higher than on our Earth”. Could this gravitational difference explain the visual distortions of the WCUFO, so that these are not due to some characteristic of the lens or camera, but, due to the WCUFO’s protection shield’s force/deflective quality affecting Earth’s gravitational force to the extent where light is bent and appears wonky when photographed, i.e., the atoms of the air around the ship are not disturbed, would still measure as unchanged, but, the distortions are observabled as light can be observed being distorted by water?

          9. “Could this gravitational difference explain the visual distortions of the WCUFO…to the extent where light is bent and appears wonky when photographed.”

            Sure, it’s possible. But when a conventional explanation exists then the most objective conclusion involves ruling it out first. Having said that, I wouldn’t be surprised if the ETs planned this particular piece of evidence(along with the remainder of this series) to have this level of controversial detail.

          10. I think we should now be considering what our objective is here, regarding the UFO evidence. Obviously, the authenticity of the physical evidence is something that has been a priority for many people, including me, and over a few decades’ time.

            However, I think that we need to acknowledge certain things, especially for those who want to spend their time nitpicking the details, fascinating as they may be. First, we need to recognize and acknowledge that Meier’s physical evidence has been examined, analyzed and authenticated over a period of some 40 years, by numerous independent experts, using the state-of-the-art technology of the times. It has never been shown to be false; no manipulations, no models, no special effects, etc.

            People who’ve made good reproductions, or duplicated the effects in the photos, have had the benefit of many years to study the originals, the objects that they are making the models of! Not one of the skeptics, or model makers, has ever produced an original creation; they all rely on trying to duplicate Meier’s.

            And there are many facts that totally speak against any kind of hoaxing being feasible, possible or even probable. Most all of Meier’s photographic and film evidence was presented from 1975 to 1981, a period during which he was hugely occupied with supporting his family and the construction and building of the family living quarters and the center. We already know that this was all done by a on- armed man, living in a rugged and remote rural area, with no suitable technologies, nor financial resources, or collaborators.

            That should truly be enough for a reasonable and rational person to consider and thereby conclude that the evidence is singularly authentic and the man who presented it is truthful.

            However, really the icing on the wedding cake and all other cakes has been presented by Joe Tysk. This hugely qualified, initially skeptical, military investigator applied the skills that he used in hundreds of cases, in the service of this country and its defense, to critically and fairly evaluate Meier’s original 1964 UFO evidence from India. Read the article and you will understand that it alone is sufficient to authenticate the case. That being so, further reasoning tells us that the even higher quality, and quantity, of physical evidence presented by Meier after he had become partially handicapped, speaks so loudly to the authenticity of the case that it effectively mocks not only the critics, but also even all the well-intentioned and perfectionistic people who continue to analyze the evidence, often to defend the authenticity of the case.

            Put away your micrometers and magnifying glasses, step back and contemplate the unique historical (and scientific) significance of what is before you. Let the fools and idiots debate the issue. Remember the saying about the forest and the trees.

            Sometimes knowing the truth is sufficient to carry one a great distance. Trying to prove it to deliberately unknowing ones, to the willfully stupid, will only diminish the time one has to grasp and delve deeply into the entire matter themselves.

            And, as Meier was recently warned by the Plejaren, there are new attacks on his evidence, his character – and his life – lurking closely. It’ll be wise to focus on how to safely navigate the coming times, as it won’t be Meier alone who will face some of these renewed difficulties.

          11. Hi Michael,

            Discussing these details is not for everyone and I’ve reached my limits on this, but, is there something specific we should be aware of re. info about further attacks? Are you saying that our online arguments are connected in some way? Have you any more info?

          12. Hi Matt,

            There is a new bulletin at http://www.figu.org, maybe it’s 102, in which Ptaah and Quetzal warn Billy about more upcoming machinations, which include attacks again on his evidence, his information, him and even some CG members, as I understand it.

            Knowing this, I think it’s wise to be prudent and not attract any unnecessary attention. Please also see this comment from Greg Dougall, which I only directly received today:

            “My twitter account was shut down for posting Billy’s UFO photos and related pictures. Is that hateful content, according to twitter?
            Please stop using twitter and move to gab.ai until something better comes along.
            Also, I still can’t access this blog from my browser, unless I click on the link directly in my email.”

          13. This is very disturbing information. Twitter, MSM and a large swath of social media has lost all credibility with its censoring of anything that might wake folks up. I don’t think they thought the whole thing through when they made the internet a publicly accessible tool.

          14. It’s actually neither an accident, nor an unexpected error. We should know that the outcomes foretold in the various prophecies and predictions, including those from Meier in October 2017, will come about from many such developments. I intend to blog about it soon.

          15. Well, here’s my take on it all: An objective conclusion of authenticity can only be arrived at with multiple instances of the type of UFO evidence this case has provided. And the more there is, the more solid the conclusion. If it wasn’t for “tinkering”, Rhal would never have come up with the keen insights into the UFO evidence that he has. Although I don’t necessarily agree with all of his conclusions, it certainly has influenced the, let’s call it “landscape” of this case. And I believe there is more to come. Maybe not from me, but there are continually new people, highly intelligent individuals coming across the case. Matthew Wieczkiewicz originally wrote it off but was compelled to take another look. I’m sure there are others like him. I believe the UFO evidence is going through different phases. And this includes Meier’s original set of UFO photos which has it’s own form of validation as you mentioned. But it has always been kept, for lack of better terms, under control. For example, why did Meier release only two hi-res images of the WCUFO? In this day and age it would be all too easy to release more. The conclusion is that the ETs are very careful about how much and how verifiable the evidence they permit Meier to release is. I don’t know that continuing to explore the UFO evidence and discussing or even debating it is trying to “prove” the case to anyone. I believe the UFO evidence was designed so that we may use it to continually challenge each others logic until the day comes when our collective logic has risen to a level where the debate is no longer necessary. Essentially when open contact, if we’re still here, is imminent. I believe this logical debate helps our society grow. Also, Rhal, myself and many others are the type of people who enjoy figuring out what makes a thing tick, so to speak. Telling us to, “put away your micrometers and magnifying glasses” is futile since this is in our nature. And I personally believe the evidence was planned with this is mind. There may be many more secrets lying in wait. According to the English translation of CR251:

            for very specific reasons, such things as the strange flight maneuvers of our flying objects had been performed to generate doubt, deliberation and this worldwide UFO controversy. ~Ptaah

            It would appear the debate was part of their plans.

            Having said this, if there are powerful groups taking steps to stop this discussion then we may have already lost, and I mean all of us(except for the powerful, of course). I suppose there’s no English translation for FIGU Bulletin #102. It’s times like this I wish I was smart enough from the beginning to use a pseudonym like Rhal did. In any case, the fascination with the UFO evidence is not so much about proving the case to ourselves nor to others but exploring what has been provided by a higher intelligence and taking it as far as it can go. But again, this is just my take on it all.

      2. “I hate to be the wet blanket but you forgot to consider camera focal length.”

        You’re not being a wet blanket Taro. I used the same focal length as Billy’s camera. However, focal length doesn’t really matter because the reflections cover the same area whether the focal length is 24mm or 100mm. The size of a reflection on an object can only change if the source of the reflection changes.

        “I’ve been working on something similar but I modelled the entire photographic environment.”

        Yes, I also did that but then decided not to use the main house model because of the fact that….**

        ” **…there are no configurations(UFO size/focal length) which can exactly match Meier’s photos that include the MH.”

        Exactly!! 🙂

        Which is why no one will ever be able to accurately reproduce these photographs with a camera and models or CGI. It’s impossible.

        “This is NOT a simple piece of evidence to validate or debunk.”

        Well, I concider it validated when combined with every other aspect of the Meier information. The word ‘impossible’ continually crops up when dealing with hoax theories.

        I see Aaron Fiedmann and Jo Weiss made comments on my video just after I posted it on here. I was wandering why they hadn’t shown up before. Good to see that they deny that which is provable and hold as true that which is impossible. Fantastic. 🙂

        1. Yes, I understand you’re assuming Meier provided accurate camera info. However, if you are doing an objective, unbiased analysis you do not have that luxury, particularly when focal length can be a key factor for ruling out hoax. If a different focal length can duplicate Meier’s courtyard images closer than any other then his information is wrong. How can you be sure until you’ve tested this?

          The Carriage House reflection in a sphere is dependent on its distance from the sphere center. The use of forced perspective includes using a small model, at that same location. The size of the Main House in the background will depend on focal length. Larger(telephoto) means larger MH. Smaller(wide angle) means smaller MH.

          I suggest you take one of Meier’s images(probably 808) and import it into Blender in ortho. Add a plane, ditch 3 vertices. Move the remaining vertex to a starting point on the UFO photo. Draw an outline of the UFO and Main House by extruding the vertex(or maybe it’s duplicate, can’t recall exactly). Make it as accurate as you think it should be. This will be your template for your camera. Once you’ve parented it to your camera you now have an accurate guide for duplication. Try various focal lengths, try various camera locations. I can ROUGHLY duplicate 808 with both an 18-inch UFO and a 2.6m one. 48mm and 51mm respectively. But the others with the MH in the background are even rougher and with different sizes. 1.3m, 1.9m, 2.5m. A range of focal lengths between 47mm and 52mm. But to be clear, in all of these the MH only very roughly fits the template. And the 3.5m UFO just doesn’t work. I guarantee you this is not an easy one to nail.

          “Aaron Friedmann” and “Jo Weiss” are both catfish poser accounts held by Silvio Santini(neo-nazi). The other three I know of are “Magic”(/MagicSpirit11), “Oliver”(/silvio8008), and “Mario Marin”. He seems to be distancing himself from Magic and Oliver. Big surprise.

          1. “Yes, I understand you’re assuming Meier provided accurate camera info.”

            There’s no need to assume anything. The field of view can be worked out as we know the sizes and locations of most of the elements in the photograph. If one knows the FOV, the focal length can be estimated to a high enough degree. In this case a ballpark figure is all that is required because the size and shape of the reflections are so completely different when comparing an 0.5m and a 2m WCUFO. That’s the bottom line of my video, we can only say that it isn’t something.

            The only thing that can currently be determined from analysis of these photos is that it is absolutely impossible for the WCUFO to be constructed from the plastic container lid because a model of that size will not reflect the carriage house in the way that it is in the original photos. The use of various sized models for a forced perspective shot can further be ruled out as that would introduce depth of field problems that could not be overcome with a 35mm camera system, unless very specialized lenses (and accompanying cameras) were used which would have only been available to major film production companies. Or one would need the movements of a large format system so the focal plane and lens could be positioned independently, however Billy would have had to work out how to simulate the depth of field of a real larger scene shot on 35mm so that it stands up to future analysis. The lighting is always a big problem for forced perspective shots, with either the foreground or background being greatly under or over exposed if daylight is the only light source and further worsened with wide or long lenses. If the real main house was used then a model carriage house would be required and this would naturally require the real carriage to be completely removed (demolished) so that it wasn’t reflected in the model WCUFO or so the photographer had working distance. I think it’s quite clear that all the components of the WCUFO are the same scale. If everything in the scene was constructed from models and shot at an unknown location you would still have depth of field problems. It should also be noted that both wide and long lenses produce distortions that aren’t present in Meiers shots. Wally Gentleman was no doubt very well versed in forced perspective photography.

            “I suggest you take one of Meier’s images(probably 808) and import it into Blender….”

            Yes, I did all that in Lightwave and I agree with most of your findings.

            “I guarantee you this is not an easy one to nail.”

            It was never meant to be nailed. The purpose of these photographs is to determine that it can’t be a model despite having a ton of indications that it is. We are not trying to duplicate these photos, because they can’t be. As long as we live in the age of belief no-one will be forced to accept that this is real.

          2. “There’s no need to assume anything. The field of view can be worked out as we know the sizes and locations of most of the elements in the photograph. If one knows the FOV, the focal length can be estimated to a high enough degree.”

            So, you’ve calculated the FOV in Meier’s courtyard shots, then? Would you be willing to show your work? I’d like to see it.

            “In this case a ballpark figure is all that is required because the size and shape of the reflections are so completely different when comparing an 0.5m and a 2m WCUFO.”

            I’m not entirely sure you are clear on how sphere reflections work. The size of the reflection(relative to sphere size) depends solely on the distance of the reflected object from the sphere’s centre. This means that a 0.5m UFO and a 2m UFO can in fact produce the exact same sized Carriage House reflections if the spheres along the front of the UFOs are aligned(i.e., the same distance from the CH). This is why the Main House background reference is critical to determining the true size of the UFO. There is only one focal length(naturally with some leeway) that can reproduce all three at once:

            A) Carriage House reflection size within the sphere
            B) UFO size within frame
            C) Main House size within frame

            I haven’t been able to do it with the 55mm lens and 3.5m UFO as claimed. I used a military airport’s runway width to verify my Google Maps dimensions of Meier’s courtyard. I’m pretty sure it’s close enough for these purposes. As far as I’m concerned, this photo series is still a mystery(but I love mysteries, so it’s all good 😉

            “The only thing that can currently be determined from analysis of these photos is that it is absolutely impossible for the WCUFO to be constructed from the plastic container lid because a model of that size will not reflect the carriage house in the way that it is in the original photos.”

            Well, thus far it appears to have been impossible for the WCUFO to have been constructed from household parts for other reasons. But once again, you should test this out by placing your 0.5m and 2.0m WCUFO models at the same location, aligned as I mentioned. I would naturally keep them on separate layers. Find the two focal lengths that keep the WCUFOs within your template and you’ll see the Main Houses won’t match. Right now, you and I have the benefit of knowing Blender. I guarantee you there will be more of us.

            “The use of various sized models for a forced perspective shot can further be ruled out as that would introduce depth of field problems that could not be overcome with a 35mm camera system…”

            I think it’s safe to assume Meier did not have access to any fancy equipment. Nor did he model his courtyard. If a two-armed man cannot duplicate the fine details of Meier’s WCUFO then considering beyond that is redundant until someone can first duplicate the UFO itself. However, I’m not convinced a 35mm camera with lenses available to Meier at that time have been completely ruled out.

            “It should also be noted that both wide and long lenses produce distortions that aren’t present in Meiers shots.”

            These distortions would only be noticeable with the extremes. I don’t believe it would be with the 47mm lens I used in Blender coupled with the 18-inch model.

            “Wally Gentleman was no doubt very well versed in forced perspective photography.”

            De he comment specifically on these courtyard images? If so, I wouldn’t mind a reference, thx.

            “It was never meant to be nailed. The purpose of these photographs is to determine that it can’t be a model despite having a ton of indications that it is.”

            I completely agree with you here.

            “We are not trying to duplicate these photos, because they can’t be.”

            The objective approach does not make this assumption without properly ruling it out by doing just that– trying to duplicate them. IMHO, of course.

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.