Disappearing trees, disappearing skeptics and their disdain for the truth
The recent clumsy attempt by a skeptic to try to duplicate Billy Meier’s “Pendulum UFO” film predictably resulted in some people voicing comments about the “missing tree”. Of course, thinking they’d discovered a smoking gun, the skeptics jumped all over the tree issue in Meier’s film.
Nine years ago, I wrote one of my first articles pointing out the importance of considering means, motive and opportunity (MMO) in examining the evidence in the Billy Meier UFO contacts. I also pointed to Meier’s earliest photographs in India. I even mentioned the copyrighted information that established his prophetic accuracy.
Nonetheless, human beings are a stubborn – and arrogant – lot.
NOTE: For those who don’t know, copyrights are the internationally recognized, legal standard of proof of first publication. They don’t guarantee that what’s copyrighted is accurate, they only establish the recognized, confirmed date of publication. We have 250+ specific examples of Meier’s prophetically accurate scientific information, such as this pertaining to Mars, which left one of our noble scientists fumbling around for another – nonexistent – explanation for Meier’s accuracy.
Propelled by a religious fervor, skeptics rarely trouble themselves to delve into the abundant evidence, analyses and authentication done by independent experts. They reflexively attack any such documentation as an “appeal to authority” on one hand, while demanding peer reviews, on the other – despite the fact that Meier doesn’t really have any peers.
Five years ago, I explained how the average person can cut through the peer review dodge and distraction and determine the ironclad authenticity, and accuracy, of the copyrighted, prophetically accurate information themselves. Yet the skeptics show no interest in pursuing this path of inquiry, in order to avoid confirming the inescapable truth themselves.
In fact, five years ago, I also posted this do-it-yourself test that enables anyone afflicted with cultic skepticism to deprogram themselves, a sure-fire, self-exorcism for those suffering from Skeptolocism, or Skeptianity, etc. While I have reason to think that some skeptics have self-administered the cure, so far none will admit it and certainly none have come forward to dispute its accuracy and self-evidence truth.
About a decade ago, I published an article regarding aspects of Billy Meier’s photographic evidence, including the missing tree. I also included 12 questions that have never been credibly, satisfactorily answered by any skeptic.
Photos 21 and 22 should be of special interest to (honest) skeptics. Any (honest) person is going to recognize that – despite the seeming impossibility – the tree did exist but no longer does, as is the case in the “Pendulum UFO” film.
It should be obvious that Meier doesn’t have the ability to manifest and dematerialize full-grown trees…among the many “supernatural” feats that the skeptics end up crediting him with, in their desperate efforts to not accept the obvious answer, the Occam’s Razor answer: he’s telling the truth about his contacts with extraterrestrials.
That of course would allow the conversation to evolve to, “What’s the reason for the contacts?”
As stated many times, the reason is very clear: The purpose of the Meier contacts is to help us assure our own, very threatened future survival. And it’s frustrating that the world doesn’t seem to want to come to its senses, and welcome the assistance of demonstrably more advanced human beings.
Addressing the Skeptic’s Comments
I passed the comments of the anonymous attacker, who’s too cowardly to use their real name, on to Francisco Villate and Chris Lock. They’ve done extensive research and analyses on some of Billy Meier’s photographic and film UFO evidence, including the Pendulum UFO. Below is their response to the quoted challenges:
Regarding the comment on your blog that you sent us relating to the Pendulum UFO investigation:
There is indeed a “3rd break”, or 3rd jump. We based the first investigation on the available videos we had at the time. There was a missing part that we see now in the full-video reproduction that we are analyzing, where we find more fascinating details that still indicate to us that this is not a little model. We include more details to follow in the second investigation in our upcoming book.
As for the double exposure on the film camera suggested on your blog by the reader: Original comment: “If you stop the camera the frames will slow down; this will allow to expose the UFO on two different places in the same frame. It is very simple. It’s all movie camera frames artifect.”
This overlaid image can occur on camcorders, the ones used to record VHS videos. They have electronic effects, like the “interlace” that make a moving image look smooth and can cause the overlaid image. It does not hold for a Super 8 camera that uses a film roll. Meier’s camera had mechanical parts and an emulsion film roll. When stopping the camera, the film stopped. It cannot go back a few frames to overexpose them. Let us suppose, however, that the camera stopped in one frame, and it took the last shot in this frame. When restarting the camera, let’s say it starts in the same frame, so it is overexposing an image in this frame. In this case, we see a double image in that particular frame, like the UFO in two places in just one frame. Now, in this frame, we should see the whole image overexposed, meaning it must be much brighter because this frame received twice the light of contiguous frames (two shots in one frame). We do not see this in the Meier film.
The reader that is suggesting this possibility seems to be thinking Billy was filming the “model” moving back and forth, stopping the camera when the model approaches the treetop, just a fraction of a second before it crosses the tree. Billy then waited a few more seconds, and while the model was moving in the same direction, he resumed the film, just after the model crossed the treetop. In this case, we can see the UFO in two places in one frame. If this is his hypothesis, it does not sound very logical, and maybe impossible to perform. We found the jumps lasted 1/10 of a second. It means the cameraman (Billy or somebody else controlling the camera, assisting him while a crew were manipulating several cords to move the model) was able to stop the camera at the right moment, in less than 1/10 of a second, before the model crossed the treetop, and then is able to start it again just 1/10 of a second after a few oscillations of the pendulum and the model passed the treetop. If the camera does not immediately stop, as your reader already pointed out, it becomes more difficult; and the cameraman must do the same trick three times (3 jumps). If unsuccessful, the whole video has to be filmed again from the beginning, because it is a continuous sequence.
Moreover, how does the cameraman check if the effect was successful? By waiting to see the result after receiving the film roll from the lab, a few days later. So Billy would have to go back many times to the same place to record the whole video, again and again, a process for which there is zero evidence as well as zero practicality. A more logical suggestion is that Billy cut the film roll. But in this case, we need to explain why the UFO appears twice in the same frame, and more importantly, why there is a white band at the top of the frames during the three jumps. It has been suggested that the white band is the result of the glue used to join the film after cutting. But, if this is the reason, why do we not see the white band at the top of one frame and the bottom of the next frame which would be the natural result? Why, instead, are white bands only at the top of two contiguous frames in the jumps? The latter strongly suggests a momentary light leaking in rather than a film gluing.
Hope this helps,
- A 45 year-old film taken by a one-armed man, during a snowy and rainy winter day, warrants years of discreet analysis and discussion.
- The cynical, embarrassingly failed attempt to debunk it contains no comparative elements, i.e. tall tree, house, controlled movements, comparable space between object and sky, etc. – yet undiscerning, incompetent, agenda-driven skeptics can’t perceive the easily observable differences.
Oh, dear people, learn to…think: