Donate Button
Wednesday, May 1, 2024

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

Hasenböl Hoax Theory Debunked!

Which came first, the tree or the beamship?

Hasenböl-Langenberg, Switzerland - 29 March 1976
Hasenböl-Langenberg, Switzerland, 29 March 1976, 18:10 hours

It has long been an accusation in the UFO community that Billy Meier faked his UFO photos using small models hanging in front of trees or other objects. The models were allegedly sitting close to the camera while the trees and other objects were off in the distance. The Hasenböl ‘sunshine beamship’ is no exception to this accusation. They credit Meier with a mastery in photography and special effects, which I’m sure he would laugh heartily about.

If you look closer at Meier’s photos, anyone with a basic understanding of photography and depth of field should be able to debunk the model theory quite easily. And with the valuable work that has already been done by Rhal Zahi, Chris Lock and others, the model theory has been thoroughly debunked. It’s still nice to break these remaining images down until every last charlatan and know-it-all scurries away.

They will one-day realize that the lights in the sky are not the reason for the Meier contacts. It has always been about spreading the Creation-energy Teaching and assuring our very threatened future survival.

The Real Masters of Perspective and Optical Illusions

I’ve learned over the years that the Plejaren are the real masters of object placement and optical illusions. The way they position their beamships in photographs is stunningly effective. It’s one thing to leave a hint of doubt for those who would go insane if faced with the absolute reality of extraterrestrials, but the Plejaren go above and beyond. They not only leave room for doubt, but they equally make it undeniable and ironclad for those who do the research and think logically. The real scientists and pioneers are the human beings who have learned to shed their bias and look at the evidence neutrally. I really do admire their work.

Photo Fringing

Also known as color fringing, photo fringing is a color distortion that creates an outline of color along the edges of objects in a photograph. It often appears along metallic surfaces or when there’s a contrast between light and dark objects, such as a dark object in front of a bright blue sky. Fringing is a chromatic aberration that happens naturally in a photo. Due to advancements in photo editing software, fringing can now be added manually.

The fringing program will add a line, or multiple lines, of color along the edges of objects in an image. The program can only outline something that exists in the photograph. If part of an object is hidden behind another object, the program can’t outline the part that isn’t visible. It can’t outline something that isn’t there. The pixels tell the truth.

The photo editor that I used is the Polarr Pro Photo Editor. It has your standard suite of professional editing software tools.

When working with photo fringing, I like to invert the colors and adjust the brightness and contrast in order to make it easier to see the added colored lines. This first image below is inverted and adjusted, but no fringing has been added.

Click on images to view full resolution

Sunshine Beamship Long Copy - without fringing
Without fringe

The next image below has a blue line of added fringe. The thinner tree branches appear green and the thicker parts of the tree appear as pale blue with a hint of green along the right edge. The darker blue fringe outline is on the left side of the branch and tree.

Later, we’ll change the outline color and break it down to pixels so the actual branch (green) can be seen better.

Sunshine Beamship Long Copy - with fringing full intensity
Blue fringe outline added

These next images are enlarged for better viewing.

Sunshine Beamship Long Copy - with fringing full intensity close-up
Blue fringe outline, green line is actual branch

Sunshine Beamship - fringing at full intensity ENLARGED

In summary, if the branch was behind the ship, the blue line at the edge of the left side of the ship would not be solid. There would be a clear break in the line. Remember, the program can’t outline something that isn’t there.

Why can’t we see the green line of the actual branch over the ship? The colors have simply blended together making it much harder to see the green line on the pale blue colored ship. The only line that matters in this case is the outline on the left. The line does not break, which makes it indisputable that the branch is in front of the beamship.

What do the Pixels Show?

In these next images, I’ve reversed the color order of the fringe outline. You’ll notice that the actual tree is still green, but the outline on the left is now pale blue with a darker blue outline on the underside of the branch. In the pixelated image, we can now see the green line going directly across the edge of the ship. How is that possible if the ship is a small model hanging in front of the tree and near the camera?

Hasenbol-Langenberg, Switzerland 29 March 1976-pixelated

Here’s the full size image for reference. The base of the tree is where it’s easiest to distinguish the tree (green) from the fringe outline (frontside outline is pale blue on the left, and the underside outline is darker blue on the right).

Hasenbol-Langenberg, Switzerland 29 March 1976 003

As you might have noticed, it’s difficult to fringe a thin tree with many branches. When objects are close together or overlapping, the colors blend together or bleed onto each other. Some of the branches are so thin that the pixels are barely visible in certain areas. The rays of sunshine also add a reflection, which causes various pixels to look whitewashed. However, this branch was in a perfect position as to not be overly affected by the other branches. And the fringing job turned out better than I originally expected. It clearly shows that the beamship is not a model hanging close to the camera.

There will always be people who refuse to look at the evidence. They will continue to make generalized and sweeping claims about Meier being a fraud. We’ve all seen them in action. It’s embarrassing at this point because they are not serious people. Their aim is to deceive folks in order to sway them in a conspiratorial direction. While money and greed play a large role with some of the known liars, other fraudsters are of a different nature. They aim to keep a firm hold on the censorship of the Meier material so that human beings remain addicted to stupidity. With the mountains of evidence and scientific analyses done by various independent researchers and scientists, no one should have a problem getting to the truth. If one thinks about everything that Meier explains in the Creation-energy Teaching, the truth is easily recognized. The truth will always resonate. Lies and deceit will kick off that churning feeling in your gut. The trick is learning to pay attention.

See Also:

The Billy Meier UFO Case: Now You Can Prove It to Yourself

The WCUFO and where It Can Take Us

MINDBOGGLING!

THE MYSTERIOUS TREE at the Hinwil UFO Demonstration

Photo Analysis

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scott Reed

Thank you Melissa for the detailed explanation. May the truth penetrate the unthinking human beings.
Salome
Scott

Kenneth Smith

Excellent work Melissa. “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Terry Carch "I Want to Move to Erra!

Thankyou Mejissa for giving us the most honest truth about our Plejaren friends because the rest of this stupid stubborn world just will not and won`t listen to the truth that there are other more advanced human beings in the universes! Salome

billy jack wilson

Scientific knowledge is socially constructed to some extent. While scientific knowledge aims to be objective and based on empirical evidence, the development and dissemination of scientific knowledge is influenced by social factors. Science is practiced within a social context, and scientists are influenced by their cultural, political, and economic backgrounds. This can shape the research questions they ask, the methods they employ, and the interpretations of their findings. Additionally, scientific knowledge is often communicated through academic journals and conferences that are subject to editorial and peer review processes, which can introduce biases and agendas. Furthermore, the funding and sponsorship of scientific research can also influence the direction and outcomes of scientific investigations. All these factors contribute to the social construction of scientific knowledge.
Billy has been amazingly wise to use analog always. A lot of math can found on the art of photos. (https://www.aperturebuzz.com/subject-distance-aperture-value-relation/ ) we can now even grab sound from his films (https://news.mit.edu/2014/algorithm-recovers-speech-from-vibrations-0804 ) even the sun can help prove the pictures info with the reflections and shadows.. (Solar Elevation Angle – Calculating Altitude of Sun – SolarSena )Billy’s rolling stock of photos are a treasure for no-one is cherry picking the best images to keep. I am mentioning his films. And like most home films made they get really boring really fast then our bias just cost us that 1/16th of a second (960 photos per minute) that something amazing just happen. I have a lot of time in researching how the parts of film and the chemistry used are applied. But what can melt gelatin and return it to a paste in 1/16 second with no smears from the film advancement motion and very minor bottom bulging from gravity is what real scientist would want to know. No change to the other chemistry and could only travel thru glass but not metal for the rest of the film was unharmed. Any trace evidence is still proof something happen.

brigitte de Roch

Hi Melissa –

Photo fringing is a really nice tool! I love how the photos look, the grainy look of them and the color schemes. It’s quite artsy and eye catching especially for those with short attention span.

You did well with this.

I will think of ways to share it since I always work behind the scenes.

Thank you!

brigitte de Roch

I will print in color the enlarges photo with the arrows and use it as wrapping papers for when I physically mail the blog info.

I will see then what objections they will come up with.

Brigitte de Roch

The TV series named ‘The UnXplained’ was produced by Kevin Burns with  Prometheus Entertainment. I watched while on the road and much that was presented did not make sense and is simply incorrect.
Today, I sent Kevin an email at kevinbu@gmail.com and kevin.burns@prometheuspix.com with this blog post.
 
The following speakers/presenters/authors specialized in UFO who were that show also received the info.
Amy Shira Teitel; amy.teitel@LFM.tv;
Mike Mara; mbara33@yahoo.com; mikebara33@gmail.com;
Lynne Picknett; contact@picknettprince.com; info@picknettprince.com;
Jonathan Young;  j.young@opusarchives.org;
Eric Hickey; ehickey@alliant.edu – blocked
Brian Keating;
Michael Dennin;