I read your link. It was amateurish, completely devoid of coherent argument, made leaps of false logic, and is poorly written. I didn’t like the font much either. It’s like a bunch of kids got access to Dad’s computer and wrote up a pseudo-scientific explanation of their favorite Saturday morning cartoon.
Look, it’s trash. Everyone reading it can see it’s trash. Everyone looking at the original photos can see that it’s laughable trash. Getting all hot and bothered about something so obviously trash isn’t worth anyone’s time. No one here is ever going to take this seriously because it’s clear that it’s not good enough to convince anyone over the age of 12, or a moderately clever cocker spaniel.
Scientific analysis? Just look at the fucking thing! It’s clearly about two feet across, and made out of junk held together by hot glue. You don’t need “scientific analysis” to tell its bullshit, you just need two functioning eyes.
Nice link, by the way. One problem. Their model only works if the spheres on the object in the picture are both perfectly spherical, and perfectly reflective. If those spheres are, in fact, cheap Christmas ornaments glued to a trash can lid, then they are going to be neither perfectly spherical, or perfectly reflective. An imperfect sphere is going to change how objects get reflected in it. Without accounting for this variable, I’m afraid the conclusions drawn by that paper are meaningless.
I’m convinced. Meier had the most regrettable luck.
He has actual alien space ships land in his yard/tree yet he is such an incompetent photographer, the photos of actual spacecraft look like childish pranks. If he had just taken one correspondence course in photography, he would have been able to frame the photos so that you could see the actual floating UFO with something else close enough in the frame to judge the size, so it wouldn’t look like a hubcap with ornaments glued to it.
You completely mis-represented what I said.
This is 2013. Why are there no recent films using the latest tech? Or did the last visit occur in the 70s?
For that matter, I had a movie camera in the 70s and the films I took were crisp and clear. (I know how to use the focus knob)
I would also ask how do these beings travel so many light years and manage to get stuck in the only tree for miles around? Repeatedly.
Space is really really empty. It takes great skill to come into contact with the few lumps of matter in the vast nothingness. This is just a demonstration of the aliens great navigational skill.
When something is just “bullshit” it doesn’t cause such a reaction as demonstrated on this message board.
I see incredible reactivation going on here from this subject.
It’s clear to me the Meier case is having very big impact on the participants of this forum. You guys know you’re promoting the Meier case with such conflated discussions don’t you?
I here by offer some possible explanations for all of the heated discussions
The Billy Meier Case is of immense importance to humanity.
The Meier Case is True.
The Meier case has not been and cannot be debunked
No, it isn’t.
No, it isn’t
Yes it has, you just won’t admit it. Why are you so invested in such a fraud?
As has been mentioned, the picture of a dinosaur is a photo of a page in a book. Explain.
If you look closely, there’s a suet ball in that tree. Clearly there was a small miscommunication on the alien ship. The order was misheard as “Take me to your feeder” with the obvious consequences.
When people truly believe something is a fraud they don’t react to it this much. The quality and quantity of the evidence is far too great to debunk absolutely. But let me reiterate- I have also not claimed the Meier case has been absolutely proven either. I take a neutral position in this regard. Remember, I have asserted the plausible deniability principal in this case several times.
I’ll make you a deal. I’m willing to abide by the ruling of a competent and impartial third party to make a judgement on the Meier case regarding the NEUTRALITY of its non proven yet non debunked status.
This board reacts so strongly because we recognize utter crap when we see it and it must be debunked for crap unchallenged is crap that spreads.
You have not taken a neutral position. You ignore direct questions.
You also have no idea what plausible deniability means.
Why do you want a ruling on neutrality? How about a ruling on false or true?
And the evidence has no quality though i will admit there is a huge amount of quantity. You could fertilize Texas with it.
You’ve got to be shitting me dude
With that false logic its like saying the twin towers never existed because it doesn’t exist anymore.
What a load of crap!
Obfuscation!? dude I extended you the courtesy by not wanting to insult your intelligence by dumbing it down with a direct answer to the question I thought you could answer it yourself but my bad now I might have to step down a notch to get through to you people here.
Here it goes for your satisfaction
Yes I am not Billy Meier and no I am not Billy Meier got it!?
You’ve got to be shitting me dude
With that false logic its like saying the twin towers never existed because it doesn’t exist anymore.
What a load of crap!
View from 30:49 about the metal sample
[/QUOTE]
There are millions of people who have seen the Towers, worked in the Towers, visited the Towers and have in many ways interacted with the Towers. There are blueprints, permits and loads of paperwork from the construction. Thousands worked to build the Towers.
Not even close. The twin towers had an enormous amount of third-party eyewitnesses as to the mere fact of their existence. Someone verifying that a scrap of metal existed at one point is hardly earth-shattering. What is necessary is independent confirmation of the unique properties of the metal which is not possible. And learn how to link youtube videos. What you want is this. Don’t make people watch any more of that godawful mess than is absolutely necessary.
This is the poorest argument I have ever read here so far
Dude do you speak and write the same English language that most people are familiar with in the Western world.
Just because it looks like a garbage can lid doesn’t mean that you have provided irrefutable evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that it is.
You have provided no evidence to back up your claim so where is it?