Michael Horn Debates David Biedny on The Paracast

[Crouching_Sniper]

In any case, David made it very clear with illustrations on this message board exactly why he came to his conclusions. As to Horn, he and other Meier supporters were given every opportunity to respond to the specifics of David's analysis, that it was a composite created by superimposing negatives. David explained why and how, and you don't have to be a Photoshop expert to understand. David's entire argument is that the photo he analyzed is a fake, a bad fake.

I notice, also, that you have no response to his points either.

Yes my response to his points were..... analysis of a low resolution JPEG is not a photo analysis so therefore is not evidence. The crop of Meier Jpegs floating about on the internet are poor third hand copies at best and due to the nature of digital images represent no proof either way.
Please do not misunderstand me, I really would like to see more experts get hold of the original negatives but untill someone does, I do think it rather unwise to come to an absolute conclusion with only a handful of JPEGS to go by.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Yes my response to his points were..... analysis of a low resolution JPEG is not a photo analysis so therefore is not evidence. The crop of Meier Jpegs floating about on the internet are poor third hand copies at best and due to the nature of digital images represent no proof either way.
Please do not misunderstand me, I really would like to see more experts get hold of the original negatives but untill someone does, I do think it rather unwise to come to an absolute conclusion with only a handful of JPEGS to go by.

There are elements of the photo that, even in JPEG form, make the flaws perfectly clear.

When it comes to the Wedding Cake photo, there's a composite out there that actually shows a garbage can and the alleged UFO, and there is no question how the model was made.

In terms of the Meier camp, the problem is that the negatives never seem to exist; they seem to mysteriously disappear. They make the extraordinary claims, but can't prove their case.

Sad.

 

[Mindsky]

David won't be thought to have done a good analysis unless he comes to their conclusion.

Had he said, "Hey it's legit". You think certain people that are using jpeg against him, would?

So, Dave.... You have to do things like they say do them, in order to reach conclusions they want you to reach.

Complaining about a jpeg is rather anal. Being anal is fine, but be that way with Billy and Horn too. There's tons of things to nitpick about when listening to what Horn and Billy have to say.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

David won't be thought to have done a good analysis unless he comes to their conclusion.

Had he said, "Hey it's legit". You think certain people that are using jpeg against him, would?

So, Dave.... You have to do things like they say do them, in order to reach conclusions they want you to reach.

Complaining about a jpeg is rather anal. Being anal is fine, but be that way with Billy and Horn too. There's tons of things to nitpick about when listening to what Horn and Billy have to say.

There is also the illusion that JPEG = low quality. That's not necessarily true. A JPEG can, with proper quality settings, be almost indistinguishable from an uncompressed image. Consider all those wonderful low-cost digital cameras that produce excellent prints. Those images are JPEG!

The great thing about David's analysis is that many of the flaws he found are not JPEG artifacts, but parts of the original photos.

Ah, yes, excuse, excuses! And you ask the Meier people for negatives, and they don't have any. Just JPEGs.

 

[Mindsky]

I haven't seen David's analysis mentioned at the Theysink site. Sorry, kinda wasn't wanting to advertise, even though the site is mentioned in the thread.

Anyway, he has a article on Jeff Ritzman's photos though. I was expecting to see some spin on David, like he did Jeff. So far I haven't.

I still haven't seen David's photos btw. I need to buy a Mac. I saw Jeff's. They were good. In some ways better. Better than Billy's pics, that is.

 

[jritzmann]

I dont think he's got the 'nads to post anything on David's deconstruction of that photo. I cant stand on it.

He also cant stand on the first set of duplicated photos either...which is why he harps on the WC thing. As I said on the other thread, he's scared of that first set I did.

Again, as if they really prove anything other then it can be done. But, thats twisted Horn logic again. ;D

David has more or less opened my eyes to the fact that the Meier case and arguing it's merits (since there arent any) or lack thereof, are a complete waste of time.

Better to put energy to legitimate cases. The Meier case will be left to the dust where it belongs.

 

[Mindsky]

Check out the spin he did on your photos if you haven't J. It's at his site.

 

[jritzmann]

Yeah I saw it. It's really laughable. He'll never grow the nerve to post the first set, because he cant account for them.

 

[Raccoon]

He Who Shall Not Be Named? Debates David Biedny on The Paracast

Steinberg really laid on thick the so called expert opinion of his self procalimed photoshop knowledge . I am familiar with the tone and delivery that he used , and it was identical to every time some mechanic attempted to defraud me with an auto repair . Also 'photoshop' is not' photo' . So Meier took the photos before photshop was invented ( yawn) . It's been said before . The gullible types that hang on the every word of these pair of casts , don't have the mantal acuity to know the difference .

Being a computer professional and an amateur Photoshop user, I understand exactly what David was saying, his reasons for that course of investigation and the conclusions he arrived at based on MULTIPLE items he noticed.

I think he did a good job of summarising in a few sentences what must have been a detailed and thorough analysis.

After all he was analysing the photos published on the website as FACTUAL EVIDENCE of the truth.

I think both sides of the argument would have been best served if each point was argued in turn, like David and Gene were trying to do. While it is understandable that someone who has been a proponent of something for a great many years might feel anxious at it's validity being questioned, surely as the MAIN spokesman, you have assumed an ability the situation would be a job pre-requisite?

Good work Gene and David. And MH and his proponents would probably be best serving Billy by taking a chill pill and approach the topic in a calm manner in the future.

 

[Raccoon]

He Who Shall Not Be Named? Debates David Biedny on The Paracast

Apologies everyone...... it appears I posted a reply to a thread and wasn't aware of the MEGA thread (37 + pages!!!!! ) where the real fireworks were.



Give me a few weeks to get through that one. Sorry for posting something that may have already been said.

 

[Bonjour ZXVQW]

I just wonder if mindsky=michael812 (Michael Horn)... and possibly even =Crouching_Sniper...

Their ways of speech sound somehow similar...

 

[KorMan]

Ya gotta love the true-believer mindset of the Meier fanatics. E.g.:

I do think it rather unwise to come to an absolute conclusion with only a handful of JPEGS to go by.

Meier's illusion of credibility relies on high-compression JPEGs that obscure the fine details (like the wires or strings) and make it very difficult to do a thorough analysis of the photos. There may be original negatives or slides, but they're in a locked safe where no critics can access them.

If Meier wants to be taken seriously, he is obliged to deliver the originals to a qualified, independent photoanalysis expert, or have them imaged with a hi-res scanner and release them as PNGs or BMPs. If they are real, what has he to fear?

Damn fly! He just ruined another
wedding-cake saucer photo. ACH!

Well, if you'd shave off that bloody
bird's nest, there'd be fewer flies.

 

[Filer of False Complaints]

Here goes my first post…

I just came across your website a few days ago and I got to say I’ve been hooked ever since. I’m just over half way through the past shows. Keep up the good work guys.

My background:
I have never seen a UFO, but I still believe they are out there. Be it man made or ET.

This Meier case also was interested me, until i became more educated about the garbage behind it...

1. Model UFOs found on the compound, is just spun off as the childrens models.
2. The BS about Billy not being able to careate a hoax, because he has only one arm... every heard of co-conspirators??? heck i saw a lady on TV last night with no body below the waste skatboarding... I can't even skateboard.
3. The RAD wedding cake UFO that is obviously bogus... you're telling me that these aliens would be flying in a horiffic designed craft like that???
4. The UFO sounds... people came from far around... not only does these ufos sound bad, but so does this story... where are these witnessess... If I had heard and seen something the Meier Clan claims... I would be telling everyone. I for one know people in switzerland... they havn't seen or heard any UFOs flying over there heads... Most don't even know who billy meier is let alone believe him... For a guy who as alot of contacts, there sure a little to no sightings there.
5. there public speakers are very aggressive, when people don't beleive them
6. etc...
7.

I'm glad you guys worked your Photoshop skills to prove one these obvious pictures false...

i still admit there are a few things that make me think when i look into this case....
doesn't mean it is REAL.
I hate to use this quote, but i think it is relevent in many cases including this one.
“The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.”

Iv'e been entertained.
have a good day... look forward to more shows..

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I just wonder if mindsky=michael812 (Michael Horn)... and possibly even =Crouching_Sniper...

Their ways of speech sound somehow similar...

I am Mindsky. My stance since I was a child is that the BM case is a obvious fraud. It hasn't wavered and has been clear throughout all these threads. Why MH would pose as someone arguing against the case is beyond me. I don't recall who Crouching tiger is or his stance. But same applies to that poster too if they sided with MH or BM. For what it's worth I am neither one. Mods can get IP addresses from members I believe. Mine won't match up.

I'm currently running through a proxy address in my fight against hackers but if I need to prove I am Mindsky can do so by showing a matching IP with that account. I deleted that account, it wasn't banned in case some are wondering.

Me and MH speak English. Other than that I'm not sure of any other similarities.

I now recall a little who Crouching was. The only thing that differed between me and most other critics of the case was I was more "civil" toward the other side. I do this because to not do so gets us no where faster. Just because I disagree with someone isn't reason for me to treat them poorly etc. So maybe my demeanor made me suspect I guess. I'll throw out insults next time lol.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Lots more reasons to think the BM case is bunk in the other threads JTK. It's a long read but if you want more evidence, check those other threads. The largest one got locked last I looked. Hopefully it is still there and not deleted.

Just looked. The thread is still here. I lucked out and got the last say too in it

 

[Ted Newsom]

Regarding Wally Gentleman and the Meier fraud:

I never had the pleasure of meeting the late Mr. Gentleman, but I know a lot of effects guys-- Ray Harryhausen, Jim Danforth, etc.-- and have done considerable writing on the subject. The quote from Gentleman in LIGHT YEARS (wasn't that what the Kinder book was called) always leaped out at my for its equivocal nature.

Effects technician Wally Gentleman never said the Meier photos were legitimate. That's NEVER, as in "NOT EVER."

Kinder used enough of Gentleman's quote that one could ASSUME Gentleman was endorsing the photos, but he never said 1) they were real 2) he thought they were any good 3) that he could never duplicate them.

Kinder used a neat bit of literary slight of hand with the quote, letting the reader's imagination fill in blanks that Kinder intentionally leaves. Gentleman did say "I don't know how they were done," and that's simply a statement of fact: he wasn't there, so he didn't know how they were shot.

Gentleman did say something to the effect that, "If we were doing these in a studio situation, we'd have a crew of thirty or forty men and high-tech cameras." He was, again, simply stating a fact. When you're shooting intricate model effects in a studio setting for a major film (like 2001, which Gentleman worked on), yes, in a situation like that, you use a large crew.

But he did NOT say, "We'd NEED a crew like that to duplicate these pictures."

By leaving these quotes hanging in his book, Kinder in effect misquoted Gentleman and made simple statements of fact into endorsements of model shots that are patently obvious to the most untrained observer.

The same tactic was done on the Fox ALIEN AUTOPSY show, in which contemporary physical-effect/make-up guys were asked what they thought of the "alien" footage. And like Gentleman, they responded, "Well... we don't know how they did it." Well, no, they don't, because they weren't there. COuld they guess and be right on the money? Sure-- but that wasn't what they were asked (or rather, thoe answers were left in the outtake files.)

Wendell Stevens did the same selective quotations in that insane text about the Meier case regarding the "hair" from the space babe. I spoke to the scientist directly and he chuckled at his supposed "endorsement" of the hair being anything but a human hair that showed eivdence of being bleached.

 

[Mannyp4]

Yeah most of the supposedly confirmation in this case are misquoting and phrases taking out of content from MH. It has been demostrated a lot times already. Yet some people even after seeing that, still want to discuss his motives or about the case. But as MH. always say "they need to do their homework" as it seems they believe anything that it's posted and they don't digg deep enought to found out if it's true.
After reading a lot I am starting to wonder if there was ever an original photo in this case to begin with. As there are not proof at all that an analysis was ever done to an original yet to a copy of a copy. And after 1,500 photos (I think) a single original doesn't exits now. Sorry I don't buy it.
But I do understand why there is not and maybe ever was an original for examination. too obvious faked! an originals would show that in greater details. Even all the copies of copies that exits now and they presenting that as proof, show optical perspective manipulations that anyone can see, and the very reason why the mayority of people don't buy them.

 

[KorMan]

C'mon, guys! BM is for REAL. How can ANYONE possibly deny the truth of these awesome photographs that depict the highly advanced state of space ray guns (without trigger guards), and the great need for competent hairdressers on Plejaran (or is it Lyran) space ships?

 

[Aaron LeClair]

But, but, but, there was a laser burn on a tree Korman!!!! It HAS to be real!


I had a shiney bright green squirt gun growing up that looked more real, but that is what the aliens want. They want most people to not buy into any of this. See? I = smart.

 

[Mannyp4]

First 2 photos with the toy gun = 6.7.1988
meier holding the toy gun = 6.7.1977

Alena, menary, menara who did he borrow the toy from at the end? lol

Did he travel back in time "AGAIN" or because they were "Playing with dates" (prophecies) so much they made a mistake? lol