Michael Horn & The Billy Meier Contacts

[David Biedny]

Fin

So there it is - Mr. Horn has nothing new to add to this discussion. He cites imaginary friends as technical resources and has conceded that he knows nothing about image processing, photography, audio engineering or anything else related to technology. He does not know how to do a search on the web, properly cite and reference sources, he will not allow any other known third party expert to study his "evidence" or provide notarized evidence of anything at all, he would not rise to Jeff Ritzmann's challenge, he lied about his appearances on other radio shows (the ATS thread is quite educational, Mr. Horn), and his credentials as an objective researcher are moot. He has a vested interest in drumming up interest in the Meier material, and will NOT directly address my findings, posted for all to see and scrutinize. He has lied about his intentions to respond to my analysis directly and in detail.

"It's even been continued on this forum, and others, in no small part due to the fact that so many people lead what can only be called imaginary, virtual lives of their own that they really can't distinguish reality from the fantasies that they churn in their heads, and freely spew onto internet forums due to the ease of doing so."

Man, did you ever get _that_ right. Projection, it's a word you really, truly need to learn about.

I rest my case. I'm done with you, Mr. Horn. Take care of yourself. Really. You will not, I promise, get another direct response from me. Your mask has been removed for all to see.

I'll wrap up with some lyrics from the song <b>Just</b>, by my favorite band, Radiohead.

<i>Can't get the stink off
He's been hanging round for days
Comes like a comet
Suckered you but not your friends
One day he'll get to you
And teach you how to be a holy cow

You do it to yourself, you do
and that's why it really hurts, is
You do it to yourself
Just you
You and no-one else
You do it to yourself
You do it to yourself </i>

dB

 

[Michael812]

DB, who is obviously intellectually incapable of understanding my last response (either the blatant or more subtle aspects), which validates what I said in it of course, seems to have overlooked my response to him about the image, his one-trick pony moment, as already referred to by someone else.

Okay, one more time. I had acknowledged it as a double exposure, my friend pointed out that it was a triple exposure - something that DB missed. My friend, and other experts point out that it was an in-camera effect, probably accidental, certainly impossible to prove it was deliberate. I hope that's finally clear to DB, since everyone else probably understood all that a couple of posts ago.

As to my own observation that I think demolishes the deliberate fake idea, all one has to do is look at the triple exposed area of the house and notice that it is (non-technical talk here) very intimately connected to the flare on the ground and car tires area and see that it's also connected (don't know a better word) to the object. Looking at that, one realizes that there's a really huge likelihood that the object, rather than having been photographed against a black backdrop, was photographed in the same frame as the portion of the house referred to. Why else are we seeing the repeated part of the house except that when the multiple exposures were being made, accidentally in my opinion, that the object really was in the same place that it appears to be relative to the house?

Why, if this was a deliberate hoax, would the hoaxer want to include multiple exposures of the house? This is especially problematic when we consider that the other picture - that DB WON'T post, don't you wonder why? - doesn't have this problem and is, to the naked eye, far less problematic. Why would Meier not just use that easier to accept photo and allow this one to be circulated if he wanted any credibility and had actually hoaxed it?

Now I know that DB's specialty is not asking any thoughtful questions, such as why a person would do this or that, but motive is high on the list of considerations in any professional investigation involving human actions.

If any of YOU want to see the other photo, just ask DB to post the one I sent him and you can think about this yourselves.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I've been leaving it to David to discuss the technical aspects of the photo he analyzed, since he's the expert, and I'm the dabbler. However, I can't sit by and watch my friend suffer from personal attack after personal attack by someone who clearly is out of his element.

Michael, when you talk about double- or triple-exposure, try to read up on the subject so you understand what it's all about. You are trying to create the image of the cheap 1950-style Brownie camera, where you turned a knob between pictures, and if you didn't, you'd get a double-exposure. Even lower-cost 35mm cameras in the 1960-1980 timeframe were designed so you'd have to "cock" the shutter between each exposure. That action also caused a transport mechanism to move the film to the next position.

Many of these cameras had a bypass button of some sort, so if you wanted to create a deliberate multiple exposure, you could keep the film from moving, but it was usually a two-handed process. It didn't just happen, and while I assume that a one-handed farmer might manage the task, it would take a deliberate effort. Once again, it wouldn't happen by accident.

The second theme you need to focus on is the result of a multiple exposure. If, for example, you were taking pictures in roughly the same area when the double-exposure happened, you'd see a full-frame blurry set of images in the photo. In the picture David analyzed, for example, the left part of the image is sharp and clear, clearly showing a single exposure, not blurred. There is evidence of an overlay, as he pointed out, which clearly indicates that you are seeing the end result of two separate negatives placed one atop the other and not properly aligned, or aligned in such a way as to achieve a deliberate end result.

Michael, before you attack me personally, as I expect you will, I suggest you spend a few moments reading up on basic photography and photographic techniques and then we'll talk further on the subject.

If there are some professional photographers in the audience, I welcome your input, corrections, amplifications, etc.

 

[Kingman]

DB,

Could you direct me to the analysis you posted, I can't seem to locate that paperclip...

Thanks,

Shawn King

 

[Gene Steinberg]

DB,

Could you direct me to the analysis you posted, I can't seem to locate that paperclip...

Thanks,

Shawn King

Excuse me, but haven't you read the many messages David has posted in this forum, including the ones where the photos were presented? I think you need to just go through them again, or do a search of David's posts and you'll find exactly what you need.

Of course, we're still waiting for someone from the Meier camp to provide a real rebuttal to David's analysis. It hasn't happened yet; in fact, nobody has even tried. They just change the subject.

 

[ufoman]

I just got to thinking last night, that I thought there was an original negative needed? So iMO every bodies research in to any Meier photos are not work a damn. So both David & Michael can argue until their blue in the face, but neither of them have ever used an original negative. So this whole debate was a waste of time!

 

[Kingman]

Gene,

I was asking for some help. I read the post where DB told another forum member that it was accessible through the paperclip. A simple here or there would of took just as long as your reply. Am I a marked man? I'm trying to get to the evidence your partner base's his opinion on and you won't even assist someone with a simple question. Hmmmm.
I guess I'm in the dark.

Shawn King

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Gene,

I was asking for some help. I read the post where DB told another forum member that it was accessible through the paperclip. A simple here or there would of took just as long as your reply. Am I a marked man? I'm trying to get to the evidence your partner base's his opinion on and you won't even assist someone with a simple question. Hmmmm.
I guess I'm in the dark.

Shawn King

Beneath each photo thumbnail is a paperclip, and you click on that to download the photo. Otherwise, to see it full size, just click on the image. Any questions?

 

[David Biedny]

I just got to thinking last night, that I thought there was an original negative needed? So iMO every bodies research in to any Meier photos are not work a damn. So both David & Michael can argue until their blue in the face, but neither of them have ever used an original negative. So this whole debate was a waste of time!

UFOMAN, while I indeed agree that an original negative would have been a nice thing to scan and analyze, the problems that I found were so big and obvious (for the most part), the original negative would only have made my results more amplified. Horn sent me this image as his representation of evidence, so it's what he's putting out as official stuff, unless you think that it's been manipulated after the fact. If that were true, though, I would expect them to have cleaned up the problems, not leave them in. As I mentioned on the show, if they had just cropped the very top of the picture slightly, that would have removed one of the artifacts, but not the others. So I see your point, but I don't think it would have made a difference in the end.

dB

 

[Kingman]

Thanks Gene,

I found the zip download.

Shawn King

 

[ufoman]

And it looks like Horn has freaked

I made a challenge for ANY image of Meiers to be looked at by Dennis Muren, Horn did not respond to the request. I have no doubt about what Dennis would say - that they were crude fakes.

dB

I hope Michael would agree to that, as long as David didn't give his opinion to Dennis Muran. If you just give it to Dennis & let him do his own research without Davids verbal input.

From my shabby research on the WC SHIP is moving its not still if you look close enough it is hovering & slightly moving. David you better take a closer look because you claimed it was stationary.

 

[ufoman]

I just got to thinking last night, that I thought there was an original negative needed? So iMO every bodies research in to any Meier photos are not work a damn. So both David & Michael can argue until their blue in the face, but neither of them have ever used an original negative. So this whole debate was a waste of time!

UFOMAN, while I indeed agree that an original negative would have been a nice thing to scan and analyze, the problems that I found were so big and obvious (for the most part), the original negative would only have made my results more amplified. Horn sent me this image as his representation of evidence, so it's what he's putting out as official stuff, unless you think that it's been manipulated after the fact. If that were true, though, I would expect them to have cleaned up the problems, not leave them in. As I mentioned on the show, if they had just cropped the very top of the picture slightly, that would have removed one of the artifacts, but not the others. So I see your point, but I don't think it would have made a difference in the end.

dB

From my research into the Meier case. I heard that someone stole Meiers photos in the 70s tampered with them then returned them to Meiers collection. So there are plenty of messed up photos in his collection as well as good ones. Thats why I say original negatives or all this debate is mute!

 

[Kingman]

These images are what makes the whole Meier case a hoax? How could that ever equate in a balanced investigation. The image is one challenge, the case has plenty more opportunities to make your case. This photo can easily have been a mechanical error that happened to Meier without his intentions of it happening. Since that is a plausible answer we would need other, more obvious evidence that corroborates what DB claims. To use a single example is a meager investigation and not really scientific at all. Where's the professionalism DB is claiming. To claim victory with a single image artifact is not going to look good when you hold that up to the mountain of serious research that has been done by a wide field of various professionals over many years.
Of course you can take the early exit and claim your 5cent trophy because you saw something that MIGHT have been done on purpose, and just as well MIGHT NOT have been done on purpose. To lay claim to there being only one possible outcome, your gonna need a bit more to back up your statement. One potential piece of evidence does not make a case, in any study.

If this is all your capable of, you have no final conclusion for people that are dedicated scientists and researchers. This conclusion you reach would get you laughed out of any respectable scientific foundation if you continued to insist this is all anybody should need to claim the whole rest of the case therefore must be all faked. Your out gunned at this point unless you can replicate addition examples that will point more clearly to the intentions of what you claim Billy Meier did to the photos. You need to BUILD a real case to be believable.

This is not a completed study, this is a mere step if you really desire to reach a true honest result that is easily seen by any who read it, that a proper method is followed and various examples back up your hypothesis.

Shawn King

 

[Gene Steinberg]

These images are what makes the whole Meier case a hoax? How could that ever equate in a balanced investigation. The image is one challenge, the case has plenty more opportunities to make your case. This photo can easily have been a mechanical error that happened to Meier without his intentions of it happening. Since that is a plausible answer we would need other, more obvious evidence that corroborates what DB claims. To use a single example is a meager investigation and not really scientific at all. Where's the professionalism DB is claiming. To claim victory with a single image artifact is not going to look good when you hold that up to the mountain of serious research that has been done by a wide field of various professionals over many years.
Of course you can take the early exit and claim your 5cent trophy because you saw something that MIGHT have been done on purpose, and just as well MIGHT NOT have been done on purpose. To lay claim to there being only one possible outcome, your gonna need a bit more to back up your statement. One potential piece of evidence does not make a case, in any study.

If this is all your capable of, you have no final conclusion for people that are dedicated scientists and researchers. This conclusion you reach would get you laughed out of any respectable scientific foundation if you continued to insist this is all anybody should need to claim the whole rest of the case therefore must be all faked. Your out gunned at this point unless you can replicate addition examples that will point more clearly to the intentions of what you claim Billy Meier did to the photos. You need to BUILD a real case to be believable.

This is not a completed study, this is a mere step if you really desire to reach a true honest result that is easily seen by any who read it, that a proper method is followed and various examples back up your hypothesis.

Shawn King

Listen, my friend, David has demonstrated that one photo is a blatant fake. Others in this forum have provided links to reports that demonstrate that others are fake.

While I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that Billy Meier may have had one or more genuine experiences at the core of these claims, all this fakery casts doubt on everything. Unless or until he and his supporters come clean and dispose of this nonsense, the entire affair simply doesn't merit further attention.

I'm sorry but that's the way it is. It is THEIR fault we have these problems to begin with.

 

[David Biedny]

Shawn,

Obviously, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm guessing you're not a big student of deductive reasoning, analytical problem solving, linear logic, programming theory, discrete math and statistics.

<i>This photo can easily have been a mechanical error that happened to Meier without his intentions of it happening. Since that is a plausible answer we would need other, more obvious evidence that corroborates what DB claims. To use a single example is a meager investigation and not really scientific at all. Where's the professionalism DB is claiming. To claim victory with a single image artifact is not going to look good when you hold that up to the mountain of serious research that has been done by a wide field of various professionals over many years.</i>

Uh, no, this could not "easily have been done with a mechanical error that happened to Meier without his intentions of it happening", the nature of the MULTIPLE artifacts determines that it was indeed both intentional and fabricated. This silly multiple exposure theory forwarded by the voices in Horn's head doesn't begin to hold water. Horn has admitted on this forum that he knows nothing of photographic effects, image processing or any related technological process. There is no evidence whatsoever that is corroborated or notarized by any experts or professionals. There is ample evidence online from a wide spectrum of folks who have looked closely and critically at other Meier images, and found them to be faked. I have mentioned more than one image and their corresponding problems. Like it or not, I am a widely respected, published and referenced image processing expert. If you choose to ignore ALL of this, well, then, the Earth is flat, God is a bagel and I am a small black midget.

In the context of this situation, definitive proof of a single fabrication brings down the whole deal. The evidence OVERWHELMINGLY points to a consistent flow of lies and fabrications. It's all right on front of you, in plain sight. Like it or not, that's the way logic works. It's kinda like oxygen - whether you believe in it or not, without it you're toast.

Sorry, buddy, but as Gene said, we didn't create the Meier junk, we're just responding to it. With nothing but logic, image processing skill, and one of their own photos. Deal with it.

dB

 

[Kingman]

Ufoman wrote...

" From my shabby research on the WC SHIP is moving its not still if you look close enough it is hovering & slightly moving. David you better take a closer look because you claimed it was stationary."

The way DB tries to wave his hand over all the other evidence and proclaim it's phoniness without using what he claims he is highly skilled in makes no sense.

DB...

If you are going to say your an expertise, then it won't be much of a challenge to give yourself some more backing evidence so we can either concur with your findings or decide that we just don't know exactly what the truth is. The thought that a pro as your self, is willing to not use your mastered skills to create a stack of evidence to help shore up your thin, controversial single speck of what is potentially ( not assuredly ) evidence that would prove you right, is boggling to a real researchers point of view.

Ask your self that question, but apply it to something different, like the cause of autism. A single piece of evidence that may or may not be the cause of the terrible disease would not be a scientifically accepted conclusion. Don't do this to all here that want to know and aren't as skilled as you are. If your willing to go this far, why would you throw all your work up till now out the door? It can't really be accepted as the final analysis, that would make your future challenges in other areas lose credibility. Anyone who has invested as much as you have in not just your employing profession, but also the paranormal based formula of your broadcast.

The value that you risk losing (at least to me, who is very jealous that you are creating a node on the internet that could become a greatly cherished place of discovery, and a potential life altering interactive zone), is not something that an intelligent being would simply allow to be left to uncertainty. Life deals us only so many moments in a persons short life span, where we are placed where we could have an effect on humanities future and our role in cosmos.

Are you telling me that you are not conscious of what part you are playing in the greater reality of this planets place in the evolution of humans for our universe?

Please don't belittle our existence and follow the path of our ancestors which were able to destroy themselves do to megalomania and a shortness of life for the future reality they were headed to.

Let's get past this last step that always destroys us right before we step on to the galactic stage. Were only human, but we can become greater.

Shawn King

 

[David Biedny]

UFOMAN,

I do agree that it might not be the cutout I guessed it might be - especially after talking about it for the last hour and a half or so with Jeff Ritzmann, who is an absolutely fascinating guy who will be on the Paracast in the very near future. He's the guy that got into the debate with Horn over at ATS, and successfully duplicated some fake images. Wow, the stories he's got... wild.

dB

 

[David Biedny]

Shawn,

In a murder case, when you have a gun with fingerprints, a credit card receipt for the gun purchase, a dead body and a confession, you don't need much of anything else. Even a jury is kinda redundant.

dB

 

[mrufo]

I just want to point out something about Horn and the excuse he conjured about accidental double/triple exposures. Here is some info about the Olympus ECR 35 that he used to take most of his photos. I'm not sure if he used this camera for these photos or not, but if he did here's something about that specific camera. The camera is listed as having a single-stroke, built-in double exposure and double winding prevention.

I also find it interesting that Meier is reported to have experimented with several different cameras to find the one that he could work the best. So, if this is a dirt poor farmer how is it he can afford to experiment with several different cameras and develop all this film?

 

[Kingman]

DB wrote...

"Shawn,

Obviously, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm guessing you're not a big student of deductive reasoning, analytical problem solving, linear logic, programming theory, discrete math and statistics.

In the context of this situation, definitive proof of a single fabrication brings down the whole deal. Like it or not, that's the way logic works. It's kinda like oxygen - whether you believe in it or not, without it you're toast.

Sorry, buddy, but as Gene said, we didn't create the Meier hoax, we're just responding to it. With nothing but image processing skill, and one of their own photos. Deal with it.

dB"

I had to quote this part twice...

"...definitive proof of a single fabrication brings down the whole deal. "

I can't believe you floated me such a softball reply...are you joking here? Where in all of the academia of scientific method did you get this belief. That must be a typo error.

A smidgeon.

A minute quanta of a potential( that's right, your hypothesis has two potential realities and you can't say that it doesn't ).

A speck.

A barely presentable scientific finding( but, in your favor it is a finding of a POTENTIAL piece of evidence for your claim ).

An embarrassingly, virtually almost in the ridiculess column...

most likely in reality...

made for the Sunday comics, camera created incidence.

Don't make me realize that I am wrong about your place you've begun here for the benefit of ALL, and that it's going the route of the weakest link of the human intelligence we present to the higher beings that await or emergence from the slime we all crawled out of.

Have you no honor? Is man once again destined to deliver his fellow man directions to start all over again!?

DB,

I am curious, ( please don't answer if you are a fearing person) do you have children in your family that are starting to grow up into this world of repression and control? Don't you want a better world for their future? Are your learned skills not worthy of giving this planet and all it's growing children a better life than what were doing now?

I can only hope that the compassion of each of our spirits can align someday and see past the failure we cast on one another for no apparent reason other than to say ' I'm right!'.

Shawn King