• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Michael Horn & The Billy Meier Contacts

Forums New posts

Do you believe the Billy Meier Contacts and Evidence Are Real?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Not Sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I don't give a damn!

    Votes: 1 100.0%
  • Total voters
    1

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmmm...

So that's weird - I tried looking at this thread on Safari on the Mac, no images on my machine either, then I logged in, and all of a sudden the images showed up. I'll look at this with Gene and try to figure out what's happening. Conspiracy, indeed! LOL! We'll have the problem resolved by this afternoon, no worries.

dB
 
no images or links in safari. links but no images in firefox. all mac
 
my guess is that it is the star visitors messing with the forum. mr. horn may agree.
 
David Biedny said:
Folks,

Until we fix the problem, you can download the images (in a zip archive) here:

Hightail

The files are JPEGs.

dB
Click to expand...

Just to let everyone know, I do see thumbnails to the pictures when I view them in Apple Safari. If you clink the picture they will expand to a larger size. I hope that helps. If not, refresh your browser. If you are not using Apple Safari and can't see the pictures, let me know what browser you are using so I can test to make sure we can find a solution that works for most of you (aside from downloading the actual pictures of course).
 
David Biedny said:
I'm guessing that you see them because you are logged in as an admin. Log out, and you'll see the problem.
Click to expand...
It was a matter of granting "Guests" permission to view attachments. I have done that, so it should work for everyone now. If you click the picture, it'll explode to a larger, more viewable size, and you can also download a copy for yourself.
 
Contrary to the prognostications of DB, I intend to provide my own layman's answers to his analyses.

I request that he post the other picture that I sent him (there are two in this series) that I requested before, as I will be referring to it as well.

I should be able to get this done by late afternoon or early evening, after I complete other work.

I do have one, and only one, question that I would like a simple "yes" or "no" answer to by DB, he could post it when he notifies us that the other photo has also been posted:

?WILL YOU STAKE YOUR ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION on the claim that Meier DELIBERATELY FAKED the photo by photographing a ?light fixture shot against a cloth backdrop and a metal wall? and then superimposing that image over a photograph of the outside environment to create the double exposure??
 
Are you daft?

Mr. Horn,

As I've indicated, our debate is over and done. I will not respond to your demands, or your need for attention.

I will let our listeners decide for themselves, my proof is up, my work is done here. Spin it any way you want. I don't give a rat's ass about your "layman" interpretation, your "research", or anything else out of your lips. And, may I add, that includes your singing. Oy.

dB
 
It's more than a little suspect that you would pass up the opportunity to allow OTHERS to see what a bad showing I'll make for myself. You see, the debate is not over, despite your attempt to bully your way out of it. I am indeed fully entitled to respond to your analysis and I will now point out, since you force me to, that I sent you another image, taken in the same location, and that, for some strange and unknown reason, you declined to claim was a double exposure, deliberate or otherwise.

That image is necessary for the other people here to see since I will be referring to it in my own analysis.

Now, if you think that absolutely infantile and derogatory ad hominum attacks - which have come SOLELY FROM YOU IN OUR ENTIRE EXCHANGE HERE - are going to intimidate me, you're quite mistaken.

I will take your refusal to answer the simple "yes" or "no" question as a "no", i.e. you will NOT put your reputation on the line with this analysis of yours. By definition, as I pointed out in my own presient first rebuttal article, you admit that you have failed to prove that Meier deliberately hoaxed the photo.

Please understand, I suffer the immaturity and nonsense of this forum, and your own petulant, overly-emotional behavior, because this is all going to reach a far wider audience, for which you can thank me, or blame yourself, later. It will be up to a very vast readership to determine for themselves if the "Photoshop Prophet of Earth" has indeed not only made his case and substantiated his unwavering claims of deliberate hoax, but also if he, and the kinds of people he attracts to his side, are fair, decent, credible - or sommething entirely different.

Again, you have effectively said that you will NOT stake your professional reputation on your analysis. Now, please post the other photo...unless you want your refusal to do so to represent further capitualtion on your part.
 
Just an FYI. On my end the photo problem is fixed. For some reason, I still had trouble getting the pics to come up, but when I cleared my browser's cache, everything worked just fine.
 
Michael812 said:
It's more than a little suspect that you would pass up the opportunity to allow OTHERS to see what a bad showing I'll make for myself. You see, the debate is not over, despite your attempt to bully your way out of it. I am indeed fully entitled to respond to your analysis and I will now point out, since you force me to, that I sent you another image, taken in the same location, and that, for some strange and unknown reason, you declined to claim was a double exposure, deliberate or otherwise.

That image is necessary for the other people here to see since I will be referring to it in my own analysis.

Now, if you think that absolutely infantile and derogatory ad hominum attacks - which have come SOLELY FROM YOU IN OUR ENTIRE EXCHANGE HERE - are going to intimidate me, you're quite mistaken.

I will take your refusal to answer the simple "yes" or "no" question as a "no", i.e. you will NOT put your reputation on the line with this analysis of yours. By definition, as I pointed out in my own presient first rebuttal article, you admit that you have failed to prove that Meier deliberately hoaxed the photo.

Please understand, I suffer the immaturity and nonsense of this forum, and your own petulant, overly-emotional behavior, because this is all going to reach a far wider audience, for which you can thank me, or blame yourself, later. It will be up to a very vast readership to determine for themselves if the "Photoshop Prophet of Earth" has indeed not only made his case and substantiated his unwavering claims of deliberate hoax, but also if he, and the kinds of people he attracts to his side, are fair, decent, credible - or sommething entirely different.

Again, you have effectively said that you will NOT stake your professional reputation on your analysis. Now, please post the other photo...unless you want your refusal to do so to represent further capitualtion on your part.
Click to expand...
David has posted a comprehensive analysis of one photo, along with images that show the reasons for his conclusions. It is up to you, now, to demonstrate whether or not he is wrong. Changing the subject, and pointing to other photos is just a way to avoid the subject.

You have the evidence at hand. Go ahead and try to disprove it, if you can.
 
michael said:
Just an FYI. On my end the photo problem is fixed. For some reason, I still had trouble getting the pics to come up, but when I cleared my browser's cache, everything worked just fine.
Click to expand...
Isn't being at the cutting edge fun? :)
:(??
 
I'm sure that if we were "making our case" in front of a jury and some evidence, which has long been in DB's possession, was deemed to be relevant to the presentation of the "defense", no FAIR-MINDED judge would DELIBERATELY want to exclude it from the jury, would they?

All of those here, most of whom are surely cheering for DB to have PROVED what a deliberate hoax this photo is, are entitled to the best that BOTH parties can do to make their cases. Now why on earth would an, er, worldwide "expert" in Photoshop REFUSE to post evidence in his possession that he certainly must think would further help him claim victory?

Does it have anything to do with the naked fact that he has already declined to actually tie his reputation to his brilliant analysis, or that the other photo casts some shadows of its own on his theories...or is it simply because he doesn't like my singing?

The references to that photo WILL be in my rebutall, so I do suggest that he make it available for the forum members.
 
Lance,

Sure, here you go...

Note that all this has been done with downsampled JPEGs, which are a lossy format file. I would love to have original film, or a high res scan, but those don't seem to be available. Go figga.

dB
 
And just for clarity's sake, please also do so with the other photo, the one that I just sent to you via email.

Also, is it not true that nowhere in DB's analyses did he deny the possibility of an in-camera, accidental double/triple exposure? Let's make that another direct question. DB, do you absolutely deny the possibility that the photo in question could be an accidental, in-camera, double/triple exposure (as has already been suggested by an expert at ICON in L.A.)?

?I can't say with certainty that the double exposure was a deliberate fake. There are ways that could happen. For instance, the film only has to move one sprocket hole to stagger the image. It (in-camera double exposure) certainly could happen accidentally, it happens all the time. Those cameras have a button that allows it. If he was shooting fast, he wouldn't know there was a slight overlap. It's not something (deliberate out-of-camera double exposures) that amateurs do.?

Again, we're dealing with a simple "yes" "no" question, the kind that you already answered "no" to by default regarding putting your reputation on the line tied to your claims of a deliberate, out-of-camera hoax.
 
Michael812 said:
Also, is it not true that nowhere in DB's analyses did he deny the possibility of an in-camera, accidental double/triple exposure? Let's make that another direct question. DB, do you absolutely deny the possibility that the photo in question could be an accidental, in-camera, double/triple exposure (as has already been suggested by an expert at ICON in L.A.)?

?I can't say with certainty that the double exposure was a deliberate fake. There are ways that could happen. For instance, the film only has to move one sprocket hole to stagger the image. It (in-camera double exposure) certainly could happen accidentally, it happens all the time. Those cameras have a button that allows it. If he was shooting fast, he wouldn't know there was a slight overlap. It's not something (deliberate out-of-camera double exposures) that amateurs do.?

Again, we're dealing with a simple "yes" "no" question, the kind that you already answered "no" to by default regarding putting your reputation on the line tied to your claims of a deliberate, out-of-camera hoax.
Click to expand...

I'll indulge you this one question:

NO.

A double-exposure, in camera, would NOT address ANY of the issues I've brought up.

Not the matte lines, nor the light leaks, not the drape artifacts, and ESPECIALLY not the shadow/light reflection issues on the cars. Are we clear on these points? Will you address these issues, or not? It's a YES or NO kinda thing.

Feel free to post whatever "analysis" you want, it's not going to change my findings one bit.

Spin away. Have fun.

dB
 
Well, this has certainly been one heck of a debate, and as I wrote before in these forums, I'm pretty sure it'll go on for some time.

I guess for me the problem I have is this: I'm really not an expert on anything of significance. I can intelligently string together a sentence or two and eat like there's no tomorrow and that's really about it. So when it comes to things paranormal in nature, getting at the truth is difficult because of all the conflicting "expert" testimony.

And I don't mean at all to belittle anyone's expertise, but with one side's experts saying one thing and the other side's experts refuting it, it's hard for someone like me to know who to believe especially when they're talking in terms that I don't understand. I appreciate David's analysis of the photos and audio, but for the most part, when he (or anyone) starts talking about the green channel vs the blue channel and wave modulation, he might as well be speaking Spanish because I just don't understand the technology.

So I'm thinking that it all comes down to what do you or I WANT to believe. Without re-hashing the Meier argument I'll use the Patterson/Gimlin Bigfoot film as an example. There are experts who will testify that the footage is definitely hoaxed and I attended a Bigfoot Expo recently at Salt Fork Park in Ohio where another film expert claimed the film was indeed genuine.

Who to believe?

Is anyone else out there experiencing this conundrum or am I expecting too much?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top