This is the response I got because I said B. Meier is a fraud...

[Creepy Green Light]

Some people on another site were talking about Meier. Of course, I mentioned what I knew to be true. This is one of the responses I received;

What if people do their own research, and don't just rely on your ignorant propaganda? Are you going to feel embarrassed when they find out the truth? Do you ever feel shame in all the lies you spread? Or are you so confused and misguided that you don't understand the fault in being so dishonest? I refuse to believe you (or anyone) could be this ignorant. So I know you're paid to do what you do.

;-)

Keep trying kid. Your flailing is hilarious.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

We've been saying Billy Meier is a fraud for almost as long as this show has been on. We did give his American representative a chance, but he just lied whenever we brought up something that demonstrated the case was bogus.

 

[Randall]

We've been saying Billy Meier is a fraud for almost as long as this show has been on. We did give his American representative a chance, but he just lied whenever we brought up something that demonstrated the case was bogus.

I was never convinced that Meier was authentic, but I remained open minded about it until a number of debunking efforts were published on the Internet. Eventually the evidence mounted against the case until IMO the scales were firmly tipped against it. I still keep a couple of books in my collection. They also make interesting collectibles from a historical/cultural perspective, and are handy sometimes for reference sake. So I wouldn't discourage people from picking up a used copy of Light Years at a second hand shop, but it's hard to recommend buying anything new because of the reputation the case now has.

 

[Jack Nathaniel]

Here is an interesting article exposing Meier's and Michael Horn's deception:

Billy Meier UFO Research Group Keeps the Fraud Under Wraps
Billy Meier UFO Research Group Keeps the Fraud Under Wraps

 

[DROBNJAK]

How he can possibly not be a fraud?

In the early documentaries, he lived in a very unassuming and modest wooden house, almost a large hut.

Than few years latter he was an owner of a large hotel with many guest rooms and accommodation for a whole of his family.

Just work out price difference between a wooden hut and hotel with 10 guest rooms. That's the size of the fraud.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

How he can possibly not be a fraud?

In the early documentaries, he lived in a very unassuming and modest wooden house, almost a large hut.

Than few years latter he was an owner of a large hotel with many guest rooms and accommodation for a whole of his family.

Just work out price difference between a wooden hut and hotel with 10 guest rooms. That's the size of the fraud.

Yet clowns like Wendelle Stevens (and others) believed all of his ridiculous stories, photos & videos.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Wendelle Stevens actually cooked it all up. He started as an honest researcher, but later tried to recoup his research costs, which must had been substantial, by pimping up Meier's story. I think that he admitted to an other ufologist, maybe Ray Stamford, that "one doesn't make any money from concluding that there was no UFO". Something like that.

Its very unfortunate situation that proper factual research requires tons of money, but ufologist only gets paid if results of his research are good entertainment for general public. One has to chose between being a serious researcher or being a clown. Needles to say, clowns do better, because public is just after excitement.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Wendelle Stevens actually cooked it all up. He started as an honest researcher, but later tried to recoup his research costs, which must had been substantial, by pimping up Meier's story. I think that he admitted to an other ufologist, maybe Ray Stamford, that "one doesn't make any money from concluding that there was no UFO". Something like that.

Its very unfortunate situation that proper factual research requires tons of money, but ufologist only gets paid if results of his research are good entertainment for general public. One has to chose between being a serious researcher or being a clown. Needles to say, clowns do better, because public is just after excitement.

Agreed. And I sure fell for it (Meier). I remember seeing my favorite doc on the subject (UFO's Are Real - 1979) and they do a few different segments on Stevens. One set of interviews entails all the sightings up in Alaska while he was attached to a B-29 squadron. Then the other segment is all about Meier. I was probably around 11 or 12 when I first saw this doc. And to see super sharp, detailed pictures like Meier had was unbelievable. One part of my brain was saying "If these were valid - wouldn't these be on every news channel the world over and in Time Magazine, etc.? But either way - I fell for it. Until I got older & realized the flaws in his video's. I knew something wasn't quite right. But I give myself the excuse that I was just a little kid back when I fell for it. Now for the people that are adults and fall for it.......that's a different story.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Meyer used a number of tricks.

One was that he used a small tree from his garden. When a small tree was put some distance from camera it looked exactly as a large tree. Than he would suspend ufo model on a pole and very carefully wave it between the camera and the small tree. Of course, whole thing looked like a big ufo swinging around a large tree. He made a camera just slightly out of focus so one can't see the line on which ufo was hanging.

All consumer cameras have very short depth of field when object is very close to the lens. That's easy recognized because either front or back of the photographed object gets blurry. But if a large object is far away from the lens, like a car or a bus, depth of field increases and both front and the back of the object look sharp. With Meyer's ufo night photos its easy to see that they are all just small models, because only a small part of object is sharp. Of course, Meyer, claimed that he didn't take those pictures but some spy agency inserted them into his photo album.

As well, his main claim is that he sent his film to analysis by Sony. But what he did, when Sony engineers came to his home, he had allowed them only to take a movie of the projection on the silver screen. Because movie that Sony took was a copy of a copy, not an original, basically all the suspension lines Meyer used become so blurry that Sony's later analysis can't pick them up. He never gave them original.

One big signature of hoax with model is that hoaxer is avoiding any overlap between ufo model and distant objects. If overlap happens than it immediately becomes obvious that model is closer that background and hoax fails. You can see that in some of Mayer's videos, he swayed model on a stirng, but never let it overlap with some distant trees that were framing the picture.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Meyer used a number of tricks.

One was that he used a small tree from his garden. When a small tree was put some distance from camera it looked exactly as a large tree. Than he would suspend ufo model on a pole and very carefully wave it between the camera and the small tree. Of course, whole thing looked like a big ufo swinging around a large tree. He made a camera just slightly out of focus so one can't see the line on which ufo was hanging.

All consumer cameras have very short depth of field when object is very close to the lens. That's easy recognized because either front or back of the photographed object gets blurry. But if a large object is far away from the lens, like a car or a bus, depth of field increases and both front and the back of the object look sharp. With Meyer's ufo night photos its easy to see that they are all just small models, because only a small part of object is sharp. Of course, Meyer, claimed that he didn't take those pictures but some spy agency inserted them into his photo album.

As well, his main claim is that he sent his film to analysis by Sony. But what he did, when Sony engineers came to his home, he had allowed them only to take a movie of the projection on the silver screen. Because movie that Sony took was a copy of a copy, not an original, basically all the suspension lines Meyer used become so blurry that Sony's later analysis can't pick them up. He never gave them original.

One big signature of hoax with model is that hoaxer is avoiding any overlap between ufo model and distant objects. If overlap happens than it immediately becomes obvious that model is closer that background and hoax fails. You can see that in some of Mayer's videos, he swayed model on a stirng, but never let it overlap with some distant trees that were framing the picture.

There's a great deal of vids on YT where people recreate/debunk his video's. Pretty interesting to watch. But I'll never forget when they said "These photo's are legit. We ran them thru the computer and the computer agreess that the object is about 30 feet in diameter and a great distance from the camera....blah blah blah."