| Author | Message | ||
    Cpl Member Post Number: 485 Registered: 08-2004 |
This one is using the exposure control only so we can see into the under exposed dark shadows of the tree and see what's there.  Photoshop Exposure+4.63 & offset 0.0412 only The craft's edge is clearly hidden by the tree material. Try it for yourself and see. Chris Use to the full both your heart and your head; and never lose either. | ||
Michael_horn Member Post Number: 33 Registered: 07-2009 |
Chris, Many thanks for that work on the WCUFO. While I can probably use the images here, if you want to send them to me I would appreciate it. I plan on putting this on my site asap. | ||
Michael_horn Member Post Number: 34 Registered: 07-2009 |
Just posted: http://theyfly.com/New_Photo_Analysis_Shows%20.htm Just fixed the link address. Peace, Badr (Message edited by badr on September 12, 2009) | ||
Getknowledge Member Post Number: 49 Registered: 04-2008 |
Question: Didn't the Plejaren eliminate a certain tree because it touched one of their ships because of the radiation from the ship? If this photo shows a similar situation too, wouldn't they eliminate this one also? Tien | ||
Sanjin Member Post Number: 40 Registered: 06-2009 |
Nice observation! Took me a bit to recognize it, but when I compared the right edge to the left edge, then there is doubt about it. Getknowledge, The radiation came from a different type of ship. The WCUFO was specifically designed for use on our planet, and should not have the same flaw as the other ship. This is the other ship: Image link 36.The human is another person, when, surrounded by the rays of the heavenly creational sunrise, the pure delight of awakening nature streams through him. | ||
Cpl Member Post Number: 488 Registered: 08-2004 |
Hi Tien, Yes, you're right; they did eliminate a certain tree due to radiation. This craft is a newer and different model, however, so no need for that here. Billy actually sat on top of one of the craft as it went up into the trees and he took photos of either this or another Wedding Cake UFO at treetop level while sitting on the outside of the craft. So, not all Beamships produce radiation. Chris Use to the full both your heart and your head; and never lose either. | ||
Cpl Member Post Number: 489 Registered: 08-2004 |
Agreed Stephen, BTW it seems the "leaves" are needles grouped together or twigs. When zooming in and using these tools sometimes you can get a blocking of data i.e. it squares out in image due to pixel resolution. So the shapes in the shadows may be a little off the actual, but what holds is the material definitely covers the edge of the craft. You don't get one part of an image moving over on top of another image when you just up the exposure. Also the left edge of the craft would be visible here if nothing were in front of it because the horizontal lines are clear until they go behind the tree material. Chris Use to the full both your heart and your head; and never lose either. | ||
Cpl Member Post Number: 490 Registered: 08-2004 |
Thanks due to Jim Deardorff for instruction on how to annotate the pic. This may make it a little easier to see.  annotated WCUFO with exposure compensation Jim gave his permission to share our recent emails on this here: Chris, What may be the most amazing thing of all is in how many different photo opportunities Meier was given, there are one or two, maybe three sometimes, points of absolute confirmation of genuineness of one or more photos in the series; while along with these are one or two suspicious elements. But the points of absolute genuineness are only barely discernable or provable. (I should list all these some time.) Meier's ETs are so very good at doing this, not forcing diehard skeptics from believing what they can't tolerate, and giving them ways out (plausible deniability). Their skill at this really amazes me, along with the robustness of their strategy. Jim Jim, ...And I've just been thinking exactly the same thing regarding the Plejaren. They must have known that this WCUFO detail would only come out once the www was up and running -- post 1995, and after they had left. Meaning we'd work it out and see for ourselves from our own efforts, not have them just simply show us. Chris In this case those personal "efforts" are Billy's and the Plejaren for getting the shot to us, Figu's who made the picture available online, Jim's, who I think first brightened the picture on his web page, Stephen's for his work and thus bringing my attention to it, and mine for the final input. Then there's Michael who, as ever gets the word out to the public through this website theyfly.com Thanks to you all for helping me realize this. What next will we be discovering for ourselves within this wealth of material? And whose, or what group of, efforts will bring it forward? My unis are about to start making me very busy as the fall semesters get under way so I'm not going to be online here much during the next 3 months. Just in case you might be wondering what happened to me or if I don't reply to postings. Chris Use to the full both your heart and your head; and never lose either. | ||
Stephen_moore Member Post Number: 150 Registered: 01-2009 |
Hi all I think this goes to show how easy it is for anyone with a home computer and a art/photo application to prove to themselves that Meier's photo's do hold ground. As a person who is guilty myself of thinking Meier's photo's was to good to be true some years ago when I was on my search for info on UFO's etc, Part of what convinced me was the documentaries and investigations by Wendel, Brit and Lee and Meier's own recording of the beamships. Also reading the contact notes and Michael's articles on his website. In those documentaries and investigations there was used top technology for that time, 1970's and 1980's. If they then at that time could prove one way or another that Meier's photo's are genuine or of course if they was fake then with todays technology it must be, is, easier to prove this. I think Chris's results now posted on Michael's site will give Michael's sceptical "friends" something more to chew on, if they are still trying to prove all this as a hoax. Thanks My new Website address - www.ufofacts.co.cc | ||
Elreyjr Member Post Number: 65 Registered: 01-2009 |
greetings Michael, have visited your site for your latest posting re the wedding cake UFO. you are fast. it may be nice you put reference date of the materials and when you posted them for the sake of future visitors. Jun | ||
Thomas Member Post Number: 709 Registered: 03-2004 |
I will be honest everyone, I completely feel and understand that Mr Meier's case is real and I too believe the photos to be authentic. However, even so I still do not see the tree material in front of the craft in the wedding cake photo above the tractor. It seems like people see what they want to no matter what. It just isn't clear to me and there are other reasons that the craft is likely in front of the tree. DON'T SHOOT!!! I am just being honest and I am a supporter of the case... Thomas patricksdadinfrance@yahoo.com | ||
Michael_horn Member Post Number: 35 Registered: 07-2009 |
Thanks, good idea. | ||
Michael_horn Member Post Number: 36 Registered: 07-2009 |
Thomas, I think the main and probably indisputable point here is that we now have clearer images that establish the WCUFO as truly a large object in close proximity to another large known object. With the technology being used here today, it would become crystal clear if this was a small object, close to the camera, such as is the case in Tony Wharton's various attempts to duplicate Meier's photos using small models (at and also linked from my site). | ||
Cpl Member Post Number: 490 Registered: 08-2004 |
Hi Thomas, Perhaps you posted before the annotated photo above, which should make it easier to recognize. Re your "the craft is likely in front of the tree." It depends what part of the craft we are talking about and where we consider front to be from any particular viewpoint. We can also only see part of the tree, so we are talking of parts here. The left side only is touching the tree material which is just over the craft's edge there. Much of the rest of the craft probably is in front of the tree, most of the craft is, after all, in daylight -- but not all of it. Which means we're looking at something rather large here. I'd guesstimate 3-4 meters in diameter? I don't think Billy Meier has 3-4 meter diameter garbage can lids available and it's a bit difficult for a one-armed man to erect something of this size in a tree after loading and securely attaching it on the roof of his car or on the trailer, by himself, with the craft hanging way over the van or trailer edges, prior to creating it surreptitiously so that no one around could see the massive thing. Just transporting a model of that size across the rough Swiss terrain would be a challenge to the power of ten. If he could do that with a 3-4 meter diameter model I guess he'd deserve everyone's admiration. Look at the 4th picture here: http://theyfly.com/New_Photo_Analysis_Shows%20.htm. If you can't see that something is covering the edge of the left near-vertical edge of the craft there compared with the right edge in the first photograph then there's nothing more can be said. It's as plain as day when we expose out the shadows. BTW that's a van with trailer not a tractor in the photo. Take another good look and have a great day. Chris Use to the full both your heart and your head; and never lose either. | ||
Cpl Member Post Number: 490 Registered: 08-2004 |
Thomas, Do these help?  Shadow and obscuration caused by tree material.  Edge of tree obscuration cf craft lines. Chris Use to the full both your heart and your head; and never lose either. | ||
Smukhuti Member Post Number: 20 Registered: 06-2009 |
Thomas, I second your observation. I could not conclude that any part of the tree was in front of the craft. That does not mean that any part of the tree was not in front of the craft. Just that the photo seemed to be inconclusive in this front with the software I have. Zooming with GIMP, I could clearly make out shadow of the tree on the left side of the WCUFO, but any obstruction with leaves is not clearly evident due to the relative low resolution of the image as Chris pointed out (squaring of the pixels). What the photo clearly demonstrate that this was not a model - and that matters. | ||
Thomas Member Post Number: 711 Registered: 03-2004 |
Hi everyone, I know and see clearly that it is a large object and I feel certain it is just the same flying craft that Mr Meier says it is so no argument on that. However the picture enhancements are not clear to me and they appear to my untrained eye like pixelations and not clear evidence that there is a tree branch in front of part of the craft. It really doesn't matter though to me because I already feel certain that Mr Meier is honest and correct in what he recounts. I am just trying to see these photos as someone would if they were completely neutral and open. From that point of view it could go either way in my simple and useless opinion. Please don't respond that I am blind or an idiot for not seeing what you may find clear. To me it isn't. If I as a supporter and person who is aware of the truth of these contacts, if I don't see it, then others might not see it either. That's all I was getting at... Thanks for the responses though and have a great day everyone :-) Thomas patricksdadinfrance@yahoo.com | ||
Smukhuti Member Post Number: 22 Registered: 06-2009 |
I opened the image in GIMP and zoomed to 200%. Then I set Brightness to 115% and contrast to 123%.  If now you see the left hand side of the WCUFO, the greenish tinge of the tree mixes with the corrugated rims of the disks. Here, I initially thought that the tree is obstructing the disks. But what sets out clearly is that the lower end of the greenish tinge runs along the lower curve of the edge of the disk showing that it is probably shadow. I might be wrong - I'm not a professional. | ||
Markcampbell Member Post Number: 244 Registered: 10-2008 |
Well done , Smukhuti .If there was any available light ,in this case on the leaves , it could be amplified by photo developing . | ||
Stephen_moore Member Post Number: 153 Registered: 01-2009 |
Hi Thomas, Im sure no one here thinks your blind or a idiot. My own opinion is that 2 or more people could look at a object in the distance or something which is not quite clear and the 2 people could see 2 different things. The personal perception of one person is/may not be the same as another person. Thank you for being honest with you thoughts on the photo's. Honesty is the best policy ;) Thanks My new Website address - www.ufofacts.co.cc | ||
Mahigitam Member Post Number: 19 Registered: 02-2009 |
hey i told my friend[working in TCS] about billy and she now is so much interested in the case that she is giving a presentation in her multinational company,TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES ....the topic is 2012... and i prepared a small powerpoint work for it..if there is any more things to add to it...ur suggestions are most welcome.... request:if anyone has any nice presentation of billy meiers case or his teachings plz wud u send me to mahigitam@gmail.com billys case right from his birth to present day contacts in an interesting format for presentation to people... | ||
Ramirez Member Post Number: 339 Registered: 06-2008 |
A link with coverage on the Meier case. http://www.jimnicholsufo.com/04-those-mythical-pleiadians/ A general UFO page with very extensive lists of links. http://thealienproject.blogspot.com/ Nazi UFO's, Vril Society, lots of information and images ...... http://www.stevequayle.com/High.Jump/Vril.and.Andromeda.html Cheers. | ||
Smukhuti Member Post Number: 111 Registered: 06-2009 |
Mahigitam, I missed your post about your friend. If it is not late, I have a few suggestions you can pass on to her:
Tell her to think before jumping but not to think forever. My 2 cents. Salome |
