Topic: SPHERE REFLECTIONS: Can they help determine the size of a UFO?

Tagged: forced, meier, perspective, reflection, sphere, ufo, WCUFO, Zahi

This topic has 48 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 7 months ago by Taro.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 49 total)

← 1 2 3 4 →

Author

Posts
May 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM #8252
Ed V.
Guest
Now compare it to this picture and feel free to use Zahi’s calculation.
http://billymeierufocase.com/Phil_Langdon_Optical_Sequence/content/_6778978330_large.html
May 29, 2017 at 8:38 AM #8253
mahigitam
Keymaster
Zahi, I will assure you that no one will be entertained on this forum, who uses abusive language. Everyone please stick to the topic and discuss in an objective manner. Any comment that that goes against the forum rules with be either edited or deleted entirely.
- This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by mahigitam.
- This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by mahigitam.
May 29, 2017 at 8:53 PM #8258
Taro
Participant
Ed V., what good are any of Langdon’s photos without VERIFIABLE REFERENCE POINTS on either side of his model? Are you sure you’ve understood Zahi’s WCUFO analysis?

http://rhalzahi.com/docs/WCUFO-EN-v2.pdf
May 29, 2017 at 9:06 PM #8259
mahigitam
Keymaster
Several weeks ago I forwarded this Langdon chart to Rhal Zahi, to no avail.

Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.
May 30, 2017 at 4:50 AM #8261
Taro
Participant
Where’s the camera position? What is the location of this site? Meier’s courtyard measurements are verifiable by Google Maps and numerous photos from different camera positions and angles. Also, this analysis would take a time commitment. The scene, not to mention the UFO would need to be modeled, or at least some crude version of it. I might eventually get to it if I have enough verifiable information. But I, myself have no need to see the results. I know what they will be. So, what would be my or Zahi’s motivation? Would you even accept our results? Would you then state that the Harcostar theory is officially debunked? If the true skeptic believes recreating Langdon’s photo would debunk Zahi’s analysis, wouldn’t it make more sense for the skeptic to do it?
May 30, 2017 at 9:33 AM #8262
Ed V.
Guest
Yes, I read Zahi’s analysis. It simply assumes the WCUFO is 3 meters wide and not a model because Zahi is a fanatical Meier supporter who can’t have his believe shattered. His analysis is heavily influenced by confirmation bias. Just look at this page which identifies 4 parts of the WCUFO, all these parts lead to the conclusion you’re dealing with a model!
http://ufoprophet.blogspot.nl/2017/04/evidence-of-fraud-discovered-again.html#axzz4iLmsXlM2
May 30, 2017 at 11:19 AM #8263
Taro
Participant
Yes, I’m familiar with the hoax theory. However, it is unscientific. Zahi’s conclusions are not assumed, they are determined by experiment. You do not understand the analysis as well as you think you do.
May 30, 2017 at 8:50 PM #8264
Ed V.
Guest
So showing the exact same identifiable objects is suddenly ‘unscientific?’ No, it isn’t. Who are you trying to fool?
http://www.alienhub.com/threads/billy-meier-thread.48958/page-104
May 30, 2017 at 10:45 PM #8265
Taro
Participant
NAME THE SCIENCE. You are trying to distract from a REAL scientific discussion, here.

So showing the exact same identifiable objects is suddenly ‘unscientific?’ No, it isn’t. Who are you trying to fool?
- This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by Taro.
June 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM #8292
Magic
Guest
The large 30 cm sphere in the picture covers the fixed background, Meiers house, predominantly more like a 3 cm Christmas globe on Meiers trash model would. Now put 12 of those large 30 cm spheres together in a semi circle, line it up with Meiers house using a 55mm lens and tell me if they cover the house exactly as in Meiers original photo. DEBUNKED!
Case closed.
June 6, 2017 at 9:19 AM #8293
Taro
Participant
“Magic”, you are confused. The main purpose of the photos taken by Christian Frehner of the reflective test sphere was to help determine Meier’s location in the courtyard. You need to read the analysis. I was using it to show how distance affects the reflection of the carriage house. You are assuming Frehner used a 55mm focal length while in reality it was never specified. The tests reveal that the UFO was at least 2m from the carriage house wall while a trash lid model would need to be closer to 1m. This result is verified in Blender.

http://www.billymeieruforesearch.com/forum/topic/sphere-reflections-can-they-help-determine-the-size-of-a-ufo/#post-8246
June 8, 2017 at 7:01 PM #8312
Magic
Guest
The is based upon assumption only. Put 12 one foot spheres in a semi circle and take a picture from the distance fake PhD Zahi calculated. Otherwise you have nothing.
Visual proof is what counts.
June 9, 2017 at 2:10 AM #8313
Taro
Participant
FALSE. Finding a result by experiment is NOT assumption.
June 17, 2017 at 12:19 AM #8402
Magic
Guest
Not an Experiment. It is called a valid Investigation/Research exploiting data which has been conveniently avoided. If you are truly an unbiased straightforward researcher you would not be opposed to control pictures taken at Meier’s property. As you know I, as have others, have offered to take those pictures with witness attendance as well as a notary public present.
Such denial is clearly an indication of a cover up.
If Mr. Meier and FIGU has nothing to hide then they should allow independent research of the case.
June 17, 2017 at 10:34 AM #8403
Taro
Participant
YOU TWIST FACTS. I have never been opposed to control pictures. Denying hacks access onto his property proves nothing. You speculate too much.
Author

Posts