Comments on The Pteranodon Photo
I would like to have seen all the real photos.
--Bigfoot 04:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THE PHOTO WAS MANIPULATED TO DISCREDIT BILLY. A SOUND JUDGMENT WARRANTS A DEEPER SCRUTINY ABOUT BILLY, ESPECIALLY HIS EXPERIENCES, WORKS AND WRITINGS. I DON'T KNOW OF ANYBODY ON EARTH WHO CAN DUPLICATE HIM, OR IS WILLING TO DUPLICATE ALL WHAT HE HAS ACCOMPLISHED.
--jbcatesPHILS 14:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe the damage done by negative forces to Billy in regards to his photographs are much harder to fix and require enormous amounts of time, money and energy, that would be better utilized by a different approach in disseminating BEAM's mission.
In a hostile business environment, it is called predator practices, in which false or creating a bad image of a competitor, keeps the aggressor in power. It takes over 10 times the effort to bring back customers that have been negatively "convinced" by a certain product, in this case the photographs.
Thus, one has to look for different avenues to achieve the same goal of assisting in this most important mission of humanity.
--Hawaiian 19:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I really like the shot it was very up close. If it were me I would have travelled into the future get the best zoom camera come back and take the picture a few miles away. :)
--Mark 02:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
the one that is Meier's, is that a snake compared to the artist's 2 fish?
--Gheezy 21:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Bigfoot that will be possible to view all the photos if our scientists can develop a time machine. Good luck on that one. :)
--Mark 22:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
A large portion of the pictures shown here are most likely real:
They could be the pictures which Quetzel destroyed.
--sanjin 22:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks sanjin, who needs time travel when we have youtube. Take that advanced races :)
--Mark 03:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Ha. Another lame excuse.
Meier's picture is probably a 2nd or 3rd generation photo of that artwork. Blurred, and overexposed. That's how it's changed.
Meier's backtracking is ludicrous.
--CriticalThinker 13:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)