In article <DkAge.4898$yY4.346@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, maninc_mandy@hotmail.com 
says...

In news:d5sl3i$sa6$1@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <kiwi@ing.notin.aus> typed:

In article <dEdge.1348$WQ3.998@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>,
maninc_mandy@hotmail.com says...

In news:d5rfoq$g45$1@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <kiwi@ing.notin.aus> typed:

In article <GVage.1306265$8l.227665@pd7tw1no>, tgueguen@shaw.ca
says...

"hi ho, hi ho" <hi@ho.wego> wrote in message
news:0ch081lie50n6s12d7i1mps39a2rrcne4l@4ax.com...

On Tue, 10 May 2005 05:19:10 GMT, "tim gueguen" <tgueguen@shaw.ca>
wrote:

"Your Name Here=Harvey" <kiwi@ing.notin.aus> wrote in message
news:d5k96d$aus$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

The concept of 'God' according to the Billy Meier material

Umm, you do realise that Meier is a conman, right?

You do realize that 'God' is a con job invented by men, right?

Which is neither here nor there in regards to Meier being a crook
who took fake UFO photos to help sell his bullshit, and hence not
to be trusted or believed regarding any supposed revelations.

tim gueguen 101867

Billy Meier could not fake the photographs at the time they were
taken. Early 1980s and earlier. He had neither the skill nor the
expertise to do so. Note: he took photos often in series.

If Billy Meier 'faked' the UFO photographs he took, I will say,
OK, it is plausible he did. But what the skeptics claimed he did,
he could not - not technically or physically.
The camera he used was not capable of 'forced perspective'
photography, because it could only be focused at infinity, and the
high shutter speed used does not allow it too.

But you can't buy a 35mm Camera with a fixed focus lens that allows
wide apertures, because fixed focus lenses are usually focused at
about 15ft and rely on the depth of approximate focus (depth of
field) created by a small aperture IOW the aperture control has to
be severely limited because the aperture plays a roll in the focus
of the scene. The other aspect is Fixed Focus 35mm cameras tend to
use a lens of about 35mm to 40mm which is more wide angled than the
usual 50mm standard lenses used on Higher quality SLR Cameras, again
the purpose of this is to maximise "depth of field" or depth of
focus.

Actually cheap cameras of that type are quite good for forced
perspective photography, because they come pre-set with ideal
settings for that type of work, the other thing is, because depth of
field creates a kind of virtual focus rather than absolute focus,
they will ensure any strings (such as nylon fishing gut) used to
suspend models from will not show up in the final image.

Actually IMO a camera of that type would be almost ideal for
creating fake UFO pictures, under fairly bright conditions because
it is preset with all the settings you would need for forced
perspective photography. It's also an ideal piece of equipment to
perform a confidence trick because people would assume that someone
using a low budget snap shot camera doesn't know what they are doing
when in fact the opposite could very well be the case.

You are being 'conned' all the time - and for the truth,
you have to investigate and decide for yourself what is right and
plausible and what isn't.

I do heavily suspect Meier is a fraud. Well put it like this. It's
relatively easy to make models of flying saucers and do a bit of
trick photography to make them look real. However conjuring up
living breathing space alien's to pose for your pictures is a
different matter, and it's the almost total lack of genuine pictures
of his alien friends apart from some blond woman he obviously cut
out of a newspaper and the endless pictures of boring hardware, that
blows the Meier case clean out of the water. I mean I'm sure aliens
don't come millions of miles simply to do aerobatic displays.

--
Amanda

The camera used for the well known colour Meier UFO photographs were
taken with an Olympus 35ECR camera. It got dropped accidently,
consequently the focus ring is permanently stuck at the Infinity
setting.
Wendelle Stevens is a long time investigator of the Meier case - he
gave
a lecture at a UFO conference about his recollection of the Meier
case.
He presents a slideshow history of the Meier photographs, going back
to
his earlier B&W photographs. A lot of the photographs were taken in a
series of photographs. He has travelled to Switzerland and has been
at the actual locations in which the photographs were taken. He says
in most
cases there are sheer drops in which physically, you can't hang a UFO
model out in view, to fake the photographs. The locations don't allow
it. Remember Meier has only one arm.

A tripod, a fishing rod (or boom), and an air cable release operated by the
foot would overcome all those problems. I mean this photo shows Meier used a
tripod, http://www.theyfly.com/media/images/f0221_jpg.jpg there is also some
sort of extra boom in evidence on the bottom right, the tripod has an
unusual attachment on it's head which although partially obscured by the top
of the frame appears to be a boom stand attachment. The photograph clearly
demonstrates he was capable of forced perspective photography, note the UFOs
and the tripod appear to be on the same focusing plane, which suggests the
models are suspended on some kind of cord from a boom attached to the tripod
(which is just outside the frame)

The other puzzling thing is why would a man who can afford such a
professional looking tripod and has obviously put a great deal of thought
into his photographic hobby use a broken Olympus 35 ECR? It simply doesn't
make sense.

This shot http://www.theyfly.com/media/images/f0187_jpg.jpg shows the same
UFOs in a near identical formation, but the picture is taken from a slightly
different angle so we don't see the tripod stand because it's off camera. We
do however notice there is a tree above this scene because there is a branch
showing in the top right.

In this picture http://www.theyfly.com/media/images/f0248_jpg.jpg he uses a
small twig in the foreground which is very out of focus to make it appear
that these can't be models, yet if we look at the ground in the foreground
we see there is clear focus from about 3ft to infinity, which means they
could easily be suspended from a telescopic boom or a fishing rod. This one
is similar http://www.theyfly.com/media/images/f0080_jpg.jpg

These two images are interesting because they show an obviously contrived
attempt to fool the viewer. The biggest give away though is the composition
which is done using principles of the golden section and of course the fact
that under normal circumstances there is no need to crawl about of your
belly in order to place out of focus elements in the foreground. The only
reason you would contrive shots like these is if you were consciously and
intentionally attempting to fool people.

The lecture is recorded on video - you can find it on file sharing
networks. Meier's UFO photographs were the most astounding of all the
UFO photographs taken around that time. Late 1970s to around the
early 80s'. To simply say - 'Oh, they were faked' is inadequate -
considering the background information about them.

Well I can make quite informed judgements about photographic imagery, I mean
apart from working as a professional photographer in the past I have an
degree in Fine Art so I'm used to interpreting imagery. IMO opinion Meiers
photographs are highly contrived and show enough text book trickery to
indicate to me at any rate quite obvious fraud.

There are also a lecture presented by Dietmar Rothe who covers
the spiritual aspects in the Talmud Jmmanuel text.
And one by James Deardorff.

Unlike other UFO contactees - Meier has a considerable body of
evidence behind him. Not only the most amazing photographs of the
time,
but an interesting sound recording on tape, metal samples given to
him, and some cine footage.
The most interesting is the information he has provided via the
Plejarens. The UFO Contact Notes information. Unlike other
information from other
UFO contactees - I believe the information he has provided, is very
interesting indeed.

If you have read only the 'negative' reports and comments about
Meier - then you may have convinced yourself he is a fraud.
Note - that in the Contact Notes, he is informed by the Plejarens,
what other UFO contactees are genuine, and which ones are 'fakes'.

I do believe it is worthwhile checking Meier out - don't simply take
someone's word for it --- check out the details for yourself, to see
which side is more plausible and genuine.

Well I think there are far more convincing cases of UFO phenomenon and Alien
contact than the Meier case.
-- 
Amanda

I may not have had a professional photography background - but I am
acquainted with basic still photography fundamentals, being a keen
amateur photographer from age 14, buying a Nikkormat FTn camera 2 years
later. I would read anything to do with taking photographs, and I was 
always keen to read about special effects photography at that time.
I have worked at a colour film processing laboratory.
Anyway, I state clearly, that the Olympus 35ECR which is a basic point
and shoot compact 35mm camera was dropped accidentally, making the
focus ring stuck at infinity.
While the idea of using a long fishing pole with a model on it, may
sound feasible, when you check out the locations the photographs were
taken at, with sheer drops present - and have a one-armed photographer
(I don't believe that Meier used a tripod for any of his 35mm camera
 photographs), then what you propose, doesn't sound possible.
It would be possible with the help of someone else --- but still, you
would not produce anything similar to the result. The close object (the
UFO model) would still be out of focus, before such close objects are
present, and are out of focus.
The professional way of using 'forced perspective' photography is to
use a special lens (so special you simply can't buy it readily) which
can focus at two distances at once. You know about eyeglasses which
are bi-focal, don't you?
Without a special lens --- you are limited to using a very large f stop
number (ie. smallest aperature) and setting the focus, such that objects
20 feet (say) to infinity would be in focus. Remember the time (ie. date)
this was taken in? No high speed colour films were available, so the
shutter speed would have to be on the slow side - so a travelling UFO
photo, the UFO would not be 'sharp', as only a stationary UFO would
be sharp, with a slow shutter speed.\
Anyway, the lecture given by Wendelle Stevens is rather convincing, with
accompanying slides. I have a video of this on a CDr, if you are
interested in viewing it? I can send you a copy of it?

Again, I say it is the information given in the UFO Contact Notes, that
is rather interesting. Few UFO contactees have provided as much information,
nor of consistant quality as the Plejaren information.
I think you can download a transcript of the Dietmar Rothe lecture, which is 
about spiritual aspects given by the Plejarens. I do have a video of the 
lecture, but it is missing the audio codec.

I don't believe that Meier would have purchased an expensive tripod, it
is probable that the tripod in that photograph, is not his.
You wouldn't find a tripod present in most of his other photographs.

Harvey