In article <T_Kge.1788$8K5.1023@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, 
maninc_mandy@hotmail.com says...

In news:d5vd5b$9d5$1@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <kiwi@ing.notin.aus> typed:

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.

Never the less there is a substantial amount of "depth of field" in many of
these photographs which suggests a small aperture, because there is clear
focus within 3 to 6ft

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.

I don't agree there, there is substantial evidence of tripod use and air
operated cable releases can be anything up to around 15 ft long and can be
operated using a foot. The Olympus 35 ECR also came with a delayed action
system, there is no reason why having a disability i.e one arm would have
been an insurmountable problem in regard to trick photography.

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.

Split focus lenses such as that were widely available to amateur
photographers in the 1970s, they were basically filters that were screwed
over the lens using the filter mount. But I don't think he used one of
those. The depth of field in his photographs look more consistent with the
use of a small aperture and under darker conditions the use of a tripod.

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?

This is another reason why I suspect trickery. The photos appear to be taken
on 1970s Kodak Ectachrome slide film stock which came at about 100ASA.
Although 100 ASA is quite suitable for work in bright sunlight, you would
require longer shutter speeds in lower light, the depth of field evident in
all Meier's photos suggest the use of a small aperture, so obviously a
tripod and longer shutter speed would have been necessary. Provided there
wasn't a wind a model on a Nylon cord would stay sufficiently stationary to
provide a sharp image, a real UFO if it were buffeting about a bit or
rotating would not show a sharp image. Of course there is the other
possibility the models are attached to a pane of glass using BlueTack which
first came out in the late 60s early 1970s and was very useful for sticking
things to one's window to make things appear to fly :)

If it is so easy to recreate the Meier UFO photographs to the same standard
as Meier, which would be proof enough to show that Meier photographs were
faked, by faking similar high quality photographs with the same or similiar
camera - then no doubt the case is proven. How long ago were these photographs
taken? Have you heard of anyone successfully recreating/faking these
photographs? The reason is obvious (also if you have taken everything that
I recounted, into account, you will agree that technically what I have said is 
true.
Using the method you describe, the results would be:
The fishing pole would be so obvious in the photograph (the camera's lens
shows a wide view). You would need a massively long pole to place the
model exactly where you would want it to appear, otherwise you'll be using
a smaller model very close to the camera (which would place it out of
focus even more).
I don't think there has been any reports of Meier travelling around with a
tripod, given his mode of transport was a moped (powered bicycle). It would
be so obvious he would have a tripod with him.
Some of his photographs were in low light (towards evening) - again, I say I
don't think a small aperature was used, as I note too, the out of focus
foreground objects in various photographs. A slow shutter speed would mean 
that he couldn't photograph moving objects, and being one armed, it is
essential that a reasonably high shutter speed is required for his photographs 
to remain sharp, with two hands he would be able to brace himself better for a 
more steadier, sharper photograph. Again I say, I don't think Meier used a
tripod as a matter of routine because this would be duly noted by 
investigators. And this is out of place with such a camera as the 35ECR for
normal picture taking.
There's been no news of anyone successfully recreating Meier's photographs.
I'm sure if such a person did, he would receive a great deal of publicity, and
interest in Meier would decline so sharply that no one would wish to visit his
home or read the Plejaren material, etc.
I don't think the recreation can be done successfully or convincely.
If you think I'm totally wrong about all this, then do your own trial
experiments - I would be keen to see anything you produce...
The glass pane idea is not practical. You can't get access to a pane of
glass big enough, then have a model stuck to it, and have a landscape in
view.

You can get reasonable results using the technology of today.
Namely using photoshop to combine two separate images seamlessly together.

There was an organised skeptics group in LA? that was asked by Michael
Horn if they can recreate the Meier UFO photographs? There was no response
for a long time, other than it can be done.
I think some photographs were produced - but they did not say how they
were done? You can find out this on the web somewhere --- sorry I don't
have the URL etc. (I'm having serious problems with browser access, due
to spyware or some virus?).

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.

Well as far as I can see Meier hasn't come up with any prediction that
anyone with a brain couldn't have come up with. Average IQ comes out at
about 100, but anyone with an IQ above about 120 can come up with and do
things that may seem miraculous to the average person in the street. I have
no doubt Meier is an intelligent guy, but I don't see anything supernatural
or alien about him, He seems quite average for a borderline genius. Problem
is we make assumptions about people in regard to their background, but
unusual intelligence often has nothing to do with social status or the
background a person is born into.

I don't know that much about the everyday life of Billy Meier, as it
would be interesting to know what kind of access he has to what kind of
media. Whether he does watch television? Reads newspapers, books, etc?
Knowing what kind of life style he lives, would be insightful to the man
himself.
It has been reported that he doesn't like to handle 'money' at all. That he 
would let his wife handle all that kind of stuff, or let others do it
for him. That he's a man of few possessions.
It will be interesting to know, if that is still the case.
(I don't expect that any substantial money has been earned by him in
 coming forward with his UFO information. If anything, it would have 
 negatively affected his life - that it is a task he has to fulfill because
 he has agreed to do so.)

Not everyone is interested in materialism and the things that can be
bought with money.
Benny Hill has nothing in common with Billy Meier, I would expect.
Benny Hill got paid enormous amounts of money for his shows appearing on
American television, which they were not planned for. He was actually quite
a simple man and lived a very humble life. He lived the way he was brought up,
not having much money in his life - he didn't spend that much of the money he 
received - saying you can only wear one change of clothes, eat the one meal
at a time, etc. Having the finest of this or that, did not matter to him,
he was not interested in that kind of thing.

Harvey

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.

I have seen other photos of Meier using a tripod.
-- 
Amanda