In news:d60la7$vob$1@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <kiwi@ing.notin.aus> typed:

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).

Well wide angle lenses (even 40mm) tend to exagerate perspective a little so
things near the camera can appear larger than they really are. So I don't
think trickery is impossible.

That said one notable aspect of most of Meiers pictures is the flying saucer
appears on the viewing plane of the camera even when it is obvious the
saucer is above the camera and the camera is pointing up. That means in many
of the images the saucer was on exactly the same tragectory as the camera.
IOW it is'nt flying level with the ground but is tilting down toward the
photographer.

Of course in order to achieve that using a model on a cord you would need
you would need to weight down one edge of the saucer in order to get it to
tilt toward the Camera. Of couse photographing it in that way would also
tend to hide any exagerated perspective so you would have to do that it you
were using a model in an attempt to hide this.

However although not impossible IMO, it does add another difficulty to the
whole process of faking up such images, and it does make it seem less likely
the images are fake.

If the images are genuine it also shows the saucers are under intelligent
control because the pilot has specifically positioned the craft on a tilt
toward the photographer IOW the craft is posed for the camera, or tilted in
order to watch Meier and is therfore interacting with him.

That doesn't convince me they are genuine, but it's interesting all the
same.

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...

Well I think you have to be hugely sceptical of any individual who claims to
be in exclusive contact with people from UFOs. Because of the fantastic
nature of such a story and human nature being what it is. If you make a
purely rational unbiased judgement, you are going to come to the conclusion
that the likelihood of fraud is far greater than the likelihood that it's
true.

This is the main problem with all individual contactee stories.

The only thing we have to go on in Meier's case is Meier's character and how
likely he is to be telling the truth, because although some evidence exists,
none of it is entirely beyond question. But it is difficult to judge Meier's
character because the more genuine he seems the more likely he is a
successful con-man. It's not called "confidence" trickery for nothing, and
given the fantastic nature of the story you cannot be anything other than
sceptical.

The other thing is if he is genuine, it begs the question why his so called
alien friends have placed this poor guy in a position where no rational even
minded human being can trust his word. It seems cruel to treat another being
like that, and rather seeming like friendly aliens it would appear we are
dealing with demonic entities hell bent on tormenting poor hapless innocent
individuals such as Billy Meier appears and claims to be, that is an evil
crime against all humanity and not just Billy Meier.

I mean if Aliens really are coming down and messing about with the minds and
in the lives of innocent children (Meier was just 5 when it is claimed he
had his first contact) we are not dealing with good entities, but rather
with evil beings, we need protection against such entities, because they are
not playing ball. If they are genuine and of good intent they should reveal
themselves to all and vindicate Billy Meier now.

Otherwise IMO we should be arming ourselves against them, because it is
clear they are not playing ball with us, and until they make their existance
and our true place in this Universe evident, we have every right to believe
we are the centre of the Universe and it is ours to do with as we please :)

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.

There is flexi-glass which is made of clear plastic and available in large
sheets from DIY stores. I think that was available in the 70s. You can of
course cut that with a fret saw so you could even embed a model UFO into the
"glass" it's also quite light so it wouldn't be that difficult to carry a
fairly large sheet even on a moped.

Flexy glass would of course eradicate the chance of cords showing up in the
images, and you could also tilt the model to the same trajectory as the
camera without difficulty. You would also have something relatively
stationary so movement would not be a problem with slower shutter speeds.
You could rig a sheet of flexi-glass up to fit a clamp on a tripod and
thereby tilt it around as one pleased.

I don't know if that's the method Meier used but IMO you could certainly
produce some extremely convincing UFO images capable of baffling some so
called experts with such a method.

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?).

Well being sceptical of Billy Meier doesn't necessarily mean one would have
the skill or knowledge to reproduce his photographs.

However if evidence is required  Hollywood was producing mind blowing
special effects in film and photography using models and sheets of glass
years before Meier was taking his photographs. For example "The Day The
Earth Stood Still" (1951) there are some amazing scenes from that movie here
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare7/daytheearthstoodstill.htm
Jason and the Argonauts (1963) was another amazing film, and all done
without the aid of computer graphics. Trick photography is almost as old as
photography itself.

Whilst Billy Meier is an amateur compared to some of the Hollywood greats,
there is nonetheless no reason that an amateur with quite basic equipment
could not produce highly convincing UFO photographs. It requires a certain
degree of skill and artistry, not to mention knowledge of certain "trade
secrets", but it's not really secret, there are books available and photo
magazines often contain a wealth of information on trick photography
techniques, (I remember first reading an article about sticking models to
glass, in an article first published in the 1920s) some people are
particularly gifted in relation to creating visual illusions capable of
fooling the eye of the viewer. I have little doubt Meier's photographs could
be faked up using appropriate models.

However IMO there is no need of additional proof because there is wealth of
evidence already in existence in the form of miles and miles of science
fiction film produced by Hollywood and others.

I don't blame anyone for wanting to believe in the Meier case. But there is
no doubt in my mind the World is full of con-men, tricksters, charlatans and
criminals, and without absolute unquestionable independent witness testimony
or actual corroboration by the Aliens themselves such as landing on the Lawn
of the White House in full view of the World media, one must take these
tales of individual contact with a generous pinch of salt :)

-- 
Amanda