In news:d60ud3$o60$1@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <kiwi@ing.notin.aus> typed:

Here are some website references, I was referring to
(My Windows XP browser access is a mess at the moment, not working
 properly, have to boot into Windows 98 to look this up again)

www.theyfly.com/PDF/PhotoAnalysis2.pdf
www.theyfly.com/PDF/ProfessionalSkeptics.pdf


http://www.gaiaguys.net/skeptics3.04.htm


http://www.iigwest.com/ufopix.html


The top one is from the Meier camp, likewise the middle reference,
and the last one is from the other camp.

There's nothing wrong with pre-conceived ideas or scepticism. If Meier wants
to be taken seriously he would have to provide conclusive evidence, and
until has does, or can, the amount of credence one gives to his story, is
more a matter of faith than anything else.

Readers have to decide for themselves which one is more truthful
than the other?
The iigwest photographs should be submitted to the same critical
analysis as the Meier photographs were. (To see if they will pass
the quality test, as the Meier photographs did.)

It should be noted, that various historical UFO photographs, when
submitted to critical analysis - can pass, when original negatives
are available, showing that they were not 'hoaxed'.

It's impossible to tell whether a good UFO photograph is hoaxed or not. All
an image expert can do is examine it for obvious evidence of trickery and
assess whether it's a credible image. But a credible image and a genuine
image are two entirely different things.

All we can do is assess the likelihood that they are genuine, but without
absolute proof, bearing in mind most of us have not even seen a UFO let
alone one of Meier's beamships there is a greater likelihood they are fake
rather than genuine.

Meier never said he faked the photographs, or used any trick to
falsify the appearance of the photographs he took.

If he was trying to con people why would he admit that? We have precious
little evidence of Extraterrestrial life let alone intelligent life. However
we have enormous amounts of evidence and proof that some of our fellow human
beings can be dishonest. So until proven otherwise the weight of evidence is
against Meier.
-- 
Amanda