In article <d671l5$klh$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, kiwi@ing.notin.aus says...

In article <fWthe.3318$WQ3.1399@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>, 
maninc_mandy@hotmail.com says...

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

There is nothing wrong with having a healthy skepticism, in which
one wishes to be shown evidence or proof - where one asks - Please show me?

Phil Schneider usually says at the beginning of his lecture - Don't just take
my word for it - check it out for yourself. Meaning, he gives incredible 
details in his lectures (in which his story is incredible - an update on 

MJ-12

type material) - which gives people a starting point in which they can dig up 
information to back up what he says.

I know it isn't easy to decide in the Meier case, which is more credible -
his story, or that of his critics?
There were several UFO documentaries which put Meier into the silly Hoaxer
category - and I made the mistake of believing their story, without checking 
it out. Consequently I avoided checking out Meier material for about 10 

years.

I recently got access to much of the Meier material - the sheer volume of it,
is startling.
Also no other contactee has provided a variety of evidence as Meir has -
100s of UFO photographs, from B&W to colour, with some cine footage,
audio recording, metal samples, and communications with the ETs
eg. http://www.gaiaguys.net/fermi.htm
You have only to compare Meier with eg. Betty and Barney Hill, or
Travis Walton to note how different the Meier contact is.

There has been nothing to indicate that Billy Meier has benefited from the
UFO contacts he has had. Not financially - his personality and mindset
is not geared along 'normal' lines.
He's not the outgoing type, and doesn't seem to have ego problems, etc.
He was suppose to have been the offical spokesperson for the Plejarens, to
give public lectures, etc. He is not a good public speaker, and doesn't
even speak English fluently to be able to reach the widest audience possible.

Once you understand the Plejarens - and their outlook - you will see that
they are not interested in making offical contact. They see governments as
being corrupt (I tend to agree with them on most things) - yet getting their 
message to the public is very difficult - because of anyone (not just Billy 
Meier) having contact with ETs face being labelled as being a hoaxer, potty,
a liar, etc.
I tend to agree with the Plejarens, who note the plundering of earth's 
resources with no regard to the safety of the environment or the future 
consequences of such rampant usage of non-renewable resources.

Harvey

I got an error trying to reply to your reply below, and had to attach
my comments on this post here --- hoping you can read this alright?


I wish to say - that changing the status quo is desirable because this
world is in a complete mess. We have leaders who only give the appearance
of standing for truth, etc --- but they are merely puppets or figureheads
for that authority for which they stand.
I don't believe that democracy is working, just like with religion -
it's not working either. They only give a semblance of appearing to work,
just as the President or Prime Minister appears to be running the country.
They don't.
Changing the paradigm is difficult - it's not so much changing to a new
paradigm, but having things stand by their claims. That being truthful means 
standing for truth, and sincerity, honesty, etc. Because integrity is sadly
lacking today.

The ordinary person knows this - the majority. Who do not attend church or 
believe in a religion anymore, nor believes in selecting a candidate for 
government. It is not true that anyone can run for President or Prime 
Minister, etc.
More people don't attend church, than attend. More people don't vote, who 
vote.

Harvey