In article <xbDQf.254$KF3.85@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, manic_mandy@hotmail.com 
says...

In news:duth9t$2j4$2@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:

In article <%UoQf.50$Dg5.1@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>,
manic_mandy@hotmail.com says...

In news:duqb8u$9jn$1@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:

In article <LhuMf.54810$K42.13046@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>,
manic_mandy@hotmail.com says...

In news:1139747969.425263.62640@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
ianparker2@gmail.com <ianparker2@gmail.com> typed:

The idea of UFOs being alien spececraft does not stand up to any
kind of logical scrutiny.

What logical scrutiny? It's only logical in the context of the
absence of evidence to call such scrutiny "logical". e.g. believing
in Santa Clause can be quite logical for a child until he/she
realises that a big fat old man would have some physical difficulty
coming down the average chimney and many modern homes no longer
have chimneys. So the factual evidence then dispels the myth. It's
never logical to come to a conclusion based on limited evidence.
It is more logical to keep an open mind in regard to the
possibility that some UFOs are of ET origin, particularly since
what we actually know about the universe we live in is
infinitesimal and a Trillion stars bear witness to that fact, we
don't even know about all the bodies in our own Solar system. --
Amanda

You can't say that UFOs come from one source.
Because the evidence/information says otherwise.

ie.
UFOs can be divided into 3 main sources ...

1. Extraterrestrial - ie. visitors from outer space or other
   dimensions.
   ie. Physical and non-physical dimensions

2. Terrestrial
   eg. from US Government secret projects or 'black budget'
       sources.
       from Nazi Flying Saucer technology (Note: this is of
       a specific UFO type).
       Any other possible earth built origin?

3. Other - This would be the category of mistaken identity
   of normal aircraft seen at unusual angles to be mistaken
   for a 'UFO' or that of astronomical sightings mistaken
   for a UFO, however if the object shows the abnormal
   characteristics of a UFO (very high speed and erratic
   maneuvers) then it would be of 1. or 2. above.

Exterrrestrial UFOs tend to fall into specific UFO types,
such as the beamship and wedding cake designs photographed by
Billy Meier - and others...

I agree but there is also

4. Fake UFOs. People do fake up UFO images and claim to be in
contact with Aliens, there are charlatans about. Persoanally I would
place Billy Meier in that catogory.
--
Amanda

If you read only the negative press/media about Meier, then you will
easily get the impression that he is some kind of nut contactee,
alongside the others, that have appeared over the years.
But however, if you read through the serious investigations into him,
I think you'll find he is somewhat valid.
Take for instance the video lecture by Wendelle Stevens, who was one
of the earliest investigators into Billy Meier. He gives a thorough
recount of his investigation at that time - and he is a credible
investigator, unlike others who have never met Billy Meier, nor been
to the sites where the original photographs were taken.
If you want the truth, you have to be able to take on board, what that
implies. Sadly - normal people have no idea what the truth is, and
cannot easily grasp it - because we are so far from it, in popular
ideas and acceptance. Our religions certainly don't tell us the truth
- because they disagree with each other, and with our sciences.

Fake UFO reports and such like do not stand up to intense scrutiny,
and likewise such photographs.

I think that's one of the biggest myths in the UFO and paranormal community,
i.e the assumption that "image experts" can't be fooled. The problem is an
expert can only go on the information an image presents and although with
pretty much all of Billy Meier's images there are some indications of fakery
and known methods of creating fake UFO images that are particularly
effective on fairly simple film cameras of the 1960s and 70s. Those kind of
fixed focus cameras, or 35mm cameras that rely on preset focus settings such
as the old Olympus compact camera of that era e.g the "Olympus Trip" rely on
"Depth of field" to achieve depth of focus.

Please note: That it was a 35ECR camera and not the trip 35 model.
That it was damaged so that it could not focus on close up objects (not
that it could anyway - ie. small objects, typically you would use a
close up lens to enable closer photographs to be taken.)

Of course "depth of fields" is a kind of virtual focus and is by it's very
nature very good for loosing certain details such as pieces of fine nylon
fishing twine possibly used to suspend models. That said it isn't even
necessary to use fishing twine, another method of suspending models in front
of a camera is to use clear flexi-glass which was quite popular with DIY
enthusiasts when it first came out in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Being made
of clear plastic It is easy to cut and can even be drilled and cut with a
fret-saw so it would be for example feasible to embed a model into a sheet
of flexi-glass and eradicate any possibility that cords could show up in an
image. With that method one could fake practically anything in fact using
glass in front of the lens was used to produce those famous Victorian Fairy
pictures using the most primative photographic equipment see
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm

Just go ahead and reproduce your experiment, as you say - and I
very much doubt you would produce anything that comes remotely close
to the quality of the Billy Meier photographs. Seriously I doubt you
can.
ie. The fishing line would be seen, and the models would look like
models, and you simmply can't have a model on a fishing line to get it
looking like it is up in the sky - far away.

With the Cottingley photographs - I read some years ago, that the
original negatives being examined, revealed that they were retouched.
ie. not by the girls as such, because they did not have the skill to,
but that the photographs would have to be retouched via airbrush, 
producing those prints we
are familiar with. That the original photographs unretouched, would be
of paper figures supported by hatpins, and would not have been suitable
for reproduction. Hence those in the industry at that time, had the
photographs retouched.
Thinking about it now, it would mean that the first prints were 
retouched, as retouching negatives would not have been possible.
And the girls still claimed that they did see fairies - and wanted
to photograph them, but could not.

Using methods of that kind it would be fairly easy to fool even "image
experts" because it is possible to fake up UFO images with quite basic 35mm
cameras even fixed focus snap shot cameras, and most of the time any
evidence of fakery is going to be inconclusive, even Victorian children
could do it and the fairy images even fooled so called image experts.

That said anyone who sets out to do trick photography is going to produce
the occasional image where the trickery fails and in this Billy Meier is IMO
no exception. For example...

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo/weddingcake+camper_highrL.jpg
The biggest problem for me and the biggest give away with this image is the
"UFO" is "out of focus" when compared to other objects supposedly at the
same distance from the camera e.g. the VW Camper van which reveals the fact
that it is an obvious model no larger than a car hub cap, around 13ins in
diameter held or suspended on a string in front of the camera. Of course if
the focus issue were not in itself sufficient to prove fakery you also have
the fact that the Camper Van is throwing a shadow, whereas the "UFO" does
not, also given the VW van is parked next to a tree and quite close to it.
How is it possible that the "UFO" is not physically embedded in and
interfering with the tree. I mean this should be an example of really bad ET
parking LOL but given the position the craft is supposed to be and the fact
that no part of it is touching the trees makes it very clear this is a model
and nowhere near the trees.

I really can't see the Meier photographs being faked as such.
If it was that easy to fake them, then someone ought to do their
version - and then say "Ha, Ha - I've done it, and it was that easy too...."
Also note, that Wendelle Stevens would have to be in on it too ---
and I don't see that being possible, when he says clearly that Billy
always took a series of photographs in sequence. He had the rolls of
films to prove that.
Also note - that the famous beamship photographs were taken at
remote locations - and if he took along with him, the stuff to enable
him to fake the photographs with, he would be seen with that apparatus,
as well as a tripod - and he was not.
Please explain how a one-armed man could have faked the photographs
without the necessary equipment.
And I seriously doubt if anyone could have faked the photographs,
and ended up with photographs of that quality, he took.
No one has come forward with 'their' photographs, and claimed - here you
are - I faked these, and look at this amazing quality!
Being somewhat knowledgeable about still photography (and being an
enthusiast in that time frame, in which the photographs were taken) -
I can say plainly, you can't fake those photographs using the method(s)
you describe. Please note - Billy Meier was seen going to and from the
location in which he took the photographs by the owner of the land. And
he did not have any extra equipment with him.

The above image is perhaps the most obvious fake but there are other Images
by Billy Meier that have been shown to be fake. There is a section including
an examination of the images on this page
http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo_et.htm


Actually I would tend to go a long with the owner of that Webpage many UFO
images are 100% authentic and are either terrestrial craft of possibly of ET
origin and there is in some instances fairly conclusive evidence. But
although the Billy Meier case is intriguing the fact that some of his images
have been revealed to be fake and indeed obviously and inequitably so, does
cast doubt on the whole story and people like Billy Meier probably do more
harm than good in terms of getting to the bottom of all this. And one could
argue that such charlatanism displays a level of psychopathic evil, where a
person uses their above average intelligence and talents as a means to
pervert the truth inorder to deceive others for their own personal gain, to
gain notariaty, power over others and or wealth is IMO evil and is exactly
the sort of thing one would expect of a Nazi IMO it is evil and disgusting
because it is a misuse of talent and if their is such a thing as Karma we
can rest assured Billy Meier will be punished for his evil doing.
-- 
Amanda

Billy Meier doesn't have the kind of personality that seeks fame or
fortune from this publicity/etc stuff. He hasn't shown an interest
in money or materialism, nor for power and control over people/followers,
etc.

You should check out the video JFK2 by Alex Jones, which presents
plainly the story about the assassination of JFK.
He presents the information plainly, which shows that the official story
does not line up with the information about the case.

This is also the case with UFOs and the official government story.

Also note - that 9-11 does not conform to the official story.
The information (ie. the details) about 9-11 show that the official story
we are told, is not true.

What this means is that the government is corrupt - and evil.
Now know the reason why there will be no official contact with UFOs/ETs
with a government so corrupt that would lie to it's people.

Harvey