In article <i%2Rf.687$aA6.187@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, manic_mandy@hotmail.com 
says...

In news:dv0d06$d7n$1@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:

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.)

It wouldn't matter. Because even if the focusing was stuck on the infinity
setting depth of field would allow objects from around 4ft to infinity to
appear in focus. In fact that fault would make it easier to hid cords
because depth of field is a kind of virtual focus.

It does matter, if you are using depth of field.
A very basic knowledge of still photography says that if you had to
stop down the lens to use depth of field to get the objects in focus,
then you also have had to use a very slow shutter speed to do so.
And considering the film speed at that time, it would have had to be
around 100 ASA or slower.
What this means in effect, he couldn't have taken any of a craft at
speed. Please also note, if foreground objects are sharp or not?
If they're not sharp, then depth of field was not used.
Please look at all the photographs available.
And just because there is a tripod shown in the picture, of one
picture, does not say that he used a tripod for all the photographs.
Please note that Billy took hundreds of photographs over a period of
years. He did not just take one photograph at a scene, but many,
in a series.
I don't know if there was any claim that Billy Meier used a tripod...

Anyway - it all boils down to who do you believe?
An investigator who was at the scene the photographs were took,
who actually did his own investigation into how the photographs
were taken, from Billy himself, and the owner of the properties,
in which the photographs were taken. While that person was not
present at the exact time the photographs were taken - he was
present before and after. This investigator being Wendelle Stevens.

Or the person you are relying upon solely for your expert
opinion. Someone who never went to the scene, nor interviewed
Billy and other witnesses, who only used photoshop to reveal
something where string would be (I'm not convinced it was string/etc
he found there - did it actually go all the way up the frame? And
did he find this in all the photographs of that beamship? Why not?)            
And note - this person did his investigation - when?

Anyway I would place my credibility on the first investigator -
who did his homework and scene analysis. Witness testimonies, etc.             
Which eliminate a tripod present at the scene.
And note the time frame Billy spent there, did not allow him time
to set up models, etc.                

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.

I don't need to prove it to myself I know I could do it. Some of Billy
Meiers images are quite believable but some are so obviously faked it is
clear they are all fake.

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.

They do look like models and people have found the strings

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.

Well actually they were taken in 1917. Actually from what I have read
previously the figures were painted onto glass

From the early accounts about all this, I never recall the mention of
figures painted onto glass as being used.
The problem becomes - how could the glass be positioned? Who could be
holding it up? And there's the problem of how is the glass supported
to be in the right position? And the problem of reflections...

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.

Well apparantly this is one of Meiers pictures of an alien ray gun
http://mudskipper.supereva.it/lsrgn.jpg

Here's one which clearly demostrates Meirers camera could focus real close,
either that or that's giant grass
http://www.tjresearch.info/no_843.jpg

There is a movie footage that is very similiar to this photograph -
it appears to be the same tree, but from a slightly different angle.
It is dated April 3, 1981.
Anyway it is shown far away, then it is zoomed upon.
It does not appear to be a minature.
If the tree is still present there, at that location - a new photograph
taken there, where the movie footage was taken from, would authenticate
the movie footage. How much does a tree grow in 25 years?

Note in this shot of the Wedding Cake craft there are handles on the side of
the craft
http://www.tjresearch.info/no_799.jpg

A visitor (Philip McAiney) at Meier's
residence holding up garbage-can lid, circa 1998. Note they have the exact
same design and handles LOL
http://www.tjresearch.info/garbage-lid.jpg

There is also one which shows a tripod in shot which I can't find at the
moment.

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.

I don't see any reason why a one arm man couldn't make fake UFO images with
a basic 35mm camera. Or make models. It might take longer and require the
use of clamps and vices to hold things, but I don't see as there would be
anything that would prevent him from doing that, particulalry if he was born
that way he would have learned to adapt

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.

One wonders therfore why there are no third party photographs of these
events

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.

That's what Jesus said :)

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.

Well Billy Meier is just someone who claims to be a contactee. One doesn't
have to believe in the Billy Meier case to examine and consider other ideas
with an open mind and IMO there are many far more credible witnesses. If
anything I think Billy Meier might even be part of the conspiracy a means of
drawing people's attention away from the truth.
-- 
Amanda

I think there is a discredit campaign going on, as regards Billy Meier.
It is sad that at the time of the events - Billy was a trusting person,
who gave away his photographs - and he would have lost (probably through
people stealing his photographs) a lot as well.
As always with this kind of subject, it is up to the individual -
as to who do you believe?

The photographs are only just one aspect to the whole Billy Meier question.
There is a whole lot more to it, than just the photographs.

Please note - there has been present, very early on, a lot of negative
press/media/publicity concerning Billy Meier - in which Billy Meier
was shot down by people who didn't even do the most basic of
investigating into the question of Billy Meier.
They simply came to their conclusions long distance and did not do any
thorough investigation. Much of what you prefer to take as being
evidence.

You have to look at everything, to get to the truth of the matter.

Harvey