In news:dv2pbq$qd4$1@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:

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.

Yes but in bright sunlight that's 1/125 at f11, compact cameras such as the
Olympus ECR had lenses of around 43mm this gives quite good depth of field
at anything over F8. Even with 64ASA slide film which was popular in the
1970s you would be able to use 1/60th at f11 in bright sunlight or 1/60 f 8
in bright overcast conditions.

What this means in effect, he couldn't have taken any of a craft at
speed.

He wouldn't need to if they were static models. And of couse the fact none
of them show any form of blur is suspect in itself.

Actually there is information about the old Olympus 35ECR here
http://www.geocities.com/heidoscop/olympus_35_ecr.htm
It's clear from how this guy describes it was Aperture priority auto only
exposure which means it would have been impossible to take sharp photographs
of fast moving air vehicles in poor light conditions using slow ASA/DIN film

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...

Well considering he has one arm it would make sense to use a tripod and
there is evidence that he used a tripod because it is shown in some of his
images.

Anyway - it all boils down to who do you believe?

Only on the basis of evidence. There's plenty of evidence to suggest some
UFOs may be of ET origin and given the size of the Universe it would just be
plain stupid to rule that out because the possibility is almost infinite. To
state that *no* UFOs are of ET origin would simply be close mindedness and
isn't a rational or logical argument.

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.

But they do look like models, in fact in the majority of Meier's pictures
the craft is shown tilted toward the camera IOW you rarely see the underside
of the UFO as one would expect when something is flying above the "eye
level" of the viewer or camera. That in itself looks contrived since it
simply would not happen time after time with a real air craft of any kind
moving dynamically and under the control of a real pilot in real 3d space.

Also apart from some drawings there are no convincing photographs of
supposed occupants of these craft, whom Billy Meier claims to be in close
contact with. Clearly this is because pictures of beings would be far more
difficult to fake up, you would have to employ actors which apart from
costing money you would also have people who would be in the know in regard
to the hoax and would have to be paid off or kept on the payroll to keep
them quiet.

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...

That is true. But you could construct a box with a glass front and an
opening for the camera lens at the back which would largely eradicate
reflections. You could light the paintings on the glass using oblique
lighting from above. But I don't know if they did it that way, it may be
that the fairies were painted in afterwards and the whole thing
re-photographed. They didn't have Photoshop, but practically everything that
can be done in Photoshop can be done by conventional means and of course
retouched prints can be re-photographed and thus eradicate signs of manual
retouching.

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?

It's strange how they always seem to appear in the same tree and the craft
often seems to be attached to it in some way.

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.

Well I realise a lot of people would *like* to believe the Billy Meier case.
But IMO there is so much about it that doesn't ring true. I don't find it
convincing. That said there are aspects of the Billy Meier case that are
intriguing, for example some of his prophecies and predictions. Which does
lead one to consider on another level that it could be some form of social
experiment possibly by some earthly agency such as the Catholic Church,
Freemasons or even by genuine ETs. But there is little hard evidence to
support such conspiracy theories.

Personally I find the testimony of many of the ex-US and British service
people who have spoken out in regard to UFOs and ET contact by the US
government far more convincing. The fact you have hundreds of credible
witnesses including one guy who used to be head of the British MOD prepared
to testify before congress in regard to what they have seen heard and
experienced should be enough to convince people there is some truth in all
this, after all people have been sentenced to death on the basis of far less
convincing evidence.
-- 
Amanda