In news:dva35c$94c$1@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:

I don't think I've written clearly about the timeline of events,
regarding the criticism of the Billy Meier photographs.
I can't say that I can quote it exactly as such, but I think I know
the sequence of events regarding this.
In that when the first Billy Meier photographs appeared - they
appeared to
be too good to be true - and so the first criticisms against the
photographs were made, without doing any basic research into the
matter.
And when someone did go to the time and trouble - to research properly
as to how the photographs were taken (ie. Wendelle Stevens) - the
public media has already been saturated with the hasty negative
criticisms (in
which the claims against Meier were not accurate, because they didn't
do
any basic research). People are reluctant to admit to their mistakes -
ie. they will not own up to them in public.
I am not that well versed with the Billy Meier information, to know
whether he still has original negatives available or not. I would
guess he still has, because he took other photographs, before those
ones he is world renown
for, and he took literally rolls of films - but how many he lost
(never
got returned) or stolen (from his home) - I wouldn't know.

I could be wrong but I get the idea he used colour transparency film. The
colours and tonal contrast do look a bit reminicent of either Agfa film or
Kodachrome to me. I took a lot of pictures on a Russian Zenith E SLR back in
the 1970s so I'm quite familiar with those old film stocks :)

I am all for exposing Billy Meier, if he has indeed faked his UFO
photographs. And note - if string was used, then this should evident
in not just one of the photographs, but also others as well. Remember
there was a specially large format book, published of his photographs
in that early time period - referred to as a coffee table book. So, I
would guess, that all those photographs could be rescanned, and any
string present, could be made visible -
via photoshop? It need only be shown that one photograph has the tell
tale sign of a string going right up to the edge of the frame, to be
convincing enough, and not merely a very small segment, where it
could be merely
part of the ship design.

Well if he used cord it would most likely be either fine nylon fishing line
or the type of cord developed for televised puppet shows which would be
remarkably strong and thin enough to be invisible to a movie or TV camera or
indeed to the eyes of a live audience.

Given the camera he was using was an Olympus ECR whilst Olympus Zuiko lenses
are very good (In fact my digital camera is an Olympus) it is never the less
quite possible particularly relying on depth of field for focus that such a
cord would be totally invisible and outside the resolution capability of the
lens. Well lets face it a lens on a good 35mm SLR Camera of that era under
ideal conditions with fine grain film would be capable of a resolution of
about 100 lines per millimetre at f5.6, obviously in practice with the
camera he was using (I think you mentioned the focusing was faulty) under
average conditions we would be talking anything from 40 to 70 lines per
millimetre at best. It's highly likely therefore that thin puppetry cord
would be totally invisible to camera unless it picked up light reflection
and in that case you would still not necessarily see the whole cord.

So I think it's quite possible he used cord and if the models are about 12
to 15 ins in diameter though fairly light e.g made of plastic dinner plates,
various bits of Tupperware or waste plastic packaging, sprayed with
something like mirror car spray paint such cord should IMO be quite adequate
to hold the models and the cord would be quite difficult to see with the
naked eye let alone a camera.

The stuff that appeared at the time of his breakup with his wife -
may have been just 'her' way of getting back at Billy. That it may be
a disgruntled ex-wife's comments and actions.

I don't know too much about the Gulf Breeze UFO photographs. Whether
those photographs are genuine or not? It is the same sort of
situation as
Billy Meier. How do you know if they are genuine or not?
You have one expert saying something, and another expert saying
something different altogether - the opposite.
And someone could plant a 'model' on the photographer's property -
which
will give rise to the idea, that he used that model all along.
Very much like 9-11, where a flight instruction manual of some kind,
is found conveniently in a car parked, left at the airport. It would
have been more logical, that the manual should have been taken with
them?
And not so conveniently left to be found, after the event.

Well most evidence is convienient :)

I say you have to collect up as much information as you can, and
enough information will weigh up as to what is more clearer than the
other. The one with less inconsistancies, is closer to the truth.

True :)

-- 
Amanda