In article <OS4Sf.60$5B4.40@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>, manic_mandy@hotmail.com 
says...

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 :)

Colour slide film, would be I think, slower in film speed,
at that time. Maybe 80 ASA?

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.

Fishing line has a tendency to reflect some light, especially in sunlight.
I was a window dresser at some time, so I know what it's like to hang
thick fishing line, though the smaller strand are certainly harder to
see. Of course the thinner line would be used - but I still think that
because of the wide angle of the standard lens, to have a fishing pole
extending that far into the picture/frame would make the pole visible,
remember the amount of angle/view that is covered by the lens.
You should really view that Wendelle Stevens videoed lecture, because
he does take into account these kind of things, for possible faking,
and he can't see it being done, at those remote locations.
Even if you did carry all the apparatus you needed, he says it simply
couldn't be done there, because it's on a hill, and the view drops
off into space.

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.

I do say that it's easy to talk about this stuff, but once you did
a trial - you will see how it is not so easy to come up with the best
photographs that Billy took, and your results would look decidely
different, ie. model like. That beamship design is particularly good.

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 :)

The more information you have - the better you can see whether is true or not.

-- 
Amanda

I know that it can be very difficult to sort out the information
with the faked or not? arguments against Billy Meier.
You have to check out whether the person making the case against (and for),
whether that person is presenting their argument legitimately or not?
The early critics against Meier, certainly did not any type of reasonable
investigation at all. Basically they did it without checking it out,
properly in any way.
You should at least look at all the photographs possible, and don't
simply discredit the worse of the photographs.

With various contactees in the past - usually what they have said,
amounted to no verifiable information. Or what information they provided,
turned out to be incorrect. This is a sure way of discrediting
fake contactees.
I think this is the same way that religion can be discounted as being
inaccurate and false. That what information they provide, does not add up
to anything logical and reasonable. A sort of like garbage in / garbage
out result.

Harvey