In article <HLgSf.71$H%3.66@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>, manic_mandy@hotmail.com 
says...

In news:dvasj6$p6s$1@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:

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

Yes actually even less than that Agfachome used to be 50ASA and Kodak did
Kodachrome which was available in two flavours 25ASA and 64ASA and I think
Ektachome was available at 64 ASA. That said there was also a film made by
GAF Ansco which was 500ASA if I remember rightly. GAF film was fairly
popular and readily available to amateur photographers through Camera shops
and large departments stores and presumably was available throughout Europe
particularly in affluent popular tourist destinations such as Switzerland
and Austria because of the Alps, Liederhosen cheese with holes, sausages,
singing Nuns, beer, and not to mention flying saucers :)

Yes I was familiar with the 64 ASA Kodak film, I probably used this
for taking a lot of night sky photographs of constellations in the early? 
80s'.
I forgot what exposure time I used, so that the stars could be captured
without the images becoming blurred, because of the earth's rotation.
I don't think the 500ASA colour film would have been commonplace, and
it would have been expensive. Enlargements would be - grainy and the
colour saturation not as good as the normal slower speed films, I would
guess.

But yes in general the most popularly available 35mm slide film was a bit
slow back then. But even 50ASA film will allow shutter speeds in the region
of 1/60 at f11 in average bright sunlight and for general photography one
wouldn't need anything beyond 100ASA. in fact some cameras weren't capable
of using  fast films without some manual conversion and guess work. Though
the Olympus ECR had a top shutter speed of 1/800th second so should have
been capable of using faster slide films up to around 500ASA and many
cameras of that time were made to be able to use film up to about 500ASA
since B/W film up to 400ASA was fairly common and readily available. :)

The focusing ring of Billy Meier's camera developed a fault, when it
was dropped, and was of fixed focus, so that it could not focus on close
objects.
Anyone doing a serious study of the Billy Meier photographs/etc should
take a look at as many of the photographs as possible, as well as the
other material - and not simply selectively sample/choose the easiest
ones to explain away.
Being truthful, would be to look at as much information as possible,
to try to take everything into consideration.
There is certainly a great deal you can pooh pooh about Billy Meier.
Time is one time thing that something faked doesn't stand up to, in
that interest in various other famous contactees have faded away as the
years have gone by - but I don't think that is the case with Billy Meier.

Be aware of the things/arguments said against Billy Meier, in which that
argument is not as sound, as it is proposed. That that critic is not
dishonest... or perhaps wrong in their argument. Something can sound
alright at first, but in actually doing it, does not match the end result, as 
in recreating faked photographs. And it is the end result that matters here.

Harvey

-- 
Amanda