Furiously scratching in the sand, you@somehost.somedomain.aus (Your
Name Here=Harvey) wrote:

In article <4478c646.1955134@nntp.charter.net>, SpamTrap@spamcop.com says...

Furiously scratching in the sand, you@somehost.somedomain.aus (Your
Name Here=Harvey) wrote:

In article <4477b5f7.1377427@nntp.charter.net>, SpamTrap@spamcop.com says...

There was one documentary which highlighted an American photograph.
I can't remember the exact particulars of, but it should be in the
group of photographs which are labelled authentic as such.
It was above a ranch house and I think it was at an angle. There was nothing
special about the photograph, except under close examination, it was something
not hoaxed, nor could it be anything but what is seen. The time was in
the 60s? or maybe late 50s?

Oh- this is great stuff!  You offer us as evidence a photo (the
details of which you cannot remember) of an un-named event, taken
somewhere in America, date unknown, that was presented by a
documentary that you cannot name, verified as "not hoaxed" by persons
unknown.

Well, I don't have a photographic memory, to remember all the details,

>from a documentary. I do have that documentary somewhere on file, and I

will be getting around to having it on a DVD, so that I can zero in on it,
at some time. It's on my to-do list, to compile all the UFO documentaries
onto one or two DVDs, along with all the various NASA documentaries I can
locate.

Aside from the fact that your sad attempt at citing an example says
reams about your capabilty for "logic and reason", you should spend
some time at the UFO Updates site and see what veteran UFO researchers
have to say about the general quality, factual content, and
reliability of Television documentries.  These researchers include
such folks as Kevin Randle, Stan Freidman, Jerry Clark, larry Hatch,
Dick Hall... the list goes on.  As far as these people are concerned,
TV documentaries are, by far, the _Least Reliable_ ways to learn about
UFOs, as the producers are far more interested in entertainment than
factual content.

You need to read the *books* by these folks and others.  Stay  away
from the TV crap.

Billy Meier never had his own photographic laboratory/etc.
The poster was done by an independent company - who had the
sophisicated equipment to blow up a 35mm frame to poster size and
retain all the sharpness in the original.

Stevens was an "independant company"???  Oh Please!!  He was hand
picked by Meiers, and even then, he got only a carefully selected
batch of images to analyse.  Deardorff is no way an expert in
photography- he's a retired meteorologist- and his "analysis" is even
worse than Stevens.

Numerous images NOT given to Stevens were subjected to far more
thorough analysis by others.  Even on these second-hand prints (Meiers
did not hand out the originals of these), it was ridiculously easy to
find the strings, spot the forced perspectives, and superimposed
negatives.

If that weren't enough, Kal Korff visited Billy, and found the models
in Billy's barn!!  Billy admitted that they were his, but rather
lamely claimed that he built them "for his kids".

And then, he has the gall to put out a picture claiming to be of some
of his Pleadian friends- they're very beautiful, very earth-like
females.  One of them turns out to be a dancer on a very earthly
produced hollywood TV varity show!! 

Fox Studios presented two documentaries about the Apollo Moon hoax.
One presenting the evidence, a round up of the claims that it was a hoax,
and they produced a followup - in which the other side, was presented,
that it was not a hoax, going to the trouble of having a set up, to show
that the hoax claims do not stack up. They showed that because of uneven
group, shadows do behave differently under those conditions.
Anyway my own reaction, was they didn't adequately show that the hoax
claims were false.

So much for an "open mind"...

I'm just saying that "What Happened on the Moon" presents an excellent
rounding up of the details that need explaining. Not one person is featured
criticising, but two. What they have presented is very airtight, and the
case is presented very clearly.

A clearly presented case is does not mean it is true.  Ask any
criminal lawyer.  

A clear presentation helps makes the issues crystal clear.

A clear presentation makes the _Presentor's_ issues clear.  It does
not necessarily make the issue itself clear.

"In Plane Site" shows how that by freeze framing the footage shown via
the mass media, that the fuselage of the plane is not that of standard
Boeing 757, that it in fact has an extra bulge to it.

Take a look at this:
http://www.tinyurl.com/z8v5o

This guy is only going maybe 150mph. If you fail to see the parallel,
then there is no hope.

That photograph at that site you mentioned, is not the same as in the
"In Plane Site" documentary. It is a sharp series of freeze frames shown,
in which the bulge is not something that is motion blurred, that it
plainly shows it is part of the fuselage itself. However viewing some
thing first hand, the actual video evidence to clearly see what I meant?

I kinda figured you'd miss the point,  The photo was chosen at random
by me simply to demonstrate what happens when you image a fast moving
object.  The video you keep citing was taken by a camera running at 15
frames per second, which means that the shutter speed was quite slow-
far slower than the shutter speed used to take the picture of the race
car. 

Exactly how many wheels does that car have anyway?

 Imagine the effects a slow shutter speed and a plane moving at
500+mph.


Reality is nothing more than a mathematical abstraction...
or a really good steak.