In article <447e45c5.1068237@nntp.charter.net>, SpamTrap@spamcop.com says...

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

See
http://www.theyfly.com/articles/articles.htm
for the whole document

PhotoAnalysis3.pdf

A Preliminary Investigation Report

Mr Jim Dilettoso of Phoenix undertook a one-man campaign of operation between
the various scientific disciplines, ie. Lasers, Optics, Video Cameras,
Computers and Video Graphics Systems, seeking the best marriage of equipment
for what we wanted to do.

[...]

While this development was going on and the procedures were being worked out,
another of the Meier photographs of the alien spacecraft was sent out to
Design Technology of Poway, California for a conventional photogrammetric and
computer analysis similar to the method used by Ground Saucer Watch of Phoenix.

Let see... we have _Mr._ Jim Dilettoso (glad you got that right!), and
the analysis of ONE carefully selected photo (out of how many
hundreds?). 

Without bring Kal Korff into this directly, I'll simply recommend two
more sites to read:

Here's a good piece about Mr. Dilettoso
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1998-03-05/feature2_1.html
Page 4 has a nice bit about Billy Meiers.

No strings?
http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo_et.htm
(wait for the page to load- it will take some time.  Then scroll down
about halfway.  Lousy page design.)

What happened initially with the Billy Meier UFO photographs and
criticism - at the very beginning, is that the photographs were shot down
by critics who never did any first hand investigation into the photographs
and Billy Meier.
I believe Wendelle Stevens was the first investigator, who got over there
first hand, at the time - and he says all this in his comprehensive
lecture, which is videotaped, and is accessible via the internet.

I can't say that I have followed everything concerning Billy Meier, his
UFO photographs and all the criticisms levelled against him.

I was interested in Mr Meier some years ago - and then turned off on him
because of the many criticisms against him, and am turned back on, because
I believe the criticisms were unfair and lack the concrete evidence they
say. eg. That he used forced perspective to create a lot of his photographs,
for example. Well, this technique cannot be used with a special lens, and
the landscape/shot does not lend itself to this technique. And if this
technique is so easy to pull off, why don't the critics simply 'do it' and
show us their photographs, and see how they compare to the Billy Meier
photographs of that time?

I did read of the Kal Korff criticisms some years ago - and he wasn't viewed
as a credible unbiased and honest critic, at that time.

Of course, if you are well read and updated about all these sorts of
criticisms you would know of the more recent CFI West criticisms and of
that tic for tac debate that went on...

I am all for experts for both sides, stating their cases and providing
their evidence, and let the public decide which case is the stronger?

It would be nice if CFI West did state exactly what method or methods
they used, for the photographs they eventually produced for show...

So-  let's wrap up what we've got to date.

You are of the opinon that The US government always lies, that
scientists always lie, and that "mainstream" media always lie.
Therefore, that means that virtually all disasters such as 9/11 _must_
really examples of this conspiracy, and spectaular scientific
achievements, such as the Apollo Moon program, are of course faked.

At the heart of all the examples above - is that, there should not be
inconsistancies in the officially accepted explanation for the event(s).
We do have to be critical in anything that appears in the news and mass
media, that it is truthful and correct.
The mainstream media can be manipulated and controlled, such that a coverup
can be maintained, and the truth can be kept from the public.

I would like to believe that the US government is truthful, and that NASA
is too --- but alas their actions seems to suggest otherwise.
There should not be the footage in 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the
Moon' - of a setup in the command module of Apollo 11 faking that they were
1/2 way to the moon, when they were in low earth orbit, with the accompanying
audio.
We know that politicians do lie to us - that they will spin things this
way or that, so that they will look good.
If they think they will get away with something, then they will try...

If there weren't the inconsistancies present, ie. the anomalies in the
official story, there would be material for alternate conspiracy theories
at all.
The public wants the smoking gun, the damning evidence that Bin Laden was
behind it all, etc.
Not a faked tape, which has a stand in for Bin Laden, faking it, that he
did it. Mohammed Atta was no devout muslim.
There is no muslim connection with 9-11. It is implied by government sources
there was.
Dan Hopsicker did some legwork into 9-11 and he found nothing that confirmed
the official version of events and connections.

Using this "knowledge" and applying your rather unique brand of
"logic",  you can summarily reject any and all explainations that come

>from the aforementioned "liars".  Then, you "reason", the

explainations offered by people who use even worse "logic and reason"
must be true.

Of course, being a busy person, you cannot spare the time to at least
try and verify some of the points raised, and any objections  that
point out the faulty science and lack of knowledge in basic
photography that are used by these conspiracy sites are easily refuted
by simply going back to step one-  the Liars.  So simple, isn't it!

You then rather easily extend this methodology to other fields, such
as the "UFO" photos of Billy Meirers. We note that having been
rejected by the vast majority of UFO researchers seems to be,
according to your logic, simply verification that these photos are
legit.  Thus you can easily gloss over the strings holding the model
"beamships", the faked pictures of the aliens, etc.  

It must be nice to be able to go through life being told by others how
to think, what is real- and what is not.  That sure takes the strain
of having to think and reason for yourself.

Given this rather limited capability of yours to think about these
subjects independantly pretty much brings this discussion to a close.

That site you gave the URL for, which works --- does have the
Meier photographs amongst the fakes, when I checked it out a few months
ago - I know that most of the UFO television documentaries of the late
80s' early 90s did label Meier as a faker quoting much of what you said/
claimed about Meier.
I'm not aware they did a thorough investigation though..
I don't have the documentaries of the time, in which the photographs
were taken - which reported on Meier, then.

You will probably want to add a coda, but I'm outta this for now.


EW

If you add up all known religions
and cancel the contradictions, you are left with only one invariant
universal message: God needs *your* money.
 ----Uncle Al

I am collecting all the UFO documentaries I can locate, as well as all the
NASA and Apollo documentaries, etc etc.

I would gladly purchase all the large print books, that contains photographic
still material of all this, of the time - if I had the money to do so -
but sadly I do not.

It is very much like the story about Jesus, from the Christians ---
how do you know if any of that is real? or not?

With the Meier UFO photographs, there is a simple method to prove they
were faked. Go out and purchase the same camera used by him, in a second
hand store that has very old cameras for sale, and then hang up a model
or whatever - fake some UFO photographs, and see if you can produce
anything that looks remotely like his photographs from the 1980s'.
But no one has done this have they? No skeptic would do this... why?
Because they can't produce anything that looks like what Meier has done,
and taken in series...
Case closed.

Still a good site to see why 9-11 should be fully investigated...

http://www.physics911.net/

http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones.htm


Harvey