From: kiwi@ing.notin.aus
In article ,
david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says...
>
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:57:29 +0000, Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says...
>>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:54:32 +0000, Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Who is Billy Meier.
>>>
>>>He's a fraudster. They're not even particularly good fakes: the near ones
>>>are clearly models suspended using wires.
>>>
>>>--
>>>=======================================================================
>>>= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
>>>= Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
>>>=======================================================================
>>
>>
>> If you would check out the details yourself - the pros and cons
>> presented - you will clearly see that no one has ever produced anything
>> hoaxed, that can be said to rival the quality of Billy Meier photographs.
>> Hence authencity.
>
>But you can see it's a fake! That's hardly "quality", is it?
>
>>
>> a. You can't do it in the original physical locations - because it's
>> impossible to have some kind of elaborate set up or set it physically
that
>> it can be photographed by a man with one arm.
>
>You mean THIS MAN HAS NO FRIENDS.
>
>Why weren't we told!
>
>Besides. Man arrives with camera on string tound neck, fishing rod with
>saucer attached in hand.
>
>Embeds rod in pre-dug hole, pointing up. Saucer goes "whizz" in little
>lissajous figures, just like in the movie.
>
>Man removes camera from neck, takes picture.
>
>Ta da!
You go ahead and take your own photos by whatever method you outline
or think they were taken as --- and you'll soon see that your results
are nothing like that of Billy Meiers'.
There's the story of how the professional skeptics organisation,
that is in LA, that is tied with the amazing Randi - was shown the
Meier photographs, and asked whether anyone there could reproduce
such photographs? Sure, it was said, come back in 2 weeks - I have
an 8mm movie camera and a 35mm camera, it should be no problem taking
some photos just like these ones.
2 weeks later - no results were available. OK, another 2 weeks was
given, just so they won't be so rushed in taking their photos.
This went on for a while, in which these professional skeptics failed
to produce anything, that could debunk the original Meier photos.
This applies to the sound recording too. Sure, go and use a
sequencer/sampler program/whatever - and produce your own sound
tape recording - just be sure to read an analysis about that
sound recording of Meier's - and see if yours can stand up to
such scrutiny too...
If you look at the Meier photographs, you'll notice that the foreground
objects are out of focus, and that the space craft is in sharp focus.
His camera was broken, such that the focus was always at 'infinity' -
he couldn't focus his camera at all. I think his aperature or shutter
speed was similarly 'locked' or 'broken' too. Such that he couldn't
shut down his aperature to it's minimum and set it for maximum depth of
field -- because, again the foreground objects are out of focus.
[You should know that if a camera is shut down to it's smallest aperature,
the depth of field would be very wide, enabling more things at different
distances to be in focus, but the shutter speed would be slow - so, a thrown
object would not be sharp. Go ahead, try out your fishing line... and
see how sharp you can get it.]
Meier is not noted to be an expert at photography or to be knowledgable
about trick photography. There are of course, ways of doing trick
photography - but you can't do so, with a camera that it's focus is
fixed at infinity, and you can't change the aperature or shutter speed
at will. And try photographing 3 objects in the sky?
Of course, anything these days can be faked - in this day and age.
But you couldn't do that, at the time these photographs were taken -
1975-1985. Similarly with the sound recording - that it was witnessed -
being an open air recording when many people present, who say the
recording being done.
Be sure to read the detailed accounts about the above - so that you
understand the details involved.
Your mention of 'Heaven's Gate' shows you haven't read anything about
what kind of philosophy Billy Meier is involved with.
There is nothing to worry about, in that area.
If you do your reading and research about Billy Meier, you will see
that there is something here, worthy of serious study and investigation.
If only to show that the bad press/media about Billy Meier is not
correct.
Harvey
>
>>
>> Even then the result would be obviously a model on a string/etc - if
>> a camera is used, such as Billy Meier's. One that was broken, such that
>> it could not focus on close objects (note how close objects are out of
>> focus).
>
>Your sentence doesn't really make sense to me - you seem to be sguuesting
>that Meier's camera is broken because it does not show everything in focus
>at once.
>
>This is normal behaviour for a camera.
>
>>
>> The photographs are only one aspect - there's the sound recording to
>> explain,
>
>I heard the recording, there's nothing about it that couldn't easily be
>reproduced using a synthesiser, despite the claims on the site.
>
>> then the mass of information that is released from the Plejarens.
>> No one can make so many predictions, nor provide such a wealth of
information
>
>All rubbish.
>
>> that remains convincing.
>
>The "predictions" are either hopelessly generic or obvious. A ten year
>old with a current newspaper could do better.
>
>> Billy Meier is not another Adamski.
>
>You'd just better hope he's not another "Heaven's Gate".
>
>--
>=======================================================================
>= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
>= Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
>=======================================================================
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
