From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 08:24:46 +0000, Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:   
      
   > In article ,   
   > david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says...   
   >>   
   >>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 10:01:09 +0000, Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> In article ,   
   >>> david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says...   
   >>>>   
   >>>>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 01:16:54 +0000, Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:   
   >>>>I'm happy to believe that he didn't use complex camera trickery, it wasn't   
   >>>>necessary - he used models.   
   >>>   
   >>> It is fine to say - Oh, he used models. Case closed.   
   >>   
   >>Yes.  He used models, and lied about it.   
   >   
   > I don't know the story about the models.   
      
   "Along with Underground Video's statement is a photograph showing one of   
   Billy Meiers alleged Pleiadian beamships taken in 1981. After computer   
   enhancement and careful scrutiny, it has been shown the Beamship is really   
   a miniature model made out of an upside-down cake pan, disconnected copper   
   hose fitting, a bracelet, carpet tacks and various other identifiable   
   objects.   
   ...   
   To top it off, a reporter   
   found a bunch of miniature models exactly matching many of the Pleiadian   
   ships shown in his photos."   
      
   Is there any part of that which you don't understand?   
      
   > If he was obviously a liar --- I wouldn't be the only one turned   
   > off by that fact. Everyone else who has taken an interest in this   
   > case/material would similarly be turned off.   
      
   No, because they, and you, will believe the most outrageous nonsense (for   
   example, that a clumsy fake was substituted for his real picture of   
   Semjase).   
      
   > I have listened to Wendelle Stevens and Michael Horn talking about   
   > the Meier case - they have spent many years checking out the case.   
   > I would place my believability with them. Wendelle Stevens is one   
   > of the earliest investigators (and he has investigated other UFO   
   > cases). I have a copy of the videotaped lecture he gave, which   
   > was a retrospective view about Billy Meier with accompanying   
   > slideshow of photographs, in which he talks about each series of   
   > photographs in detail, and he gives no hint they were faked,   
   > rather the opposite, that they could not be faked because of the   
   > physical locations involved.   
      
   He's made a career out of belief in UFO's, why are not you not surprised   
   that he doesn't try very hard to prove their not real?   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>Case closed.   
   >>   
   >>> It's another to go about recreating the Meier photographs and then   
   >>> producing photographs of the same high quality as his.   
   >>   
   >>Good quality???  You cannot be serious, you can practically see the wires   
   >>in the video.  You can certainly telll that it's spinning around a point   
   >>about 15-20 feet above the saucer, just from the geometry.   
   >   
   > The video is obviously not good quality, compared to the best of the   
   > stills. The stills still stand out today. Wires? On a stick?   
      
   Yes.  Think fishing rod, the saucer is where the hook goes.   
   Stick the end in the ground at a steep angle, saucer will rotate in small   
   circles below the point.   
      
   Just as it does on the video.   
      
   > Billy Meier would have long been forgotten about if the photos were that   
   > obvious of being a model. I haven't seen the wire or stick in the photographs   
   > that you claim, neither has anyone else, especially photographic experts   
   > who have carefully examined/scanned the photographs.   
      
   I didn't say you could see the stick, it's out of shot.   
      
   With regard to the wires: yes they have.  See above.   
      
   > There is a story about the video, why the craft went through that motion,   
   > which was captured on cinefilm. It was to give people the decision to   
   > believe or disbelieve themself.   
      
   So it acts like a fake so that people can choose whether or not to believe   
   in it.   
      
   Sheesh.  How can you get through life being so gullible?   
      
   > There is the sound recording - which you don't go into.   
      
   It's too easy, I can think of two ways of faking (the recording of) it   
   without even trying.   
      
   >>They can, have a look.   
      
   I notice you haven't commented on this.   
      
   >>Don't be silly, it's a model on a stick.  Anyone can, and has, done it.   
   >   
   > Oh please! If it was simply a model on a stick, or on a string -   
   > the Billy Meier case would have been closed way back when it was first   
   > publicly aired. It would still not be 'alive' today if such simple   
   > means was used.   
      
   Why not?  You still believe in it, and you've seen the same evidence   
   others have, he's been exposed by his ex-wife and others, and you discount   
   their testimony.   
      
   You want to believe so much that you'll accept any quality of evidence,   
   any preposterous illogical explanation, and discount anything which   
   contradicts your belief.   
      
   That's why people still believe in him, it's because they're like you.   
      
   > You obviously are not familiar with special effects   
   > still photography, if you keep on persisting about the stick or string   
   > explanation.   
      
   I'm actually fairly au-fait with photographic special effects, he uses   
   them too.   
      
   But, sometimes, a model on a stick is all you need.   
      
   > Please grow up with your arguments/points raised, and don't be so silly   
   > yourself in debating this issue. I do know about the still photography   
   > technical details and the relevant issues involved.   
      
   So, do you accept the claims that "it has been shown that the reflections on   
   some   
   of the Pleiadian ships are not consistent with the position of the sun,   
   indicating possible superimposition techniques."   
      
   Or have you got some wacky explanation for that too?   
      
   >>Oh puhleese.  So it's a conspiracy now.  Give me a break.  That's such a   
   >>lame story I may have to upgrade you to gullible pillock.   
   >   
   > Of course there is a conspiracy. That is why the UFO question is kept   
   > out of the mainstream as much as possible or discredited, so that the   
   > public thinks that all UFO contactees are hoaxes or nutcases, and not   
   > genuine.   
      
   It's worked on me, 'cause that's certainly my opinion. ;-)   
      
   >>They're high quality pictures of models!   
   >   
   > The camera used, cannot focus on a model that is in close proxity to the   
   > camera. Obviously you haven't read an indepth discussion about this.   
      
   Why are you saying "close proximity".  I didn't.   
      
   Oh yes, the famous "dropped camera".   
      
   > I don't change any of my comments I've already made.   
   > It's only a matter of time before everything will be spilled out.   
      
   I'll bet you $50 to your favourite charity that you're wrong.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = 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)