From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:56:37 +0000, Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:   
      
   > In article ,   
   > david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says...   
   >   
   > I'll post a query there, and see what their answers are.   
   > They have followed the Meier story longer than I have, so I'm sure there   
   > will be some good summaries about the overall question of faking/etc   
   > from anyone who'll answer. The moderator is exceptionally well clued   
   > up about everything, if no one else comments.   
      
   But not, I suspect, entirely unbiased.   
      
   >>It's hard to put a positive spin on that kind of evidence.   
      
   Apparently, _too_ hard.   
      
   >>   
   >>I'm not saying he used the same technique for all of them - most of them   
   >>were done using camera trickery (which is why there are no first   
   >>generation images - please don't tell you me that you believe the   
   >>"explanation" he gave, that _every single one_ of his hundreds of   
   >>originals was lost, and all the second and third gen copies remained)   
      
   No comment on that, I see.   
      
   >>From what I recall of my reaction at the time, I thought it was probably a   
   >>recording of a shortwave radio between stations.   
   >   
   > There were multiple witnesses to the sound recording, that's why it's   
   > a good piece of evidence, as too, the sound analysis of it.   
   >   
   > I'm not aware that he faked anything - as the picture painted of him,   
   > is that of spiritual integrity, also a non-interest in things monetary,   
   > and financial. He's not interested in fame, fortune, material wealth, etc.   
   > I haven't heard of anything which suggests otherwise.   
      
   Apart from his relentless self-publicity, and the reams of new-age   
   nonsense he produces.   
   He just likes muppet worship.   
      
   >>>>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."   
   >   
   > Nope - havent' heard of that comment, just the opposite was mentioned.   
      
   Strange, I've posted it three times.   
   Now you have heard about it, what do you think?   
      
   > I've been interested in this kind of stuff for a very long time, over 30   
   > years. I've heard/read all of the wacky stories, and some which still don't   
   > go away - even I think they're wacky but they still don't go away.   
   > There are some stuff I put high up on the unbelievable scale - but those   
   > stories about them, remain.   
   > I don't believe the standard orthodox explanations given by scientists   
   > (or clergy) - they are inconsistant with what physical evidence we have.   
      
   We have no good physical evidence.   
      
   > To me, it is unbelievable that we have not been visited by ETs in the past,   
   > and the present.   
      
   Look up "The Drake Equations" when your browser is working again.   
   Space is really really big, time is really, really vast, and civilisations   
   do not last forever.   
   And yet you think that in this, what, hundred year time window in 15   
   billion years of the Universe's life there are enough civilisations around   
   that we are discovered by one of them.   
   Do the math.  It's so unlikely that almost any other explanation is more   
   likely.   
   Fraud the likeliest of all.   
      
   > We have mysterious lost civilisations that simply 'disappeared' from the   
   > face of the earth, not once, but many times.   
      
   Don't be silly.  Civilisations die for all sorts of reasons.  Most of the   
   ones I suspect you're talking about probably never existed in the first   
   place.   
      
   > And we have too much in the way of photographs, videos, etc for all of them   
   > to be 'fakes'.   
      
   Again, don't be silly, fakes are much easier to produce than real ones, so   
   any given picture is much more likely to be a fake than real.   
      
   > Some exhaustive photographic analysis was done on a   
   > photographic negative, from the 1950s? or earlier, and that particular   
   > photograph is unexplained.   
      
   Precisely, unexplained.  It means "There is no explanation", it doesn't   
   mean "Make up any old bollocks you want".   
      
   > There are some cases where physical evidence of   
   > some sort is left behind.   
      
   But, oddly, never anything really, definitely, 100% ET.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = 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)