188 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
188 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: EDUARD "BILLY" MEIER - PHOTO EVIDENCE FILE: UFO2548
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subj: Eduard "billy" Meier - Photo Evidence
|
|
|
|
* Forwarded from "ParaNet General Echo"
|
|
* Originally dated 03-07-92 13:40
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 1981, the late Frank Gillespie wrote the following review of "UFO
|
|
....Contact from the Pleiades." In light of recent Paranet discussions on
|
|
this very outdated subject, I will repeat Frank's article here. Before doing
|
|
so, I would like to point out that Frank Gillespie was a scientist with the
|
|
Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Being a
|
|
photographic expert, Frank was, for many years, a scientific advisor to
|
|
Australian UFO groups.
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Part 1:
|
|
|
|
"UFO...CONTACT FROM THE PLEIADES Vol.1"
|
|
|
|
The presentation of this UFO contactee story is quite different from any of
|
|
its predecessors. The backbone of the book is a series of twenty two flying
|
|
saucer photographs, supported by a rather sketchy and disjointed text; and
|
|
padded out by personal photographs, snatches of cosmonaut and other
|
|
philosophy, and seven pages invoking tenuous connections with the pyramids,
|
|
the parthenon, and verious other ancient structures. There are also some
|
|
visually impressive computer generated images, for which the interpretations
|
|
may or may not have been quoted correctly. The credit for the preparation
|
|
and publishing of this book is shared by a team of nine indivduals and four
|
|
companies; but all of the flying saucer photographs are attributed to Eduard
|
|
"Billy" Meier, a farmer/caretaker of Inwel, Switzerland.
|
|
|
|
A connected series of photographs such as this can be likened to a chain,
|
|
where the failure of a single link disrupts the entire chain. Rather
|
|
ironically, the very first photograph in the book is the one in which
|
|
evidence of fakery can be most clearly seen, so that detectable
|
|
discrepancies in later photographs only go to confirm that a superimposition
|
|
technique such as front projection has undoubtedly been used. The first
|
|
picture, which is reproduced again precisely half way through the book, is
|
|
one of a series supposedly taken just before sunset on 29th March, 1976. It
|
|
has the appearance of a scene largely in shadow, but lit from the right by a
|
|
reddish sun, which also flashes brightly off the upper section of the
|
|
spacecraft. However, this apparent illumination terminates abruptly along
|
|
the line of the distant hilltops, along with the transition from pale blue
|
|
sky to brownish hills. Close examination reveals that this appearance of
|
|
sunshine has been achieved by displacing the magenta and yellow colour image
|
|
laterally from the cyan and black, thus generating an orange flash on one
|
|
side of the tree limbs. The effect of this technique is apparent only where
|
|
the background is lacking in magenta and yellow - in this case, the sky.
|
|
The question arises, was this the result of poor printing technique, or was
|
|
it deliberately done, either before or after the picture reached the hands
|
|
of the printers? Consider the evidence; that the only pictures in the book
|
|
which have this defect to any serious extent are the ones in this particular
|
|
series, that the extent of the defect is far beyond what any reputable colour
|
|
reprodcer would allow, and that the effect of the misregistration is so
|
|
pronounced that it could not possibly have been missed. As to who was
|
|
responsible for the fakery, the buck appears to stop at the colour
|
|
reproducers, because in the second printing of this picture, the colour
|
|
displacement has been done in the wrong direction, and the trees appear to be
|
|
sunlit from the left. The printers would have used the blocks as received,
|
|
on equipment which automatically preserved the registration of the four
|
|
colours.
|
|
|
|
It would be tedious to go through all the individual discrepancies in the
|
|
various pictures, particularly as the book pages are not numbered for
|
|
reference. Suffice to say that the faults to look for come into the
|
|
following categories:
|
|
|
|
1. Lighting direction discrepancies between the background and the
|
|
spacecraft.
|
|
2. Overcast sky and flatly lit ground scene, with a brightly lit craft.
|
|
3. Correct exposure for the craft, when the scene is badly underexposed.
|
|
4. Craft in better focus than any part of the scene.
|
|
5. Lack of ground shadow cast by the craft.
|
|
6. Inconsistent lighting between shots supposedly taken at the same time.
|
|
7. No signs of life in any of the UFO pictures.
|
|
|
|
The first five of these faults all indicate that a superimposition technique
|
|
has been used, probably involving models for the spacecraft. Confirmatory
|
|
evidence comes from the last saucer picture in the book, where the painted on
|
|
"portholes" are fairly obvious. The most likely technique used for the
|
|
superimposition is front projection, which is widely used in the United
|
|
States today. With this technique, you can have your wedding day photographs
|
|
taken in front of the Salt Lake Tabernacle, even though the ceremony took
|
|
place in a Brooklyn registry office. The technique is virtually
|
|
undetectable, except when mistakes are made, such as those listed above.
|
|
|
|
The text of this book is also not immune to criticism. The claim is made,
|
|
for instance, that the focussing of the camera used for all the saucer
|
|
stills was jammed just short of infinity. This is just the setting which
|
|
would be used to obtain maximum clarity in a landscape photograph, so it
|
|
becomes a rather hollow excuse for the poor focussing evident in many of the
|
|
pictures. The captions of the two micrograph pictures are nonsensical - all
|
|
metals have adequate conductivity for scanning electron microscopy, but the
|
|
specimen in the picture exhibits signs of poor conductivity, suggesting an
|
|
improperly prepared nonmetallic object; and the machining in the other
|
|
micrograph is not only very poor, but it appears to have been done by an
|
|
unsuitable technique. It is repeatedly claimed that an abundance of
|
|
pictures are available for publication, which makes it hard to understand
|
|
why five of them have been printed twice, for no good reason. Looking at
|
|
the drawings of the various craft, one would expect from their clarity and
|
|
detail, that they would be accurate. This appears to be so for type 5 craft,
|
|
and for type 2 other than the one in the movie sequence, but it is
|
|
definitely not the case for the remaining variations. The claims made for
|
|
the movie segment deserve some attention. Ask any film producer, and he
|
|
will tell you that these are all standard effects with a tripod mounted
|
|
camera, involving only simply stop/start and time-lapse techniques.
|
|
|
|
The scientific investigation is one aspect of this book which worries me.
|
|
Apart from acknowledging the part played by De Anza Systems Inc., the book
|
|
does not name any of the persons involved; but one would expect an honourable
|
|
scientist to revoke any abuse of his professional status. I can only
|
|
conclude, therefore, that some, at least, of my colleagues, have allowed
|
|
themselves to be so blinded by state-of-the-art technology, that they cannot
|
|
see how easy it is to cheat such a system. Relying entirely on a computer
|
|
for UFO photograph analysis is like staking your reputation on the computer
|
|
beating all comers at chess. Anyone knowing or guessing the factors on
|
|
which the computer calculations are based, can devise techniques to force
|
|
incorrect analyses from the comptuer. For example, distance and size
|
|
assessment are both based on edge sharpness data, which can be readily
|
|
manipulated to give any desired result during a superimposition. Regarding
|
|
the metal, biological and mineral specimens left by the cosmonauts, there is
|
|
a technique called isotope analysis now available, which will determine with
|
|
absolute certainty whether a material is of extraterrestrial origin. There
|
|
are many places where it can be carried out; and some of these must be known
|
|
to the American scientists allegedly involved in the investigation.
|
|
Significantly, no mention is made of this technique being used.
|
|
|
|
This scientific aspect is so important, that, at the risk of boring layman
|
|
readers, I will deal specifically with some of the misconceptions which
|
|
appear in the book. Electron microscopy always sounds impressive, but it
|
|
would be hard to conceive of a greater exercise in futility than using it on
|
|
colour film images. A scanning microscope would show only the topography of
|
|
the emulsion surface, wheras in a transmission microscope, the dye materials
|
|
of the image would be indistinguishable from the gelatin medium. Three
|
|
dimensionality can be detected with reasonable certainty from an original
|
|
photograph, taken under known conditions. However, UFOs have frequently been
|
|
assessed as three dimensional from analysis of copied photographs, which are,
|
|
by definition, photographs of photographs having only two effective
|
|
dimensions. Alternatively, skillful artists routinely transfer attributes of
|
|
three dimensionality to canvas, sufficient to fool any computer analysis. In
|
|
colour film, the image is composed of three dyes, each of which is visible to
|
|
the eye. There is no other material present with which any invisible image
|
|
could be formed; and to suggest that some mysterious radiation produced such
|
|
an image is surely ridiculous. Similarly, it is foolhardy to suggest that any
|
|
wire or thread supporting a model must show up with computer enhancement. A
|
|
300mm diameter foam plastic model, for instance, could easily be supported by
|
|
a single fibre from a nylon stocking, which, at 2 metres from the camera,
|
|
would be well beyond the resolving power of its optical system. A general
|
|
characteristic of film grains is that they overlap - it is only thus that a
|
|
true black image can be built up. This is especially true of colour film,
|
|
where each of the tree emulsions has to be capable of developing as a solid
|
|
colour. Another characteristic of film grains is that once they are
|
|
developed, there is no way to tell how or when they were exposed; hence film
|
|
grain analysis gives no information about the use of multiple exposures, or
|
|
of most darkroom techniques. In conclusion computer techniques have their
|
|
place, but they cannot substitute entirely for careful visual examination of
|
|
any UFO photograph.
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The above article which appeared in the `UFO Research Australia Newsletter,"
|
|
Vol.2 No.1, Jan-Feb 1981, is one of many written at the time. Other
|
|
individuals and organisations wrote expose as well, so the above is not an
|
|
isolated critique. I reproduce Frank Gillespie's article here in an attempt
|
|
to show those who have only been subjected to pro Billy Meier arguments that
|
|
scientific evaluations revealed a very different story.
|
|
|
|
I think it a shame that time is wasted on cut and dried hoaxes when there is
|
|
so much that is presently unexplained and far more deserving of our time and
|
|
attention.
|
|
|
|
In closing, I would like to state that the above ends my participation in
|
|
the Billy Meier farce. I will not enter into any further discussions, I
|
|
value my time far too much to debate proven hoaxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |