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this very outdated subject, I will repeat Frank's article here.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 *
**********************************************
