Difference between revisions of "Analysis of IIG's Meier Case explanations"
|Line 104:||Line 104:|
| valign="top" width=238 |
| valign="top" width=238 |
| valign="top" width="197" |
| valign="top" width="197" |
Revision as of 19:56, 24 May 2010
This article takes a look at the findings of IIG regarding Meier. URL:
IIG AND THE ASKET AND NERA PHOTO DECONSTRUCTION
Background info. According to Meier, during a five-day space trip in 1975, aboard an alien spaceship and in another universe, he was allowed by his contactors to take photos of the alien women Asket and Nera. Meier's Verzeichnis photo catalogue lists three Asket and Nera photos, namely photo #109, #110 and #111. Below the three photos are presented.
|Photo #109. Showing Asket and Nera||Photo #110, showing Asket.||Photo #111, showing Asket and Nera|
IIG's explanation for these photos. According to IIG the "Photographs Are Actually Of A Singer From 1969-1973 Era Of The Dean Martin Variety Show". They literally write: "Here is the truth about these photos. The person identified on the left as Asket is actually the singer and dancer Michelle DellaFave."
Meier's explanation for these photos. The original photos of Asket and Nera were adulterated using pictures of two doubles(Michelle DellaFave and Susan Lund) performing in Dean Martin Variety Show, as elements of this falsification. In detail it is mentioned by FIGU in an article:
- Meier had given the negatives to a Herr Schmid for development at a cheaper price (there were some 700 hundred of them all from this trip). Schmid was a photographer who claimed he was from the Rhinevalley region in Switzerland.
- Schmid was very harshly threatened and pressured by the "Men in Black" into adulterating Billy's photos on their behalf. Mr. Schmid had no alternative other than to comply with them.
- The "Men in Black" found two doubles in America performing in an American TV show and photos from the show were used for manipulation of Meier's photos.
- The manipulation of the photos was done by "By retouching, recopying, and "sandwiching" separate sequences. Schmid adapted and arranged the photos to look the same as Billy's originals (which no longer exist now).
- The forgeries were done so perfectly, that not even Billy noticed the adulterations over the past 23 years, since the two female look-alikes in the photos have an extremely close resemblance to Asket and Nera, right down to the last detail.
Meier came with this explanation in 1998 shortly after UFO researcher Kal Korff had discovered and promoted the similarities between Dean Martin Show scenes and Meier's photos. Before 1998 Meier had published the pictures as being authentic.
Below I will present some points of critique regarding IIG's deconstruction of the Asket and Nera photos.
Change in explanation. Regarding Meier's above mentioned change of explanation IIG writes: "Why the change of explanation in 2001? It seems to be rather simple. In the 1990s videotapes of The Best of the Dean Martin Variety Show were released (on home video)." By omitting two important points IIG make seem Meier's change more abrupt then it really is.
- Meier already back in 1976 states in his contact notes that his space-trip photos can't be trusted! In the contact notes of the 68th contact on November 12, 1976 it is mentioned that space-trip pictures have been severely tampered with, and substitutions made in some cases and the photos not returned in other cases, during the photo processing.
- Another important point they fail to mention is the fact that it is mentioned in contact #39 in 1975 that Asket and Nera had doubles, or look-alikes, in America.
So this adds credibility to Meier's version of the truth that Mr. Schmid had manipulated the photos from this trip. Knowing the above mentioned point one may ask: Would a hoaxer publish an official contact report mentioning the fact that there are look-alikes of Asket and Nera in America, and then he go ahead and sell photos depicting the Dean Martin women (from America), claiming they are Asket and Nera? That doesn't qualify as a careful cover-up.
The faces are different. Another important point ignored by IIG is that the faces of Asket and Michelle DellaFave are different. The face of Asket has a narrower chin and smaller mouth and generally the lower part of her face is smaller. Also note that Asket's face has a more peaceful, less aggressive, more positive and refined expression. This adds credibility to Meier's explanation that Michelle is a double of Asket.
Witnesses. What IIG also leaves out of their reasoning is the fact that at least two people have gone on record witnessing Asket back in the 60ies. These persons are Phobal Cheng and her brother.
|Phobal Cheng with her grandfather, V.B. Dharmawara,|
and her younger brother, circa 1967. All three were
reportedly witnesses of Asket with Meier, and Asket's UFOs, in 1964
UFO researcher Michael Hesemann writes about this in an article: "During an elaborate Indian dinner, to which she had invited me [Phobal Cheng], the lady recounted: “In those days all of us at the Mission saw the spaceships” and Meier was in contact with their pilots. Additionally, she had seen him “walking across the court yard of the Ashram accompanied by a woman with long, brunette hair, dressed in a type of spacesuit.” Her grandfather also had been provided with opportunities to speak with the extraterrestrial visitors. I listened to this lady with baited breath and made a promise to her that I would keep her name confidential and would not mention her homeland to anyone. She simply did not want the publicity due to the sensitive nature of her diplomatic position."
Not shot from TV monitor. It has also been claimed by debunkers that Meier took the photos from a colour TV. But there is no evidence that Meier took the photo off of a TV. Neither round nor square coloured light dots can be observed which are still common on TV monitor tubes even today. This invalidates, therefore, the claim that the pictures were photographed from a TV monitor.
IGG hasn't found the exact source frame(s)/segment. It should be noted that IIG fails to provide the exact frames/segments from the show that were used for the photos.This in fact adds credibility to Meier's explanation that only elements of the pictures of the Dean Martin Show were used for the falsifications.
Meier photo #109 greatly resembles the frame presented by IIG, however a closer look shows it certainly isn't a 100% match (see pictures below).
IIG AND THE DINO PICTURE
CLAIM: Billy Meier Published Photographs Of Dinosaurs That He Claims Were From A Trip He Took Into The Distant Past
Explanation. The fact is that even Billy Meier himself doesn't claim that this space-trip picture is genuine. The space-trip photos also aren't listed in the Verzeichnis photo catalogue. Meier never claimed the photo was authentic and has stated that this is one of the photos he suspects of having been falsified by others. The photo may contain some authentic elements. Meier's complete clarification regarding this photo can be read here: The_Pteranodon_Photo.
IIG AND THE FIRE SHIP DECONSTRUCTION
CLAIM: Billy Meier Published Photographs Of Either A Fiery Space Ship Or Burning Static Electricity
IIG’S FINDINGS: Photographs Are Actually Of What Appears To Be Burning Steel Wool
IIG also states: “This is an example of Billy Meier apparently not expecting people to know how the images in his photographs could be created and published them as "evidence" of being contact from extra-terrestrials.”
Point of critique. I agree that IIG has presented relatively good recreations, however a point not mentioned by IIG is that this photo proves the existence of an accomplice. There is no way Meier could, at the same time, accomplish both actions: a) create the effect of burning static electricity and b) taking a photograph. Of course, no accomplice has been found until this day. One also wonders why would two hoaxers go through the trouble of creating this weak evidence and weaken the overall accumulation of evidence in the case?
IIG AND WEDDING CAKE UFO DECONSTRUCTION
Size of craft seems to be larger than size of trashcan lid. IIG explains Meier’s WCUFO as being a model made of all kind of household objects like a garbage can lid, a lid of pressure cooker and Christmas ornaments. According to IIG one of the main components of the WCUFO is a Harcostar garbage can lid with a (maximum) diameter of 47,1 cm. However, some of the photos show that the part of the UFO that allegedly is the lid is probably larger then 47,1 cm. The following photos show one Meier photos (#844) and a recreation.
|Photo #844, source: FIGU's "Photobuch".||Recreation by Phil Langdon|
Note that the tree in Meier’s photo has more foliage and there is a much larger variation between larger and smaller branches. In short the tree in photo #844 displays characteristics of a relatively larger tree. This once again shows that the situation is less simple than IIG wants us to believe.
After the detailed WCUFO recreations by Phil Langdon in 2009 apparently the time was right for FIGU to strengthen the WCUFO evidence since they for the first time released a very detailed version of one of the more spectacular WCUFO photos. The following pictures show a cropped version of Meier’s photo #850 and Phil Langdon and his tree that was used in his 2009 recreations. Note that the tree in Meier’s photo seems to be considerably larger and thus it shows that diameter of the WCUFO is larger than 47,1 cm (the maximum diameter of the garbage can lid).
|A cropped version of photo #850, source: FIGU website.||WCUFO recreator Phil Langdon and his cultivated tree.|