For those of you quoting Kal Korff as an authority on Billy Meier

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Hi Maybe,

The photo's I'm talking about are the ones like the Hasenbol series from 1976


futureofmankind.co.uk...
futureofmankind.co.uk...
These are from a a series of about 40 pictures taken one after another as a ship comes in from a distant point until hovering just behind the tree in the picture. The people who developed Meiers films for him were interviewed and said that the photographs were taken in sequence and there were never any set up shots or mistakes for a start which would itself indicate fakery. To take an entire sequence of film with an object at different distances in locations ( which I have visited myself) with houses in the vicinity and not to be seen setting anything up would be difficult to say the least. As was testifed to by the original investigators Wendelle Stevens and Lee and Brit Elders who practically camped out at Meiers for two years trying to catch him out.

Its these photographs that were subjected to most scrutiny at the time using the best methods available at the time.
It is also these photographs that were altered by Korff and "suspension lines" were added into shots where there were none, these were subsequently published in his book debunking Meier. This essentially negated the actual real research done on the case previously. Korff made up all his evidence because he couldn't find any.
I've no problem admitting there are decidedly dodgy elements to the case, but instead of the view that if one of the photos are fake we should disregard the hundreds of others that Meier took ( there are many others that have not been released to the public ), I think that it would make more sense to take the view that if any of them are authentic then the matter needs more investigation or at least some rational thought.

Nobody has debunked these photos other than to say that they are models , when the analysis at the time said they were not. People have recreated these photographs in the present day after 30 years of trying but if models are used to do this, they are easily identified as such.

Think about it even if these were models as Korff falsely claimed, you would need multiple sizes of different ships to create the effect of an object arriving from a distance considering the difference in size from the first shot to the last or else you would need a pole 200 feet long to hang the one model from...

I don't want to get into a shouting match with anyone, I would only like people to discuss this particular issue logically thats not much to ask really is it?

Apparently it is too much to ask... ah well , never mind, carry on.

Originally posted by Frankinmouse
Nobody has debunked these photos other than to say that they are models , when the analysis at the time said they were not. People have recreated these photographs in the present day after 30 years of trying but if models are used to do this, they are easily identified as such.

IIG West has done a great job of putting together a lot of data (that I also contributed to) which shows the Meier case for what it is.

I duplicated model shots some years ago that were posted here, and answered the challenge put forth that they couldn't be made with simple models and string. When they came out better than any expected, I challenged the Meier rep to submit Meier's original photos/negatives to modern day 3rd party analysis - along with mine. To date, they have refused to do so.

IIG West's Meier deconstruction


Jim Dilettoso (who conducted the visual analysis way back when) who I met with personally, stated he too had been grossly misquoted over the years about the case - the words I heard him say with his own mouth in regard to the "Wedding Cake" craft shots was "yeah...those were clearly models." Jim was clearly not happy about how his work on the case was presented.

One doesn't have to be an "authority" on the case - one only needs a brain to see right through it.

ps-this will be my only post in this thread, as I have left this case far behind and no longer waste time on it's arguments because it's completely counter productive to the study of the UFO enigma. I've promised myself not to get re-involved in such ridiculousness - I just wanted to provide you the link for your own info.

reply to post by jritzmann

I've promised myself not to get re-involved in such ridiculousness - I just wanted to provide you the link for your own info.

For the record, Frankinmouse has got 8 posts out of 65 that don't actively support Meier. Draw your own conclusions.

reply to post by Kandinsky

For the record, all of the posts I've made have merely been trying to get people to answer some questions, to which most would with nonsence eg quoting Kal Korff, or not respond to facts that they had gotten wrong in their investigations and outright lying like Derek Bartholomaus from IIG when I caught him blatantly lying in a discussion here on ATS about the evidence presented by Marcel Vogel and then refused to respond when caught.

Draw your own conlcusions about that.

I see no one wants to comment on the Hasenbol pictures mentioned in the previous post.

Originally posted by Frankinmouse
I see no one wants to comment on the Hasenbol pictures mentioned in the previous post.

Where can I see the other 40 or so photos? All I ever see are the two. Considering how many photos were supposed to be taken, why is it that we only get to see the same dozen or so? Anyway, the other 40 photos, sequential, would be a big help in analysis. Thanks.

Oh, and some good, high-resolution raw scans made from first-generation prints or slides would also be nice. Nothing jpeged up so bad we can't see what's going on with them.

I think it's interesting that the thing advocates are usually the most impressed by, the photos, are the things with the most problems -- particularly when it comes to access. You'd think something so important would have a bit more productive work done on them. Organization, putting them into a nice online album for open research. That sort of thing.

But I'm sure there's an excuse for that. When it comes to Billy Meier, the dog always eats his homework.

By Garret Moore, Producer/Director UFOEARTH.NET "I was asked about my experience with knowing Kal Korff. I had mentioned him when at a conference talking to someone about Billy Meier. I had had an experience that involved Kal many years ago that proved to be the beginning of a trail of unfortunate and sad stories I would hear over the next almost 30 years. I might have been one of the first to know his tree’s fruit. Bitter as it was and proved to me to be. Early in my career as an illustrator and graphic designer, I was 23 at the time, a best friend of mine who was at that time a writer for Astrology Magazine among other publications, told me of someone he knew who was publishing a book and needed illustrations. I had already been published doing illustrations for a magazine article for Bill, but was, as a young artist and graphic designer, looking for as much valid paying work as I could to build my portfolio. My friend, a talented writer himself, introduced me to a younger man, Kal Korff, around 18-19 years old I thought, that told me with a convincing air of authority that he was a UFO investigator and was publishing a book exposing a hoax with then noted author Bill Moore (no relation) who, he said, was also a well known authority on UFOs. He said that they needed several illustrations for this book based on photos that where allegedly taken of an alien craft by a certain Billy Meier in Switzerland.

OP could you please add a link to where you found this ? Im most interested in people who claim to have debunked Billys beemship photos because I do not believe anyone has with any credibility . Thanks )

Bluemoone2 , here you go..
www.futureofmankind.co.uk...

Blue Shift, if you do a torrent search on Meier you will find over 20 gb of information on the case including all the photographs ever released to the public. There are 12 of the hasenbol photo's here:

www.futureofmankind.co.uk... some in high res.

There are also more here
theyfly.com...

As far as I know the rest have not officially been released to the internet but I've seen them myself, you can actually see all of the hasenbol pistures on a poster sold by figu in switzerland.



I think that these series of photographs are the most interesting and hardest to debunk. These are the pictures I'm mainly referring to in my original post. Again I have no quarrels with people who say that certain pictures maybe fakes but these series stand out.The original investigators in the 1970's could find no evidence of fakery but when Korff's fraudulent book came out, the public lost interest in the case and it disappeared from view for a number of years, there is renewed interest now thanks to poeple taking a serious look at the amount of material Meier actually released over the last 30 years.
Of course there are many people claiming to recreate the effect of Meiers photo's and some have done it very well after 30 years of trying but it's still just an effect and proves nothing. If anyone has definitively debunked the hasenbol series of pictures I've yet to hear about it.

Meier actually took nearly 2000 photographs out of which only a few hundred actually remain in his posession as far as I know, many were stolen while being developed, many were stolen by the constant stream of visitors to his house over the years.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Frankinmouse

I think that these series of photographs are the most interesting and hardest to debunk. These are the pictures I'm mainly referring to in my original post.

Well that's fairly easy.

The photos you refer to have no distance or atmospheric hazing, whatsoever. Now here's something to get you started:

If an object is large and some distance away, then distance haze MUST exist on the photo. It's a atmospheric fact, unless you're on the moon or something. If you look at say, F_155.jpg on the sire you provided, you'll note the disc's black level matches that of the close ground. It is NOT, some median between the mountain and close objects which would indicate distance, and therefore size.

It is deepest black and comparable to very close environmental objects. Unfettered by distance, even considering the abundant haze in the photo.

This immediately indicates a close, small object, quite close to the camera. This is an unavoidable issue that leaves no way around.

It's bull***t.

So, there ya go. Now go on and see if you can find distance hazing in *any* of the Meier photos. You wont. You'll definitely see haze via sunlight/exposure - because many of his photos are shot into the sun, which by the way, obliterate any supportive strings.

That the Meier folks say they have no original negatives or even photos (they tried to submit lithographs to one analyst for examination...a joke and he dropped them immediately) should tell you a lot.

Have fun!

I shall refrain from posting much opinion about the opening post, but I will say I had heard of Billy Meier before, and seen many of his (dreadful) images, but had never heard of Korff, nor seen his work or analyses. And I still haven't.. but maybe later.

What exactly is the importance of Korff? Meier is a faker. And not a very good one (even though a few of his images almost make the grade..).

Anyone who would take stuff seriously from him:
1. has some major gullibility issues
2. is selling/promoting something...

Face facts, Meier was busted numerous times for photographing dinosaurs and tv celebs and trying to pass them off as aliens. Most of his ufo images have ridiculous depth of field, focus and black point issues that make it very obvious to even a casual observer that they are not real 'ufo's.

Then there's the question of resolution..

Originally posted by Frankinmouse
The photo's I'm talking about are the ones like the Hasenbol series from 1976
futureofmankind.co.uk...
futureofmankind.co.uk...

Good examples of what I mean. For one, what is with the image sizes? These are low-resolution scans, one is obviously cropped/resized, and they have been shockingly oversharpened, along with who knows what other manipulations. WHERE ARE THE ORIGINAL HIGH RES SCANS???
One has no EXIF - deliberately stripped? The other has EXIF stating it was edited in Photoshop.

I haven't even started - shall I go further (I see Jeff has beaten me to it!)? And why the heck should I analyse TAINTED non-original images?

Thing is, when 90% of the images have already been shown to be bunk, and two more are flung out of a cupboard, with the claim they are 'better' (and they are clearly NOT), then I feel like I am wasting my time. As Mr Ritzman and his site has very well pointed out - the flaws are innumerable and undeniable. Frankly this stuff is reprehensible GARBAGE.

It has nothing to do with Korff, and even crazy folks get it right sometimes, you know. The OP was basically just a huge adhominem - if you claim Korff was wrong in his analyses, then post *your* better analyses - your initial post (and everything since), has been completely devoid of any actual examples of how you know better, despite your pleading for logical discussion... Which leads me to suspect 2 things:

You don't want logical discussion
You are not in any way experienced or qualified in image forensics
You ...

(Readers can fill in the last thing for themselves, after referring to item 2. above.)

reply to post by jritzmann


Thanks for replying, I'm just looking for a rational discussion, so if they are models did he use different size models for the series of around 40 pictures between this one
www.futureofmankind.co.uk...
and this one
www.futureofmankind.co.uk...

About the black levels, the levels between the trees in the background of this one seem to be pretty similar to the object in the sky, those trees are very large and obviously at a distance from the camera

www.futureofmankind.co.uk...

www.theyfly.com...

Originally posted by Frankinmouse
Thanks for replying, I'm just looking for a rational discussion, so if they are models did he use different size models for the series of around 40 pictures between this one
www.futureofmankind.co.uk...
and this one
www.futureofmankind.co.uk...

Or little paper cutouts, or.. - these are after all just (poor) 2d images, with little or no depth clues. BTW, I'd really like to see the original scan of that second one...

About the black levels, the levels between the trees in the background of this one seem to be pretty similar to the object in the sky, those trees are very large and obviously at a distance from the camera
www.futureofmankind.co.uk...

First up, the RIDICULOUS oversharpening of those images has effectively destroyed any hope of genuine research into the black levels. Who mangled those images so stupidly (deliberately?)???
But, strangely (grin) the deepest black levels of the 'ufo' are around 15, with a bias away from blue. The branches? Slightly *higher*, mostly 20 or so, with a bias away from blue and a bias towards red.

In layman's terms, that means the branches are a little brighter, although it is difficult to be conclusive due to that sharpening problem. They should really be *darker*, if they are closer...

www.theyfly.com...

I'm speechless. (just for a moment)

You seriously suggest that low-contrast, jpeg-compressed-to-oblivion, and oversharpened-to-hell, image could be used to analyse brightness??? Bzzzt.

And please tell me that tiny speck isn't the 'ufo'???

If it is, may I suggest you view it in an image editor that does not interpolate, enlarge it until you see the square pixels. Note how it seems to be cut in half? - that is a jpeg compression block boundary, showing stupidly high compression. Now look at the brighter halo around it? That's the halo from oversharpening. Sharpening creates a lighter and darker halo, and as you can see, the halo is BIGGER THAN THE OBJECT. So the lightening and darkening will affect the entire object, and it is FALSELY ADDED color, added onto the FALSE detail caused by jpeg compression.

I'm sorry but that is just laughable. I'm not having a go at you, but whoever is presenting/processing these images hasn't a clue. Or perhaps they are doing that deliberately...

reply to post by jritzmann


reply to post by CHRLZ


Jritzmann, CHRLZ…..

May I say what a great pleasure it is to see both of you in one Meier thread, applying your not inconsiderable brain cells to the Meier tom foolery.

I gotta say…..a good solid Meier debunk makes all this worthwhile!

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
I gotta say…..a good solid Meier debunk makes all this worthwhile!

Your kindness is appreciated, mmn.

But I'm not quite sure that a good solid Meier debunk is what the OP was after.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
I gotta say…..a good solid Meier debunk makes all this worthwhile!

Your kindness is appreciated, mmn.
But I'm not quite sure that a good solid Meier debunk is what the OP was after.

CHRLZ.....

Oh.....I see.....

That's a shame.

Well maybe he doesn't realise that it's for his own good.....

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by CHRLZ

First off, I'm not asking you to analyse anything. I was asked to post up some examples of pictures I was referring to, I dont know who scanned these but they were extensively examined in the 1970's. Then debunked by kal korff when he doctored the images to show lines in them and published them in his book.
The question I was asking Jeff Ritzmann was did he think meier used different sizes of models to acheive his photographs? Which I notice he did not answer.

Secondly the photo with the tree with leaves was just to show the scale beside the person, which I thought was pretty obvious if you actually read the post properly.

Also if the black levels in the photos are useless in the pictures posted up for distance measurement, why bring that up in the first place? Why dont you guys use your considerable brain power to answer a simple question I've asked? There is no way those photographs use paper cutouts. Do you think meier used multiple sized models to recreate the effect of an object arriving from a distance?

Originally posted by Frankinmouse
reply to post by CHRLZ

The question I was asking Jeff Ritzmann was did he think meier used different sizes of models to acheive his photographs? Which I notice he did not answer.

Well, ya have to give me time. I don't live here, and I also don't put the Meier case in any sort of priority.

Could have have used different sized models? Yes. Do I think he did? Yes.

I did some shots with a model a while ago in answer to "they can't be models" here:



This is one model, same size, both shots. However there's a definitive difference between the 2 shots. Neither exhibit distance haze - because they're bull****. Same as Meier's. Top one is shot with the sun just out of frame. See what wonderful effect?

As far as the posted 2 photos you put up after my last answer: The trees you speak of towards the right side of the photo are not that far - not in comparison to the distant mountains or any area between the mountains and the camera.

The other gent is correct - these are not direct scans, from print or side, and are likely scanned from a book, and passed around like a whore on Saturday night.

However....
There's plenty of other photos out there of Meier's "UFOs" that show a consistency of no distance haze whatsoever. The large picture book also shows no sign of distance haze whatsoever.

It's really simple stuff, forced perspective and a fixed focus...that's all. Anyone can do it with very little effort.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Thanx for the kind words - however this will be the end of the discussion for me (I've already broken my own rule with these few posts of keeping out of this Meier junk - but everyone seemed civil and willing to actually discuss, so...).

I choose to focus upon the interesting and compelling UFO data and not...well....this crap.

Good luck all - enjoy the rest of your discussion.

I see no one wants to comment on the Hasenbol pictures mentioned in the previous post.

At this point, Billy could walk up and introduce me to an alien, and it'd be hard to believe him.

He's already been caught in at least two PROVEN hoaxes (i.e. Asket & Nera, and the Pterasaur "photo"). Then there are the "ray gun" pics, the "wedding cake" UFO pics, etc. So he's gotten better at his hoaxing?....big deal.
Why keep beating a dead horse? It's like trying to say the Prophet Yahweh has a new prediction for a saucer landing. Nobody will believe him either.

Heck, for the sake of fun, lets just for one minute suppose that EVERYTHING Billy says is real.
Just go with it.
That means we've got these human-like aliens (some with 5 fingers, others with 6 I guess, as the pics and "handprints" differ), who keep saying they want to help, but in all these decades, basically just show up for play-dates with Billy, and shoot holes in trees with their ray guns.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7d877d4759ca.jpg[/atsimg]

Gee, thanks for all the help kind and benevolent aliens! If Billy is right, then it seems we've got nothing to worry about from these chronic procrastinators, and the Earth is perfectly safe from outer space hippies. Hooray!