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

Originally posted by Frankinmouse
First off, I'm not asking you to analyse anything.

That's wise. You know what the results will be.

I was asked to post up some examples of pictures I was referring to, I dont know who scanned these

So, no validity whatsoever, no details, obviously not originals, obviously photoshopped.. but OK with you!!!

but they were extensively examined in the 1970's.

If that's the case, the originals should be available for independent verification. They aren't, so I call BULLDUNG. By whom, exactly, were they 'extensively' examined? Some untrained pretender? All I've seen are some comments that someone thought they were genuinely 'taken' images, with no comments whatsoever about the possibility fo them being models or faked scenes. SHOW ME the full, proper analysis.

Then debunked by kal korff when he doctored the images to show lines in them and published them in his book.

Stop @#$%ing on about Korff, and bring your REAL ANALYSIS to the table. You are wasting the forum's time with this adhominem garbage.

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.

He has now. YOU now present your evidence that they *weren't*, or couldn't have been models (or paper cutouts for that matter). I can show you many more images like those, using .. models. Would you like a couple with paper cutouts too?

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.

Here's your exact quote:

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

Clearly this is about black levels, and the comment about the distance of the trees was not pointed out as the main factor, nor did you point out that there was no relevant 'object in the sky' in the second one. Maybe you should take a bit more care when posting. By the way, if you want to talk about trees and sizes, shall we look at that 'repeating' tree found in so many images? I'm guessing you probably don't want to go there.. At the same time, shall we look at the depth of field in a the Olympus-35 ECR camera, and discuss what would be in and out of focus...?

It seems very clear that Korff is an irrelevant detail, being used to promote this idiotic case. Some website not getting enough hits, perhaps?

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by Frankinmouse
First off, I'm not asking you to analyse anything.

That's wise. You know what the results will be.

I was asked to post up some examples of pictures I was referring to, I dont know who scanned these

So, no validity whatsoever, no details, obviously not originals, obviously photoshopped.. but OK with you!!!

but they were extensively examined in the 1970's.

If that's the case, the originals should be available for independent verification. They aren't, so I call BULLDUNG. By whom, exactly, were they 'extensively' examined? Some untrained pretender? All I've seen are some comments that someone thought they were genuinely 'taken' images, with no comments whatsoever about the possibility fo them being models or faked scenes. SHOW ME the full, proper analysis.

Then debunked by kal korff when he doctored the images to show lines in them and published them in his book.

Stop @#$%ing on about Korff, and bring your REAL ANALYSIS to the table. You are wasting the forum's time with this adhominem garbage.

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.

He has now. YOU now present your evidence that they *weren't*, or couldn't have been models (or paper cutouts for that matter). I can show you many more images like those, using .. models. Would you like a couple with paper cutouts too?

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.

Here's your exact quote:

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

Clearly this is about black levels, and the comment about the distance of the trees was not pointed out as the main factor, nor did you point out that there was no relevant 'object in the sky' in the second one. Maybe you should take a bit more care when posting. By the way, if you want to talk about trees and sizes, shall we look at that 'repeating' tree found in so many images? I'm guessing you probably don't want to go there.. At the same time, shall we look at the depth of field in a the Olympus-35 ECR camera, and discuss what would be in and out of focus...?

It seems very clear that Korff is an irrelevant detail, being used to promote this idiotic case. Some website not getting enough hits, perhaps?

1. I was simply asked what pictures I was referring to, I was not asked for nor can I produce the originals.

2. If you don't know who did the investigations in the 1970's you know next to nothing about the case.

3. I was simply asking a question not discussing an analysis.

4. Jeff Ritzmann has now responded to my question, but up until after my last post had not. Thank you Jeff, thats all I wanted to ask you.

5 I did not bring up the subject of black levels, Jeff Ritzmann did, then you contradicted him by saying the black levels were useless in these pictures for the purposes of distance measurement.

6. You are wasting everyones time by responding and not reading the posts properly.

7. Korff is not an irrelevant detail as was demonstrated by the first couple of responses to my initial posts which you probably didn't read either.

8. At least one person actually answered a question instead of attacking without thinking.

9. If you can't come on to ATS and ask a question without being attacked what use is this website?

Originally posted by Frankinmouse
1. I was simply asked what pictures I was referring to, I was not asked for nor can I produce the originals.

Right. Thanks for the admission. They are absolutely useless as evidence. (That was pretty self-explanatory...)

It's a GREAT pity, because I was hoping that there were some new, undiscovered DECENT images that could be PROPERLY analysed using my not insignificant talents.

But NO. NOTHING. sigh

2. If you don't know who did the investigations in the 1970's you know next to nothing about the case.

You are not just replying to ME. This is a public forum and you have introduced a topic for discussion and made a series of UNSUPPORTED claims. By CHILDISHLY refusing to answer a simple question and SUPPORT your claims, thereby professing your 'superiority' ("i know something you don't, nyer, nyer") you are playing typical tinfoilhat games. So don't be suprised when you are called up on them. So, I'll help you out shall I? Was It Jim Dilletoso?

(Look out, it's a TRAP!!)
[gee i hope i didn't think that out loud..]

Or was it some of the 'many professionals' (grin) who worked under (smirk) non-disclosure (giggle) agreements (guffaw).

3. I was simply asking a question not discussing an analysis.

Again. Wise.

4. Jeff Ritzmann has now responded to my question, but up until after my last post had not. Thank you Jeff, thats all I wanted to ask you.

Yes, let's stop. Wouldn't want to dig too deep...

5 I did not bring up the subject of black levels, Jeff Ritzmann did, then you contradicted him by saying the black levels were useless in these pictures for the purposes of distance measurement.

DON'T MISQUOTE ME or JEFF. I get VERY ANGRY with reprehensible tactics like that. Here's what i said, and I STAND BY IT:

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...

Now if you want to get down and dirty on this topic, I'm VERY happy to go through, point by point, exactly what all that means, and also why the analysis Jeff did was absolutely valid, and debate all the issues in very fine detail with you. Just say the word - but don't come half-armed into a battle of wits.

Yes, the images are mangled, and in some of them it makes it difficult to make any real judgements about black levels. Yes, it is very difficult to make any meaningful analysis because of stupid, shoddy post-processing. But IN SPITE of all that, the image I referred to still shows exactly the reverse of what you claimed. YOU tried to get a brownie point on the topic by saying:

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

. Were those not your words?

I pointed out, correctly, that the image was not well-suited to such an analysis, but even taking that into account it STILL showed the exact reverse of what YOU wanted, anyway.

And then to top it off, you can't come up with the originals, or explain why that is? Could your position be any weaker?

The term's "toothless tiger", "non-existent argument" and "out of your depth" come to mind.

6. You are wasting everyone's time by responding and not reading the posts properly.

Anyone else think so? Here I am offering my expertise, and you think I'm not reading the thread.. because I don't know which professionals you didn't name... Yeah, got it.

7. Korff is not an irrelevant detail as was demonstrated by the first couple of responses to my initial posts

I refer you to my last point....

.. which you probably didn't read either.

That's right up there with "If you don't know who did the investigations in the 1970's you know next to nothing".
Grow up. If I'm wrong, point it out in detail. Otherwise stop making silly claims.

8. At least one person actually answered a question instead of attacking without thinking.

Shall I point out the questions YOU haven't answered?

9. If you can't come on to ATS and ask a question without being attacked what use is this website?

If you feel you are being attacked, then you should report my 'vicious' posts.... Or maybe they just seem vicious because you don't like where I'm heading.

Just a tiny little point to consider, Frank... This thread is about how bad 'Korff's analysis was, right?

HOW IS IT THAT YOU HAVE NOT, EVEN ONCE BEEN SPECIFIC ABOUT WHICH PARTS OF HIS ANALYSIS WERE SO MISLEADING. AND WHERE IS YOUR COUNTER ANALYSIS?

Do explain, and display your expertise, I'm eager to learn more...

reply to post by CHRLZ


CHRLZ.....

I would be extremely interested to see you apply yourself to the Meier imagery.

But.....

Mine is a selfish interest, because I very much enjoy your analysis & your description of same.....& it is not your job to sit there & entertain me!

In case it's of interest.....

Here is a Meier site that covers off a lot of his junk in an organised manner.

www.iigwest.org...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by CHRLZ


CHRLZ.....

Now I know I said I would never post a Silly Billy picture on ATS, I couldn't help it because I reckon Silly Billy out did himself with this one:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6bfd8d2e11e1.jpg[/atsimg]

"wus goin' on bro'.....?

I mean, did he really just stick a plank in the tree & stick the Silly Billy garbage can lid UFO on the plank?

I mean fair dinkum.....give the man a cigar .....that's pretty funny!

Cheers mate
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
I would be extremely interested to see you apply yourself to the Meier imagery.

I'd love to do so...

But... (heheh)

I'd like it to be driven by the forum - what are generally regarded as the absolute 'best' images he captured - let's say 3 or 4 - and where can i find the highest resolution versions available?


I really like your example, btw.



Hey, that tree - it seems vaguely familiar... what type is it and how far away was it, I wonder?

I'm sorry, but some of the images are just TOO funny... But I promise I will be serious, even if my tail is wagging furiously and gives the game away..

Added PS - By the way, I'll even make an effort to look at Korff's analysis of the images in question, if such exists. If it's wrong, I'll shoot it down in WW I-Ace style too. I don't like people pretending to know stuff when they don't.. no matter whose side they claim to be on.

reply to post by CHRLZ


Look I don't know what your problem is, I wasn't claiming anything I was simply trying to get a question answered which eventually was. I'll have other questions based on that answer.

In regards to Korff , you obviously missed the article I posted up, here it is again ,

futureofmankind.co.uk...

In fact Garret Moore came on ATS during a discussion and admitted that he had doctored Meiers pictures for Korffs book, but he was generally ignored.

I've seen IIG's site they make great arguments for some aspects but lie about others, they still have it up on their website that Marcel Vogel claimed he detected thulium in Meiers metal sample with an electron microscope which is impossible, Marvel Vogel used mass spectrometry and x-ray diffraction to determine the compostition of the metal.

Originally posted by Frankinmouse
I wasn't claiming anything I was simply trying to get a question answered which eventually was. I'll have other questions based on that answer.

Is that how you admit to error? Not claiming anything, huh....? Guess you didn't say any of this then:

.. he fabricated almost all of his evidence ..
.. don't use Kal Korffs evidence ..
..Korffs description of the center and its surroundings .. are a complete fabrication ..
.. Did you actually read my post?? It's proof about Korff ..
.. Korff's facts for everything else in his book were either wildly inaccurate or completely made up. ..

That's just from your first few posts. Those are.. CLAIMS. Like yours about the black point looking like something that it actually wasn't... And what do you notice about those claims, Frank? I'll give you a hint - none of them are supported by anything you have posted - so, we are to take your word... And who wouldn't??

And the irony is, that you complain you can't get logical or rational debate - what a flippin' joke!! *You* want good debate? Then back up YOUR claims with YOUR opinion. Not with copycat stuff or links that you expect us to give free hits, but with YOUR considered opinion AND YOUR logical and reasoned debate. SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, not handwaving garbage..

Have you read the posting rules, at all?

In regards to Korff , you obviously missed the article I posted up, here it is again ,
SPAM LINK REMOVED

Stop spamming those lame sites and GIVE YOUR OPINION AND YOUR EXAMPLES.

In fact Garret Moore came on ATS during a discussion and admitted that he had doctored Meiers pictures for Korffs book, but he was generally ignored.

Did he approach it like you are? If so, he got what he deserved. maybe you should take the hint.

I've seen IIG's site they make great arguments for some aspects but lie about others...

AGAIN!! A claim with no supporting information whatsoever. I am sick to death of your HANDWAVING.
BE SPECIFIC! Bravely tell us exactly where they 'lie' and how you came to that conclusion, oralternatively just admit you've got nothing and cannot support your claims.

.. Marvel Vogel used mass spectrometry and x-ray diffraction to determine the compostition of the metal.

CITATION for this claim, and how does 'Marvel [sic] Vogel' equate to a proper testing authority? Where is his full report, the test protocols and published results? Or is this claim about as useful as all the missing high-resolution images? I truly hope you at least can cover this one adequately, because frankly this is all unravelling at breakneck speed. And I haven't even started...


Look mate, I'll give you a hint. If you don't know your topic, you are wasting your time and ours. And may I point out that the following research methodology (which you appear to follow), is NOT generally accepted as the best way to deny ignorance...

Step 1. I see a website.
Step 2. I BELIEVE!

Originally posted by Frankinmouse
I'm not dismissing the fact that there are dodgy elements to the case, what I'm trying to get at is that the other aspects of the case that are harder to dismiss have not been looked at properly because of korffs pervious influence. As I stated in the original post, this is about korffs effect on peoples opinion on meier before they do any research at all. Here on ats everyone goes on about rayguns and dinosaurs admitedly weak evidence for anything, but they refuse to discuss the other 200 high quality photos that are harder to deal with, I believe this us a direct result of korffs book in the 1980's in which korff falsely created his own retouched versions of Meiers photos and passed then on to the public as evidence of fakery.

And the "scale models" of the UFOs shown in Meier's pictures being found in his shed carry no weight?

Perhaps because there were no strings attached to them?

Harte

I don't know why you are having difficulty with this, my only claim was that Korff falsfied evidence for his book debunking Meier, I posted up a link to the transcript of an interview with the man whom Korff hired to do this. Why do you need my opinion on that when that it's there in front of you?

There are many other claims that Korff made that were false you, can read about them here,
www.futureofmankind.co.uk...

I have to reference this site as its the only one containing the documents from the 1970's that I can find..
I could give you my opinion but I'd rather just show you the actual documents.

My opinion was that trying to have a discussion about the Meier material here on ATS was difficult as people would barge in to the thread shouting " there's lines in them thar pictures". Making it difficult to have any type of discussion at all.
The other problem is people barging in to a thread without reading the subject matter of the post in the first place.

The reference to x-ray diffraction and spectral analysis comes from
The Preliminary Investigation Report
by Wendelle Stevens,copyrighted 1982,1981,1980,1979,1978.
page 432....

I was only trying to discuss one aspect of this case,for now I got an answer to my one question I actually asked after many other responses that had nothing to do with it.

Thanks for your input.

I would agree that Korff has his own issues, and isn't the best argument against Meier.

But, he doesn't have to be. Meier does it much better all on his own. Lets just nail this coffin shut, shall we?

Just look at this photo of an "alien" holding a "ray gun" provided by Meier...

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

How about the photo of two “aliens” named “Asket” and “Nera”? They were actually guests on the Dean Martin show (and their real names are Michelle DellaFave and Susan Lund).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/00687b91c8a4.jpg[/atsimg]

I know that the picture of myself and Susie is from the Dean Martin show when the Golddiggers were guests on the show. I think it is about 1971 and I did wear my hair with little curls at the side of my face. It amazes me that he chose that picture. I guess it was when they did the reruns in Europe. I do not want anyone thinking I am causing any problems. I am simply stating the truth involved with these pictures. I just know a picture of myself when I see one, as anyone else would. I know it is from a segment when The Golddiggers would sit around Dean Martin and sing beautiful ballads called 'Welcome To My World.'"

- Michelle DellaFave
www.iigwest.com...
(if you go to this link, you’ll even see pics of what they look like now)

Billy claims the Swiss MIB switched the pictures, when he was called out on it.

Then, there’s the “dinosaur” Billy took a “photo” of when he was “time travelling” with the aliens…

Billy’s “photo”

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3e5393ddbd47.jpg[/atsimg]

The illustration he took it from:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ea5c42a516db.jpg[/atsimg]

This illustration is by Zdenek Burian and was published in 1972 in the book Life Before Man, which was written by Zdenek V. Spinar. This book was first published in Prague. It is possible that Meier thought it would be an obscure enough of a book that no one would notice. However, it was picked up by the British publishing company of Thames & Hudson and was then published throughout the world.

Really? And you still want to take this guy’s claims seriously? I just can't....

Originally posted by Frankinmouse
I could give you my opinion but I'd rather just show you the actual documents.

And there, in a nutshell is your problem.

THAT is why your thread is being (rightly) shredded. This is a DISCUSSION FORUM, not a venue for spamming websites. You don't wish to express your opinion, and the only reason that could be is that you are afraid of what will result - namely that if you post ACTUAL claims, your expertise (or lack thereof) will become very clear.

Here I am, waiting patiently for your VERY FIRST actual claim, and I'll go through it point by point and provide a full analysis to the extent possible.

Yet you post NOTHING but repeated spam.

So all I can see are the images above, posted by Gazrok and MMN... Would you like me to repeat the very well known deBUNKing of that absolutely miserable BUNK?

Or do you want to post your smoking gun?

Come on Franky, show us what you have got. NO MORE LINKS - DISCUSSION.

The reference to x-ray diffraction and spectral analysis comes from
The Preliminary Investigation Report by Wendelle Stevens,copyrighted 1982,1981,1980,1979,1978.

Ahh, more spam - I have to buy the book, eh? You can't transcribe the relevant parts, especially the bits that give the testing protocols in detail? You're very 'lazy' when it comes to anything upon which you can be queried. Funny about that. But don't worry, nobody is noticing. And this is the same bit of metal that was oops, somehow stolen, and now can't be verified. Oh what a shame. Ah yes, the old "black helicopters" excuse. These alien-ufo finders are bloody incompetent, aren't they? Always an excuse... Had they sent the metal anonymously to a REAL testing lab, there wouldn't have been a problem. But no, it had to be in house .. so it could conveniently disappear. This stuff is SO convincing!!!!

I was only trying to discuss one aspect of this case,for now I got an answer to my one question I actually asked after many other responses that had nothing to do with it.

Well, I for one am waiting with eagerly bated breath for the next instalment of your crusade. Good Luck!

reply to post by Frankinmouse


So far, as of this moment (Thu., 9/30, 12:08am) there are 3 pages. I read only the first 'cause there's repetitiveness going nowhere. Meier is criticized and so is Korff. Both have their good and bad points. Meier's good points are his movies, especially where he is shown walking down a hilly path and up in the sky behind him and way off in the distance you can see what can be construed as a "spaceship" and too far to be hokey. The other footage of the dematerializing and materializing of a "craft" so far has not been explained adequately. His footage of the craft with the flashing light needs to be explained for '70s technology. The pendulum over the tree footage is never shown as originally shown with the tree in the distance where obviously a pole would have to be borned by Paul Bunyan. The photos can be questioned and some of them are downright jokes. So Meier's movies and some photos have to remain enigmatic.

Kal, OTOH, has to be given credit for some accomplishments. I have a copy of the Korff-produced spiral bound "book" and when I got it back in the early '80s I got on the horn and tried to contact him to show him all of the errors in the poorly-produced book. Didn't get an answer. I enjoyed his exposure of Meier in "SPACESHIPS OF THE PLEIADES:..." His ego is so big his name was at the top of every page but that didn't affect the contents. Then he came out with his superb book "The Roswell Ufo Crash: What They Don't Want You to Know" which almost matched Karl T. Pflock's (and Jerry Pournelle) "Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe".

So, in my opinion, this post is worthless as it doesn't seem to accomplish anything worthwhile or adds anything to past events connecting Korff and Meier. It's a done deal, let it rest.

alright, who broke the italics...??!!

(hope it wuzznt me..)

Ah yes I was wondering when that would happen, even the mods get involved and post up the ray gun, Asket , and dino pictures, I knew they'd all arrive sometime.

Well done Gazrok in yourself ignoring the subject matter of the post.

There's no point in trying to debate those pictures, they are clearly fake or at least clearly suspect ( I have yet to see a real alien weapon to make a comparison of the one in Meiers photo, as has the rest of the world)

If anyone actually reads down through the posts you will find that my point has been made and proved time and again and that no one bar one person actually responded to any questions I had.


I wanted to "discuss" the effect Korff has had on the case and in particular the Hasenbol series of pictures , I posted up evidence of why I think this is so. I was subsequently told ....
1. I am Michael Horn
2. The subject is beyond discussion
3 It's all fake because Ive seen models with lines in them ( Korffs pictures)
4 Korff was right
5 It didn't matter if Korff faked his evidence its still fake
6 Korff is a great researcher
7 I'm an idiot
8 The reference I posted up from the man himself who faked the evidence for Korff wasn't good enough
9 Post up the hasenbol pictures I was referring to
10 The object in the pictures is a small object shown by the black levels
11 In the same post as mentioning that they've never heard of Korff, state that it's nothing to do with Korff
12 Black levels could not be used in these pictures to conclusively determine anything
13 Who is Korff? What does it matter? Accuse me of bringing up the subject of black levels
14 The objects are paper cutouts ( wha?)
15 Stop linking to documents and discuss
16 Where's the citation for what you've just said?
17 Citation not good enough, where's the documentation for that citation?
18 Stop linking to documents and discuss..... (?)

etc etc etc...

Close the thread, whats the use shouting at me to get into a discussion when nobody can actually read the posts and respond to the subject matter and doesn't want to discuss it in any way shape or form. The mods have their own agenda on this subject anyway.
Thanks for the experience

[color=grey]Italics, go away please..

Originally posted by Frankinmouse
Ah yes I was wondering when that would happen, even the mods get involved...

Boohoo. The whole world is against me, so I must be right... There is *another* possible explanation though.

and post up the ray gun, Asket , and dino pictures, I knew they'd all arrive sometime.

Why would this upset you so?

Well done Gazrok in yourself ignoring the subject matter of the post.

It puts it into context. Korff is largely irrelevant, given the plethora of absolute DRIVEL that Meier has been involved in. And YOU, Franky, haven't psted a SINGLE refutation of anything he has done. Just spam.

If anyone actually reads down through the posts you will find that my point has been made and proved time and again and that no one bar one person actually responded to any questions I had.

Yes, you win. Happy?

1....
2....
...
18...

Pretty good summary. I'm good with that...

Close the thread

SECONDED!

How Korff is irrelevant when he is the subject of my original post is beyond me, never mind that you had never heard of him until now....?

why are you even commenting on this thread about a person you know nothing about?

You seem to be unable to read my posts properly but despite that you obviously know best.

I'm wrong about the subject of my post and even if I'm right and have shown that Korff falsified evidence for his case, I'm still wrong because I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. Even though you've never heard of him.....

I bow to your huge brainyness and submit.

Thanks.

Well done Gazrok in yourself ignoring the subject matter of the post.

Thank you, but it is COMPLETELY relevant.

You are trying to state that Kal Korff is not a reliable reason to debunk Meier's claims.
I'm agreeing with you on this specific point (and therefore fully addressing the subject of the thread), but I'm also stating he isn't needed, as Billy does this well enough on his own, and I've shown you PROOF of previous deceptions.

So, to take ANYTHING Meier says seriously, is ignoring more than the subject of this thread, it's ignoring logic and common sense. He's a known and proven hoaxer.

Ah yes I was wondering when that would happen, even the mods get involved and post up the ray gun, Asket , and dino pictures, I knew they'd all arrive sometime.

My points in this thread are not posted as a Mod, but as a fellow member. My views do not (nor should they be ascribed to) the opinions or views of either ATS or fellow staff. They are my own personal viewpoints, supported by evidence. I seek to educate those who may be reading this thread who are new to the Meier case, and inform them of past trickery on his part, so they can include this information when evaluating the case for themselves. That is one of the best aspects of forums like this, that one can see the information presented by many sides of an issue, and judge for themselves what they wish to believe, by engaging in such a debate.

You are trying to state that Kal Korff is not a reliable reason to debunk Meier's claims.
I'm agreeing with you on this specific point (and therefore fully addressing the subject of the thread), but I'm also stating he isn't needed, as Billy does this well enough on his own, and I've shown you PROOF of previous deceptions.

I've repeatedly said that I agree there are falsified pictures, I wanted to discuss the Hasenbol pictures and ask a specific question. Nobody has debunked these apart from saying they can recreate the effect with models. All ignore the original investigation by Wendelle Stephens and say it's not admissible for various reasons 25 years after the fact.

That is one of the best aspects of forums like this, that one can see the information presented by many sides of an issue, and judge for themselves what they wish to believe, by engaging in such a debate.

Fair enough but when I present evidence that people who have proven Meier to be a hoax have them selves lied about the case ,it's not valid in the discussion..? Korff who shaped peoples opinion about Meier for 20 years lied about most things, I've already posted up links to prove this but it's spamming?? IIG lied about Marcel vogels testimony, IIG can use a 25 year old documentary to prove their case of hoax but if I post up the source that contradicts what they say from the same investigation its not valid as an argument..?
Where's the possibility to debate...?

Thanks at least for talking like an adult.

Nobody has debunked these apart from saying they can recreate the effect with models.

And that in itself (that it can be recreated), is one part of the skepticism...that it is POSSIBLE to do so, so it does cast some doubt. Then, you add the known instances of past hoaxing, and it certainly makes a compelling argument that there is trickery afoot.

Proving Korff lied doesn't prove Billy is telling the truth. He's cried "wolf" before, and been caught at it, and this is why people continue to ignore Billy's case (and rightfully so, in my opinion).

At the end of the day, it's up to everyone to draw their own conclusions about Meier...for better or worse.