Archive for August, 2014

The Billy Meier case, and related hoaxes.

Posted in Uncategorized on August 3, 2014 by alienresspace

Note: This section on the Billy Meier hoax has been fully updated.

To find many new articles, videos, and tons of pictures about this hoax, click here!

During the 1970s, a Swiss farmer by the name of Billy Meier produced some of the most startling pictures and films of flying objects ever. But over the years, various research has shown most of these can be proven to be fakes.

Nevertheless, this is still one of the most enduring yet probably also one of the most complex hoax cases ever, especially because it can not be entirely excluded some extraordinary events occured at the Meier farm in Switzerland, as it is alledged by various persons who say to have witnessed strange activity in the skies, and other. Since we don’t hold the belief everyone is a hoaxer, we think these witnesses may be taken serious and taken on their word. You can read about some of them here.

On the other hand, it can’t be entirely excluded at least some of these witnesses have made untrue statements due to being under influence of the sect like Meier cult-community. We also note that in many (other) cases, witnesses describe UFOs that are very different from the objects that can be seen in Meier’s pictures and film footage.

Whatever the truth about these witnesses and possible UFO activity in the region where Meier lives, the deception of most of Meier’s picts, films, and other material speaks for itself, while it must be noted that the pictures that are generally available online, or published in videos and books, are the “creme of the crop”, where it is the least obvious that strings have been used, or that other manipulations have been applied.

According to researcher Kal Korff, Meier made his first fake UFO photograps already when he spent time in India, in the 1960s and early 1970s, long before coming out with the famous pictures of the mid 1970s. It’s fair to say that by the time Meier made his pictures public, his fakery skills were of a pretty high level for his time, and that he must have worked hard and long at perfecting them. Also, we believe Meier must have had help to make some of his fake “evidence”, in certain instances from professionals (as for instance for the sound sample alleged to be from a spacecraft, which required particular sound equipment and know-how).

Our view is that the only reason why there is still a so called Meier “controversy”, is simply the fact that making fake pictures of UFOs and other such material, and claiming they are genuine, are by itself not punishable by law, while certain governments have too much to hide to bring the subject of UFOs in the open, in order to allow genuine public scrutiny of it…

However, when considering certain aspects of this case, the question should be asked if the Meier hoax is merely a set-up by conmen without any scrupules, or in fact a kind of psy-op/disinfo operation to discredit the subject of UFOs in general, and/or to divert attention from more genuine cases. We consider it a very real possibility… Study the links and the presentation on this website and make up your own mind!

For the following picts, those that have been made by B. Meier, the sources are (ultimately)
* billymeier.com Official Billy Meier website.
* theyfly.com Website of Michael Horn, B. Meier representative.

More relevant info on the Meier case, many videos and tons of pictures can be found here!

 

Billy Meier classic.
Billy Meier classic, but fake…

This is one of the best known picts made by Billy Meier. Much of his picts and videos look remarkably real and are quite difficult to be proven fake. However, even this classic Meier pict is fake, as the following analyses shows.
Billy Meier's classic exposed.
Billy Meier’s classic exposed.

On this photo analysis by the researcher and UFO debunker Peter Brookesmith it can be clearly seen that the UFO is simply a model hanging on a string…
Billy Meier fake UFO.
Billy Meier fake UFO on string.

Although it makes a nice picture, when you see the film footage of it, this “ET craft” is clearly moving as hanging on a string (notwithstanding the waving tree tops). You can find a clip of it here. You get the best result when viewing the clip 2x its normal speed! Bear in mind that this is a relatively LARGE model, which is why it looks relatively real, in particular when taken against the tree which is not necessarily as big as it seems (think of Bonsai trees!). When you view the other clips on the link mentioned, note that the wobbling left to right, is also typical for an object hanging on a string, and not the result of some “unstable magnetic field”…Billy Meier classic exposed
Billy Meier classic fake exposed.

A verification of the previous photo analysis of the Meier fakery, although for a slightly different version of that pict.
Billy Meier fake UFO.
Billy Meier fake UFO.

The same fake craft as on the previous pict. 

Billy Meier classic.
Billy Meier classic fake.

The previous UFO, in higher resolution.

Billy Meier fake UFO.
Billy Meier fake UFO, reconstruction by K. K. Korff.

This is a reconstruction of one of the picts of a model very similar to the one seen in the previous picts, done by Kal Korff. He uses a simple plate, photographing it aproximately at the same height (albeit a little lower) of exactly the same hill Meier photographed his pict. Korff’s full investigation can be found in his book on the Meier case.

Billy Meier fake UFO.
Billy Meier fake UFO and proof of deception.
Billy Meier fake UFO.
Graphic reconstruction.

 

According to Meier’s ex-wife, as reported by Kal Korff, he made this fake UFO (above) with the cover of a garbage can and kitchen utensils, then photographed it from nearby. This pict offers IRREFUTABLE proof of a deliberate deception, without any special equipment or software needed to reach that verdict. All we have to do is look andthink about what we’re seeing. We see a “craft” that is in focus (“sharp”) while the house on the background is out of focus (“blurry”). This means the house is a lot further away from the camera than the “craft” is. We can estimate from the size of the windows that the house is at aprox. 12m to 18m (39.4 to 59 feet) from the camera. Since the house is so much out of focus, while the craft is in focus, the craft must be at most at 1m to 2m (3.3 tot 6.6 feet) away from the camera. The craft is therefore at most +/- 1m (3.2 feet) large! It MUST just be a model, albeit a relatively large one. In fact, further analysis shows the model is in reality +/- 60 centimeters large (+/- 2 feet, or 23.6 inches). (Note that the above link leads to a slightly enlarged version of the pict available, which causes everything to be slightly more blurred than the original, but it still shows clearly that the “craft” in the foreground is much more in focus than the house in the background, plus some other flagrant discrepancies. This means the house is a lot further away from the camera than the “craft” is. We can estimate from the size of the windows that the house is at aprox. 12m to 18m (39.4 to 59 feet) from the camera. Since the house is so much out of focus, while the craft is in focus, the craft must be at most at 1m to 2m (3.3 tot 6.6 feet) away from the camera. The craft is therefore at most +/- 1,5m (4.9 feet) large! It MUST just be a model, albeit a relatively large one. (Note that the above link leads to a slightly enlarged version of the pict available, which causes everything to be slightly more blurred than the original, but it still shows clearly that the “craft” in the foreground is much more in focus than the house in the background, plus some other flagrant discrepancies. You can find the original pict here).

 

Billy Meier fake UFO.
Graphic reconstruction as according to J. Deardorff.
James Deardorff is one of the Meier-clan “researchers” who claims these picts of the “Weddingcake craft” are authentic, according to his “scientific analysis” as posted on his website. On that page, he states that: “It is quite revealing to notice in Fig. 1 [ed: the pict of the previous analysis] that not only is the wedding-cake craft in good focus, but the main residence beyond it is in fairly good focus, too.” But clearly, the craft is much better in focus (sharper) than the house, so there must be a considerable distance between them, according to my estimates: 10m to 16m, which is a fact Deardorff clearly tries to obfuscate… After his initial misleading statement, Deardorff claims:“For a wedding-cake craft of 7m diameter, the camera equation indicates it was situated about 13.5m from the camera.” When taking into consideration Deardorff’s calculation, that means the camera would be at least at 13.5m + 7m + 10m (to 16m) from the house, i.e. at 30.5m to 36.5m. This is clearly not what can be seen in the pict, as taking a picture from such a distance would show much more of the house, there would be more of the horizon to be seen, and there would be more space visible above the house (the roof line would be relatively lower). Deardorff’s analysis is very clearly bogus, and can only be understood as an attempt to deceive…Note about the camera-lens used and focal depth: we can’t be really completely sure what camera-lens Meier used, but according to Meier’s own saying, and according to the specifications mentioned by Deardorff, with a 35mm film, a lens focal length of 55mm, and a selected f-stop of f/11, with the subject being at 2 meters, then the near and far limits of acceptable sharpness would be at respectively 1.64 m and 2.56 m, with a hyperfocal distance of 8.97m, which is perfectly compatible with the calculation that the “craft” is in reality +/- 1.5m in diameter, and at +/- 2m from the camera, and which fully explains why the “craft” is significantly sharper than the house in the background.On the other hand, if the camera would be at 13.5m of the “craft”, as Deardorff claims, then the hyperfocal distance would still be at 8.97m, and when focussing on the craft there would simply have been NO noticeable difference at allbetween the sharpness of the “craft” and that of the house, which is clearly not what can be observed…
Also see Understanding Depth of Field in Photography, Hyperfocal Distance Guide, examples of hyperfocal distance settings 1, 2, 3, and this online depth of field calculator. To get a feeling of what one can do by playing around with lenses, depth of field and lens focal length, see these examples.

 

 

Billy Meier fake UFO.
Billy Meier fake UFO and proof of deception.
Billy Meier fake UFO.
Graphic reconstruction.

 

This pic (above) is another example of IRREFUTABLE proof of a deception, without any special equipment or software needed to analyze it. Since the “craft” is perfectly in focus (“sharp”), while the car is completely out of focus (“blurry”), to know if this is a hoax or not, all that we need is to answer the following question: is the “craft” in front of the car, or is it behind the car? If it is behind the car, it is definitely a big object. This is the impression Meier intended to create… But if the “craft” is in front of the car, it is definitely a relatively small object, much too small to carry a humanoid of normal size. The object can definitely not be above the car, and be aprox. twice the size of the car, since in that case both the object and the car would be perfectly in focus, which is not the case. With two objects, one being in focus (“sharp”) and the other out of focus (“blurry”), while neither shape overlaps the other, it would, with all cirumstances being neutral, be impossible to tell which is in front of the other. However, here it is the light that allows the viewer to determine that the “craft” is really IN FRONT of the car. The reason for that is that the light source is slightly behind the camera, at its left, yet it is the object and NOT the car that is the brightest, and receiving the most light. Therefore, the object MUST be in front of the car (hanging slightly above eye-level), and be significantly smaller to be so much more in focus (“sharper”) than the car, and brighter at the same time. There is simply no way to refute this fact… The car is aprox. 4,3m long. We can estimate from the size of the car that the camera is aproximately at +/- 10m distance. Therefore the craft must be at most at 1m to 2m (3.3 tot 6.6 feet) away from the camera. The craft is therefore at most +/- 1m (3.2 feet) large! This is in complete accord with the previous analysis, and a perfect corroboration of our final conclusion that it is in fact +/- 60 centimeters large (+/- 2 feet, or 23.6 inches).

 

Billy Meier fake UFO.
Billy Meier fake UFO and proof of deception (enlarged).

Original pict can be found here
Billy Meier fake UFO.
Previous pict with highlight.

Billy Meier fake UFO.
Previous pict with model cut out.

Click here to read article with full analysis, including that of matching the model to a garbage can lid!This pict (above) comes from the same series as the previous picts. If the previous analyses didn’t convince everyone yet, then this pict should to the job. It’s surely the ultimate “smoking gun”, proving willful deception by Billy Meier, as it can clearly be seen that the object shown is hanging in front of the car!! Ooops…It’s a fact that due to the bad (i.e. low) resolution of the available original picture, and due the confusing lighting of object and car, one could easily oversee this fact. But after enlarging the pict several times, it becomes blatently obvious when looking at the area indicated by the red line, that the craft is with 100% certainty in front of the car, and is therefore much smaller than the car! Consequently it must be of similar dimensions as those calculated for the previous analysis! This pict was posted with the photo-“analysis” by James Deardorffmentioned earlier (page has been saved by us in its entirety in case it gets modified), which should be an indication of how “qualified” he really is to confirm the “authenticity” of these picts…

 

Billy Meier fake UFO.
Billy Meier fake UFO.

Same fake UFO as previous picts. Note the completely unrealistic feel of this pict.
Billy Meier fake UFO.
Billy Meier fake UFO.

Same fake UFO as previous picts. Same trick with the trees as for the first pict.Billy Meier fake UFO.
Billy Meier fake UFO.

Same fake UFO as previous picts. Same false perspective trick as for the extensive analyses above. Notice that while the car projects a shadow to its left, no shadow can be seen coming from the “craft”, even though this is precisely what should happen if the “craft” was hanging above the car, and not far IN FRONT of it, close to the camera… We also see the same focus discrepancies as for the previous picts. (The above link leads to a slightly enlarged version of the available pict, find the original pict here).
Fake Pleadians.
Fake Pleadians, Asket & Nera

Never being out of ideas, Meier even endeavoured to make fake picts of his mythical Pleadian visitors. When people noticed a reflection and a strange curve in the pictures, Meier tried to make believe that he took the photographs from a large videoscreen on board of a ‘beamship’…
Fake Pleadians.
Michelle Della Fave, on the Dean Martin Show

In fact, Meier simply took pictures off a very earthly TV screen. The “Pleadian” he called “Asket”, was in reality proven to be a dancer on the Dean Martin show, called Michelle Della Fave (not Susan McIver, a.k.a. Suzan Lund, as mentioned in the past on this page), who was part of the dance-group “the Golddiggers”. Once this became known, Meier then claimed he was set up by the “Men in Black”, and that they stole the original photos, replacing them by these. Sure, Billy…
Billy Meier's and Adrian's beamships.
Meier’s and Adrian’s “beamships” compared.

In the 1990s another “Pleiadean contactee” appeared, by the name of Adrian. He claimed to have photographed ET crafts of the same type as Meier’s. When comparing these picts, Adrian’s pict would seem to confirm the authenticity of Meier’s picts of the same type of craft.
Adrian's beamships.
Pict by Adrian of several crafts on a row.

But this pict by Adrian clearly pushes things too far, as it shows 3 Meier type crafts, and an Adamski type craft (on the left), perfectly on a row, just right to be photographed through a patio railing.Adrian's beamships exposed.
Adrian’s pict exposed.

One doesn’t really need any special software to see some of the strings, as shown in this enlarge

Billy Meier fake UFO.
Billy Meier fake UFO.

Same fake UFO as previous picts. Here it can be clearly seen the “craft” is actually a small model, since it hangs in front and onto some of the branches of the FRONT tree, even though the Meier clan (i.e. Deardorff et al) claims it hangs “between” the 2 trees that can be seen… (The above link leads to an enlarged version of the available pict, find the original picthere).

Billy Meier UFO model.
Model in Meier’s barn.

This is a picture of a model of a “Pleadian craft”, which was allegedly found in a barn at Meier’s farm, and photographed by the researcher Kal Korff. Meier has admitted that he owns such models, but claims they are only for his kids…

Fake UFO for demonstration.
Fake UFO for demonstration.

Here’s a rather good example of how easy it is to fake a UFO pict like those made by Meier. Note in this pict the extra difficulty of using clouds on the background, instead of a crystal clear blue sky, which appears in most of Meier’s picts, and which make it easier to copy and paste objects. Read the full story and find more examples here. Other examples of Meier-type fake UFOs can be found in this interesting forum thread(scroll down).

Adrian's beamships exposed.
Adrian’s pict exposed.

A particular photo analysis shows that in fact the 3 Meier type crafts are hanging on a string. The same could be the case for the Adamski craft, or it could be a montage. The pict is a hoax, and obviously the work of someone who tried to benefit from Meier’s initial hoax. Source:ufowatchdog.com