Here is the essence of the following message:
It is incumbent upon DB, as the person claiming to have PROVED that Meier deliberately hoaxed the photo in question, to offer more than an opinion (which isn't proof of anything), i.e. to actually prove it by duplicating the photo, with the same equipment that Meier used, and under similar conditions that existed, at the time.
But first, since none of you noticed it in DB's "proof", please do notice that has actually modified his position and is now claiming something other than what he first claimed, which was that Meier deliberately faked the photos with out-of-camera super-imposed images.
But now he summarizes his position as:
"As all of you can clearly see with your own eyes, this image is a fabrication. I do not feel obligated to perform this analysis with every single image that has come out of the Meier camp, the fact is that others have deconstructed many of the other pictures and found serious problems, so the credibility of the remaining photographs is questionable. Any reasonable type of logic dictates this conclusion. As to Mr. Horn's demands that I create an exact duplicate of a faked image, I would love to hear an explanation of the logic of this request. Does a faked image prove that another image is faked?"
I'll go into the details below but first a quick response:
If by fabrication he means that it was deliberate, he has failed to prove that, as we have already acknowledged that it's a triple exposure. If you disagree, please point to where the proof is of deliberate intent and action. Point to the PROOF, not your emotional and unsubstantiated opinions, please.
As far as "others have deconstructed, etc." this is again simply unsubstantiated, and completely inaccurate, hearsay, with, of course, no proof. His conclusion, therefore, about "the credibility of the remaining photographs" is what is questionable and, again unsubstantiated...with NO logic to support it.
As for the required duplication, it is DB who still is calling the image "faked", without any proof. Therefore, of course he's required to demonstrate, not just theorize...and that's done by photographing the presumed light source, and creating out-of-camera effects, for openers, by...convincingly duplicating the photo.
Of course, since DB has committed himself to the draped cloth concept, he has to photograph the "object" against on, as he maintains it was done. and get that same effect.
Only fair.
DETAILS:
I consulted another guy I personally know, who has 50 years of experience in photography and special effects. His background includes: Special Effects, Editor, Producer, Second Unit Director, Assistant Director, Production Manager for TV and films for Disney, Warner Bros. etc., and, according to him, the photo in question is actually a triple exposure and was done IN-CAMERA.
He is a healthy skeptic and thinks all of the energy ship photos (there are eight) have to be some kind of in-camera double exposure. He is certain that they weren't out-of-camera, super-imposed images, based on the known information and difficulty under the already established conditions, including Meier's equipment, knowledge and capabilities, of which he's been informed.
He said that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to tell if the photos were deliberately "faked" and he certainly wouldn't bet his reputation on that.
Of course, we already know that DB won't bet his reputation on it either, so what kind of confidence does he really have in his own "proof"?
My friend did say that anyone who is claiming to be an expert, and who is absolutely claiming that the photo is a deliberate fake, probably utilizing a fluorescent light (the only kind of light known to him that could have been used for the object, and which Meier did have on the property) should be willing to prove that claim by...DUPLICATING the photo, with the same equipment known to belong, and be available, to Meier at the time...with NO Photoshop and/or other current technology used. And if the person claiming that they can prove it's a hoax thinks that it was a different (non-fluorescent) light then he should identify it and utilize it for his photo as well.
He said that while he doesn't believe in "spaceships", and doesn't think that the object could be one, it would be incumbent upon anyone who was claiming that they PROVED that it wasn't, to actually do the duplication.
Let's say that this issue is like a trial where Meier is the defendant and the prosecutor is saying that they can PROVE that Meier deliberately hoaxed the photos with the means at his disposal. A recreation, or duplication, rather than just one expert's opinion - especially since another expert, who also thinks the photo is a triple exposure, says the whole effect could be accidental - is required.
This expert also said that if the accusser (DB) can't, or won't, do the duplication then he should withdraw his claim that he proved a deliberate hoax, though he could certainly say that it was still his opinion, just not a proven fact.
In other words, we have another expert, with many more years in the business than DB, and who also thinks the photo has to be a triple exposure, who won't bet his reputation on it being a deliberate fake, and who thinks that since DB claims that he's "proved" that it is (which he hasn't yet) that DB HAS TO DUPLICATE it to PROVE it, i.e. he should put up or shut up.
He also said that if DB can duplicate it under the known, specified conditions, then I have to admit that it's been faked deliberately. If DB can't prove it, it's less of a loss for him, of course and he can keep on giving his opinions, as long as he doesn't claim that he actually proved a deliberate hoax. But all that's he's proved right now is what's effectively already conceded, i.e a triple exposure...and NOTHING more.
It should go without saying that DB should do his duplication with...one hand, especially since everyone here, he included, has minimized the added difficulty involved.
And that's why, if DB wants to claim that he PROVED a deliberate hoax, he actually has to DUPLICATE it.
