Rebuttal to Radio Show Photo Analysis
NOTE: I will be happy to address DB's specific points regarding the image in question when he posts that image, AND the other one of the alleged light/energy ship on this forum. In the meantime, any comments regarding the article below that are based on logic, the actual facts in evidence and/or any substantiated, credible arguments to the contrary will be answered. Any and all other unsupported claims, based strictly on the uninformed opinions of those posting them will be unapologetically ignored.
OVERVIEW: I submit that any reasonable person, presented ? and actually familiar in detail with ? all of the information from both DB and me, would have to answer ?NO? to all of these questions:
?Can you say with all certainty that the photo in question was deliberately hoaxed??
?Can you say with all certainty that the double exposure in question was done out-of-camera??
?Can you say with all certainty that Meier deliberately did a time exposure to create the effect of the bright whitish light??
?Based on the information obtained during the six-year professional investigation regarding Meier, his equipment, knowledge, capabilities and resources, do you have reason to believe that he deliberately falsified the photo??
?WOULD YOU STAKE YOUR ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION on the claim that Meier DELIBERATELY FAKED the photo by photographing a ?light fixture shot against a cloth backdrop and a metal wall? and then superimposing that image over a photograph of the outside environment to create the double exposure??
By definition, DB has failed to PROVE his clear, unambiguous claims that he could indeed prove that Meier did in fact deliberately hoax the photo, and that he did so by the means that DB specified.
SPECIFICS: DB has chosen to debunk one particular photo, out of hundreds of Billy Meier's clear UFO photos, some with up to four UFOs in them. He has also said that if one of Meier's photos is a fake it casts doubts on all of them, and on the case itself. Of course, I haven't heard him say that if one of them (let alone many, many more) have already been shown to be authentic that it validates all of them, and the case itself.
For the sake of our discussion, let's keep the principle of this statement in mind:
?You should be considered innocent until it can be PROVED that you are guilty... Nobody has the right to condemn you and punish you for something you have not done.?
And the reason we should do that is because of the unambiguous claims and statements from Biedney such as:
DB: ?Be prepared to defend my analysis of the Nr.720 19, April 1979 photo of the light fixture shot against a cloth backdrop and metal wall, which I can clearly and
conclusively prove to be a double exposure, fabricated image. I'll be sending my results to you before we go on the air.?
RESPONSE: Biedny has not identified, or proved the existence of, these items. Nor has he duplicated the actual image, something that shouldn't be that hard to do for an able-bodied, two-handed man who certainly has access to the kind of items he asserts were used by Meier.
DB: ?I am making no threats. I am stating that I have I have revealed, through my extensive image processing talents, that the referenced photograph is a faked double exposure. You have challenged me to reveal or duplicate a faked photo, and I have successfully dissected and deconstructed one of your claimed pieces of evidence. You can debate my findings if you are brave enough, though the facts are pretty clear. As I said, I'll send you the images which clearly show the image is a double exposure.?
RESPONSE: DB has not supplied me with the proof to substantiate this statement.
DB: ?The claimed ?night time? photos by Mr. Meier are so absolutely, obviously faked models (I mean, you're actually saying that the tiny car, tree and ships are anything but miniatures, give me a break!), it's painful.?
RESPONSE: DB has not submitted any proof of that statement either. He has neither produced Meier's alleged models and miniatures, nor has he duplicated them himself.
DB: ?The photos of the ?ship? on top of the ?car? and ?tree? are as obviously faked as anything I've ever seen. I absolutely stand by this statement.?
RESPONSE: DB has made it absolutely clear that he is making statements of FACT, NOT OPINION. There is no, ?I think?it's my opinion?this may be?these appear to be, etc.? Therefore, the burden of proof is on him, not Meier.
I can say that Biedny's claims, as unequivocal and certain as they are, are clearly false because:
FACT: Based on all known, established and professionally conducted, on-site investigation, Meier neither possessed the necessary equipment, nor the skills to accomplish what Biedny claims, i.e. an out-of-camera, super-imposed, deliberately falsified photo. Anyone disputing the factuality of this information needs to provide their proof to the contrary. Meier has already been completely and convincingly cleared of these charges.
PROOF: In addition to the numerous scientific experts who are referred to in Gary Kinder's article ? all of whom disagree with DB ? Meier's actual equipment and capabilities were investigated and evaluated by Wendelle Stevens, Lee Elders, Brit Elders, Jim Delitosso, Tom Welch, Gary Kinder, Beatrice Bar, Willy Bar and Fritz Kindliman. To be clear, it is a matter of fact that Meier DID NOT possess either the equipment, knowledge or capabilities to have executed the kind of deliberate, out-of-camera hoax that is asserted. The unsubstantiated, inaccurate and careless accusations by DB are simply, and convincingly, refuted by these facts alone.
FACT: The only thing in evidence, and to which we both agree, is the fact that the photo in question is a double (even a triple) exposure. It is actually impossible to determine if the double/triple exposure was accidental or intentional.
PROOF: There are already two photo experts in L.A., who asked to remain anonymous for now, since they don't want to get involved with a UFO case dispute, who have effectively answered NO to the questions I posed above. HOWEVER, any sincere party can and should consult with other photography and film experts to get their responses. Among the essence of the information that I, who am not a photography/film expert, received from the experts in L.A. was the following:
Meier's film (known to be Ektachrome 400, which resulted in slide positives, not negatives) required E6 processing, which is usually done in a lab; ?Very, very, very, few people actually process E-6. It's very complicated, very rare?Used to be known as E-4 processing?he'd need to be in complete darkness.? Regarding the possible means, and difficulty, of a one-armed man in Meier's known circumstances creating out-of camera techniques: ?You take two individual frames without (i.e. if you don't have) a scanner. It was a Cibachrome process for physically printing a positive to make a positive, he would need a darkroom and an enlarger, etc. But it's incredibly difficult, as most enlargers need two hands to operate/focus.?
?I can't say with certainty that the double exposure was a deliberate fake. There are ways that could happen. For instance, the film only has to move one sprocket hole to stagger the image. It (in-camera double exposure) certainly could happen accidentally, it happens all the time. Those cameras have a button that allows it. If he was shooting fast, he wouldn't know there was a slight overlap. It's not something (deliberate out-of-camera double exposures) that amateurs do.?
POINT: While these are indeed cursory comments, (one expert consulted with me about the film and development aspects for about 15 minutes, the other looked at the photos for about 30 minutes) they automatically raise reasonable doubt, which is sufficient to ?acquit? Meier of a proven falsification. Pay attention, DB is the one who claimed the following about the photo in question and other Meier photos:
?I can clearly and conclusively prove to be a double exposure, fabricated image.?
?The claimed ?night time? photos by Mr. Meier are so absolutely, obviously faked models??
??obviously faked as anything I've ever seen. I absolutely stand by this statement.?
And DB has repeated and amplified his claims that he can ?clearly and conclusively prove? the photo in question to be a deliberate, out-of-camera hoax. This isn't semantics here, it's about the unwavering claims of proof that Meier is, in DB's own words, a ?cunning fabricator? (liar). It's not his opinion, according to DB it's a fact and he can prove it.
Only an extremely biased individual would not, at this point, conclude that DB has failed to prove his claims of a deliberate hoax. Let's remember that I didn't dispute the double exposure claim. As I had already said in an email on June 30, referring to it:
?This picture would appear to be a double exposure based on the apparent duplication of the part of the house on the lower right:?
ADDITIONAL POINTS:
DB has asserted that not only did Meier have ?unseen helpers? but that they are ?unscrupulous people?. Please understand that the reason he made these unsubstantiated assertions is because he KNOWS that Meier couldn't have faked his photos and all the other evidence alone! But since neither DB, nor any of the critics on this forum, has ever been to see Meier, meet the other witnesses, actually investigated the case, or even read all the available English language information (there's about 1,000 pages pertaining to investigation and witness testimony), this is another dead giveaway of the desperation and deceitfulness behind these completely unwarranted and nasty attacks.
Anyone can make crazy accusations against other people, substantiating and proving those accusations is an entirely different matter. And DB has absolutely failed to prove his claims.
As an example of the difference in approach, and credibility, here's a comment from James Deardorff regarding the light/energy ship photo: ?One thing that impresses me about it from the hoaxing viewpoint, is the difficulty in trying to achieve a very bright self-emitting light over every bit of the surface of an object. A colleague and I, years ago (in the 1970s) in the lab, tried to get as uniform as possible white light background for photography purposes. We used a large translucent thin white plate with several neon bulbs behind it. But no matter what we did, the plate was always somewhat brighter in stripes where the neon bulbs were behind it, and dimmer in between. The energy ship, however, was overpoweringly bright all over, including its very edges and projections on each end. I don't think you'll see anyone simulating that, unless it were with a white-hot piece of steel that had been fabricated into the proper shape and photographed immediately after being raised out of a temperature bath of several thousand degrees.?
Did DB do anything of a comparable, experimental nature with the physical evidence to duplicate the image, in the same kind of environment and with the same equipment known to be in Meier's possession? No. He did his armchair analysis, which is simply refuted by the known facts. Again, his conclusions are NOT THE ONLY possible ones.
While there are many other problems regarding the accuracy and motivation behind comments, claims and accusations by DB, the above should suffice to show that he has, by any definition of PROOF, completely failed to provide the proof he said that he could.
And just as it is true that claims of certainty regarding the photo in question cannot be made either, it should be noted that the preponderance of already authenticated evidence weighs far more heavily in Meier's favor than towards any of his critics.
Of course, for anyone with lingering doubts, you could ask yourself why DB didn't also try to make a clear case for willful double exposure regarding the OTHER light/energy ship photo?wasn't that one also a ?fabricated image??
It also bears thoughtful consideration to determine why a man who has taken hundreds of clear, daytime photos (as well as films) of ?traditional-looking UFOs? would even bother to try to fake such unusual looking objects as the light/energy ship and the WCUFO (photos AND video), and thereby risk his credibility, when it's not necessary or helpful to do so? Motivation for doing things is enormously important and part of the often heard considerations such as, time, motive and opportunity, etc. for why people commit certain crimes.
The burden of proof was on DB to back up his clearly and arrogantly stated accusations regarding the ?deliberate fabrication? of the photo in question. He has, by all accepted standards of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, convincingly failed to do that.
