Well the plot sickens...the PAR group (Pleajarens are Real) on yahoo have no banned me from posting, as none of my messages show on the board, but I
think the group members still get them, so here is what I replied with:
> MH: Jeff calls them "effects" but fails to say, and demonstrate,
> what effects they are and how they were produced. Likewise, after
> all this time period, one in which Meier had comparably produced
> numerous photos, etc. with NO technology such as is available to
> Jeff, Jeff has failed to demonstrate his own ability to create
> such "effects" himself, something that should be rather easy for
> someone with the technical knowledge and ability, as well as
> confidence in his own conclusions, that Jeff represents himself as
> JR: Hold on there cowboy. I have stated many times, how they were
> done, and why a camera reacted the way it did. I also found the
> glaring error in the official report regarding the make of camera,
> then looked into the properties of that camera. Believe it, I've
> done more then most would have for you.
> Duplicating the photos again, does not prove anything other then
> that they can be faked. It goes no distance in proving any other
> aspect of Mr. Meier's photos. (So really, youre not doing him any
> If you check in the photos section here at PAR, in the processed
> folder, you will see 3 photos (shot1, shot2, shot3) that utilize a
> model shot at a short distance, also using another important prop
> which I'll leave for you to figure out. These to me, are better then
> Meier's because of where the object falls into the picture. The
> model took about 3 hours to build, trying to get the look of a
> beamship I always liked (it is neat lookin), and the pics took less
> then that to take. The model would have fit in my pocket, so no
> issue of being caught with any big apparatus. There it is. So now go
> ahead and deconstruct it, go ahead and try and find anything amiss
> with them. Were do you start? As a side note these images were
> scaled for web upload in PS/CS (although are plenty large enough for
> study) and were taken with a PhotoSmart 735 camera. These are what
> you wanted, now figure them out, and dont insult everyone's
> intelligence in the process.
> MH: Here we have such a patently fraudulent comment as to almost be
> unworthy of comment. For anyone possessing the film clip in
> question, let alone from even a few captured frames, we can tell
> that neither the hill nor the object when it's at the hill, are a
> mere 4 ft. away. When one watches the object return to the top of
> the screen, slowly growing in size, it's clear to any thinking
> person that this is not a little model a few feet away. Again, Jeff
> has had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate his opinion about this -
> and his common sense - and has failed.
> JR: Fraudulent? You might wanna watch throwing that word around. If
> it's so fraudulent, you certainly go on and on about it. Much like
> my emboss fiasco with Deadorff, who belittled and degraded what I
> did and my knowledge, yet still tries vehemently to disprove it
> after all these months. If I'm so damned inept,...stop jumping
> through hoops to prove me wrong, often going to ridiculous
> arguments, and lengthy studies. I'll bet you never do. But ya can
> high tail it out of ATS or FT when it gets hot...when we're "not
> worth your time". See above comments. Now use *your* comon sense.
> MH: But let's not overlook another obvious point here too, i.e. Jeff
> first infers that we're looking at an "effect" but now states that
> it's a model! When someone is desperate to be "right" - and in deep
> denial as to what the facts are - they will go to great lengths to
> protect their vested interests, i.e. their egos, sense of authority
> and most likely deeply held beliefs, fears and insecurities. In the
> same way as telling a lie requires a lot more "damage control" and
> mental machinations to not contradict oneself, people who feel the
> need to manufacture opinions designed to promote their agendas
> ultimately end up displaying their contradictions and illogic for
> all to see. We have just such a case here.
> JR: You show very well why you dont work in imaging. The model *is*
> part of the effect. Couple the model with the lens, and properties
> of the camera...THEN couple that with there being only ONE copy we
> have seen, which was shot off a screen while Nippon recorded that.
> The effect is the model, the blur of projection, and Meier's own
> camera. Please do get the terminology before you get into this
> discussion, and embarrass yourself. Even better, just lose the spin
> and comment on real issues for a change.
> MH: Again, Jeff is not only seeing what he wants to see but trying
> to tell us what we should see...instead of what is clear for anyone
> to see. Contrary to what he says, the return flight of the object is
> extremely smooth and well controlled. And, again, we now have an
> object instead of an effect. And, again, we still have someone - a
> two-handed, technologically well-equipped someone - floating
> clumsy, self-contradictory theories but obviously completely unable
> to demonstrate them, i.e. to duplicate the evidence.
> Like all the skeptics who ultimately get caught flat-footed at this
> point, Jeff has his excuses to offer but little else. Let's see,
> it's not "important" to him to duplicate the film, he doesn't
> have "time", has pressing volunteer work to do, etc. and whatever,
> the story will ALWAYS be the same and so will the obvious
> conclusion: HE CAN'T DO IT.
> The photos are posted, and it can be done. You want the film too? No
> problem. You'll no more like the result of that then the photos. No
> matter, thats what you want...thats what you'll get. However, it
> will be presented in the same fashion, so lets set the parameters:
> It will be recorded on film, and then projected and recorded off
> screen. It will then be digitally edited, and then presented here.
> Then you figure it out. No information on how it's done will be
> given, only that it will utilize models, tether line, and film. But
> you have pictures to contend with first.
> MH: Here come the excuses and "explanations" but, once again,
> where's the beef? Why didn't Jeff use these past few months to
> expose that sly one-armed hoaxster by duplicating the film instead
> of just blustering and jiving?
> JR: Because I dont devote the time to these silly arguments you do?
> I dont find this productive, and I personally believe anything I
> would present will just get me lambasted like last time. It's
> equated in my mind to banging your head against the wall. I had a
> little time on a hike, so you get some pictures. But will it matter?
> No. You are set in your belief system. You often state when cornered
> on the photo and film data's hard questions "but I'm giving people
> something better...prophetically accurate information!!" This time
> wont be any different. You and others will always find the way to
> ignore or belittle, or even halfway try and debunk anyone else who
> disagrees, not barring personal slander. For the record, I have
> never called Mr. Meier nor you a liar (which is the most
> contemptable comment to make to someone, I'd rather be called
> dumbf&*ck then that), but you have called me that several times. If
> you can look objectively at anything I present, then my time will
> warrant doing it. Otherwise, it's a waste of my time and yours. I
> believe that's why most people aside from CFIW havent bothered to do
> anything in regard to duplication...they just dont feel it's worth
> MH: Right, where ARE those things? Well, Jeff, contact one of
> Meier's main critics and opponents Luc BÃ¼rgin and the MUFON-CES
> research group in Switzerland for them. But since Jeff is asking a
> lot of "where are" questions, designed to put the focus anywhere but
> on his own incompetence and failed "efforts", I again have to ask
> where are your films, photos, etc. duplicating, and effectively
> debunking, Meier's?
> I shouldnt have to contact anyone, you making the claim and
> presenting it as evidence, see, master researcher, that makes it
> *your* issue to present hard data to back up YOUR claims. Not mine.
> So where are they??? Dont give me some lame attempt to switch the
> issue, I asked you a legitimate question. And as far as your bait
> and switch, see my pics in folder and statements
> MH: Well, Jeff, I think that most of us here already know what it is
> and what it isn't. And I think you've had a terrific opportunity,
> and more than enough time, to demonstrate your position that "it",
> i.e. the evidence and the case, is a hoax.
> JR: I dont recall ever saying the H word. But that appears to be
> your guess at my opinion...you psychic?
> MH:Jeff has self-destructed by his own hand, his self-contradictory
> statements and his failure to demonstrate his opinions by
> duplicating the evidence. And one more thing, not only did the late
> Wally Gentleman, director of special effects for Kubrick's "2001",
> rule out models, so did the two owners of the company that won
> the Academy Award for special effects for the movie "Independence
> Sorry Jeff, sour grapes, and you get to drink your own wine (whine).
> JR: Well I cant very well go back to Wally and validate that
> statement now can I. For the record, he did not "rule out" anything,
> he said he believed expert knowledge may have been used, and if not,
> then "this would have to be real". But we have no idea what he was
> shown, and I have to surmise that he wasnt shown the highly
> questionable, less then good wedding cake ship shots, or
> the "landed" beamships. What specific data was he shown?
> Your effects company that was involved in ID4, was this not the same
> one that said, presented by Sean Morton, the Adrain pictures were
> also legitimate? The same pics I found strings in right? Yeah. Well
> champ, I know some folks in Hollywood, and I'll be contacting your
> FX group to ask some questions about your statements. I'd like to
> know who specifically I should ask for. If nothing else I'll be
> calling Tricia Ashford to find out. Once I do and (get permission)
> record the interview (if anyone is ever found) it will be posted.
> Then we'll see who is drinking what.