Billy Meier called the New Nostradamus!?!?, page 10

Hi Spreadthetruth,

Let me comment on the bottom two photos of the craft referred to as the "Wedding Cake" ship. These really drive people nuts and rightly so as they just look "wrong", i.e. neither fit our ideas of what a UFO "should" look like nor seem to work perspective wise, etc. As far as the garbage can lid theory and all the rest of it goes, the real problem is that there are not only good daylight distance shots but an excellent video wherein Meier zooms in on the object from over 300' away as it howevers in front of a full grown tree. The UFO is clearly a large, three-dimensional object and not a model so the other photos, such as the ones you've posted, that look "hoaxed" complicate the issue.

But there's also this to consider, no one has ever come forward with the supposed "model", or even duplicated it to this day. It probably can be done but with the technology known to have been available to Meier at the time such a sophisitcated, well machined model is out of the question. For instance, look at the bottom of the craft with the various objects in the center of it. In another photo I've seen these are extended out and look like some type of crystals. This is all VERY fine work, as is the work regarding the globes around the ship and other crytal-looking objects on the rim, which are all visible in other daytime photos. If I recall correctly, Wendelle Stevens inquired of a metallurgist what it would take to make the object and he said that the problem was that the metal appeared to be soft (rather than something hard like steel) and to attach all of the globes (VERY well machined items themselves) would need to be done by a heat process that would in itself distort the metal - if it was indeed a small model.

So we are left to ponder the craft and those photos and come to our own conclusions. Anyone who would have made such a fine object, or objects as there are some photos of larger and smaller versions, would likely have taken credit for it/them by now and/or have catapulted themselves from the lazy Swiss countryside into stellar levels of the special effects world. But objects ("models") of this quality still don't appear in films and certainly if, as Ritzmann and others like to imply at the drop of a garbage can lid, this was all about the "money" for Meier, and presumably his invisible, never having been found accomplices, then he wouldn't be hanging around his little farmhouse for the past 31 years dodging some 21 would be assassins. And, speaking of Ritzmann, considering the skills that he claims to possess in so far as "duplicating" Meier's photos...I am less than impressed with his failure to make me look considerably better than I do in his poster above, notwithstanding the source material he had to work with.

As for the photo at the top, and others that you can freely find at www.theyfly.com, etc. Stevens did very extensive testing on the photos and there is a free document on my site that covers some of it. There is also a CD available that is more extensive. BTW, here is a comment I found from Stevens regarding something I had asked him about the photos, "The photographs that we tested were positive photos made from positive slides in a positive to positive process we were able to use in Switzerland. That put our photographs tested in the same generation as a positive print from an original negative. Of course an original negative or an original positive would be much easier for measurements of energies, because there is much loss in the transfer of subtle energies through rephotographing such as printing a negative, but we were pleasantly surprised to learn that ALL was not lost, that we could still detect evdence of the original energies in the copies. The better the copying lens the more subtle energies are transferred.

I think that after the 3rd generation too much of the subtle energies, such as heat, RF, X-Ray, ultra-violet and sound energies would be lost in the transfer by rephotographing. The original image would always carry by far the strongest subtle energies.

If you had the original image of an inert model and it did not show any of the subtle energies mentioned above, it would surely be suspect."

I hope that helps. Feel free to pose more questions as I will do m¥ best to answer them.