Read your posts. However you give far more leniency to the original photo analysis then do I.
I do not personally believe that analysis, simply by the virtue of pictures such as the wedding cake over the van, or shots such as:
Where the object is CLEARLY close, and therefore small, and to boot in the above linked shot, the ground is NOT even shown! Leaving any researcher or
analyist worth his salt to question, "is it on a table or being held by something they dont want us to see?"
These issues are prevailent in MANY of Meier's shots, either the craft not moving away from a tree, or focus that telling us it's MUCH closer then
alledgedly reported, to highly suspect light/cloud/environment changes in motion picture film "beamship jumping away" segments. These are all issues
that should have raiser serious eyebrows with the "team" but apparently it didnt. That leads me personally to believe the core investigators had
something going on more then trying to authenticate anything.
Thats my bottom line. Thats my belief, and I have solid reasons why I believe that, explained above. It's not slander, nor maliciousness, it's my
professional opinion based on 20 years of professional imaging work under my belt, both in photography, CGI, print and digital manipulation and
We have technology at our dispense these days light years (no pun intened) past what was available to people in the 70's.
I say Meier, IIGWest, and myself all put our original negs and prints to the same modern day advanced technology.
You as the American rep for the case have been unwilling to do that.
At the same time you say that me being unwilling to submit mine to you for testing is as good as saying I believe the Meier case to be real, I could
as easily say you not submitting Meier's originals to the independant party, modern testing, is evidence of you not wanting to submit his for fear
that they will in fact be found as small models.
See how that works? So thats my stand. With regard to this subject, you said the shots had never and could never been duplicated. They have been. Now
it's another step, submit them for "analysis". By whom? The Meier "Team"? Do you think that would be objective? By that same notion, was the
original investigation? If mine pass the "tests" that would cast doubt upon Meier's being "real"...and I again doubt that your investigators
would submit to that.
So, turn about is fair play. Meier submits his, I submit mine (original negs, and prints), to a party choosen by an independant party. A party who
couldnt care less about the outcome. Not one you choose, nor I.
Thats the terms. And theyre fair as they can be.
I'll have your wedding cake ship shots within a week or so, as I am swamped with side projects..all the parts are here so I can assemble them this
week at night.