posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 03:06 PM
It's "Meier" not Meyers.
My opinion? It's a case for suckers. There's so many things wrong with Meier's photos and film I cannot detail it all here, again. Do a search on
ATS for Meier, and you'll see a thread where I duplicated his shots and his media representative got himself banned, in my belief to avoid having to
deal with the facts he couldnt answer for, and the questions he couldnt answer.
It's a volitile case that long should have been forgotten and moved past. However due to the efforts of certain people who wish to make some cash,
it's still around for the uneducated to get ensnared in.
I would urge you to check out "The Paracast", where one of the hosts, a godfather of digital imaging who's worked at ILM and wrote the first book
ever on Photoshop (and one coveted beyond all others by imaging professionals like myself) plainly proves a double exposure on one of Meier's photos.
The media representative cannot hold up during the episode. Said representative puts forth more twisted logic and double talk then you can imagine to
try and squirm out of the obvious.
Kevin Randle recently said that UFOlogy has stagnated due to having to revisit the "trash of the past".
In my opinion until we get past cases such as this we'll never get anywhere with the study.