reply to post by BigfootNZ
Thank you for posting that Bigfoot. I am afraid IIG's investigation is a prime example of what is called pseudoskepticism. They were challenged by
Michael Horn to submit their duplications of Meier's evidence for scientific scrutiny, just as Meiers material was, but they refused to. It will now
become very apparent why they refused to as I systematically debunk their claims.
The Dinosaur picture
The claimed original and alleged sourcel:
IIG claims that Meier faked this image because they resemble one another, but if one looks closely one will find:
1) The original lacks any of the texturing and the detail in the alleged source
2) The background and the strokes visible in the alleged source are not visible in the original
3) The limbs of the alleged dinosaur are very thin on the original, but not in the alleged source.
IIG claims this because of the low quality and resolution of Meiers camera. In which case why hasn't it demonstrated that it can using a similar low
quality and resolution replicate Meiers picture exactly? Until that is not forthcoming this cannot be accepted as proof.
I do personally believe though that it possible that this a hoaxed image and taken from the alleged source, but possibly taken to support his
Asket and Nara pictures
Alleged source of original:
There is something fishy going on here with the IIG's representation. The first image is from the 1983 book. Then there is a reprint of this image in
a different book in 1991, in which another image appears which was not in the former.
It says in the end:
I asked one of the original investigators, Lee Elders, about the publication of UFO…Contact From The Pleiades Volume II. Here is what he had
"[Billy] supplied the material that was analyzed. I have letters from him stating that he was thrilled with the presentation. We gave him a couple
hundred books at his request. I still have the letters saying he and the Pleiadians were happy the book had been done. In fact, the publication was
mentioned in the original contact notes."
So, for at least 18 years, from 1983 to 2001, these photographs of "Asket" and "Nera" were promoted and published, multiple times, as being his
Plejaran extra-terrestrial contacts, but then in 2001 these same photos were now described as "malicious hoaxes" and the only thing that changed was
that the apparently original source material, The Dean Martin Variety Show, was released on home video.
Did you spot the misrepresentation? Lee elders was talkng about his book published in 1983, which Meier and his Pleaidians verified, in which the
second photograph which IIG has deconstructed was not in it. Lee elders said nothing to verify the 1991 book, which was by another author. Thus IIG
have misrepresented his quote.
I still think it is possibly that Meier did not take a picture of Asket, and this photo was hoaxed to support his contacts. It seems odd that the
Pleaidians do not allow themselves to be photographed at other times, and then would allow Meier to have a face-shot of Asket.
UFO Photo duplication
IIG accepted Michael Horn's challenge to duplicate Meier photos using models but refused to submit them for scientific testing. It will become clear
why after we compare Meiers best pictures and IIG's side by side:
Also see these side by side:
It does not take a photo expert to see that the IIG fail on all technical counts: In their replicas it is obvious the UFO is a small model suspended
above the groumd by 6-7 feet pole close to the camera. At others the model is right in front of the camera suspended by a fishing pole. A very basic
test of this photo by calculating focal points and distances of these objects will expose them in an instant. These are the kind of tests Meiers
photos had to undergo and on a far more vigorous level.
In Meiers photo you can clearly see these UFO's are suspended very high in the air and would require huge cranes to put them there(Somehow I think if
Meier had a portable crane it would be noticed
) His UFO's are rather large and are a significant distance away from the camera so as to make a
possible pole or a crane visible in the camera frame. If subjected to a test calculating focal points and distances etc the size of the UFO would be
shown to be significantly large(ruling our small models)
There has been no attempt by IIG to duplicate his videos, but there are some pseudoskeptics who have tried. Let us compare
Here a Meiers original video
The deph perception is very clear and to give us perspective somebody even walks underneath. It is obviously not a small object dangled in front of a
camera. If I can see replications of this footage then I will believe it could be a hoax, until then the skeptics need to work VERY hard to reproduce
this stuff. It would seem if professional organizations like IIG are failing miserably, then this strongly supports the validity of these actually
being genuine beamships who are in contact with Meier.
[edit on 13-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]
[edit on 14-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]