<>#8THE CAMERA NEVER LIES?@5 Massive scientific expertise has vindicated Billy Meier's spacecraft photographs, according to his supporters. These claims however should be pitted against the rather different conclusions of skilled ufologists.@6 THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN by 'Billy' Meier of Pleiadean spacecraft as they flew around the valleys near Hinwel, Switzerland, are among the most striking UFO pictures ever published. They are so striking that they evoke that paradoxical response: too good to be true. But after a while one realises, looking at these elegant productions, that one's instinct has backed away from them for a less cynical reason: the pictures simply don't fit with one's sense of light and shade as seen in the real world. They are visually disjointed, offending one's sense of balance, clashing with one's memory of how things look. Then, on a closer look, certain patterns in the pictures emerge - and certain suspicions are aroused. It is coincidence, for example, that so many pictures of the same craft seem to show the flying disc at exactly the same angle to the camera, despite the very different locations and times of day at which the pictures were supposedly taken? Why do the reflections and shadows on the Pleiadean spaceships appear the same, too, despite the various backgrounds? Why are the undersides of the craft always so dark - as they would be if they were models, say, close to the camera? Why does only one picture, of extremely low quality, exist of a landed disc? Is there any significance in the massive preponderance of shots in which the craft are shown against a clear, light sky - the best type of background on which to superimpose a UFO image? Wendelle Steven's and Genesis III - whom it seems fair to call both investigators and publicists of the Meier case - have their own answers to some of these questions. In an interview with the ufologist Timothy Green Beckley, Wendelle Stevens rather disarmingly remarked: First off all, photographs are poor evidence because there are so many things that we can do technically to produce images. However, there are also so many ways we can detect a hoax. We can tell if we are dealing with superimposed overlays, reflected images, double exposures. We can tell by looking through special microscopes and searching for gain density and grain patterns. We can pretty much tell if an object has been thrown into the air or suspended by something in the air. And in keeping with that scepticism, the book published by Genesis III, UFO contact from the Pleiades, shows computer processed versions of the photographs that appear to validate their authenticity. It is when Wendelle Stevens starts to explain some of the computer enhancements that the reader's credulity is stretched. Says the colonel: We can (analyse photographs) with a computer by studying the edges around any given object. In high magnification an edge is seen as a series of shock waves. There is a @6special formula for the spacing of these shock waves that make up the edge. How strong they are, how far apart they are, will tell you how far apart that edge of the object is from the camera. If the body is in motion, the shock waves are compressed on the leading edge, and expand on the trailing edge. In fact, nothing of the kind happens. What this particular computer process does is enhance the picture contrast in areas where the image brightness varies - especially at the edges of features, making it possible to make adjustments about how far the object photographed is from the camera. In some cases, it is possible to intensify otherwise hard-to-detect strings or supports attached to the object. This has nothing whatever to do with shock waves, though Stevens has repeated the idea more than once. In Genesis III's book, the 12 or so pictures purporting to show analytic enhancements of Meier's pictures are accompanied by details of the various tests to which the photographs were subjected. It is claimed that the computer enhancements showed how the light values of the landscape are consistent with those on the bottom of the craft. Supposedly, the test eliminates double exposures or 'paste-ups' - splicing images from two different transparencies together. So far, perhaps, so good. The name of a reputable computer systems company, De Anza systems, appears on the edge of one frame. Kal Korff took the simple step of asking Mr Wayne Heppler, manager of De Anza Systems, if an analysis had been performed for Genesis III. Replied the honest Mr Heppler: @6What these guys did was come down to De Anza Systems claiming that they wanted to buy a computer from us. So we took one of their pictures, one showing the UFO, and enhanced it to make certain parts of the picture stand out. Then they took pictures of it, left, and stated they would get back in touch with us. And we haven't heard from them since. Korff then asked if De Anza had the technical capability to analyse the pictures. The answer: 'No. We are in no position to do an analysis.' At a lecture at the UFO '80 Symposium held in Oakland, California, in August 1980, Jim Dilettoso of Genesis III said the 'z-scale contouring' and 'edge identification' tests were run on the pictures. The only drawback to this is that these are simply colour contouring techniques (and can be used to analyse the 'density' at each point of an image - its lightness or darkness). They are not light distortion tests, such as edge enhancement, which might reveal the information Genesis III claim to have gained by the techniques. Dilettoso also (perhaps rather rashly) took exception to a Ground Saucer Watch (GSW) colour contouring of one of the Meier pictures. This shows a similar level of light reflectivity on both the ground and the Pleiadean spacecraft - indicating that something is wrong with the photograph, since the materials, at the claimed distances, should reflect (and so colour contour) differently. Dilettoso's objection was unfortunate, since even Genesis III's computer-generated picture shows both the craft and its background in the @6same colour contour. It did so, Kal Korff discovered, for reasons that could prove nothing about the authenticity of Billy Meier's photographs. According to Ken Dimwiddie, one of the technicians at De Anza Systems, who was present when Dilettoso appeared in the guise of a prospective customer, it was Dilettoso himself who assigned the colours on the computer's read-out screen. In other words, the colours may indicate almost anything about the actual qualities of the original photograph. They have little value except to satisfy Jim Dilettoso's aesthetic fancy. Computer-aided analyses of the Meier pictures by Ground Saucer Watch, however, are devastating by comparison. They inspired two GSW researchers, Fred Adrian and William Spaulding, to describe them as 'hoaxes, both crude and grandiose'. Even without the aid of computer enhancement the photographs are dubious. Shadows on the Pleiadean craft do not conform to the light in the landscape, and the sharpness of the UFO images indicates that the object shown is extremely close to the camera - as a model would be. (GSW's estimate is that the various 'spaceships' are, in fact, between 8 and 12 inches (20 and 30 centimetres) in diameter. Fuzziness that would result from atmospheric effects is often lacking. When the images are more consistent with expectations, one is still left baffled by the testimony of Meier himself. Despite his constant contacts and the priceless photographic evidence he was gathering on behalf of mankind, Meier @6never bothered to repair or replace his allegedly broken camera, whose lens was stuck, focused at infinity. Yet different focusings do seem to have been achieved - resulting in 'distant' objects coming out as suitably fuzzy. But then the testimony concerning Meier and his photographic techniques occasionally leaves the disinterested enquirer gasping. It should be pointed out that Billy Meier lost his left arm in an accident, which one would expect to make for difficulties with a camera. Wendelle Stevens nevertheless has made the startling claim that Meier shot all his pictures from the hip, because the mirror in his camera had 'jammed closed' as well. And yet he manages to centre his UFOs in every frame with amazing precision. Jim Dilettoso also says that a professional photographic expert claimed he would need 'a million dolars' to duplicate the Meier pictures. Less excitably, Wendelle Stevens attempts to debunk the claims that the UFOs are models by asking: 'How many models can a one-armed man carry on a moped when he is driving with the only arm he's got?' One might reply: 'As many as will fit in a bag.' So, what is one to make of the Meier case? Certainly, the material evidence is anything but convincing, and the tales told by Meier have (as GSW have pointed out) all the hallmarks of American George Adamski's extravaganzas, updated and technically sophisticated for a more @6demanding age. It is disheartening to learn that Stevens received an invitation to present his case to the House of Lords UFO Committee, who should have known better than to invite him in the first place. Genesis III come out of the affair in greater embarrassment than Meier, who, after all, is apparently renowned for being 'a sort of person who gets great satisfaction out of fooling the authorities'. Genesis III have published some remarkable claims on behalf of Meier, yet none of those claims has been validated by independant research. Wendelle Stevens may attempt to disarm the ufologist Jim Lorenzen by saying, 'As you well know, Jim, the book was never designed to present any hard facts,' yet it gives every impression of doing just that. As for Meier himself, it is possible that some subjective experience lies behind the discredited material evidence. If the stories of voices in the head, going for rides in 'pear- shaped UFOs' with 'a very old man' at the age of five, and the sightings he had from a very early age are anything to go by, this may be the best explanation. In which case, the model spacecraft (whose existence Meier doesn't deny) may well have been constructed as a result of an actual series of contactee experiences, however unlikely it is that these represent an attempt by any Pleiadeans to get in touch with us on Earth. If so, then Billy Meier has unfortunately allowed his experience to be turned by others into something like an industry. end.