Look Out for That Tree!

The End of the Skeptical Challenge to Billy Meier’s UFO Photographs

Michael Horn

While I prefer to focus on the immensely important information in the Meier case, there are still loud voices that accuse Meier of hoaxing his famous UFO photos, films and video. There are actually websites and online forums devoted to attacking the Meier case and doing so without any regard for truth, or for proof of their own vile and defamatory claims. While these pathetically cowardly online attacks actually help create interest in the Meier case, it is time to provide a clear demonstration of just how impoverished and desperate they are.

To that end, and especially for anyone visiting this site as a result of the negative publicity about the case, I present the following photo comparison and explanation.

Meier’s Earliest Photos

These are some of Meier’s earliest UFO photos, taken by him in India, in 1964. The article about him in the New Delhi Statesman documents that he was already relating information about his extraterrestrial contacts at the time. And, in 1998, Phobol Cheng, a former UN diplomat representing Cambodia, came forward to verify that she (and everyone else who was at the Ashoka Ashram in the 1960s) had witnessed the same UFOs, as well as Meier walking and talking with a woman from one of the ships.

1. 2.

3.

This is the classic "sun shot", from 1975, which has the sunlight glinting off of a UFO next to a large, known object, the tree (which helps confirm that the UFO is indeed a full-sized object).

4.

The Origin of the Skeptical Challenge

The skeptics have long claimed that Meier’s UFO photos, films and video are all hoaxes using models and special effects, forced perspective, etc., so let’s see if they can prove it. But first, the whole notion of having the skeptics duplicate Meier’s photos, films and video came about when Vaughn Rees, then a case investigator for CFI-West/IIG, referred to the evidence as an “easily duplicated hoax”. I then challenged him to duplicate just one of Meier’s photos and one of his films. In addition to CFI-West/IIG, James Randi (magician and professional skeptic/debunker) and skeptic Michael Shermer, both of whom are also affiliated with CFI-West/IIG, made similar attacks and claims against Meier and the case.

It is the standard operating procedure for these skeptics to debunk hoaxes, and some of them take particular delight in utilizing their skills as magicians in exposing the “tricks” used to create and perpetrate the hoaxes. Therefore, they take pride in knowing and explaining just how these hoaxes were perpetrated. These skeptics have all indicated that, at the very least, Meier used models and/or hubcaps, pie pans, etc., having finally conceded that he had no access to computers, special effects, PhotoShop, etc. when the majority of his photos were taken, i.e. from 1964-1979.

Model UFO Photos

Here are the best of the model UFO shots we’ve seen, by skeptic/model maker/photographer Jeff Ritzmann, including a photo of the model he used. His photos can be said to create a similar visual “effect” to some of Meier’s photos, which doesn’t mean that they are the same as photos of real UFOs.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Pretty good for just using a model on a string, right?

Here below you have a photo of a model of a Boeing 747. It looks very similar to the real thing (http://www1.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=100) and is, in comparison, considerably more detailed than the model UFO Jeff Ritzmann made. And, as good as the model of the 747 is, it’s obviously not the same object as the real 747 in the aviation photos. So duplicating an “effect” does not mean that it is a photograph of the same actual object, nor does it show that Meier used models in his photographs. And, since this is what the majority of skeptics claim, it’s been up to them to both prove that Meier did indeed use models (which they haven’t been able to) and that they can truly duplicate his ewvidence with photos of models of their own.

9a.

Comparing the Photos

So let’s compare Jeff’s model photos, which he says “duplicate” Meier’s, with the details, size and placement of the UFOs in many of Meier’s photos next to large, known objects such as trees. It’s already perfectly clear and obvious that Jeff didn’t photograph his model directly next to large trees because it would simply look like the tiny object that it is, unlike the large UFOs that Meier photographed and filmed. (Gee, why no film from the skeptics?)

Here we have three UFOs with an object in the foreground. Also notice the slightly different angle of each of the UFOs. Do you think that a one-armed man trudged into the windy Swiss mountains and "hoaxed" this photo by throwing three “models” into the air? Could you do it with the same known equipment under the same circumstances?

10.

Here we have three UFOs, again at different angles to each other with a tree branch in the foreground. But this isn't merely one photo, it's one frame from a film of the three UFOs...two of which disappear leaving the other one hovering! Now the skeptics would have to explain, no prove, how a one-armed man threw three models into the air…and managed to keep them there long enough to film them. While they are full of unsubstantiated theories, they have only demonstrated their complete and total inability to prove them by any means.

11.

These photos were taken by Meier from inside one of the UFOs, looking out at two more.

12.

13.

14.

The following is an explanation, by James Deardorff, regarding the tree in the series of photos that follows. Please note that the opinions he refers to are those of forestry experts, who know the difference between models and real, full-sized trees, something the skeptics seem stubbornly unable to understand. (see: http://www.tjresearch.info/moretree.htm):

THE TREE'S MATURITY. In 1985 I showed the photo that best displays the tree's trunk (#66), plus another of this series, to two professors of Forest Science at Oregon State University to determine if they could identify the type of tree. These were Profs. Richard. K. Hermann (now retired) and Edward. C. Jensen. Hermann was raised in western Germany and was very familiar with this species of tree. With certainty they stated that it was a mature abies alba, i.e., a European silver fir. Other forestry experts contacted more recently were less unanimous about the species identification, with picea abies (Norwegian spruce) suggested as an additional or secondary possibility (Hanley, 2001; Hansen, 2001; Holdenrieder, 2001). However, none suggested that it could have been a small potted tree or model tree. Thus it was no mere 1- or 2m tree, which would exhibit an unmistakably juvenile appearance in its profile, density of branches and trunk, as will be discussed soon. Prof. Hermann pointed out that its crown was already showing signs of “stork-nesting,” or near cessation of vertical growth, due, they presumed, to the environmental stress of excessive smog east of Zurich and/or to acid rain. A potted, “baby” tree is far too young to exhibit such effects.

15.

16.

17.

18.

The tree’s trunk alone indicates its general maturity, as seen here in Fig. 2. One may notice a nodule on each side of the upper trunk,

19. Fig. 2

Enlargement of tree’s trunk, from photo #66, brightness

and contrast enhanced. See also Elders & Elders (1983, p. 64).

which the forestry professors pointed out as being spots where a couple of limbs had been pruned or broken off, such that later growth had not yet obscured those spots. Unfortunately, these most important considerations were not investigated by Korff. This tree was at least 13m tall if the information Meier was told by his contactor is correct: that the width of this beamship was 7m. In this case, the trunk diameter down as low as it is visible in the photo would be about 64cm.

Here is a panoramic view of the area, the tree is no longer there.

20.

Here is a detail of the segment showing where the tree was, with a photo of the tree and UFO overlaid.

21.

Here's a frame from a film where the UFO hovers at the top of the screen.

22.

Here's another frame, taken a few seconds later, where the UFO – appearing smaller – has "jumped" over to a distant hillside...and the dips behind the hill before returning to the center of the screen. Anyone want to try that with a tiny model?

23.

As for any claims that any skeptics have "duplicated" Meier's photos (they won't even try to duplicate the films, video and sound recordings) please look at the detail in these photos, many from 1976 - more than 30 years ago! - and compare them to the best of the contemporary efforts.

24.

25.

You can go further and read the Photo Analysis document (http://www.theyfly.com/PDF/PhotoAnalysis3.pdf) where the parameters, protocols and methods of testing* Meier’s photos explained. You’ll then better understand how the investigators and experts were able to determine that Meier’s photos were of large objects at a distance from the camera and why similar tests of the model photos will reveal that they are small objects close to the camera. Anyone still think that Meier was using a tiny model? 

The Wedding Cake UFO

Here is a photo of Jeff Ritzmann’s model of Meier’s Wedding Cake UFO (WCUFO). Ritzmann claims that Meier’s WCUFO is really a model, made from a garbage can lid and other household items. We are waiting to see his version of the WCUFO using those items, to prove his claim, but for now he is using cake pans, perhaps because it’s called the Wedding Cake UFO?

26.

Here are a few of Meier’s (63!) WCUFO photos.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

And here are a couple of photos of a man, who's approximately 6' tall, in basically the same location. You can see that neither he, nor the box, is of sufficient height, width and length to fill the scene, as the WCUFO did. 

32.

33.

Regarding the tree in the WCUFO video (http://www.billymeier.com/archives/Wedding_Cake_ship.mpg), here is information, again from James Deardorff, worth considering (from: http://www.tjresearch.info/Wedcake.htm): 

Wedding-cake craft partially eclipsed by large fir tree. Only after the English version of Meier's Fotobuch came out did I become aware of his photo #850 as published in Through Space and Time: A Photo Journal of "Billy" Eduard Albert Meier (Tulsa, OK: Steelmark LLC, 2004), p. 114. See Fig. 10. This was in the hills in the general vicinity of the villages/towns of Auenberg, Egg, Girenbad and Hinwil, some 15 miles ESE of Zurich. Meier shot it around 2:30 pm, April 3, 1981 while standing on the top of his van, according to his 1999 Verzeichnis. One can see 5 or 6 separate main branches of the tree eclipsing most of the right-hand side of the craft, with more of its branches extending out to the tree's left side above the craft on up to the tree's top. According to Dr. Edward C. Jensen, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Elizabeth P. Ritchie Distinguished Professor, Forest Ecology and Natural Resources Education, Oregon State University:

"The portion of the tree above the potential UFO appears to me to be in the range of 6-10 feet. Although it's pretty fuzzy, there appear to be 5 or 6 whorls of branches with an average growth (and this is just an educated guess) of 1-2 feet between whorls." (March, 2006)

34.

This 6-10 ft estimate of the height of the portion of the tree above the craft then translates to a height for the craft of 4 to 7 feet, and a diameter of 8.8-15.4 ft, or from 2.7 to 4.7 meters. This suggests that it was the same 3.5m craft as shown in Figs. 5 and 6 above, and hovering very close behind the tree.

Another opinion on the tree in question comes from Professor Emeritus Doug Brodie of the College of Forestry, Oregon State University.

"The tree is one of the European true firs -- Abies species. The picture has only a portion of the top of the crown 10 to 15 feet. There could be anywhere from 10 to 50 feet of tree bole below the picture." (March, 2006)

Zooming in on the craft in front of a distant tree. A day later, near the same place,

35. 

Fig. 11. Meier's photo #843.

Quetzal arranged to have his remotely controlled craft hover in front of an isolated Norway spruce (picea abies) estimated by Meier as 15m in height. That day, again in the early afternoon, he utilized both his Ricoh camera and his Saba video camera. Fig. 11 on the left shows one of the Ricoh camera shots. Figs. 10 and 11 below show the scene from a different viewing angle and from video-camera frames when the zoom lens was not employed and when it was fully employed, respectively (focal length of the video camera going from 12 to 75 mm). The videotaping lasted about six minutes, and the time for the lens to advance from no zoom to full zoom was between 3 and 4 seconds. This zooming, and Figs. 10 & 11, indicate that the hovering craft and the tree are both at about the same distance from the camera, and that this distance must be appreciable. From the estimate of tree size, one may then estimate the size of the wedding-cake craft. Now, according to Professor of Forest Management, J. D. Brodie of Oregon State University, who gave me his opinion in 1986, the tree's height was only 3 to 7 meters (10-23 ft) tall. On the other hand, if the annual top growth is a typical 0.3 to 0.4m (12 to 16 inches; see Fig. 8), the tree's height comes out to be 5.5 to 7.3m, (plus whatever portion of the lower trunk lies unseen below the brow of the ridge). Hence a 7m height seems reasonable for the tree.

36. 37.

(See:  http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/3/prweb357776.htm )

The Light/Energy Ship UFO

Moving on to another type of UFO that Meier claimed to have photographed, here are two photos are of the controversial "light" or "energy" UFO:

38.

The first photo has been attacked as a "deliberate hoax": by two skeptics, David Biedney and Gene Steinberg:

“Michael, seriously, these photos are so completely faked, it's sad to read your words trying to establish that they're real..." 

"A photo enlarger circa that era would have served nicely to produce the picture in question from two negatives placed one atop the other…"

“The photos are fairly amateurish. I think movie professionals would have done a much better job faking those pictures. They would work more carefully to eliminate the blatant flaws that so many have discovered.

“While I realize most people, while perfectly intelligent, aren't skilled in photo trickery, I'm surprised there isn't more skepticism here. Holding models on a string and photographing them against a background of trees or buildings is old school.” 

“Taking ALL the "evidence" into account makes it so clear to easily and quickly make the case that the Meier story is a contrived, planned case of

disinformation and outright lies….”

“Mr. Meier is positioned as a prophet, seer and wise being, and while he is cunning, the weakness of the photos, videos, sound (a blatant use of vintage

analog synthesizers, any true audio expert recognizes analog oscillators, filters and delays, it just so happens that I'm an _experienced_ synth guy) is

damning…”

“In short, Meier is lying, and you're a guilty accomplice.”

It should be mentioned that the online forum maintained by Beidney and Steinberg survived almost entirely by attacking the Meier case and me. And they were among the loudest voices attacking the credibility, and scientific record, of Marcel Vogel. Vogel did an extensive (videotaped) analysis of metal alloy samples allegedly given Meier by the Plejaren, using an electron-scanning microscope. The negative attacks on Vogel, by Beidney and Steinberg, etc., are easily refuted here: http://www.theyfly.com/newsflash4/m_vogel.htm.

Now, the first photo that these learned skeptics claimed was an "out of camera", double exposure, is actually a triple exposure, done, according to a photographic, film and special effects expert with 50 years in the industry, accidentally in camera by Meier. But as other image, photography and special effects people have said (including those who are UFO skeptics), "If the accusers are so sure it's a deliberate hoax...then they should duplicate it." And instead, of course, they have simply avoided dealing with the obvious, refusing to even attempt to duplicate this (or any other) photo (or film). It's also funny that these same skeptics (who can’t come up with one attempted duplication between them) complain that without Meier's original negatives they can't determine if a picture is genuine…but for some reason they can say that it's a fake! 

(These same skeptics accuse Meier of having “unseen helpers”, which not only was proven to be absolutely untrue** during the eight-year investigation, but also indicates that they think the Meier evidence is so impressive that he just must have had help, since they know that all of them together couldn’t produce a fraction of the physical evidence that Meier has.)

Strangely, the skeptics also didn't claim that they could “prove” that this following picture of the same object is a hoax - or any of the other Meier photos (including all those on this page) - they just thought making the (incorrect) accusation about one photo was enough to end the discussion, which it was, as far as taking them seriously.

39.

Consider

Now, consider the amazing quality, and quantity, of the rest of Meier’s photographic evidence, as well as all the other still irreproducible physical evidence. Thinking people should ask themselves just why Meier would publish such unusual (and certain to be questioned) photographs. Really, why would he risk the ridicule of being revealed as hoaxing them – unless he didn’t hoax them and, strange as they may be, they are genuine? And, when a “why” question like this is asked, it begs a substantiated, proven answer, rather than just the aspersions cast by frustrated and defeated debunkers.

So, once again, here is Jeff Ritzmann’s best, most detailed shot of his model UFO:

40.

And here is just one of many of Meier’s:

41.

Here is Jeff Ritzmann’s WCUFO model:

42.

And here is one of Meier’s (63) WCUFO photos:

43.

And, for good measure again, the WCUFO video:

http://www.billymeier.com/archives/Wedding_Cake_ship.mpg

After viewing all of the above photo comparison, and Meier’s video and films (which no skeptic has ever even attempted to duplicate) any reasonably intelligent person should be able to distinguish the quantum, exponential difference (in quality, detail and quantity) between Meier’s real, authentic photographic evidence and the actual hoaxes, i.e. the failed attempts by the skeptics to duplicate his evidence. And let’s not forget all of the scientific experts, like Marcel Vogel and others, who have already vouched for the authenticity of Meier’s evidence (see: http://www.theyfly.com/PDF/MeierEvidence.pdf)

Timber!

But just in case there is still even the smallest doubt, please consider that these six forestry experts, Prof. J.D. Brodie, Prof. D. Hanley, Prof. E.M. Hansen, Richard. K. Hermann, Prof. Holdenrieder and Dr. Edward C. Jensen, have recently established, beyond even a shadow of a doubt, that the trees in the photos are full-sized, mature trees of determined heights and, therefore, the UFOs in Meier’s photos, films and video are large objects a considerable distance from the camera and not small models close to it.

Perhaps now, as I suggested in the beginning, we can focus on the really important information and teachings in the Meier case and bid a fond farewell to those parties who, for whatever reasons, are firmly invested in living in denial and launching unsubstantiated, clearly envious attacks against Meier and his – still irreproducible – evidence.

With indisputable proof that Meier is, and long has been, in touch with more advanced, space traveling human beings, the Meier case is clearly the most important story in all of human history…and the key to our future survival.

*The skeptics, lacking better arguments, are fond of making personal attacks against the highly qualified professionals associated with the Meier case and the investigation. One of the people that they target is photographic expert Jim Dilettoso. Here is an excerpt from a letter by Wendelle Stevens (lead investigator) wherein he addresses this issue, “…We chose Jim Dilettoso to lead our scientific research on the Meier case because he was head and shoulders above all the other degreed scientists we had gone to, who were afraid to speak out because of ‘peer pressure’.

 “Jim was a ‘professional student’ so to speak. He liked college, was a straight ‘A’ student, and his father allowed him to stay in college until he was 28, I believe. Jim had taken all the scientific courses college had to offer, and some at post-graduate level. He could have gotten a degree in any of a number of fields had he written the paper, but he did not want to become locked in any ‘peer’ group with its risks, and so he remained apart. But he learned all the separate lingo of all the scientific fields.

“He also had a number of classmates who graduated and had risen to Chief Engineers, Managers and even Owners of advanced tech research companies, and was able to get us into any of them. Whenever we had our introductory discussions with the management in a new tech facility, he was easily handy with that particular lingo and spoke in that familiarity, which led many to address him as Dr. because of his familiarity with the field, and they had assumed that he had his doctorate. He usually corrected them, but some thought he was just being modest. He in fact had not written any treatise and had no real Doctorate and we well knew this…”

**In addition to the investigative team led by Wendelle Stevens and Lee and Brit Elders, author Gary Kinder (Light Years) did an extensive investigation into the Meier case, even interviewing the then current, and past, owners of Bar Photo, the photo shop where Meier bought the only photographic equipment he ever used, i.e. cameras and tripods. He not only never bought an enlarger or other equipment, he never bought dark room equipment or supplies for developing film, since all of his photographs and films were brought to (and then sent out to separate labs by) Bar photo. The owners personally handled and inspected all photos, negatives, slide positives and films of Meier’s and attested to there not being any signs of models, manipulations, effects, etc. – although they admitted that they were initially quite shocked by the UFO subject matter but got used to it over time.