this is all i'm hearing from mr.horn
> poor, one-armed man with no resources
> replicate it, replicate it, replicate it
> apologize to me
> slander
> the original investigators did this and that
> this fx guy _said_ he would have to use cgi, and this fx guy siad this and this
> what about this other photo from the series?
> the meier case is about more than just ufos and aliens
this casting mr.meier as the dirt poor farmer is silly. mr.meier owns a lot of land and can afford to have his film developed? and developing slide film has never been cheap. this pathetic latching on of mr.meier's disability does not equate to an inability to fake ufo photos/films.
couple the above with mr.horn continually making excuses and defending meier to the bitter end is just nonsense. mr.horn has failed on every level to directly address issues with the photo problems that david b. has found.
could it be an accidental double/triple exposure? this is as lame a defense as the whole alien inspired garbage can lid bit. and mr.horn coming here posing as the humble guy (on-air) who now will give his "layman's" response...? what kind of a researcher are you mr.horn? mr.horn, why are you so adamant in defending mr.meier in spite of the clear evidence to the contrary?
mr.horn completely relies on and cites the work of others and wants to point fingers while saying that others need to conduct themselves in an ethical manner. well, well, well, any ethical researcher or investigator would start having some problems at the moment fakery was detected. it appears that mr.horn has done no investigation of his own and regurgitates the works of other while he stands at the podium as mr.meier's official representative.
so mr.horn, how many on-site investigations have you done and what types of investigations have you done yourself - beside asking an fx guy for his opinion.
if this was a court case then i'm sure someone would have a field day with jim dilettoso on the stand and shreding his so-called investigation along with the rest of the silliness that goes along with this case. jim dilettoso would not be recognized by a court as an expert. oh, excuse me, "dr" dilettoso
i've seen the photos the so-called investigators replicated (ah, there's that word) and they look just as good as any meier photos but the investigators dismissed them for whatever reason.
so if meier is using his ufo photos as proof of his contact with aliens, and you as his representative are here arguing that the evidence is irrifutable and validates his alien contacts and his knowledge of future events, what happens when one ufo photo is shown to be a hoax? what about two or more photos? and don't go to the bit where you start saying the case is about more than ufos and aliens. it isn't working.
and citing jpl as having authenticated the photos. here's what the guy at jpl who looked at the photos had to say
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 15:29:56 -0700
From: Bob Nathan <
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Request
I have never been given good enough photos or video good enough to
analyse. The Meier people have always only given me disorted and out of focus imagery to which all I could say was NO CONCLUSION POSSIBLE. THAT IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT.
Bob Nathan
and this from gary kinder - note that kinder himself says that
no one at jpl did an analysis. having a good eye is one thing, doing an actual analysis is another.
Then there is Robert Post, who had been at the JPL photo laboratory for 22 years and was the head of that lab in 1979, when Nathan brought the Meier photos to him to have copies made. Post oversees the developing and printing of every photograph that comes out of JPL. Though he analyzed nothing, his eye for spotting fabrications far surpasses a lay-person's. Post told me: "From a photography standpoint, you couldn't see anything that was fake about the Meier photos. That's what struck me. They looked like legitimate photographs. I thought, 'God, if this is real, this is going to be really something.'"
using this as an 'proof' meier is not faking ufo photos is a joke and any honest researcher or investigator would never in a million years would use this as proof. mr.horn, you're offering only opinions and not documented analyses from experts. sounds good throwing out big government lab names, but in the end this is just more smoke.
one other thing - and i'm relying on your twenty-plus years of researching this case to help me out here - where are all of mr.meier's original negatives?
