• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive free Amazon gift cards. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Michael Horn & The Billy Meier Contacts

Do you believe the Billy Meier Contacts and Evidence Are Real?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not Sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
Status
Not open for further replies.

David Biedny

Paranormal Adept
As Gene points out, Michael Horn has yet to address the issues I found - and have shared with all of you - about that image. It will be interesting, to say the least, to see what his "layman analysis" yields. I'm not expecting much, to be honest.
 

Dao

Paranormal Novice
David Biedny said:
In the end, the evidence of forgery is quite overwhelming and the fact that the Meier camp can't seem to produce a single verifyable piece of written evidence of genuine witness testimony or original film is a dead giveaway, along with all the other elements of deception. But, as Mr. Horn admitted on our show and his DVD, this is not about UFOs and extraterrestrials, it's about cults of personality and a philosophy which I find exceedingly disturbing - check out the mythos behind Scientology, there are many common elements with the Meier writings, I personally find it a bit sickening. I'm all for the freedom of expression, but when it becomes an exercise in brainwashing, it gets dangerous. I think that the world is in a very precarious position at the moment, and it's our job to remain vigilant and thoughtful in the face of deception and attempts to control thought and debate.

David, this is a very important point you are making. There are all sorts of manipulations going on in the spiritual domain, and Meier has ended up by trying to take his "piece of the cake".

The disturbing thing is not so much that someone would try such a thing, but that so many people are ready to follow it blindly.

As you point out, we are indeed at "a very precarious position [in history] at the moment", and we imperatively have to get rid of the many types of disinformation, mindwash and manipulation that abound, amongst which (but not reserved to) the kind of cult Meier advertizes, and various New-Age cults that go beyond the concepts of unity in all things, respect for it, and free self-determination.


David Biedny said:
And I agree with UFOMAN that the physiognomy links were not useful. Let's please not stoop to that level of discourse.

As mentioned, it was not meant in a derogatory way, but neither can, nor should it be associated with NAZI style propaganda concepts, as ufoman comments. I reject that unjust, although emotionally laden accusation vehemently. In this case too, discernment is required.

"Face reading" (physiognomy) is a very useful discipline, for who is sensitive to it, and for who can look beyond the stereotypes projected on people through various forms of propaganda.

But I will let everyone find their own use for it, or pass on it, as suited...
 
U

ufoman

Guest
David, Since your a professional Hollywood Effects guy. How does Mr. Meier's 1970s style technique for his UFO photos & videos compare with the effects of those times? Do we agree that if they are fake they are very well done fakes?
 

Alea

Skilled Investigator
Honestly, based on the facts as they exist right now, David rendered his expert opinion based on the Meier documents presented. Michael Horn has not provided any verifiable data that can be triangulated via scientific means (the Meier website, by the way, has a link entitled "Scientific Evidence" that is blank!). I think we did reach the bottom of the case...it's closed. Since Mr. Meier is still alive and communicating with the beings in question, I agree that he might provide primary source materials for review. Seems it would be in Meier's best interest to provide verifiable data including original negatives, metals, video with the spacecraft/occupants. If Meier were truly sincere about the spiritual intentions that are professed on the site, this would only further his honest and sincere cause. If the intention is to deceive, why then, there is no need to provide any more evidence, is there? The deception is already complete. For the Meier group to just say on their website that our questioning is related to our own lack of understanding and development doesn't cut it. As a species, humans are like that; geez, don't we have a story where a woman named Eve didn't believe her Creator when he told her not to eat from a certain tree? Or don't the Plejarians know that about us? It was very sad to hear Mr. Horn unravel on the air. I hope his personal truth satisfies him and brings him peace of mind.

Let's move on to the myriad of other paranormal experiences that are out there. Hey guys, what's next?
 
M

Michael812

Guest
Here is the essence of the following message:

It is incumbent upon DB, as the person claiming to have PROVED that Meier deliberately hoaxed the photo in question, to offer more than an opinion (which isn't proof of anything), i.e. to actually prove it by duplicating the photo, with the same equipment that Meier used, and under similar conditions that existed, at the time.

But first, since none of you noticed it in DB's "proof", please do notice that has actually modified his position and is now claiming something other than what he first claimed, which was that Meier deliberately faked the photos with out-of-camera super-imposed images.

But now he summarizes his position as:

"As all of you can clearly see with your own eyes, this image is a fabrication. I do not feel obligated to perform this analysis with every single image that has come out of the Meier camp, the fact is that others have deconstructed many of the other pictures and found serious problems, so the credibility of the remaining photographs is questionable. Any reasonable type of logic dictates this conclusion. As to Mr. Horn's demands that I create an exact duplicate of a faked image, I would love to hear an explanation of the logic of this request. Does a faked image prove that another image is faked?"

I'll go into the details below but first a quick response:

If by fabrication he means that it was deliberate, he has failed to prove that, as we have already acknowledged that it's a triple exposure. If you disagree, please point to where the proof is of deliberate intent and action. Point to the PROOF, not your emotional and unsubstantiated opinions, please.

As far as "others have deconstructed, etc." this is again simply unsubstantiated, and completely inaccurate, hearsay, with, of course, no proof. His conclusion, therefore, about "the credibility of the remaining photographs" is what is questionable and, again unsubstantiated...with NO logic to support it.

As for the required duplication, it is DB who still is calling the image "faked", without any proof. Therefore, of course he's required to demonstrate, not just theorize...and that's done by photographing the presumed light source, and creating out-of-camera effects, for openers, by...convincingly duplicating the photo.
Of course, since DB has committed himself to the draped cloth concept, he has to photograph the "object" against on, as he maintains it was done. and get that same effect.

Only fair.

DETAILS:

I consulted another guy I personally know, who has 50 years of experience in photography and special effects. His background includes: Special Effects, Editor, Producer, Second Unit Director, Assistant Director, Production Manager for TV and films for Disney, Warner Bros. etc., and, according to him, the photo in question is actually a triple exposure and was done IN-CAMERA.

He is a healthy skeptic and thinks all of the energy ship photos (there are eight) have to be some kind of in-camera double exposure. He is certain that they weren't out-of-camera, super-imposed images, based on the known information and difficulty under the already established conditions, including Meier's equipment, knowledge and capabilities, of which he's been informed.

He said that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to tell if the photos were deliberately "faked" and he certainly wouldn't bet his reputation on that.

Of course, we already know that DB won't bet his reputation on it either, so what kind of confidence does he really have in his own "proof"?

My friend did say that anyone who is claiming to be an expert, and who is absolutely claiming that the photo is a deliberate fake, probably utilizing a fluorescent light (the only kind of light known to him that could have been used for the object, and which Meier did have on the property) should be willing to prove that claim by...DUPLICATING the photo, with the same equipment known to belong, and be available, to Meier at the time...with NO Photoshop and/or other current technology used. And if the person claiming that they can prove it's a hoax thinks that it was a different (non-fluorescent) light then he should identify it and utilize it for his photo as well.

He said that while he doesn't believe in "spaceships", and doesn't think that the object could be one, it would be incumbent upon anyone who was claiming that they PROVED that it wasn't, to actually do the duplication.

Let's say that this issue is like a trial where Meier is the defendant and the prosecutor is saying that they can PROVE that Meier deliberately hoaxed the photos with the means at his disposal. A recreation, or duplication, rather than just one expert's opinion - especially since another expert, who also thinks the photo is a triple exposure, says the whole effect could be accidental - is required.

This expert also said that if the accusser (DB) can't, or won't, do the duplication then he should withdraw his claim that he proved a deliberate hoax, though he could certainly say that it was still his opinion, just not a proven fact.

In other words, we have another expert, with many more years in the business than DB, and who also thinks the photo has to be a triple exposure, who won't bet his reputation on it being a deliberate fake, and who thinks that since DB claims that he's "proved" that it is (which he hasn't yet) that DB HAS TO DUPLICATE it to PROVE it, i.e. he should put up or shut up.

He also said that if DB can duplicate it under the known, specified conditions, then I have to admit that it's been faked deliberately. If DB can't prove it, it's less of a loss for him, of course and he can keep on giving his opinions, as long as he doesn't claim that he actually proved a deliberate hoax. But all that's he's proved right now is what's effectively already conceded, i.e a triple exposure...and NOTHING more.

It should go without saying that DB should do his duplication with...one hand, especially since everyone here, he included, has minimized the added difficulty involved.

And that's why, if DB wants to claim that he PROVED a deliberate hoax, he actually has to DUPLICATE it.
 
U

ufoman

Guest
Alea said:
Honestly, based on the facts as they exist right now, David rendered his expert opinion based on the Meier documents presented. Michael Horn has not provided any verifiable data that can be triangulated via scientific means (the Meier website, by the way, has a link entitled "Scientific Evidence" that is blank!). I think we did reach the bottom of the case...it's closed. Since Mr. Meier is still alive and communicating with the beings in question, I agree that he might provide primary source materials for review. Seems it would be in Meier's best interest to provide verifiable data including original negatives, metals, video with the spacecraft/occupants. If Meier were truly sincere about the spiritual intentions that are professed on the site, this would only further his honest and sincere cause. If the intention is to deceive, why then, there is no need to provide any more evidence, is there? The deception is already complete. For the Meier group to just say on their website that our questioning is related to our own lack of understanding and development doesn't cut it. As a species, humans are like that; geez, don't we have a story where a woman named Eve didn't believe her Creator when he told her not to eat from a certain tree? Or don't the Plejarians know that about us? It was very sad to hear Mr. Horn unravel on the air. I hope his personal truth satisfies him and brings him peace of mind.

Let's move on to the myriad of other paranormal experiences that are out there. Hey guys, what's next?

Alea, Well this is what J. Deardorff says to answer your post. In his Meier article called Plausible Deniability below,

Plausible Deniability
 

David Biedny

Paranormal Adept
Michael,

Look at the rambling nonsense you just posted, trying to haul out another "expert" who apparently has no name and no Internet access, who apparently won't stake his professional reputation on your theory by posting as himself on this forum. I have made a clear case for the image being fabricated (and you're now introducing the concept of "accidental fabrication", 8 times in a row? LOL!), and you continue to skate around my findings. My image analysis is not an opinion, it's a FACT. The proof is in my images. There is not an emotional word in my analysis. Have you gone blind? WHY won't you talk about the IMAGES I'VE POSTED? No, instead you'd have us believe that Meier's camera malfunctioned 8 times in a row, and only at night - I see that this is the very first time you've offered up that specific theory. Do you have any idea how positively nutty that sounds? How else will you try and change your story? There's been absolutely no determination or statement that this image was the result of an in-camera multiple exposure, I've shown clear evidence on how it would have been done as a post-composite, and I've even mentioned on the show last night how I would have cropped the image to make it a better forgery, had this been my handiwork. I've said I don't believe in spaceships? Really? When did I say that? Oh, yeah, I don't believe in the images that Meier has shot, so no, I don't believe in his spaceships being anything other than crudely made models. The nightime shots of the Wedding Cake model show CLEAR reflections of three spot lights on the miniature balls circling the model, used for the miniature shoot. What do _you_ see when you look at those images? You keep bringing up the fluorescent light - do you know something we don't? Are you hearing voices in your head?

I really think that my logic, honesty and proof has driven you off the deep end - I don't question your intelligence, but it's a fine line between that and insanity. Keep up the responses, you're hanging yourself quite nicely.

dB
 
M

Michael812

Guest
ufoman,

It's good that you posted that but it will probably be futile since what we have here is an irrational mob mentality that settles for the inconclusive and unsubstnatiated claims by DB of a deliberate hoax, and waste no opportunity, DB included, to spout off vile ad hominum attacks. DB adds insult to injury by first uttering his nastiness and then actually complaining about me and my "vitriolic and abusive comments", classic stuff from an emotional mess.

When the dust settles and all the "experts" here are held to accountability, we'll see that this has become a magnet for many angry, illogical people with too little knowledge and too much attitude. Of courses I could answer in detail about the six-years that I've gone to Switzerland, spoken with Meier, the witnesses, walked the lands in question, etc. I could inform that I've known Lee and Brit Elders for 20 years and Stevens for almost that long. I could also say that I have a copy of the letter to the Carter administration, written by Meier on behalf of the Plejaren, offering contact with the U.S., delivered by the Elders, which was turned down by those governemnt know-it-alls. I could add that the physicist David Froning's extensive endorsement of the case, as well as the full text of Wally Genlteman's absolutely supporting comments, are also in Kinder's book...and that Froning personally made such statements to my audience at one of my corporate presentations.

I could do all that and more but it's already evident that we're not dealing with fair and rational people here, which is living proof of just why the Plejaren didn't drop in to shake hands with us.

And the cosmic joke that all that exists in the Meier case was presented by one man, with one hand, is exceeded only by the fact that the ignorant ranters, such as are evident on this forum, would still accuse the man of a hoax if he had...no hands.

We know that humanity always has a degenrate and mean element that rises up to attack those who would change the status quo by bringing the unwlcome truth to them. I guarantee you, I've got $100 that says that DB, who will give another petulant, childish rant about why someone of his stature isn't required to do the honorable thing and prove their claims, will be among the many here who already know, with certainty, that NOT ONE of them - even with two hands - can or will duplicate even one photo of Meier's, especially the one in question.

There will be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing from these people, who would be clamoring to get to the head of the line for any lynch mob. Not one of them will atually get and try to duplicate the video - the one that DB asked for but won't even admit exists - nor will the genius who said he can reproduce the sounds actually attempt, let alone succeed at it, like DB, who (in a move of rare wisdom) declined to try to do also.

Nope, everybody here is the REAL expert, evidence be damned. But I predict that not a single one of them will offer to the world a zillionth of the value that generations to come will derive from the Meier case.

And so, no matter how many experts we show the photos to, or how many lawyers, the truth will remian. If DB really wants to prove a deliberate hoax, he will actually have to duplicate it as described. Again, look for the poisonous, bitter comments instead, from him and the angry mob who are really just looking for "paranormal experiences". Believe me, in my world, this is a paranormal, read abnormal, and very toxic, experience.
 

Tim

Paranormal Novice
Hi Gene and David,

How can I get a copy of the of the picture David analyzed where one can "clearly see the line" that is supposidly "super imposed' two negatives put on eachother, right? That doesn't even sound right and I want some other photo specialist to take a look a comparison pictures. So where can I get a copy of your analysis?
 
M

Michael812

Guest
Blind rage does not proof make. What kind of a paranoid person claims that I was referring to him, when I was referring to another person...who actually supported the triple exposure (why didn't YOU see that) but is sensible enough to also know that proof requires PROOF?

And please, with the vile level of insults that come your mouth, as well as those of your cult here, why should I expose another person, who is indeed a hihg-level, even skeptical, professional in the industry, to your degenerate assaults? I'm more than glad to represent myself here and stnad on my own words. When I state that there are others who have voiced their opinions (Samy's Camera, L.A. and ICON, L.A.) as well as my associate, that's the truth.

Look, you're a committed slanderer who will smear people based on your unsubstnatiated egomaniacal needs to be important. You need to reread my post and you need to know that no matter how much blathering and angry spewing you do...one simple, little photo from you will acquire my concession to your position. Until then, pardon my oldfashioned "innocent until PROVEN guilty" position. The truth always wins out, we just have to be patient enough for it to do so. And I am.
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
Tim said:
Hi Gene and David,

How can I get a copy of the of the picture David analyzed where one can "clearly see the line" that is supposidly "super imposed' two negatives put on eachother, right? That doesn't even sound right and I want some other photo specialist to take a look a comparison pictures. So where can I get a copy of your analysis?
They have already been posted in this very forum, and you are free to click the paper clip link to download your own copy and analyze to your heart's content.
 

David Biedny

Paranormal Adept
Michael812 said:
Blind rage does not proof make. What kind of a paranoid person claims that I was referring to him, when I was referring to another person...who actually supported the triple exposure (why didn't YOU see that) but is sensible enough to also know that proof requires PROOF?

And please, with the vile level of insults that come your mouth, as well as those of your cult here, why should I expose another person, who is indeed a hihg-level, even skeptical, professional in the industry, to your degenerate assaults? I'm more than glad to represent myself here and stnad on my own words. When I state that there are others who have voiced their opinions (Samy's Camera, L.A. and ICON, L.A.) as well as my associate, that's the truth.

Look, you're a committed slanderer who will smear people based on your unsubstnatiated egomaniacal needs to be important. You need to reread my post and you need to know that no matter how much blathering and angry spewing you do...one simple, little photo from you will acquire my concession to your position. Until then, pardon my oldfashioned "innocent until PROVEN guilty" position. The truth always wins out, we just have to be patient enough for it to do so. And I am.

Projection, Michael, projection.

And why would I be filled with rage, actually, at this moment I'm laughing quite soundly. Cross my heart!

:D

dB
 
M

Michael812

Guest
Tim,

The claims for Meier's abilities to do that were entirely out of his range, knowledge, eperience and equipment. This has been thoroughly established. And I haven't yet gone into it but DB's analysis of the photo has just a few problems when he presumes Meier was skillful enough to do it, which included a rather tricky triple exposure of the lower portion of the house that, upon close examination, actually shows that the light object was photographed within/against a backgrond that INCLUDED the portion with the house.

For Meier to have somehow DELIBERATELY created this effect - which according to two other experts is definitely in-camera - would take remarkable skill, such as DB himself probably does not possess. And, as I said, we will never see it forthcoming from him.
 

David Biedny

Paranormal Adept
Michael812 said:
Tim,

The claims for Meier's abilities to do that were entirely out of his range, knowledge, eperience and equipment. This has been thoroughly established. And I haven't yet gone into it but DB's analysis of the photo has just a few problems when he presumes Meier was skillful enough to do it, which included a rather tricky triple exposure of the lower portion of the house that, upon close examination, actually shows that the light object was photographed within/against a backgrond that INCLUDED the portion with the house.

For Meier to have somehow DELIBERATELY created this effect - which according to two other experts is definitely in-camera - would take remarkable skill, such as DB himself probably does not possess. And, as I said, we will never see it forthcoming from him.

You've established NOTHING but the fact that you're in denial. So now it's two experts who say it was definitely in-camera. Wow. I guess I'm really a motivational force in your life, eh? And you won't reveal their names, and we're supposed to trust your word? Are you serious? 50 years experience, I suppose that if I called my old associate Dennis Muren (he was my supervisor for Terminator 2, and remained a good friend after I left ILM), who is the most awarded special effects person in the world (he has more Oscars than just about anyone in the industry, and is the only special effects artist with a star on the Hollywood Walk, and you can verify this on imdb.com), he would know who this mysterious, elder statesmen of photography and visual effects was in reality. In fact, I'm sure I could pull in a favor with Dennis and ask him to evaluate your images and footage. He's considered the top visual effects guy _in the world_. Care to take up that challenge? Or I could always have my buddy and creative collaborator David Berry, who won an Oscar for his work on Coccoon, and who was at ILM from the very first Star Wars film until 1990, look at this stuff and give us his expert opinion. We're just wrapping on some visual effects work right now for an indy film (being made by a fairly well-known guy, but we're under NDA, so I can't divulge his name for legit reasons), but I suspect he'd be happy to go on record with his thoughts about Meier's images.

And if the basis of your "analysis" will be how Meier, with his one arm (how does he maintain a farm?), did not make this image, let's just say you're on shaky ground, Mr. Horn. I take offense at your statements of how one-armed people can't seem to do much of anything. Does Mr. Meier know that you think that a one-armed person is somehow not capable of being creative and industrious, or friendly enough to have people who help him from time to time in his creative work? Tell me something, those volumes of texts Mr. Meier is writing, does he do that with one arm? Voice recognition software, perhaps? Or does someone help him type?

I mean, what next, Michael?
 
M

Michael812

Guest
If you wait long enough the fool sticks his foot in his mouth, again. Meier types it all out at about 60 words per minute, with one hand...we have it on video. Don't bother with the facts, just attack. What a loser.

And since you're quick to point out the capabilitie of a one-armed man, which indeed far exceed anything you are capable of - including doing farmwork, etc. - I think you have now OBLIGATED yourself to put up or shut up. DUPLICATE the "deliberate hoax" and, heck, use two hands, you'll need at least that.

Go on, after all, you KNOW Meier's capable of it, let's see what DB can do.

People, pay attention, this guy ain't gonna do squat.

Oh yeah, my anonymous friend, he's the one who caught the triple exposure...what happened to you Mr. Expert?

And why not put up one of those Days Since DB Was Challenged To Duplicate One Photo clocks, it will rack up a whole lotta days there!

And now, yet another radio interivew, until much later, fight amongst yourselves!
 

David Biedny

Paranormal Adept
Michael812 said:
If you wait long enough the fool sticks his foot in his mouth, again. Meier types it all out at about 60 words per minute, with one hand...we have it on video. Don't bother with the facts, just attack. What a loser.

And since you're quick to point out the capabilitie of a one-armed man, which indeed far exceed anything you are capable of - including doing farmwork, etc. - I think you have now OBLIGATED yourself to put up or shut up. DUPLICATE the "deliberate hoax" and, heck, use two hands, you'll need at least that.

Go on, after all, you KNOW Meier's capable of it, let's see what DB can do.

People, pay attention, this guy ain't gonna do squat.

Oh yeah, my anonymous friend, he's the one who caught the triple exposure...what happened to you Mr. Expert?

And why not put up one of those Days Since DB Was Challenged To Duplicate One Photo clocks, it will rack up a whole lotta days there!

And now, yet another radio interivew, until much later, fight amongst yourselves!

Wow. Words don't do this justice.

dB
 

Kingman

Skilled Investigator
DB,

Your sounding like your only interested in bashing a person with what amounts to mere research material. MH isn't a recruiter, he's not violent, his compassion for the planet and human condition is incredible and he's definitely not a punching bag. I'd have to say that you attacking position is creating a new image for yourself and it's not a good one. Pull back man and see if he's still breathing. To defend a position is honorable, to attack one is not. And don't be such a one trick pony, there's 1000's of more images to work with.

Shawn King
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
Kingman said:
DB,

Your sounding like your only interested in bashing a person with what amounts to mere research material. MH isn't a recruiter, he's not violent, his compassion for the planet and human condition is incredible and he's definitely not a punching bag. I'd have to say that you attacking position is creating a new image for yourself and it's not a good one. Pull back man and see if he's still breathing. To defend a position is honorable, to attack one is not. And don't be such a one trick pony, there's 1000's of more images to work with.

Shawn King
If I may, let me contribute a small observation here. David has only so much time to analyze photos gratis. He also needs to make a living and have a life outside of digital imaging, audio and video production, and doing talk shows with me.

He analyzed a photo, and, based on his expertise, which is considerable, found it to be a fake. At this point, it casts doubt on the rest of the Meier story. Other photos have been analyzed by other investigators and were also found to be wanting.

As far as we're concerned, that's it! Feel free to talk about the subject here as much as you want, but there are lots of other topics for David and I to explore.

You'll be hearing about them as we post the schedules for future episodes of The Paracast. Meantime, have a good time and be nice. We still own this board and we will remove and/or bar posters who become overly offensive. But it doesn't have to be that way.
 

David Biedny

Paranormal Adept
Shawn,

I will not pull back ONE BIT. I do NOT like cults using bogus UFO "evidence" to support their whacked-out agendas, and attempt to call all other UFO research into question. You got me on that? The Meier camp has done tremendous damage to the field of legitimate UFO research, and I'm not happy about it. In fact, I'm doing something to counter it. You don't like my words? Too bad.

Michael has shown himself to be a ruthless aggressor, making nasty statements about our show and my own personal and professional integrity, and not only will I not stand for it, I'm willing to give as good as I get. You say he's not violent? He employs the language of violence and bullies and I will not allow this to slide. By challenging me to prove one of these images is fake, and questioning my credentials to undertake such an analysis, he has opened up a can of whup-ass. Thousands of images? I don't think so - I've just pulled one of the Meier cards out of the house, so much for stability. Perhaps you're having a little problem with deductive reasoning - I have definitively proven a Meier photo to be fake, so why should any of us trust a single word of the Meier yarn? And it's not the only image - read through the thread, I bring up specific problems with other images, such as ALL the "wedding cake" shots. There is plenty of other good, solid analysis work on the web that debunks other images. Why should we be asked to trust known liars?

Bullies should not pick fights they can't back up. Any brutish jerk who ever pushed me had his head handed to him.

dB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top