Difference between revisions of "Web site files pointing out shortcomings in Korff's Spaceships of the Pleiades, Internet, January 2003"

Revision as of 20:14, 21 May 2009

Shortcomings of Kal K. Korff's Spaceships of the Pleiades: The Billy Meier Story (introduction)

Kal K. Korff is one of the chief critics of Eduard "Billy" Meier. For about 20 years now, he has been attempting to prove that the case is a hoax. His second and most recent book on the case is Spaceships of the Pleiades: the Billy Meier Story, published by Prometheus Books in 1995. On this website you will find:

On this page you wll find a table listing all (87) points of critique. This 87 points of critique can be devided in 46 examples of untruths, 17 examples of omissions of relevant data, 17 counter arguments against various claims by Korff and 7 examples of other failings. The points of critique are listed by chapter. If you want to find out more about a particular point of critique, click on the hypertext of interest in the "point of critique:" column in the table.

CHAPTER 1: Eduard "Billy" Meier: The Man, the Claims (pp. 23-44)

Omission of certain info about Meier's past

On p. 23 Korff writes:

"Later, when he [Billy] was arrested and charged by the police for thievery and forgery, he was ordered to serve six months at the Aarburg correctional facility in the town of Rheinau.”

Critique: In Billy's autobiography contained in the ("Geisteslehre #1"), Billy states the following: "When anywhere a robbery or theft happened, the Police automatically seized me and accused me of the deeds I had never committed... ...I even signed Police reports accusing me of offenses I had not done." None of Meier's personal texts make mention of "forgery" as being one of the charges, and Korff's statement, as is, suggests Meier's guilt.

The evolution of Meier's contact notes

On p. 26 Korff writes:

"What began as a simple series of "contacts," with the first allegedly occuring on January 28, 1975, soon evolved into a much more detailed and elaborate scenario complete with religious overtones."

If one reads the contact notes of the first contact, one can read that a large part of the alleged first conversation with Semjase is about the subject of religion, so contrary to what Korff claims the "religious overtones" were not later introduced in the contact notes.

Error in translation

On p. 28 Korff writes that the translation of Züricher verblüfte Erich von Däniken : Ich filmte Besucher aus dem All" is "Zürich man amazes Erich von Däniken: I filmed Visitors and All".

The correct translation is: "Zürich man amazes Erich von Däniken: I filmed visitors from outer space".

Why the term "cult" is unfounded and misapplied

On p. 29 Korff writes:

"Within the next two years Meier would transform both the farm and his informal metaphysical study group into his own private religious cult, complete with visitor’s parking! As of this writing, the situation remains unchanged, although the members of Billy Meier’s Semjase Silver Star Center (as it is now called) prefer not to think of themselves as a 'religious cult'."

Critique: Defined by Random House's American College Dictionary: "cult n. 1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 2. an instance of an almost religious veneration for a person or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: a cult of Napoleon. 3. the object of such devotion. 4. Sociol. a group having an exclusive sacred idealogy and a series of rites centering around their sacred symbols."
F.I.G.U.'s views on their non-affiliation and distancing from any religious, sectarian, sacred and god/Jesus/saint/personage-vernerating ideologies and practices are clearly outlined in their English publications “Our Manifesto” and "FIGU in a Nutshell" in addition to many other texts. Veneration of an extraterrestrial, person, object, obedience-demanding entity or any controlling force is contrary to their tenets and negates their basic principles as the “Free Community of Interests.” Korff’s repetitive labeling of F.I.G.U. as a “cult”, in addition to his overuse of the term “compound” in reference to F.I.G.U.'s Center, is unfounded, misapplied and appears to be an indoctrination tactic.

How fast Wendelle Stevens became a "believer"

On p. 30 Korff writes:

"After spending four days at Meier's farm in Hinterschmidrüti, Stevens became convinced that the experiences of Meier had actually happened, that the disc-shaped craft photographed is really a UFO and that the case is legimate."

Korff refers to pp. 27-28, of Stevens Preliminary Investigation Report. If one reads those pages in Stevens' book, one will see that this statement has been taken out of context by Korff. Stevens didn't arrive at this conclusion after four days of investigating the case, but after 5 years of investigating the case.

The amount of contacts

On p. 37 Korff writes:

"Between January 27, 1975, and August 18, 1991, Meier has had more than seven hundred contacts with aliens, most of which have been with a ‘Pleiadian female cosmonaut’ named Semjase (pronounced sem-YA-see)."

Critique: In an information sheet released by F.I.G.U. in October, 1994, titled "Randolph Winters: New Lies, Misrepresentations, Errors and Intrigues from the USA", Meier states the following about his contact history: "Concerning the contact reports it must be stated that the 115th contact took place on October 19, 1978, and that Billy has since had 174 additional contacts. Of these 174 contacts, 135 were official and the basis for contact reports; 39 were of an unofficial nature and no contact reports were written on them. At this time, late 1994, 250 official contact reports are in evidence." "Seven hundred" may have been incorrectly heard, stated, or mis quoted.

How Meier took his photos/films

On p. 37 Korff writes:

“Meier took his UFO photographs and 8mm films not only with the handicap of having just one arm, but did so by shooting most of them ‘from his right hip’ (since the viewfinder on his camera was broken).”

Critique: Meier did not take his photographs “from his right hip” as stated by Korff, especially the 8mm movie camera used a tripod as support. This is an incorrect statement, whatever the source, since his photographing technique of holding the camera near his face is displayed in the video documentary The Meier Chronicles and the docu drama, Contact. Also, p. 224 of Wendelle Stevens’ UFO... Contact from the Pleiades, A Supplementary Investigation Report, 2nd paragraph states “... and he had to shoot his pictures without aiming and by guess "from the hip" so to speak.” This colloquialism is obviously not meant in the literal sense of "from his right hip."

"Meier saved Jesus from a beating one time"

On p. 38 Korff writes:

"During one of these alleged time-travel adventures, he [Billy] met with Jesus Christ! Meier even saved Jesus from a beating one time. "

Critique: It is documented by Meier that he met with Jmmanuel, a person whose name was changed to “Jesus Christ” by Paul years after the crucifixion. The personage, Jmmanuel, and his teachings, as presented in the book Talmud of Jmmanuel edited by Meier, differ greatly when compared to the historical Jesus portrayed in the New Testament and do not depict him as the “god-like” saviour of mankind that is attributed to him today (see also the book Celestial Teachings by James Deardorff, and his posting "A Refutation of...." herein under the chap. 2 heading.) An actual encounter between Meier and Jmmanuel, viewed in this light, does not seem as extraordinary as Korff makes it out to be, excluding, of course, the actual mechanics of time travel. Korff's statement concerning Meier saving Jmmanuel (Jesus) from a beating was footnoted in his book as originating from Randolph Winters, just as were many other footnotes of Korff's. This easily refutable fabrication is one of many lies distributed by self-proclaimed “Meier representatives” such as Winters. The only "beating" that ever took place during this specific time trip was when, according to the verbatim reports of Asket in 1956, Meier hit a fellow in the nose by the name of "Jitchi" for going into a state of panic during their trek to meet Jmmanuel. It's apparent this blow was not even close to a beating. Meier states the following in his writeup entitled A Truthful Rectification of Lies Based On Half-Truths and Twisted Information, Which Were Presented by Randolph Winters in a Compuserve UFO Forum Conversation on 1-29-95: "Apparently, Winters' fantasies, his twisting of the information, and his inability to assimilate information he has gleaned from Meier's experiences are limitless; ..." It is a well-known and documented fact that Randolph Winters was neither endorsed by Billy or FIGU as being a representative of Meier, nor was he ever "sanctioned" to speak on Meier's behalf. In view of this, Korff's frequent use of Winters' statements cannot be regarded as corresponding to actual facts.

CHAPTER 2: The Undercover Trip to Switzerland (pp. 45-108)

Why Korff lies about having seen landing-tracks

On pp. 67-69 Korff writes:

"... From where I stood, at the railing which prevented me from straying off the main gravel roadway, I could see down at the bottom of the hillside what were the faint remnants of three "UFO landing rings" that had been there since at least June 1980. ... Even though the landing tracks were eleven years old by the time of my visit and were barely visible to the naked eye, ... Even though my video camera has a 10x zoom lens, the landing-tracks proved to be too far away to observe any meaningful details from the location where I was standing. ... incredibly Gary Kinder [author of LIGHT YEARS] says he never saw any landing-tracks during the entire five weeks he spent living at Meier's place! Instead, Kinder claims he only "talked to several people who had seen them and who had photographed them while still fresh. It is doubtful that Gary Kinder's claim is true, since the three UFO landing-tracks on Billy Meier's property are directly behind his house and down the hill in his own back yard! Not only are they easily visible from numerous locations throughout the property, but are in fact impossible to miss most of the time when walking back and forth between the guest house and Billy meier's residence. ..."

The following comments were taken from a text on the FIGU website:

Fig. 7 on page 65 'clearly' shows

1) that the meadow where Menara landed her beamship on June 15, 1980, lies hidden behind bushes and trees;

2) the exact landing place lies hidden behind a knoll on the hillside, and would even be invisible to the naked eye if there were no trees to obstruct the view from the house;

3) The landing tracks - circles of grass pressed counterclockwise to the ground - "vanished" as soon as the meadow was cut and the cows were grazing.

Conclusion: Either Korff had hallucinations, or he is a damned liar!

Elizabeth Gruber

On p. 73 Korff writes:

"... Elisabeth Gruber, the wife of Guido Moosbrugger, ..."

Elisabeth Gruber is married to a Mr.Gruber. Elisabeth Moosbrugger is Guido Moosbrugger's wife (source: FIGU website).

The name "Zafiriou"

On p. 77 Korff states:

"... such as the "fact" that Billy Meier's full, true name is purportedly "Eduard Albert Meier-Zafiriou." However, a subsequent check of the local Canton Police for Meier's region in the town of Hinwil revealed that there is no record of Billy Meier's "true" name containing the word "Zafiriou" in it. ..."

In a footnote Korff writes:

"The name "Zafiriou" has been added by Meier in recent years as his "mission" has taken on more religious overtones. Zafiriou is supposed to be Meier's name as a prophet, reincarnated from a past life."

The truth: In Switzerland it is custom that a husband adds the name of his wife to his own. The maiden name of Billy Meier's wife was - in Greece - Kalliope Zafiriou (source: FIGU website). Scholars and theologicans know of no prophet with a name like 'Zafiriou', which is Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic.

"The Talmud Immanuel..."

On p. 78-85 Korff discusses the Talmud of Jmmanuel, a document which is being distributed by Meier and which according to him represents the true testament of Jmmanuel (alias Jesus). In his book Korff fails to correctly spell the title of this document. The correct spelling is the Talmud of Jmmanuel and not Talmud Immanuel. Why Jmmanuel is written with a "J" and and not an "I" is explained by Meier in the introductory pages of the document.

Many more false and misleading claims in Korff's discussion of the Talmud of Jmmanuel document are pointed out by James Deardorff in his article A Refutation of false Claims and Distortions by Korff. You can take a look at this article by clicking [../d1999/d1999mai.htm here.]

Why Korff's "channeling garden"-story is a lie

On p. 91 Korff discusses a water pond which can be found on the land around the Semjase Silver Star Center. Korff claims that during his 1991 visit he learned from Simone (a FIGU member) that the water pond is part of a "channeling garden". Korff also writes that he was told that Meier himself has made this water pond and that "the crystals in the water pond are said to help Meier receive his instructions from the Pleiadians."

According to Christian Frehner (personal correspondence, 8 August, 1998) the water pond has no esoteric meaning at all, contrary to what Korff claims. "This is an ordinary, albeit beautiful pond, just like in other gardens. The simple reason of its existence is to bring pleasure to the people who look at it."

Why Korff's didn't obtain any soil samples of the landing-tracks

On pp. 98-99 Korff writes:

"... The perimeter of the Meier compound turned out to be fairly fortified; weaving my way through its defenses would prove to be a challenge. There was a high risk of being seen, due to the location of the tracks. For this reason, I decided to return to the compound at night, dressed in U.S. Army camouflage clothing so that I would minimize my visibility. As Tina and I drove back up the mountain past the Meier property, we parked our car just on the other side of the hill and walked very carefully back down toward the upper parts of the compound. For safety reasons, I made sure that Tina stayed behind, close enough to our car so that she could drive away in the event I did not return or was caught. When I approached one of the electric fences, I calmly slid underneath it, making sure that I did not touch any of its wires. After clearing the fence, I slipped on down the hill and around to where I saw the remains of one of the landing-tracks. Removing some plastic bottles from my pouch, I obtained both control and specimen soil samples. Now that I had my evidence, it was time to get out of there quickly before I got caught. With the existence of dogs at Meier's place, a weapons depot for use by his people when the end of civilization nears, security personnel, and the fact that Meier himself often carries a pistol, I am lucky I was not detected. ... I then ran to our car and Tina and I drove back to the ..."

The following comments were taken from a text on the FIGU website:

1.The only electric and removable fence (with only one wire) was installed around the pasture area where the cows were grazing. There is no road or path in the Center that is barred by a door or a gate, and there is even a public path (a "Wanderweg") that leads through our land and near the house.

2.According to Korff's descripition of his "nocturnal visit" he wasn't at the actual "landing site".

3.Questions: What soil samples did Korff obtain and take with him to America, since he a) wasn't at the correct location and b) wasn't able find even a single blade of grass left from the landing tracks (from 11 years earlier)?! If we FIGU members can't find non-existing landing tracks in broad daylight, how will Korff succeed at night?

4.For more than ten years we don't have a dog anymore.

5.And the "weapons depot"?

- OK, we have a depot of pitchforks; and if some group member would claim that we own an atomic bomb and store it in the cellar doubtlessly some idiots would believe this. In Switzerland, most males have to serve in the Army. They get a gun or a pistol and are allowed to take it home. After you quit the Army you may keep the gun as a present.- Yes, we have some guns and pistols, all legally registered by the authorities.

CHAPTER 3: Genesis III's "Analyses" of Meier's Photographs (pp. 109-133)

"There are no original negatives in existence"

On p. 110 Korff writes:

What most people don't realize about Billy Meier's case is that there are no original photographic negatives or source materials of any of Meier's UFO pictures in existence.

On one of the first pages of Verzeichnis - Authentischer Farb-Photos , at the listing of the "Technische Angaben" (technic information), Meier informs the reader that he shot his pictures on diapositive slide film and not negative film. So there are no original negatives in existence simply because the originals were not made on negatives.

Are there any original slides in existence? When I e-mailed Christian Frehner of FIGU in Swizerland and asked this question, I got the answer that there still are original slides in existence. It concerns the more recent UFO photos taken by Meier: those series which show the "wedding cake shaped space crafts".

In a letter of 14 April 1995, Wendelle Stevens informed James Deardorff about the subject of original negatives:

"It was in early 1978 that Bernadette Brand of Meier's inner core group and I took a number of original positive slide transparencies to a photo processing shop they regularly went to in Winterhur to have the internegs [internegatives] made. They were provided by Meier from a box of slides that he thought were originals. Since the internegs were rather expensive I "culled" the poorer slides having no background or no foreground, and blurring from motion of either the craft or the camera, or both, and did not have those copied. I had about 40 internegs made, which I still have. I have no original slides."

So this information indicates that Meier still had many original color slides in 1978, and that Wendelle Stevens inspected those original slides back in 1978.

Neil Davis' analysis

On p. 122 Korff writes:

"...What Kinder fails to mention is that this one sentence he chooses to quote from is the only sentence in Davis's entire four page report that is a positive comment about the Meier UFO photograph he examined."

When one takes a look at Neil Davis' report (Korff 1995, pp. 419-420; Stevens 1982, pp. 276-277) one can see that the actual report consists of 2 pages and not 4 pages as Korff implies.

Korff's claim that Kinder quotes "the only positive comment about the Meier photo in Davis's report" is simply not true. The truth is that apart from Davis' conclusion four more positive comments can be found in Davis' presentation of the test results in the report. Moreover, Kinder quoted those other four positive comments on pp. 149-150 of his Light Years.

CHAPTER 4: Conclusive Analyses of Billy Meier's "UFO" Photographs (pp. 135-231)

Korff & the Frecht Nature Preseve photos (pp. 139-145)

Wrong total of photos (1)

On p. 139 Korff lists only six of the seven photos of this series. Photo #818 is missing. See [#table4-4 Table 4-4] for errors by Korff of a similar nature.

Korff omits Meier's comments relevant to focus discrepancy

In his discussion (p. 142) Korff reports that all photos of this series show a discrepancy between the focus of the background scenery and the reported lens setting of Meier's camera; Meier's lens was jammed just short of the "infinity" setting. Korff writes that "the only logical explanation for this focus discrepancy... is a small object positioned close to the camera."

It should be noted here that Korff ignores in his discussion Meier's comments regarding the blurry appearance of the background scenery in this photo sequence; according to Meier the apparent focus discrepancy in the photos was caused by the UFO. By omitting that background information the reader is even led to believe that Korff is the first one who has noticed the blurry appearance of the background; this is certainly not true since comments by Meier concerning this can be found in Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report (p. 30 and p. 32), published in 1982, in Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1, (p. 24, p. 25 and p. 30) published in 1988 and in Supplementary Investigation Report (pp. 304-305), published in 1989, long before Korff's book was published in 1995. Comments by Meier regarding the focus disrepancy are included further on in this text.

150 meters is not 162.5 feet

On p. 140 Korff writes Meier "snapped his first picture when the UFO was '150 meters' or 162.5 feet above the ground." It should be noted here that 150 meters doesn't equal 162.5 feet; 1 meter is about 3.28 ft and 150 meters is about 492 feet.

Korff omits Meier's comments regarding focus discrepancy in second photo

On pp. 144-145 Korff presents pictures illustrating the blurry appearance of the background features in the second photo of this series (photo #29). In his discussion Korff ignores Meier's comments regarding that very thing. In order to provide the reader with more balanced information, data are presented which can be found on pp. 24, 26 of Stevens' Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1:

"The lower side of the disc seemed to vibrate as though it were alive. It looked like little waves running continuously in and through the underside of the ship, by which the skin appeared damaged and old, nearly like a washing board. These waves seemed to be irregular and kind of inconsistent, but very peculiar and of energetic character. Solid matter seemed to dissolve in the radiation of these waves. The truck looked like it was suddenly enveloped in heat-waves. I could not see it clearly, and besides this it seemed much farther away than the UFO which hovered only 50 meters behind it in the air. Still it seemed like the object was in the foreground and the truck much more behind it, which in fact was not the case."

An example of faulty reasoning by Korff

On p. 141 Korff claims with regard to the second photo that according to Meier and his proponents both the UFO and the large truck are 44 meters away from the camera. The truth is that no such claim is made in Meier literature. Moreover, Korff himself (p. 141) points out that it is reported in Meier literature that the distance between the camera and the truck was reportedly 44 meters, and that the UFO was reportedly hovering about 100 meters above the truck. Apparently, Korff thinks here that when the distance between the truck and the camera is 143 feet and the UFO hovers about 325 feet above the truck this means that the UFO is also 143 feet from the camera. Obviously such reasoning is not valid.

Incorrect reference

Korff (p. 140, footnote #24) incorrectly references p. 1 of the Verzeichnis for the time of photographing of the second photo chronologically, in this series; this information can be found on p. 5 of the Verzeichnis, not p. 1.

Korff's Fig. 22 doesn't show the whole picture

On p. 143 Korff presents a black and white picture of the fourth photo of this series (photo #30). In the caption by this picture Korff claims "The fact that the UFO is below the treeline allows one to calculate true object size and distance for this image. As can be easily proven, the object is a small model positioned close to the camera. "

This is a totally unproven claim by Korff, and he presents no calculations in support of his claim. It should be mentioned here that the picture in Fig. 22 in Korff's book doesn't show the whole original picture. The trees are much more distant in the original picture than they appear in Korff's representation of it. A part of the foreground meadow has been cropped out of Korff's picture (personal correspondence with Christian Frehner of FIGU, July 97).

Korff omits Meier's comments regarding suspicious aspects of 4th picture

Korff leaves out of consideration in his discussion information given by Meier about suspicious features of this picture (#30). On p. 30 of Stevens' Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1, the following information can be found about this photo:

"She left me at 15:51. Shortly after the starting of the ship, at 15:58, I shot some more pictures from about 185 meters distance. With interest, I noticed that shortly before starting the ship, below and to the sides of it, everything merged together in strong heat-waves which seemed to dissolve the environment as well as the contours of the trees and all, while everything changed into different colors, evidently by some radiation. Also the distances seemed to alternate, and everything gave the impression of being distorted, as I had already seen when I snapped the second picture. At the start of the ship here it was more easy to see, and I noticed the absolute clearness of a blue-red radiation, which may be seen in the fifth exposure."

Korff & the "Unter-Balm Photographs" (pp. 146-158)

The Unter-Balm Photographs (plural?)

"Korff (p. 146) writes of the Unter-Balm event as if it involved more than one photograph. However, there was only the one (#41) taken at this location, which Meier allegedly shot from inside Semjase's beamship when it was somewhere above the town. On p. 153 Korff discusses photo #6 under the heading of "Landed UFO" Unter-Balm Photographs. However, a glance at Meier's Verzeichnis discloses that this photograph was taken in the vicinity of Jakobsberg-Allenberg, not Unter-Balm. Thus Korff was all wrong to imply on p. 152 that Meier mislabeled it an Unter-Balm photograph. Korff goes on to imply by association that photo #11 was listed by Meier as also having been taken at Unter-Balm (p. 156, Fig. 31), but the same applies to it -- it is also listed in the Verzeichnis as having been taken at Jakobsberg-Allenberg."

Korff's false claim of finding "the exact same spot"

Korff (p. 147) claims to have found during his 1991 visit to Switzerland the exact spot where Meier took his photo #41. In support of his claim Korff presents a couple of recreations of Meier's photo which he shot from "the exact same spot." However, a comparison between Meier's photo and Korff's photos shows that the background scenery in Korff's recreations differs considerably from that of Meier's photo.

In order to prove this, at a vertical transect which crosses the same topograhical features in both Meier's and Korff's photos, the difference between the vertical extent of the background mountain ridge and the vertical extent of the darker foreground mountain ridge was measured, and ratios indicating the difference between vertical extent of background-ridge to vertical extent of foreground-ridge were calculated.

Tables 4-1 and 4-2 list the calculated ratios. In Table 4-1 the reflection of the foreground ridge was included in the calculations, and in Table 4-2 the reflection of the foreground hill in the lake was excluded from the calculations.

Table 4-1
	Meier's photo #41	Korff's recreations
Korff's 1995 book:	p. 149: 0.45/0.55 = 0.82 p. 151: 0.60/0.70 = 0.86	p. 149: 0.33/0.65 = 0.51 p. 150: 0.30/0.50 = 0.52 p. 151: 0.40/0.75 = 0.53
Stevens' 1982 book:	p. 304: 0.75/0.90 = 0.88

Table 4-2
	Meier's photo #41	Korff's recreations
Korff's 1995 book:	p. 149: 0.45/0.45 = 1 p. 151: 0.60/0.55 = 1.10	p. 149: 0.33/0.50 = 0.66 p. 150: 0.30/0.50 = 0.60 p. 151: 0.40/0.60 = 0.66
Stevens' 1982 book:	p. 304: 0.75/0.75 = 1

The difference in the calculated ratios disproves Korff's claim of finding "the exact same spot" (p. 147); the calculations show that Meier's photo was taken from a greater altitude.

	The white vertical lines in these pictures indicate the position of the vertical transect that was chosen for measurements in Meier's and Korff's pcitures; the vertical transect crosses the same topograhical features visible in both Meier's photo and Korff's recreations. In Korff's Fig. 25, p. 149, the selected vertical transect crosses the dome in the dark foreground mountain ridge about 1.3 cm to the right of the right-hand edge of the top of the saucer's cupola, of the saucer's cupola, the background mountain ridge above the dome is slightly flat there.The corresponding transect in Korff's photo (Fig. 26, p. 149) can be found at about 4.3 cm from the left edge of Korff's photo.
Meier's photo

Korff's recreation

Why the interior of the beamship should not necessarily have shown up in photo #41

On p. 147 Korff claims that it's "highly unlikely, if not impossible" that Meier shot his photo #41 through one of the portholes of Semjase's beamship, because "the orientation of the 'portholes' on Semjase's spaceship... are vertical, whereas, the orientation of Billy Meier's Unter-Balm photograph number 41 is horizontal." In other words, Korff claims that the interior of the beamship should have shown up in photo #41.

Upon entering the width of the alleged porthole (ca. 21 cm, see line drawings in Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report, pp. 404-405) in the camera equation, one learns that the interior of the beamship should not have shown up in the photo as long as Meier held his camera within a distance of about 25 cm of the portholes (42 mm [focal length] x 21 cm [width of porthole] / 35 mm [width of film] = 25.2 cm [distance from camera]).

The middle photo on p. 156 shows admitted model

Contrary to what Korff implies, the middle photo on p. 156 does show a UFO model according to Meier (see p. 9, the Verzeichnis). The number of the photo is 63 and it's listed for 18 September, 1976. The listed location is Vrenelis Gärtli GL. According to Meier the model was brought to him by Semjase during a contact; she took it back with her. Korff falsely infers that Meier was trying to pass this model off as a real UFO.

Korff & the February 27, 1975, Fuchsbüel am Hofhalden photos (pp. 159-162)

Other photos of these sequence don't show the suspicious aspects

What Korff fails to mention in his discussion is that another close up shot of the bottom of the UFO in this series (photo #32, see p. 67 and p. 323 of Stevens' Supplementary Investigation Report), doesn't show the surface flaws. Also the photo of this series which is reproduced on the cover of Korff's book doesn't show the surface flaws and the focus discrepancy. In addition, other photos of this series which are reproduced on pp. 298-299 Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report don't show the surface flaws and focus discrepancy. These points do raise some questions which argue against the hoax theory: Are we to believe that the hoaxer made twelve photographs of a model which didn't show the surface flaws and focus discrepancy and one which did? And what would be the use for a hoaxer to keep such a damaging photo in his possession and passing it off as a photo of a spacecraft?

The previously mentioned points also give some credence to Meier's explanation for the suspicious aspects of photo #27. Meier says "he lent the Fuchsbüel photos to Mr. Schmid (photographer). He doesn't know if or how many manipulations, respectively, Mr. Schmid made". He also says that he "remembers that when he made the pictures the ship was entirely in the picture, not just partly (photo #32, too)." (Christian Frehner, personal correspondence, September 30, 1997).

Korff's inconsistent listing of photo numbers

Korff's listing of only one photo of this sequence on p. 159 is inconsistent with most of the photo number listings in other discussions in chapter four; there he lists all the photo numbers of the sequence and discusses only a few photos.

Korff & the Jakobsberg-Allenberg photos (pp. 163-168)

Wrong total of photos (2)

In this photo sequence discussion Korff speaks of "ten frames" (p. 165), "the ten double exposed Jakobsberg-Allenberg images" (p. 166), "ten perfectly aligned frames" (p. 166) and "the ten photos" (p. 166). The total of photos listed in the Verzeichnis is eleven. See [#table4-4 Table 4-4] for errors by Korff of a similar kind.

Why the photos are not double exposures

On p. 165 Korff claims regarding this photo sequence:

A simple visual examination of Billy Meier's entire Jakobsberg-Allenberg sequence reveals that they are deliberate, methodical double exposures. The evidence for this exists in how all of the ten (sic) frames line up with one another in each of the double-exposed images. Such precision is highly unlikely.

The photos of this series are not double exposed pictures since the UFO in these photos is darker than the sky background. This argument was also used by professor William K. Hartmann to eliminate the double exposure option for the two UFO photos taken by the Trents, on 11 May, 1950, at McMinnville, Oregon (see p. 402 of the Scientific Study of UFOs, 1969).

Korff is wrong about the purpose of this photo event

On p. 163 Korff states that the 20 April 1975 Jakobsberg-Allenberg photo event in which some of Meier's friends were included was for the purpose of allowing them to "see that Semjase existed." However, the purpose was different, according to Contact Report #9 of 21 March, 1975 (Semjase's sentences $43-52). Then Semjase told Meier she would demonstrate to Meier's friends that the Pleiadians had the technology to maintain their craft invisible to all present except to Meier and his camera, if Meier was standing a little aside from the rest. However, according to Semjase afterwards, Meier was not supposed to have photographed his friends and her beamship at the same time in the same photo.

Korff & the 9 July, 1975, Fuchsbüel am Hofhalden photos (pp. 169-193)

Wrong total of photos (3)

On p. 169 Korff lists only ten of the eleven photos of this series. Photo # 119 is missing from Korff's list. Further on in his discussion photo sequence discussion Korff repeats the incorrect total of ten photos. See [#table4-4 Table 4-4] for errors of a similar nature by Korff in chapter four.

Why the cloud formations do not necessarily change too fast

On pp. 172-174, and p. 176 Korff claims that the cloud formations visible in some of the photos of this series change too fast in relation to the times they were photographed as listed in Meier's Verzeichnis. My experience with the times listed in the Verzeichnis is that one shouldn't take them too literally. When one for example takes a look at FIGU's poster which shows the 34 photos taken on March 29, 1976, at Hasenböl/Fischenthal, one can see that the chronological order in which they have been taken according to the Verzeichnis must be wrong; for example the time interval between the photographing of photo # 157 and 168 must have been shorter than the poster indicates.

The differing orders in which the pictures were taken as listed in Meier's Verzeichnis versus in Korff's book (pp. 173-174, 176 and 179-181) are given below in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3

TIME	#	DESCRIPTION	Korff's Fig.
15:07	71	Semjase's flying with beamship around a "wettertanne" about 14 m. high. On the background is visible the Pfäffikersee (this tree was later eliminated by Semjase).	42
15:07	76		43
15:08	69		44
15:08	70		45
15:08	119	Semjase's flying with beamship around a "wettertanne" about 14 m. high. On the background is visible: Wetzikon and Glarner Alpen (this tree was later eliminated by Semjase).	48
15:09	65	Semjase's flying with beamship around a "wettertanne" about 14 m. high. On the background is visible the Pfäffikersee (this tree was later eliminated by Semjase).	47
15:09	64		46
15:10	55		49
15:10	56		-
15:11	66		50
15:14	57		51

However, careful inspection of the photos indicates that continuity of cloud patterns can be ascertained between Nos. 55, 56, 57 and 66; between Nos. 64, 69 and 70; between Nos. 71 and 76, and between Nos. 65 and 119. Within each group the photos were therefore probably taken within a minute or less of each other; between the first three groups a little more than 2 or 3 minutes may have elapsed. The last group is an exception, as the background had shifted sufficiently, due to Meier having walked to his right relative to the tree, that they may or may not have been taken very soon after one of the other groups. Overall, this correlates rather well with the times indicated in Table 4-3, and does not support Korff's claim.

False claim

On p. 175 Korff claims Meier says he "was standing in front of the tree facing west toward Lake Pfäffikon when he took his ten (sic) Fuchsbüel photos." For information supporting this claim Korff refers to p. 8 and p. 10 of the Verzeichnis. The point to note here is that Korff fails to inform the reader of what can be read on pp. 18-19 of Meier's Verzeichnis, namely, that there's a photo # 119 in this series and it shows on the background Wetzikon and the Glarner Alpen, which indicates that the photo was taken when facing the south and not the west. So contrary to what Korff implies (p. 175, and pp. 179-181), Meier has never made a secret of the fact that not all photos were taken in the same direction.

Korff omits the data which support the "disapearing tree story"

Korff on pp. 185-186 Korff points out that Meier claims that the tree which features in the Füchsbuel photo sequence was later removed by the aliens because it had picked up some dangerous radiation when the beamship was flying around it.

What Korff fails to mention in his discussion of the "disappearing tree story" is the evidence which supports it.

For example Stevens on pp. 126-127 of his Preliminary Investigation Report, mentions that Jacobus Bertschinger and Margarite Rufer "went back to the site later" and "they noticed that the whole tree was dead. They went back again 3 days after that and found the tree had disappeared completely. There was no hole in the ground or any other evidence that the tree had ever been there."

On pp. 149-152 and pp. 509-511 of Preliminary Investigation Report, Stevens mentions that as a result of the controversy in the group around Meier about the removal of the "Fuchsbüel tree", the aliens offered a demonstration of the disappearence of another tree on October 17, 1976, between 16:00 and 17:00 in the afternoon. Stevens states that Hans Schutzbach, Herbert Runkel, Margarite Rufer, Amalia Stetter, Olga Walder, M. Flammer, Mrs. Meier and children and others were present that time. Herbert Runkel on pp. 149-150 describes that Meier asked them to take a good look at the place they were standing and Meier drew their attention to two trees before them, one about 5 meters tall and one about 3 meters. When the group returned to the spot some minutes later the 5 meter tree had disappeared and there were no indications in the ground that a tree ever stood there according to Herbert Runkel (p. 150, Preliminary Investigation Report). Meier photos # 466-470 document the disappearence of the tree.

Korff & the Bachtelhörnli-Unterbachtel photos (pp: 194-200)

Unsupported claims

On pp. 194-196 Korff states:

Computer edge enhancements I conducted on Meier's photographs numbers 199, 207, 225, 230 and 231 reveal the existence of strings or supportive devices above each of the "UFO" images visible in these pictures". [...] For those who have access to these software programs, feel free to try the "Emboss"* filters (featured in both these programs) on Meier's Bachtelhörnli-Unterbachtel photographs numbers 199, 207, 225, 230 and 231. After doing so, you will be able to see these various supportive structures for yourself."

Here it should be noted that Korff in his book fails to back up his claim of supportive devices in photos #207, 225, 230 and 231 with pictures or any other form of evidence.

Korff in his discussion presents pictures of alleged supportive devices in photos #199 (p. 198), 237 (p. 197), 183 (p. 199) and 240 (p. 200); the latter three photos are not among the five mentioned by Korff on pp. 194-196.

False claim

On p. 195 Korff states "the number of suspension lines that appear under edge enhancement processing always equals the number of 'UFOs' in his pictures!" However, in each of Korff's Figs. 68 and 70 there are three UFOs but only two scratch-like lines. It's also worth mentioning here that Korff ignores in his 1995 book those Meier photos which show four and even more UFOs in one frame like for example those taken in India in 1964 and some of the 28 February, 1975, Jakobsberg-Allenberg series.

Upward arced "suspension line" in Korff's Fig. 66

Notice that the alleged suspension line in Fig. 66 (p. 198) is curved upwards. A suspension line with a UFO model attached to it would, normally speaking, be arced the other way due to Earth's gravity. And instead of being a smooth curve, it would display a shallow V-shaped kink at the model-suspension point directly above, not present in the photo.

Korff's fig. 66 (p. 198), showing the alleged suspension line.

Korff & the Hasenböl-Langenberg photos (pp: 201-207)

Self-contradictionary statements by Korff

On p. 201 Korff writes that according to Meier the 29 March, 1976, Hasenböl-Langenberg photos were taken one day after the Bachtelhörnli-Unterbachtel photos. In support of his claim Korff references p. 429 of Stevens' Supplementary Investigation Report. However, as even Korff himself noted on p. 194, Stevens' date for the Bachtelhörnli event contradicts the one given by Meier in his Verzeichnis; Meier claims he took the Bachtelhörnli photos on 8 March, 1976 and not 28 March, 1976, as Stevens has it.

However, the key point here is that Korff's choice to use Stevens' contradicting date stands in conflict with his earlier statements on p. 137 in which Korff informs the reader that he used Meier's Verzeichnis as the "definitive 'source'" and "whenever there were contradictions in the accounts between the dates, locations and times" in pro-Meier literature, the Verzeichnis "was used to resolve them".

Another error

On p. 202, Korff writes "In the five specific Hasenbol-Langenberg pictures, where the UFO is seen next to the tree" (Meier photos 164, 173-176), Billy Meier and his supporters claim that the spacecraft is hovering slightly _behind_ the tree..."

The truth is that in photo #173 and #176 the UFO and the tree can not be seen in one frame at all. The photographs which show the UFO and the tree(s) in one frame are #149-150, 151-153, 159-160, 164, 174-175). #164, 174-175 are the photos showing the UFO closest to tree(s).

Jim Deardorff in his article A Refutation of false Claims and Distortions by Korff also discusses Meier's Hasenböl-Langenberg photos and Korff's claims against their authenticity. You can take a look at that discussion by clicking [article.php?id=19 here].

Korff & the Schmärbüel-Maiwinkle photos (pp: 208-214)

On p. 211 Korff writes "In truth, none of Meier's Schmärbüel-Maiwinkle photos show the aircraft anywhere near the UFO, which is convincing evidence that is not "chasing" the spaceship as claimed." Here it should be mentioned that Korff's fails to provide any reference in pro-Meier literature where it is claimed that the aircraft is attacking.

However, the key point here is that Korff's choice to use Stevens' contradicting date stands in conflict with his earlier statements on p. 137 in which Korff informs the reader that he used Meier's Verzeichnis as the "definitive 'source'" and "whenever there were contradictions in the accounts between the dates, locations and times" in pro-Meier literature, the Verzeichnis "was used to resolve them".

====Korff's incorrect photo totals

In many of his photo sequence discussions Korff fails to mention the correct total of photos as they can be inferred from the Verzeichnis. Table 4-4 points out where and how Korff errs in this respect.

Table 4-4

	Has total wrong at the beginning of this photo sequence discussion.	Has total wrong further on in this photo sequence discussion.
Frecht Nature Preserve:	Yes, on p. 139 only 6 of the 7 photos are listed. Photo #818 is missing.	No
Jacobsberg- Allenberg:	No.	Yes, on p. 165 & 166 he speaks of 10 photos instead of 11.
Fuchsbüel (7-9-75):	Yes, on p. 169 only 10 of the 11 photos are listed. Photo #119 is missing.	Yes, repeats claim of only 10 photos. Fails to present picture of photo #56.
Bachtelhörnli:	No.	No.
Hasenböl:	No.	No.
Schmärbüel	Yes, on p. 208 he lists only 13 of the 14 photos. Photo #257 is missing.	Yes, on p. 208 he speaks of 13 photos instead of 14.
Schmidrüeti	No.	No.

CHAPTER 5: Smoking Guns: Analyzing Meier's "Time-Travel" Photographs (pp. 233-271)

General remarks by Korff about "Time-Travel" photos (pp. 233-235 & p. 266)

Misleading statement by Korff

On p. 233 Korff states that "In chapter 7 of his Preliminary Investigation Report, Wendelle Stevens presents the details of Billy Meier's '31st Contact,' a period of five days during which Meier purportedly left the Earth and ventured into outer space on board a Pleiadian spacecraft with Semjase."

This misleading statement by Korff leads people to believe that Stevens in Chapter 7 of his 1982 book presents a complete, extensive and detailed account concerning the great journey. On p. 112 of his 1982 book Stevens clearly informs the reader that his account in chapter 7 only treats a small part of the whole story of the great space trip.

Moreover, Stevens' Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1, published in 1988 provides the reader with a much more complete and detailed account of the great space trip then Stevens' 1982 book; 1/4th of that 400 page book is about the great voyage. Therefore I find it illogical that Korff draws the attention of the reader to Stevens' 1982 book, except if he was deriving the reader's attention from Stevens' 1988 book.

Not second but first trip

On p. 233 Korff incorrectly informs the reader that "Meier returned for a second visit to the Pleiadian Grossraumer". In the contact notes it is clearly stated that the visit to the great mothership (after having witnessed the Apollo-Soyuz docking) was Meier's first visit to the great mothership.

No visits to the Pleiades or to alien worlds in DAL Universe

On p. 234 Korff incorrectly states "Meier says he traveled to the Pleiades star cluster and what he calls "DAL Universe," where he visited more alien worlds, observing life forms in various stages of evolution." Nothing can be found in the contact notes about Meier visiting "alien worlds" during his stay in the DAL Universe which was part of the great space trip.

In fact, Korff's footnote 8 refers the reader to p. 318 of Stevens' Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1, in support of the claim that Meier was then visiting the Pleiades. However, nowhere in all four of Stevens' four volumes of Meier's Contact Notes is Meier treated to a visit to the Pleiades.

Incorrect reference

Korff's references to footnotes #10 and #11 on this page are nonsense. Nowhere on p. 286 or p. 318 of Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1,can the information be found which supports Korff claim: "Billy Meier claims he took the majority of the photographs from his incredible trip while on board the spacecraft by either aiming his camera out the porthole of the craft, or by shooting off a color flat panel display screen"[empasis mine].

No contradiction

On p. 266 Korff writes "Finally, there is an interesting contradiction in Wendelle Stevens's account of just how long Meier's space-travel adventures supposedly lasted. In Stevens's Preliminary Investigation Report, he claims that Meier left the Earth for a period of five days. However, in his later book, Message from the Pleiades , Volume I, Stevens claims that Billy Meier left the Earth on his "trip" for a period of only "30 hours."

The solution to Korff's "interesting contradiction" can be read in Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1, p. 369. Meier claims that at the end of the space trip the ETs placed him back in time, so people on Earth experienced and absence of Meier of about 22 hours.

Cristian Frehner of FIGU in Switzerland informed me (personal correspondence 1-8-'97) that Meier "left his home on July 17, 1975 in the morning (between about 9 and 10 a.m.) and returned the other morning, after about 22 hours. Jacobus Bertschinger was present when Billy Meier returned with a "beard" of 5 days."

Venus photos (pp. 235-240)

False reference

On p. 235 Korff refers to the Verzeichnis ("see entire publication", p. 269) for information which supports his claim that the Venus pictures he treats on pp. 235-237 have been "recalled" by the Pleiadians. No such information is present in the Verzeichnis; the fact that the pictures aren't listed in the Verzeichnis doesn't prove that the pictures have been "recalled" by the aliens according to Meier and his supporters.

Another false reference

Also on p. 235 Korff claims that the "Venus Photos" he presents on pp. 238-239 were taken by Meier, for information confirming his claim, he refers to p. 338 of Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1. No such confirming information can be read on that page.

And... another false reference

Also Korff's reference to p. 101 (footnote 19) of Preliminary Investigation Report is nonsense since no information can be found there which confirms that Meier says he photographed "Venus while they were in orbit above it."(p. 235).

Meier didn't use "special alien photographing device"

On p. 236 Korff incorrectly claims that Meier says he took the Venus pictures from an alien view screen which was "50 by 50 centimeters" and which showed the pictures as "finally scanned (sharpened image), similar to (laser) scanned photographs". What Korff quotes here is Meier's description of the special photo instrument Semjase brought along and which for some reason could not be used for photographing Venus (see pp. 285-286, Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1). In consequence Meier must have made his photos from other viewing screens or through the beamship portholes. On p. 102, Preliminary Investigation Report, it is stated that Meier took the Venus picture through a porthole of the beamship.

Apollo-Soyuz link-up photos (pp. 240-244)

Korff omits Meier's comments regarding curved screen

On p. 241 Korff complains that the Apollo-Soyuz pictures show a curved screen in the far right corner, according to Korff that is in conflict with Meier's explanation on p. 285 Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1, that the viewing screen of the special photo apparatus was flat and square-shaped. However, on the same page one can read that "the color-radiation device is installed inside of it [the special photo apparatus] and recessed" and on p. 342 Meier actually complains to one of the aliens that the "half-oval form of the frame appears in view" when he uses the special photo instrument Semjase gave him.

Possible explanation for out-of-focus aspect

On p. 241 Korff complains about the fact that the Apollo-Soyuz photos are out-of-focus. However bearing Meier's alleged camera settings in mind ("lens was jammed just short of the infinity setting") this is logical if they are close up shots of some kind of viewing screen instrument.

Meier's time for Apollo-Soyuz link-up is correct

On p. 242 Korff claims that "the time Meier claims he witnessed the Apollo-Soyuz link-up is incorrect". Meier says that the last time he checked his watch, before witnessing the docking, it read 16:30. Korff states the actual docking took place "1115 hours central daylight time, which is 1915 hrs Swiss time". Korff is wrong here because 1115 hours central daylight time in Switzerland in 1975 was 17:15 and not 19:15.

(The difference between Cental Time and GMT is 6 hours, then 6 + 1 because Switzerland is removed 1 time zone from GMT, and then - 1, because daylight saving time was not introduced in Swizerland until 1981.)

Unfounded claim

On p. 243 Korff concludes "Billy Meier's photographs of the Apollo-Soyuz space capsule are really out-of-focus stills from animation simulating the historic space docking". There may be a solar panel discrepancy in the photo Korff discusses; however he presents no evidence here (no pictures, no reference to an animation) which would then be the source of Meier's Apollo-Soyuz photos.

Does Korff's Fig. 94 show the Soyuz in space?

On p. 244 Korff presents a picture which according to him shows "The real Soviet Soyuz spacecraft as photographed by Apollo 18, July 17, 1975." When one takes a look at better versions of the NASA picture Korff presents in Fig. 94 one wonders if that picture was taken in space. Is the white background Earth's atmosphere? The light conditions in the photo and the general appearance of the Soyuz suggest that the picture was taken on Earth, contrary to what Korff claims.

"The real Soviet Soyuz spacecraft as photographed by Apollo 18, July 17, 1975.", according to Korff.

"DAL Universe cosmonauts" photos (pp. 244-247)

Not Pleidian but DAL spaceship

On p. 245 there's an error in the background details given by Korff, he writes: "After Meier was on board the Pleiadian mother ship for some time, he asked if he could take some pictures of the three 'cosmonauts' he was conversing with.." In the contact notes one can read that Meier allegedly took the photos on board a spaceship of the DAL aliens not the Pleiadian mother ship (see p. 323 of Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1).

Possible explanation for curved screen

On p. 245 Korff complains that the images "are not images of real people standing in physical space, nor are they 3-dimensional objects.. they are two dimensional, taken from a curved screen". This again shows his ignorance or unawareness of Meier's explanation in the contact notes of the special photo instrument he got from Semjase causing curved frames in many of the great space trip pictures. Also, Korff seems to think that a photograph of a three-dimensional object should look less two-dimensional than a photograph of two-dimensional image of the object.

Korff ignores info in favor of curtains

Also on pp. 245-246 Korff complains about the presence of what appear to be curtains on the background in some of the DAL-cosmonaut pictures he discusses. Korff writes: "This is intriguing, since nowhere among the thousands of 'contact notes' by Billy Meier is there any mention that the 'Pleiadians' or 'DALs' decorate the interior or their ships with terrestrial-looking 'curtains.'"

We have to take Korff's word for it that he checked up on the "thousands" of contact notes for information about alien curtains; I'm quite sure he didn't. I haven't found information about curtains in the notes I've read until now, what I did find was the following information in the contact notes about the room in which the pictures were allegedly taken. On p. 323 of Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1, one can read: "We are now standing inside a friendly room with very comfortable seats and things which have to be dishes".

Korff's discussion about the Asket-Nera photos (including his wondering why the more distant person in the photo looks more out-of-focus than the closer one) became irrelevant after Meier learned from Ptaah that these particular photos -- ones from his lengthy space trip -- were ones that had been severely tampered with, and substitutions made in some cases and the photos not returned in other cases, during the photo processing.

Meier didn't photograph Neberian dino's during space trip

On pp. 248-249 Korff claims with regard to the dinosaur photographs he treats on pp. 248-251, that Meier says they were taken during the great space trip, when he stood on the surface of the planet "Neber". However, in Meier's contact notes (see pp. 378-379 of Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1) nothing can be read about Meier making photographs and walking on the planet's surface during his alleged visit to the planet "Neber". Moreover on p. 379 Semjase tells Meier "but it is simply not possible that we would walk the world of "Neber". So again Korff's background information is wrong and it seems that he copied some of the errors from "the photo-binder Hans Jacob meticulously kept" (p. 248). Korff's claim that "Meier could not have taken his photos as claimed under the conditions he describes" is groundless, since the conditions under which the photos were taken as described by Korff obviously are in conflict with what is mentioned in Meier's contact notes.

Meier didn't photograph Neberian cave-man during great space trip

On p. 248 Korff claims regarding the pictures he presents on pp. 254-255 that Meier made them during "the great journey" when he walked on the surface of the planet "Neber". As pointed out in the text about the dino photos, the claim that Meier walked on the surface of the planet "Neber" stands in conflict with information in Meier's contact notes (see pp. 378-379 of Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1).

Don't take "God's Eye" story literally

On p. 261 Korff claims that Meier says he "was fortunate enough to photograph one of God's Eyes!" Korff also complains on that page about the fact that "Meier's supporters (especially Wendelle Stevens)" deny that Meier makes that particular claim and he informs the reader that he also stated in his 1981 booklet that Meier claims he had photographed "God's eye".

According to Meier the Ring Nebula in the constellation of Lyra is called "the Eye of God" by the Plejarens/Pleiadians for reasons which can be found in the contact notes (see: Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1, pp. 280-281). Meier claims there were photographs of the Ring Nebulae among the 700 photos he says he made during the great spacetrip. Korff for more than 15 years now has been promoting this misinterpretation of Meier's claim as evidence for a hoax.

It's should be mentioned here that Korff's charges against the authenticity of Meier's "God's Eye" photos have become irrelevant now that Meier claims that one of his alien contactors (Ptaah) has told him that these particular photos -- ones from his lengthy space trip -- were ones that had been severely tampered with, and substitutions made in some cases and the photos not returned in other cases, during the photo processing.

CHAPTER 6: Analyses of Billy Meier's "Alien" Metal Samples (pp. 273-296)

Example of innuendo by Korff

On top of p. 273 Korff quotes the following statements from Meier literature:

"She (Semjase) cautioned him (Meier) that Earth experts who would analyze them (the mineral and crystal samples) would find nothing particularly strange."
Wendelle Stevens, p. 85, Preliminary Investigation Report.
"It (the sample) does not look like anything we've made here (on Earth)."
Marcel Vogel, IBM, chemist, p. 57, the Elders' UFO... Contact from the Pleiades, Vol. 2.

Contrary to what Korff implies by juxtaposing these two statements, they are not contradictory. The first citation concerns mineral and crystal specimens Meier says he received from Semjase during his 12th contact on 20 April, 1975. The second statement concerns a specimen of metal allegedly used in Pleiadian spacecraft which was analyzed by Marcel Vogel. Meier says that that metal specimen was given to him by the aliens in the late summer of 1977. Thus Korff did not wish the reader to know that the first statement did not necessarily apply to the sample Vogel analyzed.

Korff copies obvious error from pro-Meier literature

On p. 273 Korff perpetuates apparent errors by Lee and Brit Elders, in stating that during Stevens' second visit to Switzerland, Meier had his 105th ("milestone") contact with Semjase, in which he was given four metal, one biological, and nine mineral and crystal specimens as proof of the Pleiadian visitations. (In support of his claim Korff references p. 58 of the Elders' UFO... Contact from the Pleiades, vol. 1). Meier claims he was given the specimens during several contacts, not one contact. According to Stevens on pp. 412-413 of his Preliminary Investigation Report, Meier says he received the metal samples in the late summer of 1977 and the crystal and mineral specimens during earlier and later contacts. On p. 413 of his Preliminary Investigation Report Stevens writes that Meier told him that a rock and certain crystal specimens were delivered by the alien Quetzal, at 12:21 on the night of April 4, 1977, while he and his team were there, so they could take those specimens with them to the US for analyses.

The Swiss lab was informed of alleged ET origin of sample

With regard to the analysis perfomed on two of the metal samples in March 1978 by Eidgenössiche Materialprüfungs and Vorsuchsanhalt für Industrie, Bauwesen und Gewere in Zürich, Switzerland Korff (p. 274) writes: "the Swiss laboratory was never told about the alleged "Pleiadian" origin of the samples"[emphasis added]. This is not entirely true. On p. 422 of Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report a letter can be found which Stevens received from the Swiss laboratory, and in which the laboratory requested Stevens not to misrepresent their findings because they had learned from Stevens of the alleged ET origin of the two samples, after they had analyzed them.

No analysis by Vogel in "early 1980"

On p. 276 Korff claims that Vogel carried out his analysis on the Meier metal samples not only in 1979 but also in "early 1980". This claim is totally unsupported and stands in conflict with the available data in Meier literature which indicate that Vogel had already finished his analysis in November 1979 (see p. 487 of Preliminary Investigation Report).

Walker's analysis is mentioned in more than one pro Meier-book

Regarding the analyses perfomed by Dr. Walter Walker on May 12, 1978, in the US, Korff writes on p. 275, "In pro-Meier literature, only two books mention Dr.Walker's analysis , Wendelle Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report and Moosbrugger's ...und sie fliegen doch!. This is not true, Kinder on p. 150 of Light Years briefly mentions Walker's metal analysis.

Korff's confusion between thallium and thulium

On p. 277 Korff states with regard to what Vogel allegedly told him in an interview in May 1980:

While Vogel's remarks were enlightening, one of them was particularly puzzling regarding the discovery of the element thallium. Thallium (also spelled sometimes as thulium), is an extremely rare, malleable, and highly toxic metal. It is unlikely that Meier would have been able to secure a small sample.

Korff insinuates that the words thallium and thulium are used to indicate the same element. Thulium and thallium are two totally different elements! Thulium, contrary to thallium, in the 70's was a relatively very rare element. It was the discovery of thulium in one of the metal samples about which Vogel said according to Kinder on p. 250 of Light Years, "It is totally unexpected... Thulium was only purified during World War II as a by-product of atomic work, and only in minute quantities. It is exceedingly expensive, far beyond platinum, and rare to come by. Someone would have to have an extensive metallurgical knowledge even to be aware of a composition of this type." Korff's remark on p. 278 that Harry Lebelson of Omni magazine told him in the early 80's that Dr. Olgilvie found no thallium in the other half of the "unique" Meier metal sample he "analyzed" is meaningless, since it was the discovery of the element thulium which piqued Vogel's curiosity.

Korff omits mysterious aspects of metal sample disappearance

On p. 278-279 Korff states "While it is true that one of the Meier specimens in Vogel's possession did end up "lost," there is no credible evidence that its disappearance is a bona fide mystery."

It should be mentioned here that Korff fails to mention in his book the details reported in Meier literature which make the disappearance of the metal sample mysterious. On p. 528-529, of Supplementary Investigation Report, Stevens states:

He [Vogel] had set the specimen up to make some microphotographs through a very high magnification imaging device, and he had turned on a high energy focussed spot light to illuminate the subject. He glanced at the specimen and turned away to pick up a thin needle-like steel probe to turn it over under the scope with, and when he turned back again, to look through the eyepiece, he saw that the metal specimen was now disappearing before his very eyes! He turned off the high energy light and that seemed to stop the action. He puzzled about this at length, examined it some more with low intensity lights, and it seemed to be stable again. The following morning he called his friend and colleague, Dr. Richard Haines of Ames Reserch Laboratories, and asked him to come over to IBM, that he had something interesting to show him. Vogel had put the sample in a little plastic envelope the night before and that in his wallet. When Haines got there, the little plastic envelope was still in his wallet, but the piece was gone! Of course the story made no sense to Richard Haines. He did help Vogel look for the missing metal fragment, in case it had been dropped in getting the envelope out to exhibit it, but they never found it. Dr. Haines thought that Vogel may have only thought he had put the piece in the little envelope, but in fact may have missed the bag and dropped it without being aware of it. Vogel himself went over every act and motion in his mind and clearly remembered seeing the fragment drop into the bag, had closed it, folded it over, feeling the metal in the bag, and then put it into his wallet. He was completely baffled by the loss and quite miserable in his frustration. He never did find the piece again and his analysis came to a halt right there and then.

According to Stevens on p. 530 of Supplementary Investigation Report, one of the other samples "had been nearly lost in Switzerland when a piece of the metal Meier had in a little plastic bag in his pocket,... sublimated away leaving only some tiny black granules... Dr. Walter Walker found the same kind of black bodies evenly imbedded in the specimen he examined in Tucson, Arizona."

So in his book Korff leaves out the evidence which suggests that the metal sample Vogel found unique, and also other Meier metal samples, somehow disintegrated and weren't simply lost.

Why Korff never received a piece of the mysterious metal sample

On p. 291 Korff claims:

"In yet another display of his peculiar behavior, Marcel Vogel gave me an actual piece of one of the Meier metal specimens he had examined. I have had this "Pleiadian" metal sample now since May 1980..."

On p. 253 of Kinder's Light Years one can read the following sentence. "Just after the metal sample had disappeared and before the photo journal had been published..." The Elders' UFO... Contact from the Pleiades, vol. 1 (the photo-volume in question), was published in the second half of 1979. Moreover, on p. 487 of Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report it is stated that Marcel Vogel gave his videotape deposition on metal tests on 11-26-1979, and on p. 251 of Light Years one can read that the sample had disappeared the very day after Vogel completed his testing. So all this info establishes that the year of the disappearance of the metal sample was 1979.

Assuming that Vogel gave the then 18-year-old Korff a piece of one of the Meier metal samples it could not have been a piece of the sample he found special, since by then the sample had already disappeared! Nevertheless, Korff in this chapter claims that Vogel gave him a piece of the "unique" metal sample! For example on p. 292 he writes that it is a fact that he has a piece of the metal sample which created "an uproar in the scientific community" in his possession. Also on p. 292 Korff claims that he has cut the sample he got from Vogel into two pieces and that Dr. Olgilvie performed an analysis on one of these pieces. This sample according to Korff (p. 278) was "the other half of the sample Vogel claimed was so unique."

It should also be mentioned here that Korff omits the fact that Stevens claims (p. 529, Supplementary Investigation report) that he owned another half of the unique metal sample. Stevens writes that he "was holding it as a control" and he "did not tell Vogel that he only had half of the original piece."

Why the Olgilvie analysis never took place

Korff p. 278 writes that Dr. Olgilvie, a metallurgist for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, analyzed (with a grant from Omni magazine) "the other half of the sample Macel Vogel claimed was so unique." What Korff fails to mention here is the information which indicates that Dr. Olgilvie never conducted any serious analysis. Stevens (p. 529, Supplementary Investigation Report) writes that he did tell Harry Lebelson (who in the early 80's was UFO Hotline editor of OMNI Magazine) that he still had the other half of the "unique" metal sample in his possession. Harry Lebelson then arranged that a professor at MIT would test the other half, but when the metal sample came into the possession of the professor and before any tests took place on the sample "the professor had come to the conclusion in his own mind" that the metal was probably a piece of solder, and the professor thought "it would be a waste of a lot of time and effort just to verify a piece of solidified solder, and he made no tests". When Stevens informed Lebelson that he wanted the sample back, Lebelson told him "that he could not return the metal specimen because it had become 'lost' and the professor couldn't find it."

Summary: In 1979 Wendelle Stevens acquired the metal sample from Meier and divided it into two halves. One half he gave to Vogel to analyze, but it disappeared soon after he analyzed it -- still in 1979. The remaining half Stevens later gave to Lebelson who gave it to Olgilvie, who either lost the piece or it disappeared on him. Thus there was no "third half" for Korff to have been given, nor did Olgilvie perform any analysis on the second half. Vogel's analysis on the first half is documented, however, on video tape.

CHAPTER 7: Other Meier "Evidence" (pp. 297-310)

Korff & the landing-tracks (pp. 298-303)

In his book Korff spends 6 pages arguing that the UFO landing-tracks in the Meier case have been hoaxed. In this text Korff's "explanations" for this aspect of the Meier case are analyzed.

Korff omits important landing-track data

In his discussion of the landing-tracks Korff omits important information on the subject which can be found on p. 36 of Light Years, pp. 363-379 of Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report and pp. 213-220 and p. 465 of Stevens' Supplementary Investigation Report. In order to show what's wrong with Korff's "explanations" data are used which can be found on the previously mentioned pages.

Korff omits testimonies of witnesses who studied landing-tracks

On p. 301 Korff falsely claims "all we have today... are photos of these tracks and nothing else that is scientifically credible to work with." Korff leaves out of consideration here the testimonies of people around Meier who made a specialized effort to study the landing-tracks.

Hans Schutzbach, one of the inner members of the group around Meier at the time, undertook a self-appointed mission to document every landing site, locate it exactly on a map, and to photograph them as soon as possible and repeatedly over time after that. He kept a good record the whole time he was active in Meier's group and left a detailed log of the touch-down sites. Some were in areas very difficult to get to. Schutzbach examined every possibility of hoaxing any of these tracks in the grass or snow, and experimented with several possibilities, but concluded in the end that they were not made by any ordinary means, nor by any kind of tools known to him. No chemical residues were found at any sites. He searched the farm and area for any kind of equipment that could be used for this and found none.

Herbert Runkel, another person who studied the landing-tracks, commented in a letter to Wendelle Stevens "I am very, very sure, there is no way for Billy to make tracks like this. I have been many times witness of landing tracks, I have very clear photos in all details from many different places so I can say this to you by all safety 100%."

Korff omits important characteristics of Pleiadian landing-tracks

On p. 298 of his book Korff states that according to Meier the Pleiadian ships "supposedly hover just above the ground and create three circular impressions of flattened grass 120 degrees apart. Each of these imprints are two meters in diameter (roughly 6.5 feet) and the grass inside them swirled down in a counterclockwise fashion." Although Korff does mention that the grass in these circles was swirled down in a counter clockwise direction, he fails to mention the important details that (a) the grass reportedly was bent over and was seldom broken, and (b) the grass reportedly continued to grow horizontally and the bent over stems didn't staighten up again.

These unusual characteristics of the landing-tracks were what motivated persons like Hans Schutzbach and Herbert Runkel to return to the landing-tracks sites time after time and document their changes in the photographs and movie films. Interestingly, Herbert Runkel states in a letter written to Wendelle Stevens that the grass at one particular landing-track site after 4 years did still grow differently from the other grass (p. 155, Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report).

A close up shot of a circular impression in the grass allegedly created by Semjase's beamship. The picture was taken by Hans Schutzbach, at Pfaffenholz near Hinwil, on 29 June, 1976 (source of image: FIGU web site).

This picture shows the circular impressions in the grass allegedly created by Semjase's and Quetzals's beamships. The picture was taken by Hans Schutzbach, at Pfaffenholz near Hinwil, on 28 June, 1976, shortly after the alleged contact had taken place (source of image: FIGU web site).

What Korff's experiment fails to explain

On pp. 300-301 Korff claims that one can create landing-tracks "with all the characteristics of Meier's own 'Pleiadian' impressions" via the following manner:

Take a round piece of plywood or pressboard.

Place it on top of some grass (be careful that the grass is not too tall or too small; with too small grass there won't be enough to work, tall grass is hard to control if you want to swirl it down).

Twist the board to create a "vortice" (sic) effect.

Place a fair amount of weight on the board.

Leave the plywood or pressboard where it is for a day to as long as a month (the time depending on the severity of the impression you want to create).

Korff's experiment fails to explain why the grass wasn't broken and why it continued to grow round and round, in a peculiar flat swirl. The effect of depriving grass of sunlight by placing a pressboard on it for days is that it will turn yellow and then die; the grass won't continue to grow horizontally. The effect of placing the round piece of plywood with a fair amount of weight on it on the grass is that the stems will break, which was seldom the case with Meier's landing-tracks. In addition, twisting the plyboard in the grass is not beneficial for the health of the grass; the stems will break.

Korff's pressboard is too small

This picture shows a cropped version of Korff's Fig. 114 ( p. 303). Korff implies on pp. 302-303 that he used the pressboard featuring in Fig. 114 for making his recreations of Meier's landing-tracks. It should be noted here that the diameter of Meier's landing-tracks ranged from 1.8 to 3 meters, while the diameter of Korff's pressboard is substantially smaller even though he was simulating a circle 2 meters in diameter.

No swirl in Korff's recreation

Korff's Fig. 115 on p. 303, showing his attempt at making a landing-track circle with his pressboard, is quite unimpressive and fails to exhibit any swirl. Moreover, Korff used relatively short grass for his attempt at hoaxing it, whereas the meadow grass where the actual landing-tracks occurred was usually several hundred percent taller than this, presenting more problems for any hoaxer.

Not all Pleiadian landing-tracks consisted of 3 circular shaped impressions in the grass

In his discussion Korff claims that according to Meier all the Pleiadian landing-tracks consisted of three circular shaped imprints in the grass; this is not true: the "variation 1 beamship" (featuring in the 28 January, 1975, Frecht Nature Preserve photo sequence), reportedly left behind in the vegetation only one circular shaped imprint. This variability is consistent with the several different types of Pleiadian and other UFOs he photographed or was told had visited him.

It should also be noted that the tracks were also found in cultivated fields, in scrub areas with sparse grass, in waste areas with weeds and brush, so not always in grass as Korff writes in his book.

Korff omits non-Pleiadian landing-tracks

Korff leaves out of consideration in his discussion other types of landing tracks. For example, there was a type of landing-track which consisted of just one circle with a diameter of ten feet. According to Meier these tracks were made by Lyrian space craft which hovered on a coherent beam of intense white light that went straight to the ground. Over snow it cut straight down to the ground through snow and ice, and left the ground bare and dried out. Over grass it seared a dark ten-foot circle that did not smoke, but which nevertheless looked burned. The vegetation within the circle was completely burned to the ground and even the roots in the soil were charred to nothing.

Insect infestation not a characteristic of Pleiadian landing-tracks

Korff on p. 301 claims that his experiment does account for the insect infestation aspect of Meier's landing-tracks. Korff writes "whenever plants are deprived of sunlight (as would be the case for those directly under the round pressboard) they cannot photosynthesize. When this happens, they begin to die. The resulting decay, not to mention the accumulating moisture, will always attract a good number of insects, especially in the damp climates of Switzerland." The point to note here is that the phenomenon of insect infestation was a characteristic of the Lyrian landing tracks, not the Pleiadian. Placing a pressboard on the grass, of course won't sear the vegetation.

Korff & the UFO witnesses (pp. 304-307)

In his book Korff spends 4 pages trying to debunk the subject of independent UFO sightings in the Meier case. In this text the "explanation" Korff offers for this aspect of the case is analyzed.

Basically, Korff's "explanation" for the independent UFO sightings boils down to this: the witnesses are Meier's "uncritical faithful" (p. 305) cult members (p. 385), and Meier fools them by launching a "balloon or other device with a flare or light attached to it" (p. 306), which they mistake for a Pleiadian beamship. Explaining why this is a bogus explanation will take some space because Korff had to omit and distort a large part of the witness data in order to make his "explanation" appear credible.

Korff omits important sources of UFO witness information

In his four page discussion Korff only mentions the following two important sources of UFO witness information: Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report and Guido Moosbrugger's Und Sie Fliegen Doch!. As will be shown further on, Korff omits most of the significant information which can be found in these two books and what he does mention is distorted. Examples of important witness information-sources which have been completely omitted by Korff in his discussion are Kinder's Light Years and the videos Contact and The Meier Chronicles. In these videos several of the witnesses can be seen telling their stories. Instead of informing the reader of these important sources of information, Korff spends half a page complaining about the irrelevant point that in the first book on the case (the Elders' UFO... Contact from the Pleiades, vol. 1, published in 1979), the witnesses and their accounts weren't included.

Korff omits several UFO witnesses

On p. 304, Korff claims that the total of UFO witnesses is 14 because Stevens' "Preliminary Investigation book lists only fourteen" witnesses. The truth is that 22 UFO witnesses are mentioned in Stevens' 1982 book and, moreover, these 22 UFO witnesses are certainly not all the UFO witnesses. It should also be noted that Korff fails to mention the names and addresses of these UFO witnesses or that 12 of them can be found in Stevens' 1982 book: p. 168 and p. 174.

On p. 307 Korff does present a table (Fig. 116) that lists the names of 21 UFO witnesses, and on p. 306 he claims that his table lists all the witnesses, but this stands in conflict with his claim on p. 304 that the total is "only fourteen". But apart from that, his number of 21 is also wrong, as will be shown now.

The following table combines the names of the witnesses listed in Korff's fig. 116, and the names of the UFO witnesses mentioned by Stevens in his Preliminary Investigation Report. The asterisk next to a name indicates that the name can be found in Stevens' 1982 book but not in Korff's table on p. 307 of his book; in other words, these UFO witnesses were omitted by Korff in his book.

01: Mr. Altensperger*
02: Jacob Bertschinger
03: Eva Bieri
04: Bernadette Brand
05: Madeleine Brügger
06: Ms. M. Flammer*
07: Christina Gasser 08: Elizabeth Gruber 09: Thomas Keller 10: Ernst Keller Muller*
11: Bernard Koye 12: Brunhilde Koye 13: Freddy Kropf 14: Silvano Lehman 15: Atlantis Meier
16: Gilgamesha Meier

17: Kalliope Meier
18: Methusalem Meier
19: Guido Moosbrugger
20: Elsie Moser*
21: Margarite Rufer*
22: Herbert Runkel
23: Conrad Schutzbach*
24: Hans Schutzbach*
25: Eric Stadtlein*
26: Amalie Stetter*
27: Conny Wächter
28: Engelbert Wächter Jr
29: Maria Wächter
30: Olga Walder*
31: Wolfgang Witzer*
32: Hans Zimmerman

Not all UFO witnesses are or were members of Meier's group

Korff's claim on p. 306 that "only Billy Meier and members of his group report seeing them [UFOs]", is false. An example of a non-group member who testified having seen UFOs associated with Meier's alleged ET contacts, is Ernst Keller-Muller. As previously pointed out, Korff fails to even mention the name of this witness in his table on p. 307. Two times during the summer of 1978, Keller-Muller, in his small home town of Schalchen, near Wila, observed UFO activity, which took place, "in the direction of Schmidrüti and almost that far away". It was only later, that he learned of "Herr Meier" living in Schmidrüti, who claimed to be in contact with UFOnauts (more information: pp. 158-159 of Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report, or the video Contact.)

Also, the data in Korff's table on p. 307 is in conflict with his claim that only members of Meier's group report seeing the UFOs; the table lists UFO witnesses who aren't members of Meier's family or of his group.

On p. 304 Korff states that "there are no testimonies from any independent, outside observers", because the UFO witnesses "either were or are members of Meier's group." The point to note here is that all these claims are based on his claim on this page that the total of UFO witnesses is "only fourteen." As previously pointed out that claim is false.

Not only "blobs of light rising in the night sky"

On p. 306 Korff claims that only "blobs of light rising in the night sky" are described and were photographed by the UFO witnesses. In order to show that this claim is false, data are presented from Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report (pp. 126-160), Supplementary Investigation Report (pp. 448-449) and Kinder's Light Years (pp. 21-23 and p. 28). Also presented are some captured images from the video Contact by Genesis III.

Disc-shaped UFOs. Regarding the shape of the UFOs, it should be noted that several of the witnesses speak of disc-shaped objects, and not "blobs of light." For example, Guido Moosbrugger and Hans Schutzbach have testified of having observed, during a nighttime sighting which took place in mid-May 1976, "a fire red disc". About one month later, Guido Moosbrugger and several other witnesses claim to have observed, in the early morning of Sunday, 13 June, 1976, appearances of disc-shaped objects in the night sky. One photo by Guido Moosbrugger, reportedly taken during that event, shows a disc-shaped object surrounded by a yellow haze. Hans Schutzbach and several other witnesses have testified having seen, that same month, during a daylight sighting on Monday, 28 June, 1976, a silver-gray colored disc-shaped object. Jacobus Bertschinger has testified having witnessed, in the early morning of Monday, 7 February 1977, "an oval disc, slightly illuminated."

This picture shows the disc-shaped object surrounded by a yellow haze reportedly photographed by Guido Moosbrugger on 13 June, 1976 (source of image: the video Contact.)

Unusual flight behavior. Regarding the flight behavior of the UFOs, it should be mentioned that several of the witnesses describe a flight behavior that contradicts Korff's claim of the UFOs simply "rising up in the sky" (like balloons). For example, Jacobus Bertschinger in his account of a sighting which took place on Sunday, 14 March, 1976, mentions: "When it [the UFO] reached the mentioned height the light stopped for some moments, and then, continued moving directly towards me. It approached by a suddenly enormous speed." Bernadette Brand describes that she observed during one of her sightings that "the orange light rose and then looked like it was going upstairs, zigzag, and then very quietly it flew away." During a UFO sighting in May 1976, Guido Moosbrugger claims to have witnessed "three large balls of yellow-orange light flying in formation in the night sky. They moved in an undulating fashion that also became jerky at times. They were completely silent. Suddenly one of them stopped dead still in the sky.." One month later, in the early morning of Sunday, 13 June, 1976, Hans Schutzbach, reportedly using black and white diapositive film and various time-exposures, photographed "luminous objects and their light trails" (in total 4 persons claim to have photographed the UFOs during that event: Eduard Meier, Guido Moosbrugger, Conrad Schutzbach and Hans Schutzbach). Ernst Keller-Muller has testified having observed in the summer of 1978, UFOs which "moved in an undulating and zig-zagging pattern, and sometimes with a jerky motion. They also stopped occasionally, and at other times simply 'jumped' from one place to another."

A rain of fire. Another unusual aspect of the UFO sightings which is described in several of the witnesses' testimonies is a rain of sparks falling down from the UFO. Jacobus Bertschinger describes this phenomena in his account of a sighting that took place in the early morning of Sunday, 14 March, 1976; he states that "a true rain of sparkles began to fall down [from the UFO], like a gigantic fireworks perhaps 150 to 200 meters long." During a UFO sighting which took place in the early morning of Sunday, 4 April, 1976, six persons claim to have witnessed a UFO with "a rain of luminous drops falling in its wake, which went out a little above the surface of the ground." During a UFO sighting that reportedly took place one month later, (May 1976), Guido Moosbrugger claims to have witnessed that "suddenly one of them [the UFOs] stopped dead still in the sky, grew brighter and rained drops of fire out the bottom that descended a way and went out, until the whole display faded away and was gone." One month later still (13 June 1976), Guido Moosbrugger was able to photograph the light phenomenon.

This picture shows the "bar of intense light with a glittering rain of fire falling down," which Guido Moosbrugger reportedly photographed in June 1976 (source of image: the video Contact.)

Rotating UFOs. In some of the witnesses' accounts we find descriptions of rotating UFOs. During a UFO sighting that took place in the early morning of Sunday, 4 April, 1976, six persons claim to have witnessed a "rotating red dark nucleus." Guido Moosbrugger has testified having observed during a UFO sighting in May 1976 "a rotating silver ball" accompanied by "two smaller spheres.. also spinning."

The data presented here (and which were omitted by Korff) are reasonable evidence that the UFO witnesses didn't misidentify a "balloon or other device with a flare or light attached to it" launched by Meier. The data also show that if the Meier case is a hoax, some of his friends have been in on it, fabricating stories about having seen and photographed disc-shaped craft.

Korff omits the non-UFO witness testimonies

Finally, the following important point should be mentioned: the witness testimonies not only describe UFO sightings but also other unusual events associated with Meier's alleged contacts with ETs. For example, there are the witnesses' testimonies which recount mysterious disappearances and re-appearances of Meier, Meier bending spoons and heating a coin with his hand to about 1,500 degrees Celsius, a mysterious disappearance of a tree and assassination attempts. People have also testified hearing the unusual sounds made by the spacecraft, moreover, on a couple occasions in the presence of tape recorders. In addition, some people have also testified having felt sudden impulses to look up at the sky before they had a UFO sighting. On top of that, some members of Meier's group claim to have seen the aliens "Quetzal" and "Ptaah". Such testimonies add many dimensions of complixity to the hoax theory and, at the same time, add credibility to Meier's claims. But Korff ignores these data in his book and conveniently restricts his discussion to "independent 'eyewitness' testimonies which recount sightings of the spaceships"(p. 297). The following out-of-context quotation by Korff on p. 304 is relevant to his omission of the non-UFO witnesses' testimonies. Stevens on p. 126 of his Preliminary Investigation Report, speaks about "dozens of witnesss who have observed various of the phenomena associated with Meier's contacts", Korff (p. 304) quotes Stevens' statement of "dozens of witnesses" out of context, and implies that Stevens with those words was only referring to the UFO eyewitnesses.

@@ Line 261: / Line 261: @@
 |}
-{border="1"|
+{|border="1"
 |

Anonymous

Search

Difference between revisions of "Web site files pointing out shortcomings in Korff's Spaceships of the Pleiades, Internet, January 2003"

Revision as of 20:14, 21 May 2009

Shortcomings of Kal K. Korff's Spaceships of the Pleiades: The Billy Meier Story (introduction)

CHAPTER 1: Eduard "Billy" Meier: The Man, the Claims (pp. 23-44)

Omission of certain info about Meier's past

The evolution of Meier's contact notes

Error in translation

Why the term "cult" is unfounded and misapplied

How fast Wendelle Stevens became a "believer"

The amount of contacts

How Meier took his photos/films

"Meier saved Jesus from a beating one time"

CHAPTER 2: The Undercover Trip to Switzerland (pp. 45-108)

Why Korff lies about having seen landing-tracks

Elizabeth Gruber

The name "Zafiriou"

"The Talmud Immanuel..."

Why Korff's "channeling garden"-story is a lie

Why Korff's didn't obtain any soil samples of the landing-tracks

CHAPTER 3: Genesis III's "Analyses" of Meier's Photographs (pp. 109-133)

"There are no original negatives in existence"

Neil Davis' analysis

CHAPTER 4: Conclusive Analyses of Billy Meier's "UFO" Photographs (pp. 135-231)

Korff & the Frecht Nature Preseve photos (pp. 139-145)

Wrong total of photos (1)

Korff omits Meier's comments relevant to focus discrepancy

150 meters is not 162.5 feet

Korff omits Meier's comments regarding focus discrepancy in second photo

An example of faulty reasoning by Korff

Incorrect reference

Korff's Fig. 22 doesn't show the whole picture

Korff omits Meier's comments regarding suspicious aspects of 4th picture

Korff & the "Unter-Balm Photographs" (pp. 146-158)

The Unter-Balm Photographs (plural?)

Korff's false claim of finding "the exact same spot"

Why the interior of the beamship should not necessarily have shown up in photo #41

The middle photo on p. 156 shows admitted model

Korff & the February 27, 1975, Fuchsbüel am Hofhalden photos (pp. 159-162)

Other photos of these sequence don't show the suspicious aspects

Korff's inconsistent listing of photo numbers

Korff & the Jakobsberg-Allenberg photos (pp. 163-168)

Wrong total of photos (2)

Why the photos are not double exposures

Korff is wrong about the purpose of this photo event

Korff & the 9 July, 1975, Fuchsbüel am Hofhalden photos (pp. 169-193)

Wrong total of photos (3)

Why the cloud formations do not necessarily change too fast

Table 4-3

False claim

Korff omits the data which support the "disapearing tree story"

Korff & the Bachtelhörnli-Unterbachtel photos (pp: 194-200)

Unsupported claims

False claim

Upward arced "suspension line" in Korff's Fig. 66

More problems with Korff's "suspension lines"

Korff & the Hasenböl-Langenberg photos (pp: 201-207)

Self-contradictionary statements by Korff

Another error

Korff & the Schmärbüel-Maiwinkle photos (pp: 208-214)

Table 4-4

CHAPTER 5: Smoking Guns: Analyzing Meier's "Time-Travel" Photographs (pp. 233-271)

General remarks by Korff about "Time-Travel" photos (pp. 233-235 & p. 266)

Misleading statement by Korff

Not second but first trip

No visits to the Pleiades or to alien worlds in DAL Universe

Incorrect reference

No contradiction

Venus photos (pp. 235-240)

False reference

Another false reference

And... another false reference

Meier didn't use "special alien photographing device"

Apollo-Soyuz link-up photos (pp. 240-244)

Korff omits Meier's comments regarding curved screen

Possible explanation for out-of-focus aspect

Meier's time for Apollo-Soyuz link-up is correct

Unfounded claim

Does Korff's Fig. 94 show the Soyuz in space?