Welcome to the Billy Meier UFO Research website! › Forum › Miscellaneous › Introduction › Reply To: Introduction
Tony,
The pictures, especially the daytime pictures, have always been the most ‘popular’ aspect of the case. From the beginning most research efforts have been about those pictures. You can find links to other research on the ‘Investigations by Others’ page. I could be wrong but I think the Wendelle team has come closest to a conclusive result, as they got pictures from Meier himself. But even then it was concluded by the researchers they needed the originals to get some sort of a conclusive result. As far as I know these originals have never been investigated, and now they are gone. Nevertheless people have still looked into the pictures, by for example recreating the effect by building models (Phil Langdon) etc. You’ve earlier requested hi res pictures of Phil Langdon, which you apparently didn’t get, but even if you got them and you were able to prove from the pictures the ships were models, it doesn’t say a damn thing about Meier’s pictures. You would still need those originals.
So what do you expect of BMUFOR? Repeat Phil Langdon’s and other’s research again? Stare at the copies of copies of copies of Meier’s pics and conclude nothing because there aren’t any originals?
There’s research about the space pics on this website because they were debunkable, they actually resemble frames from old documentaries that were found by BMUFOR and others, so there is actually something to report. Suppose they actually were pictures from outer space, as Meier claimed. It would be quite impossible to conclude that given that again there are no originals and the copies that are left are of poor quality. So the only thing to report would be nothing, and why would you publish a report if there isn’t any result at all?
Furthermore I think BMUFOR has presented a lot of original research that hasn’t been done before, like the prophecies/predictions, which took a great effort to get the original publications and a lot of time (years) to get the results. This yielded a mountain of evidence that suggest the case is a hoax, which was later again corroborated by the space pictures investigation, and so on.
And yet ‘pro’ people ask: but why haven’t you covered this or that aspect of the case? Why do you only present ‘con’ evidence of the case?
Well for one thing: it takes a huge amount of effort and time to look into a particular aspect and come up with some result, if even possible. Secondly, the aspects BMUFOR DID cover yielded negative results. I’m sorry. And, believe it or not, these results weren’t informed by a predetermination that the case was a hoax, rather the opposite. Mahesh (and I, who assisted him in the prophecies/predictions investigation) were very much convinced the case was real, and that we would find mountains of evidence that would support this position. It was only by years of research (and disappointment) that we were forced to conclude the opposite.