Welcome to the Billy Meier UFO Research website! › Forum › Photos › Beamships/UFO’s › SPHERE REFLECTIONS: Can they help determine the size of a UFO?
Tagged: forced, meier, perspective, reflection, sphere, ufo, WCUFO, Zahi
This topic contains 41 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Owen Truthmarrion 4 months ago.

AuthorPosts

This is a simple comparison of two reflective spheres of different size and distance from camera demonstrating the forced perspective ALLEGEDLY used by Billy Meier for his WCUFO photo series. How would the sphere reflections between a small, trash lid model and a carsized UFO compare?
https://archive.org/details/ReflectiveSphereSizeComparison
Taro, Zahi posits that in WCUFO photo #800, the object is 3.5 meters at 7 meters away from the camera. Using the cameraobject distance equation (D/d=f/h) which you lately have concerned yourself with, I found the size of object image on film as 24 mm. This gave me a focal length of 42 mm, which contradicts the 55 mm focal length value Meier asserts.
Did I make any mistake?
Is that equation not applicable to cases when the camera is focused on nearby objects and not at infinity?First, your equation makes no sense. Next, using the actual distance equation derived from the magnification equation:
D = f*H/h, and
f = D*h/H, where
D = 7000mm
H = 3500mm
h = 24mmTherefore, f = 48mm, not 42mm.
HOWEVER, this distance equation is NOT applicable to nearby objects, ONLY for objects considered to be at infinity:
https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/89433/imhopingtoprovethisdistancetocameraequation
This equation was never used to calculate the UFO’s distance or size. It sounds to me as if you haven’t actually read Zahi’s WCUFO investigation. Have you?
<cite>@mahigitam said:</cite>
Taro, Zahi posits that in WCUFO photo #800, the object is 3.5 meters at 7 meters away from the camera. Using the cameraobject distance equation (D/d=f/h) which you lately have concerned yourself with, I found the size of object image on film as 24 mm. This gave me a focal length of 42 mm, which contradicts the 55 mm focal length value Meier asserts.Did I make any mistake?
Is that equation not applicable to cases when the camera is focused on nearby objects and not at infinity? This reply was modified 9 months ago by Taro.
 This reply was modified 9 months ago by Taro.
You are right, it comes out as 48 m and not 42 mm. I didn’t say it was used by Zahi to calculate the distance, I simply am trying to see other simple ways to validate his results. I did try few times to work through this report, but I couldn’t do it, with all those equations and the rest.
But I did tell Zahi and Lock a simple way to add more credibility and soundness to their conclusions, and it is by using their same techniques on Langdon’s photos and prove that it is a small object. But for some reason they declined to do it. Is it because their equations proved that the object in Langdon’s photo came up to be a large object as well? I don’t know. It would only take them a few minutes of time but for some reason has evaded to do it for years. May be you can do it since you seem to have read and understood the entire Zahi’s report. Are you interested?
p.s.: And by the way, is there and equation for the cameraobjectdistance for a nearby object? And where is this M = D/d = H/h = f/(fD) used?
 This reply was modified 9 months ago by mahigitam.
 This reply was modified 9 months ago by mahigitam.
I didn’t say it was used by Zahi to calculate the distance
It was clearly implied. Otherwise, why would you claim a contradiction based on Zahi’s numbers for size and distance?
I simply am trying to see other simple ways to validate his results.
You need to learn some science. Did you complete high school physics? Start there.
But I did tell Zahi and Lock a simple way to add more credibility and soundness to their conclusions, and it is by using their same techniques on Langdon’s photos and prove that it is a small object.
This statement proves just how little you understand science.
I don’t know.
PRECISELY. The reason Meier’s WCUFO photos, particularly his courtyard series are significant to UFO research is due to the fact that it was taken in a location with VERIFIABLE REFERENCE POINTS on either side of the UFO. For anyone who understands science and a little photography, this concept is a nobrainer.
However, determining UFO size was not as simple as plugging a few numbers into an equation. It involved two primary methods: Computer modeling and a scale model. Even if Langdon provided better photos it would take more than, “a few minutes of time”.
p.s.: And by the way, is there and equation for the cameraobjectdistance for a nearby object?
If there is, I doubt it’s a simple one.
And where is this M = D/d = H/h = f/(fD) used?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnification
—You are right, it comes out as 48 m and not 42 mm. I didn’t say it was used by Zahi to calculate the distance, I simply am trying to see other simple ways to validate his results. I did try few times to work through this report, but I couldn’t do it, with all those equations and the rest.
But I did tell Zahi and Lock a simple way to add more credibility and soundness to their conclusions, and it is by using their same techniques on Langdon’s photos and prove that it is a small object. But for some reason they declined to do it. Is it because their equations proved that the object in Langdon’s photo came up to be a large object as well? I don’t know. It would only take them a few minutes of time but for some reason has evaded to do it for years. May be you can do it since you seem to have read and understood the entire Zahi’s report. Are you interested?
p.s.: And by the way, is there and equation for the cameraobjectdistance for a nearby object? And where is this M = D/d = H/h = f/(fD) used?
 This reply was modified 9 months ago by Taro.
 This reply was modified 9 months ago by Taro.
It was clearly implied. Otherwise, why would you claim a contradiction based on Zahi’s numbers for size and distance?
Nope. As mentioned earlier, I was just trying to see other easy methods to simply validate his results. Based on the assumption that the equation (D = f*H/h) is valid for Zahi’s analysis, when known values are punched in, the f should give a value of 55 mm.
You need to learn some science. Did you complete high school physics? Start there.
This statement proves just how little you understand science.Who better knows science has already been judged by objective third parties, so its a waste of time for us to convince each other who has better science skills than other.
PRECISELY. The reason Meier’s WCUFO photos, particularly his courtyard series are significant to UFO research is due to the fact that it was taken in a location with VERIFIABLE REFERENCE POINTS on either side of the UFO. For anyone who understands science and a little photography, this concept is a nobrainer.
However, determining UFO size was not as simple as plugging a few numbers into an equation. It involved two primary methods: Computer modeling and a scale model. Even if Langdon provided better photos it would take more than, “a few minutes of time”.
Langdon also provided a detailed map with all distances between objects in the scence for his modelWCUFO photos. If any of you ever happened to be interested in finding the truth in future, let me know I can provide you with those details.
Nope. As mentioned earlier, I was just trying to see other easy methods to simply validate his results. Based on the assumption that the equation (D = f*H/h) is valid for Zahi’s analysis, when known values are punched in, the f should give a value of 55 mm.
Why would you assume it was for UFO distance if you’ve read Zahi’s report? The purpose of the equation was clearly explained.
Who better knows science has already been judged by objective third parties, so its a waste of time for us to convince each other who has better science skills than other.
I need no convincing. I KNOW I understand the science better than you. However, this suggestion was for your own benefit: You claim to be a UFO researcher. Well, this is REAL UFO research.
Langdon also provided a detailed map with all distances between objects in the scence for his modelWCUFO photos. If any of you ever happened to be interested in finding the truth in future, let me know I can provide you with those details.
Why is this all a big secret? Why not publish this information OPENLY and let anyone who really wants to know the truth determine it for themselves? Also, this way we can collectively scrutinize Langdon’s information for suitability. For example, has he ensured his photos contain, as I mentioned earlier,
VERIFIABLE REFERENCE POINTS on either side of the UFO?
The Spheres reflections can tell us the size of the WCUFO. Some facts to demonstrate about it:
FACT 1: The photographer can be located anywhere between the Carriage House wall and the nearest sphere and the reflection size of the wooden construction would be the same.
FACT 2: Testing a small sphere or a big one makes the same results. So a big UFO or a small model with big or small spheres will show the same reflections, if their nearest spheres under analysis of both objects are at the same distance from the Carriage House.
FACT 3: The reflection of the camera lens in the sphere image is always at the Center of the image in the sphere.
FACT 4: The distance between the Carriage House wall to the nearest sphere is around 6 meters for Photos #800 and #806. Combining this FACT 1, there are two possibilities to analyze: (1) It was a half a meter model so Billy was 5 meters away from the Carriage House and the UFO model was at 1 meter away from him (2) It was a big object of 3.5 meters and Billy was very close to the Carriage House, so the WCUFO was at around 6 meters away from him.
FACT 5: Billy Meier camera was located very close to the Carriage House wall when he took his photos.
FACT 6: Knowing that Billy was close to the Carriage House wall and the nearest sphere is at around 6 meters from the Carriage House wall, we know the WCUFO was an object around 3.5 meters in diameter.
I have proved every one of the facts.
Langdon did not make a test in a place simulating the Carriage House in his back, so his test was incomplete. Our tests were made with scale models simulating both, Carriage House and Billy’s Home, Computer Simulations (a 3D model of a WCUFO of different sizes and 3D model of constructions in his property) and tests conducted in Billy Place. Langdon has not authorized me to check his photos nor providing HD copies to me. Billy did it. Langdon have not accepted to make questions and we answering them in a future book. In other word, Langdon do not want us to check his evidence that is based more in “it looks similar” than in real scientific tests.
Rhal Zahi
 This reply was modified 9 months ago by Rhal Zahi.
 This reply was modified 9 months ago by Rhal Zahi.
MagicThe only science one needs to know is to cut through their bullshit concoction of this fake analysis. NOBODY is buying this total hog wash, not even a 3rd grader. The important point is Meier’s position and it is a blatant lie that it can be calculated by magnification.
Only control pictures and measurements at Meiers property can reveal Meiers true position by lining up a model with his house by using his original picture as guide. Shoot Phil’s 1 foot model and then a 15 foot mockup WITHOUT moving the camera.
A child can point out the one that is matching Meiers original. ANY serious investigator would have done that especially when the UFO was photographed infront of a fixed reference point! The reason why they avoided them is because it would debunk Meier liars trash model in an instant. Pathetic.
Period! He shouwhen he has control pictures or let it be. But we know that this douchebag never will. Pathetic fucking loser.Mahesh,
As Administrator of this page, you should block access to Trolls like “Magic”, “Jo Weiss”, “Oliver”, and other names he uses. I do not have any problem exchanging arguments with sceptics, but Trolls has no other purpose than destroy any controversy, with personal attacks, bulling and comment without any solid base. I do not pay attention to Trolls. We may have a good conversation about this subject, but the noise a Troll interferes to hear good and solid arguments from serious person. If he uses several names (clearly is the same insane man), means he is either a Troll, or somebody with an intentions other than having a meaningful debate.
If you want your page to deal with serious conversations, Trolls must be blocked. I am respectful of other people opinions and I request the same, not personal attacks.
Rhal Zahi
The important point is Meier’s position and it is a blatant lie that it can be calculated by magnification.
DISINFORMATION. It is calculated by using the magnification equation. I’ve already linked to a discussion with knowledgeable photographers. If you wish to dispute this equation I’d like to see you take it up with them:
https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/89433/imhopingtoprovethisdistancetocameraequation
Only control pictures and measurements at Meiers property can reveal Meiers true position by lining up a model with his house by using his original picture as guide.
FRAUD. UFO size is the unknown variable in question. You cannot assume it then use it to determine camera location.
MagicWell, why don’t you explain the diligent readers why you did not take any control pictures while you were at Meiers property.
The WCUFO was photographed infront of a fixed reference point and EVERY serious investigator, photo analyst would start there by taking measurements and pictures. So tell me Professor, how did you calculate Meiers distance to object? Also, do you agree that control pictures will show the true size of the object when Meiers house is lined up like in bis pictures?When was Rhal Zahi in Switzerland? You are trying to distract from the topic of this discussion: Can sphere reflections help determine the size of a UFO? Sphere reflections in a virtual environment will behave exactly as they would in real life. Compare Meier’s #800 to the sphere reflections AND background in these Blender renderings:
https://archive.org/details/800SphereComparisons1
 This reply was modified 8 months, 4 weeks ago by Taro.
 This reply was modified 8 months, 4 weeks ago by Taro.
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Now, compare these control photos of a reflective sphere taken on site with #800 and the rendering of a small model:
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files. 
AuthorPosts