Energy Ship UFO Photos – Part 1/3


INTRODUCTION

Billy Meier claims that, in 1979, he was visited by a race of Extraterrestrials from the Andromeda galaxy. He described them as being a race of dwarves whose body height amounts to just about 70 cms, and their spaceships (at least two) as being made of fine-material or pure energy hence the name Energieschiffe/Energy Ships (ES). He also claimed that originally the shape of these ships looked similar to bathtubs, which later kept changing into those forms (mimicking) that resemble the surrounding lights – a passing by car’s headlight, Meier’s flashlight headlight and also his yard lamps. Meier further stated that sometimes these ships appeared very intense causing damage to several of his films due to overexposure. Also, the sizes of these ships, Meier notes, constantly changed between 5 meters and several hundred meters.1

As proof of this otherworldly visitation, Meier presented a total of 19 usable (not damaged from overexposure) photos, numbered #716 to #729 (1979) and #1003 to #1007 (1982) in his photo directory, depicting the ES purportedly flying near and over the Semjase-Silver-Star-Center (SSSC).2 In 2014, Michael Horn published two articles (in September and November) claiming that  “Professor” Rhal Zahi and Chris Lock (Z & L) have analyzed 8 photos of these ships and proved them to be authentic Extraterrestrial craft. They published their analysis in a 58-page pdf titled – The Energy Ships: An Investigative Analysis of Billy Meier’s  Energy Ship UFO photos (updated November edition). For our investigation, we have taken the assistance of Simon Edwards, Graphic Artworker by trade and avid photographer, to help us with the technical aspects of the analysis.

ANALYSIS

BACKGROUND

For our investigation, we requested Rhal Zahi to provide us with the high-resolution digital images (jpgs scanned from negatives) of all ES photos that were originally given to him by Meier for his own investigation. For some reason, Zahi declined our request and instructed us to directly contact Meier/FIGU and ask for our own copies for investigation.3 And when we wrote to the FIGU core group member and SSSC director, Christian Frehner, he responded back by saying – You will not receive any photos from us.’4 What are they afraid of? What are they hiding? So, for our analysis of (some) ES pictures, we had to contend with the images (jpegs) taken from Z & L’s analysis report, making them one more generation away from those that they received from Meier, which are themselves one generation away from the scanned negatives themselves (whose generation nobody seems to know).

Fortunately, we were provided with many high-quality photos from Wendelle Stevens personal collection, freely donated to us for research by Joe Fex from Ebay. Note that in some of the images while scratches have been there originally, during the scanning of many of these images however dust, specks, threads, hair, fingerprints, etc. seems to have been unintentionally crept in. For the sake of originality, we didn’t retouch (crop, color correction, levels adjustment, etc.) the photos at all, not even the extraneous outer edges of the photos. The source for the picture #716, however, is FIGU website.

One interesting thing we noticed is that the same ES image made available through different sources – books, videos and personal photo albums of Meier and Stevens – vary differently. Some have high contrast, some are cropped (in different places) and some have their hues skewed towards green, yellow, orange and blue. One main reason for these color and contrast shifts could be due to cross-processing negatives from a slide film or vice-versa. The effects vary based on the type and make of the film, amount of light exposed onto the film and the chemical used to develop the film. Other factors include the type of scanner used to scan the negatives or slides, and also the intentions (aesthetic or deceptive) of the person doing the color-correction right after scanning. Z & L seem to lack this basic knowledge because, for some of the photos they received from Meier in 2014, they take it as a fact that the purported “greenish glow” emitted by the alleged ES light is its original radiant color. But when compared with the same image from other sources, no such greenish glow is visible at all.

Camera and Film

Meier supposedly used his Olympus 35 ECR camera to photograph all the 19 ES pictures, at least those from 1979. Regarding the shutter speed, on page 9 of the report under the heading ‘Main Points for Investigation’, Z & L writes:

The photos investigated were taken with an old Olympus 35 ECR given to Meier that has an automatic exposure meter with shutter speeds ranging from 1/4 of a second to 1/800 of a second. It has no B stop and so cannot take exposures longer than 1/4 of a second.

They have cited this shutter speed range in many pages of their analysis and even used it to argue for the authenticity of ES photos. As it turns out, they can’t be any more wrong. The Olympus 35 ECR manual (pg. 2) itself speaks of a shutter speed value ranging from 4 seconds to 1/800 second, thus invalidating all their arguments citing the shutter speed.

And regarding the film, Z & L haven’t provided any information as to whether Meier originally used a slide film (gives positives) or a negative film (gives negatives) for his photos. Also, in their report, there is not even a statement from Meier or FIGU affirming whether the digital images Zahi received from him were obtained from digitally scanning the original (slide or negative) film or a copy of the original or a copy of a copy of a…..copy multiple generations away from the original. The single most important thing when authenticating a photograph, especially in the UFO and paranormal field, is to know whether or not you are analyzing an original or an nth generation copy.

The failure to disclose and discuss such vital information, stress their importance in the authentication process, several caveats that goes along with it and most importantly their lack of basic knowledge on the camera’s shutter speed range and the effects of cross-processing, reflects their gross incompetence in conducting a sound analysis. What is even more troubling is their lack of objectivity and acute bias towards Meier, whom they already think is a genuine Plejaren contactee and a Universal Prophet; Zahi even runs a website www.billyforkids.info which critic refers to it as an attempt to indoctrinate children. This severely-compromised investigation is clearly evident in their arguments present on almost every page. One simple example is that they never considered or even discussed the possibility that Meier’s photos could have been fabricated by the simple and old method of superimposition done in darkroom. Rather, on pg. 19 they implied that since Meier had no darkroom or enlarger at his center he couldn’t have faked his images. But what if he had outside help and got them fabricated outside his center? They also argue that Meier had all his films developed at a local store or by a photographer friend of his. Again there is no objective and credible evidence proving that Meier sent ALL his “untouched” films to a local store or to his anonymous photographer friend (which is suspicious in itself). Also the films he sent for developing might not be untouched or originals at all, but just altered copies that have been fabricated to remove all signs of fakery.

They don’t even discuss these totally plausible and highly probable scenarios. There are too many instances of such flawed and biased analysis, to report all of them here. However, in our article we will address only the major ones.

Dates & Times of Photos

The dates and times of these photographed images – #716 to #729 (images #1003 to #1007 were never published before in any publication) – differs from publication to publication over the years, raising suspicion over Meier’s version of the events. In the earlier descriptions, Meier supposedly took all photographs on a single day, on April 4 or June 22, 1979, depending upon the publication.5 But in the later ones, it was changed to three days – April 4, June 22 and June 23, 1979.6 Even the documented specific times when Meier photographed these images varied from publication to publication. Was there a genuine reason behind these changes or were they the result of Meier trying to iron out the inconsistencies and contradictions that arose from his photos and their descriptions?

Contradictory Versions of the Encounter

In her witness testimony,7 FIGU Core Group member Bernadette Brand claims that on the night of June 21, just before she went to sleep and multiple times later during her sleep, she allegedly witnessed a very bright illumination at the center. But having felt inexplicably tired, she didn’t bother much and went back to sleep. It was only after she asked Meier after a few days regarding the bright illumination at night, was she informed by Meier that the source of that illumination to be two Extraterrestrial spacecrafts (Energy Ships). She was also shown images of those ships on Meier’s slide projector (this indicates that Meier might have originally shot his images on a slide film) which he photographed on that night (in the small hours of June 22). Meier indicated to Brand that the visitation of those ES to his center on that night was already anticipated by him. Meier, Brand notes, further explained to her that he didn’t know from where the ES came from and was very surprised why none other than him at the center was able to wake up from the very bright light emitted by these ships. Brand speculates that the ETs must have deliberately induced deep sleep into all the members at center except Meier, so that he could wake up and witness them, as was predetermined.

But this information from Brand’s testimony outright contradicts the information present in other publications. Two main contradictions appear.

First, she was told that Meier already anticipated their arrival on that night. Even in Contact Report 123 (June 4, 1979), Meier tells Semjase that in the beginning of the year 1979, he received impulses from an unknown source indicating to him the various times for the entire year at which these ES would appear to him at his Center. And as determined, Meier states he did observe very strange light objects in the vicinity of the Center since the beginning of the year. But in the 1982 documentary Contact and also on pg. 68 of UFO…Contact from the Pleiades, Vol. 2, 1983, it was described as a totally unexpected and startling encounter that threatened Meier, by shooting a beam of light at him.8

Second, Meier apparently tells Brand, a few days after the June 22 encounter, that he didn’t know the origin of the ES, contradicting the information from 123rd Contact that purportedly occurred in the 1st week of the same month, on June 4. During the contact, Meier asks Semjase for an explanation behind all the various light-object sightings which he witnessed since the beginning of that year, 1979. To which, Semjase then clarifies by saying that those light-objects observed and photographed by Meier (on April 19) are the fine-material spacecrafts, operated by a benign race of dwarf beings (~70 cms. height), called as Nabulaner’s, who come from the Andromeda galaxy. And the purpose of their visit to the Center is to independently collect information about the collaboration between Plejaren and Meier, and pass it on to High-Council, who were acting as consultants to the Plejaren Federation. Also, in the Contact documentary, it was mentioned that when Meier asked Semjase about his frightening encounter with the light objects at his next contact, she has no explanation for those strange lights. But according to the Contact Report 123, Semjase did clarify the identity, origin and the benign purpose behind those ES visitations to Meier’s Center. This strongly suggests that Meier most likely has backdated his 123rd Contact Report i.e. he most certainly has fabricated a report (sometime after he talked to Brand and showed her his pictures of ES) and has put a much older date on it. Contact Report 123 was only first published in Semjase Kontakt Berichte, 2nd ed., Vol. 8, 1990 i.e. 11 years after the alleged ES encounter.

Furthermore, Brand’s testimony seemingly suggests that her June 22 sighting was a first of its kind, where an ES visited the center and was photographed. If the ES have already visited the Center and been photographed (on April 19) as Meier later suggested in his Contact Report 123, it is very fishy of him to not disclose it to his followers at his Center (and show them photographs of them) for more than two months, and even after a supposed 2nd and 3rd encounters on June 22 and 23 respectively.

All the above information strongly indicates that Meier hadn’t been truthful regarding not only the dates and times of his encounter(s) with the alleged ES but also with the circumstances surrounding this remarkable event for which he gave two conflicting stories at different times.

PHOTOS

#716

©Billy Meier/FIGU

Alteration of dates and times over years:

Verzeichnis, 1986 – 22.6.79, 2:15 AM
Und sie fliegen doch!, 1991 – 22.6.79
Und sie fliegen doch!/And yet they fly, 2001 – 22.6.79
Und sie fliegen doch!/And still they fly, 2004 – 19.4.79
Plejadisch-Plejarische Kontaktberichte Block 3, 2004 – 19.4.79, 2:23 AM
Und sie fliegen doch!, 2012 – 19.4.79
Photo Inventarium, 2014 – 19.4.79, 2:23 AM

While on pg. 507 of Wendelle Stevens’ UFO Contact from the Pleiades: A Preliminary Investigation Report (1982), while apparently describing the above photo (pg. 508) from the same event, Stevens reported a time of 10:00 AM, which is way beyond the time reported by Meier for any of the photos in his ES series, in all of his publications.

A description for the above photo from Plejadisch-Plejarische Kontaktberichte Block 3 (2004) reads:

Above the Centre: pure Energy Spaceships, constantly changing in their forms, of a dwarf human race from the area of Andromeda. One of the ES over the east horizon of the promontory, brightly gleaming through the trees.

If the bright object in the photo, situated apparently above and possibly behind the hill, is really the ES that illuminated a big area covered with trees, then how come there are no shadows of the trees on the ground, towards the direction of the camera? Instead the shadows of the trees lean towards the right side of the image. Notice the intense hotspot on the trunk and branches of the left most tree (also on the pole-like object near it) in the image, and also the fall off of its shadow (and light too) towards the right on the ground – strongly indicating the presence of an artificial bright light source outside the frame on the left. It is very likely the case that this ES photograph is simply fabricated using a double-exposure technique, either in-camera or in dark room (sandwich printing), where image 1 contains the light object (“UFO”) shot against a dark background and image 2 contains the landscape with trees, hill and bright light source outside the frame on the left.

Intriguingly, Meier didn’t send Z & L the supposed original or a copy close to the original of photo #716 for investigation. And neither did Z & L ever mention in their report why they chose to neglect this image – along with 11 other pictures – that were already been published and sold by Meier for decades, in their investigation. Is it because, both parties felt that by doing so would automatically cast doubt (for reasons discussed above) on the authenticity of the rest of the ES photos?

#717

Source: Wendelle Stevens collection/Joe Fex

Alteration of dates and times over years:

Verzeichnis, 1986 – 22.6.79, 2:20 AM
Plejadisch-Plejarische Kontaktberichte Block 3, 2004 – 19.4.79, 2:24 AM
Photo Inventarium, 2014 – 19.4.79, 2:24 AM

The top part of the above photo has been cropped, the uncropped (top part) image can be found in Photo Inventarium (PI) on pg. 101 but in PI the bottom part was cropped.

A description for the above photo from Plejadisch-Plejarische Kontaktberichte Block 3 (2004) reads:

One of the Energy Ships high in the sky above the Centre.

But it seems more like a long exposure night time shot of the moon with clouds around. Or a shot of the Sun in a low lit sky. Intriguingly, this photo was absent in Z & L’s report.

#718, #719, #726

#718

Source: Billy Meier, 2014

Alteration of dates and times over years:

Verzeichnis, 1986 – 22.6.79, 2:25 AM
Billy Meier, 2014 – 19.4.79, 2:25 AM

The description for this image from Verzeichnis reads:

One of the Energy Ships high above the Menara-landing.

On pgs. 10-11 of their report, Z & L claims that in their below photoshopped version (increasing the brightness and contrast) of the above image, one can supposedly see the ES emitted-vertical light beams interacting (bright spots indicated by arrow) with either an alleged fence wire or an electrical wire. This according to them indicates that the ES is really present in the scene interacting with the supposed fence or electrical wire in Meier’s  compound.

#718 – enhanced (Z & L)

The Meier/camera’s location in the above image has been identified by Z & L on pg. 11, to be right in front of Meier’s dog kennel, as shown below. The orientation of the diagonal wooden pole – attached to the top part of the dog kennel – in both images indicate that photo #718 had been horizontally flipped w.r.t the original.

#734, May 1979 (Verzeichnis) – Daylight shot of dog’s kennel

In #718, is there really a wire passing through in the scene or is it a part of the superimposed image 1 containing the light object/”UFO” shot against a dark background (whereas image 2 contains the background with kennel, trees, etc.)?

If it is a part of image 1, then this “wire” could simply be a light artifact generated from a long exposure shot where the camera shutter is open and either the camera (handheld or tripod) or the light object is moved horizontally in a straight line in the scene so as to create the illusion of an elongated light “UFO”. Alternatively, the wire, just like the diagonal wooden pole, could also really be in the scene, simply illuminated by a nearby light source (yard lamp; location and image will be shared in Part 2) and not by the “UFO”.

If ES is the only source of light in the image, then why is the light reflection (assuming it is) in the bottom right corner of the photo very bright compared to the diagonal wooden pole (seen below and towards left of the ES)? Or is the corner light artifact part of the superimposed image 1?

Also, if there really is a wire in the scene, shouldn’t it appear in the above image? According to Z & L, they ‘are not visible in this photo because of the bright background.’ Possible, but one other alternative explanation is that there simply is no wire in the scene and it likely is part of the superimposed image (either in-camera or darkroom). This hypothesis is supported by the evidence presented in our analysis of Meier’s ES photos #719 and #726, and even more so by the evidence that will be revealed in Part 2 of this article.

#719

Source: Billy Meier, 2014

Alteration of dates and times over years:

Verzeichnis – 22.6.79, 2:30 AM
Billy Meier, 2014 – 19.4.79, 2:25 AM
Photo Inventarium, 2014 – 19.4.79, 2:24 AM

The description for this image from Verzeichnis reads:

One of the Energy Ships about 50 m. behind and above the dog kennel.

This image was supposedly photographed by Meier standing at around the same place and time as the above #718. Z & L, after enhancing the image using photoshop (see below), argue that the vertical light beams from the ES illuminates both the horizontal (perhaps the same “wire” as in #718) and diagonal electrical or fence wires (no mention of the pole-like object).

#719 – enhanced (Z & L)

One reason why we are a little bit skeptical of Z & L’s claim that those straight lines, especially the horizontal one, are wires is because when we enhanced #719 even more ourselves, we spotted two more horizontal “wires” – passing through below the one pointed out by Z & L in the image (see below) – whose (visible) length apparently seems to be the same as the top most horizontal “wire”. Furthermore, if the ES’s brightness is so intense illuminating the objects in the foreground and the diagonal wire (in the background) that is outside the area of the alleged vertical scanning-like lights, then the section of the horizontal “wire” that is outside this area should also be lit, at least a bit, but it doesn’t, not even a bit on both the left and right of the lit area.

#719 – cropped and enhanced (BMUFOR)

These “wires”, both horizontal (3 no.’s) and diagonal (1 no.), also are not visible in the daylight shot of dog’s kennel (#734). Did those “wires” (lit by either “UFO” or by the nearby yard lamp{s} during night) become invisible in the morning shot due to Sun’s brightness? Or is it that there really are no wires (especially the horizontal ones) at all in the scene, hence they must be light artifacts (formed as discussed in #718) from image 1 containing the light object that is later superimposed on the background kennel-trees image 2? Analysis of photo #726 might resolve this uncertainty, at least in the case of horizontal “wires”. Also, the pole-like object is invisible in the scene, and we think it could be due to either being out of the frame or obstructed by the right corner object seen in #734.

Moreover, if the ES is 50 meters behind the kennel, how come the yellow wooden pole and sign posts are overly illuminated, when in fact they should be in dark (if ES is the only source of light)? Interestingly, this obvious anomaly wasn’t discussed by Z & L in their report at all. We think that, just like in #718, the likely source of this light here, possibly the long exposure shot, is the nearby yard lamp (location and image will be shared in Part 2).

#726

Source: Wendelle Stevens collection/Joe Fex

Alteration of dates and times over years:

Verzeichnis, 1986 – 22.6.79, 4:10 AM
Billy Meier, 2014 – 23.6.79, 4:10 AM

The description for this image from Verzeichnis reads:

One of the Energy Ships high above and far behind the dog house in the west direction.

This photo, understandably (notice the growth of plant nearby the sign post; red sign post on kennel was tilted towards left), was taken 2 months (June 23) after the 1st encounter on April 19, intriguingly at the same location. For this photo too, Z & L ignores the description provided by Meier regarding how far the ES is away from the camera, and deliberately or not once again avoids giving an explanation for the source of illumination on the kennel, diagonal wooden pole and sign posts, which most likely is the nearby yard lamp (location and image will be shared in Part 2).

#726 – enhanced (BMUFOR)

Z & L claims that in their enhanced version of #726 (fig. 20 on pg. 31 of their report), in addition to the the horizontal wire indicated by the green arrow and diagonal wire (going in the opposite direction to that of the one in #719) indicated by the light blue arrow, several vertical (fence?) poles have also been illuminated by the ES. This according to them, once again proves that ES is really present in the scene at the time of photographing, and interacting with its nearby objects (wires and poles).

The horizontal “wire” in #726 must be a different one to the one present in #719 because the “wire” in #726 appears at a greater elevation compared to #719. One other reason is the absence of the pole (seen in #719) crossing the horizontal “wire” in #726 and also the missing two “wires” below it. This pushes the total number of “wires” in the scene to be six. Could the pole indicated by the blue arrow in the above enhanced #726 the same one as seen in #719?

Z & L in their rush to prove that the light objects are extraterrestrial spaceships utterly contradict their own evidence cited earlier. In #734 (May 1979), the daylight shot of kennel one sees absolutely no fence poles or anything remotely like it. The Sun-brightness excuse doesn’t work out here at all. In fact what one clearly sees is that immediately behind the kennel, there is almost a vertical drop of some feet (that probably joins the walkway) and very, very tall fir trees in the background that grows to several tens of meters in height. According to #726, those many vertical poles should be seen around in the space as those tall fir trees seen in #734, but they aren’t. This irrefutably proves that the “vertical poles” and the band of light (overlapping the sign post and the poles) artifacts in the scene are simply the result of multiple exposure (in-camera or darkroom).

This automatically casts severe doubt on the existence of all the alleged electrical or fence wires (even the pole indicated by blue arrow) in all three images especially the horizontal ones that supposedly were illuminated by the ES. Comparing the positions of horizontal “wires” in both #719 and #726 (after matching their sizes and perspective) reveals an even more intriguing point – they are located at virtually the same distance from the light object/”UFO” indicating that these “wires” most likely are long exposure artifacts from image 1 that were later superimposed onto image 2 (kennel and sign posts scene).

And in the case of #726, the image 1, in addition to the light object/”UFO”, might also contain a few fence poles. The excessive number of unevenly distributed fence poles indicate that they, just like the horizontal “wire” artifacts, could be the result of a long exposure shot of image 1. A more strong and corroborating evidence for this hypothesis will be presented in Part 2. One other curious artifact include the black horizontal lines indicated by the purple arrows.

Mahesh Karumudi had pointed out the main anomalies here to both Z & L on September 4, 2014 in mail, who then stated that they would address them in their 2nd edition that would come out in November of that year. As it turns out they never addressed any of them.

UPDATE (July 18, 2017):

The diagonal wire seen in #719 could be a real object present within the scene because there seems to be possibly other real wires visible in other photographs. For example in the below two images – one of an alleged ET woman named Alena supposedly shot in 1977 and the other a screenshot from the raw footage produced by both Jun-Ichi Yaoi (Japanese Ufologist) and Lee Elders/Stevens team – there seems to be an electrical wire in the background indicated by red arrows. Furthermore, the pole-like object seen in both #719 and #726 could be a real object within the scene because the same pole-like object is also seen in the below ET Alena image indicated by the light blue arrow.

ET woman Alena, 1977, ©Billy Meier/FIGU

Source: Wendelle Stevens collection/Joe Fex

CONCLUSION

In this Part 1, we have shown that how Meier not only altered the dates and times of his encounters with the extraterrestrial Energy Ships over the years in different publications but also the circumstances surrounding this “extraordinary” event. Also, we have analyzed ES photos #716, #717, #718, #719 and #726 and concluded that all except #717 (likely a long exposure shot of moon or sun) are images that very likely were generated from the superimposition of two (or more) exposures, either in-camera or in darkroom (sandwich printing).

In our next Part 2, we will analyze the rest of the ES photos, discuss even more artifacts or signs of fakery, and finally reveal the real identity of Energy Ships and the source of the horizontal “wires”.

REFERENCES

  1. Contact Report 123, Monday, June 4, 1979; Semjase Kontakt Berichte, 2nd ed., Vol. 8, 1990; Plejadisch-Plejarische Kontaktberichte Block 3, 2004.
  2. Verzeichnis: Authentischer Farb-Photos, 1986.
  3. Email correspondence with Rhal Zahi, April 20-29, 2017.
  4. Email correspondence with Christian Frehner, April 29-30, 2017.
  5. UFO Contact from the Pleiades: A Preliminary Investigation Report, 1982; Verzeichnis, 1986 and Und sie fliegen doch!, 1991/2001.
  6. Plejadisch-Plejarische Kontaktberichte, Vol. 3, 2004; Und sie fliegen doch!, 2004/2012 and Photo Inventarium, 2014.
  7. Von der <Sonne> geweckt …‘, Zeugenbuch, pgs. 231-235, 2001. In her testimony, Brand mistakenly refers to the day of June 21 as Friday, which actually should be Thursday.
  8. UFO…Contact from the Pleiades, Vol. 2, 1983.

366 total views, 6 views today

Last modified on July 19, 2017 at 6:00 pm