Energy Ship UFO Photos – Part 2/3

Continued from Part 1/3



Source: Billy Meier, 2014 (version 1)

Alteration of dates and times over years:

Verzeichnis, 1986 – 22.6.79, 2:40 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 – 22.6.79
Und sie fliegen doch!, 2012 – 19.4.79
Plejadisch-Plejarische Kontaktberichte Block 3, 2004 – 19.4.79, 2:40 AM
Billy Meier, 2014 – 19.4.79, 2:40 AM
Photo Inventarium, 2014 – 19.4.79, 2:40 AM

A description for this photo from Verzeichnis reads:

One of the Energy Ships above the parking lot of the Centre. The cars that were in the radiation area of the Energy Ships, needed about 5 litres more fuel per 100 km after the disappearance of the ships.

One might think that there are two Energy Ships in the scene, one in the foreground seen above the cars and to the right of the carriage house wall (seen on left in the image), and the other in the far background in front of the Meier’s house. But the light in the far background is simply an incandescent hanging light bulb (below image is of the same light fixture taken about 2 years prior to ES photos), that appear elongated because of the triple exposure as we will soon address in a moment.

ET Alena with Menara’s laser pistol in front of Meier’s office, July 6, 1977

The purported high-res original photo of ES (see 1st image) directly scanned from the (original?) negative which was sent to Mahesh Karumudi in September 2014 looks unsaturated and dull compared to the same image that appeared in their investigation report (see below). Even the same enhanced image is also available on FIGU website’s UFO photo gallery. Why is their such a discrepancy? And why did they manipulate the photo?

Source: Billy Meier, 2014 (version 2)

Z & L claim that the greenish glow on the ground as a sign of interaction between the green radiant light from the ES and the ground. This is utterly preposterous because as already mentioned in Part 1, the highly saturated green color effect is likely due to the cross-processing, a method used to develop negatives from slides and vice-versa. If the ES really is emitting a bright greenish glow, then why is it missing in the same image (see below) from other publications such as Und sie fliegen doch! (2001/2004)? Z & L argues that the tree branches in the far background in the scene have an orange tint and not green tint to them because compared to the ES they are near to the incandescent house light bulb that is hanging just below the eaves of the house. But then why is that part of the house (in shadow) situated towards the right edge of the image and far away from the ES, has a green tint? The answer as mentioned above is simple – the greenish glow spread throughout the image could simply be an effect of cross-processing and nothing to do with the ES’s intrinsic radiation. Unless we have the original, there is simply no way of knowing what the real color of the alleged ES is.

Source: Und sie fliegen doch! (2001/2004)

Z & L, on pg. 17 of their report, citing the thrice-repeated pattern (including the ground light overlapping the front tyre of the car) seen in the below images conclude that the image must be a triple exposure shot (exposures 1, 2 and 3) by Meier with the film release button (see fig. 12, pg. 19) depressed (allowing Meier to take exposures on the same area of film). They speculate that either Meier accidentally pressed the film release button for just those three exposures which is impossible given the location of the film release button (see fig. 12, pg. 19, Z & L report), or a mechanical failure of the button occurred in the time of those three exposures which of course is an strange and extreme coincidence that must have been mentioned by Meier at least once but so far he didn’t.

Source: Rhal Zahi & Chris Lock, fig. 11, pg. 17

What is intriguing to us in the above figure is that the right edge of the fence in the exposures (1 and 2) is somehow missing in the image, whereas both the left and right edge in the 3rd exposure are visible. Is such an artifact possible with in-camera or does it hint at a darkroom fabrication?

Even more intriguing is the complete absence of reflections (and shadows) of the bright glowing ES on cars. The only reflections seen on the cars – for red car on left: rear windshield and its exterior moulding, rear seat headrests and left rear fender; and for the other car: right front fender, headlight glass, bonnet left side and the front windshield – seem to be coming from the light bulb near to Meier’s house in the background and also from the yard lamp on the right outside the frame (which will be dealt in a moment). Even the illumination on the wall of the carriage house is likely from this same yard lamp. Z & L, on pg. 16, do acknowledge the presence of this yard lamp but erroneously downplay its role in the illumination on the car parking ground and carriage house wall by claiming (pg. 39) that this must be very far away ‘on the sloping hill that exists in that area and at a higher elevation than Meier’s house roof eaves since it projects a shadow on Meier’s home wall.’ They also state that this yard lamp is unfortunately…no longer there and what its exact location and height were are unknown.

This is absolutely incorrect because well after Z & L published their report in August 2014 (1st edition), this yard lamp, that never was on the sloping hill (that is to the right of it outside the frame), was still there at the same exact place and may very well still exist to this day. Following images were photographed by an ex-FIGU Passive member 2 months later on his visit to SSSC between October 7 and 11, 2014, at the same car parking location with Meier’s main house in the far background (in left image), and the carriage house on the right (in right image) located fairly closer to the yard lamp seen on left in the background.


Concerning the ES itself, Z & L on pgs. 23 and 27 claim that they show clearly defined vertical scanning-like lights coming off from the base of the ES, that do not diverge at distance as ordinary lights (like torch lights do) but a bit like laser-light except these gradually faded out at distance. And at the same time, on pgs. 26-28, they also claim that there is no indication at all for any holding structures or wires for supplying electricity to the alleged light object as suggested by the skeptics. They argue that they have analyzed this image with superior magnification and found no supporting mechanism (including any light encasements or holders) at all that would ‘almost certainly be evident’ and ‘without a doubt’ would have all been visible as was the case with the “wires” in #718, #719 and #726. Citing these reasons, they assert that the mystery light in the object must be an extraterrestrial ES.

This is very shocking and extremely laughable to say the least because the supposedly non-existent (light) supporting structures are nothing but the so-called vertical scanning-like lights aka the yard lamp posts which are right there in the ES picture staring them right in their faces all the time and yet they failed to notice it.

Comparison photo: Similarities between Energy ship and Lamp post

  1. In the above comparison photo, the left edge of the ES is copied and overlaid towards the right edge of the ES. Notice how perfectly they matched together (ignoring the small difference in the lamp shape that is simply a result of different camera angles in both images), irrefutably proving it to be just a yard lamp post shot in long-exposure.
  2. The indisputable similarity between the vertical scanning-like lights under the ES and the lamp post, as indicated by the purple arrows is pretty self-evident.
  3. The source of the dark gap between the ES and its vertical scanning-like lights indicated by red arrow on left is simply due to the (non-illuminated) lamp holder just underneath the lamp indicated by the red arrow on the right (lit lamp post image is cropped from the one taken by Ex-FIGU Passive member). This same darkening effect can also be seen in photos #1003 and #1007 in Part 3.
  4. Z & L claims that in #720 there are no signs of any darker encasement or guard holding the light together which would almost certainly be evident if an existing light of this size with its encasement were rigged up. But in the above image, contrary to Z & L’s claim, the blue arrow on the left in the ES image is clearly showing a sign of an encasement, which in fact it is as indicated by the right blue arrow.

The supposed “investigators” Zahi and Lock must be extremely credulous and so deeply biased in favor of Meier case that they didn’t even make the obvious connection which they almost made on pgs. 25 and 26 where they state:

‘Curiously, the Energy Ship light is in a very elongated form of the yard lights that existed on Meier’s property at the time.’

‘Meier said the Energy Ships were using local light sources to manifest light of a similar nature [BMUFOR note: See CR 123]. Type 1 Energy Ship is like the home or yard lights on Meier’s property at the time but elongated and distorted into much larger sizes..’

But for some inexplicable reason they utterly failed to notice the glaring similarity between the ES’s vertical scanning-like lights to that of the pole/post of the yard lamp. Instead they went on citing erroneous claims (pgs. 26-27) – such as the shutter speed range of the Olympus 35 ECR camera being 1/4 sec. to 1/800 sec. when in fact its range is from 4 secs. to 1/800 sec. and also on the “missing” holding structures and wires – as ‘significant problems‘ to accept the idea that Meier used yard lights for his fakery.

And for those who doubt that the yard lamp in the car parking area might not be there way back in 1979, well below image is a screenshot from the raw footage produced by both Jun-Ichi Yaoi (Japanese Ufologist) and Lee Elders/Stevens team – showcasing what may be the same lamp post (towards right in the image) at the exact location as the one in ex-FIGU member’s photos above. Meier’s main house is seen in the middle of the image far away and carriage house wall on the left.

Source: Wendelle Stevens collection/Joe Fex

And regarding the “wire” artifact that seems to appear at the same distance from the light objects/”UFOs” in ES photos from Part 1, we have indicated that it must have been part of the superimposed image. And as claimed it indeed is. In fact the “wire” is nothing but a (bottom) section on the lamp post wherefrom the diameter of the post widens slightly, as a consequence of which it receives more light from the lamp than the rest of the post.


Left: A lamp post present near to the kennel which is just to the left outside the frame. Notice the section on the lamp post pointed out by the red arrow in the inset. In Part 1 – under photos #718, #719 and #726 – we have mentioned that the source of light seen on the diagonal wooden pole (attached above the dog house), the sign posts and the nearby greenery could be the adjacent yard lamp (outside the frame) whose location and image will be revealed in Part 2. As promised, the yard lamp seen in this image is exactly that one. This same yard lamp could also be seen in photo #1003 (see Part 3).
Right: The “wire” in #719 perfectly aligns with the spot on the lamp post (seen in left image), even the lamp and the “UFO” themselves albeit a minor difference in the lamp shape that could simply be a result of different camera angles in both images.

For those who doubt that this lamp post may also be not there way back in 1979, well this below screenshot from the same raw footage showcases what may be the same lamp post at the exact location as the above one. While the dog’s kennel can be seen is present in the background, the red sign post, according to Meier in the video, has been shifted away from it to the front.

Source: Wendelle Stevens collection/Joe Fex

What is particularly very, very suspicious to us in throughout this exposé is that Z & L, in their entire 58 page investigate report supposedly proving the ES’s as real extraterrestrial objects, never ever published a single photo of either a lamp or a full lamp post present in many on Meier’s property, even though there are many images/videos of them already publicly available such as this one (see fig. 4) photographed by none other than Michael Horn himself in 2006. This same lamp fixture is even seen in a couple of WCUFO pictures. They are even seen in the ES photos (see further below) supposedly taken by Meier in 1982 (see Part 3), which Z & L never bothered to find out or investigate. One other location where we found a similar lamp post, besides the kennel and the car parking areas, is on the sloping hill opposite to the garage that is located towards the east of the main house (see below). We found a few other lamp posts in and around the center, in private photos of a few visitors to Meier’s center.

UFO…Contact from the Pleiades, Vol. 2, pg. 43, 1983

So it is quite possible and highly probable that Meier may have used one (or more) of the yard lamp posts at his center to stage his fabricated ES photos including this #720. And realizing that skeptics or at least some among his followers had noticed or would notice the indisputable similarities between the ES and the local light sources or objects, Meier had come up with his usual run-of-the-mill excuse (hint: WCUFO) which he published (either before or after the fakery was noticed) in Contact Report 123. Meier states the following in his contact report:

…The crazy thing was that these objects…constantly changed their forms. A car’s headlights came from somewhere; then, these objects assumed their forms. They also mimicked my flashlight headlight and the yard lamps, and the objects in their original forms looked similar to bathtubs..

We can thus safely assume that the ES’s seen in other photos could very well have been rigged using either car’s headlights, flashlight headlight and bathtubs.

Past debunkings of ES


These fabricated images are so simple to make that the former FIGU Core Group members – Herbert Runkel, Bernd Johann and Thomas Klingler – have recreated (date unknown) their own version of the Andromedan Spaceships or Energy Ships.

Left: Leaning against the car is Bernd Johann.
Right: In the foreground, on the hood of the car, are Herbert Runkel (right) and Thomas Klingler (left).

Kalliope Meier

In her 1997 interview – Kalliope Meier breaks her silence (UFO-Kurier, Nr. 30, April 1997) – with Luc Bürgin regarding these ES photos, she stated:

Some of Billy’s photographed motherships are obviously our house lanterns, which he snapped with an open aperture.

To which Meier supporter Michael Hesemann (erroneously and fallaciously) responded in his 1998 article – The Meier Case: UFO Contactee Revealed? (Magazin 2000plus, Vol. 10, pp. 64-71, October 1998) – as follows:

With “motherships” Mrs. Meier obviously refers to the “Energy Ships” photographed in 1979 whose diameter was approximately 3-4 meters/yards. Mrs. Meier was not the originator of the “house-lantern-hypothesis,” but Rolf-Dieter Klein was, a dubious computer freak from Munich, Germany, whose alleged retrocalculation applies only to a single photo, just one of the entire series of pictures—thus making this accusation completely worthless.

David Biedney

In 2006, the photoshop expert David Biedney has analyzed this ES picture among others (received from Michael Horn) in Photoshop and concluded (listen from 28:40 min.) it to be a double exposure, which later was corrected by Michael Horn, with input from two other experts he consulted, to be a triple exposure (see Paracast forum pg. 12) that may have been made “accidentally”. And regarding the vertical scanning-like lights or lamp posts, David in his analysis has inaccurately suggested them as a sign of a dark cloth draped on a platform on which the a light/”UFO” was placed. He writes:

The object was photographed on a platform draped with dark cloth, which you can see under the object. The light of the object made the cloth register on film, and the exposure was bright enough to preserve this artifact in the composite image.

David also presented the following picture (green channel) and suggested it to be a composite image. He writes:

Note the line indicating the edge of superimposed film, how it cuts off the light cone of the luminous object. This is a clear indication of a composite image.

Source: Paracast forum, David Biedney

When we tried to duplicate it we couldn’t reproduce the exact result as above and so we wrote to Biedney requesting him to elucidate all the steps he went through in photoshop. He responded – ‘Sorry, but I would not waste another moment of my life on that bullshit other than to respond and tell you such’ – to which we have nothing to complain.

In addition to the inconsistencies in light reflections and shadows in the image (which we too discussed), David presented another picture suggesting a fabricated composite. He writes:

In this closeup, you can see how the edge of the lighting effect has nothing to do with the actual physical structure of the building. The inset image shows the artificial gradient/transparency of the superimposed layer with respect to the background, something that would never happen in a true single image exposure. This is another clear indication of a fabricated composite.

Source: Paracast forum, David Biedney

Hans-Werner Peiniger

In his updated article reviewing Guido Moosbrugger’s Und sie fligen doch (1991), published in JUFOF, No. 185, Issue #5, 2009, Mr. Peiniger on. pgs. 145-147 points to the similarity between the ES to a random street lamp post and also to the one in Meier’s car parking area.

#724 & #725


Source: Wendelle Stevens collection/Joe Fex

Verzeichnis, 1986 – 22.6.79, 5:25 AM
Billy Meier, 2014 – 22.6.79, 5:25 AM

The description for this image, supposedly taken on 22.6.79 at 5:25 AM, from Verzeichnis, 1986 reads:

One of the energy ships, fading in the daylight, in the west direction from the Center.


Source: Wendelle Stevens collection/Joe Fex

Alteration of dates and times over years:

Verzeichnis, 1986 – 22.6.79, 5:25 AM
Plejadisch-Plejarische Kontaktberichte Block 3, 2004 – 22.6.79, 5:25 AM
Billy Meier, 2014 – 22.6.79, 5:25 AM
Photo Inventarium, 2014 – 23.6.79, 5:25 AM

The description for this image from Verzeichnis, 1986 reads:

One of the energy ships, fading in the daylight, in the north-west direction.

When did Meier photograph this ES, June 22 or June 23? Judging by the given times, similar background and the tree in both images, they must have been made on the same day (June 22 or 23) at around the same time and at the same location. Hence the date given in Photo Invetarium might be a printing mistake. Following composite is obtained by overlaying both images together, #725 on left and #724 on right, indicating the ES’s movement towards left in the scene:

On the apparent difference in size of the ES in both images, Z & L writes that it could be due to perspective of the receding ship as it departs. They argue that technically these images could have been faked using double exposure but there is every reason to suggest that these are ‘genuine‘ because first there is no compelling evidence of double exposure and second, because the ES #727 taken on the next day is ‘most probably genuine’. Puzzled? We aren’t anymore because we have come across several such illogical and fallacious statements throughout their report.

We believe these images are most likely made using double exposure technique, probably with those ordinary light sources that were listed by Meier in his 123rd contact. Now let us look into #727 which they considered as ‘most probably genuine’.


Source: Billy Meier, 2014

Alteration of dates and times over years:

Verzeichnis, 1986 – 22.6.79, 4:16 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 – 23.6.79, 4:16 AM
Und sie fliegen doch!, 2012 – 23.6.79
Billy Meier, 2014 – 23.6.79, 4:16 AM
Photo Inventarium, 2014 – 23.6.79, 4:16 AM

A description for this image from Plejadisch-Plejarische Kontaktberichte Block 3 reads:

One of the energy ships below the crown height of the “Menara Landing” Forest in the northwest direction of the Centre. High in the sky, another energy ship gleams.

Z & L argues that photo #727 could technically be faked using triple exposure – by taking a picture of a passing car headlight and another of some bright light in the sky and then another shot of the trees. But then they presented, on pgs. 34-35, two main reasons why they think this idea has ‘serious problems’ and concluded that they must be real ES’ as mentioned by Meier.

Reason 1:

We have seen in the photo immediately preceding this one (#726) that it was a genuine Energy Ship that lit up the local environment and was therefore not an implanted image or double exposure trick. We will shortly see the exact same goes for the photo immediately after this one (#728). Now there is only six minutes between the shooting of the previous one #726 and this photo #727, and only four minutes between shooting this photo and the next #728 which we also show to be genuine. So if Meier triple exposed this shot he did so after taking a genuine shot, rushed around to get a shot of a car headlight, then got to a friend’s neighboring darkroom for a sky shot deception, took the film out of the camera, put it back in again in perfect synchrony without any telltale signs of overlapping borders, and arrived back home all within 10 minutes, when he then, unplanned, immediately took another genuine shot. If there were days between the shots the hoax idea would be more practicably tenable; but why would anyone go to such absurd, and most likely, impossible steps to fake a photo in ten minutes at two in the morning in between taking two genuine ones? 

Reason 2:

..the light in the sky shows some interaction with the sky itself. It appears to be lighting up the distant atmosphere or mist in a nonuniform manner meaning the light is very bright and not something rigged up. (..) we also see a brightly shining orb-like object, or another ship. It has indistinct edges and just looks like a brightly shining orb of light with indeterminate dimensions. Looking at the star map for this time we were able to conclude that it is not the moon, which was below the horizon at this hour and only 8% bright. So what looks somewhat like a full moon cannot be the moon; it is yet another Energy Ship.

These deeply flawed arguments once again reflects how the so-called “investigators” (Z & L) would carelessly and credulously accept anything that Meier says as truth.

First, they claim that it is quite ‘absurd, and most likely, impossible’ for Meier to fake #727 in a duration of less than 10 minutes. Here they are making an underlying assumption that the dates and times given by Meier corresponds with the actual dates and times of the photographs. Meier could very well have taken this ES photograph entirely on a different day and time than the one he claimed. So he could have plenty of time – several hours or days or even weeks – during which he could have easily fabricated his photo #727 using superimposition, in-camera or darkroom. The source of the ES on the left in the image could be one of the ordinary light sources mentioned by Meier in CR 123, and the bright orb-like light could very well be the sun photographed at a different time that is convenient to Meier.

And second, they ask rhetorically as to why would he fabricate a photo that was taken between two genuine ES photos #726 and #728. But the fact of the matter is that in Part 1 (and also in this Part 2 above) we already have demonstrated #726 to be a fake one fabricated using superimposition, and in a moment would demonstrate why #728 is most likely a fake one too.

The line of reasoning, these so-called “investigators” are using is so terribly naive and pathetic, reflecting their seeming level of “objectivity” and “logic”. They claim that the ES photos #724 and #725 could be genuine because the photo #727 taken on the next day is also genuine, and under #727 they now claim that the photo #727 could be genuine because photos taken before and after it i.e. #726 and #728 are genuine!!!


Source: Billy Meier, 2014

Alteration of dates and times over years:

Verzeichnis, 1986 – 22.6.79, 4:20 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 – 22.6.79
Plejadisch-Plejarische Kontaktberichte Block 3, 2004 – 23.6.79, 4:20 AM
Through Space and Time, 2004 – 23.6.79, 4:20 AM
Und sie fliegen doch!, 2012 – 23.6.79
Billy Meier, 2014 – 23.6.79, 4:20 AM
Photo Inventarium, 2014 – 19.4.79, 2:41 AM

A description for this image from the Plejadisch-Plejarische Kontaktberichte Block 3 reads:

Two energy ships above the parking lot of the Centre. Only a radiation light from the second ship is visible in the picture on the right.

It is intriguing that Meier takes this image more than 2 months later from almost the same spot as the one in #720. Unlike #720, the background in this photo (excluding the ES which is shot in long exposure) is just taken in one exposure and not three. Moreover, just like #720, the light object/”UFO” in this image also perfectly matches with the shape of the yard lamp, albeit shot straight-on (eye-level shot) compared to the slight low-angle shot in #720. This camera angle is the reason why, except its side profile, we don’t see the underside of the lamp encasement here at the left and right extremes of the “UFO”. In the below image, the left-most part of the ES is copied and overlaid towards the right-most part of the ES, demonstrating the perfect match with a yard lamp. And unlike #720, Meier, probably through darkroom processing, has cut out/masked the series of lamp posts that were very conspicuous in #720, perhaps after someone has pointed out the obvious similarity between the ES with its vertical scanning-like lights and the yard lamps.

Left edge of the ES copied is over to the right edge, demonstrating a perfect match with the yard lamp

Z & L, just like in #720, once again makes the spurious argument (see below figure) that the source for the greenish tint on the ground (under the ES’s) and the greenish glow seen at the right edge are the two ES’s (one seen in full in the center of the image and the other partly visible at the right edge) and light bulb 2 outside the frame. These greenish glows/reflections/tints, Z & L argues, helps us differentiate between the sources of light emitted by the two ES’s and light bulb 2 (in greenish tone) and the light bulb 1 (in orangish tone).

Source: Rhal Zahi & Chris Lock, fig. 24, pg. 38

But when compared with the same image from other sources – like for example the below uncropped and untouched version (except the reduction in file size) from Wendelle Steven’s archives – one finds no greenish glows at all, none throughout the entire photograph (except the reddish bands on the entire left and above the ES in the middle, present in all versions). And as already explained in #720, the simple reason for these color variation artifacts is probably due to cross-processing, a method used to develop negatives from slides and vice-versa. Unless we have the original, there is simply no way of knowing what the real colors of the alleged ES’s and the light bulb 2 (which by the way seems very odd to use a light that emits in green spectrum, particularly at a place surrounded by a lot of greenery) are.

Source: Wendelle Stevens collection/Joe Fex

Regarding the reddish bands, which are also visible in photo #726 (see fig. 18, pg. 30, Z & L report; not visible in Wendelle Steven’s version), they might be caused by either an anomaly on the slide or negative or print. Or perhaps due to several other reasons like copying of the color films, light leaks, scanning artifacts, etc. They might also be a part of the superimposed ES exposure or simply due to superimposition. Unless we have the original, there is simply no way of knowing the exact source for those reddish bands.

And just as was the case with #720, in #728 too we find are no reflections (and shadows) of the two brightly glowing ES’s on the three cars in the parking ground. Rather the only reflections seen on the three cars seem to be coming from the light bulb 1 near to Meier’s house in the background and also from the yard lamp (light bulb 2) on the right outside the frame.

Other than the two ES’s in the image which Meier claimed he had photographed, Z & L claimed to have newly uncovered a ‘companion translucent flying sphere’ or ‘possibly…a fourth type of Energy Ship’ visible to the left of the main ES in #728 and also in #720, which Meier apparently never mentioned ever. It is still unknown whether or not Meier endorsed their findings, but Z & L strongly assert that they have ruled out the most plausible explanation of them being simple lens flares. In the below composite image – #720 on left and #728 on right – Z & L highlights with red circle the location of the ‘mysterious spheres…hovering over Meier’s parking lot’. Refer to the high-res versions provided above.

Source: Rhal Zahi & Chris Lock, fig. 31, pg. 49

And in the below composite image, they provided the close-up sections of #720 on left and #728 on right where they point out the “spheres” and further asserted that they really are two different “spheres” because the one in #720 has a ‘tiny black dot’ in the center, whereas the one in #728 has a ‘bright reddish object’ at its center.

Source: Rhal Zahi & Chris Lock, fig. 31, pg. 49

Can this get any more absurd?

First, the tiny black dot pointed out by Z & L in #720 is not the only one present in that image, in fact there are many such dots spread through out the image, formed perhaps from mishandling (ex: dust) of the negative or slide, or it could simply be an image compression artifact. And second, when trying a generate a circle with that tiny black dot as center in photoshop, its boundary never match with that of the “sphere” indicating that it could never be the center. And third, right adjacent to this tiny black dot, one can clearly see a similar star-shaped form, also present in #728 at its center. And moreover, when a circle is generated in photoshop with this star-shaped form in #720 as its center, its boundary perfectly matches up with that of the “sphere”. All this quite clearly suggest that the shape and structure of the center of the two “spheres” in two separate images are virtually the same, but not different as Z & L proclaims.

Z & L argue that those “spheres” couldn’t be lens flare as commonly believed because they don’t obey the so-called lens flare properties which they listed in their report. They even cited 4 photographs (available online in the public domain) as examples supposedly demonstrating those lens flare properties.

But as it turns out, not every lens flare has to follow these properties all the time and they vary from case to case depending upon several factors like the angle of the incoming or internally reflected light (whose original source could be either within or outside the field of view) with respect to the camera lens, to the lens filter (planar or curved), to the diaphragm blades and also at the film. Even the number of lens elements, stains on the lens/filter, camera light leakage could play a role. The type of lens flare also depend upon the type of the medium used – film or digital. Diffraction artifact is one form of lens flare specific only to digital cameras. And the manifestations of these flares are diverse and range from – colored patches, ghost images, haloes, a haze over the entire image, as a three-dimensional looking spindle, as an oval blob, beam-shaped or streaks, arc/ring/blob/coma/disc-shaped, polygonal-shaped (usually caused by the shape of lens iris), etc. – and any mixture or variation of all the above.

If this sounds too complicated and confusing, don’t worry as we will simply prove our point by providing images with lens flares that doesn’t follow the so-called rules which Z & L apparently state that every lens flare should do. And ironically, we will do it by citing one of the four images provided by Z & L (on pg. 51 of their report) themselves to support their claims.

According to Z & L, the reflected image (or lens flare) should be in the same line that connects the center of the photo to the real image. To demonstrate their point, in the below image fig. 32, pg. 51 of their report, they drew a red line joining the real image (sun) to its reflected image (bright spot) seen at the bottom through the center of the image indicated by the red dot.

Source: Rhal Zahi & Chris Lock, fig. 32, pg. 51

But when we took the same above image (high-res version available here), put it in photoshop, drew diagonals to find the center point (C), we found that it doesn’t fall on the red line connecting the sun and its reflected image (lens flare), as shown below. Yet the opposite was claimed and even was visually “demonstrated” by Z & L, raising serious suspicion on their integrity or objectivity.


Several such examples, like the below one, where the imaginary line joining the light source and its reflection not passing through the image center can easily be found online.


Besides, all the four examples that Z & L cited in their report exclusively showcases a bright light source (sun) and its  mirror image, also called mirror-ghosting, a specific type of lens flare. There were absolutely no examples given for the more commonly occurring lens flares – veiling flares, aperture ghosting, star bursts and other chromatic aberrations or artifacts like this one. Seems like they either deliberately presented a specific set of examples that supports only their pro-Meier conclusions or they must be lacking in knowledge about the basics of lens flares which is rather unlikely given that Chris Lock is a professional photographer and also a Fellow of the Society of Architectural Illustration (FSAI).

Now coming to the “spheres” present in Meier’s images #720 and #728, they have a striking resemblance to orb-shaped lens flares present in the below images. Especially compare the forms at the center of the “spheres” and the orbs.

Following is a composite image showing how the orb-shaped lens flares (on the left) are virtually identical to the “mysterious spheres” (on the right), unknown to Meier and supposedly discovered by Z & L for the first time only after three decades.

Comparing lens flares on left with Billy Meier’s “sphere” UFOs on right

Also, on pgs. 52-53, Z & L claim that since the distances from the picture center to the reflected images (lens flare) and real images (lens flare source i.e. light bulb #1), in both #720 and #728 aren’t equal, hence they can’t be lens flares. Again this is absurd. For example in this below picture, according to Z & L’s supposed lens flare properties, the light source (sun) should be within the frame and right exactly at the end of the red line on the Jesus statute, a distance (from the image center) that should be identical to the distance from the image center to the lens flare. But the Sun is obviously at the top right outside the frame, thus “violating” Z & L’s supposed lens flare properties. Also, the line connecting the lens flare to the Sun doesn’t happen to pass through the image center, once again “violating” another of Z & L’s supposed lens flare property.


It must be quite clear for you now that Meier’s ardent supporters Z & L would, wilfully or not, twist and contrive any evidence that they can’t find a prosaic explanation to, and immediately label it as “mysterious” phenomenon, thereby urging the readers to consider it as either paranormal or extraterrestrial. In this “spheres” case they are suggesting that the so-called ‘companion translucent flying sphere’ visible in both #720 and #728 to be possibly ‘a fourth type of Energy Ship’, all the while ignoring the mundane explanation that they are ordinary lens flares.


In this Part 2 of the investigation, we have analyzed photos #720, #724, #725, #727 and #728 and concluded that the so-called extraterrestrial Energy Ships, especially #720 and #728, are in reality simply the yard lamps present on Meier’s property that were first shot in long exposure to create the elongated light object/”UFO” effect and then later superimposed (either in-camera or darkroom) onto the background scenery. Perhaps after someone has pointed out the glaring resemblances of the ES’s to those of the yard lamps and other local light sources, Meier had contrived an excuse saying that these ES’s somehow out of the blue manifested in very recognizable shapes that “coincidentally” are identical to the forms not only of the yard lamps but also of the flash light headlights, car headlights and bath tubs which likely have been utilized by Meier in his fakery.

And as suspected from most of the Billy Meier’s hardcore believers, Rhal Zahi and Chris Lock through their deeply flawed reasoning, lack of critical thinking and bias, once again demonstrated through their so-called investigation report (58 pages) riddled with errors, assumptions and false statements, that they would ascribe anything they can’t explain or conceive as extraordinary or mysterious or extraterrestrial. All the while, earnestly omitting the facts and ignoring the down-to-earth prosaic explanation that Meier most certainly had used ordinary light sources as basis for his forgery of the purported extraterrestrial Energy Ships. In Part 3, we will look at the rest of the ES photos.

 4,787 total views,  2 views today

Last modified on July 21, 2017 at 4:23 pm