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

From Future Of Mankind
← Older editNewer edit →
J jansen (talk | contribs)
865 edits
No edit summary
J jansen (talk | contribs)
865 edits
No edit summary
Line 700: Line 700:


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.
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.
----
==<font color="000088" face="arial"> Korff & the Frecht Nature Preseve photos (pp. 139-145)</font>==
----
<font color="ff0000">Wrong total of photos (1)</font>
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.
<font color="ff0000">Korff omits Meier's comments relevant to focus discrepancy</font>
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.
<font color="ff0000">150 meters is not 162.5 feet</font>
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.
<font color="ff0000">Korff omits Meier's comments regarding focus discrepancy in second photo</font>
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:
<blockquote> "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." </blockquote>
<font color="ff0000">An example of faulty reasoning by Korff</font>
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.
<font color="ff0000">Incorrect reference</font>
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.
<font color="ff0000">Korff's Fig. 22 doesn't show the whole picture</font>
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).
<font color="ff0000">Korff omits Meier's comments regarding suspicious aspects of 4th picture</font>
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:
<blockquote> "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." </blockquote>
----
==<font color="000088" face="arial">Korff & the "Unter-Balm Photographs" (pp. 146-158)</font>==
----
<font color="ff0000">The Unter-Balm Photographs (plural?)</font>
"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."
<font color="ff0000">Korff's false claim of finding "the exact same spot"</font>
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===
|-
| '''<font color="000088">Meier's photo #41 </font>'''
| '''<font color="000088">Korff's recreations</font>'''
|-
| '''<font color="000088">''Korff's<br /> 1995 book:''</font>'''
| valign="top" | ''' p. 149: 0.45/0.55 = 0.82<br /> p. 151: 0.60/0.70 = 0.86 '''
| valign="top" | ''' p. 149: 0.33/0.65 = 0.51 <br /> p. 150: 0.30/0.50 = 0.52 <br /> p. 151: 0.40/0.75 = 0.53 '''
|-
| <font color="000088">'''''Stevens'<br /> 1982 book:'''''</font>
| valign="top" | '''p. 304: 0.75/0.90 = 0.88 '''
|}
{|
|
===Table 4-2===
|-
| '''<font color="000088">Meier's photo #41 </font>'''
| '''<font color="000088">Korff's recreations</font>'''
|-
| '''<font color="000088">''Korff's<br /> 1995 book:''</font>'''
| valign="top" | ''' p. 149: 0.45/0.45 = 1<br /> p. 151: 0.60/0.55 = 1.10 '''
| valign="top" | '''p. 149: 0.33/0.50 = 0.66 <br /> p. 150: 0.30/0.50 = 0.60<br /> p. 151: 0.40/0.60 = 0.66'''
|-
| <font color="000088">'''''Stevens'<br /> 1982 book:'''''</font>
| valign="top" | '''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.
{|
|
[[Image:4-1.jpg]]
| rowspan="4" valign="TOP" |
=====<font color="000088">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. </font>=====
<font color="000088"> 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. </font>
|-
|
=====<center><font color="000088">Meier's photo</font></center>=====
|-
|
[[Image:4-2.jpg]]
|-
|
=====<center><font color="000088">Korff's recreation </font></center>=====
|}
<font color="ff0000">Why the interior of the beamship should not necessarily have shown up in photo #41</font>
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]).
<font color="ff0000">The middle photo on p. 156 shows admitted model</font>
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.
----
==<font color="000088" face="arial"> Korff & the February 27, 1975, Fuchsbüel am Hofhalden photos (pp. 159-162) </font>==
----
<font color="ff0000">Other photos of these sequence don't show the suspicious aspects</font>
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).
<font color="ff0000">Korff's inconsistent listing of photo numbers</font>
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.
----
==<font color="000088" face="arial">Korff & the Jakobsberg-Allenberg photos (pp. 163-168)</font>==
----
<font color="ff0000">Wrong total of photos (2)</font>
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.
<font color="ff0000">Why the photos are not double exposures</font>
On p. 165 Korff claims regarding this photo sequence:
<blockquote> 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. </blockquote>
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).
<font color="ff0000">Korff is wrong about the purpose of this photo event</font>
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.
----
==<font color="000088" face="arial">Korff & the 9 July, 1975, Fuchsbüel am Hofhalden photos (pp. 169-193)</font>==
----
<font color="ff0000">Wrong total of photos (3)</font>
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.
<font color="ff0000">Why the cloud formations do not necessarily change too fast</font>
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===
{| border="1"
!
<center> TIME </center>
!
<center> # </center>
! align="left" | DESCRIPTION
!
<center> Korff's Fig. </center>
|-
|
<center> 15:07 </center>
|
<center> 71 </center>
| rowspan="4" valign="TOP" | 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).
|
<center> 42 </center>
|-
|
<center> 15:07 </center>
|
<center> 76 </center>
|
<center> 43 </center>
|-
|
<center> 15:08 </center>
|
<center> 69 </center>
|
<center> 44 </center>
|-
|
<center> 15:08 </center>
|
<center> 70 </center>
|
<center> 45 </center>
|-
| valign="top" |
<center> 15:08 </center>
| valign="top" |
<center> 119 </center>
| 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).
| valign="top" |
<center> 48 </center>
|-
|
<center> 15:09 </center>
|
<center> 65 </center>
| rowspan="6" valign="top" | 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).
|
<center> 47 </center>
|-
|
<center> 15:09 </center>
|
<center> 64 </center>
|
<center> 46 </center>
|-
|
<center> 15:10 </center>
|
<center> 55 </center>
|
<center> 49 </center>
|-
|
<center> 15:10 </center>
|
<center> 56 </center>
|
<center> - </center>
|-
|
<center> 15:11 </center>
|
<center> 66 </center>
|
<center> 50 </center>
|-
|
<center> 15:14 </center>
|
<center> 57 </center>
|
<center> 51 </center>
|}
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.
<font color="ff0000">False claim</font>
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.
<font color="ff0000">Korff omits the data which support the "disapearing tree story"</font>
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.
----
==<font color="000088" face="arial"> Korff & the Bachtelhörnli-Unterbachtel photos (pp: 194-200)</font>==
----
<font color="ff0000">Unsupported claims</font>
On pp. 194-196 Korff states:
<blockquote> 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." </blockquote>
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.
<font color="ff0000">False claim</font>
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.
<font color="ff0000">Upward arced "suspension line" in Korff's Fig. 66</font>
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.
{|
|
=====<font color="000088">Korff's fig. 66 (p. 198), showing the alleged suspension line.</font>=====
|
[[Image:4-3.gif]]
|}
<font color="ff0000">More problems with Korff's "suspension lines"</font>
There are further obvious problems with the "supportive devices" Korff presents on pp. 197-200 of his book:
1) All the "suspension lines" Korff presents are smooth, quasi-horizontal lines or sweeping arcs. One cannot avoid the conclusion that the weight of a model attached to them by an invisible string would cause them to suffer a shallow V-shaped kink at a point of attachment vertically above the UFO. None of the "suspension lines" in Korff's photos exhibit this essential characteristic.
2) Korff's "supportive structures" don't show indications of lines connecting the UFOs to the quasi-horizontal lines. If a genuine supportive-structure line were to show up in a photo, it would likely exhibit a thickened point or nodule at the suspension point.
Photo enhancements displaying the problems with the model hypothesis discussed above:
{|
|
=====<font color="000088">Korff's Fig. 64 (p. 197) showing "supportive devices" in photo #237.</font>=====
|
[[Image:4-4.gif]]
|}
{|
|
[[Image:4-5.gif]]
|
=====<font color="000088">Korff's Fig. 68 (p. 199) showing the "suspension lines" in photo #183.</font>=====
|}
{|
|
=====<font color="000088">Korff's Fig. 70 (p. 200) showing "suspension lines" in photo #240.</font>=====
|
[[Image:4-6.gif]]
|}
----
==<font color="000088" face="arial">Korff & the Hasenböl-Langenberg photos (pp: 201-207)</font>==
----
<font color="ff0000">Self-contradictionary statements by Korff</font>
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''<nowiki>; Meier claims he took the Bachtelhörnli photos on 8 March, 1976 and not 28 March, 1976, as Stevens has it. </nowiki>
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".
<font color="ff0000">Another error</font>
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].
----
==<font color="000088" face="arial">Korff & the Schmärbüel-Maiwinkle photos (pp: 208-214)</font>==
----
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".
<font color="ff0000">Korff's incorrect photo totals</font>
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===
{|
! valign="top&quot;" | <font color="000088">Has total wrong at the beginning of this photo sequence discussion.</font>
! valign="top" | <font color="000088"> Has total wrong further <br /> on in this photo sequence discussion.</font>
|-
| valign="top" | <font color="000088"> Frecht Nature <br /> Preserve: </font>
| valign="top" | Yes, on p. 139 only 6<br /> of the 7 photos are listed. Photo #818 is missing.
| valign="top" | No
|-
| valign="top" | <font color="000088"> Jacobsberg-<br /> Allenberg: </font>
| valign="top" | No.
| valign="top" | Yes, on p. 165 & 166 he speaks of 10 photos instead of 11.
|-
| valign="top" | <font color="000088"> Fuchsbüel<br /> (7-9-75): </font>
| valign="top" | Yes, on p. 169 only 10<br /> of the 11 photos are <br /> listed. Photo #119 is <br /> missing.
| valign="top" | Yes, repeats claim of only 10 photos. Fails to present picture of photo #56.
|-
| valign="top" | <font color="000088"> Bachtelhörnli:</font>
| valign="top" | No.
| valign="top" | No.
|-
| <font color="000088"> Hasenböl:</font>
| valign="top" | No.
| valign="top" | No.
|-
| valign="top" | <font color="000088"> Schmärbüel </font>
| valign="top" | Yes, on p. 208 he lists <br /> only 13 of the 14 <br /> photos. Photo #257 is <br /> missing.
| valign="top" | Yes, on p. 208 he speaks of 13 photos instead of 14.
|-
| <font color="000088"> Schmidrüeti </font>
| No.
| No.
|}

Revision as of 17:02, 21 May 2009

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

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.

File:Cover.gif 

[#c1  Chapter 1: Eduard "Billy" Meier: The Man, the Claims ]
[#c2  Chapter 2: The Undercover Trip to Switzerland]
[#c3  Chapter 3: Genesis III's "Analyses" of Meier's Photographs. ]
[#c4  Chapter 4: Conclusive Analyses of Billy Meier's "UFO" Photographs. ]
[#c5  Chapter 5: Smoking Guns: Analyzing Meier's "Time-Travel" Photographs ]
[#c6  Chapter 6: Analyses of Billy Meier's "Alien" Metal Samples]
[#c7  Chapter 7: Other Meier "Evidence"]

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

Topic: Point of critique: Page(s):
Korff on Meier's life and the history of the case

[article.php?id=40&sn=1#1 -Omission of certain info about Meier's past]

23

[article.php?id=40&sn=1#2 -The evolution of Meier's contact notes]

26

[article.php?id=40&sn=1#3 -Error in translation]

28

[article.php?id=40&sn=1#4 -Why the term cult is unfounded amd misapplied]

29

[article.php?id=40&sn=1#5 -How fast Wendelle Stevens became a "believer"]

30
Korff on Meier's claims

[article.php?id=40&sn=1#6 -The amount of contacts]

37

[article.php?id=40&sn=1#7 -How Meier took his photos/films]

37

[article.php?id=40&sn=1#8 -"Meier saved Jesus from a beating one time"]

38
-

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

Topic: Point of critique:
Page(s):
Korff at Meier's farm

[article.php?id=40&sn=2#1 -Why Korff's "channeling garden"-story is a lie]

90-91

[article.php?id=40&sn=2#2 -Elisabeth Gruber]

73

[article.php?id=40&sn=2#3 -The name "Zafiriou"]

77
The Talmud of Jmmanuel

[article.php?id=40&sn=2#4 -"The Talmud Immanuel..." ]

78-84
Soil samples of landing-tracks

[article.php?id=40&sn=2#5 -Why Korff lies about having seen landing-tracks]

67-69

[article.php?id=40&sn=2#6 -Why Korff didn't obtain any soil samples of the landing-tracks]

98-99
-

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

Topic: Point of critique: Page(s):
Original negatives

[article.php?id=40&sn=3# -"There are no original negatives in existence"]

109-110
Neil Davis' analysis

[article.php?id=40&sn=3#2 -More than one positive comment in Davis' report]

122-123
-

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

Topic: Point of critique:
Page(s):
Frecht Nature Preserve photos

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#1 -Wrong total of photos (1)]

139

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#2 -Korff omits Meier's comments relevant to focus discrepancy]

142

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#3 -150 meters is not 162.5 feet]

140

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#4 -Korff omits Meier's comments regarding focus discrepancy in second photo]

144-145

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#5 -An example of faulty reasoning by Korff]

141

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#6 -Incorrect reference]

140

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#7 -Korff's Fig. 22 doesn't show the whole picture]

143

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#8 -Korff omits Meier's comments regarding suspicious aspects of 4th picture]

143
-Unter-Balm photo
-Jacobsberg-Allenberg photos (2-27-75)
-Vrenelis Gärtli GL UFO Model photo

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#9 -The Unter-Balm Photographs (plural?)]

146

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#10 -Korff's false claim of finding "the exact same spot"]

147

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#11 -Why the interior of the beamship should not necessarily have shown up in photo #41]

147

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#12 -The middle photo on p. 156 shows admitted model]

156
Fuchsbüel photos (2-27-75)

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#13 -Other photos of these sequence don't show the suspicious aspects]

159

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#14 -Korff's inconsistent listing of photo numbers]

159
Jakobsberg-Allenberg photos

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#15 -Wrong total of photos (2)]

165-166

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#16 -Why the photos are not double exposures]

165

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#17 -Korff is wrong about the purpose of this photo event.]

163
Fuchsbüel photos (7-9-75)

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#18 -Wrong total of photos (3)]

169

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#19 -Why the cloud formations do not necessarily change too fast]

172-176

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#20 -False claim]

175

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#21 -Korff omits the data which support the "disapearing tree story"]

185-186
Bachtelhörni-Unterbachtel photos

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#22 -Unsupported claims]

194-196

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#23 -False claim]

194

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#24 -Upward arced "suspension line" in Korff's Fig. 66]

198

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#25 -More problems with Korff's "suspension lines"]

197-200
Hasenböl-Langenberg photos

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#26 -Self-contradictionary statements by Korff]

201

[article.php?id=40&sn=4#27 -Another error]

202
-

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

Topic: Point of critique:
Page(s):
General remarks by Korff
about "Time-Travel" photos

[article.php?id=40&sn=5#1 -Misleading statement by Korff]

233

-[article.php?id=40&sn=5#2 Not second but first trip]

233

-[article.php?id=40&sn=5#3 No visits to the Pleiades or to alien worlds in DAL Universe]

234

-[article.php?id=40&sn=5#4 Incorrect reference]

234

-[article.php?id=40&sn=5#5 No contradiction]

266
Venus photos

[article.php?id=40&sn=5#6 -False reference]

235

[article.php?id=40&sn=5#7 -Another false reference]

235

[article.php?id=40&sn=5#8 -And... another false reference]

235

[article.php?id=40&sn=5#9 -Meier didn't use "special alien photographing device"]

236
Apollo-Soyuz docking photos

[article.php?id=40&sn=5#10 -Korff omits Meier's comments regarding curved screen]

241

[article.php?id=40&sn=5#11 -Possible explanation for out-of-focus aspect]

241

[article.php?id=40&sn=5#12 -Meier's time for Apollo-Soyuz link-up is correct]

242

[article.php?id=40&sn=5#13 -Unfounded claim]

243

[article.php?id=40&sn=5#14 -Does Korff's Fig. 94 show the Soyuz in space?]

244
"DAL Universe cosmonauts" photos

[article.php?id=40&sn=5#15 -Not Pleidian but DAL spaceship]

245

[article.php?id=40&sn=5#16 -Possible explanation for curved screen]

245

[article.php?id=40&sn=5#17 -Korff ignores info in favor of curtains]

245
Korff on some of the other "time-travel" photos

[article.php?id=40&sn=5#18 -Meier didn't photograph Neberian dino's during space trip]

248-251

[article.php?id=40&sn=5#19 -Meier didn't photograph Neberian cave-man during great space trip]

252-255

[article.php?id=40&sn=5#20 -Don't take "God's Eye" story literally]

261-264
-

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

Topic: Point of critique:
Page(s):
Korff claims Vogel gave him "other half" of unique metal sample in May 1980 and that a new analysis shows it's merely silver soldier

[article.php?id=40&sn=6#1 -Why Korff never received a piece of the mysterious metal sample]

291

[article.php?id=40&sn=6#2 -No analysis by Vogel in "early 1980"]

276

[article.php?id=40&sn=6#3 -Why the Olgilvie analysis never took place]

278

[article.php?id=40&sn=6#4 -Korff's confusion between thallium and thulium]

277
Additional points of critique

[article.php?id=40&sn=6#5 -Example of innuendo by Korff]

273

[article.php?id=40&sn=6#6 -Korff copies obvious error from pro-Meier literature]

273

[article.php?id=40&sn=6#7 -The Swiss lab was informed of alleged ET origin of sample]

274

[article.php?id=40&sn=6#8 -Walker's analysis is mentioned in more than one pro Meier-book]

275

[article.php?id=40&sn=6#9 -Korff omits mysterious aspects of metal sample disappearance]

278-279
-

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

Topic: Point of critique:
Page(s):
Korff on the landing-tracks

[article.php?id=40&sn=7#1 -Korff omits important landing-track data]

298-303

[article.php?id=40&sn=7#2 -Korff omits testimonies of witnesses who studied landing-tracks]

301

[article.php?id=40&sn=7#3 -Korff omits important characteristics of Pleiadian landing-tracks]

298

[article.php?id=40&sn=7#4 -What Korff's experiment fails to explain]

300-301

[article.php?id=40&sn=7#5 -Korff's pressboard is too small]

303

[article.php?id=40&sn=7#6 -No swirl in Korff recreation]

303

[article.php?id=40&sn=7#7 -Not all Pleiadian landing-tracks consisted of three circular shaped impressions in the grass]

298-303

[article.php?id=40&sn=7#8 -Korff omits non-Pleiadian landing-tracks]

298-303

[article.php?id=40&sn=7#9 -Insect infestation not a characteristic of Pleiadian landing-tracks]

301
Korff on the UFO witnesses

[article.php?id=40&sn=7#10 -Korff omits important sources of UFO witness information]

304-307

[article.php?id=40&sn=7#11 -Korff omits several UFO witnesses]

304

[article.php?id=40&sn=7#12 -Not all UFO witnesses are or were members of Meier's group]

306

[article.php?id=40&sn=7#13 -Not only "blobs of light rising in the night sky"]

306

[article.php?id=40&sn=7#14 -Korff omits the non-UFO witness testimonies]

304-307

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.

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.

"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.

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.

File:4-1.jpg

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

File:4-2.jpg

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.

File:4-3.gif

More problems with Korff's "suspension lines"

There are further obvious problems with the "supportive devices" Korff presents on pp. 197-200 of his book:

1) All the "suspension lines" Korff presents are smooth, quasi-horizontal lines or sweeping arcs. One cannot avoid the conclusion that the weight of a model attached to them by an invisible string would cause them to suffer a shallow V-shaped kink at a point of attachment vertically above the UFO. None of the "suspension lines" in Korff's photos exhibit this essential characteristic.

2) Korff's "supportive structures" don't show indications of lines connecting the UFOs to the quasi-horizontal lines. If a genuine supportive-structure line were to show up in a photo, it would likely exhibit a thickened point or nodule at the suspension point.

Photo enhancements displaying the problems with the model hypothesis discussed above:

Korff's Fig. 64 (p. 197) showing "supportive devices" in photo #237.

File:4-4.gif

File:4-5.gif

Korff's Fig. 68 (p. 199) showing the "suspension lines" in photo #183.
Korff's Fig. 70 (p. 200) showing "suspension lines" in photo #240.

File:4-6.gif

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.
Retrieved from "https://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/w/index.php?title=Web_site_files_pointing_out_shortcomings_in_Korff%27s_Spaceships_of_the_Pleiades,_Internet,_January_2003&oldid=5910"