Difference between revisions of "Analysis of Korff's Spaceships of the Pleiades (small version), Internet, January 2003"

m (Proof that Meier lies about his photographing location?)
(Proof that Meier lies about his photographing location?)
Line 212: Line 212:
| width="100" |
===>Table 2===
===>Table 2===

Revision as of 19:23, 22 May 2009

Analysis of Korff's Spaceships of the Pleiades: The Billy Meier Story (introduction)

This article will go into detail about the book Spaceships of the Pleiades: The Billy Meier Story. This is the only official book ever published about the Billy Meier contactee case which tries to prove hoax theory. It is written by the American Kal Korff and was published in 1995 by Prometheus books.

'Background info. When I came accross this book I had already read Light Years by Gary Kinder and Wendelle Stevens Preliminary Investigation Report. As a part of my "quest for the truth" about the case I started also reading Korff's book After all, it's not a bad thing to inform oneselves about both the positive as the negative aspects of a matter; only in this way one can obtain a more complete and balanced picture about something. Things looked very promising because the book was praised by many people in the UFO field and reportedly contained painstaking research, smoking guns and reportedly was a good example of critical and objective investigation report. If we are to believe Walt Andrus (international director of MUFON) the book contains "outstanding research", and according to Jerome Clark (vice-president of CUFOS) the book is "the definitive exposé of the most ambitious UFO hoax in history" (see cover of Korff's book). Also, Dennis Stacy, former editor of the MUFON journal) calls the book "a stunning expose" in a book review.


Needless to say my expectations were high and I was looking forward to reading smoking gun information like for example the testimony of some of Meier's accomplices who explained hoax aspects like funding, logistics, techniques, secrecy etc. Or explanations for the complex characteristics of Meier's 8mm movie films. Or convincing replications of Meier's July , 1975 Fuchsbüel photo series, in which a UFO hovers at different position next to a mature looking conifer tree. Or explanations regarding the Berg-Rumlikon UFO photos in which the UFO seems to reflect objects in the landscape. However, when reading the book it soon became clear that the book didn't contain such information. Later, when studying Korff's claims somewhat further it became clear that Korff's book hadn't much to do with finding out the real truth about Meier's evidence and can be depicted as knocking Meier and his evidence into the ground in a unobjective and unscientific way under the cloak of critical thinking and scientific research. Korff's book is a real debunking work. All Korff's explanations and arguments about Meier's evidence are grounded on the omission of a lot of relevant data, distorted data, incorrect data or simply no data at all. To give some examples: Korff completely ignores Meier's 8 mm movie films and all their complex characteristics, his explanation for the alien metal samples is one big distortion, his claim of finding the real location where photo #41 was taken is obviously wrong as is his claim that photo #63 according to Meier displays a spaceship. His claims about the actual source of the information in Meier's contact notes is completely unsubstantiated.

Goal. The main goal of this article is to demonstrate the flaws and errors in Korff's "explanations" for Meier's evidence and in this way showing his obviously biased and unscientific approach and showing that after 27 years little if anything has been explained about this legendary UFO case. Which in itself is strong evidence for the reality of Billy Meier's claims. The fact that the contents of Korff's book were praised and copied by UFO authorities and their followers around the world says a lot about the deplorable state UFOlogy is in nowadays. I hope this article will assist people in their quest for the truth. This article is work in progress and not really finished yet. Of course I welcome comments and suggestions.


The UFO photos

In this section a close look will be taken at Korff's explanations for Meier's UFO photos.

The helium balloon hypothesis

On p. 222 Korff claims that Meier's UFO photos for the greater part in reality are UFO models suspended from helium balloons. Important evidence for the helium balloon hypothesis according to Korff lies in the fact that he was easily able to replicate Meier's UFO photos and movie films using models and helium balloons. On p. 223 Korff literally writes "When we assembled and attached them to helium balloons, we were able to use these models to replicate every significant aspect of Meier's "UFO" photos and motion picture films, easily proving how Meier created his pictures." In support of this sweeping claim Korff presents only one photo showing a model suspended from a helium balloon (p. 222). Korff doesn't mention which Meier photo this re-creation is supposed to represent. Further no re-creations or discussions of Meier's UFO photos or motion picture films using helium balloons are presented in his book! In other words we have to take Korff's word for it that he was able to replicate for example the lighting, brightness and focus characteristics of Meier's UFO photos using his methods.

When looking at Korff's models it's obvious that his claim that he is able to replicate every significant aspect of Meier's "UFO" photos and motion picture films using his models is completely bogus. Meier's UFOs are far more complex in shape, structure and color. In short Korff's claim that he is able to "replicate every significant aspect of Meier's "UFO" photos and motion picture films" using his models suspended from helium balloons is completely unsubstantiated and also obviously wrong.

Additional evidence according to Korff for the helium balloon hypothesis supposedly is the fact that balloons can be seen in the background of many of Meier's photos "especially those published in Pleiades, Volume 1". There really is not any hard evidence for balloons in Meier's photos. Korff might have been misinterpreting an occasional spot of dirt or two on the photo blow-ups in the Pleiades books.

Fig 1.1. Korff's Meier UFO "replicas"

Korff's findings regarding Meier's UFO photos

In chapter 4 "Conclusive Analyses of Billy Meier's 'UFO' Photographs" Korff discusses aspects of Meier's photos which according to him irrefutably prove that the photos have been faked. about how Meier's UFO photos exactly came into being one can only quess and the likelihood of different scenarios about this question can merely be mapped out by fixing obvious facts which can be observed by anybody and then draw some logical and rational conclusions based on these facts.In this way I've examined Korff's explanations about Meier's photos. The following table sums up the result of my analysis of Korff's photo discussions.

UFO photo(s): Korff's explanation/claims Result of analysis argumentation:
1 - April 20, 1975 at Jakobsberg Allenberg Double exposures Obviously wrong
2 - Photo #63 Model passed off as real spaceship Obviously wrong
3 - Photo #30, January 28, 1975 Model hypothesis Unsubstantiated
4 - Schmärbuel-Maiwinkle photos Simple helium balloon hypothesis Obviously wrong
5 - Hasenbol/Bachtelhornli Horizontal suspension line hypothesis Very likely wrong
6 - Fuchsbüel photos Potted tree plus model Obviously wrong
7 - Photo #41 Model hypothesis Unsubstantiated
8 - Hasenböl photo #164 Simple model hypothesis Still open/TODO
9 - Photos showing focus discrepancy and structural flaws. Model hypothesis Yes, some of these photos do look very unrealistic and implausible.But Korff omits Meier's explanations about this.

Are the April 20, 1975, Jakobsberg-Allenberg photos double exposures?

On p. 166 Korff claim that the eleven photos reportedly taken on April 20, 1975 at Jakobsberg-Allenberg show "deliberate double exposures". Double exposures can be ruled out because 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 classic UFO photos taken by the Trents, on 11 May, 1950, at McMinnville, Oregon (see p. 402 of the Scientific Study of UFOs, 1969). In addition about this Meier case researcher Jim Deardorff had to say: "There's no way a simple double exposure will allow a dark object to show up against the light background (a dark region on the positive is clear on the negative and thus allows the background to shine through; this is explained, for example, on p. 80 of Walters & Maccabee's book UFOs Are Real: Here's the Proof (1997)). In fact, the photo on Stevens' p. 178 shows not only the dark underside of the beamship and the shaded right side of the cupola on top, but the bright reflected sun/skylight on the left side of the cupola, all against the light sky background. So it wasn't superimposed on any double exposure with a light sky background, which background Jacob's photo confirms was present." (Personal correspondence, May 1, 1997).This of course doesn't mean that the photos therefore are genuine, however, Korff's double exposure explanation certainly is incorrect.

The middle photo on p. 156 shows admitted model.

Contrary to what Korff claims, 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 on a later contact. Korff falsely infers that Meier was trying to pass this model off as a real UFO.

UFO in photo #30 impossibly a 7 m object?

Photo #30 is one of the photos reportedly made on January 28, 1975 during Meier's first alleged contact with the ET contactor Semjase. Regarding this photo Korff writes: "The fact that the UFO is below the tree line 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 claim by Korff simply is unsubstantiated and isn't backed up by any calculations. The following calculations/estimations using the camera equation indicate that it actually is possible that the UFO in this picture (allegedly having a diameter of about 7 m) very closely passes in front of the tops of the fir trees in this picture.

Actual Distance = Actual Size * Focal Length / Size on Film

Focal length of Meier's Olympus 35 ECR camera : 42 mm
Width of Meier's slide film: 35 mm
Estimated with of tree trunk: 0.6 m

30 cropped edgeenhanced.gif

Fig. 1.2. Cropped and edge enhanced version of photo #30 illustrating the tree with the estimated with of 0.6 m.

Calculated distance of tree trunk: 600*42/((0,1/11,4)*35) / 1000 = 82,02 m

Calculated distance of UFO: 7000*42/((1,2/11,4)*35) / 1000 = 79,8 m

The picture on p. 24, of Plejadisch-plearische Kontaktberichte Block 1 was used for these calculations because Korff's version (see Fig. 22) has been considerably cropped and only shows about 2/3 of the actual photo.

Are Korff's lines suspension lines or scratches/manipulations?

Pp. 194-200 and p. 207 pay attention to Meier's March 8, 1976, Bachtelhörnli-Unterbachtel photos and the March 29, 1976, Hasenböl-Langenberg photographs. About both series Korff claims that analyses of the photos using computer image enhancement software reveals horizontal lines. Korff concludes that these lines are for support of
UFO models. A close look at the suspected supportive devices shows that one suspension line is curved upwards (see Fig. 3). Further, none show a shallow V-shaped kink at a point of attachment vertically above the UFO. Also no thickened point or nodule at the suspension point can be seen. Korff makes no comments about how the horizontal "suspension" lines stay in the air. Are they attached to trees, poles or balloons? Korff doesn't tell the reader so we don't know. This is another example of how unsubstantiated and badly worked out his claims and explanations are. I'll add this to the text.About the horizontal lines it is also interesting to mention that Meier himself has stated that his photos have been retouched by malevolent persons and that horizontal lines have been introduced to his photos in order to depict him as a fraud (see p. 134. of Aus den Tiefen des Weltraums).. Because of the above mentioned reasons Meier's explanation seems more plausible then the one presented by Korff.

Korffanalysis4-3.gif Korff1995analysis4-5.gif

Fig. 1.3. Korff's Fig. 68 (p. 199) showing the
"suspension lines" in photo #183.

Fig. 1.4. Korff's fig. 66 (p. 198), showing the alleged suspension line.

Schmärbuel-Maiwinkle photos

This is one of Meier's more well-known photo series showing a UFO as it is allegedly troubled by a Swiss jet fighter. The fourteen photos were allegedly taken on April 14, 1976.

Simple helium balloon hypothesis. According to Korff the photos of this series in reality show a model suspended from a helium baloon (p. 212). An important point omitted in Korff's discussion is the fact that the UFO in some of the photos shows up blurry, incomplete and deformed. According to Meier this is the result of the sudden acceleration of the UFO. Korff's simple helium balloon hypothesis completely fails to explain this aspect of the photos.

Shadows. On p. 209 writes Korff "while every other object in Meier's Schmärbüel-Maiwinkle photos show shadows visible in their proper directions, curiously, the "UFO" casts no shadow at all!". About this argument by Korff it must be mentioned that he doesn't fill in aspects like size, intensity and position of the shadows. As long as such aspects aren't determined nothing definite can be said about it. About the shadows it must also be mentioned that the photos do show many dark areas in which the shadows could be. Also the option that the UFO was rendered
invisible from certain lines of sight and therefore cast no shadow can not be ruled out.

Fig. 1.5. Cropped version of one of the photos of this series showing the deformed and blurry appearence of the UFO.

"UFO doesn't fly against the wind." Another argument submitted by Korff is that all the UFOs depicted in these series of photos appear to move in the same direction and that none of the photos "show either the UFO flying against the wind or showing at least some evidence of independent flight capabilities." This is simply not true. Fig. 1.5 shows that the UFO is slightly titled against the direction of the wind, moreover according to Meier the deformed and blurry appearance can be attributed to the sudden acceleration of the UFO.

In addition it should be mentioned that the chronological order of the photos might be incorrect and gotten pretty well mixed up and out of order; the numbers were on the original slides only. Nobody (including Korff) does know for sure which photo came after which other photo in the series, and can therefore judge which way the UFO traveled. Therefore it's rather crazy to think that any still photo of a model can tell you which way the wind is blowing, though the smoke does, of course.

Additional comments.

  • The sound recording reportedly made during this event and the analysis were completely omittted by Korff in his discussion.
  • A UFO researcher from Zurich, Erwin Mürner, claims to have spoken with the pilot of the Mirage jet fighter which features in the photo series. The man confirmed Meier's claims about the event. However the pilot wanted to remain anonymous for the fear of losing his job.

Do the July 9, 1975, Fuchsbüel photos show a potted tree?

The July 9, 1975, Fuchsbüel photo series are perhaps one of Meier's best known and most confronting photo series. This series of eleven photos shows a UFO hovering at several positions near an irrefutably mature looking conifer tree. In this part of the article a close look will be taken at Korff's main claims and argumentation about these photos.

Potted tree hypothesis? According to Korff this photo series in reality shows a UFO model and a real potted young mature looking conifer tree (p. 188).

However, the following facts demonstrate that this hypothesis is incorrect:

  • The tree displays the structure and relative large density of the "foliage" of a mature tree which is the result of the great hierarchy of branches and sub-branches.
  • The tree displays the often cylindrical shape of a mature conifer; young conifers display a rather conical shape.

These facts also explain why nobody since 1975 has found a young tree species which may been used to pose in this photo series.

Does the tree rotate? According to Korff important evidence for the potted tree hypothesis lies in the fact that in all photos of this series the same side of the tree can be seen while the photos were taken facing different directions. Korff's Fig. 52 (p. 182) showing cropped versions of four photos in this series without any detailed comments supposedly proves this claim.

It should be mentioned however that nine of the eleven Fuchsbüel photos were taken facing approximately the same western direction. These nine photos all show the Pfäffikersee in the background and the difference in angles between these pictures is relatively small. It therefore is only logical that the tree in these photos has approximately the same appearance.

Then there are also two pictures in this series which were taken facing the south (#65 and #119, both showing the Glerner Alpen in the background). A comparison between photo #119 (taken to the south) and photo #66 (taken to the west) shows that there are some superficial similarities (like the gap in the top of the tree on the left). However, there are also some obvious very detailed differences in the appearance of the tree. Fig. 1.6 points out some of these irrefutable differences. All in all, Korff completely fails to substantiate his claim that the tree rotates..


Fig. 1.6. The yellow circles denote differences between photo #119 and #66. Photo #119 was taken facing the south and photo #66 was taken while facing the west.

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. However, according to Meier the precise times in the Verzeichnis are only an estimated best-guess reconstruction of the events many years after they had taken place. 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 in places; for example the time interval between the photographing of photo #157 and 168 must have been shorter than the poster indicates. About the illogical times in the Verzeichnis, Christian Frehner of FIGU commented "It's difficult to verify the times and dates that have happened 20 years ago. As you know Hans Schutzbach was responsible for organizing the chronological order of the photo list. Well, if you look at the 'Verzeichnis', it's far from a logical order. But it's too late now to re-number all the photos." (personal correspondence February 23, 1999).

The allegedly eliminated tree. This series of photos belongs to the category of pieces of evidence of Meier which combines both very realistic aspects with several seemingly impossible aspects. In the case of this photo series the most important impossible aspect is beyond any doubt the fact that there is no hard evidence that the tree in question has ever been on the Fuchsbüel mountain slope. Naturally Korff spends a lot of attention to this fact in his book because this is consistent with the hypothesis that Meier on this occasion photographed a small tree in combination with a UFO model. Thus Korff points to the fact that researchers at the end of the 70s visited the location but didn't find any tree. And he also points to the fact that the owner of the land when asked about the existence of the tree in 1991 couldn't recall that there ever was a tree on the location in question..

Korff mentions Meier's explanation for the absence of the tree, namely that the conifer was eliminated by his extraterrestrial friends. Semjase's alleged reason for this is that the tree during the demonstration caught certain radiations which in case of an analysis by an Earth scientist could divulge too much about their technology. However, Korff doesn't mention Meier's explanation for the fact why nobody except Meier nowadays can recall the existence of the tree. Meier claims that the Pleiadians wiped out the relevant thoughts from the minds of the concerned persons. It must also be mentioned here that the following indirect pieces of evidence for the existence of the tree were omitted by Korff:

  • Several persons reportedly witnessed a tree elimination demonstration by Meier's contactors. This event is also documented with photos (see p. 191 of und sie fliegen doch!).
  • According to Wendelle Stevens (p. 126 of Preliminary Investigation Report) two witnesses have seen the Fuchsbüel tree before it was eliminated..
  • On p. 49 of his book UFO contact from the Pleiades: a Preliminary Investigation Report it states that an acquaintance of Meier, upon seeing the developed pictures of the 9 July, Fuchsbüel am Hofhalden sequence, located the exact spots from which the pictures were taken. "He found that the grass here was 20 to 30 centimeters higher than the other grass around."

Should the tree be visible in photo #25? Another argument submitted by Korff in support of his idea that the Fuchsbüel tree has never been on the concerned location is the fact that the tree is not visible in photo #25. Photo #25 according to Meier (in the Verzeichnis) was taken a couple of months before the July 17, 1976, Fuchsbüel photos at approximately the same location. However, photo #25 doesn't show the tree in question. Meier's explanation for this is that the tree was simply out of the image field of the camera and therefore can not be seen in the photo. In September 29, 1997, Christian Frehner of FIGU informed me: "Regarding taking the photos: Billy made them from different standing points; he went ahead on a small road. The fir tree stood on the right side of the road on the meadow." A detailed analysis by Meier-case researcher Jim Deardorff reveals that this probably is the case This analysis is part of a discussion about this photo series and can be found at: www.tjresearch.info/moretree.htm#notree.

Proof that Meier lies about his photographing location?

On pp. 146-151 of his book Korff presents a discussion of Meier's UFO photo #41. Meier claims that he took this picture through one of the portholes of Semjase's beamship while hovering high above the village of Ober-Balm. It allegedly shows the beamship of the ET Quetzal.

According to Korff Meier in reality didn't take this photograph aboard a flying UFO but from a mountain slope. Korff's argumentation consist of several re-creations of Meier's photo which according to him were taken from the exact same spot as Meier's photo. This location is a mountain slope which is bounded by the Pfäffikersee. On this location also several of Meier's other photo series have been taken. Korff's replicas supposedly prove that Meier is lying about the position of photographing.

However the following comparison between the mountains on the background of the Meier photo and Korff's intended replicas show that he didn't succeed in creating an exact replica (apart from the difference in shape of the UFO). At a vertical transect which crosses the same topographical 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 the vertical extent of background-ridge to the vertical extent of the foreground-ridge were calculated. Tables 1 and 2 list the calculated ratios. In Table 1 the reflection of the foreground ridge was included in the calculations, and in Table 2 the reflection of the foreground hill in the lake was excluded from the calculations.

Table 1
Meier's photo #41 Korff's re-creations
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
1982 book:
p. 304: 0.75/0.90 = 0.88

>Table 2

|- | width="175" | >Meier's photo #41 | width="175" | >Korff's re-creations |- | >Korff's
1995 book:
| valign="top" | > p. 149: 0.45/0.45 = 1
p. 151: 0.60/0.55 = 1.10
| valign="top" | > 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:
| 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 another (higher) position.

>File:41 meier.jpg >Fig. 1.7. 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 pictures; the vertical transect crosses the same topographical features visible in both Meier's photo and Korff's re-creations. 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, 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:41 korff.jpg
Korff's re-creation

The possibility that the photo in reality was taken somewhere from the Fuchsbüel mountain slope should certainly not be ruled out. However, Korff isn't able to substantiate this idea because his argumentation shows serious flaws. The best way to prove whether Meier is lying about the position of photographing seems to be making re-creations while flying above Dorf-Unterbalm.


>With regard to the March 29, 1976, Hasenböl-Langenberg UFO photos showing the UFO next to a tree (#164, #174 and #175). Korff writes that his computer image processing techniques do show that the UFO is in front of the tree and that consequently the UFO is not a seven-m large craft hovering behind the tree, as is claimed in pro-Meier literature. So the crucial question is: are there any tree branches visible in front of the UFO? The following findings are not inconsistent with Korff's claim.

>Comparison with photo #159. Something Korff didn't do in his discussion of this series was compare the three sunlight scene photos with photo #159. Contrary to photos #164, 174 and 175, in photo #159 the right part of the tree is not partially wiped out by the strong glare of the sun and all branches can be clearly seen. By comparing the tree in photo #159 with the sunlight scene photos one can get an impression of where the tree's branches are positioned in photos #164, #174 and #175.(Photo #159 seems to have been taken from approximately the same postion as the sunlight scene photos). Figure 1.8 shows montages in which the tree in photo #159 was placed upon photos #164 and #174.

>After obtaining digital pictures of photo #159, #164, #174 and #175, using an image enhancement/manipulation program (Paint Shop Pro) the tree in photo #159 was placed as a layer upon photo #164. Then the layer showing the #159 tree was made transparent by about 50 %. Then the layer was moved and resized so that it for the greater part matched the tree in #164. T>he same steps were followed for photo #174. The results are the digital montages in Fig. 1.8. The montages indicate that a couple of branches should be visible in front of the UFO if there were enough contrast, and lack of solar glare, to show them.

>Fig. 1.8. The montages suggest that, given sufficient contrast, many branches should be visible in front of the UFO in photo #174 and especially in #164.

Potential evidence for branches in front of the UFO

File:164 branch.gif

This is a cropped and enlarged version of photo #164 (source: Aus den Tiefen des Weltraums, Meier, 1997).

The arrow denotes a somewhat darker area in the underside of the UFO which might be a diagonal branch.

File:174 branch.gif

This is cropped and enlarged version of photo #174.(source: Hasenböl photo poster).

Here a diagonal branch may be in front of the tip of the rim of the UFO.

Focus discrepancies and cosmetic and structural flaws

The focus adjustment of Meier's Olympus 35 ECR camera was reportedly jammed about one stop short of the infinity setting. Therefore all objects positioned more than approximately 8 meters from the camera should be in relatively good focus.(The 8 meters value is based on calculations using a JavaScript depth-of-field calculator program which can be found [www.shuttercity.com/DOF.cfm here.] Just enter the following values into the program: Film format: 35 mm. Focal length: 42 mm. F-stop: 2.8. Object distance). In his book Korff points out six Meier UFO photos which are inconsistent with these reported focus settings (photo #6, #11, #27, #29, #30 and one taken on October 22, 1980). The UFOs in these photos are in focus while the background is out-of-focus. Moreover in four of these pictures the surface of the UFO at certain points is asymmetrical as if the surface of the UFO is warped and bent.

According to Korff these points prove that Meier produced these particular photos by focusing his camera on a small model close to the camera.

It should be mentioned here however that Korff fails to mention that according to Meier the unrealistic aspects of these photos are the result of a combination of photographic manipulations by malevolent individuals and the radiation emitted by the UFOs (for details see p. 244 of ...und sie fliegen doch! and p. 24 & p. 26 of Stevens' Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1 ).

Whatever the reason for the model-like appearence of these photos, it's important to realize of course that they aren't representive of the average quality of Meier's UFO photos.



>Fig. 1.9. Photo #6 and #11. According to Meier these photos have been cropped by an unknown person (presumably before he received them back from the photo shop, or perhaps later afterhaving loaned them out and receiving a copy back). According to Meier some of the photos originally showed the landing gear of the UFO. The surface flaws and focus discrepancy is explained by Meier by radiations from the UFO (see p. 244 of ...und sie fliegen doch!).

2 - The space-trip pictures

Chapter 5 of Korff's book is dedicated to Meier's space-trip pictures.

Background info. Meier claims that during several contacts he accompanied his extraterrestrial friends on trips through space and time. For example during his 31st contact (on July 17, 1975) Meier allegedly left our planet for a period of five days, and was taken into outer space by the Pleiadians. Among other things, Meier allegedly witnessed the historic American Apollo and Soviet Soyuz space capsule link-up, and visited a Pleiadian mother ship (see Message from the Pleiades, volume 1, p. 283). Meier claims he shot many rolls of film during this trip resulting in a total of at least 700 pictures (personal correspondence with Christian Frehner of FIGU, August 5,1997). During his 39th contact on December 3, 1975 (see Message from the Pleiades, volume 2, p. 55) Meier was allegedly taken on another trip. This time he went back in time, and among other things, viewed a parallel earth in an early stage of evolution when dinosaurs were around; the ET Semjase outfitted him with some sort of space suit, of which she had one also, and together they both took a few excursions on this planet, at which time Meier could photograph the dinosaurs.

Korff's findings. In chapter 5 of his book Korff presents several Meier space-trip pictures. (Contrary to what Korff claims the pictures he presents were not all allegedly taken by Meier during the 31rst contact but also the 39th contact). Korff points out problems with these pictures. For example Meier's photos of Venus matches one taken by the Mariner 10 spacecraft in 1974 (see Fig. 2.1). There are discrepancies between Meier's Apollo-Soyuz capsule link-up photo and actual photos taken in space during the Apollo 18 mission. Meier's photo of the Horse Head Nebulae and the Ring Nebulae do match Earth-based astronomy photos (see Fig. 2.2). Meier's photo of the Pleidian mother ship roughly resembles a NASA animation of the Pioneer spacecraft with the planet Jupiter on the background. Photos of the aliens Asket and Nera do resemble two dancers as they performed on a Dean Martin TV Show in the 70s (this particular problem is not mentioned in Korff's 1995 book but was mentioned in a TV special co-produced by Korff which was broadcasted in May 1998). Other photos presented by Korff of an alien space craft, dinosauers and cave-men also don't look very convincing. On basis of the above mentioned problems Korff concludes that the pictures are not genuine and have been hoaxed by Meier.


>Venus.jpg >Ringnebulae.jpg
Fig 2.1. To the left Meier's photo of the planet Venus. To the right a photo of the planet Venus taken by the Mariner 10 spacecraft. The arrows point out similarities. Fig 2.2. To the left Meier's photo of the Ring Nebulae. To the right and Earth-based astronomy photo of the Ring Nebulae. Note the similarities.

Korff's arguments for the above mentioned photos not being genuine seem reasonable, however what Korff apparently doesn't know or ignores is that Meier already back in 1976 states in his contact notes that his space-trip photos can't be trusted! In the contact notes of the 68th contact on November 12, 1976 it is mentioned that space-trip pictures have been severely tampered with, and substitutions made in some cases and the photos not returned in other cases, during the photo processing. Anyway, the fact is that even Billy Meier himself doesn't claim that the space-trip pictures are genuine. The space-trip photos also aren't listed in the Verzeichnis photo catalogue.

3 - The movie films

>Korff's book does not contain a discussion about Meier's UFO movie films.

4 - The metal samples

In chapter 6 of his book Korff discusses the subject of the analyses of Meier's alleged alien metal samples. Basically, Korff's explanation is this: There were two parts of Meier's "unique" metal sample. One was analyzed by Marcel Vogel and he claimed that it showed unique extraterrestrial characteristics. However, the other part was analyzed by Dr. Olgilvie and his analysis disproves Vogel's findings. This is a bogus explanation. Again Korff obviously omits and distorts many facts in order to make this "explanation" appear credible.

Korff's confusion between thallium and thulium

On p. 277 Korff states with regard to what Vogel allegedly told him in an interview in May 1980:

While Vogel's remarks were enlightening, one of them was particularly puzzling regarding the discovery of the element thallium. Thallium (also spelled sometimes as thulium), is an extremely rare, malleable and highly toxic metal. It is unlikely that Meier would have been able to secure a small sample.

Here Korff insinuates that the words thallium and thulium are used to indicate the same element. Thulium and thallium are two totally different elements! Thulium, contrary to thallium, in the 70's was a relatively very rare element. It was the discovery of thulium in one of the metal samples about which Vogel said according to Kinder on p. 250 of Light Years, "It is totally unexpected... Thulium was only purified during World War II as a by-product of atomic work, and only in minute quantities. It is exceedingly expensive, far beyond platinum, and rare to come by. Someone would have to have an extensive metallurgical knowledge even to be aware of a composition of this type." Korff's remark on p. 278 that Harry Lebelson of Omni magazine told him in the early 80's that Dr. Olgilvie found no thallium in the other half of the "unique" Meier metal sample he "analyzed" is meaningless, since it was the discovery of the element thulium which piqued Vogel's curiosity.

Why the Olgilvie analysis never took place

Korff p. 278 writes that Dr. Olgilvie, a metallurgist for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, analyzed (with a grant from Omni magazine) "the other half of the sample Macel Vogel claimed was so unique." What Korff fails to mention here is the information which indicates that Dr. Olgilvie never conducted any serious analysis. Stevens (p. 529, Supplementary Investigation Report) writes that he did tell Harry Lebelson (who in the early 80's was UFO Hotline editor of OMNI Magazine) that he still had the other half of the "unique" metal sample in his possession. Harry Lebelson then arranged that a professor at MIT would test the other half, but when the metal sample came into the possession of the professor and before any tests took place on the sample "the professor had come to the conclusion in his own mind" that the metal was probably a piece of solder, and the professor thought "it would be a waste of a lot of time and effort just to verify a piece of solidified solder, and he made no tests". When Stevens informed Lebelson that he wanted the sample back, Lebelson told him "that he could not return the metal specimen because it had become 'lost' and the professor couldn't find it."

Summary: In 1979 Wendelle Stevens acquired the metal sample from Meier and divided it into two halves. One half he gave to Vogel to analyze, but it disappeared soon after he analyzed it -- still in 1979. The remaining half Stevens later gave to Lebelson who gave it to Olgilvie, who either lost the piece or it disappeared on him. Thus there was no "third half" for Korff to have been given, nor did Olgilvie perform any analysis on the second half. Vogel's analysis on the first half is documented, however, on video tape.

Korff omits mysterious aspects of metal sample disappearance

On p. 278-279 Korff states "While it is true that one of the Meier specimens in Vogel's possession did end up "lost," there is no credible evidence that its disappearance is a bona fide mystery."

It should be mentioned here that Korff fails to mention in his book the details reported in Meier literature which make the disappearance of the metal sample mysterious. On p. 528-529, of Supplementary Investigation Report, Stevens states:

He [Vogel] had set the specimen up to make some microphotographs through a very high magnification imaging device, and he had turned on a high energy focussed spot light to illuminate the subject. He glanced at the specimen and turned away to pick up a thin needle-like steel probe to turn it over under the scope with, and when he turned back again, to look through the eyepiece, he saw that the metal specimen was now disappearing before his very eyes! He turned off the high energy light and that seemed to stop the action. He puzzled about this at length, examined it some more with low intensity lights, and it seemed to be stable again. The following morning he called his friend and colleague, Dr. Richard Haines of Ames Reserch Laboratories, and asked him to come over to IBM, that he had something interesting to show him. Vogel had put the sample in a little plastic envelope the night before and that in his wallet. When Haines got there, the little plastic envelope was still in his wallet, but the piece was gone! Of course the story made no sense to Richard Haines. He did help Vogel look for the missing metal fragment, in case it had been dropped in getting the envelope out to exhibit it, but they never found it. Dr. Haines thought that Vogel may have only thought he had put the piece in the little envelope, but in fact may have missed the bag and dropped it without being aware of it. Vogel himself went over every act and motion in his mind and clearly remembered seeing the fragment drop into the bag, had closed it, folded it over, feeling the metal in the bag, and then put it into his wallet. He was completely baffled by the loss and quite miserable in his frustration. He never did find the piece again and his analysis came to a halt right there and then.

According to Stevens on p. 530 of Supplementary Investigation Report, one of the other samples "had been nearly lost in Switzerland when a piece of the metal Meier had in a little plastic bag in his pocket,... sublimated away leaving only some tiny black granules... Dr. Walter Walker found the same kind of black bodies evenly imbedded in the specimen he examined in Tucson, Arizona."

So in his book Korff leaves out the evidence which suggests that the metal sample Vogel found unique, and also other Meier metal samples, somehow disintegrated and weren't simply lost.

Why Korff never received a piece of the mysterious metal sample

On p. 291 Korff claims: "In yet another display of his peculiar behavior, Marcel Vogel gave me an actual piece of one of the Meier metal specimens he had examined. I have had this 'Pleiadian' metal sample now since May 1980...". On p. 253 of Kinder's Light Years one can read the following sentence. "Just after the metal sample had disappeared and before the photo journal had been published..." The Elders' UFO... Contact from the Pleiades, vol. 1 (the photo-volume in question), was published in the second half of 1979. Moreover, on p. 487 of Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report it is stated that Marcel Vogel gave his videotape deposition on metal tests on 11-26-1979, and on p. 251 of Light Years one can read that the sample had disappeared the very day after Vogel completed his testing. So all this info establishes that the year of the disappearance of the metal sample was 1979.

Assuming that Vogel gave the then 18-year-old Korff a piece of one of the Meier metal samples it could not have been a piece of the sample he found special, since by then the sample had already disappeared! Nevertheless, Korff in this chapter claims that Vogel gave him a piece of the "unique" metal sample! For example on p. 292 he writes that it is a fact that he has a piece of the metal sample which created "an uproar in the scientific community" in his possession. Also on p. 292 Korff claims that he has cut the sample he got from Vogel into two pieces and that Dr. Olgilvie performed an analysis on one of these pieces. This sample according to Korff (p. 278) was "the other half of the sample Vogel claimed was so unique."

It should also be mentioned here that Korff omits the fact that Stevens claims (p. 529, Supplementary Investigation report) that he owned another half of the unique metal sample. Stevens writes that he "was holding it as a control" and he "did not tell Vogel that he only had half of the original piece."

5 - The Witnesses>.

>In his book Korff spends 4 pages trying to debunk the subject of independent UFO sightings in the Meier case. In this section the "explanation" Korff offers for this aspect of the case is analyzed.

> Basically, Korff's "explanation" for the independent UFO sightings boils down to this: the witnesses are Meier's "uncritical faithful" (p. 305) cult members (p. 385), and Meier fools them by launching a "balloon or other device with a flare or light attached to it" (p. 306), which they mistake for a Pleiadian beamship. Explaining why this is a bogus explanation will take some space because Korff had to omit and distort a large part of the witness data in order to make his "explanation" appear credible.

Korff omits important sources of UFO witness information

> In his four page discussion Korff only mentions the following two important sources of UFO witness information: Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report and Guido Moosbrugger's Und Sie Fliegen Doch!. As will be shown further on, Korff omits most of the significant information which can be found in these two books and what he does mention is distorted. Examples of important witness information-sources which have been completely omitted by Korff in his discussion are Kinder's Light Years and the videos Contact and The Meier Chronicles. In these videos several of the witnesses can be seen telling their stories. Instead of informing the reader of these important sources of information, Korff spends half a page complaining about the irrelevant point that in the first book on the case (the Elders' UFO... Contact from the Pleiades, vol. 1, published in 1979), the details of the witnesses and their accounts weren't included.

Korff omits several UFO witnesses

> On p. 304, Korff claims that the total of UFO witnesses is 14 because Stevens' "Preliminary Investigation book lists only fourteen" witnesses. The truth is that 22 UFO witnesses are mentioned in Stevens' 1982 book and, moreover, these 22 UFO witnesses are certainly not all the UFO witnesses. It should also be noted that Korff fails to mention the names and addresses of these UFO witnesses or that 12 of them can be found in Stevens' 1982 book: p. 168 and p. 174.

> On p. 307 Korff does present a table (Fig. 116) that lists the names of 21 UFO witnesses, and on p. 306 he claims that his table lists all the witnesses, but this stands in conflict with his claim on p. 304 that the total is "only fourteen". But apart from that, his number of 21 is also wrong, as will be shown now.

> The following table combines the names of the witnesses listed in Korff's fig. 116, and the names of the UFO witnesses mentioned by Stevens in his Preliminary Investigation Report. The asterisk next to a name indicates that the name can be found in Stevens' 1982 book but not in Korff's table on p. 307 of his book; in other words, these UFO witnesses were omitted by Korff in his book.

> 01: Mr. Altensperger*
02: Jacob Bertschinger
03: Eva Bieri
04: Bernadette Brand
05: Madeleine Brügger
06: Ms. M. Flammer*
07: Christina Gasser
08: Elizabeth Gruber
09: Thomas Keller
10: Ernst Keller Muller*
11: Bernard Koye
12: Brunhilde Koye
13: Freddy Kropf
14: Silvano Lehman
15: Atlantis Meier
16: Gilgamesha Meier

> 17: Kalliope Meier
18: Methusalem Meier
19: Guido Moosbrugger
20: Elsie Moser*
21: Margarite Rufer*
22: Herbert Runkel
23: Conrad Schutzbach*
24: Hans Schutzbach*
25: Eric Stadtlein*
26: Amalie Stetter*
27: Conny Wächter
28: Engelbert Wächter Jr
29: Maria Wächter
30: Olga Walder*
31: Wolfgang Witzer*
32: Hans Zimmerman

Not all the UFO witnesses are or were members of Meier's group

> Korff's claim on p. 306 that "only Billy Meier and members of his group report seeing them [UFOs]", is false. An example of a non-group member who testified having seen UFOs associated with Meier's alleged ET contacts, is Ernst Keller-Muller. As previously pointed out, Korff fails to even mention the name of this witness in his table on p. 307. Two times during the summer of 1978, Keller-Muller, in his small home town of Schalchen, near Wila, observed UFO activity, which took place, "in the direction of Schmidrüti and almost that far away". It was only later, that he learned of "Herr Meier" living in Schmidrüti, who claimed to be in contact with UFOnauts (more information: pp. 158-159 of Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report, or the video Contact.)

> Also, the data in Korff's table on p. 307 is in conflict with his claim that only members of Meier's group report seeing the UFOs; the table lists UFO witnesses who aren't members of Meier's family or of his group.

> On p. 304 Korff states that "there are no testimonies from any independent, outside observers", because the UFO witnesses "either were or are members of Meier's group." The point to note here is that all these claims are based on his claim on this page that the total of UFO witnesses is "only fourteen." As previously pointed out that claim is false.

Not only "blobs of light rising in the night sky"

> On p. 306 Korff claims that only "blobs of light rising in the night sky" are described and were photographed by the UFO witnesses. In order to show that this claim is false, data are presented from Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report (pp. 126-160), Supplementary Investigation Report (pp. 448-449) and Kinder's Light Years (pp. 21-23 and p. 28). Also presented are some captured images from the video Contact by Genesis III.

Disc-shaped UFOs.> Regarding the shape of the UFOs, it should be noted that several of the witnesses speak of disc-shaped objects, and not "blobs of light." For example, Guido Moosbrugger and Hans Schutzbach have testified of having observed, during a nighttime sighting which took place in mid-May 1976, "a fire red disc". About one month later, Guido Moosbrugger and several other witnesses claim to have observed, in the early morning of Sunday, 13 June, 1976, appearances of disc-shaped objects in the night sky. One photo by Guido Moosbrugger, reportedly taken during that event, shows a disc-shaped object surrounded by a yellow haze. Hans Schutzbach and several other witnesses have testified having seen, that same month, during a daylight sighting on Monday, 28 June, 1976, a silver-gray colored disc-shaped object. Jacobus Bertschinger has testified having witnessed, in the early morning of Monday, 7 February 1977, "an oval disc, slightly illuminated."

File:Moosbrugger ufo1.jpg

Fig. 5.1. This picture shows the disc-shaped object surrounded by a yellow haze reportedly photographed by Guido Moosbrugger on 13 June, 1976 (source of image: the video Contact.)

Unusual flight behavior.> Regarding the flight behavior of the UFOs, it should be mentioned that several of the witnesses describe a flight behavior that contradicts Korff's claim of the UFOs simply "rising up in the sky" (like balloons). For example, Jacobus Bertschinger in his account of a sighting which took place on Sunday, 14 March, 1976, mentions: "When it [the UFO] reached the mentioned height the light stopped for some moments, and then, continued moving directly towards me. It approached by a suddenly enormous speed." Bernadette Brand describes that she observed during one of her sightings that "the orange light rose and then looked like it was going upstairs, zigzag, and then very quietly it flew away." During a UFO sighting in May 1976, Guido Moosbrugger claims to have witnessed "three large balls of yellow-orange light flying in formation in the night sky. They moved in an undulating fashion that also became jerky at times. They were completely silent. Suddenly one of them stopped dead still in the sky.." One month later, in the early morning of Sunday, 13 June, 1976, Hans Schutzbach, reportedly using black and white diapositive film and various time-exposures, photographed "luminous objects and their light trails" (in total 4 persons claim to have photographed the UFOs during that event: Eduard Meier, Guido Moosbrugger, Conrad Schutzbach and Hans Schutzbach). Ernst Keller-Muller has testified having observed in the summer of 1978, UFOs which "moved in an undulating and zig-zagging pattern, and sometimes with a jerky motion. They also stopped occasionally, and at other times simply 'jumped' from one place to another."

A rain of fire.> Another unusual aspect of the UFO sightings which is described in several of the witnesses' testimonies is a rain of sparks falling down from the UFO. Jacobus Bertschinger describes this phenomena in his account of a sighting that took place in the early morning of Sunday, 14 March, 1976; he states that "a true rain of sparkles began to fall down [from the UFO], like a gigantic fireworks perhaps 150 to 200 meters long." During a UFO sighting which took place in the early morning of Sunday, 4 April, 1976, six persons claim to have witnessed a UFO with "a rain of luminous drops falling in its wake, which went out a little above the surface of the ground." During a UFO sighting that reportedly took place one month later, (May 1976), Guido Moosbrugger claims to have witnessed that "suddenly one of them [the UFOs] stopped dead still in the sky, grew brighter and rained drops of fire out the bottom that descended a way and went out, until the whole display faded away and was gone." One month later still (13 June 1976), Guido Moosbrugger was able to photograph the light phenomenon.

File:Moosbrugger ufo2.jpg

Fig. 5.2. This picture shows the "bar of intense light with a glittering rain of fire falling down," which Guido Moosbrugger reportedly photographed in June 1976 (source of image: the video Contact.)

Rotating UFOs.> In some of the witnesses' accounts we find descriptions of rotating UFOs. During a UFO sighting that took place in the early morning of Sunday, 4 April, 1976, six persons claim to have witnessed a "rotating red dark nucleus." Guido Moosbrugger has testified having observed during a UFO sighting in May 1976 "a rotating silver ball" accompanied by "two smaller spheres.. also spinning."

>The data presented here (and which were omitted by Korff) are reasonable evidence that the UFO witnesses didn't misidentify a "balloon or other device with a flare or light attached to it" launched by Meier. The data also show that if the Meier case is a hoax, some of his friends have been in on it, fabricating stories about having seen and photographed disc-shaped craft.

Korff omits the non-UFO witness testimonies

> Finally, the following important point should be mentioned: the witness testimonies not only describe UFO sightings but also other unusual events associated with Meier's alleged contacts with ETs. For example, there are the witnesses' testimonies which recount mysterious disappearances and re-appearances of Meier, Meier bending spoons and heating a coin with his hand to about 1,500 degrees Celsius, a mysterious disappearance of a tree and assassination attempts. People have also testified hearing the unusual sounds made by the spacecraft, moreover, on a couple occasions in the presence of tape recorders. In addition, some Meier-case witnesses have also testified having felt sudden impulses to look up at the sky before they had a UFO sighting. On top of that, some members of Meier's group claim to have seen the aliens "Quetzal" and "Ptaah". Such testimonies add many dimensions of complixity to the hoax theory and, at the same time, add credibility to Meier's claims. But Korff ignores these data in his book and conveniently restricts his discussion to "independent 'eyewitness' testimonies which recount sightings of the spaceships"(p. 297). The following out-of-context quotation by Korff on p. 304 is relevant to his omission of the non-UFO witnesses' testimonies. Stevens on p. 126 of his Preliminary Investigation Report, speaks about "dozens of witnesss who have observed various of the phenomena associated with Meier's contacts," Korff (p. 304) quotes Stevens' statement of "dozens of witnesses" out of context, and implies that Stevens with those words was only referring to the UFO eyewitnesses.

6 - The landing-tracks

>In his book Korff spends 6 pages (pp. 298-303) >arguing that the UFO landing-tracks in the Meier case have been hoaxed. In this section Korff's "explanations" for this aspect of the Meier case are analyzed.

Korff omits important landing-track data

> In his discussion of the landing-tracks Korff omits important information on the subject which can be found on p. 36 of Light Years, pp. 363-379 of Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report and pp. 213-220 and p. 465 of Stevens' Supplementary Investigation Report. In order to show what's wrong with Korff's "explanations" data are used which can be found on the previously mentioned pages.

Korff omits testimonies of witnesses who studied landing-tracks

> On p. 301 Korff falsely claims "all we have today... are photos of these tracks and nothing else that is scientifically credible to work with." Korff leaves out of consideration here the testimonies of people around Meier who made a specialized effort to study the landing-tracks.

> Hans Schutzbach, one of the inner members of the group around Meier at the time, undertook a self-appointed mission to document every landing site, locate it exactly on a map, and to photograph them as soon as possible and repeatedly over time after that. He kept a good record the whole time he was active in Meier's group and left a detailed log of the touch-down sites. Some were in areas very difficult to get to. Schutzbach examined every possibility of hoaxing any of these tracks in the grass or snow, and experimented with several possibilities, but concluded in the end that they were not made by any ordinary means, nor by any kind of tools known to him. No chemical residues were found at any sites. He searched the farm and area for any kind of equipment that could be used for this and found none.

>Herbert Runkel, another person who studied the landing-tracks, commented in a letter to Wendelle Stevens, "I am very, very sure, there is no way for Billy to make tracks like this. I have been many times witness of landing tracks, I have very clear photos in all details from many different places so I can say this to you by all safety 100%."

Korff omits important characteristics of Pleiadian landing-tracks

> On p. 298 of his book Korff states that according to Meier the Pleiadian ships "supposedly hover just above the ground and create three circular impressions of flattened grass 120 degrees apart. Each of these imprints are two meters in diameter (roughly 6.5 feet) and the grass inside them swirled down in a counterclockwise fashion." Although Korff does mention that the grass in these circles was swirled down in a counter clockwise direction, he fails to mention the important details that (a) the grass reportedly was bent over and was seldom broken, and (b) the grass reportedly continued to grow horizontally and the bent over stems didn't staighten up again.

> These unusual characteristics of the landing-tracks were what motivated persons like Hans Schutzbach and Herbert Runkel to return to the landing-tracks sites time after time and document their changes in the photographs and movie films. Interestingly, Herbert Runkel states in a letter written to Wendelle Stevens that the grass at one particular landing-track site after 4 years did still grow differently from the other grass (p. 155, Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report).

File:Landingtrack closeup.jpg

Fig. 6.1. A close up shot of a circular impression in the grass allegedly created by Semjase's beamship. The picture was taken by Hans Schutzbach, at Pfaffenholz near Hinwil, on 29 June, 1976 (source of image: FIGU web site).
Fig. 6.2. This picture shows the circular impressions in the grass allegedly created by Semjase's and Quetzals's beamships. The picture was taken by Hans Schutzbach, at Pfaffenholz near Hinwil, on 28 June, 1976, shortly after the alleged contact had taken place (source of image: FIGU web site).


What Korff's experiment fails to explain

> On pp. 300-301 Korff claims that one can create landing-tracks "with all the characteristics of Meier's own 'Pleiadian' impressions" via the following manner:

  • >Take a round piece of plywood or pressboard.
  • >Place it on top of some grass (be careful that the grass is not too tall or too small; with too small grass there won't be enough to work, tall grass is hard to control if you want to swirl it down).
  • >Twist the board to create a "vortice" (sic) effect.
  • >Place a fair amount of weight on the board.
  • >Leave the plywood or pressboard where it is for a day to as long as a month (the time depending on the severity of the impression you want to create). >Korff's experiment fails to explain why the grass wasn't broken and why it continued to grow round and round, in a peculiar flat swirl. The effect of depriving grass of sunlight by placing a pressboard on it for days is that it will turn yellow and then die; the grass won't continue to grow horizontally. The effect of placing the round piece of plywood with a fair amount of weight on it on the grass is that the stems will break, which was seldom the case with Meier's landing-tracks. In addition, twisting the plyboard in the grass is not beneficial for the health of the grass; the stems will break. Korff's pressboard is too small{|

| align="left" valign="top" | >This picture shows a cropped version of Korff's Fig. 114 ( p. 303). Korff implies on pp. 302-303 that he used the pressboard featuring in Fig. 114 for making his re-creations of Meier's landing-tracks. It should be noted here that the diameter of Meier's landing-tracks ranged from 1.8 to 3 meters, while the diameter of Korff's pressboard is substantially smaller even though he was simulating a circle 2 meters in diameter. | File:Korffandpressboard.jpg |- | | Fig. 6.3. Korff and his pressboard |}No swirl in Korff's re-creation{| | width="262" | >File:Landingtrack recreation.jpg | rowspan="2" width="492" | >Korff's Fig. 115 on p. 303, showing his attempt at making a landing-track circle with his pressboard, is quite unimpressive and fails to exhibit any swirl. Moreover, Korff used relatively short grass for his attempt at hoaxing it, whereas the meadow grass where the actual landing-tracks occurred was usually several hundred percent taller than this, presenting more problems for any hoaxer. |- | width="262" | Fig. 6.4. Korff re-creations of a Meier landing-track. |}Not all Pleiadian landing-tracks consisted of 3 circular shaped impressions in the grass> In his discussion Korff claims that according to Meier all the Pleiadian landing-tracks consisted of three circular shaped imprints in the grass; this is not true: the "variation 1 beamship" (featuring in the 28 January, 1975, Frecht Nature Preserve photo sequence), reportedly left behind in the vegetation only one circular shaped imprint. This variability is consistent with the several different types of Pleiadian and other UFOs he photographed or was told had visited him. > It should also be noted that the tracks were also found in cultivated fields, in scrub areas with sparse grass, in waste areas with weeds and brush, so not always in grass as Korff writes in his book. Korff omits non-Pleiadian landing-tracks> Korff leaves out of consideration in his discussion other types of landing tracks. For example, there was a type of landing-track which consisted of just one circle with a diameter of ten feet. According to Meier these tracks were made by Lyrian space craft which hovered on a coherent beam of intense white light that went straight to the ground. Over snow it cut straight down to the ground through snow and ice, and left the ground bare and dried out. Over grass it seared a dark ten-foot circle that did not smoke, but which nevertheless looked burned. The vegetation within the circle was completely burned to the ground and even the roots in the soil were charred to nothing. Insect infestation not a characteristic of Pleiadian landing-tracks>Korff on p. 301 claims that his experiment does account for the insect infestation aspect of Meier's landing-tracks. Korff writes "whenever plants are deprived of sunlight (as would be the case for those directly under the round pressboard) they cannot photosynthesize. When this happens, they begin to die. The resulting decay, not to mention the accumulating moisture, will always attract a good number of insects, especially in the damp climates of Switzerland." The point to note here is that the phenomenon of insect infestation was a characteristic of the Lyrian landing tracks, not the Pleiadian. Placing a pressboard on the grass, of course won't sear the vegetation. 7 - The Talmud JmmanuelKorff's explanations and claims regarding the Talmud Jmmanuel document have already been thoroughly analyzed by Meier-case researcher James Deardorff. This analysis can be found [meiercase.0x2a.info/meiercase/001/article.php?id=17 here.] 8 - The contact notesComing soon.8 - The sound recordings