The WCUFO and where It Can Take Us

See the 74-page Report on the Amazing, New High Resolution WCUFO Photos Here! 

Test the WCUFO Photo Yourself!

The photo immediately below is one of 63 photos that Billy Meier took of the WCUFO, using a 35mm film camera, in 1981:

WCUFO on the ground 1
WCUFO on the ground 1

This photo is a detail of a section of the craft as shown in Rhal Zahi’s video here:

Detail of WCUFO from Rhal Zahi's video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pjcbF1oK8Q.
Detail of WCUFO from Rhal Zahi’s video here.

Detail of WCUFO from Rhal Zahi’s video here.

This object was not made by anyone on Earth and no one has yet been able to duplicate it…in over 33 years. (For more  of the newly analyzed  photos of the WCUFO please click here and here . And this video report reveals more information about the nighttime WCUFO photo.)

The Plejaren extraterrestrial people who made and and fly this object, and the more familiar looking disc-type UFOs here, come from a far distant world and have been meeting with Billy Meier for over 72 years. They are not here to save, nor to harm, us. They hoped to get our attention with all of these flying craft so that we might pay attention to the more important content, the actual reason for their visits to our world.

The Plejaren presented an even higher standard of proof of their existence and advanced level of development in the prophetically accurate scientific information that they gave to, and which was published by, Billy Meier. Included in the information from them, and Billy Meier, are prophecies and predictions warning us of very specific, grave dangers we face on Earth, largely due to our own erroneous way of thinking, feeling and acting. We continue to update the new corroborations for that information on this blog.

For those who can then comprehend and appreciate the foundation of impeccable credibility established by the existence of information that preempts our “official discovery”, often by decades, we are asked to direct our attention to the spiritual teaching. It is this belief-free, non-religious teaching that encourages us to take full self-responsibility for every thought, feeling and action in our lives, to see things exactly as they are and to learn how to…think.

The teaching emphasizes that there are no outside forces, no imaginary gods, tin gods, angels, saints, saviors, masters, nor any earthly political or governmental “leaders”, priest, rabbis, mullahs, etc., that are responsible for us in any way. Only we ourselves are responsible for our own lives and our own destiny.

This of course has nothing to do with the imaginary “extraterrestrial presence on Earth”, “millions of contactees”, “alien abductions” and other false, misleading, fear and profit motivated machinations that are cynically and relentlessly promoted by the “UFO industry” and its hacks who have deliberately chosen to suppress, ignore and, attack the only authentic UFO contact case and its rich, freely given treasure to Earth humanity. They have succeeded to some degree in making the whole UFO/extraterrestrial topic a profitable form of…entertainment at the cost of the truth. This of course only succeeds to the degree that people have abdicated their self-responsibility and critical thinking in favor of inferior priorities.

However, in time humanity will awaken. How long that takes, individually and collectively, is solely up to us.

So perhaps you’d like to gaze upon those photos again and realize that before we concern ourselves with taking our own flights to the stars, we may want to visit the world of consciousness inside of ourselves and utilize the helpful assistance contained in the…instructional manual these visitors have given to us.

Please also see this further documentation:

 

And be sure to see the new film analysis confirming the authenticity of the so-called “Pendulum UFO“.

83 Replies to “The WCUFO and where It Can Take Us”

  1. The garbage bin lid, skeptics claim Meier used for the WCUFO, has a marked difference from Meier’s UFO that noone has mentioned to date.

    The lid made by Harcostar (now HDPE) has only three bands of equal width and flatness on the outer rim. The fourth, top, band is only flat (like the three below it) for half it’s width and the other half is curved to the top. Meier’s WCUFO has four bands of EQUAL width and equal flatness.

    This significant detail isn’t obvious from the poor photos Korff and BUMFOR use, but, if you Google image search – clamp-top-drum-220%20litre-lid2.JPG – and – WCUFO File:Pic-808.jpg – and compare the rims on both, the difference is marked and obvious.

  2. https://archive.org/details/BillyMeier808ComparisonWithPhilLangdon

    Here are my notes:

    Globes
    Meier’s UFO has 3 different sizes. Langdon’s has 2.
    Langdon’s have moulding seams(visible in the closest of the top globes, here).

    The Base
    The bevel on the top edge is much larger on Langdon’s.
    The bottom flange is also larger and thinner on Langdon’s and it has a rounded edge.
    Langdon’s reflects like a cylinder. Meier’s does not. If you look carefully at the highlights on Meier’s base, they indicate each of the four segments are angled downward separately. Something of a zig-zag cross-section. If it were a cylinder(with rings on the surface), it would reflect Meier’s carriage house similar to the cupola.

    Cupola
    Langdon didn’t even try.
    Clearly, there is a starfish pattern. So far, only an underliner with only four rows of the pattern have been found. Still no exact match.

    Protrusions below cupola
    Meier’s is shaped like a capsule split length-wise. Langdon’s are flat and near rectangular(check Langdon’s PDF). They also match in colour with the rings just beneath them as well as the brass-coloured rings in the high detailed area. Did Meier find exact matches or did he colour them himself?

    Surface
    Meier’s is pristine.
    Langdon’s, not so much.

    The high detailed area(two facing globes) is not even close in Langdon’s.

    Meier’s has 3 different coloured gem-like objects of various sizes and 2 different shapes.

    The square detail at the end of the four J-shaped arms on the top spheres are missing in Langdon’s.

    The only flaws in Meier’s that I can see are
    1) the erratic wave-like curving on the bottom spheres support.
    2) the faint surface distortion on the bottom flange(near the tab).

    The reflection in Langdon’s globes is Langdon himself. If you look at his other photos, it becomes more obvious. If Meier’s object is the same size then he hid himself very well in the reflection.

    1. Thanks to you and Matt for your comments. Also, some years ago I noticed that in the nighttime gold craft/black background photo, the cupola of the WCUFO is EXTENDED upwards from the craft, creating a different configuration than the day time photos. Langdon didn’t try to duplicate this either.

    2. Hi Taro,

      Your findings are spot on. Sheila mentioned you’d found evidence that the containers photographed at the SSSC weren’t even manufactured at the time Billy took his WCUFO photos #800 series. Is this right?

      Of course, the skeptical clowns won’t pay attention. In their heads, Phil built a model so proved a model could be built. On that basis, Phil completely wasted his time as we all knew that already. Billy’s WCUFO would require unknown and unavailable manufacturing processes impossible for the ordinary working man to have access to in any real way.

      Space Oddity
      In addition to being blind to these physical details, BUMFOR also forgot to watch the NASA film – ‘Space Colonization’ – he claims Billy photographed for his Universal Space Barrier (Contact Report 31) .

      The NASA video is now online and you can see that it shows a more cropped version of Rick Guidice’s 1975 illustration compared to Billy’s image: youtu.be/JVW6idBFU2Q?t=36s

      Billy’s image has more details like spheres and was taken further back: futureofmankind.info/Billy_Meier/File:Universe_barrier.jpg

      BUMFOR failed to answer the question: Where did Billy Meier get access to an illustration commissioned by NASA, that was not publicly available at the time?

  3. The size of the globes compared to the house on Langdon’s photo make it obvious that his object is much, much smaller in size. There are all kinds of problems with Langdon’s photo, but the obvious size difference is too much to give it any credit. Quetzal’s ship covers the entire length of the home on Billy’s photo, but Langdon’s has a quarter of the home showing — another indicator of a huge size difference.

    There are too many discrepancies to note them all.

    https://ia801500.us.archive.org/13/items/BillyMeier808ComparisonWithPhilLangdon/808Comparison.jpg

  4. No Matt, that wasn’t me. I’d like to know more about this myself. What I do know is that thus far, no one has been able to provide any form of evidence that Harcostar, when they existed, manufactured and/or sold the lid Langdon used or any similar design allegedly used by Meier in 1980.

    Here’s my take on the WCUFO: Like many previous pieces of evidence, it was deliberately constructed to resemble a hoax with distinct features that could never be fully duplicated. Langdon, or someone like him was meant see the apparent hoax and be motivated to attempt duplications. We were meant to arrive at this point where we are now discussing the finer details of this UFO. Just my theory.

    I think BMUFOR’s claim is that Meier found Guidice’s image in a book. In any case, IMHO, the space trip images were planted into his returned film rolls. Stevens found evidence of rolls disappearing in the mail. They could just as easily have slipped in a fake roll meant to fool Meier.

    Melissa, I urge caution with Meier’s courtyard WCUFO photos(with any of his evidence, for that matter). The skeptic claim of forced perspective is not a simple matter to rule out. The use of varying lens focal lengths can distort the image enough to control the size of the house in the background relative to a small model in the foreground. Also, keep in mind Langdon made no effort to match the photographic environment in any empirical sense(including his camera/focal length). The size of the house in Langdon’s background is entirely arbitrary. It can’t really be used to determine the size of the foreground object without any verifiable measurements(house length, distance to camera, focal length etc.)

    1. I understand what you’re saying, Taro, but why wouldn’t he try to match the house with the object? How can you duplicate only parts of the object or photo and expect anyone to take it seriously? That doesn’t make sense. Regardless, Langdon’s object is obviously much smaller in size. It may be a touchy subject, but it’s so obvious.

    2. I’m not disagreeing with you and I admit that I haven’t done the measurements myself, but when I look at the two photos, I feel as though I’m looking at a thimble when I look at Langdon’s, but when I look at Billy’s, it feels like a large, solid piece of equipment. I thought the whole issue came about as a result of the skeptics saying Billy’s UFO’s were models. If that’s the case, wouldn’t you try to duplicate the size and perspective of the background to prove that you can take a photo of a model and it would look the same in size and perspective to Billy’s photo? Salome

      1. Something that few people grasp is that Langdon, and any other skeptic/modelmaker, has the luxury and benefit of trying to…copy/duplicate the UFOs in Meier’s photos.

        You’ll notice that they don’t create anything new themselves. So they can sit around taking all their time trying to re-create what Meier has done, yet they can’t even do that. Langdon wouldn’t even try to duplicate the details here:

        https://theyflyblog.com/2014/03/04/wcufo/

        Nor could he duplicate the raised cupola of the night shot.

        Or the Hasenbol clip:

        1. Yes, and honestly, I think he did a terrible job at recreating. I’ve watched the Zahi videos and do understand that measurements are needed for the scientific method, but I also think that just looking at the details in the photos reveals many things.

    3. Taro Agree that the space journey photos were copies of illustrations.

      Disagree tha the WCUFO was intended to look like a hoax. Without boring everyone, I think these photos are much, much, bigger, more complex, multi-layered, significant than that and not jst because they’re UFO photos.

      Disagree BUMFOR states Guidice’s illustration was available to Meier in a book in 1975, only via a TV broadcast and none of the usual suspects responded to this point when it was put to them here: youtu.be/5irw7qfpjrA

      1. “Disagree tha the WCUFO was intended to look like a hoax. Without boring everyone, I think these photos are much, much, bigger, more complex, multi-layered, significant than that and not jst because they’re UFO photos.”

        Totally agree.

      2. Agreed Meier’s WCUFO evidence is much more complex than most people think it is. It is for this reason I think the resemblance to a variety of household items is neither coincidence nor evidence of hoax: It has been perfectly balanced by design.

        1. Someone, who for the life of me escapes my memory at present, once suggested that maybe the WCUFO is a Beamship without it’s outer shell/casing and that he/she thought that it was so as to give the interested here on Earth some food for thought. I like those thoughts, a lot! ;->

        2. Yes, it’s much more to do with Truffaut’s line as the character ‘Lacombe’ in ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind’:

          Walsh: It’s a coincidence. It’s not scientific.
          Lacombe: Listen to me, Major Walsh, it is an event sociological.

          The whole case was an event sociological. They even left other clues impulsed to Spielberg imo, free of charge, as pictured here: i.pinimg.com/originals/df/e8/10/dfe810ca1ebf34afdda936b2b760c845.png

          Don’t think many realise that the creative impulses the Plejaren had been generating for millennia have now left the building, except for the occasional visit to Billy. As Ptaah said, human beings will no longer be able to make any significant advancements from now until we tackle or face the consequences of some key issues here on Earth, like overpopulation and greed. In regards to the latter…

          It is now illegal, technically, for my photo from the movie ‘AI’ above to be published in the EU since yesterday, when the internet was killed off.

          Here’s video testimony of a man who , “…was in the European Parliament when this [Article 13] passed, so this is my first-hand account” and this backs up what Ptaah said about what the EU is and about our, not, only, running out of oil, but, ideas and creative impulses: youtu.be/hP3HJ1YYrgs

          This is why we who support Billy will come into prominence from now on, i.e., we will be the only remaining sources of progressive type impulses on Earth whilst others lose their minds over the negative influences / impulses.

          1. Hi Matt definitely a sad day in the EU now that the Internet is dead. We aren’t any farther behind across the pond. Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have been censoring comments for quite some time, now they’re going after encryption:
            https://www.rt.com/news/437547-five-eyes-encryption-backdoor/
            The article is factually incorrect in that the FBI didn’t need to strong arm Apple for the San Bernardino rampager’s password. There were YouTube videos at the time showing how to do it and I even had a first hand demonstration, it worked. So that was all nonsense.
            What is encrypted? Well your income tax returns are which also lists your banking information as well.

            1. Yes, Sheila; Snowden and Assange clarified for us that these private companies and political undemocracies are all like the “Saltpetre-men” of 17th Century England. They’re not interested in using these powers to “fight terrorism”, but, to break into our homes and take the piss for their gunpowder and to tan hides.

        3. Hi Taro could you please upload a photo of Phil Langdon’s shoddy pictures for comparison?
          PatentBuddy is your friend, just saying.

            1. Also, here’s an example of how a skeptic outsmarts himself. First, let’s give Phil Langdon a nod as a very good model maker. He takes the time to study all of the details of Meier’s UFO photos and films and then makes his attempts.

              That being said, compare Meier’s original Hasenbol film with Langdon’s from about 11:00 to 12:37 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyTUyQt4mGc&t=0s)

              Notice that when Meier zooms in on the craft and the lights flash the craft is still not super clear. But Langdon’s…is.

              Why? Because Langdon, flush with pride at making a nice model, failed to realize that filming his small model close to the camera shows it very clearly, unlike the large craft at a distance that Meier photographed and filmed. Also, in his rush to try to prove the lights were just sun reflections, Phil puts reflective surfaces on a number of places on his model. It appears to me though that the lights in Meier’s film aren’t reflections but emanate out from the craft.

              1. You all have renewed my interest in the famous WCUFO (Wedding Cake UFO — I love this name, by the way). I was busy researching other things, but now I’m back to this beautiful ship. I would like to thank you all for giving me a lot to think about. Salome

              2. Well, here’s what I see: There is a glint of light on the lower edge, maybe two, three times a revolution. The glint on the upper edge is longer in duration. These “glints” are also quite bright compared to the UFO. So far, Langdon hasn’t duplicated these details. No debunk effort has ever properly addressed lighting. A sun reflection can only be that isolated if the model is designed to do so(if even possible). The more likely explanation is that they are lights cycled to coincide with the slow turn of the UFO to mimic sunlight reflecting off the edges. The skeptic trap, as I think Rhal coined it.

  5. I can’t remember, but did Quetzal ever say what the purpose of the globes were? It seems to me that they would provide some sort of energy field or frequency field. Those colored objects look like crystals or other rare stones, plus you have the gold objects in certain positions maybe acting as some sort of conductor. It’s interesting to ponder the mechanics behind this ship since it has many more bits showing than the other ships.

    1. What I can tell you from modelling the UFO in Blender, the globes are not aligned along the horizontal plane. If you look closely(check #808), the support has an irregular wave and the globes follow it. It’s very slight but it’s there. If the globes do have some purpose, this would have to be taken into account. Then again the whole thing could be dressing for the purposes of the controversy.

      1. I noticed that as well, but after consideration, I don’t think the Plejaren would decorate their ship for the purposes of controversy. I think it was Ptaah who said that those particular ships were made specifically for Earth and Earth’s environment/atmosphere. They were intended for Earth’s specific physical and energetic makeup. I guess it’s a possibility, but something tells me those globes indeed have a very specific purpose. Salome

      2. I just read through a blog that was trying to debunk the WCUFO with Langdon’s model and really had to laugh when I read that the bottom of the ship was made using a lid from a pressure cooker pot. They were serious too. A garbage can lid with a pressure cooker lid underneath of it. No way! The WCUFO resembles many things, but there’s no way it was made with household items from the 80’s.

        There’s no way that’s a garbage can lid with Christmas ornaments and a pressure cooker lid.

        WCUFO at night with extended cupola and bottom
        http://www.futureofmankind.info/w/images/f/fe/147_3rd_set.jpeg

  6. Taro you need to know there are many flaws in the plausible deniability theory and no disrespect to James Deardorff:
    1. Aliens are NOT the ones mutilating livestock, it’s the sick earth humans testing out their latest weaponry in stealth, usually in a religious community, parts sold on the black market. Those in charge use these methods to make people afraid of aliens.
    2. Same with abductions all done by the military industrial complex or the subject has had regressive hypnotherapy which leaves behind false memories.
    3. Aliens aren’t going to appear openly as from the Meier material they’ve said the earth human would worship them as gods and we don’t need a repeat of previous history.
    4. We are not going to get “Disclosure” period. Do you honestly think lowly citizens are going to see what the military industrial complex has? They’ve been using the TRB for at least 5 years protecting certain infrastructure so “Disclosure” is a mufon scam.
    5. The real reason the aliens don’t land and interact is to protect themselves and also the person they may have been checking out.
    6. Because of the fact that if you told 10 people the same thing they would all come away with something different. That’s why they chose only ONE person so the message doesn’t get messed up, again.
    7. Then there are the Ashtards who successfully use “real vision” for the susceptible. It’s like seeing something that you know is physically impossible. For more info see CR 563.
    8. Don’t buy any bubblegum…

    1. I’m not sure plausible deniability is any one set of very specific theories. The core theory is that the controversy was deliberate. This may or may not include false information, inaccurate information, partial information, contradictory information or deliberately confusing information. The main point is that anyone who can’t handle the case has a way out.

    1. I hate to be the wet blanket but you forgot to consider camera focal length. I’ve been working on something similar but I modelled the entire photographic environment. The background(Main House) is important. What I can tell you is that there are no configurations(UFO size/focal length) which can exactly match Meier’s photos that include the MH. Of the ones that are close, multiple configurations work. Some as large as 2.6m, others as small as 18-inches. This is NOT a simple piece of evidence to validate or debunk.

      1. Could the inability to match the focus be direct evidence of the UFOs radiation effects on film, or, in reality Taro? Are you factoring in the size of the reflection in the spheres as Rhal did, as I would imagine this would rule out the 18-inch match, no?

        1. If you look closely at Meier’s hi-res(#808) you will see that the UFO IS in focus. As far as I can tell, he used the outline of the UFO, probably where dark meets the white snow. You can see the starfish pattern on the cupola. But the surface finish of the silvery parts is a little diffuse. The CH is, deliberately in my opinion, blurred or seemingly out of focus. I have, experimentally, found a surface finish that matches the blur level as closely as possible. I also check everything in photoshop where I can align tests with Meier’s originals and flip back and forth for a solid comparison.

          1. Right, interesting. You’re saying the CH not being in focus in the reflection is not as a result of any settings on Billy’s camera.

            That leads me to thinking the anomalies could very well be evidence of the motion distortion effects on film, but, of differing vibrations over different parts of the UFO and especially the spheres in #808, possibly some other areas too, i.e., the area around the handle.

            If you look at the sphere detail of #808 the outline blurring doesn’t seem consistent with normal ranges of distance, e.g, the very right hand rim lip closest to us is in good focus, the sphere’s above aren’t and then the star-fished top section is in focus.

            I’m thinking these subtle and different vibrational effects on the image could reasonably explain why many describe these images as strange-looking and why Dilettoso missed the unique property of the WCUFO as his system tested for rough distances accurate to a few metres, but, not to detect these subtle, anomalous, variances.

            1. The simplest explanation for the blurry reflections is a rough surface finish. It’s possible there are multiple grades used across the construction. To me, it looks like the top and mid level spheres have a slightly rougher surface finish than the lower, main spheres. I think the differences in focus are due to the object’s location within the depth of field. The closer edge is slightly out of focus. So, the main spheres closest to the camera are blurred slightly due to this but mainly surface finish. Did Dilettoso analyse 808? Do you have a reference?

              1. By my eyes, the colour and light levels being reflected into the camera from those spheres is consistent with what I’d expect from highly-polished chrome/metal and not consistent with the amount of surface distortions needed to explain the focus variances from neighbouring background/foreground elements.

                Still think these variances are motion distortions, i.e., very fast and differing vibrations of different parts of the ship or some other type factors, electromagnetic, that distort the metal’s appearance.

              2. To your question Taro, Dilettoso said that he (probably his testing system as previously stated) thought the WCUFO looked “funny/not right” during his presentation below, which is a great watch for anyone interested in these details:

                Jim Dilettoso’s Methodology & Testing of Billy Meier UFO Photos: https://youtu.be/NrV63mZOSp8

      2. “I hate to be the wet blanket but you forgot to consider camera focal length.”

        You’re not being a wet blanket Taro. I used the same focal length as Billy’s camera. However, focal length doesn’t really matter because the reflections cover the same area whether the focal length is 24mm or 100mm. The size of a reflection on an object can only change if the source of the reflection changes.

        “I’ve been working on something similar but I modelled the entire photographic environment.”

        Yes, I also did that but then decided not to use the main house model because of the fact that….**

        ” **…there are no configurations(UFO size/focal length) which can exactly match Meier’s photos that include the MH.”

        Exactly!! 🙂

        Which is why no one will ever be able to accurately reproduce these photographs with a camera and models or CGI. It’s impossible.

        “This is NOT a simple piece of evidence to validate or debunk.”

        Well, I concider it validated when combined with every other aspect of the Meier information. The word ‘impossible’ continually crops up when dealing with hoax theories.

        I see Aaron Fiedmann and Jo Weiss made comments on my video just after I posted it on here. I was wandering why they hadn’t shown up before. Good to see that they deny that which is provable and hold as true that which is impossible. Fantastic. 🙂

        1. Yes, I understand you’re assuming Meier provided accurate camera info. However, if you are doing an objective, unbiased analysis you do not have that luxury, particularly when focal length can be a key factor for ruling out hoax. If a different focal length can duplicate Meier’s courtyard images closer than any other then his information is wrong. How can you be sure until you’ve tested this?

          The Carriage House reflection in a sphere is dependent on its distance from the sphere center. The use of forced perspective includes using a small model, at that same location. The size of the Main House in the background will depend on focal length. Larger(telephoto) means larger MH. Smaller(wide angle) means smaller MH.

          I suggest you take one of Meier’s images(probably 808) and import it into Blender in ortho. Add a plane, ditch 3 vertices. Move the remaining vertex to a starting point on the UFO photo. Draw an outline of the UFO and Main House by extruding the vertex(or maybe it’s duplicate, can’t recall exactly). Make it as accurate as you think it should be. This will be your template for your camera. Once you’ve parented it to your camera you now have an accurate guide for duplication. Try various focal lengths, try various camera locations. I can ROUGHLY duplicate 808 with both an 18-inch UFO and a 2.6m one. 48mm and 51mm respectively. But the others with the MH in the background are even rougher and with different sizes. 1.3m, 1.9m, 2.5m. A range of focal lengths between 47mm and 52mm. But to be clear, in all of these the MH only very roughly fits the template. And the 3.5m UFO just doesn’t work. I guarantee you this is not an easy one to nail.

          “Aaron Friedmann” and “Jo Weiss” are both catfish poser accounts held by Silvio Santini(neo-nazi). The other three I know of are “Magic”(/MagicSpirit11), “Oliver”(/silvio8008), and “Mario Marin”. He seems to be distancing himself from Magic and Oliver. Big surprise.

          1. “Yes, I understand you’re assuming Meier provided accurate camera info.”

            There’s no need to assume anything. The field of view can be worked out as we know the sizes and locations of most of the elements in the photograph. If one knows the FOV, the focal length can be estimated to a high enough degree. In this case a ballpark figure is all that is required because the size and shape of the reflections are so completely different when comparing an 0.5m and a 2m WCUFO. That’s the bottom line of my video, we can only say that it isn’t something.

            The only thing that can currently be determined from analysis of these photos is that it is absolutely impossible for the WCUFO to be constructed from the plastic container lid because a model of that size will not reflect the carriage house in the way that it is in the original photos. The use of various sized models for a forced perspective shot can further be ruled out as that would introduce depth of field problems that could not be overcome with a 35mm camera system, unless very specialized lenses (and accompanying cameras) were used which would have only been available to major film production companies. Or one would need the movements of a large format system so the focal plane and lens could be positioned independently, however Billy would have had to work out how to simulate the depth of field of a real larger scene shot on 35mm so that it stands up to future analysis. The lighting is always a big problem for forced perspective shots, with either the foreground or background being greatly under or over exposed if daylight is the only light source and further worsened with wide or long lenses. If the real main house was used then a model carriage house would be required and this would naturally require the real carriage to be completely removed (demolished) so that it wasn’t reflected in the model WCUFO or so the photographer had working distance. I think it’s quite clear that all the components of the WCUFO are the same scale. If everything in the scene was constructed from models and shot at an unknown location you would still have depth of field problems. It should also be noted that both wide and long lenses produce distortions that aren’t present in Meiers shots. Wally Gentleman was no doubt very well versed in forced perspective photography.

            “I suggest you take one of Meier’s images(probably 808) and import it into Blender….”

            Yes, I did all that in Lightwave and I agree with most of your findings.

            “I guarantee you this is not an easy one to nail.”

            It was never meant to be nailed. The purpose of these photographs is to determine that it can’t be a model despite having a ton of indications that it is. We are not trying to duplicate these photos, because they can’t be. As long as we live in the age of belief no-one will be forced to accept that this is real.

            1. “There’s no need to assume anything. The field of view can be worked out as we know the sizes and locations of most of the elements in the photograph. If one knows the FOV, the focal length can be estimated to a high enough degree.”

              So, you’ve calculated the FOV in Meier’s courtyard shots, then? Would you be willing to show your work? I’d like to see it.

              “In this case a ballpark figure is all that is required because the size and shape of the reflections are so completely different when comparing an 0.5m and a 2m WCUFO.”

              I’m not entirely sure you are clear on how sphere reflections work. The size of the reflection(relative to sphere size) depends solely on the distance of the reflected object from the sphere’s centre. This means that a 0.5m UFO and a 2m UFO can in fact produce the exact same sized Carriage House reflections if the spheres along the front of the UFOs are aligned(i.e., the same distance from the CH). This is why the Main House background reference is critical to determining the true size of the UFO. There is only one focal length(naturally with some leeway) that can reproduce all three at once:

              A) Carriage House reflection size within the sphere
              B) UFO size within frame
              C) Main House size within frame

              I haven’t been able to do it with the 55mm lens and 3.5m UFO as claimed. I used a military airport’s runway width to verify my Google Maps dimensions of Meier’s courtyard. I’m pretty sure it’s close enough for these purposes. As far as I’m concerned, this photo series is still a mystery(but I love mysteries, so it’s all good 😉

              “The only thing that can currently be determined from analysis of these photos is that it is absolutely impossible for the WCUFO to be constructed from the plastic container lid because a model of that size will not reflect the carriage house in the way that it is in the original photos.”

              Well, thus far it appears to have been impossible for the WCUFO to have been constructed from household parts for other reasons. But once again, you should test this out by placing your 0.5m and 2.0m WCUFO models at the same location, aligned as I mentioned. I would naturally keep them on separate layers. Find the two focal lengths that keep the WCUFOs within your template and you’ll see the Main Houses won’t match. Right now, you and I have the benefit of knowing Blender. I guarantee you there will be more of us.

              “The use of various sized models for a forced perspective shot can further be ruled out as that would introduce depth of field problems that could not be overcome with a 35mm camera system…”

              I think it’s safe to assume Meier did not have access to any fancy equipment. Nor did he model his courtyard. If a two-armed man cannot duplicate the fine details of Meier’s WCUFO then considering beyond that is redundant until someone can first duplicate the UFO itself. However, I’m not convinced a 35mm camera with lenses available to Meier at that time have been completely ruled out.

              “It should also be noted that both wide and long lenses produce distortions that aren’t present in Meiers shots.”

              These distortions would only be noticeable with the extremes. I don’t believe it would be with the 47mm lens I used in Blender coupled with the 18-inch model.

              “Wally Gentleman was no doubt very well versed in forced perspective photography.”

              De he comment specifically on these courtyard images? If so, I wouldn’t mind a reference, thx.

              “It was never meant to be nailed. The purpose of these photographs is to determine that it can’t be a model despite having a ton of indications that it is.”

              I completely agree with you here.

              “We are not trying to duplicate these photos, because they can’t be.”

              The objective approach does not make this assumption without properly ruling it out by doing just that– trying to duplicate them. IMHO, of course.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *