I recently agreed to have an analysis done by Ron Nussbeck and Ron Stewart of one of Billy Meier's Wedding Cake UFO (WCUFO) photos. They said that they would be using their APEP technology which, they claim, is superior to any other technology in the world for revealing details and artifacts in photographs that are otherwise not perceivable by any other known means.
From my earliest correspondence with Ron Nussbeck, on October 10, 2009, I clearly stated my doubts as to his claims that "aliens" were visible in any of the UFO photos that he and his partner had already done, and that I was of the same opinion regarding so-called "pictographs", "artwork", etc. that they claimed were so ubiquitous on the "hulls" of every UFO they analyzed, which Ron said were means by which the "aliens" identify each other (i.e. the different extraterrestrial races).
Ron assured me that their analyses and claims were absolutely accurate and would withstand any scientific and/or expert scrutiny. I was also told that the "aliens" themselves didn't have technology as advanced as APEP...a claim that begs a lot of questions, such as, "How do you know that?" "How do you know that aliens even exist?" and, "Why then would they put pictographs/images on the 'hulls' of their spacecraft that they wouldn't be able to detect anyway?", none of which were ever answered.
Now I, and many of those who are closely associated with the Meier case, have, on the basis of arguments advanced to date, little doubt as to the authenticity of the WCUFO evidence (63 day and nighttime photos and one video) and, so far, we are also satisfied with existing work refuting claims that the WCUFO evidence incorporated any models:
(Of course, if compelling evidence to the contrary should present itself, we would amend our views accordingly, as all bona fide investigators should.)
So it was largely out of curiosity, pertaining to Ron's claim that they had detected an "electrical filed" around the WCUFO in one of the photos, and their claims that their results would withstand any challenges by debunkers, that I agreed to have the analysis and report done.
Despite the fact that Ron and his partner are giving glowing endorsements of authenticity to the Meier UFO photos (http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9399895.php), I am now going on record publicly disavowing any support for their report, conclusions or alleged findings. (This includes publicly unpublished claims of theirs that they also found various "aliens", such as in the van, on the WCUFO and on the hillsides in the photo we submitted.)
While this may seem to be a strange position, to reject support for the authenticity of the Meier case and its evidence, the simple fact is that we already know the Meier case is authentic and we don't want to be associated, in any way, with supposed support from what we consider, at this point, to be very questionable sources.
And, in addition to my own, on the record skepticism, serious questions have already been raised by at least two well respected photography and imaging professionals, Chris Lock (http://www.sai.org.uk/) and Dan Drasin (http://web.me.com/dandrasin/Dansworld/Bio_CV.html). Other people have also recently challenged Ron and his partner to produce documented, credible substantiation for their claims, only to be met with evasive, childish and insulting comments (http://www.allnewsweb.com/page2.php).
Not only did Chris Lock raise questions, he did a photo examination, at magnifications of from 200% - 600%, on specific sections of two images. One was of an area in a (2008) photo made by a debunker where Ron claimed that a Plejaren "shuttle craft" deliberately appears in said photo in order to debunker the debunker. The other image was from a section of a (1975) Meier UFO photo in which Ron claimed that he detected the exact same craft (at the exact same angle). Chris Lock's magnifications revealed that no such object was present in either photo and, troublingly, Ron's two photo versions attempting to show the "shuttle craft" in the debunker's photo, actually has it appearing in two different places, an apparently unnoticed by him error and a seemingly deliberate falsification on his part.
I have also waited to respond to the report until I received some word from FIGU in Switzerland about their reaction to the it. Now that I have received a *preliminary response from a FIGU spokesperson I am going ahead and publishing my position. Of course, should Ron and his partner credibly respond to all of the challenges referred to herein, I will not only publish them but issue an apology, should one be due.
Authorized American Media Representative
The Billy Meier Contacts
NOTE: All of my correspondence with Ron, establishing my skepticism and disagreement with his claims about evidence of so-called "aliens", "pictographs", "artwork", etc. is a matter of record, and can be made available if necessary.
* "After reading the analysis just now I have my severe doubts about the expertise of the two Rons. To me it seems like their imagination has run astray. They are seeing faces where there are none, at least not real ones. And their claim/announcement that they were able to detect various Aliens on the photo pushes their credibility nearly to zero, at least in my opinion."
November 9, 2009
"During the photo session of the WCUFO hovering in front of the trailer there were NO extraterrestrials or other persons in the vicinity (Säckler/Dürstelen/Switzerland) except Billy Meier and one (1) Plejaren pilot. There was no one in the trailer.
Anybody who claims to see faces within the trailer or in the background either needs new glasses or should air his brain."
Official statement by Christian Frehner after having discussed the so-called "Ron-claims" with a laughing Billy Meier.
November 22, 2009