Billy Meier's Outer Space pictures: Apollo-Soyuz docking & Others - UPDATE II

See Part 3 for more information behind this comparison

In this UPDATE II, we would like to notify you on two updates.

1. Our investigation and analysis into the Apollo-Soyuz et al. pictures - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 & UPDATE 1 - has been published on BMUFOR (Billy Meier UFO Research) website! Besides some minor changes that were made in regard to the arguments and conclusions, most of the same research (first published in the blog in 3 parts) has been made into the website version.

Some interested readers have wrote to us asking for a shortened version of the long, in-depth analysis of the Apollo-Soyuz et al. pictures. So we have prepared a short summary of it here: Outer Space Pictures – Apollo-Soyuz et al. – Summary.

2. However what is totally new in the website version is that we have for the first time published correspondence that has taken place between the following mentioned persons on the forged Apollo-Soyuz et al. pictures:

• James Moore (webmaster of the Billy Meier Wiki Futureofmankind.co.uk) and Christian Frehner (FIGU Core Group Member & SSSC Facility Director)
• Simon Goudswaard (FIGU Passive Member) and Christian Frehner

Billy Meier's Outer Space pictures: Apollo-Soyuz docking & Others - UPDATE I

In Part 1, Part 2 & Part 3 of this series, we have conclusively shown that some of the outer space pictures (Apollo-Soyuz et al.) that were allegedly photographed by Meier during his 5-day 'Great Space Journey' on July 17, 1975 are "forgeries" that have their source in educational space documentaries from the USA & USSR which were broadcasted around the world in 1960's & 70's.

In this part, we would like to UPDATE you on the following:

• James Deardorff's unpublished response to Kal Korff
• Billy Meier responds
• FIGU member Christian Frehner responds

(A) James Deardorff's unpublished response to Kal Korff:

In Part 1, we have documented Kal Korff's analysis of the Apollo-Soyuz docking photos which he first published in his 1981 (again in 1995) book. In 1988, retired Research Professor Emeritus (OSU), James W. Deardorff wrote a review (unpublished, 20 pages) of Korff's 1981 book with the title - Review of Korff's Report: "The Meier Incident -- The Most Infamous Hoax in Ufology".

On pages 9-10 of Mr. Deardorff' unpublished 1988 work, he responds to Korff on his 1981 analysis of Apollo-Soyuz docking photos:

"Regarding Meier's reported 5-day trip during which he said Semjase permitted him to photograph the Apollo-Soyuz link-up in 1975, one of Korff's objections (p.28) is that the Soyuz spacecraft had straight solar panels extending outward, not partially folded ones as in Meier's photo. This information was said to have come from William Drews of NASA. However, if one reads the Soviet account of this link-up²⁵ one can see from the main drawing that the Soyuz solar panels are pictured to have been in a partially folded orientation, as in Meier's photo. The drawing was made by one of the two astronauts who was on that flight: Alexei Leonov, who is also an amateur artist.

References*
²⁵ Lebedev, L., and Romanov, A., Rendezvous in Space: Soyuz-Apollo (Moscow: Progress Publishers (in English), 1979) p. 10."

* pages 19-20 of Mr. Deardorff's unpublished work

The drawing of Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov (along with the description), which James Deardorff was referring to is available on NASA website:

S75-25077 (May 1975) --- A photographic copy of a painting made by cosmonaut Aleksey A. Leonov, commander of the Soviet ASTP first (prime) crew. This symbolic artwork, representing a Soviet Soyuz spacecraft docking in Earth orbit with an American Apollo spacecraft, was finished in May 1974. The sketch for the painting was made in 1973 following the signing of the space agreement between the United Stated and the Soviet Union. Leonov said that his painting symbolizes the new type of international cooperation of working together in space. The original painting, which measures 80 centimeters by 160 centimeters (1 cm. = 0.39 in.), is on display in a museum in the city of Baku on the Caspian Sea. In making the sketch for the painting Leonov used a model of an earlier Soyuz spacecraft and a picture of an Apollo spacecraft. Later, he obtained a model of an Apollo which helped him check the configuration of the American spacecraft. The tanks on the Docking Module are no longer exposed on the current DM configuration, he noted. Also, this would not be an exact view of the sun as seen from Earth orbit. Leonov took artist license in stressing the symbolism in his artwork. The Soyuz is represented smaller in the painting than it actually is, Leonov added.

There are obvious problems with Deardorff citing Leonov's 1973 artwork as counter-evidence to Korff's research. The problems are

1. Soyuz model:

Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov whom Deardorff referred to, acknowledged himself (see above photo description) that the model of Soyuz which he used for his painting was an old model and not the "latest" one that went up in space in July 1975. For older versions of Soyuz, please refer to this, this and this website. We have also touched up on the differences between Meier's and real Soyuz spacecrafts in  Part 1 and Part 2 of this series. 

2. Solar panels:

The above video - Apollo-Soyuz Test Project Facts, Part C - contains the raw footage of Apollo-Soyuz docking from 1975. And from that footage we can notice that the solar panels of Soyuz were straight and always stay fully extended during the docking procedure.

3. Soyuz size:

Leonov also acknowledged (see painting description) that the size of the Soyuz in his painting is smaller than the one in reality.

4. Apollo DM:

Leonov further noted that the configuration of Apollo's docking module (DM) which he painted is different to the real DM. Please refer to Part 2 (search for the word 'tanks') on this subject.

All of the above reasons clearly indicate that the Soviet Cosmonaut Leonov's painting made in 1973/1974 is technically incorrect, as it was made before the final design was finished. And the painting of Apollo-Soyuz docking was only made as a symbolic artwork to illustrate the international cooperation of working together in space.

All it takes for Deardorff, to acknowledge the results of Korff's analysis and recognize that the Soyuz in Meier's pictures as not the real Soyuz but from a NASA animation, is just to look at one, just one real NASA photograph of a real Soyuz spacecraft. Perhaps he did or perhaps not; but citing just one source, which in reality is only a "symbolic artwork", seems to be a perfect example of confirmation bias.

Note: James Deardorff towards the end of 1990's still stood by his reference to an artwork by Soviet cosmonaut Leonov. I am not sure, whether or not he has noticed his mistake in later years. 

(B) Billy Meier responds:

After uncovering the fake photos in Meier' collection which are also being published in FIGU books as genuine; I shared my analysis with Billy Meier and wanted to hear his response. Following are the questions (from me) posed to Meier on the FIGU Forum and the corresponding answers (by Meier, in green color).

Monday, August 25, 2014

Mahigitam
Billy,
http://futureofmankind.co.uk/w/images/9/9f/Apollo-soyuzX6.jpg
Are all the 6 different photos in the above illustration come from Apollo-Soyuz docking on July 17, 1975 ? Or do some photos in those six, not belong to Apollo-Soyuz docking ?

We don’t know because Billy is not in possession of the original slides/photos anymore.
(Note by CF*: And after so many years Billy does not remember the exact details.)

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Mahigitam
Billy,
When I recently looked into some of the Apollo-Soyuz pictures & others that were published in Guido's 'Und sie fliegen doch!' & also in CR 31 (PPKB 1), I found that 11 outer space pictures are certainly falsified and have been traced back to NASA animation (early 1970's), Russian documentaries (1969 & 1972),..etc - all of which were produced before your Great Journey in July 1975. Some pictures are of spacecrafts that were not even in space during your Great Journey. For example Salyut-1 in your photos was from a frame of a documentary made in 1972 and the Soyuz 4-Soyuz 5 coupling photo was from a frame in a documentary made in 1969.

CF* has already received a shortened german version of my analysis and you may want to look into it, if you haven't already seen it. Now, my questions are:

1. Would there be any explanation (by you or/and Plejaren) on this discrepancy, just like the explanations which were given in earlier times on similar anamolies - Asket-Nera, Universal Barrier, WCUFO,..etc ?

2. Would these pictures be removed entirely or would they be published as-it-is which would give the obvious message that they are genuine ? (Of course any of the above actions could only take place after you or Plejaren analyse the pictures once again & confirm their source.)

If possible, many are interested to know how this has even occurred when Ptaah around 2002 strictly ensured that no fake pictures would enter into PPKBs as this statement by Hans George Lanzendorfer from FIGU special bulletin 20 clearly states:

"In the year 2001, Guido was asked by “Billy” to make some of the photos available for publication in the corrected Pleiadian/Plejaren Contact Report Block...For the publication in the Contact Report Block, it was strictly ensured, with the help of Ptaah, that it only concerned “Billy’s” genuine pictures or his pictures that were only slightly falsified by Schmid, whereby the aforesaid falsification, for a logical reason, found no use.”

There’s no need for a “correction”.
(Note by CF*: Actually, these pictures are not an important issue. They were used in the PP Block only as an illustration.)

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Mahigitam
Dear Meier,
In response to my question whether the faked Apollo-Soyuz pictures would be removed entirely or would be published as-it-is which would give the obvious message that they are genuine; you responded as follows:

"There’s no need for a “correction”.
(Note by CF: Actually, these pictures are not an important issue. They were used in the PP Block only as an illustration.)"

Why do you think there is no need for correction ?
Do you still consider these photos as authentic, photographed by you during your space journey ?
If not, why publish the pictures, faked by MIB in PPKBs as authentic ?

CF*, these pictures were checked & authenticated by Ptaah. I still don't understand what you meant by this: "They were used in the PP Block only as an illustration."

If FIGU is fine with having faked pictures in its publications, why did they remove the Venus, Jupiter, Pterdactyl, Asket-Nera (captions changed),..etc ?
Why not just have them in photo albums & just say what you have just said ?

Billy’s comment: This is old hat.

* Christian Frehner

Conclusion #1:

The above Q/A suggests that Billy Meier either still thinks these pictures - which we have analysed in Part 1, Part 2 & Part 3 and shown to be from NASA and Soviet space documentaries from 1960's & 70's - are genuine or he doesn’t care anymore whether or not they are genuine as it can be noticed from his evasive responses to the questions pointing the obvious contradictions that have come up.

(C) FIGU member Christian Frehner responds:

Following is the correspondence between me and Christian Frehner, FIGU Core Group member and SSSC Facility Director.

from: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
to: Christian Frehner/FIGU <christian.frehner@figu.org>
date: Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:08 AM
subject: Billy's Q/A - Apollo-Soyuz pictures

Dear CF,

The following is the Q/A on english FIGU forum and your response. I am going to just focus on your response.

"Mahigitam
Billy,
When I recently looked into some of the Apollo-Soyuz pictures & others that were published in Guido's 'Und sie fliegen doch!' & also in CR 31 (PPKB 1), I found that 11 outer space pictures are certainly falsified and have been traced back to NASA animation (early 1970's), Russian documentaries (1969 & 1972),..etc - all of which were produced before your Great Journey in July 1975. Some pictures are of spacecrafts that were not even in space during your Great Journey. For example Salyut-1 in your photos was from a frame of a documentary made in 1972 and the Soyuz 4-Soyuz 5 coupling photo was from a frame in a documentary made in 1969.

CF has already received a shortened german version of my analysis and you may want to look into it, if you haven't already seen it. Now, my questions are:

1. Would there be any explanation (by you or/and Plejaren) on this discrepancy, just like the explanations which were given in earlier times on similar anamolies - Asket-Nera, Universal Barrier, WCUFO,..etc ?

2. Would these pictures be removed entirely or would they be published as-it-is which would give the obvious message that they are genuine ?
(Of course any of the above actions could only take place after you or Plejaren analyse the pictures once again & confirm their source.)

If possible, many are interested to know how this has even occurred when Ptaah around 2002 strictly ensured that no fake pictures would enter into PPKBs as this statement by Hans George Lanzendorfer from FIGU special bulletin 20 clearly states:

"In the year 2001, Guido was asked by “Billy” to make some of the photos available for publication in the corrected Pleiadian/Plejaren Contact Report Block...For the publication in the Contact Report Block, it was strictly ensured, with the help of Ptaah, that it only concerned “Billy’s” genuine pictures or his pictures that were only slightly falsified by Schmid, whereby the aforesaid falsification, for a logical reason, found no use.”

There’s no need for a “correction”.
(Note by CF: Actually, these pictures are not an important issue. They were used in the PP Block only as an illustration.) "

CF, these pictures were checked & authenticated by Ptaah. I didn't understand what you meant by this: "They were used in the PP Block only as an illustration."

Does this mean that you acknowledge them to be fakes ?
But simple logic dictates that - some of the spacecrafts (Soyuz 4, Soyuz 5 and Salyut 1) were not even in space during July 1975. How can you use them as Illustration when they don't even exist in space ?
Illustrating what exactly ?

Regards
Mahesh Karumudi

from: Christian Frehner/FIGU <christian.frehner@figu.org>

to: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
date: Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:28 AM
subject: Re: Billy's Q/A - Apollo-Soyuz pictures

Hi Mahesh,

I guess that you already read Billy's comment in the forum.

Salome,
Christian

from: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>

to: Christian Frehner/FIGU <christian.frehner@figu.org>
date: Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:57 AM
subject: Billy's Q/A - Apollo-Soyuz pictures

Hello CF,

Of course I have read Meier's response which is: "There’s no need for a “correction”.

Which clearly skirted the main question, which is - does Meier acknowledge that the Apollo-Soyuz outerspace pictures as fake or not ?
If Meier acknowledges them as fakes made by MIB and yet says there is no need for a "correction", then it raises further ethical & logical questions, which I am not going to raise here.

My specific question to you is not about Meier's response but your own response. You said:

(Note by CF: Actually, these pictures are not an important issue. They were used in the PP Block only as an illustration.)

Obviously a lot of contradictions raise from your response. Hope you respond to all of them.

1. These outer space pictures were checked & authenticated by Ptaah (FIGU Special Bulletin 20, 2005) as genuine pictures taken by Meier and not as illustrations. How do you explain this ?
2. If it is just used as illustration purposes, then why was it not mentioned in the contact blocks that they were just there for illustration ? Instead they give the clear message that they were real pictures taken by Meier.
3. Again illustrating what exactly ? Simple logic dictates that - some of the spacecrafts (Soyuz 4, Soyuz 5 and Salyut 1) were not even in space during July 1975. How can you use them as Illustration when they don't even exist in space ?

Regards
Mahesh Karumudi

from: Christian Frehner/FIGU <christian.frehner@figu.org>

to: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 2:01 AM
subject: Re: Billy's Q/A - Apollo-Soyuz pictures

Hello Mahesh

See my answers below:

Am 28.10.2014 um 07:27 schrieb karumudi mahesh chowdary:

Hello CF,

Of course I have read Meier's response which is: There’s no need for a “correction”.

Which clearly skirted the main question, which is - does Meier acknowledge that the Apollo-Soyuz outerspace pictures as fake or not ?

If Meier acknowledges them as fakes made by MIB and yet says there is no need for a "correction", then it raises further ethical & logical questions, which I am not going to raise here.

My specific question to you is not about Meier's response but your own response. You said:

(Note by CF: Actually, these pictures are not an important issue. They were used in the PP Block only as an illustration.) 

Obviously a lot of contradictions raise from your response. Hope you respond to all of them.

1. These outer space pictures were checked & authenticated by Ptaah (FIGU Special Bulletin 20, 2005) as genuine pictures taken by Meier and not as illustrations. How do you explain this ?
   

Ptaah said (PP Block 10, page 17: "These are only a few examples of the genuine 42 pictures, at which only a few falsifying and not very important changes were made." In other words: These are not the original photos, but photos which look similar to the original ones. They are still falsified photos.
Logically, falsified and/or altered photos cannot be the original ones.

1. If it is just used as illustration purposes, then why was it not mentioned in the contact blocks that they were just there for illustration ? Instead they give the clear message that they were real pictures taken by Meier.
   

As you can read from my explanation above: Ptaah is stating that these are a few examples of the 42 genuine photos, but which do not correspond  100% with the original photos.

1. Again illustrating what exactly ? Simple logic dictates that -  some of the spacecrafts (Soyuz 4, Soyuz 5 and Salyut 1) were not even in space during July 1975. How can you use them as Illustration when they don't even exist in space ?

Since these photos were not published in the Semjase-Blocks (yellow and brown editions), and since they are not 100% identical with the original photos (according to Ptaah's statement), I look upon them as illustrations. They cannot be taken as proof.

Regards,
Christian

from: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>

to: Christian Frehner/FIGU <christian.frehner@figu.org>
date: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 8:58 PM
subject: Billy's Q/A - Apollo-Soyuz pictures

Dear CF,

"1. Ptaah said (PP Block 10, page 17: "These are only a few examples of the genuine 42 pictures, at which only a few falsifying and not very important changes were made." In other words: These are not the original photos, but photos which look similar to the original ones. They are still falsified photos. Logically, falsified and/or altered photos cannot be the original ones. 

2. Ptaah is stating that these are a few examples of the 42 genuine photos, but which do not correspond  100% with the original photos."

Yes these falsified photos, technically cannot be called as original & 100% authentic ones because Ptaah said that they were falsified in CR 384, PPKB 10 which is also published in FIGU Special Bulletin 20.

But from the Ptaah verses in the FIGU Special Bulletin 20  (including the same one you quoted), he actually says the following regarding the level falsification done on these photos:

• "..only slightly falsified by Schmid, whereby the aforesaid falsification, for a logical reason, found no use"
• "..only very few falsifying and not any major changes were made."

Ptaah clearly says that these pictures are only very slightly falsified with no major changes at all. He also clearly says that this falsification found no logical use at all - meaning that most of the ORIGINAL content photographed by Meier still exist in these 42 outer space photos.

Do you agree with this logical conclusion ?

Regards
Mahesh Karumudi

from: Christian Frehner/FIGU <christian.frehner@figu.org>
to: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:43 AM
subject: Re: Billy's Q/A - Apollo-Soyuz pictures 

Hi Mahesh,

See below:

Am 31.10.2014 um 16:28 schrieb karumudi mahesh chowdary:

Dear CF,

"1. Ptaah said (PP Block 10, page 17: "These are only a few examples of the genuine 42 pictures, at which only a few falsifying and not very important changes were made." In other words: These are not the original photos, but photos which look similar to the original ones. They are still falsified photos. Logically, falsified and/or altered photos cannot be the original ones.

2. Ptaah is stating that these are a few examples of the 42 genuine photos, but which do not correspond  100% with the original photos."

Yes these falsified photos, technically cannot be called as original & 100% authentic ones because Ptaah said that they were falsified in CR 384, PPKB 10 which is also published in FIGU Special Bulletin 20:

But from the Ptaah verses in the FIGU Special Bulletin 20  (including the same one you quoted), he actually says the following regarding the level falsification done on these photos:

• "..only slightly falsified by Schmid, whereby the aforesaid falsification, for a logical reason, found no use"
• "..only very few falsifying and not any major changes were made."

These are Hans Georg Lanzendorfer's words, not Ptaah's. It's an interpretation of what Ptaah said in PP Block 10 on page 17.

Regards,
Christian

from: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>

to: Christian Frehner/FIGU <christian.frehner@figu.org>
date: Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:02 AM
subject: Billy's Q/A - Apollo-Soyuz pictures

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Christian Frehner / FIGU <christian.frehner@figu.org> wrote:

But from the Ptaah verses in the FIGU Special Bulletin 20  (including the same one you quoted), he actually says the following regarding the level falsification done on these photos:

• "..only slightly falsified by Schmid, whereby the aforesaid falsification, for a logical reason, found no use"
• "..only very few falsifying and not any major changes were made."

These are Hans Georg Lanzendorfer's words, not Ptaah's. It's an interpretation of what Ptaah said in PP Block 10 on page 17.

The first sentence as you said, is made by HGL but the second sentence is made by Ptaah himself.
Are you suggesting that HGL's interpretation is wrong ?
Below, I will explain with 2 reasons why HGL's interpretation of Ptaah's words is technically correct.

REASON #1:

Ptaah:

• "..Of the more than 1,378 pictures from your Great Journey, only a few remain, namely 42, which really came from you.."
• "..Worldwide, none of your dinosaur pictures and space pictures, etc. have been published, other than those that are shown in new Contact Report Block. These, however, are only a few copies of the real 42 shots, to which only very few falsifying and not any major changes were made..."

(Source: FSB 20)

These both verses (emphasis on the bold, underlined parts) technically mean the same thing as what HGL wrote in his article:
HGL: "..only slightly falsified by Schmid, whereby the aforesaid falsification, for a logical reason, found no use"

The falsification found no use because the major part of these outerspace pictures which really came from Meier were untouched (except the few parts of these outerspace pictures), thereby keeping the integrity of the picture intact.

REASON #2:

Moreover, Meier showed HGL's article to Ptaah, which he read and agreed with it, without mentioning any modifications to the article. This obviously means that the truthfulness and the accuracy of the content in it was acknowledged by Ptaah.

If you still think that HGL's interpretation is incorrect, then please ignore it as my below question is framed based on just Ptaah's above two verses, presented under Reason #1.

QUESTION:

Ptaah from the above two verses, clearly means that the 42 Outer space photos (ex: Apollo-Soyuz, Cave men,..etc), most of which are published in PPKB 1 & 2, really have come from Meier. And moreover in these photos, no major changes or falsifications were made.

This logically means that, the major part of the content in these outerspace pictures published in PPKBs must be GENUINE & only a minor part of the content in these outerspace pictures, can be traced back to FALSIFICATIONS attempted by the alleged MIB/photgrapher Schmid.

Do you agree with this conclusion ?

Regards
Mahesh Karumudi

from: Christian Frehner/FIGU <christian.frehner@figu.org>

to: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
date: Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:39 AM
subject: Re: Billy's Q/A - Apollo-Soyuz pictures  

Hi Mahesh,

Based on what is written in the PP Blocks and in the FIGU Bulletin I can understand that you have come to this conclusion. But there remains the unsolved question of how reality looked like, i.e what exactly has been falsified. And since neither Ptaah nor Billy want to discuss this issue any further, this
case remains unsolved. I for my part can live with the situation.

Regards,
Christian

from: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
to: Christian Frehner/FIGU <christian.frehner@figu.org>
date: Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:05 PM
subject: Billy's Q/A - Apollo-Soyuz pictures

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Christian Frehner / FIGU <christian.frehner@figu.org> wrote:
 

Based on what is written in the PP Blocks and in the FIGU Bulletin I can understand that you have come to this conclusion.

Christian, may I know why you seem to be avoiding responding to the simple questions directly ?
My question to you was based on Ptaah's own words. It is the only conclusion any rational person can reach at. And I have just asked you, if you agree with it or not ?

One would expect the answer as either YES or NO or I DON'T KNOW, along with reasons.

But there remains the unsolved question of how reality looked like, i.e what exactly has been falsified.

I am very much surprised that again you are asking the same question even after you were sent my analysis (see the attachment) 3 months ago on August 20 by Simon, where the side-by-side comparison between the pictures of Meier and the ones from NASA animation and other documentaries are presented.

My research (short version), presented in that document, clearly shows that Meier's outerspace pictures that have been analysed by me, are not 1% or 10 % or 90% falsified as you seem to be supposing but 100% falsified. In other words, the alleged Meier's original outerspace pictures were switched with those that come from NASA animation, other documentaries & magazines.

This makes me wonder, whether you have read the document at all in the first place. If you haven't, then may I know the reason for not reading it ?

If you have, then may I know the reason why you still refer it as - "the unsolved question of how reality looked like, i.e what exactly has been falsified"  - when I have shown that they are 100% falsified ? What are your objections on my research ?

And since neither Ptaah nor Billy want to discuss this issue any further, this case remains unsolved. I for my part can live with the situation.

Beauty of Truth is that Logic & Evidence speaks for itself and requires nobody's help. In this case the analysis clearly shows that they are 100% falsified, i.e. the alleged Meier's outerspace pictures have been switched with pictures from TV showing NASA animation, other documentaries and magazines. We really don't need Meier's or Ptaah's confirmation on it. I would still like to hear from you as to why we need only Meier or Ptaah to tell us how much falsification was made in those pictures ?

All this boils down to this simple question:

If Meier/FIGU knows that some pictures are clearly fake, would they then publish these fake pictures in books as genuine ?

(Hope you would at least answer this question directly.)

If the answer is NO, then there is every reason for Meier/FIGU to look at the analysis (see attachment) and take necessary action.

Regards

Mahesh Karumudi

-- This is the end of our correspondence as Christian doesn't seem interested to respond anymore on this issue even after being notified twice on Nov 19 & Nov 29. --

Conclusion #2:

Again just like Meier, no direct answers to simple, straightforward questions by Christian. This correspondence suggests that Christian Frehner didn't spend enough time or no time at all (implying zero interest) to go through our analysis which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Apollo-Soyuz et al. pictures published by Meier couldn’t have been photographed by him of the real craft in space.

Billy Meier's Outer Space pictures: Apollo-Soyuz docking & Others - Part 3/3

(Continued from Part 2..)

Part 3 - Analysing the Apollo-Soyuz & other pictures published in Meier's Contact report 31, PPKB Vol 1, 2002 and Implications

Billy Meier with the help of ET-Ptaah (who "strictly ensured" that only Meier's genuine or almost genuine pictures gets published in PPKB 1), publishes the following 7 photographs of Apollo-Soyuz docking event and/or satellites of terrestrial or extraterrestrial origin (see CR 31, July 17, 1975, Semjase verse 65).

Before we analyse all the above 7 photographs one by one, though not in an orderly fashion as arranged above, let me a present a list of spacecrafts & space stations that were in space during July 1975, compiled according to this wikipedia page.

Apollo (ASTP): 

This was the Apollo, sometimes referred to as Apollo 18, though this wasn’t an official name, that was involved in the Apollo Soyuz Test Project (ASTP), a joint venture between the US and USSR (Russia) to dock two spacecraft from both countries with each other in space. Apollo would dock with the Russian craft Soyuz 19 on July 17, using a special docking module (DM) to make this possible. Allegedly one of the objectives of the Great Journey of Billy would be to witness and photograph the docking between the two spacecrafts.

Soyuz 19 (ASTP):

This is the specially designed Soyuz 7K-TM craft that would dock with the Apollo.

Salyut 4:

A Russian space station that was part of the Salyut programme. It was launched on December 26, 1974 and re-entered on February 3, 1977. It was docked with Soyuz 18 from May 25, 1975 to July 24, 1975, which covers the time the Great Journey took place.

Soyuz 18:

A Soyuz 7K-T type spacecraft that was docked with Salyut 4 from May 24 to July 26, 1975.

Skylab:

The first US space station. During the Great Journey, it was unmanned however since the last manned mission to Skylab (SL-4) left on February 8, 1974. Skylab would re-enter on July 11, 1979.

Now back to Meier's outer space photographs.

Photo #1:

Unidentified Meier's photograph, July 1975

An unidentified spacecraft(s?) in the below half-part of the image (foreground) and a classic-flying saucer contour on the top (background) which might represent the craft which Semjase says belongs to her race. And the four circular dots of light near the left edge of the image could be representing the four other extraterrestrial ships that according to Semjase were foreign to them and were only there to observe the historic Apollo-Soyuz docking event (see verses spoken by Semjase between 43-44 in CR 31). 

The object in the foreground seems to be a booster of some kind, but I have not yet been able to identify this craft. This simulation video shows something similar but not identical at 0:57 seconds. From what I know, it doesn't at all resemble any otherspacecraft & space station - Apollo 18, Soyuz 18, Soyuz 19, Salyut 1 & Skylab - that were in space in July 1975. I have written to some people who run aerospace related websites & obviously knowledgeable on this topic and even they have failed to identify the object in the image.

Photo #2:

Soyuz-19 ?

This clearly resembles the Soyuz spacecraft that has already been analysed in Part 2 and concluded to be nothing but a model from a NASA animation broadcasted all over the world in early 1970's. But Meier & his supporters could still claim that the Soyuz spacecraft in the above image was not the Soyuz-19 that docked with Apollo CSM on July 17, 1975 but could be other Soyuz orbiting at that time around the earth.

The only Soyuz other than the Soyuz-19 that was in space during the time of July 1975 was Soyuz 18, whose mission started (launch date) on May 24, 1975 and ended (landing date) on July 26, 1975. But the design of Soyuz 18 (see below) is very different to that of Meier's Soyuz (MS). One main difference, being that the Soyuz-18 doesn't have the solar arrays/panels at all since the spacecraft was intended to ferry crews to and from space stations, rather then for extended, independent flight, designers chose to remove the solar arrays. Battery power alone would be sufficient for the short flight to and from the station. While docked to an orbiting space station, the Soyuz Ferry would draw power from the stations electrical system. The other main differences are the aerials & the docking system.

Soyuz-18 model

Photo #3:

Soyuz-19 ?

Is this at least a real Soyuz-19, photographed by Meier ?

Absolutely NOT!

It is not a real Soyuz-18 (which was also in space at that time) either because of clear differences that can be noticed with the aerials on the orbital module (OM), solar panels (Soyuz-18 has no panels, see the drawing of Soyuz-18 in Photo #2) & docking system of both spacecrafts. 

Now as to why it is not real Soyuz-19, compare the above Meier's picture with the below real Soyuz-19 taken from Apollo-CSM in July 1975.

Red arrows - one pair of VHF-radio station antennas on the frequency of 121.75 Mhz*

Blue arrows - Apollo VHF-radio station antennas on the frequencies of 259.7 Mhz & 296.8 Mhz*

Green arrows - one of the three "flaps" of the androgynous peripheral docking system*

Yellow arrows - thermal sensors (?)

* NASA's Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) Press Kit, pages 27-30, 1975

Real Soyuz-19 as seen from Apollo-CSM

One clear difference is that the solar panels & antenna's in MS were not extended but retracted (which looks like this) or in the process of extending. Real Soyuz-19 was launched on July 15, 12:20 UTC, 2 days before the Great Journey started. The solar panels and aerials should already have to be in extended configuration by July 17, since these would be immediately extended when it reaches the orbit after it's launch. This MS picture could not have been taken from the Apollo either, since the solar panels of Soyuz 19 were deployed & extended when it approached the Apollo craft, as can be seen in the real pictures here.

Comparing the components (arrows) of the spacecrafts in both images reveals that MS & RS are aligned similarly though the MS was facing towards its right with respect to the camera. Close observation shows that the position of one of the "flaps" of docking system (green arrow) with respect to the bottom antenna (pointed by blue arrow) is different in MS.

These differences shows that the MS is definitely not the real Soyuz-19 but likely was either from an animation or from an illustration or from a real photograph of a mock-up model.

Photo #4:

Apollo CSM during ASTP ?

Meier's picture seems to be showing an Apollo CSM (Command/Service Module) over the horizon with no docking module. Is this at least a real Apollo, photographed by Meier ?

Absolutely NOT!

See the below picture showing a real Apollo CSM as photographed from real Soyuz-19. The only Apollo craft in space during the Meier's Great Journey (July 1975) was the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) Apollo, sometimes referred to as Apollo-18. However, a special docking module (DM) was attached to Apollo-18 to make the docking with Soyuz-19 possible, which is clearly not present in the Meier's picture.

Real Apollo-18 with docking module, as seen from Soyuz-19

 The only time during ASTP mission, that Apollo was solo in space was:

• during the transposition, docking and extraction procedure with the DM and
• after the docking with Soyuz 19, when the docking module was released before re-entry

During the launch (by a Saturn 1B rocket), the DM was placed behind the Apollo craft, just like the Lunar Exploration Modules (LEM) were during the launch of the moon missions. Once in space, the Apollo would separate from the upper stage, turn 180 degrees, dock with the LM and extract it from the upper stage, as can be seen in this simulation video. The same procedure was followed with the DM. During ASTP this procedure took place on July 15, 21:04 UTC (= 22:04 CET, which is the time in Swiss). This was two days before the Great Journey began, so this picture cannot have been made during that procedure.

After the docking with Soyuz, which took place on July 17, 16:09 UTC (17:09 CET), and the final separation, which took place on July 19, 15:26 UTC (16:26 CET), Apollo released the DM on July 24, 19:41 UTC. The Service Propulsion system was fired at 20:37 UTC and the landing took place at 21:18 UTC, which leaves a window of about an hour in which the above picture could have been taken, not even considering the position of the Apollo craft with respect to the earth.

However CR 31 clearly suggests the ASTP scene was left by Billy and Semjase at most a few hours after the docking took place to visit other places in the universe, and they didn’t wait for a week until Apollo released the DM. Furthermore, the Great Journey only took 5 days: from July 17 to July 22, after which they supposedly travelled back in time, to July 18, to bring Billy back to earth, as becomes apparent from an excerpt from the witness testimony ‘Eine merkwürdige Bartgeschichte’ (A remarkable beard story), written by Guido Moosbrugger for Jacobus Bertschinger, first published in Stimme der Wassermanszeit, Nr. 71 (June 1989) and later in Zeugenbuch (2001):

"..In reality, this is in fact the case: the Pleiadian friends had taken Billy in Ptaah’s great spaceship on a long journey back and forth across our universe; and this extraordinary excursion, that never before was granted to a terrestrial human being, took a total of five earth days. That Billy returned home again after 22 hours, despite a 5-day absence, seems extremely puzzling. But for that there is only one plausible explanation, and that is - time manipulation!" - (rough English translation)

Did Meier perhaps photograph Apollo on July 18, when he time travelled back in time after his Great Journey was over on July 22 ?

Absolutely NOT! 

As mentioned earlier, Apollo was still connected with DM during the entire time period between July 17-24. Moreover, Meier didn't mention such an event in his contact notes. 

In conclusion, this picture could not have been taken during the Great Journey. The likely source of this picture is not the Great Journey, but rather a copy of another picture (for example taken from a LEM during any moon mission) or animation of an Apollo craft mission. I have not (yet) been able to find a resembling picture. A somewhat similar frame is seen in this video at 3:28 min.

Photo #5 :

Soyuz-19 ?

This Meier's picture shows part of the orbital module (OM) and the descent module (DM) of a Soyuz spacecraft. On the OM part, the word СОЮЗ (is in Russian script, pronounced 'Soyuz' in English & the meaning is Union) is readable. Also three parallel conduits are visible, as are some other features, which brings us to the main objection for this photograph.

Soyuz-19 & even Soyuz-18, and all Soyuz's that were launched before 1975 and after 1975 has - as mentioned in Part 2 under the differences between real Soyuz-19 & Meier's Soyuz - a green (or a tint of green) thermal insulation blanket covering most of the spacecraft. So, the conduits and other features present on the hull of the spacecraft would be invisible, including any script (СОЮЗ). 

For example, the only visible script on real Soyuz-19 as shown below is 'CCCP' (is Russian & means 'USSR' in English). And this script is on the OM (first part of Soyuz from left) but not on the DM (middle part of Soyuz), which is the case with MS. Observation of the real or close-to-real mock-up models in museums & illustrations, reveal that there is no other script on the hull, except that is shown below.

Real Soyuz-19 as seen from Apollo-CSM

Also any black & white picture of a rich green fabric, would appear as dark grey and not white as seen in Meier's picture which reveals that the color of the body is white.

So where could the Meier's picture come from ?

Most likely, the simple answer is that the picture could be taken of a mock-up model. Since almost all mock-up models, displayed in museums or aerospace trade shows are not covered with green fabric because it is intended for visitors to observe the crafts details & components on the hull of the spacecraft. The features as shown in the black & white Meier's picture are very identical to the features in the following picture of a mock-up model of a old Soyuz second-type spacecraft, which was shown on a Paris Air show at Le Bourget Airport, in early 1970's.

Enlargement of the above picture

There is one ‘out’: using the Plejarens advanced technology, Semjase was allegedly able to make parts of the spacecraft transparent for Billy to see the astronauts/cosmonauts inside the craft, as is described in CR 31:

Semjase:

47. In time you will understand my words... but don't you want to look inside the capsule?

 Billy:

How would that be possible, the crazy thing is totally closed and made airtight.

 Semjase:

48. You don't know the possibilities of our technology, which allow us to distort all matter by radiations so that it becomes invisible to the eye.

49. We are able to do this in a very controlled manner and can thus steer the effect very precisely .

 Billy:

Then let me see your magical technique.

(Semjase busies herself with some instruments while spellbound by the photography view screen that was specially built for me I look out in the direction of the Soyuz capsule. Suddenly, a part of the capsule simply disappears, and terrified I look at the two human beings who rest lying within the seats, which look like deck chairs or something similar. Involuntarily, I cry out to Semjase.)

However, as interesting it may be to look inside the space craft, there seems no apparent reason to only make the insulation invisible to photograph the hull, rather than the cosmonauts inside. 

Photo #6 :

Extraterrestrial satellite?

Since we have already discussed much on Apollo & Soyuz spacecrafts, we have become familiar with both of their designs, size and proportions. With this gained knowledge, a look at the above Meier's photograph reveals that it is so much different from both Apollo & Soyuz. 

Could it be an extraterrestrial satellite which Semjase mentioned (in verse 65, CR 31) that Meier could photograph after Apollo-Soyuz docking event ?

Absolutely NOT!

Because anyone with a little knowledge on spacecrafts would easily recognize what is present in the above picture, allegedly taken by Meier and strictly verified by ET-Ptaah. Since I do not have much knowledge about spacecrafts, at first I thought that the vertical "strings" seen towards the left in the image could be the supporting strings used to hold a model spacecraft usually set for display in a museum or at some aerospace trade show, like this one here, with the old Soyuz model.

Not being satisfied with the inconclusive results, I tried to find what other spacecrafts, satellites or space stations were in space during July 1975. We have already discussed that Apollo, Soyuz 18 & Soyuz-19 were in space at that time. Apart from these & the Skylab space station (which do not match with the one in Meier's picture), a Soviet space station - Salyut-4 - which looked similar to the one in Meier's picture, was in orbit, launched on December 26, 1974 and later was deorbited on February 2, 1977, and re-entered the Earth's atmosphere on February 3, 1977. However, during the Great Journey in July 1975, Salyut 4 was docked with Soyuz 18 (May 25, 1975 – July 24, 1975), making this picture of the docking port impossible (unless Semjase would have made the Soyuz-18 craft transparent!). Furthermore the configuration (regarding the solar panels etc.) of this Salyut 4 was considerably different to that in Meier's photograph. Even though it came close, Salyut-4 didn't quite match the object in Meier's photograph. 

Finally after searching a lot on Salyut space stations, I have found an exact match which is 100% identical to that of Meier's. The source is a Russian space documentary Крутые дороги космоса (Steep roads of space) produced in 1972, which contains remarkably identical frames at around 12:22 min, as seen in the Meier's picture, though appear in a 180 degrees counter-clockwise rotation. Each & every structure and component in Meier's photograph matches 100 % with the frame from Russian 1972 documentary, even the angle of curvature visible on the first two "lines" from left (circled red).



Even the image shown in the documentary is not the real Salyut-1, but a replica used in a simulator to train cosmonauts on the docking procedure and the "lines" are actually the grids on the screen of the simulator.

Photo #7 :

Docking of Soyuz-Soyuz spacecrafts ?

From the knowledge on the size and design of Soyuz spacecrafts so far gained from our investigation, it becomes clear that the two objects seen in the above photograph are two Soyuz spacecrafts docked with each other and a spear-shaped antenna is also visible above the left-Soyuz.

Is this at least a real image photographed by Meier on July 17, 1975 ?

Absolutely NOT!

The only Soyuz crafts in space during the Great Journey (July 1975) were Soyuz 18 (docked with Salyut 4) and Soyuz 19 (involved in the ASTP), which obviously did not dock with each other. Also the features on the Soyuz crafts in the picture are incompatible with both Soyuz 18 and Soyuz 19. Soyuz 18 (see Photo #2) was a Soyuz 7K-T model craft, which had no solar panels at all, but long aerials instead. Soyuz 19 was a special design for ASTP (a Soyuz 7K-TM model).

Were these perhaps spacecrafts of USSR launched secretly without the world knowing about it ?

Again, the answer is simply NO!

Identical images of Meier's photograph are seen in the same simulated animation (seems to be with miniature models) shown in two Russian space documentaries (one of which, we have already mentioned in Photo #6) - Первая орбитальная (20:53 min, 1969) and Крутые дороги космоса/Steep roads of space (35:09 min,1972). 

The only time in history, the two Soyuz crafts ever docked (see this list of Soviet manned space missions) in space was on January 16, 1969, more than 6 years before the Great Journey supposedly took place in July 1975. The involved crafts were Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5. Another attempt was made between October 11 and 16, 1969 by Soyuz 7 & Soyuz 8, and this was to be filmed by Soyuz 6, but the mission failed because of failing rendezvous systems on all the 3 crafts.

I have pointed out just five easily noticeable similarities and since both images are virtually the same, it is redundant to point every similarity.

Conclusions:

Photo #1 - Still unidentified but most certainly not any earth spacecraft that was in orbit in July 1975
Photo #2 - Soyuz from an early 1970's NASA animation simulating Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, years before Meier's space journey
Photo #3 - Soyuz from either an animation or from an illustration or from a real photograph of a mock-up model
Photo #4 - Solo Apollo-CSM is most likely from either an animation or from an illustration
Photo #5 - Soyuz photograph of a mock-up model displayed in Paris Air show, in early 1970's, years before Meier's space journey
Photo #6 - A frame from a Russian documentary (1972) on Salyut-1 space station, shown on TV, 3 years before Meier's space journey
Photo #7 - A frame from an animation shown in the two Russian documentaries (1969 & 1972) on Soyuz 4 - Soyuz 5 docking that occurred in 1969, shown on TV, 6 years before Meier's space journey

So finally what do we have are photographs that were either taken from early 1970's NASA animation or Russian documentaries from 1969 & 1972 or of a mock-up model or of an illustration.

IMPLICATIONS

The implications of the analysis published in three parts are so staggering that it once again calls into question, many claims made in the past & still being made in present by Meier, FIGU & the alleged Plejaren on the outer space photos and also on the evidence in general.

Let us put together all the relevant conclusions arrived from the various contact reports, as reported under timeline in Part 1 and raise relevant questions.

Conclusion #1:
Semjase clearly mentions that they, the Plejaren ETs have been following the development of the joint space venture planned by USA & USSR in the middle of July 1975, since the beginning of the project, which according to NASA is 1970. She even said that they have been influencing this joint project & even at times troubled themselves to make some projects to fail, since the beginning.

This automatically implies that the Plejaren among many other things should definitely know the size, color & design of both the Apollo and Soyuz spacecrafts that went up in space and docked on July 1975.

Conclusion #2:
Semjase tells Meier to prepare for his longer outer space journey which starts with photographing the Apollo-Soyuz docking on July 17. She even says that the Plejaren ETs - who are 3,500 years(Note:in late 1990's this changed to 8,000 years) ahead of us technologically & have also been responsible for the last 100 years of rapid progress in our science & technology(CR 8, 1975) - have constructed a special apparatus through which Meier could take better pictures.

Conclusion #3:
Semjase & Meier observes the interior and exterior of Apollo and Soyuz spacecrafts along with the astronauts & equipment - of which he takes a few photographs. They have also discussed on the size and function of the docking module.

Conclusion #4:
The curved edge towards the right of each photo which was visible in most of Great Journey space photos was not seen in the photos which were later developed by Meier. Regarding this, Wendelle seems to suggest that these curved edges were cropped at Meier's end to make them disappear from the image.

Conclusion #6:
Meier took at least "a dozen Soyuz-Apollo pictures" (See pg.175, And Stil They Fly, 2004), if not, more than that. And out of these, according to Ptaah, few seem to have been falsified which later got detroyed by Quetzal. But as you will see in 2002 & 2005 section, that some pictures of Apollo-Soyuz were not falsified or very minutely falsified in a way that these were considered genuine pictures, really photographed by Meier and thereby allowed to be published in PPKBs.

Conclusion #7:
As you can see from the above information, Meier says that the outer space photos that were published in Pleiadian/Plejaren Contact Report vol 1 in 2002 were only some of the total of 42 surviving genuine or almost genuine photos that were really taken by him during his trip in July 1975.
And most importantly it was being said that for the publication of these outer space pictures in PPKB 1, Meier took the help of Plejaren ET - Ptaah, who is the commander of the Plejaren spacecraft fleet, who presides over three planets(Earth is one of them) & is also vested with the rank of JHWH, which is comparable to a king of wisdom which in earlier terms was translated as God, not in the sense of creator but as a king of wisdom who has the duty to provide his peoples with help & advice.

Ptaah, as we were being told, "strictly ensured" that no more falsified pictures - pictures that were taken of paintings, illustrations, drawings or from TV - would get published in the PPKBs. Even those pictures which were slightly falsified, would be published, if the falsification "found no use", i.e. the falsification did not have any impact on the original photo taken by Meier.

Questions that need Answers:

How could it possibly be that Meier, FIGU & Plejaren who are (since late 1990's) alleged to be around 8,000 years* (Aus den Tiefen des Weltenraums, pg.241, 1997) ahead of us in the progress of science & technology and around 30 million years ahead of us in spiritual evolution :

1. Failed to identify the several fake Apollo-Soyuz pictures when they apparently have been following & controlling the development of this project since 1970 ?
2. Failed to identify the several fake Apollo-Soyuz pictures when both Meier & an ET allegedly directly witnessed the real Apollo-Soyuz spacecrafts and their docking ?
3. Failed to identify the fakes when the spacecrafts (Soyuz 4 & Soyuz 5) & space station (Salyut-1) did not even exist anymore during the Great Journey in July 1975, not to mention the fact that these pictures are from Russian space documentaries from the 1969 & 1972 ?
4. Failed for decades to acknowledge the genuine and justified criticism put forth by aerospace experts, a NASA official and other skeptics and critics on several fake pictures?
5. Even after all those years of controversy and genuine criticism, they still concluded around 2002 that 42 space pictures were either genuine or almost genuine when for various reasons at least 11 of them are completely impossible to have been taken in July 1975, and 7 of those are actually from NASA & Russian space documentaries broadcasted in 1969 & the early1970’s?
6. Do not want to respond to any questions/criticism anymore regarding the space pictures and consider this a closed case, as becomes apparent from Contact Report 486 (Jan. 11, 2010), while so many obviously fake space pictures are still present in the FIGU literature that could only discredit the case, even when they already for example had to admit after years of valid criticism that Asket-Nera pictures were fake after all?

 * Up to late 1990's, Plejaren were considered to be 3,000 years (CR 28)  & a short time later 3,500 years (CR 31, 39, CR 62, CR 97,..etc) ahead of us in the progress of science and technology

Some other unanswered questions include:

1. How could it be possible that the Plejaren, being 3,500 years (during CR 31, July 1975) ahead of us in science and technology, were incapable to construct a device or make adjustments to Meier's camera so that he can take better color photos, as was promised to him (see conclusion #2)?
2. Why did Meier/FIGU remove the curved edge part from his newly printed outer space pictures (especially from Apollo-Soyuz), which according to skeptics and critics resembles the curved edge of a TV (see conclusion #4)?

Cherry-picking:

Meier/FIGU's literature contains a lot of information/teaching on truth, knowledge, logic, rationality, cognition & criticism, among many other topics. Yet even when Meier & FIGU responds to critics & skeptics, they seemed to cherry-pick few, often weak points that are easily refuted and focus more on the alleged negative intent of these while the valid points of criticism are completely ignored.

An example of this is their critic & "arch-enermy" Kal Korff. Surely he has made some illogical and invalid arguments & also made some personal attacks in his 1981 book - The Meier Incident: The most infamous hoax in Ufology & in his 1995 book - The Billy Meier story: Spaceships of the Pleiades, but at the same time he has also raised a lot of valid & logical criticism (including Apollo-Soyuz & cave men pictures), which were conveniently ignored & virtually absent in FIGU's response (FIGU Bulletin 14, Feb 1998) to his 1995 book.

Time for introspection ?:

The following is an excerpt from an article (out of dozens of articles of similar nature)  - TYPICALLY MUFON (Mutual UFO Network): Two Young Pranksters Dupe Renowned UFO Researchers - published by Billy Meier in FIGU Bulletin 4, August 1995:

"Typically MUFON: So-called "UFO Specialists" and renowned "UFO Researchers", who truthfully are mere "wannabe glowing stars in the UFO research firmament," allowed themselves to be tricked in every way by two adolescents. The two UFO research luminaries are MUFON Germany associates, Illobrand von Ludwiger and Rolf-Dieter Klein.

As we of FIGU have often noticed, it is no wonder that MUFON can be hoodwinked by young and inexperienced rascals, since MUFON is, after all, a "UFO Research Organization", and can only be called this tongue-in-cheek. MUFON, as we all know from past experience, has the idiosyncrasy of being incapable of passing judgment on genuine UFO matters because its specialists are unable to distinguish falsified UFO photos and movie footage from actual, authentic UFO photo and film material. Hence, MUFON continues to habitually declare falsified material as genuine, while assessing authentic UFO pictures, reports, films and other material as being hoaxes. MUFON's incompetence and that of its "UFO researchers" in general or in specific instances, is proven not only by the fact that they label the UFO material as being hoaxy, untrue and fraudulent that I, Billy Meier, have furnished -- even though my material is indeed genuine and my statements are completely true in every way."

Meier's comments on MUFON may be true, but Meier/FIGU, even with the help of ET's (who are 30 million years ahead of us in spiritual evolution) and their advanced technology (which is 8,000 years ahead of us), seem to be even more incompetent in distinguishing between genuine and falsified pictures as they have published some of the Meier's outer space pictures as genuine since mid-1970's & also published the rest of the outer space pictures again after "strict" verification by ET-Ptaah around 2002, which in reality are from a NASA animation (despite Meier/FIGU being pointed out about this by aerospace experts, NASA official, skeptics & critics with all details since late 1970's), illustrations, mock-up model & two Russian space documentaries.

And if that is not embarrassing enough, Meier/FIGU with the help of ET's also published the supposedly genuine outer space pictures which in reality turned out to be absolutely impossible to be photographed in space in July 1975 since the depicted craft Salyut 4 - Salyut 5 docking & Salyut 1 - did not even exist anymore in space after 1969 & 1971 respectively, and turned out to be from two Russian space documentaries showing nothing but a replica in a simulation and models in an animation of the real craft!

Of the investigated 12 pictures, I have identified 11 falsified pictures of which for at least 7 pictures, the source was most likely found; which leaves us with 1 unidentified picture, which certainly does not look like anything that was in space sent by us in July 1975.

Admittedly, without knowing much about the history of spaceflight, all these issues wouldn't become apparent right away when one looks at the Meier space pictures. It actually only took weeks to figure this all out. Then again, one could ask:

Is it even possible that a primitive earthling with an internet connection could actually beat ET’s, that are technologically 8,000 years ahead of us?

With this track record of Meier/FIGU/Plejaren, are you still certain that the 24 other outer space pictures which were allegedly photographed by Meier, "strictly verified" by ET-Ptaah & published in PPKBs, genuine ?

I have done my best to find and present the facts, the conclusion is entirely up to the reader.

What does this all mean for:

Meier case supporters:

..will either somehow reject these conclusions or claim that there were still falsified pictures inserted by MIB (Men In Black) in the Meier collection after all, which was again overlooked by Meier, Guido, FIGU and the Plejaren, as already happened earlier for example with the Asket-Nera pictures.

Meier case critics:

..will claim this as yet again another example of Meier (or someone behind him) faking his pictures, revealed with concrete evidence.