Love for Life

The Biggest Secret Forum Archive

The Billy Meier case:
More Conclusive "Smoking Gun" Proof Of Deception.
By Philior

Date: 21 June, 2006
Most recent update: 20 July, 2006

Note: To see all the photos and links listed in this article please click here

For years the Meier case has fueled much heated debate within the field of Ufology. There are basically 2 reasons for this. The first reason is the sheer quantity of all sorts of "evidence" that is advanced to support the claim that Billy Meier was allegedly singled out and contacted by humanoid beings from the Pleiadian star system. The other reason is the very strong support Meier is getting from various individuals, amongst whom "coincidentally" all of the prominent defenders of this case have commercial or other material interests in it being considered authentic, due to their work as authors, film-makers, or other.

There have been quite a number of researchers, both professional and amateur, who have looked into this case, dedicating a significant amount of time to it. Most of them ultimately came to the conclusion that the Meier case was purely a hoax, and they set out to gather and present the definitive proof for this conclusion.

While the fakery of film footage and some photographs is flagrant when paying attention to certain details and not simply viewing them while being off-guard, it has never been easy to describe in words the crucial elements that prove this, or to isolate the perfect picture that tells the whole story in one glance.

It has been a few years that I present a collection of UFO pictures online, where I try to categorize pictures according to their probable authenticity. It is always difficult to find and apply criteria that make it possible to reach a satisfactory conclusion, and it is absolutely imperative to ALWAYS be able to make a 180 degrees turn, when this is what various elements indicate.

When I had enough indications that the Meier pictures of "Pleiadian crafts" were fake, I posted some of them in the "fake UFO" section (which is relatively small, as the page's focus is not on fakery). This provoked quite a few reactions from a number of surprisingly fanatic "believers", which spurred me to further investigate and confirm as much as possible about the fakery in this case.

When Michael Horn, the "official media representative" of Meier started to harass me through a deluge of emails demanding in his usual (for those who know him) insolent style that I remove my comments on the Meier case, I had more than enough confirmation to understand that this man must actually be fully aware of the case being a hoax, merely by considering the way he seems to have to defend it. For whatever reason, financial or other, M. Horn seems to have chosen to pretend the case is supported by a large amount of "scientific analysis", when in fact all of it is either manipulative rubbish, or at best dubious.

M. Horn is not the only person defending this case against all reasonable arguments and demonstration of fakery, there is in fact a small team of individuals associated to the Meier case, who have produced a large amount of writings, all of the same deceptive nature.

There are basically two favourite strategies that are used by them in their attempts to counter exposure of Billy Meier's fakery. The first is to simply pretend that the argument at hand is false, often by using a (sometimes rather creative) plethora of pseudo- and/or quasi-scientific explanations, which is generally not easy for most readers/viewers to dismiss, since it demands various types of specialized knowledge, verification, calculation, repeated viewing of pictures or film footage (sometimes needing frame by frame analysis, which on many video players is not possible, or not easy to do), a.s.o....

The second strategy is used when an argument that is advanced is too flagrant to be dismissed. In that case they will simply try to ignore it by all possible means, and keep referring to totally unrelated other "evidence", which they feel more comfortable with, without ever addressing the actual argument at hand. And if all else fails, then especially someone like M. Horn will relish in insults of all kinds, until all relevant discussion becomes impossible...

Both strategies are characteristic hallmarks of conmen and swindlers...

Since I was determined not to fall into the traps (and considerable waste of time) these strategies are, I kept my eyes open for evidence that simply leaves no room for debate whatsoever, and that can't be dismissed as "irrelevant" or "ambiguous".

The best evidence of this kind was found by me in a series of pictures of the so-called "weddingcake craft". What makes these pictures special is not so much the completely improbable design of the model used, but rather the fact that when making these pictures, Meier seems to have been obsessed with photographing it near houses, trees and cars. His goal was clearly to make a picture that would somehow fool the viewer into believing the model was of a certain substantial size, for instance as large as a house or a big tree, or larger than a car.

Many people already have noted the discrepancies observed in a picture showing the "weddingcake craft" model in front of a house. In particular, it can be observed that the "craft" is much better in focus than the house, indicating trickery using a so called "false perspective" technique.

Here is the picture and a graphical analysis of the actual situation:

Billy Meier fake UFO.

Billy Meier fake UFO and proof of deception.

Billy Meier fake UFO - reconstruction.

Graphic reconstruction.

Here, we see a "craft" that is in focus ("sharp") while the house on the background is out of focus ("blurry"). This means the house is a lot further away from the camera than the "craft" is. We can estimate from the size of the windows that the house is at aprox. 25 m (+/- 65.6 feet) from the camera. Since the house is so much out of focus, while the craft is in focus, the craft must be at most at +/- 2m (+/- 6.6 feet) away from the camera. The craft is therefore at most +/- 1 m (3.2 feet) large! It MUST just be a model, albeit a relatively large one. In fact, further analysis shows the model is in reality +/- 60 centimeters large (+/- 2 feet, or 23.6 inches). (Note that the above link leads to a slightly enlarged version of the picture available, which causes everything to be slightly more blurred than the original, but it still shows clearly that the "craft" in the foreground is much more in focus than the house in the background, plus some other flagrant discrepancies. You can find the original picture here).

Example.

Example of focus.

Source: www.photozone.de Example.

Example.
100 mm lens. Example.

Example.
50 mm lens. Example.

Example setup.

Overview of setup.

Source for this and previous 2 pictures: www.luminous-landscape.com

Above can be seen some examples of how objects can be in and out of focus, and of what one can do by playing around with lenses, depth of field and lens focal length, to make a small object look big.

For more examples, see here.

As is typical for the Meier case, observations like those described above are virulently contested by Meier's "representatives". Jim Deardorff is one of the self-declared "experts" from the Meier camp who excels in flawed analysis, using a lot of pseudo-science or otherwise manipulative arguments to prove evidence like the picture shown above is genuine. He presents a page online with his analysis of the picture shown above, contending it is authentic. In fact, his analysis is nothing more than a collection of flawed arguments, which he has adapted several times in order to attempt to work around the elements presented on this site. A review of his wilfully deceiving and bogus analysis of the weddingcake craft model pictures can be found in my follow-up article "The Billy Meier case: review of arguments concerning the 'weddingcake craft' pictures and footage.".

Since the picture of the model in front of the house leaves some room for debate for those who fail to grasp the photographic anomalies that are obvious to the alert eye, it doesn't offer the most ideal proof to settle the discussion about the question if the model used is fake or not.

Fortunately, continuously fooling people and believing one is getting away with it, will eventually always lead to a fatal determinant negligence. And so it has been in this case as well...

To my very big surprise, in his analysis of the "weddingcake craft" Deardorff included a picture, that can rightly be called the "smoking gun" that definitely and conclusively tears the Meier case to pieces. This is because it shows the "weddingcake craft" together with a car, while it can clearly be seen that it is hanging in front of the car, which is not merely what can be concluded due to sometimes difficult elements like sharpness, lighting, etc... but simply because the bottom of the alleged "Pleiadian craft" very obviously interrupts the car's contour, with its bottom clearly seen to be below the car's roof, which can only be possible if the car were locally completely invisible, which is rather improbable of course (although typically, who knows if sooner or later we may have to endure seeing someone of the Meier clan argue that it is indeed "probable", due to some exceptional "time-space continuum circumstances", or some other similar pseudo-scientific explanation!).

The only possible conclusions from this observation are that the "craft" is much smaller than the car, and that it must therefore just be a model.

The reasons why this fact was overlooked by Deardorff are probably the lighting and resulting colours that can initially lead to some confusion, and the fact that a small print (low resolution) was used. However, when enlarging the picture x4, and viewing it full screen on a (large) normal PC screen, all confusion disappears at once, as can be seen on the following enlargements (click the picts to enlarge):

Billy Meier fake UFO.

Billy Meier fake UFO and proof of deception (enlarged).

Original picture can be found here Billy Meier fake UFO.

Previous picture with highlight.

Note the important fact that there is an effect caused by the light reflecting on the car's front window, which results in a so called "hot spot", which is a kind of lense flare but then caused by a light source behind the camera. Here, the hot-spot overlaps very slightly the left bottom side of the bulge at the bottom of the model, which can cause a minor confusion about what the exact contour of the bulge is (this is a very common effect, think e.g. about how when photographing the sun, this can result in light spots all over the picture, beyond the precise area where the sun should be).

However, when we take away the colours, it becomes even more obvious and indisputable that we see the object hanging in front of the car:

Billy Meier fake UFO - black & white

Billy Meier fake UFO - black & white.

Billy Meier fake UFO - black & white

Billy Meier fake UFO - black & white, inverse

To top it all, we can apply a Photoshop filter called "photocopy", which accentuates the contours and the most characteristic features of the object and the car. It clearly shows that the craft model interrupts the car's contour, and therefore that its bottom is indeed hanging below the roof of the car, in front of it.

Billy Meier fake UFO - 'photocopy'

Billy Meier fake UFO - 'photocopy'.

Billy Meier fake UFO - 'photocopy'

Billy Meier fake UFO - 'photocopy', inverse

Extra analysis can be given by cutting out the contour of the model from the original image, and comparing it to another picture (with originally a high resolution). We can see this contour does indeed match, and that the "bulge" at the bottom of the model matches. We can also clearly distinguish the glassy bulbs at its bottom (in the center), and the "profile" rings around it (containing the glassy bulbs), which give extra indications about where the bulge exactly can be seen:

Billy Meier fake UFO - 'cut out'

Billy Meier fake UFO - cut out.

Billy Meier fake UFO - 'close up bottom'

Billy Meier fake UFO - close up of bottom

If we then fill in and continue the contour of the car as it should be, we clearly see the bottom of the model hanging below the contour of the roof, in front of the car:

Billy Meier fake UFO - cut out + car contour

Billy Meier fake UFO - cut out + car contour.

Billy Meier fake UFO - cut out + car contour

Billy Meier fake UFO - cut out + car contour

+ alternative color.

Some people still find it difficult to discern the model from the car in the previous analysis, because of the fact that there is a small area where due to the lighting the colors and surface qualities of car and model are easily confused, so here is some extra analysis:

Billy Meier fake UFO - cut out + car contour

Cut out car.

When we cut out the shape of the car in the way it should look if the object was behind it, we see that there is clearly something strange and messy with the car's roof line and windowshield. Compare with the clarity of the cut out of the model shown below. Billy Meier fake UFO - cut out + car contour

Inside rim higlighted

By checking the upper line of the rim around the glassy bulbs below the model, it can clearly be seen that the rim is below the roofline of the car, i.e. the model can only be in front of it...

Billy Meier fake UFO - cut out + car contour

Model cut out

Removing all the rest, we see that the shape of the model is clear and smooth, and matches perfectly with what is seen on other pictures.

Billy Meier fake UFO - 'close up bottom'

Billy Meier fake UFO - close up of bottom

Notice the glassy bulbs below the model.

Compare the rim around them, with the analysis above where it is highlighted.

This analysis leaves simply no room for any objections. It proves without a shadow of a doubt that to make this picture a model was used, which must have been MUCH smaller than the car. The fact that it must have been much smaller, and not even aproximately the same size as the car, is proven by the fact that the object is in focus, while the car is completely out of focus, meaning the car is much further removed from the camera than the model (as we already know it is behind the model).

Therefore, this model is definitely much too small to carry a humanoid being of normal size, like those described by Meier. This finding is in perfect accordance with analysis of the other pictures for which I have calculated that in fact this is a model with a diameter of +/- 60 centimeter. (see above and here).

Indeed, Meier's ex-wife is reported to have said that he built the model using the cover of a garbage can and kitchen utensils. Very much in the usual deceptive and even defiant style, on the page with Deardorff's "analysis" a picture is shown of what the garbage cans and their lids used at Meier's farm look like. Typically, the claim is made that while there is a "strong resemblance", it is surely an "unreasonable assumption" that such a garbage can lid was used, since it would be "too difficult" to add what can be seen below and on top of the cover... Clearly, Deardorff never built any models in his life, and doesn't seem to know about the existence of glues with which one can assemble practically anything...

Garbage can lid

Garbage can lid, as found at Meier's farm.

Looking at the garbage can seen in the lower left corner of the picture, we can clearly see what its handles look like. We can clearly see the same kind of handle on the model of the craft:

Garbage can lid handle, highlighted

Garbage can lid handle, highlighted.

Garbage can lid handle highlighted on craft model

Garbage can lid handle highlighted on the craft model.

A version without highlight can be found here, and a slightly different version here.

By measuring the distance from the handle to the upper side and the lower side of the lid, we see that the match is perfect:

Garbage can lid measurement compared with craft model

Garbage can lid handle compared with that of the craft model.

Garbage can lid rim edge highlighted

Garbage can lid rim edge highlighted.

This shows the edge of the rim of the garbage can, demonstrating that the top arrowhead of the measurement seen on the previous picture, on the left, falls exactly on the edge of the rim of the lid. Note that when seeing the model from an elevated view, we can clearly see and match the upper side of this rim. See for instance the lower right of the model on this picture.

When comparing the pictures shown above, we also find matching profile rings, as well as a lower edge of the lid with a size and angle matching that of the craft model, and it can be estimated that the length of the handle also matches perfectly (although for the lower edge and the length of the handle, the angle that the lid on the left picture is in complicates reporting the precise measurements directly on these picts, which is not a real problem for determining at what height the handle lies).

It's almost futile to stress the fact that the odds of such a match occurring, are beyond astronomical... But we must stress this point, seeing how on Deardorff's page and in other postings, even this kind of flagrant evidence of deception doesn't stop the Meier clan from claiming they are merely unreasonable and vicious "debunkers' attempts" to discredit Meier "unfairly"... Incidentally, contrary to what certain Meier supporters claim, ALL the pictures showing a "weddingcake craft" are made using the same model built from the garbage can lid. The only differences noted on various pictures of it are caused by lighting and use of different settings resulting in different perspectives.

The garbage can lid has an estimated diameter of +/- 60 centimeters, which is therefore how large the model is.

Since we have been able to confirm Kalliope's allegation that the model was made using the lid of a garbage can, we can very probably safely assume her allegation that kitchen utensils were used for other parts of the model, is also correct. The silverish metalic spheres are probably some kind of small alluminium bowls of some sort, used for cooking or some related task. Some have suggested that the spheres could be christmas tree decoration balls, which also seems a good possibility. However, the kitchen utensils seem more likely, giving credit to Kalliope's comments.

Kal Korff suggests the origin of various other parts of the model, in his book on the Meier case:

Weddingcake analysis by Kal Korff

Weddingcake analysis by Kal Korff.

The suggestion is made by Korff that the metal "band" below the top spheres is actually an old bracelet that belonged to Kalliope. But due to the odd angle it has and the fact it has a diameter of +/- 15 cm (+/- 5.9 inches), it seems rather big and pretty improbable for a bracelet, although not impossible. On the other hand, the use of carpet tacks seems a good possibility.

In fact, the carpet tacks offer another devastating indication of fakery by Meier, if one will only notice it. When looking at how they are placed between the spheres at the middle, one can see one of them is missing. It can actually be found laying on the surface of the model, apparently after it simply fell off, unnoticed by Meier, as well as by many of the believers in this case...!!

Weddingcake with missing tack

Weddingcake with missing tack.

Whatever the precise origin of certain parts Meier used, he must have started by assembling a basis from the garbage can lid, and some elements he glued below and on top of it, to change the appearance of the surfaces of the lid. He then simply airbrushed all of it with silver metalic paint. After that, he finished the model by adding the kitchen utensils, glassy bulbs, etc...

On some pictures it looks like the model is made of gold or copper, instead of silver-colored metal, but this is the result of using lighting with color filters, like yellow, red or pink. This is why the car that can be seen on the picture with the model in front of it, is also yellowish, when in fact it's original color is probably white or light-grey... When we compare the following 2 pictures, we see that the color of the car changes in precisely the same way as the color of the model:

Billy Meier fake UFO.

Billy Meier fake UFO and proof of deception (enlarged).

Photograph made using yellow light filters.

Billy Meier fake UFO - 'close up bottom'

Billy Meier fake UFO - close up of bottom

Photograph made using yellow, red

and/or pink light filters.

What's more, on the pictures of this session where the model was photographed by night, we can see in the reflection of the spehers that in fact 3 spots were used to lighten the model. In itself it's pretty odd Meier would have 3 spots available at an improvised photo session, instead of just a flash...

Spheres and reflection.

Spheres and reflection.

Billy Meier fake UFO.

Spheres and reflection,

showing the use of 3 spots.

Typically, after Kalliope's comments about the lower part of the model being made from the garbage can lid were published in the "UFO Kurier" and "Tages-Anzeiger", Billy Meier felt it was necessary to offer explanations to make all this bad press go away. In 1997 he wrote in his "FIGU Bulletin" about what one of the Pleiadians "explained" to him about the "similarities" between the garbage can lid and the lower part of one of their "vehicles":

When I [Billy Meier] asked Ptaah about this matter, he gave the following plausible explanation that seems rather clear to me although it does sound a bit peculiar at first. Anyone familiar with the dark and still unexplained stories about the "German Gyro Disks," respectively "Flying Disks," would probably concede that Ptaah's explanation does provide the truth.

Excerpt of the 254th Contact Report from Tuesday, November 28, 1995:

Ptaah: ". . . As far back as the 1920s we worked with flying devices you have named the 'Wedding Cake Ship,' but they were only available for operations on Earth toward the end of the 1970s. This particular type of flying device was designed specifically for the Earth, and for this reason we endeavored to transmit all of the necessary data regarding the vehicles' shape to terrestrial scientists, in the form of telepathic impulses, to assist them in developing flying disks on Earth.

The telepathic impulses were primarily directed to space travel technologists, as I shall call these individuals. This scientific group consisted mainly of German engineers, to whom we transmitted precise plans for the shape of the hull, along with some technical details we considered justifiable. These German scientists actually built experimental units using the plans that eventually led to the construction of somewhat workable flying disks. In accordance with our motives at that time, these disks were to be used to establish an air force that would be instrumental in achieving an early and worldwide peace. Political machinations, however, changed all of this very quickly into a war effort, which prompted us to discontinue the transmission of any further telepathic impulses to the German scientists. Moreover, these developments forced us to drop the project completely shortly after we intentionally transmitted some misinformation, which would render these flying disks ineffectual for war purposes.

Some copies of the blueprints somehow survived since we were unable to retrieve every one of them. This presented no problem, however, since the remaining blueprints were extremely incomplete when they vanished. This last remnant consisted essentially only of drawings which merely depicted the outer rim and undercarriage of the flying object. Details of the lower half and the upper structure were no longer included. And it is precisely this outer rim with its undercarriage that survived on drawings over the past several decades—only to reappear around 1965. This reappearance occurred without our knowledge, for we had long lost interest in what had become useless drawings as far as we were concerned. Until now that is. You informed Florena that some of you realized this shape of large container lids exist, which indeed look exactly like the lower rim and underside of our flying objects and had a more than fleeting resemblance to the same structural features. And since you yourself provided one of these covers to clarify the fact, it was very simple for us to compare the receptacle cover with construction details of the flying device. We, too, noticed the stunning similarity and began focusing our attention on this matter. We thoroughly investigated the entire situation and discovered that the old, newly re-emerged drawings were used for the design and production of these receptacle covers. [!!! LOL] The covers were completely different from anything the designers had previously produced. Normally they designed lids with simple lines and never with shapes that could be called futuristic and complicated. This, then, is how the shape of the container covers came about, which, as I mentioned earlier, strikingly resemble the lower rim section and undercarriage on our flying devices."

(Find the entire bulletin this quote is taken from here)

So according to Billy Meier, the garbage can lid is actually a Pleiadian design, which miraculously got used by the producers of the garbage cans! Of course, this doesn't explain how it came about that both have exactly the same dimensions, and it surely doesn't explain what use the "Pleiadians" would have for the handles on their crafts...

In the same bulletin, Meier also claims that garbage can lids like the one used for he model were only produced after 1986, long after the pictures were allegedly made. But that is clearly not true, seeing that we find that such garbage cans and lids of precisely the same design were already produced by the American company Harcostar in 1975, long before 1982, when Meier allegedly made his pictures.

The hilarious explanation by Meier for the similarities between the lower part of the model and the garbage can lid, is very reminiscent of how he tried to control the damage in other cases where indisputable fraud was found, like when it was found out that pictures by him of "Pleiadians" were actually showing a dancer on the Dean Martin TV-show (see here, scroll down). He managed to come up with a convoluted story, according to which the pictures were fakes, made by the so called "Men In Black", who planted them in order to discredit him. At one stage, when the pressure became too much, Meier even claimed ALL the pictures of his early work were exchanged for "forgeries", in order to discredit him... Please note that there is a number of people who actually believe even these preposterous explanations.

Garbage can lid handle highlighted on craft model

Garbage can lid handle highlighted on another picture of the WC craft model.
http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo/Weddingcake_in_trees+highl.jpg

Meier has given out a significant number of pictures of the weddingcake craft model, claiming it was one of the many authentic "Pleiadian crafts" he photographed. The implication of the obvious fakery of the above pictures, is that Meier's words can not be believed. The fact that there are so many pictures of this model in a wide variation of settings (i.e. in front of a house, a car, a tree, "above" a camper car, etc... see more here: http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo_et.htm#meierhoax ), indicates there has been a very deliberate, substantial and elaborate amount of hard work that went into creating the pictures. Together with the ridiculous explanations given by Meier concerning the garbage can lid, it can clearly not be seen as just a minor and unimportant attempt to add some evidence to previously existing "possibly authentic" material.

Rather, all these facts seriously compromise ALL Meier's claims as to the authenticity of other pictures, film-footage, and various other kinds of evidence. It shows that it is indeed very probable that ALL the other material is also fake, whatever the way it was actually made. To turn this around: considering the scale and determination of the deception of the pictures of the "weddingcake craft" model, it's highly improbable any material in the Meier case is authentic...

Of course, there are many available arguments and findings (many of which have been published) that prove or indicate for most of the other material that it IS indeed fake, notwithstanding the objections of the Meier clan. Where this is not the case, for various reasons, it can not be proved the evidence in question is indisputably authentic. (An overview and review of some of the other evidence that is advanced, can be found in this article http://thebiggestsecret.online.fr/ufo/billy_meier_overview.htm - note: page under construction)

Not only can we not trust Meier for any of his claims, the same seems to be the case for his representatives, like e.g. Michael Horn. When in an email correspondence I confronted the latter with the enlargement of the original picture of the weddingcake craft in front of the car, shown above, asking him to tell me what he could see on that picture, he replied that he thought it was "ambiguous", implying it was therefore of no importance whatsoever, and unnecessary to investigate into it, after which he proceeded with summing up the usual rubbish evidence and arguments he's grown to be so comfortable with, refusing to address the observations concerning the picture any longer...

When I followed up by sending him the black and white analysis of the picture, his reply was: "I am simply not absolutely sure whether the object is in front or behind the car, that's my honest answer", again pretending this is as far as this matter should be addressed, again followed by the usual rubbish to lead away from the crucial issue at hand...

To any person with eyes to see what is shown in the pictures, these answers really give away how far this person is taking the deception.

Before anything else, M. Horn's answers are of course very unscientific as well as a completely evasive. But in this case it's especially unacceptable, as it comes from someone who's accusing me and so many others of "unreasonable and groundless debunking", who's claiming no uncertain degree of "scientific rigor", who's demanding people to accept nonsensical explanations about lens settings, about the tilt of axis of objects allegedly being "impossible" for when hanging on a string, about impossible sizes of fir tree branches, etc... etc... and who's even demanding to replicate any contested evidence meticulously to "prove" fair observations... All of this always accompanied by endless rants, insults, character assassinations, unfounded accusations, etc..., etc... Clearly, such a person simply can't limit himself to stating he is "not absolutely sure" about what can be seen in this particular picture...

And of course, there's obviously nothing "unsure" about the black and white renditions of the original picture, or the contour analysis, nor even about the original color versions. They are as clear as one could wish for...

M. Horn's reply proves most definitely and conclusively that his own claims and arguments in the Meier case can not be taken serious, besides the fact that they indicate that in reality his unique goal is to willfully deceive people. Indeed, in discussions that have since followed, by email and in various other places such as several forums online, we see this person refusing to acknowledge or even seriously address ANY indications of fakery in pretty much the same fashion...

The particular analysis presented on this page, also proves that one must seriously ask questions about the true motivations of other people form the Meier camp, like Jim Deardorff, whose work on the pictures of this model obviously shows none of his numerous "analysis" can be taken at face value as valid confirmation of anything at all...

May the pictures and analysis presented in this article be a constant reminder, for anyone who doubts or could forget the Meier case is about deception, and only deception...

Read more in the follow-up article:
"The Billy Meier case: review of arguments concerning the 'weddingcake craft' pictures and footage.".
http://thebiggestsecret.online.fr/ufo/billy_meier_more_wc.htm

==================

The sources for the original pictures that have been made by B. Meier, and that are shown on this page, are (ultimately):
* billymeier.com Official Billy Meier website: http://www.billymeier.com
* theyfly.com Website of Michael Horn, B. Meier representative: http://www.theyfly.com/