Analysis
of Korff's Spaceships of the Pleiades: The Billy Meier
Story.

Listen to others, to the bright and intellectual
individuals,
and also to the obtuse, the foolish and those who lack
learning,
for they, too, have opinions and statements to offer.

Taken from Desiderata - Billy Meier

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

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

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

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

Contents

The UFO
photos

The
space-strip pictures

The movie
films

The metal
samples

The
witnesses

The
landing-tracks

The Talmud
Jmmanuel

The contact
notes

The sound
recordings

1 - The UFO
photos

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

The helium balloon hypothesis

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

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

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

Fig 1.1. Korff's Meier UFO
"replicas"

Korff's findings regarding
Meier's UFO photos

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

UFO
photo(s):

Korff's
explanation/claims

Result of
analysis argumentation:

1 -
April 20, 1975 at Jakobsberg Allenberg

Double exposures

Obviously wrong

2 -
Photo #63

Model passed off as real spaceship

Obviously wrong

3 -
Photo #30, January 28, 1975

Model
hypothesis

Unsubstantiated

4 - Schmärbuel-Maiwinkle
photos

Simple helium
balloon hypothesis

Obviously
wrong

5 -
Hasenbol/Bachtelhornli

Horizontal
suspension line hypothesis

Very likely
wrong

6 - Fuchsbüel photos

Potted tree
plus model

Obviously
wrong

7 - Photo
#41

Model
hypothesis

Unsubstantiated

8 - Hasenböl photo #164

Simple model
hypothesis

Still
open/TODO

9 - Photos
showing focus discrepancy and structural flaws.

Model hypothesis

Yes, some of
these photos do look very unrealistic and implausible.But Korff omits
Meier's explanations about this.

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

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

The middle photo on p. 156 shows admitted model.

Contrary to what Korff claims, the middle photo on p. 156 does show a UFO
model according to Meier (see p. 9, the Verzeichnis). The number of the photo is
63 and it's listed for 18 September, 1976. The listed location is Vrenelis
Gärtli GL. According to Meier the model was brought to him by Semjase during a
contact, she took it back with her on a later contact. Korff falsely infers that
Meier was trying to pass this model off as a real UFO.

UFO in photo #30
impossibly a 7 m object?

Photo #30 is one of the photos reportedly made on January 28, 1975
during Meier's first alleged contact with the ET contactor Semjase.
Regarding this photo Korff writes: "The fact that the UFO is below the
tree line allows one to calculate true object size and distance for this
image. As can be easily proven, the object is a small model positioned
close to the camera."

This claim by Korff simply is unsubstantiated and isn't backed up by
any calculations. The following calculations/estimations using the camera
equation indicate that it actually is possible that the UFO in this
picture (allegedly having a diameter of about 7 m) very closely passes in
front of the tops of the fir trees in this picture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schmärbuel-Maiwinkle photos

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments.

The sound recording reportedly made during this event and the analysis
were completely omittted by Korff in his discussion.

A UFO researcher from Zurich, Erwin Mürner, claims to have spoken with the
pilot of the Mirage jet fighter which features in the photo series. The man
confirmed Meier's claims about the event. However the pilot wanted to remain
anonymous for the fear of losing his job.

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

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

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

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

The tree displays the structure and relative large density of the
"foliage" of a mature tree which is the result of the great hierarchy of
branches and sub-branches.

The tree displays the often cylindrical shape of a mature conifer; young
conifers display a rather conical shape.

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

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

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

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

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

Why the cloud formations do not necessarily change too fast. On pp.
172-174, and p. 176, Korff claims that the cloud formations visible in some of
the photos of this series change too fast in relation to the times they were
photographed as listed in Meier's Verzeichnis. However, according to
Meier the precise times in the Verzeichnis are only an estimated
best-guess reconstruction of the events many years after they had taken place.
My experience with the times listed in the Verzeichnis is that one
shouldn't take them too literally. When one for example takes a look at FIGU's
poster which shows the 34 photos taken on March 29, 1976, at
Hasenböl/Fischenthal, one can see that the chronological order in which they
have been taken according to the Verzeichnis must be wrong in places; for
example the time interval between the photographing of photo #157 and 168 must
have been shorter than the poster indicates. About the illogical times in the
Verzeichnis, Christian Frehner of FIGU commented "It's difficult to
verify the times and dates that have happened 20 years ago. As you know Hans
Schutzbach was responsible for organizing the chronological order of the photo
list. Well, if you look at the 'Verzeichnis', it's far from a logical order. But
it's too late now to re-number all the photos." (personal correspondence
February 23, 1999).

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

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

Several persons reportedly witnessed a tree elimination demonstration by
Meier's contactors. This event is also documented with photos (see p. 191 of
…und sie fliegen doch!).

According to Wendelle Stevens (p. 126 of Preliminary Investigation
Report) two witnesses have seen the Fuchsbüel tree before it was
eliminated..

On p. 49 of his book UFO contact from the Pleiades: a Preliminary
Investigation Report it states that an acquaintance of Meier, upon seeing
the developed pictures of the 9 July, Fuchsbüel am Hofhalden sequence, located
the exact spots from which the pictures were taken. "He found that the grass
here was 20 to 30 centimeters higher than the other grass around."

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

Proof that Meier lies about his photographing
location?

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

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

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

Table 1

Meier's photo #41

Korff's re-creations

Korff's
1995 book:

p. 149:
0.45/0.55 = 0.82
p. 151: 0.60/0.70 = 0.86

p. 149:
0.33/0.65 = 0.51
p. 150: 0.30/0.50 = 0.52
p. 151: 0.40/0.75 = 0.53

Stevens'
1982 book:

p. 304:
0.75/0.90 = 0.88

Table 2

Meier's photo #41

Korff's re-creations

Korff's
1995 book:

p. 149:
0.45/0.45 = 1
p. 151: 0.60/0.55 = 1.10

p. 149:
0.33/0.50 = 0.66
p. 150: 0.30/0.50 = 0.60
p. 151: 0.40/0.60 = 0.66

Stevens'
1982 book:

p. 304:
0.75/0.75 = 1

The difference in the calculated
ratios disproves Korff's claim of finding "the exact same spot" (p. 147);
the calculations show that Meier's photo was taken from another (higher)
position.

Fig. 1.7. The white vertical
lines in these pictures indicate the position of the vertical transect
that was chosen for measurements in Meier's and Korff's pictures; the
vertical transect crosses the same topographical features visible in both
Meier's photo and Korff's re-creations. In Korff's Fig. 25, p. 149, the
selected vertical transect crosses the dome in the dark foreground
mountain ridge about 1.3 cm to the right of the right-hand edge of the top
of the saucer's cupola, the background mountain ridge above the dome is
slightly flat there. The corresponding transect in Korff's photo (Fig. 26,
p. 149) can be found at about 4.3 cm from the left edge of Korff's photo.

Meier's
photo

Korff's
re-creation

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

The sunlight
scene photographs (THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT YET FINISHED. THESE
FINDINGS [FIG 1.8] WILL PROBABLY BE ABUSED BY DEBUNKERS. MY GUT FEELING IS
THAT THERE IS SUBTLE EVIDENCE THAT SOME BRANCHES DELICATELY SHOW UP IN
FRONT OF THE UNDERSIDE OF THE BEAMSHIP)

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

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

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

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

Potential evidence for branches in front of the UFO

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

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

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

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

Focus discrepancies and cosmetic and structural flaws

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

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

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

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

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

2 - The
space-trip pictures

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

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

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

Fig 2.1. To the
left Meier's photo of the planet Venus. To the right a photo of the planet
Venus taken by the Mariner 10 spacecraft. The arrows point out
similarities.

Fig 2.2. To the
left Meier's photo of the Ring Nebulae. To the right and Earth-based
astronomy photo of the Ring Nebulae. Note the
similarities.

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

3 - The movie
films

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

4 - The metal
samples

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

Korff's confusion between thallium and thulium

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

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

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

Why the Olgilvie analysis never took place

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

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

Korff omits mysterious aspects of metal sample
disappearance

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

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

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

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

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

Why Korff never received a piece of the mysterious metal
sample

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

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

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

5 - The
Witnesses.

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

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

Korff omits
important sources of UFO witness information

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

Korff omits several
UFO witnesses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Korff omits the
non-UFO witness testimonies

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

6 - The
landing-tracks

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

Korff omits
important landing-track data

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

Korff omits
testimonies of witnesses who studied landing-tracks

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

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

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

Korff omits
important characteristics of Pleiadian landing-tracks

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

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

Fig. 6.1. A close up shot of a circular impression in
the grass allegedly created by Semjase's beamship. The picture was taken
by Hans Schutzbach, at Pfaffenholz near Hinwil, on 29 June, 1976 (source
of image: FIGU web site).

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

What Korff's
experiment fails to explain

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

Take a round piece of plywood or
pressboard.

Place it on top of some grass (be
careful that the grass is not too tall or too small; with too small grass there
won't be enough to work, tall grass is hard to control if you want to swirl it
down).

Twist the board to create a
"vortice" (sic) effect.

Place a fair amount of weight on
the board.

Leave the plywood or pressboard
where it is for a day to as long as a month (the time depending on the severity
of the impression you want to create).

Korff's experiment fails to
explain why the grass wasn't broken and why it continued to grow round and
round, in a peculiar flat swirl. The effect of depriving grass of sunlight by
placing a pressboard on it for days is that it will turn yellow and then die;
the grass won't continue to grow horizontally. The effect of placing the round
piece of plywood with a fair amount of weight on it on the grass is that the
stems will break, which was seldom the case with Meier's landing-tracks. In
addition, twisting the plyboard in the grass is not beneficial for the health of
the grass; the stems will break.
Korff's pressboard is too
small

This
picture shows a cropped version of Korff's Fig. 114 ( p. 303). Korff
implies on pp. 302-303 that he used the pressboard featuring in Fig. 114
for making his re-creations of Meier's landing-tracks. It should be noted
here that the diameter of Meier's landing-tracks ranged from 1.8 to 3
meters, while the diameter of Korff's pressboard is substantially smaller
even though he was simulating a circle 2 meters in diameter.

Fig. 6.3. Korff and his pressboard

No swirl in Korff's
re-creation

Korff's
Fig. 115 on p. 303, showing his attempt at making a landing-track circle
with his pressboard, is quite unimpressive and fails to exhibit any swirl.
Moreover, Korff used relatively short grass for his attempt at hoaxing it,
whereas the meadow grass where the actual landing-tracks occurred was
usually several hundred percent taller than this, presenting more problems
for any hoaxer.

Fig. 6.4. Korff re-creations of a Meier
landing-track.

Not all Pleiadian
landing-tracks consisted of 3 circular shaped impressions in the grass

In his discussion Korff claims
that according to Meier all the Pleiadian landing-tracks consisted of three
circular shaped imprints in the grass; this is not true: the "variation 1
beamship" (featuring in the 28 January, 1975, Frecht Nature Preserve photo
sequence), reportedly left behind in the vegetation only one circular shaped
imprint. This variability is consistent with the several different types of
Pleiadian and other UFOs he photographed or was told had visited him.

It should also be noted that the
tracks were also found in cultivated fields, in scrub areas with sparse grass,
in waste areas with weeds and brush, so not always in grass as Korff writes in
his book.

Korff omits
non-Pleiadian landing-tracks

Korff leaves out of consideration
in his discussion other types of landing tracks. For example, there was a type
of landing-track which consisted of just one circle with a diameter of ten feet.
According to Meier these tracks were made by Lyrian space craft which hovered on
a coherent beam of intense white light that went straight to the ground. Over
snow it cut straight down to the ground through snow and ice, and left the
ground bare and dried out. Over grass it seared a dark ten-foot circle that did
not smoke, but which nevertheless looked burned. The vegetation within the
circle was completely burned to the ground and even the roots in the soil were
charred to nothing.

Insect infestation
not a characteristic of Pleiadian landing-tracks

Korff on p. 301 claims that his
experiment does account for the insect infestation aspect of Meier's
landing-tracks. Korff writes "whenever plants are deprived of sunlight (as would
be the case for those directly under the round pressboard) they cannot
photosynthesize. When this happens, they begin to die. The resulting decay, not
to mention the accumulating moisture, will always attract a good number of
insects, especially in the damp climates of Switzerland." The point to note here
is that the phenomenon of insect infestation was a characteristic of the Lyrian
landing tracks, not the Pleiadian. Placing a pressboard on the grass, of course
won't sear the vegetation.

7 - The Talmud
Jmmanuel

Korff's explanations
and claims regarding the Talmud Jmmanuel document have already been thoroughly
analyzed by Meier-case researcher James Deardorff. This analysis can be found here.

8 - The contact
notes

Coming
soon.

8 - The sound
recordings