http://www.youtube.com/user/billyMeierhoax

While he is convinced that Meier somehow hoaxed his evidence, Tony gains more respect from me than all of the other skeptics combined simply because he actually tried his best to duplicate Meier’s evidence, instead of just making wild claims, as the others have done.

You can examine his attempts there, and compare them to Meier’s UFO films from the mid-1970s, as seen in The Silent Revolution of Truth :

http://theyfly.com/products/products.htm#srot

and his one video from 1981 at:

http://www.steelmarkonline.com/media/Wedding_Cake_ship.mpg

Both James Deardorff (http://www.tjresearch.info) and I have indeed watched and carefully examined Tony’s work. Rather than reproduce the entire texts of the email responses to him from us, I have encapsulated the key points, regarding what we view as the failings of his efforts to duplicate Meier’s UFO films and video.

Tony’s model UFOs:

• Cast no reflection on the water because of small models close to the camera.

• Cast no shadows on the ground when direct overhead sunlight casts shadows of tree branches, etc.

• Movements are jerky and bouncy in an uncontrolled way.

• Continually make small tilting and/or swinging movements left and right, to and fro.

• Show little space above the model, only 2 to 5 model widths, in order to avoid filming the support pole.

• Are never filmed next to, let alone behind, trees, as Meier’s were.

• Never show a car moving underneath them, as Meier’s do.

• Aren’t shown hovering over his head, as Meier did in one film sequence.

• Demonstrate instability, moving constantly, never motionlessly suspended at a tilt.

• Exhibit no haze effect as would exist if the object was large and at a distance, etc.

• Never move from, or return to, absolute stillness.

Meier’s UFO films show the:

• Over-the-tree oscillating craft that remained absolutely motionless, once for over ten seconds.

• UFOs moving sideways, without any wobble, pausing motionlessly at an angle to the ground, etc.

• Vast area – up to 32 UFO widths of sky – above the craft, see www.tjresearch.info/bachtel.htm

• UFO disappear behind a hill, zig-zag back into frame, and then remain absolutely motionless.

• UFO move from left to center frame, suddenly stop and remain absolutely motionless on a very windy day.

• WCUFO, which even if only a couple of hundred feet away, has to be several feet in diameter.

Tony’s three UFO models:

• All bounce around, jerkily, never sit absolutely still, as in Meier's film segment.

• Show no controlled independent movement, such as is exhibited by the three UFOs in Meier’s film.

• Suffer from all of the same shortcomings photographically as the individual models.

• In replicas 14 - 18 the continual jerkiness, to-and-fro swaying, and/or vertical bouncing motions, along with the lack of any haze effect, immediately gives them away as being models close to the camera.

• The lower one oscillates with a slightly lower frequency than the higher one, just as one would suspect for models suspended from a support at a given height – the one with the longer string takes slightly longer for its oscillation.

• Cast no reflections in the pond when they are over it, due to Tony being back a bit from the pond's edge. If they were large craft in the distance, several pond diameters away from pond, their reflections probably would have shown up.

In Conclusion

It should also be pointed out that Tony spent hours and hours, over many months, putting together his video clips, while Meier would go out for just a few hours and return with his film(s) – plus often with a roll or two of photographs of the UFOs.

Again, we commend Tony for taking the time to make and display his best efforts. This is, in itself, a far more respectable approach than those of James Randi, CFI-West and, of course, Derek Bartholomaus of IIG, all of whom made great pronouncements that Meier had hoaxed his UFO evidence… and all of whom failed to be able to substantiate one word of their claims.

Perhaps people may now really appreciate the authenticity of Meier and his evidence when they see just that the best, modern efforts at debunking it fall demonstrably short of Meier’s films... from some 30 years ago.

And, with information such as can be found at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/08/ prweb1174744.htm the only remaining question about the Meier case should be, “Now that you know that it’s true, what are you going to do about it?”

*UPDATE

Since this article was recently published, we invited Tony Wharton to respond to the specific point that we raised. He has indeed done so and, once again much to his credit, he took a very respectable position.

Here then, is his email to me of August 16, 2008, followed by my response to him:

Hi Mike, how's things? Hope you are well. Anyway Mike, I have looked over the article several times, and have decided that I won't be coming back at you with a response. I came to this conclusion after my dad (who is a wise old buzzard) read the article, and said that the article is a very fair, and kind assessment of my work, and that I should be grateful to you for publishing the article.

He went on to say that to gain your respect, more than all other debunkers combined, and to have beaten the world famous illusionist-the Amazing Randi, is something I should be proud of, and I should leave it at that. And I agree with him Mike, to get into some kind of on-going argument makes no sense at all, this should be left to other skeptics, who in my opinion should be ignored unless they at least try to back up their claims.

And if you are contacted by any other skeptics Mike, be sure to tell them that just because in my opinion I believe the case to be a hoax, does not mean that the case is a hoax, even with all my photo research. The only way we could all say it is a hoax is for Billy to reveal that himself, and be sure to tell them to email me where I will surely put them straight about what they face, and how difficult, and challenging it really is, and they should remember I used 2 arms, poor Billy only has 1, and how no special effects tools-computers, cgi, wealthy film makers, masters of special effects, etc are allowed to come into the Meier equation, only tools available to Billy can ever be used.

Anyway, Mike, got to go, so once again, thanks for the article, I really appreciate it. Have a good weekend, and take great care, regards to you, and Billy, Tony.

PS: Mike, I know most of my work, and writing is very controversial, and often attacking towards you and Billy, but please take none of this personal, like I explained it is all designed to generate interest, and debate into the Meier case, and nothing more, I have the utmost respect for both of you.

...............................................................................................................................

Hi Tony,

Thanks for writing and for again taking what I consider to be an honorable position. And, since you have done so, I will indeed update the article and include both your response and this one of mine.

Let me just make clear again that, by your being honest and ethical, you have also come out a winner here. The purpose, as far as we're concerned, has always been to help the truth emerge. And because Meier's evidence is indeed so challenging to our reality, to most of what we believe in and think is true, for you to step forward to try your best to substantiate your own doubts - which have indeed been shared by many - and to acknowledge your difficulties and shortcomings, is a testament not only to the reality of Meier's evidence but to your being a good, stand up character... and a valuable ally in finding the truth.

Best,

MH