Part 4

Wendelle Stevens and Genesis III -- who it seems fair to call
both investigators and publicists of the Meier case -- have their
own answers to some of these questions. In an interview with
ufologist Timothy Green Beckley, Wendelle Stevens rather
disarmingly remarked:

"First of all, photographs are poor evidence because there are
so many things that we can do technically to produce images.
However, there are also so many ways we can detect a hoax. We can
tell if we are dealing with superimposed overlays, reflected
images, double exposures. We can tell by looking through special
microscopes and searching for grain density and grain patterns.
We can pretty much tell if an object has been thrown into the air
or suspended by something in the air."

And in keeping with that skepticism, the book published by
Genesis III, "UFO...contact from the Pleiades", shows
computer-processed versions of the photographs that appear to
validate their authenticity. It is when Wendelle Stevens starts to
explain some of the computer enhancements that credulity is
stretched. Says the colonel:

"We can [analyse photographs] with a computer by studying the
edges around any given object. In high magnification an edge is
seen as a series of shock waves. There is a special formula for
the spacing of these shock waves that make up the edge. How
strong they are, how apart they are, will tell you how far apart
that edge of the object is from the camera. If the body is in
motion, the shock waves are compressed on the leading edge, and
expand on the trailing edge."

In fact, nothing of the kind happens. What this particular
computer process does is enhance the picture contrast in areas
where the image brightness varies -- especially at the edges of
features, making it possible to make judgements about how far the
object photographed is from the camera. In some cases, it is
possible to intensify otherwise hard-to-detect strings or supports
attached to the object. This has nothing whatever to do with
shock waves, though Stevens has repeated the idea more than once.

In Genesis III's book, the 12 or so pictures purporting to show
analytic enhancements of Meier's pictures are accompanied by
details of the various tests to which the photographs were
subjected. It is claimed that the computer enhancements showed
how the light values of the land-scape are consistent with those
on the bottom of the craft. Supposedly, the test eliminates
double exposures or 'paste-ups', splicing images from two
different transparencies together. So far, perhaps, so good. The
name of a reputable computer company, De Anza Systems, appears on
the edge of one frame.

Kal Korff took the simple step of asking Mr Wayne Heppler,
manager of De Anza Systems if an analysis had been performed for
Genesis III. Replied Mr Heppler:

"What these guys did was to come down to De Anza Systems
claiming that they wanted to BUY a computer from us. So we took
one of their pictures, one showing the UFO, and enhanced it to
make certain parts of the picture stand out. Then they took
pictures of it, left, and stated they would get back in touch with
us. And we haven't heard from them since."

Korff then asked if De Anza had the technical capability to
analyse the pictures. The answer: "No. We are in no position to
do an analysis."

At a lecture at the UFO '80 Symposium held in Oakland,
California, in August 1980, Jim Diletosso of Genesis III said that
'Z-Scale contouring' and 'edge identification' tests were run on
the pictures. The only drawback to this is that these are simply
color contouring techniques (and can be used to analyse the
'density' at each point of an image -- its lightness or darkness).
They are NOT light distortion tests, such as edge enhancement,
which might reveal the information Genesis III claim to have
gained by the techniques.

Diletosso also (perhaps rather rashly) took exception to a
Ground Saucer Watch (GSW) color contouring of one of the Meier
pictures. This shows a similar level of light reflectivity on
both the ground and the Pleiadean spacecraft -- indicating that
SOMETHING is wrong with the photograph, since the materials, at
the claimed distance, should reflect (and so color contour)
differently. Diletosso's objection was unfortunate, since even
Genesis III's computer-generated picture shows both the craft and
its background in the same color contour.
End of part 4


**********************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
**********************************************

Ty Holder
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS - telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23