Contrary to what our new friend, Phil Langdon, is enthusing about, his efforts have simply resulted in exactly what previous best efforts have, i.e. the duplication of the "effect" of Meier's photos. First though, let's give Phil some real serious congratulations on making very excellent models of the real WCUFO.
What Meier enthusiast wouldn't want one of them?
But we do have to remember that a model is just that, a model. I have previously pointed this out (http://www.theyfly.com/newsflash5/tree.htm
) and it still holds true. However, Phil did go to great lengths to try to make a convincing duplication, the problem is that there are obvious, telltale flaws that effectively leave Phil back where every other debunker and skeptic who tried to do the same also found themselves. But to be perfectly honest, it took a photographic expert, Chris Lock, to show me the obvious giveaways that clearly separate the real WCUFO from Phil's attempt.
Chris has already written a very detailed, precise analysis and comparison between Phil's efforts and Meier's evidence. We will publish this at my site when Phil and Korff can generate some serious attention sufficient to warrant a large public response. Let me explain this a bit before giving you a few points from Chris Lock's article.
Phil is now affiliated (no auditory pun intended) with Kal Korff, the more than slightly looney, self-professed enemy of the Meier case. Korff had approached me last year to do a joint DVD project with him, presenting the idea in the innocent framework of two people "respectfully agreeing to disagree" with each other, etc. It turned out that Korff intended it to be nothing of the sort. And while I proceeded in good faith for some time, Korff was working behind the scenes to create an entirely different and quite malicious product. I was alerted to this in time by a communication from Ptaah, as relayed by Florena to Billy and then to me.
Of course, for Korff (and certainly Phil, etc.) there is no Ptaah and the the Plejaren are likewise non-existent, etc. However, the information provided by Ptaah as to what Korff was really up to, and the warning for me to disengage as fast as I could lest I be unwittingly used in a rather vile campaign that Korff intended, is already born out in Korff's promotional material for what he now claims will be an ebook project, rather than a DVD. Should he indeed release this project , it will be very apparent that Ptaah, who of course "doesn't exist", nailed this one right on the empty Korffkopf, to coin a German pun here.
Korff really has no problem with blurring truth and reality into his delusional lies, which is symptomatic of his paranoid mental state. An example, last year he wrote and told me that some 200 people had written him who specifically criticized me and my position on the Meier case, etc. However, I didn't receive even ONE such email myself, quite surprising in light of how easy enough it is to find me. In fact, since the whole proposed project with Korff was announced by him, and by me in my newsletters, etc., I received no more than about a half-dozen inquiries. Really, that's it.
This leads us to why I'm waiting to publish Chris' article, i.e. Korff, and Phil here, are both relying on me to do some serious promotion of their nonsense in order for it get broader exposure. That was obviously part of Korff's original agenda, as nobody pays any real attention to him and his delusional, self-important rambling. However, this time these guys get to do all the work and, if they get enough blips going on the radar we'll shoot them down, politely of course.
As to some hints about the content of Chris' article, a few quotes:
"...We will see that no hoax has been proven; merely a few somewhat similar, yet crude, effects have been created in these photos and video clips, although Langdon has produced a beautiful little model.
A generally accurate looking model used in a photograph, of course, does not prove hoaxing or use of a model in another photograph taken by someone else. At most it raises the question of whether this could have been done elsewhere. As for 'perfect recreations', that shows an incredibly lax standard of judgment as shall be shown. With the exception of the model itself, which is a good attempt at creating something similar looking to the WCUFO, these photographs cannot even be classified as 'recreations', let alone 'perfect'; they are merely attempts at reproducing some basic similar effects.
It is possible with modern technology and given time and know-how to make a convincing model of anything. But all that a convincing model evinces is expertise on the part of the model maker. "
"...After showing his small model against a completely different small fronded variety of fir tree from that in the Meier photograph the Langdon video asks, 'Does this mean my model is a large craft?' No, of course, it doesn’t. Just taking a model and seeing how you can make that look like the original does not in any way prove anything necessarily about the original, and most certainly not that the original was another model. By the same reasoning a model of Tokyo Tower proves Tokyo Tower is nothing more than a model.
Proving something used to create a model is a model itself requires the most critical analysis. And this critical analysis the Langdon videos have not provided. What the videos do show is, it is possible to build a small (apparently 16”) model like the WCUFO, and more importantly, if you pay attention, that it is actually different in size from the craft seen in the WCUFO with van photograph. So let’s look at some salient features in the photographs."
Unfortunately, failed skeptical challenger, Derek Bartholomaus (DB), has again blundered, throwing in his lot with Langdon and Korff (and the very disgruntled, petty, Tony Wharton who has already sufficiently embarrassed himself). It wasn't bad enough that DB had to retract his foundational argument about "model trees" (http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/Top_Skeptic_Fixed.htm
), it's reprised here by Langdon, which again brings the focus back on DB , who's also, like Korff, no stranger to dishonest tactics (http://theyfly.com/SkepticsCaught.htm).
In fact, Langdon and Korff use DB's flawed and foolish photo composite to try to illustrate the model theory, which now makes it even more obvious - after reading Chris' article - just why Meier didn't and couldn't have used model trees.
So, when Chris writes the following near the end of his article:
"I would like to thank the makers and posters of the Langdon videos for so conclusively showing how different their model version and cropped Norwegian spruce are from the craft and trees seen in the Meier WCUFO with van photograph. A large difference in scale and size is evidenced. I’d also like to thank Langdon for his model and car photos that show so conclusively how bigger the cars in Meier’s photos are from the toys in Langdon’s videos."
...he's not just being polite, nor is he trying to rub salt in Langdon's soon to be experienced wounds.
Maybe their next project will be trying to duplicate volumes of specific, prophetically accurate information but I won't hold my breath.