"THE DANCING UFO": -> FILMMAKER DAN DRASIN COMMENTS ON RHAL ZAHI'S ANALYSIS OF A BILLY MEIER "BEAMSHIP UFO" FILM
"THE DANCING UFO"
Filmmaker Dan Drasin Comments on Rhal Zahi's Analysis
of A Billy Meier "Beamship UFO" Film
By Rhal Zahi & Don Drasin
(Copyright 2015, Rhal Zahi & Don Drasin - All Rights Reserved)
<Edited by Robert D. Morningstar>
This is my latest video showing details of my investigation about the Dancing UFO filmed by Billy Meier on 1975. My conclusion is that it is a big object displaying capabilities that cannot be explained by a current Earth technology. You can make the same tests that I made, or have a different opinion.
My conclusion about Meier's case is that it is real, and the ETs presented evidence in a way that allowed people that were not ready to accept the idea that Human ETs might be very close to us, could have an easy "exit door" to get out. Today we have freely available tools to re-visit his evidence and find the "hidden clues".
Please remember that my intention is not to convince you, just to share what I have found.
From: Dan Drasin
To: Robert Morningstar
I think Rhal Zahi should be commended for performing this analysis. No replication can cover all the bases or rule out all possibilities (for example, that a model may have been gyroscopically stabilized to mimic a larger object), but despite several arguable points that we could take up at another time, this one seems to be a very good start .
As for Billy's disability: Logic dictates that Billy himself, with only one arm, would be limited in his ability to do certain things on his own.
Logic also dictates that having one arm does not prevent him from being assisted by others behind the scenes. So I think we need to regard the disability issue as neutral -- neither proving nor disproving any particular point.
As for the "jumps" ...
As a veteran film editor I can confidently state the following:
8 mm. film cannot be cement-spliced without revealing an overlap line at the top or bottom of the frame. Tape splicing (using perforated clear mylar tape, either alone or to reinforce cement splices) bears its own telltale signs.
At 29:00, the the original 8mm film (labeled "the real video") clearly shows a slight displacement of the WHOLE image at the splice point. which would be expected of a physical splice.
At 29:12, the craft "gradually disappears." But the discrepancy between the film frame rate (16 or 18 fps) and the frame rate of the video (25 or 30 fps) to which the film was transferred, the inherent nature of the transfer "pulldown" process and multiple generations of copying, DICTATES that there should be this type of image overlap across the film cut.
Finally, "the smoking gun":
For unexplained reasons, this presentation makes no distinction between film and digital imaging systems. Nor does it point out the extreme resolution loss between the original 8mm film and the images that we see here, and it says nothing about the artifacts of film-to-video transfer... all of which are essential to an understanding of why the film looks and behaves as it does.
On the other hand, the possibility that Meier may have chosen to "enhance" his film by creating his own jumps does not rule out the possibility that the craft could be real.
We all like neat, pat answers. The Meier Case, I think, demonstrates that the truth may not always be so neat or pat.
July 1st, 2015