The Biggest Secret Forum
Archive
The Billy Meier case:
review of arguments concerning the "weddingcake craft"
pictures and footage.
By PhiliorDate: 7 july, 2006
Most recent update: 9 july, 2006
Note: this article is a follow-up to the initial article "The Billy Meier case: more conclusive "smoking gun" proof of deception". If you haven't yet done so, you may wish to view that article first.
After having published on this website views and comments on the Meier case, and the email correspondance it provoked with Michael Horn (the "media representative" of Billy Meier) due to our conclusions that the case is nothing more than an elaborate hoax, Horn posted an article on his own website presenting yet more arguments in an attempt to "prove" that the weddingcake "craft" pictures are genuine, even though we present more than enough conclusive proof that they are 100% fake, and were made using a "false perspective" technique (see article).
Apparently, the facts presented on our website also spurred another Meier "representative" to action, namely Jim Deardorff, one of the self-declared "experts" from the Meier camp who excels in a totally personal brand of flawed pseudo-scientific analysis.
Seeing that both Horn and Deardorff seem to never stop coming up with new arguments to "prove" their case, each of them more flawed than the previous one, and seeing that they never address the irrefutable facts presented in my original article (or those presented by others, for that fact), I've decided to keep track of their convoluted "findings" and views on a seperate page, as far as their arguments have my interest and offer some possible "entertainment" value to the reader...
The arguments advanced by Michael Horn
Most of the issues raised by Michael Horn's page are covered by our basic article concerning the weddingcake "craft".
One of the things not addressed in that article is Horn's absolute nr. 1 favorite "pet" argument, the "reproduce it or bow down and convert" concept.
Basically it boils down to claiming that the only way to prove the weddingcake "craft" pictures are fake, is to build an exact replica of it, and to photograph / film it in a setting like that of Meier's material.
However, this argument is completely falacious. Let's imagine what would happen if a picture IS authentic, and someone WOULD reproduce it down to the smallest detail... What would making the replica really have proved? It's a fact that some authentic UFOs have relatively simple shapes, and would not be very hard to replicate, like these:
Genuine UFO - Hungary 2001. |
Genuine UFO - Canada, Hamilton, 1978. |
Meier's model was built using the lid of a garbage can, some kitchen utensils amongst which some kind of aluminium bowls, carpet tacks, possibly some christmas tree decoration balls, and various other objects that are not clearly identified:
Billy Meier fake UFO. |
Analysis by Kal Korff. Taken from Korff's book. |
In our previous article, we concluded that:
"Whatever the precise origin of certain parts Meier used, he must have started by assembling a basis from the garbage can lid, and some elements he glued below and on top of it, to change the appearance of the surfaces of the lid. He then simply airbrushed all of it with silver metalic paint. After that, he finished the model by adding the kitchen utensils, glassy bulbs, etc..."
To make an exact replica one would have to collect and assemble each of these objects. Seeing some elements have not been identified, an exact replica will surely be difficult to realise, unless applying the necessary time and means.
If putting together some objects that were available for Meier was easy to do, when the same ingredients are not so readily available, reproducing the model to the smallest detail becomes much more difficult, even though obviously, these days anything can be reproduced from a visual standpoint, as proven by many Hollywood pictures (with the necessary means available).
Nevertheless, there has been an occasional enthusiast who endeavored building a model on his own budget that would illustrate the main point: that it's relatively easy to build a model similar to Meier's, and to photograph it in a way that could fool a number of people into believing it is actually a big craft from a starcluster far away...:
Model built by Jeff Ritzmann. |
Horn presents the picture shown above on his site, with the comment that Jeff Ritzmann, who built the model, spent no less than 4 months (full-time?) on building it. In reality, Ritzmann built this model in some random freetime available over that period, just to prove some of the points he made in an aggressive discussion at the ATS forum (mostly in this topic).
While Ritzmann didn't spend extra time photographing and videoing his model in a specific setting to demonstrate the false perspective tricks used by Meier, it is easy to imagine that photographing this model in the proper setting would result in at least as "convincing" pictures as Meier's are (and Ritzmann had already produced some very convincing pictures with an other model, like this picture, and other examples found in the ATS topic).
Notwithstanding this convincing result, Horn of course claims that Ritzmann "failed to present" anything of significance... which is one more demonstration of Horn's intentions to deceive.
Whatever one may think of Ritzmann's model, the fact of the matter is that one really doesn't have to "reproduce" Meier's craft to be 100% sure it's fake, just as one doesn't have to reproduce a gremlin as seen on the left picture below, to know for sure that what we can see is not some huge unidentified monster from the bowels of hell, but just a relatively small plastic/rubber gremlin doll, photographed in a way to make it look bigger than it really is, based on various indications.
Example. 100 mm lens. |
Example setup. Overview of setup. Source for this and previous 2 pictures: www.luminous-landscape.com |
Horn's "reproduce it or bow down and convert" argument is flawed, and always will be... But before anything else, it won't make the following facts go away:
* It is PROVEN beyond any reasonable doubt, that on one of the weddingcake craft model pictures, the model is hanging in front of a car, and that it is therefore much smaller than the car.
* A garbage can lid has been identified and matched with the lower part of the model (and it is a proven fact that such lids WERE produced at the time Meier made his pictures).
* It is an indisputable given fact that on certain pictures of the weddingcake craft model and a car, extra lighting was used (not just a flash) with color filters, to make the model look as if made of gold or copper, i.e. proving deliberate deception.
* It is an indisputable given fact that on the pictures with the weddingcake craft model in front of the house, the model is clearly much better in focus than the house, which is proof of the fact that it is much smaller than the impression that was intended to be given.
The film footage of the weddingcake craft model.
One of the most important features of the Billy Meier case is the great amount of film-footage he made of alleged ET "crafts".
The fact is I have seen a great number of them, like those shown in the film/video "Contact", having purchased a copy of that video more than 10 years ago, when I just started getting into these subjects. Since then, I've had all the time to take a good look at the footage, which I did on a professional video recorder that allows the most precise kind of frame by frame analysis, as well as precise acceleration of the playing speed.
Frame by frame analysis of footage allows spotting cuts, by careful comparison of one frame with the following frame. I have found with 100% certainty, that Meier has cut footage, to realize certain effects (for more on that, see this article with an overview of the Meier case - note: page under construction)
Speeding up the tape, for instance playing it at 2 to 3 times the normal speed, is an absolutely ruthless and devastating method to bring out movements that point to fakery of some kind. When we do this for all the Meier footage of "flying crafts", and even the "immobile crafts", we clearly find that the objects seen are moving as hanging from a string. When the objects make big movements, then we see clear pendulum-like movements, or shaky un-smooth up and down movements, combined with wobble movements that are characteristic for objects attached to a string. When the objects are "immobile", we see they are actually not perfectly immobile, but slightly wobble just as it occurs when an object is hanging on a string.
In short: ALL the footage made by Meier that I have seen up until now is 100% certainly FAKE, as can be concluded merely from these indications, aside from other elements.
Of course, the observations made above have been made by others, and people like Jim Deardorff even felt obliged to write lengthy pieces to somehow "prove" the pendulum movements that can be seen are not really possible with an object hanging on a string, larded with a lot of his usual pseudo-science and mumbo-jumbo. Careful point by point analysis of what Deardorff affirms on the subject, shows these arguments to be complete bogus... (see more about his work below).
Since ALL the other Meier footage is fake, as is provable beyond a level of reasonable doubt, and since the weddingcake "craft" has been proven to be fake, what are the odds that the film-footage of the weddingcake model is authentic?
Of course the answer is: 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 ...%
Click one of the links below to view the footage of the weddingcake craft model:
Frame from the footage of the weddingcake craft model. Footage of the weddingcake craft model link 1 (MPG video file). Footage of the weddingcake craft model link 2 (YouTube page). |
The main argument advanced by Michael Horn as an "irrefutable" indication the footage may be considered genuine, is the fact that the camera zooms in from what looks like a very wide shot, to a very close shot of the model. He particularly loves to point out that the sound of the zoom takes no less than +/- 6 full seconds!
Well, the fact is that we know the model is only +/- 60 centimeters (+/- 2 feet, or 23.6 inches) large. If we look at the widest shot of the model, and measure the distance between the model and the top of the screen, we can calculate that using a string (possibly a thin transparent fishing line) of only 5.4 m (17.7 feet) long would have been enough to hang the model attached to a sturdy balloon filled with helium, with the balloon well beyond the borders of the image... And hanging a model from a string of 5 m tot 6 m (16 to 20 feet) long is not an extraordinary achievement that would be "impossible" to do...
Of course, we can not be 100% certain this is precisely how it was done, but it seems the most probable. Some people have suggested the model was attached to the tree, but the model seems a bit too far from the tree for it to be a workable solution, and the balloon trick appears to have been used for much of the other footage. In other words: it's nothing out of the ordinary for Meier.
Notice that "coincidentally" there was almost NO wind at all during the shoot of the footage. Quite convenient for filming models hanging on long strings! Nevertheless, when the camera has zoomed in, there's just a very tiny breeze that makes the model slightly move, which occurs around seconds 0:25 / 0:27. The movement is VERY small, but it is there! Indeed, we immediately recognize the typical pendulum/wobblish motion that is characteristic for objects hanging from a string! Those who have a way to speed up the footage (which unfortunately is not yet a standard feature on the MPG players that are presently available) will be able to notice it even better.
The next relevant matter is the tree that can be seen immediately behind the model. As for the other pictures with trees, cars or houses, Meier chose this particluar setting so that it would seem the model is actually a big object. Of course, it is claimed by the Meier camp that the tree is NOT a "model" (or otherwise tricked).
Let's take a look at the following most significant picture, taken from the same series of the weddingcake craft model pictures that gave us the one on which the model can be seen to be in front of the car (therefore necessarily being much smaller than the car):
Weddingcake craft model with car and tree. Original picture can be found here |
Example of focus. Source: www.photozone.de |
The picture seen above is PROOF of the fact that Meier has used "trick(ed)" trees to produce "false perspective" effects.
We can see that the tree is in front of the car, seeing that part of the car is hidden by it. However, the tree is completely out of focus, while the car is pretty much in good focus. This means the tree must be much closer to the camera than the car (to understand why, see the picture on the right for an example of how different degrees of focus can occur, also showing how it is possible that the model is closer to the camera than the car, while being better in focus).
Now this could only occur if either the car would be gigantic, OR if the tree is actually extremely small! In fact, to be able to photograph the top of the tree, at the height above the car that can be observed on the picture, if the car was of a normal size, the tree could only have been at most 2.5 m to 3 m (8.2 to 9.8 feet) high!!! In fact, based on what we know about the size of the model, we can calculate that the visible part of the tree is less high than the model is large, so that the full height of the tree must at most be 1 meter (3.28 feet). This means it is truly a VERY small tree.
Meier photographed the car at +/- 20 m (65.6 feet), positioned the tree at +/- 1 m to 2 m (3.2 to 6.5 feet), and took the picture with a lowered tripod, for a low camera angle (or he simply crouched down on his knees), which resulted in the small tree's top being above the car, as seen on the picture.
Think about this set-up for a moment. If you doubt this conclusion, then go outside and find a mature tree, resembling the one seen in the pictures. Look at its height (generally at least 8 m to 16 m - 26.2 to 52.5 feet). Then try to look at it with a car behind it, you'll see...
It doesn't really matter if the tree seen on the picture is simply a young tree, or an artificial prop. What the picture proves is that Meier apparently used small trees of some sort to make some of his pictures, for "false perspective" trickery.
So what are the odds that the film-footage of the weddingcake model is showing standing behind the model a tree that is NOT tricked, in one way or another?
Of course the answer is: 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 ...%
From the model's size, we can calculate that it is hanging +/- 49 cm (+/- 19.3 inches) above the ground, and that the tree is +/- 1 m (+/- 3.2 feet) high. This is about exactly the same size as the tree used in the fake picture shown above!
What a "coincidence"!!!
The tree could be a young tree, or it could be a somewhat mature tree of which Meier saw off most of the trunk. It could also be a small tree of a species that has "bonzai" qualities. It's not really important which of these was actually the case, the bottom line is that using small trees that look mature was a common trick for Meier.
To finish off, we note the following observations that indicate Meier faked this footage, and that he was not filming the way one would do if the footage was actually genuine:
- When the camera zooms in, the grass leaves look GIGANTIC, not just long...
- At the beginning of the video segment, Meier seems to be on his knees, and then to get up from this
awkward position (he is not simply turning around, and getting back behind the camera).
Therefore, the camera is low, for the purpose of creating a perfect "false perspective" illusion
(just as Meier did for the picture with the tree and the car).
- Why did Meier make a point of focussing in and out, but not moving up and down?
- Why did Meier position his camera so "far" from the alleged "craft", if it wasn't to be able to film a good portion
of the sky above it to "prove" no strings were or could have been used?
- If Meier was indeed communicating through telepathic means with the "Pleiadians", filming them with their consent
and in perfect accord, how come he wasn't able to film and capture the "craft" flying away
(he didn't even capture it "vanishing" as he pretended to do in other footage - LOL), or even simply flying / manoeuvring
at all?
- Why, of all places, would the Pleiadians choose to "park" their vehicle besides a tree? On top of that, a tree
that stands alone in a grassy field, far away from any woods or other trees... (ahhh, I see,
it must be because they love "nature" and all that, and like to console lonely trees, or something of that sort...).
The arguments advanced by Jim Deardorff
As mentioned, Deardorff should be considered one of Meier's representatives, and he plays an important part and probabaly has some interests in promoting the Talmud of Jmannuel fraud, Meier's project aimed at cashing in on the phenomenal commercial succes of the New Testament...
Deardorff seems to be the one who handles various debunking of the Meier hoax from a "technical" standpoint, finding ways to defend against evidence like that published on this website, or like the evidence advanced by Kal Korff in his book "Spaceships of the Pleiades: The Billy Meier Story", which also received a characteristic "debunking" by Jim Deardorff, full of flawed calculations and manipulative argumentation.
On his website, Deardorff presents a "scientific analysis" of the weddingcake craft model picture shown at the top of this page. Here is my original analysis of its "false perspective" trickery, followed by a look at Deardorff's comments (click the picts to enlarge):
|
Billy Meier fake UFO and proof of deception. |
Graphic reconstruction. |
| Here, we see a "craft" that is in focus ("sharp") while the house on the background is out of focus ("blurry"). This means the house is a lot further away from the camera than the "craft" is. We can estimate from the size of the windows that the house is at aprox. 12m to 18m (39.4 to 59 feet) from the camera. Since the house is so much out of focus, while the craft is in focus, the craft must be at most at 1m to 2m (3.3 tot 6.6 feet) away from the camera. The craft is therefore at most +/- 1m (3.2 feet) large! It MUST just be a model, albeit a relatively large one. In fact, further analysis shows the model is in reality +/- 60 centimeters large (+/- 2 feet, or 23.6 inches). (Note that the above link leads to a slightly enlarged version of the picture available, which causes everything to be slightly more blurred than the original, but it still shows clearly that the "craft" in the foreground is much more in focus than the house in the background, plus some other flagrant discrepancies. You can find the original picture here). |
|
Example of focus. Source: www.photozone.de |
Example. 100 mm lens. |
Example. 50 mm lens. |
Example setup. Overview of setup. Source for this and previous 2 pictures: www.luminous-landscape.com |
| Above can be seen some examples of how objects can be in and out of focus, and of what one can do
by playing around with lenses, depth of field and lens focal length, to make a small object look big. For more examples, see here. |
Graphic reconstruction as according to J. Deardorff - 1st version. |
Graphic reconstruction as according to J. Deardorff - 2nd version. |
|
James Deardorff claims the pictures showing the "weddingcake craft" in front of the house, like the one shown previously,
are authentic.
On his page about this picture, he states that:
"It is quite revealing to notice in Fig. 1 [ed: the picture of the previous analysis]
that not only is
the wedding-cake craft in good focus, but the main residence beyond it is in fairly good focus, too" .
But clearly, the craft is much better
in focus (sharper) than the house, so there must be a considerable distance between them, according to my estimates:
10m to 16m, which is a fact Deardorff clearly tries to obfuscate... Over several years, Deardorff used to claim on his page that, based on his calculations, the craft must have had a diameter of 7 m. But after publishing my analysis on this site, he changed everything, and now claims that the craft must have had a diameter of 3.5 m (11.4 feet)... In his first analysis, he claimed that: "For a wedding-cake craft of 7m diameter, the camera equation indicates it was situated about 13.5m from the camera." When taking into consideration Deardorff's calculation, that would have meant the camera would be at least at 13.5 m + 7 m + 10 m (to 16 m) from the house, i.e. at 30.5 m to 36.5 m (100 to 120 feet). This is clearly not what can be seen in the picture, as taking a picture from such a distance would show much more of the house, there would be more of the horizon to be seen, and there would be more space visible above the house (the roof line would be relatively lower). Deardorff's analysis was very clearly bogus, and can only be understood as an attempt to deceive... In his second analysis, he bases his calculations on what can be seen to be reflected in the spheres of the model. In fact, these calculations are just as much bogus, although they may look a bit more complicated to the uninitiated... More on this below. Note about the camera lens used and focal depth, which are discussed by Deardorff: we can't be really completely sure what camera lens Meier used, but according to Meier's own saying, and according to the specifications mentioned by Deardorff, with a 35mm film, a lens focal length of 55mm, and a selected f-stop of f/11, with the subject being at 2 meters, then the near and far limits of acceptable sharpness would be at respectively 1.64 m and 2.56 m, with a hyperfocal distance of 8.97m, which is perfectly compatible with the calculation that the "craft" is in reality +/- 60 centimeter in diameter, and at +/- 1m to 2m from the camera, and which fully explains why the "craft" is significantly sharper than the house in the background. On the other hand, if the camera would be at 13.5m of the "craft", as Deardorff claimed in his 1st analysis, then the hyperfocal distance would still be at 8.97m, and when focussing on the craft there would simply have been NO noticeable difference at all between the sharpness of the "craft" and that of the house, which is clearly not what can be observed... In his 2nd analysis, he leaves the question of where Meier was standing more or less unresolved, claiming he had to be standing "very close to the carriage house", while his calculations would actually have Meier stand further. It's merely another example of his flawed "science"... Also see Understanding Depth of Field in Photography, Hyperfocal Distance Guide, examples of hyperfocal distance settings 1, 2, 3, and this online depth of field calculator. To get a feeling of what one can do by playing around with lenses, depth of field and lens focal length, see the section above or these examples. |
Spheres and reflection. |
 
Spheres and reflection. |
|
At present, James Deardorff tries to build a case around the reflection that can be seen
in the spheres of the weddingcake craft (which arguments are eagerly reproduced by Michael Horn, on his own pages).
His contention is that since Meier can not be seen mirrored in the spheres, he had to be at a considerable distance
of the model. He also adds a complicated calculation that should prove the model is at least 3.5 m (11.4 feet) large, based
on what can be seen of the building that stands in front of the house seen on the picture. In fact, even if Meier was standing far away, in a normal setting he should have been visible, especially if the spheres had a diameter of +/- 31 cm (+/- 12.2 inches), as would have been the case if the "craft" had a diameter of 3.5 meter (11.4 feet), as is claimed by Deardorff. |
Spheres of various sizes, and their reflection. source: dmagicalgarden.com |
| In reality, what can be seen of the building mentioned is perfectly in agreement with the spheres being relatively small, having a diameter of +/- 5 cm (+/- 2 inches). In both cases, for a sphere of 5 cm (2 inches) as well as for one of 31 cm (12.2 inches), one would see more or less exactly the same image reflected, due to how an image is mirrored by a spherical (convex) surface. Look at the picture showing spheres of different sizes. Notice how the tree is mirrored in exactly the same proportions by all spheres? |
Spherical ice-bucket. source: drinkstuff.com |
| The picture (above) of the ice bucket shows how this spherical shape of a relatively small size, 18.5 cm (7.2 inches) large, mirrors a kitchen as well as a dark wall or space at the center in the background, comparable to what can be seen on Meier's pictures, with the consideration that the building of Meier's pictures is bigger than the dark space, but further removed from the spheres seen. After verifying how a building of the size of the "carrier house" (the building in front of the house seen on the WC pictures) is reflected in a sphere comparable to those with a diamter of +/- 5.3 cm (+/- 2 inches) as found on the model, I found that the model must have been at most at a distance of +/ 6 m (+/- 19.7 feet) from the building. |
Photographer at a few meters distance. source: myanimator.com |
Photographer very close. source: mirrorproject.com |
| The picture of the ice cooler is actually tricked to hide the camera with which it was photographed, which should normally be seen at the centre. The left picture above shows how a photographer who is at a distance of a few meters can be almost unnoticable in the reflection of a sphere, but still discernable if the photographer wears bright clothes, and is not hidden by shadows or light. The picture on the right shows how a photographer at a close distance would be mirrored, and what the result can be of shadows, making the photographer (partly) non-discernable. |
Spheres and reflection. |
Spheres and reflection, showing the use of 3 spots. |
|
It looks like Meier used the properties of shadows, photographing with the sun in his back, to position himself aligned
with the building in front of the house seen in the pictures, in a way so that he would not be noticeable in the reflection
of the spheres, due to the shadow(s). In any case, the (half-) spheres of the model were relatively small, with a diameter
of +/- 5 cm (+/- 1.96 inches), and their reflection properties were pretty poor, due to the spheres being made
of aluminium, with unpolished surfaces... so whatever would be mirrored was obviously very poorly defined. For other pictures Meier did the opposite, hiding behind the lights lluminating the model, as can be seen in the picture on the far right. One can see in the reflection of the spheres that (at least) 3 spots were used (which in itself is kind of odd for an "improvised" photo session...). The fact that (on the other pictures of the model) the lower part of the reflection of the spheres consists of the model itself (just as on the picture of the ice cooler we see the kitchen sink), means that it doesn't show the ground, which could have shown where Meier was standing in front of the building. |
Of course, Deardoff's convoluted analysis is merely an effort NOT to address the following facts:
* It is PROVEN beyond any reasonable doubt, that on one of the weddingcake craft model pictures, the model is hanging in front of a car, and that it is therefore much smaller than the car.
* A garbage can lid has been identified and matched with the lower part of the model (and it is a proven fact that such lids WERE produced at the time Meier made his pictures).
* It is an indisputable given fact that on certain pictures of the weddingcake craft model and a car, extra lighting was used (not just a flash) with color filters, to make the model look as if made of gold or copper, i.e. proving deliberate deception.
==================
The sources for the original pictures that have been made by B. Meier, and that are shown on this page, are (ultimately):
* billymeier.com Official Billy Meier website.
* theyfly.com Website of Michael Horn, B. Meier representative.
Reactions
If you wish to send in a reaction, an article, or a picture, you can do that by sending an email to
(replace "-a-" by "@").
When you're sending in an article or picture that is not your own,
then please mention if you can its source (the original URL, author or organization). This is in order to respect
copyright rules and the use of material in light of "fair use".
Please, send picture and text files in their original format. Files with extentions like
.doc, .rtf, .zip and .tar will not be opened, and will be deleted automatically. Suspicious URLs
will not be visited.
Thanks!
Total amount of visits to this website:
Send this page to a friend!
Click here or on the ET.
If it's not automatically inserted in your message, please copy + paste this URL: http://TheBiggestSecret.online.fr/ .
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.. We believe
this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for by French legislation, in the
"Code de la propriété intellectuelle" (partie législative), Première partie, LIVRE Ier, TITRE II, Chapitre II,
Article L. 122-5, Alinéa 3 (see
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnCode?code=CPROINTL.rcv
or http://www.celog.fr/cpi/lv1_tt2.htm ).
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
"fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
NOTICE SUR L'UTILISATION DES IMAGES ET TEXTES, ET LEURS DROITS D'AUTEUR:
Ce site contient des oeuvres protégées par des droits d'auteur, dont l'utilisation n'a pas dans tous les cas explicitement
été permise par le propriétaire de ces droits. Nous rendons ces oeuvres disponibles dans le cadre de nos efforts
de faire avancer et progresser la connaissance et compréhension dans les domaines de l'environnement, la politique,
les droits de l'homme, l'économie, la démocratie, la science, la justice sociale, etc...
Nous estimons que ceci est en parfait accord avec les lois Françaises en vigueur, comme défini dans le
"Code de la propriété intellectuelle" (partie législative), Première partie, LIVRE Ier, TITRE II, Chapitre II,
Article L. 122-5, Alinéa 3 (voir
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnCode?code=CPROINTL.rcv
ou http://www.celog.fr/cpi/lv1_tt2.htm ).
Si vous voulez utiliser des oeuvres protegées par des droits d'auteur pour un but personnel qui dépasse le
contexte prévu par la loi, vous devez obtenir pour cela une permission du propriétaire de ces droits.
[ Home NL | Home E | Forum |
News |
Archive | Photo album |
Links ]
http://TheBiggestSecret.online.fr/
Copyright © 2006 TheBiggestSecret