Investigating
When people knew what about
Jup’ter and Saturn.
I’ve been doing some research on and off for this episode for quite awhile and finally had enough to post it: Episode 90: “Investigation into Billy Meier’s Alleged Foreknowledge About Stuff About Jupiter and Saturn.” The shownotes for this episode are extensive with lots of references. It’s been scheduled as Episode 90 for about two months. I decided to do it because I found it an interesting scavenger hunt, despite the fact that UFO-related posts are among my least-read blog posts.
The blog entry I reference towards the end of the episode is from January: “How Astronomers Are, According to Popular Press, Constantly Discovering the Same Thing.” I recommend looking through it because it’s a good example that has nothing to do with the Meier case where even peer-reviewed, professional science papers will sometimes ignore work that has shown the same “new” thing before, and it’s a good example of how press releases can play up various “discoveries” … even if they’ve been made before.
The podcast episode also has a few notes at the end, and there’s some feedback clarifying the discussion about why oxygen isotopes are important for understanding where objects formed in the solar system.
Given what’s happened in the past when I’ve talked about Meier’s material, I’m going to reiterate my comments policy: Comments need to be on-topic, and I make the final decision of what comes through; I do not owe you an explanation if your comment is not posted, my comments policy is pretty clear. Any comment to this post needs to be specifically about this podcast episode.
If you’re going to dispute material in it, you need to provide specific references and be specific about what you are disputing. You need to be succinct. That means no lengthy essays. That means no posts with numerous links to random stuff. That means no links to videos about trees — no embedded videos period, I will remove them and I will remove posts that are simply a bunch of random links to Meier material, especially if they do not support the specific thing you are refuting / referencing. That means not debating whether trees in a video are real or models.
This episode is specifically about certain claims about Jupiter and Saturn, whether those claims/statements were true, and whether it was known or openly speculated before Meier’s writing that they were true or existed, which is what the claim is for Meier’s prophecy: “… with literally dozens of other such documented examples of Meier’s having published specific, accurate information years, and even decades, before terrestrial scientists, the case must be recognized as being authentic based on these irrefutable facts alone.” It is not the claim that this stuff was known on Earth but Meier didn’t have access to that information so he still got it from ETs — and if that’s what is going to be claimed now, then that is an unfalsifiable and unverifiable claim and is moving the goalpost.
Exposing PseudoAstronomy 
In order to set a context for investigating this subject, please consider that Stuart has gone to the trouble to research the writing of a man living in rural Switzerland, who published the majority of the information under discussion long before the computer age. The information that we are focused on is also part of a considerably larger body of work, 26,000+ pages worth, which in many cases is supported by internationally respected copyrights, our legal standard of proof of prior/first publication.
This same man has never himself gone out to proclaim his information to the world and, in fact, it is only under discussion because independent, interested persons found it in the obscure books and publications that were first available decades ago.
This man, who, yes, has one hand, has also presented voluminous and still irreproducible physical evidence to support his claims as to who the source of his information is. While this may not be the topic under discussion, it is important to the overall subject.
A key thing to realize is that it is rather unique that a PhD could and would find sufficient reason to engage in what is obviously some serious due diligence regarding the work of this reclusive, not formally educated man. It’s also important to note that Stuart has linked to many papers, most of which are themselves obscure, many perhaps only relatively recently available on the internet (I never found them in my research) and, so far – in my very brief perusal of them – don’t appear to negate anything that Billy Meier has said regarding the matter under discussion. To say that not a one of them was ever seen by Meier, let alone would have been understood in the scientific English jargon, nor shown by Stuart to be available to Meier in German, should bring a quizzical smile to the face of any…objective inquirer.
This is the REAL world we live in. And the real world in which Meier was publishing his information not only didn’t have the luxury of the home computer and internet (although Meier already foretold such back in 1958), it wasn’t – and still isn’t – a world in which rural Swiss “farmers” (cringe) hobnobbed in person, or virtually, with perhaps equally obscure theooretical scientists and proofed (or plagiarized) their papers.
While we’re certain to be speaking, and perhaps disagreeing, about the specifics, we must be absolute realists, we must also do our best to think as any good detective would. That does indeed mean keeping in mind means, motive and opportunity, along with factual accuracy. And while we want to be good scientists, we should also recognize that science is historically obviously filled with…errors. This simply means that new discoveries continue to revise many previously thought to be ultimate facts. There is no shame in this, especially when we don’t approach any matter under discussion with preconceived notions and by this I actually do mean…skepticism. It should be sufficient to simply approach it…scientifically, objectively and logically.
Examining the results of those findings with the mindset of a good detective, which does allow for speculation, which then must also be tested against the facts and incorporate common sense, we can arrive at very reasonable conclusions, even if they don’t accord with any of our preconceptions or beliefs, which truth be told all people have to some degree.
In applying this approach to the idea that something that Billy Meier, or Wendelle Stevens, presented couldn’t be “genuine”, it will therefore be equally necessary to support such conclusions with hard facts. Is there any reason we should question Wendelle Stevens’ published statement that he had the Jupiter information in his possession by March 9, 1979 (which slam dunks certain of Meier’s information as the first publication) but uncritically accept any of the scientific papers and their authors as “genuine”? I ask just as a matter of principle since the same standards should be applied without prejudice to all parties and information.
As I said, I haven’t yet listened to the podcast but I will quote this from Stuart’s page:
“I am stating that IF that source was available, THEN the claim Meier knew it before anyone else on Earth is falsified, and I’m stating that IF that source was available, that Meier could have gotten it from that source or another, and that source (such as a newspaper article, or simply a friend of his who was an astronomer) is a more likely mundane explanation than he was told it by an ET.”
While I understand that in many cases I have said that Meier knew and published information before anyone else, which I think I can well support, I will take great exception to any unsubstantiated, speculative claims about “more likely mundane explanations”. As someone who’s actually gone to Switzerland to investigate the matter, as I have 14 times, and, as a proponent of common sense and detective-like logic, so far there’s nothing I’ve seen to substantiate that very unscientific assumption.
So now that Stuart has done what looks like a significant amount of work and preparation, and since I’ve probably been his most vocal critic, I want to approach the matter with due respect, and than him for his efforts, and of course for what I hope and think is our common goal…finding and knowing the truth.
Comment by michael812 — October 22, 2013 @ 8:45 am |
@michael812: are you Michael Horn? How can one – anyone – independently verify this?
While what you wrote is indeed an opening comment, and not really about the podcast – how could it be, at the time you wrote it, you yourself said you hadn’t listened to it – I wish to thank you for being so honest and forthright in stating that Meier’s claims should not, or even cannot, be independently verified within the framework of contemporary science.
To be clear: the scope of my comment here is as limited as Dr Robbins’ is, namely the specific claims concerning Jupiter and Saturn he covers in his podcast, and the explicitly stated criterion for assessing their validity. So that there is no doubt about this criterion, allow me to quote from the intro, which is also a quote from something I think Michael Horn wrote: “… with literally dozens of other such documented examples of Meier’s having published specific, accurate information years, and even decades, before terrestrial scientists, the case must be recognized as being authentic based on these irrefutable facts alone.“
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 8:39 am |
I am now going to make a prediction, namely, that in a few days the online version of Contact Reports 150 and 248 will be ‘corrected’ so that they conform with Contact Report 123.
Comment by Graham — October 22, 2013 @ 9:04 am |
Stuart, a logical and fair job you’ve done with this material. Perhaps, someone will be able to get some proof regarding CR 123.
For another episode, perhaps you could tackle the size of Apophis according to Ptaah vs terrestrial scientists circa 2008, and then again after the re-estimate by earth-scientists in late 2012, which I’ve described below.
Graham, your so-called ‘prediction’ will not see the light of day, however your predictable comment appeared too fast for me to predict that such a comment was forthcoming.
[Additional content and links not relevant to Jupiter or Saturn or this podcast episode have been removed]
Comment by Bruce — October 22, 2013 @ 10:57 am |
@Bruce: you wrote, “Perhaps, someone will be able to get some proof regarding CR 123.”
May I ask, do you, as michael812 does openly, approach the testing of Meier’s claims (of the specific ones concerning Jupiter and Saturn, covered by Dr Robbins in this podcast) from a non-scientific basis?
I’m curious because, as is obvious from just a casual read of the three relevant Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 CRs (123, 150, and 248), that Meier’s claims are inconsistent.
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 8:48 am
Nereid –
Meier doesn’t ‘claim’ anything per se, as you infer … he records and shares conversations known as the contact reports … neither does he claim to be all-knowing, perfect, never wrong, omniscient, etc
Comment by Juice — October 25, 2013 @ 6:50 pm
Re “Comment by Juice — October 25, 2013 @ 6:50 pm”.
Juice, you wrote: “Meier doesn’t ‘claim’ anything per se, as you infer … he records and shares conversations known as the contact reports … neither does he claim to be all-knowing, perfect, never wrong, omniscient, etc” Thanks.
I’ll review what I wrote, but I certainly tried to write “Meier’s claims” rather than, for example, “Meier claims that …“. More specifically, I have tried to limit my comments to the explicit scope of this blog post (and podcast); namely, from the blog post:
So, to be crystal clear, I most emphatically do NOT infer that “Meier claims {X, Y, or Z}”! Rather, I try to show that Meier did NOT publish “specific, accurate information years, and even decades, before terrestrial scientists“. In the explicit scope of this blog post/podcast, this refers to specific, accurate information concerning Jupiter and Saturn, as Dr Robbins writes about them.
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 7:16 pm
The fact remains that neither you nor Stuart have shown that information passed on through Meier and recorded in his Contact Reports were not published before terrestrial scientists, whether a day, a week, months, years or decades. Mahitigam has pointed out serious shortcomings in Stuart’s investigation.
Stuart won’t even address Mahitigam thoughtful and diligent work. What kind of science is that!? What true scientists behaves like that!? Science is one of many ways of pursuing the truth and the name science is made a mockery of around here from both you and Stuart. Instead of Stuart addressing Mahitigams valid and comprehensive research into Stuarts own errors, he has sent you to confuscate everything into a pseudo-scientific smokescreen.
Comment by Bruce — October 26, 2013 @ 5:34 am
Re “Comment by Bruce — October 26, 2013 @ 5:34 am”: Bruce, you wrote “The fact remains that neither you nor Stuart have shown that information passed on through Meier and recorded in his Contact Reports were not published before terrestrial scientists, whether a day, a week, months, years or decades.” Can you help me please? I can’t understand what you wrote.
Here’s the core part of the sentence: “The fact remains that you have shown that [some] information [was] not published before terrestrial scientists.” There seems, to me, to be at least one missing key word, perhaps a ‘not’ (“The fact remains that you have NOT shown that [some] information [was] not published before terrestrial scientists.”), perhaps a ‘by’ (“The fact remains that you have shown that [some] information [was] not published before BY terrestrial scientists.”), perhaps …
You also wrote “Mahitigam has pointed out serious shortcomings in Stuart’s investigation.” I read mahitigam’s comment, carefully. I agree that he found one or two extremely small errors and tiny shortcomings in Dr Robbins’ podcast. And I wrote six separate responses on mahitigam’s comment. Would you please do me the courtesy of identifying any serious shortcomings in my responses?
Concerning “… the name science is made a mockery of around here from both you and Stuart.“: do you, unlike Michael, have a formal background in science? What – specifically – concerning the clearly defined scope of this blog post and podcast has Dr Robbins written that makes a mockery of astronomy? planetary science? space science? What – specifically – concerning the clearly defined scope of this blog post and podcast have I written that makes a mockery of astronomy? planetary science? space science?
Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2013 @ 12:12 pm
For the record – either here or on my blog should this simple response not be posted – there is already response from Dyson that clarifies the errors on the part of the skeptics here. Dyson goes to some lengths to show the fallacies, lack of understanding, etc., that make the skeptical arguments essentially meaningless…let alone disingenuous. If Stuart wants the essential part of Dyson’s post reproduced here then fine.
Comment by michael812 — October 26, 2013 @ 12:32 pm
Michael, you wrote (“Comment by michael812 — October 26, 2013 @ 12:32 pm”) “there is already response from Dyson that clarifies the errors on the part of the skeptics here”
I checked both the blog post and podcast, and could find no reference to any “Dyson”. Why is this “Dyson” relevant to any of the specifics covered in this blog post and podcast?
Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2013 @ 1:37 pm
Dyson’s response is on MY blog. You’d have to read it yourself to understand the “why”. But there are key points about the inaccurate assumptions about “craters”, as well as subtleties regarding the translation of words from the, more complex, German language, etc. Again, the devil is in the details. And as far as assumptions about the translations on my site or others, perhaps you should work for the German language texts instead of the translations.
However, and as often stated, common sense reveals to those without an agenda that Meier just happened to have published his information without any backdating, retrodiction, etc., etc. Now before you challenge that, please note that I said…”common sense”.
Comment by michael812 — October 26, 2013 @ 3:39 pm
Re “Comment by michael812 — October 26, 2013 @ 3:39 pm”: Michael, you wrote “Dyson’s response is on MY blog.” Fair enough. If “Dyson” does not wish to join the discussion here, then I have nothing to say. If you do not wish to participate – other than as an uninvolved ‘pigeon’, then I have nothing to say. From my own, purely selfish, POV, please stop wasting everyone’s time Michael.
Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2013 @ 4:52 pm
In RESPONSE: You’re free to review Dyson’s information – or invite me to post the most relevant parts of it here. I have the feeling that you may have already looked at it and certainly don’t look forward to it being posted here.
But since you show ZERO comprehension of how an actual INVESTIGATION works, and prefer to regale us with your rather pretentious, (selectively) pedantic, picky meanderings, feel free to think you’re somehow superior to competent, highly credible people who actually have taken the time – decades in some cases – to discover the truth…and who are not afraid to put their real names forward, as you are.
And please, PLEASE stop playing your silly pseudo-scientific card, we have enough REAL scientists, like David Froning, Dr. Sanford Weinstein, Michael Malin, Marcel Vogel, etc., who’ve done the investigating you’ll never do…all because it’s too threatening to your (anonymous) inflated ego.
BTW, if you’d ever want to debate me publicly, i.e. OPENLY on the merits of the case and its claims (including these under, er, partial discussion here), I’d be more than delighted to do so. Otherwise you may wish to consider that, small as this audience is…you’re the one wasting everyone’s time.
Comment by michael812 — October 26, 2013 @ 5:33 pm
Michael, you wrote (“Comment by michael812 — October 26, 2013 @ 5:33 pm”), “But since you show ZERO comprehension of how an actual INVESTIGATION works, and prefer to regale us with your rather pretentious, (selectively) pedantic, picky meanderings, …” (my bold) Rather good description of what what mahitigam wrote here earlier (“Comment by mahigitam — October 23, 2013 @ 3:08 pm”), wouldn’t you say? Now, how did you describe his comment? Let me see now … ah! here we are: “Mahigitam’s work was excellent” And yet mahitigam’s rather pretentious, (selectively) pedantic, picky meanderings led to the discovery of publications by “terrestrial scientists” well before Meier’s claims about the link between the Sun and Jovian aurorae (“The effects of the Sun are also to be mentioned, which play a ‘gewisse Rolle’ (certain/definite role) in connection with the polar lights“) – to take just one example – and thus demonstrating yet another “crbr” isn’t*. Double standard – bias, inconsistency, maybe dishonesty – by you perhaps?
You also wrote, “we have enough REAL scientists, like David Froning, Dr. Sanford Weinstein, Michael Malin, Marcel Vogel, etc., who’ve done the investigating“. As Dr Robbins has let your comment be published, I assume that’s because the work they did is directly relevant to this podcast**. So, please explain what these folk did, that is directly pertinent to Meier’s claims which are covered by Dr Robbins in this podcast and blog post.
* and I must confess some surprise; I would not have expected you to call work which leads directly to demolishing yet another crbr “excellent”.
** Per this, from the blog post:
Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2013 @ 11:48 pm
I’ve taken a first listen to about half of the program, so I don’t know what is yet to come, of course.
It’s certainly fair enough that Stuart is choosing to focus on my statement that Meier was the first to know and publish certain information. I came to that conclusion because when I started to research the Jupiter information online, the lack of any contradictory information led me to that conclusion.
This is of no small importance. Meier published his information more than 35 years ago, long before the home computers and the internet. The information that Stuart is citing not only didn’t appear in my searches, there is zero actual evidence that Meier had any access to it, nor is there any hint of any reason or motive for him to go to the enormous trouble (and expense) to assume it exists and to find it. And then to effectively conceal his own publication of such information.
Stuart’s presentation is filled with speculations and assumptions, wherein he uses terms and phrases like:
“safe prediction”, “safe bet”, “unusual volcanic activity could be predicted, “any person could guess”, “openly discussed”, “people were talking about”, “popular culture”,”mindset at the time”, etc. Unless I missed it, Stuart didn’t name one scientist who “safely predicted” the specific information Meier stated as fact.
Let’s take “mindset at the time”. Really, in the rugged, rural Swiss highlands where a one-armed man is busy renovating a run down farmhouse, raising three children, working as a night watchman, feverishly typing out his contact conversations, having already taken hundreds of photographs and films of the UFOs and dodging assassins bullets? What comfy, cushy, 21st century, computer filled, fantasy world is Stuart living in…and assuming that Meier was too?
Has Stuart, or any of the skeptics, ever gone over to find out just what the “mindset” (environment, conditions, etc.) of the rural Swiss, even in this day, is?
What kind of expression will they be greeted with if they suggest that one of their neighbors simply must have been acquiring, reading, studying and plagiarizing obscure English language rarified scientific books and texts on subjects that have zero to do with the high maintenance, work and survival first lifestyle familiar to them all? Blank stare doesn’t begin to paint the picture.
So, while I said that it’s fair to focus on my statement that Meier was the first to…know, Stuart is ripe with theories and specualtion as to how Meier could have been preceded by those who THEORIZED SIMILAR things, like Io’s volcanism. But Meier didn’t theorize and it wasn’t just Io’s vulcanism. Meier stated that it WAS the most volcanically active body in that system. Stuart expresses no awe at the how and why of Meier’s accuracy.
He seems to also have mangled a few points, such as Io’s surface not having craters. Meier’s description of the “fantastic evenness, despite the many craters?” of its surface makes good sense in light of this from NASA:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap130804.html:
“The notable absence of impact craters suggests that the entire surface is covered with new volcanic deposits much more rapidly than craters are created.”
…so it’s not that there aren’t craters created, it’s just – as NASA says – that they’re filled in much more rapidly than they’re created.
It sure sounds to me like we have an actual eyewitness describing what NASA actually confirms.
Stuart’s blanket statement that Jupiter’s rings contain NO sulfur contradicts this from Harvard:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1980Sci…207..181P&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=)
Images of the ring of singly ionized sulfur encircling Jupiter, obtained on two successive nights in April 1979, show that the ring characteristics may change dramatically in about 24 hr. On the first night the ring was narrow and confined to the magnetic equator inside Io’s orbit. On the second night it was confined symmetrically about the centrifugal symmetry surface and showed considerable radial structure, including a ‘fan’ extending to Io’s orbit. Many of the differences in the ring on the two nights can be explained in terms of differences in sulfur plasma temperature.
…which was published well AFTER Meier’s information.
Isn’t it interestng that here we are, in the high-tech, computer age 21st century, actually debating information published by Meier and – a not at all small point – in every case the information that is under discussion and/or contested is contained within transcripts of conversations that most often include a good amount of other, often mundane, information?
I will also go back and address the issues pertaining to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn later too.
While I will wait until I’ve had my first listening to the rest of the podcast, I hope that it all doesn’t lack the same, already apparent lack of comprehensive consideration and common sense that is so tightly compartmentalized and unrelated to just how the…REAL world works.
The completely magical abilities and circumstances that Stuart is creating and proposing through his speuculations bear no resemblance to the known, well documented, investigated facts and conditions of Meier’s life. And that must be considered since life doesn’t take place in a bubble.
Comment by michael812 — October 22, 2013 @ 11:05 am |
So long as you address specific claims made that I addressed in the episode in a cordial manner, I will respond with clarifications. In the above comment, you made two specific statements.
1. Io Craters
Your statements and the APOD caption do not in any way contradict what I stated. Craters form on every solid surface in the solar system. We have known this since Eugene Shoemaker’s conclusive work in the 1960s, and this was thought by many through Barringer’s less conclusive work in the early 1900s, both on Meteor Crater in Arizona. The number and sizes of craters visible today tells us about resurfacing rates. The fact that Io shows NO visible craters today means that the volcanic resurfacing is at a rate equal to or faster than the formation rate of craters.
If you are trying to say that craters are on Io, we just can’t see them because they’re buried by lava, and therefore Meier’s statement is correct, you are stating something that is obvious to any person familiar with geology. As I said in the previous paragraph, it is a known fact and had been for well over a decade before Meier wrote this contact report that craters form everywhere. We just didn’t know the resurfacing rate. Hence, again, if you are claiming that the statement Meier made is to be interpreted as craters are there, we just can’t see them because they’ve been covered by lava, it’s the same as saying that there are craters at [pick any location on Earth] we just can’t see them because they’ve been buried or erased by resurfacing processes (volcanic, aqueous, mass wasting, aeolian, etc.). It’s an obvious statement and does not indicate any foreknowledge of something unknown to people at the time.
But, if we take the statement at face-value, that Meier is stating there ARE “many craters” on Io, the statement is false. There are no impact craters on Io. So your choice is either an obvious statement of fact like stating the sun is round, or he is wrong. A literal reading indicates he’s wrong. Special pleading indicates it was an obvious statement. I don’t see a third option here that would get him to be right and that he was right about something unknown at the time.
2. Sulfur in Jupiter’s Rings
Your statement here illustrates two misconceptions that I will try to explain. First, the minor one: You are using ADS, which is hosted at Harvard. It is a search engine many of us in astronomy use. The papers are links (in some cases they host scans) to the original. In the paper you linked to, it clearly states that the author’s affiliation is the University of Hawai’i at Honolulu. Not Harvard. Not that this has anything to do with what it says or its validity, but it’s a mistake I’ve seen you make in many places. The paper is a Science paper from 1980, presented in March 1979 at the American Astronomical Society meeting (which also reinforces my point in the episode that stuff is often presented in talks well before the published paper, in this case by 10 months, meaning the abstract for the talk was submitted several months before even that — these days, roughly 3 months is the lead time for abstracts relative to the conference date).
Second, the paper discusses, as I tried to make clear in the episode, the plasma torus formed by Io. The plasma torus contains sulfur from Io. It is NOT a planetary ring in ANY sense of the word, and the plasma torus – not to mention Jupiter’s actual rings – are not in any way “similar” to Saturn’s rings by any stretch of anyone’s subjective or objective imagination other than the fact that it surrounds the planet centered on the equator. By the same extension if you are calling the Io plasma torus a “ring,” the particles trapped in the Van Allen belts around Earth are also a ring. But no one considers them to be a ring just as no one considers the plasma torus to be a ring, and the torus is governed by different physics than planetary rings are (electricity and magnetism versus gravity and collisions).
You quoted from the paper’s abstract to support your claim that it is a “ring.” The first sentence of the paper actually states, “Jupiter’s innermost Galilean satellite, Io, appears to be the source of a host of atomic and perhaps molecular nebulae that are distributed around the inner Jovian magnetosphere.” Not ring, but clouds (literal translation of “nebulae”) which is a slightly more accurate description not only of the distribution, but also the behavior of the plasma torus. The plasma torus is also not visible to the eye, but the Jovian rings might be if you got close enough and stared long enough, though they are made predominantly of particles on the micron to 10s of microns size (size of a red blood cell, or a water droplet in mist).
To wrap up, I already linked to papers about sulfur in the vicinity of Io that pre-date the Meier writings on the subject. And, I linked to sources that show sulfur is not in any way a primary or even dominant constituent of Jupiter’s rings, rather they are material from the four inner-most moons which do not include Io, Io being nearly two times farther away from Jupiter than the outer edge of its ring system vs. the four embedded moons and the spectroscopic studies.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — October 22, 2013 @ 7:13 pm |
I think it’s entirely appropriate to repeat the final words of the intro to this podcast, in the blog:
To be quite clear here: michael812, I have no intention of engaging with you in a discussion where you explicitly, unashamedly, and (apparently) deliberately try to move the goalposts. That Dr Robbins tolerates you doing so speaks volumes about his willingness to extend you every courtesy, despite your appalling track record of deceit and dishonesty.
Let’s take two parts of your comment: “I’ve taken a first listen to about half of the program, so I don’t know what is yet to come, of course.” and “Unless I missed it, Stuart didn’t name one scientist who “safely predicted” the specific information Meier stated as fact.” Perhaps you’ll be kind enough to re-visit this once you’ve had a second, third, and fourth – careful – listen to the whole program?
To close: I note that you did not respond to Dr Robbins’ detailed comments on the, um, inaccuracies in yours. May I ask why not?
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 8:59 am |
Michael, you wrote, “I will also go back and address the issues pertaining to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn later too.”
Are you still intending to do so?
Comment by Nereid — October 29, 2013 @ 5:11 am |
First, I want to address what you have focused on primarily, i.e. my claims that Meier was the first person on Earth to know and/or publish certain information. In regards to your numerous completely unsubstantiated claims that can be summed up as “it was general knowledge, widely talked about, anyone could have known it” when you address the information published by Meier, I think that my own claims actually show quite the opposite.
At the time that I orignally compiled my articles about Meier’s Jupiter information, I went online and searched out everything I could in order to find out if he indeed was copying “widely talked about” information. The linked information that I refer to in my articles was all that was available to me, through my searches, at that time and even later. Had I found information indicating that Meier was either wrong, or preempted by other writers, etc., I wouldn’t have made my claims.
So the whole notion that implies that Meier “somehow” got access to the information you refer to in your podcast is completely unsubstantiated and my own experience shows that the opposite was true. Quite importantly, claiming that a (rather unlikely) man, in the 1970s was “somehow” casually coming upon highly rarified scientific information that I (and even recent critics like Ike42 from IIG) couldn’t find, or come across, in diligent online searches in the 21st century, is clearly unscientific, unsubstantiated speculation. Further, I’m having a hard time seeing where Meier was verifiably incorrect.
Regardng the craters issue, I think it’s more accurate to say that Meier’s statements don’t contradict the – not at all widely – known facts. And the fact that you again refer to something being “obvious to any person familiar with geology” is a bit cringe worthy since you’ve failed to establish Meier’s familiarity with geology. By making such a statement you also imply that there are people who aren’t familiar with geology. Couldn’t Meier just possibly be one such person, especially since we don’t have – and you haven’t presented – any evidence that this is a speciality of his? And, of course, whether you may think that it would be obvious…does that make it incorrect?
I would say that it really does show him to be right about something unknown to the great majority of people on Earth at that time and I’ll bet unknown to the vast majority…today. I think that your statements show that you may live in a somewhat rarified climate wherein “most people” in your community may indeed know these “obvious” things. Who the heck is this Barringer? I never heard of him…and I live in the 21st century in the USA with my computer on and ready.
But this is the problem of the fish not knowing it’s in water. The cloistered community of scientists, so to speak, who are not necessarily investigators of difficult, complex real life issues, involving “ordinary” real life people in what can also be called extraordinary situations, may try to run everythng through some sort of nice, sanitized online filterng process that can, inadvertently, trample the essential, sometimes minute, telltale facts that are critical to making accurate determinations.
So I will state that Meier’s comments regarding the craters aren’t wrong, nor are they obvious…except maybe to fish whose lives are lived swimming in such waters. Indeed, WHY is a so-called Swiss farmer making such specific, not incorrect statements about the surface of a remote planetary body in the first place? Now, while that isn’t the kind of question that I think concerns you – although you do imply, again without substantiation, that there was probably some kind of dishonesty involved on Meier’s part in some of the information – as a thinking human being it really should concern you. Walk into any store, restaurant, mall, even a school cafeteria and ask the people you meet about the surface of Io today, 30+ years later. Heck, help them out and ask them to comment on whether it has craters or not. Again, the blank stare – or someone calling for security – is a most likely response. But the fact that Billy Meier stated all this in 1978? You nonchalantly assume that “anyone” would have known it at the time. Not real world, Stuart, and that’s where Meier, I and a whole lot of other people live.
As for the ring composed of sulfur points you raise, I find the fact that it was actually the U of H irrelevant, and the date equally so. Sorry, I don’t get the big point there. Unless you’re implying again that “anybody” would have known, and had access to, that information back in 1979, at least three months after Meier published his information. Maybe I truly am missing the importance of stating that Jupiter’s rings are not in any way “similar” to Saturn’s, as I think that was more than likely a statement by Meier about similarly to Saturn, Jupiter has rings, not that they were composed of the same matter, etc. Again, I could be missing something here but so far I don’t get the point about that.
In what I have seen in my online searches now, it seems that the actual composition of Jupiter’s rings is still somewhat speculative, unless I’ve failed to find the definitive information that now exists.
Regardng the information about sulfur in the vicinity of Io, Meier specifially stated that the volcanoes on Io spewed sulfur particles, which was to the best of my knowledge confirmed AFTER his publication. And of course referring to papers that pre-date Meier on the subject may make my claim inaccurate that he was the first person on Earth to know/write about it…but that still leaves the REAL questions unanswered by you. And yes, as you state, I for one will point out that specific, scientific information that may have been known to .0000001% per cent of humanity at the time (if that) was also published by the “most unlikely man on Earth” – and has over the years thereby been made available to more people than would have ever read about it in an obscure scientific paper. As a scientist, wouldn’t you want to get to the botom of this, rather than settling for throwing up papers that only recently have gone online and surmising that Meier somehow (and you really don’t know or care how) sourced and plagiarized them?
Comment by michael812 — October 22, 2013 @ 9:24 pm |
michael812, you wrote: “So I will state that Meier’s comments regarding the craters aren’t wrong …” Again, thanks for being so open about your deliberate (and cynical?) moving of the goalposts. I’ll repeat the final para of Dr Robbins’ blog post:
By stating “that Meier’s comments regarding the craters aren’t wrong” you have, once again, explicitly declared that you approach the validation of Meier’s written claims from a perspective different from, perhaps even antithetical to, contemporary science.
Again, thank you for being so explicit, and for making the case Dr Robbins put forward even more strongly.
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 9:07 am |
Nereid,
Yes indeed, it’s me, Michael Horn…of course we don’t know if it’s really “you”, since you’re only an anonymous screen name, right?
I have since listened to/read Stuart’s entire presentation. Fortunately he did also put the transcript online.
Since you like my honesty, and I do too, let me be clear that I have no formal background in science. I have an enormously good background in common sense and am as diligent as can be in doing my research.
Stuart is of course free to control what he posts and what he doesn’t.
He isn’t of course free to dictate the terms of reality and what is or isn’t true. [Content removed by admin because it did not apply to the specific points raised nor the Jupiter/Saturn information.]
I have no trouble admitting if I was technically wrong that Meier was the first person on Earth to know about something. However, for those people who can think and care about the truth, it may be only one element and not the most important…as I think my censored post* explains quite well. Of course, we could also say that it fell into the category of “minutia”, as Stuart put it in regard to things he’s incapable of logically addressing. In my case, this minutia isn’t the critical point. We should remember that the underlying claim is that Meier got his information from extraterrestrials. The only moving of the goal posts is by…Stuart, as he desperately tries to keep the playing field very small, far below what we could say is “regulation size” for a matter of this magnitude.
Now I’d like very much to respond in detail to your criticisms. And perhaps I already have in a *post I submitted to this blog…which Stuart censored. So, if Stuart even allows me to inform you of it, why not read it and see if I’ve indeed covered some of the points you raise?
I know he wouldn’t allow me to post a link to it but I think you shouldn’t have any trouble finding it.
[Admin note: Michael has posted his comment to his blog, and as one can easily see, it has no discussion of the specific Jupiter/Saturn claims, it has to do with how Meier may have gotten or not gotten the information, which was clearly addressed in the podcast is neither verifiable nor refutable.]
Comment by michael812 — October 25, 2013 @ 9:35 am
Reply to Comment by michael812 — October 25, 2013 @ 9:35 am.
Thanks for the confirmation that you are Michael Horn. Within the scope of Dr Robbins’ blog post, that’s sufficient.
May I ask, are you the author of these words? A simple yes or no will suffice. “… with literally dozens of other such documented examples of Meier’s having published specific, accurate information years, and even decades, before terrestrial scientists, the case must be recognized as being authentic based on these irrefutable facts alone.”
Michael Horn, you wrote: “I have no trouble admitting if I was technically wrong that Meier was the first person on Earth to know about something.” Thank you for the frank admission. You also wrote “Of course, we could also say that it fell into the category of “minutia”, as Stuart put it in regard to things he’s incapable of logically addressing. In my case, this minutia isn’t the critical point.” and “let me be clear that I have no formal background in science. ” If the latter is true, and if you accept that this is a science-based blog, what is the basis for your claim about “minutia” (by the way, I think you meant to write “minutiae”, did you?)?
You also wrote: “We should remember that the underlying claim is that Meier got his information from extraterrestrials.” Why should we keep that in mind, with respect to the specific claims Dr Robbins wrote about, and within the clearly defined context and scope of his research into those claims, and analysis of them? Then you also wrote: “The only moving of the goal posts is by…Stuart, as he desperately tries to keep the playing field very small, far below what we could say is “regulation size” for a matter of this magnitude.” Michael, it’s his blog, his podcast, his rules. More generally, as I have pointed out to you – and Andy, et al. – many, many times, Dr Robbins has made it abundantly clear that the ground rule here is “science-based” (my phrase, not his). If you don’t like that, why do you keep posting here? Why do you persist in deliberately (and cynically) refusing to keep the discussion science-based?
“Now I’d like very much to respond in detail to your criticisms.” Why haven’t you done so, within the explicitly-stated, easy to understand, scope of this blog post and podcast? Yes, I had no trouble finding your blog and its comment; like Dr Robbins, I cannot for the life of me see how that addresses anything I wrote, within the scope and context of this blog post and podcast. To me, it’s goalpost-moving of a particularly blatant and dishonest kind, and I’m glad that Dr Robbins has refused to allow it to be posted here.
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 11:25 am
Dear Nereid,
I simply wish you HADN’T effectively FORCED me to point out that it was…Doc Stu who inserted the INCORRECT spelling. After all, since you’re BOTH PhD’s – right? – who is me, a simple citizen, to have to educates youse two clearly brilliant scientists, right?
You’ve already demonstrated what a thankless task that is.
Comment by michael812 — October 25, 2013 @ 3:09 pm
I applaud Stuart for taking up this ever so interesting and important topic again. And he has quite obviously done a lot of work here. As someone who is as interested in the validity of the Billy Meier case as any, I appreciate it. Thank you.
Though Michael is of course right to seriously question how – if indeed these things were known by a few terrestrial scientists – just how Meier could have come upon this information, something else troubles me even more… That is, I would just like to echo Michael on one thing he only made short mention of above, because it is worth repeating and bearing in mind: NONE OF THIS DOES MEIER SPEAK OUT ABOUT HIMSELF, that is, he himself never points to any of his writings as proof of his “higher”, insider, knowledge… thus greatly confounding the already curious MOTIVE question. (He, makes little monies for his efforts and obviously many more foes than friends).
Thus, even IF Michael has been brought to task on his claim that zero earthlings knew of these things at the time of publication (that is, these specific bits under present discussion, to make no mention of countless other instances of likely prophecy/foreknowledge)… for the mere motive question alone (again–farmer, raising family in the Swiss Alps), there is still a huge aura of mystery surrounding these highly detailed, technical, pre-internet age writings.
That is to say, for the yet remaining question of how and WHY, even if one was to give Stuart the benefit of the doubt on all of this (save his claim of backdating/deliberate falsification) he has merely accomplished… (very) little to none in terms of discrediting the Meier case.
(I know Stuart, understandably, doesn’t want us to shift topic, but for the casual new-to-the-case reader, I should also just like to point out the fact of the existence of copious physical evidences of the contacts, which can easily be found with a google search).
Comment by Andy — October 22, 2013 @ 11:11 pm |
Andy, you wrote: “even if one was to give Stuart the benefit of the doubt on all of this (save his claim of backdating/deliberate falsification) he has merely accomplished… (very) little to none in terms of discrediting the Meier case.”
Like you, let me leave aside the “claim of backdating/deliberate falsification” for now, and concentrate on “discrediting the Meier case.”
Dr Robbins has demolished many of Meier’s specific, potentially verifiable claims concerning Jupiter and Saturn, using scientific facts. Given this demolition – and assuming no one subsequently successfully challenges it – Dr Robbins has discredited the Meier case.
In a broader context: has Meier made other, potentially verifiable, claims concerning Jupiter and Saturn, ones Dr Robbins did not investigate? If so, then let’s have the references! NOT a discussion of them, just the references. If not, then the discrediting is complete (again, assuming no one subsequently successfully challenges the content of Dr Robbins’ podcast).
A word about the context: the blog is called Exposing PseudoAstronomy, and the logo can be seen as meaning “Ban Bad Science”. Myself, I am interested in having a science-based discussion, here in the comments of this blog. michael812 has – to his credit – openly and honestly stated that he has no such interest (or intent). What about you?
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 9:19 am |
Nereid,
To be clear, I am absolutely interested in determining the truth of the matter according to scientific and legal standards of proof. I noticed that you haven’t yet commented to my invitation to read my censored post. And of course everyone can notice how quickly Stuart has a attempted to categorize it to…”save” anyone from THINKING for themselves?
In the list of definitions for “science”, this one seems quite appropriate: knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
Now, lest one forget, the most important DISCOVERY of the Voyager mission was that Io was the most volcanically active body in the system.
So, when Stuart posts this concocted bit of reasoning:
“Add to that basic mathematical calculations that had been made many years earlier that showed Io, being the closest large satellite to Jupiter, would be most subject to tidal heating, meaning that it’s basically kneaded like a ball of dough by Jupiter’s and the other large moons’ gravity, and so we KNOW that IF Io is volcanic, it is going to be the most volcanic object in the Jupiter system.”
Why didn’t this “so we KNOW” occur to…NASA? Why is Meier still the fist person to state it as fact? Why hasn’t Stuart or “Nereid” taken NASA to task for such an obvious oversight, overstated claims, blah, blah, etc.?
One more time, the MOST IMPORTANT DISCOVERY of the Voyager mission, published…five months before it occurred, by the most unlikely human on Earth of the 4,5000,000,000 on the planet at the time.
Please, some more fancy footwork from the distract and disinform specialists behind the scenes. This should be a real beauty.
[Admin note: Parts of this post have been removed because they are, yet again, not relevant to the discussion of the Jupiter/Saturn information discussed in this episode. Michael, save us time and trouble by staying on-topic.]
Comment by michael812 — October 25, 2013 @ 10:26 am
It seems like Dr. Robbins did do this and you’re ignoring it, Michael: He pointed out that many people thought at the time that there could be volcanism on Io because of its anomalous heat signature that indicated it pretty much had to have had volcanic-type activity. And then he’s bringing in the other part that says if it were volcanic, it would have to be the most volcanic in the system, which is exactly what Meier said, but this had been worked out many years earlier by basic physics stuff. (Not that I pretend to understand it all, since like you, I’m not a scientist, though I’m still in my psych program at school.)
As to statements of fact, if I’ve learned anything in my program, it’s that scientists won’t state things as matters of fact until there’s actual iron-clad evidence to back it up. Based on what Dr. Robbins wrote, there was a lot to indicate volcanism would be there, but no scientist is going to state it as a fact until they actually see volcanism. On the other hand, if one were to take a psychic, they state things as a matter of fact that something will be known to be true in the future all the time. I think Dr. Robbins was rather subtle about this and tried to not come out and say it – for which he should be commended for remaining objective – but Meier’s writings read less like the scientist’s (e.g., “Evidence to-date suggests we may find [this].”) and more like the average psychic looking to score a high-probability hit.
My point is not to say Meier did this and is a charlatan psychic effectively doing hot readings of the science of the day. My point is rather to show what you and others have said here and on your blog, that Meier was the first to say as a fact Io would be the most volcanic body in the Jupiter system, and so this shows he “knew it” before anyone else, versus what I’m saying that even if scientists suspected it very surely would have volcanism, they’re not going to say it as a matter of fact that it does until they see the volcanoes themselves (for example, in this example of Io volcanism).
Therefore, you’re setting up an impossibility: Dr. Robbins probably can’t show where a scientist stated pre-Voyager-photos as a FACT that Io would have volcanoes because they didn’t have the “smoking gun.” But, they did have a lot of evidence. Meanwhile, someone else who’s not a scientist and so not bound by that mentality of being cautious is free to extrapolate from the data available and say it will be discovered.
Comment by Zach — October 25, 2013 @ 10:44 am
Zach,
Sincere thanks for your comments. They also reveal a major problem with how this has been handled by Stuart.
First, “Many people thought…” is certainly not the stuff of science as fact. And while you and I are admittedly not scientists, do you know that Billy Meier isn’t and wasn’t one either in 1978?
As a matter of fact, the majority of those billions of people on Earth then weren’t either. And since not only did none of them, nor any scientists we know of, state that as FACT, a curious person has to wonder just how – and possibly why – a so-called one-armed Swiss farmer living in rural Switzerland did.
Another thing, we’re not talking about someone being “psychic”. We’re talking about claims by a man that he was…THERE, up close and personal, observing the planet and its mooons. Now, before we write him off as a crackpot, why not allow into evidence what NO other person claiming contact with extraterrestrials can produce,i.e. that evidence? This man said he was in a spacecraft. That’s nice, does he have any evidence of that too? Yes. Well…we do’t want to see it, nor do we want you to see it. Next. Now, what about those craters?
Please understand, Meier is no “lucky guesser” and by taking ALL of the information and physical evidence into consideration, a self-responsible person can determine for themselves what the truth is.
Effectively trying to make excuses for Stuart – or any other person, scientist or not – for not nailing this information, which also includes the other descriptive information only confirmed by the Voyager mission – is not doing a service in the search for the truth.
In fact, I think that if you had a truly comprehnsive view of the evidence you just may be a little outraged at the blatant attempts on this blog to PREVENT you from knowing about it and considering it.
If you were “on trial”, so to speak, and you had actual, verifiable informational and physical evidence that you thought was relevant ot your defense…wouldn’t you want it to be at least presented to the “jury”?
Comment by michael812 — October 25, 2013 @ 11:21 am
P.S. SInce we’re all giving each other “credit”, I will say that Stuart has – to his credit – openly and honestly stated that he can’t refute Meier’s being the first person to state as FACT that Io is the most volcanically active body in the system. Okay, so I’m being a bit generous but he did accomplish it, albeit it unintentionally.
Comment by michael812 — October 25, 2013 @ 10:44 am
Response to “Comment by michael812 — October 25, 2013 @ 10:26 am”.
Michael, you wrote: “To be clear, I am absolutely interested in determining the truth of the matter according to scientific and legal standards of proof.” In an earlier comment you wrote: “let me be clear that I have no formal background in science.” If the latter is true, may I ask how you go about “determining the truth of the matter according to scientific standards of proof“?
Concerning “I noticed that you haven’t yet commented to my invitation to read my censored post“: I hope that you have now had a chance to read my comment on just that.
You also wrote: “Please, some more fancy footwork from the distract and disinform specialists behind the scenes. This should be a real beauty.” just a few sentences after this (my bold) “published… by the most unlikely human on Earth of the 4,5000,000,000 on the planet at the time” Yes, it’s pretty clear that not only do you have no formal background in science, but also that you have such an ignorance of the nature of contemporary science that it’s positively breath-taking. Zach posted a response which goes a long way to helping you understand why you seem to be continuing to fail – badly – in your attempts to characterise Meier’s specific claims concerning Jupiter and Saturn (the ones covered in this blog/podcast) as having any significant astronomical/planetary science content.
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 11:38 am
Michael, you’re missing my point. Scientists WON’T state something as “fact” until they observe it for certain. People trying to make a name for themselves will if the evidence points that way and they want to score a “hit.”
And you seem to miss where I said I’m NOT saying that’s what Billy did. But, in my psych classes and work, we deal a lot with the “null hypothesis.” That’s the hypothesis that nothing special is going on. We then have to get enough data to falsify the null hypothesis. What Dr. Robbins appears to be doing is adopting the null hypothesis that the mundane is the default, he’s not in contact with aliens. Then you have to gather evidence he is. What Dr. Robbins made a point of saying in his episode is that the lines of evidence that you and others seem to have put forward in the Jupiter/Saturn information to support refuting the null hypothesis, he has found do not refute it because it was known/guessed/thought at the time, as evidenced by papers discussing that possibility.
In fact, it seems as though he used your own level of evidence that these were NOT out there in the literature before Meier wrote about them. While the Io results are not as obvious, many others were, like rings around Jupiter.
Anyway, that’s what I’m saying, null hypothesis cannot be refuted under the idea that it would be refuted if the information was not out there yet. Searching for a scientist stating something about it as a matter of fact, however, is shifting the burden/terminology because they won’t say that even if they think it until they have that evidence. Even if Billy did have contact with the aliens and saw those things, the evidence presented in the Jupiter/Saturn information is not iron-clad evidence that this was information only known to him. But, I’ll respect Dr. Robbins’ request and NOT go off-topic into other things, since the subject of his podcast was just that information, nothing else.
Comment by Zach — October 25, 2013 @ 2:07 pm
Please remove the above post which does not contain links.
—————————————————————————
Excellent job done Stuart and hope you would examine the rest of the alleged astronomical corroborations(crbrs). Let us keep in mind that this post is about alleged specific claims made by specific person(s)(especially Michael Horn) on the alleged crbrs of the information published by Meier through contact reports(CRs) – thus making it a narrow skewed investigation of the whole case. I said “alleged claims” because some of the “crbrs” on FOM site[http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Will_Humanity_Wake_Up…In_Time%3F ]that were presented here was provided by many including me & not MH, making others other than MH directly responsible. I cannot discuss here on which crbrs were actually published/researched/approved/agreed by MH & which were by others like me because for that only MH can answer.
Just want to remind all that FOM site is not in anyway an official website of FIGU but an independent website owned by James Moore from UK. So not all the information available on that site is advocated by either Meier or FIGU or MH. It is highly likely that there will be mistakes in that crbrs page & that is why they have put up a note saying : “Also the list of corroborations & their articles here are subject to change based on old & new evidence”.
Most importantly the vital question one need to ask is whether Meier published what Stuart analysed here as crbrs ? As far as i know, they didn’t. These crbrs(whether accurately or inaccurately interpreted) are claimed by MH & others like me. Ok, lets get into the topic.
JUPITER RINGS:
In FIGU Bulletin 20(Jan 1999), in the article ‘Neue astronomische Meldungen’( New astronomical Information/Reports) on page 5, Meier writes the following:
http://www.figu.org/ch/verein/periodika/bulletin/1999/nr-20/astronomische-meldungen?page=0,4
Jupiter’s rings:
“In August and September 1998, American scientists reported that they were believed to have deciphered with the help of pictures of the Galileo space probe the mystery of Jupiter’s moons. ..According to these assumptions arise from dust created when meteorites crash on one of the moons of Jupiter, and highly shatter fling gigantic dust clouds. Due to the large velocity of the impacting on the moons orbiting the planet these meteorites are ground to dust, which is thrown outside the direct attraction of Jupiter and becomes fixed as a dust-containing rings around the planet 143,000 kilometers in diameter.”
Here, we did not find any corroboration claims by Meier citing his CRs about that origin of Jupiter rings; which is usually done by FIGU whenever there is a corroboration. So to keep things fair & balanced, we need to recognise not only the claims but also the person(s) making the claims. For a complete fair and balanced investigation, one need consult FIGU/Meier. As the earlier commentators rightly said, it is only people like us other than Meier/FIGU, who decades since 1975, are making the claims. If Meier really wanted to promote these as crbrs, we would have seen them in his articles, reports, documentaries, investigations,..etc since 1975 but afaik i could not find anything in those data on the astronomical information that is analysed in this podcast. Thus any “conclusions” that can be drawn does not effect the whole case.
SATURNS MOONS:
“Prior to 1980, there were 11 known, which just conveniently happens to be between 10 and 12. In 1980, there were an additional 6 discovered, according to Wikipedia, though I think it was 3 in 1980 and 3 in 1981. So already, at least his “to my knowledge” was incorrect because in 1980, a year before this CR, we already had at least 14 known.”
Wasn’t Meier’s guess on the number of moons being between 10 & 12(at the time of contact, CR 150, Oct 1981) as wrong, already made explicit in that same CR ?
Quetzal:
159. As you already could conclude by yourself on your great voyage, at the place and location, there revolve around Saturn 29 moons that are actually to be beholded as such.
160. These are expected to be discovered in their entire number in approximately up to 25 years by probes and by telescopes.
161. But in truth, there aren’t anymore so many that can still be discovered up to this number because since your journey to Saturn, the Earth scientists have discovered a few more moons, but which apparently slipped past you during the last few years.
“On the side of them being false, we can do the same exercise of ranking that we did with Jupiter: there are 22 known moons within 2 million km, since he says elsewhere that many moons are within millions (plural) of kms from Saturn.”
Last part of the above sentence is different to what is available in transcript, which says: ”.. he says elsewhere that many more moons are millions (plural) of km from Saturn.” Moreover in CR 150 it talked about the Adoniden and not moons, being millions of kms away from saturn’s rings.
Billy: Du denkst wegen den Adoniden, die teilweise Millionen von Kilometern ausserhalb des Saturns kreisen?
Billy: Do you think because of the Adoniden, which partially orbit millions of kilometers outside of Saturn’s rings?(my translation could contain errors)
“So again, either Meier is simply wrong OR this prediction has a built-in “out” and is simply too vague to confirm or refute by not telling you what Adoniden are. And I looked in other CRs and could not find it.”
Did you look in the same CR150 itself ? Though the definition is not specific, he did gave some criteria as to what would be considered an Adoniden. Wonder what the number of moons would come to if we factor in the diameter size criteria!
“..But I can well understand that they are not visible from the Earth because on average, they only exhibit a diameter of between roughly 10 to 50 kilometers if I still correctly remember what Ptaah and Semjase explained to me back then in the year 1975… In addition, there are still some smaller as well as larger ones present in huge distances from Saturn… Back then, Semjase said that these small satellites, in part, come from larger fragments of the planet Malona, which had its course between Mars and Jupiter, before it was destroyed by an explosion that was unreasonably generated by the local people and was torn into thousands of pieces.
While the bulk of the destroyed planet revolves around the Sun as an asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, some small groups of Adoniden have isolated themselves and have flown off into space by the expansion forces of the planet’s explosion, whereby a larger group of these then arrived into the attractive forces of Saturn, which keeps them since then as micro-satellites, which also means that these are not actual moons of the unfinished sun-planet but are just foreign bodies that have immigrated and that are the size of Adonis, while the number of actual moons of Saturn is only 29.”
Source of Jupiter’s Rings:
“In CR 115 from 1978, Meier makes another statement about Jupiter’s rings, besides saying that they exist. He says, “and so, will it also not be found out that the ring clouds around Jupiter, to a large extent, consist of tiny particles ejected from large volcanoes of the moon Io?..However, well after the Voyager observations, in CR 201, from 1985, Meier wrote that Jupiter’s rings were made from “only a single and small comet.” Which is it?.. If one wants to claim that the Io plasma torus is what Billy meant, the context belies that claim. Billy stated that Jupiter’s would be “similar … to the one on Saturn,” but a torus of plasma – highly charged particles – trapped by Jupiter’s magnetosphere in orbit and not visible to the eye, well, then that is a very classic example of post-hoc rationalization.
I think what you have done, is that you have beforehand assumed that the words Meier uses in his CRs confirm to strict scientific terminology. So you have assumed that the word ‘ring’ which Meier used meant the ‘planetary rings’, which is nothing but a baseless assumption. Besides there are ample reasons for Meier to use the word ‘Ring/Ring-system’ instead of a more technical scientific words – ‘Io Plasma Torus’. It is the same logic behind the why press releases for example like NYT chose the word ‘ring’ to describe plasma torus. Just like these press releases are intended for lay persons and non-professional scientists & not exclusively to professional scientists, Meiers reports too follow the same logic. They are not at all exclusively for professional scientists & so logical to use words easily understandable by lay persons. Would researchers expect ancient astronomical literature to contain the current more accurate scientific terminology & if they did not find the terms, would they throw them away ? Obviously NO; logical course of action is to take the context(time, language, audience, cognition, culture,…) into consideration & work with it.
Besides the following science articles too seems to use the word ‘ring’ to depict Io’ plasma torus.
Jupiter Sulfur Plasma Ring – 1979
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979EOSTr..60..307N
Images of Jupiter’s sulfur ring – 1979
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17809102
The WKB approximation and the plasma ring of Jupiter – 1991
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00057431
“A special feature of Jupiter is the plasma ring which surrounds the planet around the orbit Io, where material density is roughly 700 times greater than elsewhere.”
Io’s Neutral Clouds: From the Atmosphere to the Plasma Torus – 2006
caps.gsfc.nasa.gov/mburger/BurgerThesis/BurgerThesis.pdf
Since the discovery of sodium thirty years ago, observations of Io’s neutral features
have provided essential insight into understanding the relationship between the Io’s
atmosphere and the Io torus, a ring of plasma encircling Jupiter.
Are you suggesting that these above authors of science papers too used incorrect scientific terminology ? Either way, as i said above, Meier is a “lay” person who has written down the CRs directed to lay persons and not exclusively to professional scientists. Was he talking about Io Plasma Torus in CR 115 ? In my opinion, in CR 115 Meier was referring IO-plasma torus around Jupiter as a “ring” & in CR 201 & 210, he was referring to the dust ring around Jupiter. This seemed to me to be very clear in the CRs.
In CR 115, 1978, Meier talked about a “ring” that is made by Io:
“..very different kind than the other two at Saturn and Uranus..consist of tiny particles ejected from large volcanoes of the moon IO..where portion is then attracted by Jupiter and very slowly condenses itself in its ring system into a heavy formation of sulphur ions.”
In CR 201, 1985 & in subsequent CR 210, 1986(mentions info from CR 201) Meier talked about rings(inner & outer) that are made by comets:
“very fine ring around Jupiter, similar to Saturn’s ring..only a single and small comet worked; therefore, only a very small ring developed, but which will soon be dissolved(outer and extremely fine ring). The inner ring which is denser, in contrast to the outer one, is narrow and practically extends down to Jupiter’s atmosphere in a fine and visible vapour.”
Would like to know, if this fine, visible vapour ring that extended down to Jupiters atmosphere is already known as a fact/speculation or yet to be discovered ?
Jupiter’s actual rings – are not in any way “similar” to Saturn’s rings by any stretch of anyone’s subjective or objective imagination other than the fact that it surrounds the planet centered on the equator.
Also when Meier says in CR 201: “..on my great journey, I saw a very fine ring around Jupiter, similar to Saturn’s ring..”, he could have used the word ‘similar’ as you have mentioned just to denote some fine stuff that is in a circular fashion surrounding both Jupiter and saturn & not about the composition of those rings. Also the ‘similar’ may indicate a common source of origin of those as well as all the SOL system planetary rings which by the way are comets & their tails, according to Meier.
“By the same extension if you are calling the Io plasma torus a “ring,” the particles trapped in the Van Allen belts around Earth are also a ring. But no one considers them to be a ring..”
Wondering who does you refer to, when you repeat this “no one considers..”!
Van-Allen-Gürtel: Forscher lösen Geheimnis der irdischen Strahlungsringe – 2013
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltall/van-allen-guertel-lokale-teilchen-sind-quelle-fuer-strahlung-um-erde-a-913253.html
“Im Oktober 2012 kam den Astronomen dann ein kosmisches Ereignis zur Hilfe: Ein Sonnensturm raubte dem äußeren Van-Allen-Ring die meisten seiner Elektronen, blies also die geladenen Teilchen davon.”
Polar lights and other phenomena of the upper atmosphere as a consequence of the pressure of the solar wind on the magnetic field lines of the van Allen ring – 1977
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978KlBer..21..181W
“Even the origin of the van Allen ring itself can be explained… The origin of the van Allen ring is discussed and attention is given to the origin of whistler phenomena..”
“Also contained in CR 201 is the statement that ground-based telescopes can’t see Jupiter’s rings, and that even the Hubble Space Telescope won’t be able to observe them. While it was true and known at the time that ground-based telescopes couldn’t see the rings, Keck in Hawai’i observed them successfully in 1997. As for HST, it easily observed them in 1999 (Meier et al., 1999), possibly earlier but that was the earliest date I found; it also observed them in 2002 and 2003..In fact, Quetzal stated the “Jupiter ring already stands in dissolution and might already be gone in less than a year,” which would eliminate them by 1987. They’re still there.
A glimpse at CR 210 would have solved many “wrongs” as suggested to be made by Meier or Alien.
CR 210, 1986
Billy: ..you told me that the ring or very thin ring system around Jupiter disappears, therefore it can no longer be ascertained. There, I ask myself what you actually meant with that, namely whether you addressed the outer or the inner ring.
Quetzal:
I spoke of the outer and extremely fine ring. The inner ring which is denser, in contrast to the outer one, is narrow and practically extends down to Jupiter’s atmosphere in a fine and visible vapour. This ring remains and will also be ascertained in the coming time through the efforts of earthly astronomers and astrophysicists.
Discovery of Volcanism on Io:
“This actually leads right into the next statement by Meier, that Io “exhibits no too great crater landscape but rather a fantastic evenness, despite the many craters.”… he was wrong. Io shows no craters. Zero.”
“A literal reading indicates he’s wrong. Special pleading indicates it was an obvious statement.”
Does a ‘literal reading’ means, that we have to pick out a phrase from one long sentence & analyse it; thus essentially taking it out of context & meaning?
What I “literally read” from below one long sentence(CR 115, 1978) is: Io has many craters that are filled up by ejected volcanic material, thus giving the moon Io a smooth even surface.
Billy: ..tiny particles ejected from large volcanoes of the moon Io, are in part, captured by Jupiter, while the greatest part of all ejected material, however falls back to Io and, in turn, almost covers up practically all volcanic openings and also falls on the plains and mountains, by what means this moon, in contrast to the other moons of Jupiter, exhibits no too great crater landscape but rather a fantastic evenness, despite the many craters..
Now is this information promoted as a crbr ? Obviously NO, because it was not bolded and there was no article presented to corroborate it. Only thing posted regarding Io is the discovery of volcanoes on it.
“if you are claiming that the statement Meier made is to be interpreted as craters are there, we just can’t see them because they’ve been covered by lava, it’s the same as saying that there are craters at [pick any location on Earth] we just can’t see them because they’ve been buried or erased by resurfacing processes (volcanic, aqueous, mass wasting, aeolian, etc.). It’s an obvious statement and does not indicate any foreknowledge of something unknown to people at the time.”
Just wondering, do scientists know that on Io there would be very few or almost no visible impact craters even before the discovery of active Volcanism on Io from Voyager results in 1979 ? Was the fact that Io has no impact craters predicted by anyone and if yes then please could you provide some sources ?
Jupiter’s Aurora:
“Problem is, this was all well known at the time. In fact, some of it was known three decades earlier, at least as far back as 1955.. Given the effects of Io on the radiation from Jupiter caused by its aurora, “predicting” in 1986 that the moons play a role is like predicting in 2013 that Obama would win the 2008 US presidential election.”
I have a similar experience like this with Nereid too where she and now you seem to have not noticed the words that are bolded, used for highlighting them, thus conveying the meaning that they are actually what the corroboration is about. In Crbr 92, the highlighted words in sequential order are – ‘Jupiter’, ‘Polar lights’ & ‘effects of the sun’. Even in the corroborated article below that Crbr 92, there was no mention of moons of Jupiter except the bolded words – ‘auroras on Jupiter’, ‘auroras’ & ‘Sun plays an important role’.
RAS PN 06/12 (NAM5): Solar Wind Whips Up Auroral Storms On Jupiter and Saturn – 2006
http://www.ras.org.uk/search/article-archive/975-ras-pn-0612-nam5-solar-wind-whips-up-auroral-storms-on-jupiter-and-saturn
“They found that there was a strong correlation between the strength of the solar wind and the behaviour of the aurora that occurred towards the planet’s poles. Until now, scientists had believed that Jovian auroras were caused by the planet’s rapid spin and a stream of material emitted from the volcanic moon Io at the rate of one tonne per second. .. Until now, it has been thought that the system is completely dominated by this rotation, and that the energy imparted by the solar wind is negligible by comparison. ..“Previous work by our group has shown that Jupiter’s main auroral oval is not caused by the same type of processes that cause the Northern Lights on Earth. However, this new study shows that the auroras located polewards of the main ovals are directly linked to the strength with which the solar wind is blowing, which means that Earth-like processes are causing these polar auroras. Surprisingly, we’ve also found that the main oval also shows a direct correlation to solar wind strength, which is completely the opposite result to the one we were expecting from our predictions…”
Meier says: “The effects of the Sun are also to be mentioned, which play a ‘gewisse Rolle’(certain/definite role) in connection with the polar lights”. Would like to know if the above scientists in the above article were wrong in saying that the previous models predicted the solar wind as negligible in comparision.
Amalthea:
“To nip the last part of Meier’s statement in the bud, Amalthea is the moon third out from Jupiter that we know of, Metis and Adrastea being interior to it as mentioned when I talked about the source of Jupiter’s rings.”
German says:”Ich glaube, es war der jupiternächste Mond, an dessen Namen ich mich nicht mehr erinnere.”
From dict.cc,
nächste = next, nearest, proximate, following
der Nächste = neighbour
And also just before Meier talks about Amalthea he talked about various moons of Jupiter having different colors, then about Io, then Europa & then moved onto Amalthea. So from this context, the meaning for the word ‘nächste’ could be either ‘next’ or ‘proximate’ or ‘following’rather than the ‘nearest’. And that could be the reason why the translation was corrected long time back.
Regarding the shape of Amalthea being a chicken-egg, that article was posted by me & not by MH and it was not as a crbr but just a reference because obviously the article does not use any of the words like ‘discovered’, ‘found’, ‘new’,..etc. A look at the rest of the articles shows that they are not all posted as ‘firsts’ or ‘newly discovered’,..etc.
Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9’s Impact into Jupiter:
“I think AT BEST, all that can be said for this particular prediction is that it would seem to be very strong, but there is reasonable evidence to cast doubt on its authenticity.”
Your suspicions are perfectly logical, Stuart. I have been trying to trace the original books and verify myself. Information on comet Shoemaker-Levy9 from CR 123, 1978 is supposed to be published in Semjase-Berichte(first edition, between 1978-1982), Semjase-Kontakt-Berichte (SKB) Band 8, (second edition) in 1990 & in recent PPKB(3rd edition, 2004). First editions are unable to be traced sofar. So we are left with the 2nd edition,(available with some persons) since the third edition is in 2004, more than a decade after the event, it is irrelevant. As you have speculated, the information about the comet shoemaker-levy 9 was not published in SKB 8, 1990.
———————————————————————————————
Finally, regarding the presence of Io’s active volcanism, Io’s plasma torus & Jupiter auroras, you said that our scientists already speculated/predicted years before Meier talked about them. I am guessing that there will also be papers by other scientists that presents arguments speculating/predicting the opposite of what the earlier papers published. Are there any papers that contradict the presence of active volcanism on Io, Io’ plasma torus & & Jupiter auroras(Sun plays a certain role) ?
Comment by mahigitam — October 23, 2013 @ 3:08 pm |
There’s a lot of material in this comment, mahigitam, far more than is feasible to respond to in a single response. So I’ll be posting several comments, each one focused on just a small part of yours.
“But I can well understand that they are not visible from the Earth because on average, they only exhibit a diameter of between roughly 10 to 50 kilometers” – is this an actual Meier claim (whatever “they” are)? If so, an independently verifiable, published account of an observation of any Saturnian moon with a diameter in this range would serve to invalidate the claim, wouldn’t it? Especially if there are more than one such independent observation.
“which also means that these are not actual moons of the unfinished sun-planet but are just foreign bodies that have immigrated and that are the size of Adonis, while the number of actual moons of Saturn is only 29.” – this, then, removes any Meier claim concerning the number of moons in the Saturn system from being verifiable, even potentially. Why? Because Meier makes no statements concerning how – objectively, in an independently verifiable way – one can distinguish “actual moons” from “just foreign bodies that have immigrated”.
So, regarding the moon system of Saturn, there are no Meier claims left, right? Ones that can – potentially – be verified, objectively and independently.
To come: Jupiter’s rings, Io’s volcanism, Jupiter’s aurorae, and the “Finally” remark.
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 9:48 am |
My last response (“Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 9:48 am”) to mahigitam was on the moon system of Saturn. This one will be on Jupiter’s rings. Later responses will be on Io’s volcanism and on mahigitam’s ‘Finally’ comment.
Introductory comment: I found it extremely hard to follow what you’d written, mahigitam, largely because the way you formatted your comment requires very careful reading to work out when you’re quoting, who you’re quoting, and when you’re speaking in your own voice. It is therefore very likely that I have misunderstood at least some of what you actually wrote.
From the podcast and mahigitam’s comment, I gather that there are five separate references to Jupiter’s rings in Meier’s writing, which I have copied below, together with the source of each, according to either Dr Robbins or mahigitam. In all cases, the bolding is mine.
Jupiter has a ring system, as does Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Jupiter also has a plasma torus, named after the moon Io. There are some similarities between the various ring systems, and many differences. The Io plasma torus is very different from any of the inner rings of any giant planet’s ring systems.
Can you, like mahigitam, read all five of Meier’s pieces and see consistency with what is now known about Jupiter’s ring system (and those of Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, where comparisons are made) and the Io plasma torus? Yes, you certainly can.
Is such a reading consistent with “documented examples of Meier’s having published specific, accurate information years, and even decades, before terrestrial scientists” (my bold)? I think not.
Why not? For starters, Meier seems very confused over how many rings there are, whether they are of one kind (e.g. solid, i.e. dust, or ice) or more (e.g. solid and plasma, or gas), their visibility, their composition, their origins, their similarities with rings and ring systems around the other giant planets*, how “narrow” any are (Jupiter’s ‘inner’ ring system is complex, with the different rings have different widths, quite unlike Saturn’s main rings) and so on. In other words, the very antithesis of “specific, accurate information“.
So, thanks mahitigam; your comments have added meat to Dr Robbins’ (and clarified some of his points), and thus reinforced the podcast’s conclusion:
* Meier is – or was – just as confused over how many of these have ring systems: he omits Neptune’s, and by saying “the other two” implies he was ignorant of that system.
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 4:19 pm |
In an earlier (“Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 9:48 am”) comment on this comment by mahitigam, I said there’d be only four more comments (“To come: Jupiter’s rings, Io’s volcanism, Jupiter’s aurorae, and the “Finally” remark”).
I’ve just realised that there are two other topics in mahitigam’s comment; namely, “Amalthea” and “Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9′s Impact into Jupiter“, so this short comment is a response to those two.
Re “Amalthea”: I agree with you, mahitigam, that the translation of “der jupiternächste Mond” as something to do with “closest to Jupiter” is poor, and does not accurately reflect Meier’s apparent meaning. This makes Dr Robbins’ comment – which he explicitly states relies on the veracity of the English translation – moot. Concerning Amathea’s shape and dimensions, I appreciate your comments; thank you.
@Michael, @Andy: did you read what mahigitam wrote on Amalthea? did you understand it?
Re “Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9′s Impact into Jupiter”: thank you very much for this!
@Michael, @Andy: did you read what mahigitam wrote on Shoemaker-Levy 9? did you understand it?
Still to come: comments on Io’s volcanism, Jupiter’s aurorae, and the “Finally” remark.
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 6:31 pm |
This is my third response to mahigitam’s lengthy comment. The previous ones are on Saturn’s moons (“Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 9:48 am”), on Jupiter’s rings (“Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 4:19 pm”), and on Amalthea and Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9′s Impact into Jupiter (“Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 6:31 pm”). This response concerns Jupiter’s aurorae; still to come are one on Io’s volcanism, and one on mahigitam’s concluding para.
First, the source, what Meier actually wrote (per mahigitam):
mahigitam asks “Would like to know if the above scientists in the above article were wrong in saying that the previous models predicted the solar wind as negligible in comparision.” That’s a good question, and I spent a most enjoyable number of hours looking into it; thank you for the opportunity, mahigitam. As is so often the case when you start to dig into things like this, the history of the ideas, the models, the observations, and so on is considerably more complex than anything written here so far (and that includes Dr Robbins’ podcast).
For starters, Meier’s “the polar lights” is, it turns out, too broad a term to be used in conjunction with the RAS article mahigitam quotes from: Jupiter’s “polar lights” (aurorae, or auroras) have several components and a complex structure, and Dr Jonathan Nichols’ main results refer to “auroras located polewards of the main ovals” (yes, they also concern the main oval). Then there’s the developments since 2003, where the models Dr Nichols refers to have been further refined and tested. Not for one second do I claim to be able to accurately summarise these subsequent developments, but it seems that while the solar wind’s effects are far from negligible, the models Dr Nichols refers to now have it playing a more minor role.
But it seems Dr Robbins was also right in his podcast conclusion (“And as with Earth, the sun also affects Jupiter’s aurora, … I consider this falsified as a prediction because, while it’s true, it was well known prior to mid-1986.“), but missed pointing to the previously published science papers on whether “the effects of the Sun play a certain/definite role in connection with the polar lights” (of Jupiter). For example (my bold):
That’s the abstract of a 1984 paper – two years’ before Meier’s CR – by J. Isbell et al. “Magnetospheric energization by interaction between planetary spin and the solar wind” (Google is your friend). And that’s just one example; with an extra hour’s searching, I’m pretty confident I could find several other papers reporting similar solar wind-Jovian aurora connections, from before 1984.
So, while mahitigam certainly made a good point concerning Meier’s prediction (it relates to the role of the Sun on the Jovian aurorae, not the role of Io) and asked an interesting question, he was looking in the wrong direction. Once again, we can see that Meier did NOT publish “specific, accurate information years, and even decades, before terrestrial scientists“.
Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2013 @ 5:26 am |
Fifth response (my previous one – “Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2013 @ 5:26 am” – mistakenly called that the third!), on Discovery of Volcanism on Io.
mahigitam, you wrote “Now is this information promoted as a crbr ? Obviously NO, because it was not bolded and there was no article presented to corroborate it. Only thing posted regarding Io is the discovery of volcanoes on it.” OK. But did Dr Robbins claim that it was being promoted “as a crbr“? If not, then you are not addressing what he actually wrote. Let’s find out … here’s an extract from near the start of the podcast:
Should Dr Robbins have focused exclusively on “information promoted as a crbr“? Perhaps. Can you say his podcast has flaws because it did not, and examined other material published by Meier? You could, of course, say that. Kinda weak though, wouldn’t you say?
You also wrote: “Just wondering, do scientists know that on Io there would be very few or almost no visible impact craters even before the discovery of active Volcanism on Io from Voyager results in 1979 ? Was the fact that Io has no impact craters predicted by anyone and if yes then please could you provide some sources ?” Interesting questions; perhaps Dr Robbins might consider doing a podcast covering these later.
Concerning “Only thing posted regarding Io is the discovery of volcanoes on it.“: there are already several comments on this, and I’ve responded to all but a couple, maybe three. Perhaps the most important is that of die schwalbe (“Comment by die schwalbe — October 25, 2013 @ 2:40 am”), so rather than respond here, I’ll combine my responses into one, the one I plan as a reply to die schwalbe’s comment.
One more to go, on mahigitam’s final para.
Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2013 @ 8:14 am |
Last response to mahigitam, on the final para:
This is an interesting question, but one that is very poorly formed I think. This is not the place to even try to summarise how an active branch of science develops, how observations inform theory (models and hypotheses actually) which in turn inform observational programmes, etc. Unfortunately, this kind of understanding of how contemporary science works (or at least those branches of direct relevance to this blog post and podcast) is essential to understanding why your question is sub-optimal.
Take just the last, to illustrate: “Jupiter auroras(Sun plays a certain role)“. On the one hand, the observations – of decametric radiation, for example – are ‘facts’, hard objective quantitative data; on the other hand, the ‘theories’ (actually predominantly models and hypotheses) are consistent with the observations, to varying degrees. Before direct observations of the Jovian aurorae, by cameras (etc) in the visual/optical part of the electromagnetic spectrum, can one say that they had been observed? Or should one say that the decametric radiation observations were consistent with the hypothesis that they arose from something like aurorae (for example)? If you were to turn up a paper from the 1960s (say), presenting a model that explained the decametric radiation observations in terms of something other than ‘aurorae’, would that satisfy your request? or must the paper be explicitly about the Sun ‘playing a certain role’ in Jovian aurorae? And so on.
And in fact, I’ve already shown that you need to get a lot more specific when you’re asking questions about active research areas such as Jupiter’s auroras (in my “Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2013 @ 5:26 am”): I referenced a 1984 paper which proposed that the solar wind plays an active role in Jupiter’s aurorae; you cited a (2003?) RAS article reporting development of models in which the solar wind plays an active role in Jupiter’s aurorae. From the content of that RAS article, one can infer that, between 1984 and 2003, models of Jupiter’s auroras were developed in which the solar wind played a different, or negligible, role.
Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2013 @ 8:43 am |
I should have added “accurate” to my list of adjectives above (“detailed, technical, pre-internet…”). For I, like Michael, am a little confounded by Stuart’s point about the supposed (dis)similarity of the rings of Saturn and Jupiter–the common sense plain meaning of Billy’s statement was that Jupiter, like Saturn, has rings, making no claims to how similar the things were. I guess Stuart’s point is that these “rings” around Jupiter are not technically rings in the Saturn-ian sense at all… but this is point is trivial and moot, as a quick search reveals all over the internet Jupiter is referred to as having “rings” (albeit, if in a less precise sense then Stuart would like), and therefore Meier’s statement is in no way wrong (not to mention being the first one to say it as a matter of fact); and your big ‘gotcha!’ is…not one at all.
Comment by Andy — October 23, 2013 @ 3:10 pm |
Andy, you wrote: “I … am a little confounded by Stuart’s point about the supposed (dis)similarity of the rings of Saturn and Jupiter–the common sense plain meaning of Billy’s statement was that Jupiter, like Saturn, has rings, making no claims to how similar the things were. ”
If there is indeed no claim concerning how similar – or not – the things are, then the claim becomes so vague as to be unverifiable. On the other hand, if the claim does have potentially verifiable content, then the claim is false (inconsistent with reality). I think you should take some time to consider the ‘standard of proof’ you are using in this case: is it consistent? can it yield both ‘objectively verified’ and ‘objectively inconsistent with reality’ conclusions? If not, it cannot possibly be science-based, can it?
You also wrote: “I guess Stuart’s point is that these “rings” around Jupiter are not technically rings in the Saturn-ian sense at all… but this is point is trivial and moot, as a quick search reveals all over the internet Jupiter is referred to as having “rings” (albeit, if in a less precise sense then Stuart would like), and therefore Meier’s statement is in no way wrong (not to mention being the first one to say it as a matter of fact) …” I think you just made my case for me! Back to the blog post:
If the published information is “specific, accurate” (not to mention “irrefutable”), then it’s inconsistent with reality; if it’s as loose and sloppy as your “a quick search reveals all over the internet Jupiter is referred to as having “rings”“, then it’s a moot claim.
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 9:30 am |
How is this unverifiable??? It has been verified. And it’s not vague. Most bodies, I understand do not have rings; Jupiter does–and are called such by scientists and laymen alike. Meier’s statement was perfectly accurate, perfectly verifiable–and seemingly the first to say so. So many high and mighty sounding scientific buzzwords you like to you use… yet so little common sense…not to mention intellectual honesty.
Comment by Andy — October 25, 2013 @ 1:22 pm
Response to “Comment by Andy — October 25, 2013 @ 1:22 pm”.
Andy, you wrote “How is this unverifiable??? It has been verified. And it’s not vague. Most bodies, I understand do not have rings …” If we accept mahitigam’s definition, then the only planets in our solar system which do *not* have a ring system (or more than one such) are Mercury, Venus, and Mars (and I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if a ring (system) – mahitigam’s definition – were to be discovered around Mercury and/or Mars); that’s five out of eight, so you are flat out wrong (with regard to planets in our solar system).
OK, so let’s see if Meier’s claims, re Jupiter’s rings (systems) have been verified, or not:
– “a fine ring, similar to the rings of Saturn” (1975): no, Jupiter has many rings, and they are not similar to Saturn’s
– CR 115 (1978): if it refers to the Io plasma torus, then it has some similarities with one of Saturn’s rings, but cannot be the ‘inner rings’
– CR 201 and 210 (well after the Voyager discoveries): inconsistent with the Io plasma torus AND the 1975 claim
So it seems you have two choices, just as Dr Robbins concluded: either Meier’s claims are so vague as to be unverifiable, or they are precise enough to be verifiable, but are inconsistent with reality. Clearly you think otherwise; would you care to show how Meier’s claims – in toto – are not vague? are not inconsistent?
You also wrote “So many high and mighty sounding scientific buzzwords you like to you use… yet so little common sense“. Leaving aside the negativity, thank you. One of the wonderful things about science, including the study of Jupiter and Saturn, is just how ridiculously poor a guide “common sense” is, and just how vital it is to get your terms straight and your definitions clear. Quite the opposite of Meier’s writing, wouldn’t you say?
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 4:42 pm
Second response to “Comment by Andy — October 25, 2013 @ 1:22 pm”, and an additional comment to “Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 4:42 pm”.
I wrote, “If we accept mahitigam’s definition, then the only planets in our solar system which do *not* have a ring system (or more than one such) are Mercury, Venus, and Mars (and I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if a ring (system) – mahitigam’s definition – were to be discovered around Mercury and/or Mars)“. The key here is to describe features of Earth’s magnetosphere – the Van Allen radiation belts – as “rings”. Well, it turns out that Mercury’s magnetosphere does have similar features, so the only thing that’s lacking is references in mass circulation/pop-sci publications to those features as being “rings”. The Martian magnetosphere is weak, and not as neatly structured as that of Earth or Mercury; it remains to be seen if some science writer chooses to call some features of that magnetosphere “rings”. So, six out of eight planets have “rings”. Way to be spectacularly wrong, Andy.
What about moons? It seems that Ganymede, one of the four Galilean moons of Jupiter, does have a persistent, coherent magnetosphere, which has features similar to those of Earth (at a much smaller scale) and Mercury (at a similar scale). Perhaps Titan (the largest moon of Saturn) too, although the origin would be very different. What about the dwarf planet Pluto? and its binary partner/moon Charon? None detected so far, but it won’t be surprising if one is found, it seems. And if any asteroid were discovered to have a large-scale, coherent magnetic field, then it too would very likely have a “ring” (or ring system) of the mahitigam kind.
Now for the real kicker: in addition to a system of four rings, made of dust (which are what most scientists think of as “the rings of Jupiter”), and the Io plasma torus (which mahitigam thinks can also be called a “ring”), it seems there’s another system … a torus of (largely) neutral atoms, a gas, at about the same distance from Jupiter as the Galilean moon Europa. (Source: “Planetary Magnetospheres: Van Allen Belts of Solar System Planets”, by JHU’s Stamatios M. Krimigis; Google is your friend).
Did Meier specifically and accurately predict the existence of such a gas torus? It would seem not. Will Michael admit to, um, this shortcoming in Meier’s claims? Time will tell. Will Andy retract his accusation of intellectual dishonesty? Let’s see …
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 6:03 pm
Looks like Mahigitam thought the same… nice work Mahigitam, thanks for that, very informative.
Comment by Andy — October 23, 2013 @ 3:54 pm |
Hi ANdy,
Please let me know if you get this. I agree, Mahigitam’s work was excellent.
However, I attempted to post earlier today and, for some strange reason, it isn’t showing up. If you’d like to see it, please email me through my website.
Comment by michael812 — October 23, 2013 @ 4:23 pm |
Wow. Having now a thorough look at Mahigitam’s clarifications, I realize I was previously much too accepting of Stuart’s work here… which appears to be a lot shoddier than first glance (listen) would have it. On top of shoddiness, quite unfair as well, as Michael aptly point’s out as seen in the reproduction of his comments I posted above (if said comments are indeed there? I checked in from another computer and didn’t see them…?). Not to mention the question of why they were censored in the first place, considering there was no name calling and no extraneous information, links, etc…? At any rate, thanks to all involved twas a really awesome further confirmation strengthening my confidence in the validity of the Meier case. Such a shining testament of such, I really hope that UFO topics are in fact not your least viewed episodes…
In fact, as super kewl as your show is Stuart, as an astronomer and rising star perhaps you now have the opportunity to direct your energies at something infinitely more important. Since, despite your valiant but ultimately shortcoming efforts, you are presumably–as any objective reader would be–now accepting of the truth of the contacts; how about revisiting the topic of that menacing, threatening Apophis asteroid? Maybe encourage your colleagues to run those probabilities again, raise awareness, do something… as fun as exposing the folly of young earth creationists is… perhaps, with due courage and diligence you could… be a real hero.
Good luck.
Comment by Andy — October 23, 2013 @ 8:25 pm |
Michael’s and your attempted reproduction are off-topic, dealing with broader Meier material, and so as I explicitly stated they would be blocked. If you don’t like it, post it on your own blog. I’m certain that Michael is already working on doing so.
If you are convinced by what mahigitam wrote, that’s fine, there was never any assumption that I would convince you, him, Bruce/Juice, or Michael of anything. What he points out are minutia and again incorrect understandings of terminology and what’s going on as opposed to the context and science of the issue.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — October 23, 2013 @ 8:41 pm |
Andy, you wrote: “Having now a thorough look at Mahigitam’s clarifications, I realize I was previously much too accepting of Stuart’s work here… which appears to be a lot shoddier than first glance (listen) would have it. On top of shoddiness, quite unfair as well,”
As you surely have seen, I wrote six separate responses to mahigitam’s comment, each examining a single (in one case two) point. Yes, mahigitam did ask some interesting questions, and yes, he did find a couple of tiny errors in Dr Robbins’ material; however, nothing he wrote challenges the main points in the podcast, and certainly not its conclusions. In fact, some of what’s in mahigitam’s comment goes beyond what Dr Robbins wrote, pointing to inconsistencies (let me just call them that) that may be more important than any Dr Robbins wrote about.
But presumably you disagree; if so, why not write up your disagreement (within the framework and scope clearly spelled out in the blog post)?
You also wrote (my bold): “Since, despite your valiant but ultimately shortcoming efforts, you are presumably–as any objective reader would be–now accepting of the truth of the contacts” I am curious to learn whether you still have such confidence after reading my detailed responses to mahigitam’s comment. And why not see if you can find, in Meier’s writing, anything specific which is a prediction of the gas torus (a.k.a. ‘ring’) near Europa’s orbit? Or even of the number of ‘inner’ rings and how they differ from one another?
Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2013 @ 8:58 am |
Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance). –from “Scientific Method” on Wikipedia
Billy: Now I am still wondering, if regarding the volcanic action on the moon Io, I remember correctly. If I am right, then you explained that the volcanic eruptions there would occur with primordial power and resemble monstrous explosions, which would thrust up their ejected material like atomic mushrooms, whereby sometimes heights would be reached up to 180 kilometer. Principally, it involves dust particles, gasses, ashes and some magma, but which would reach ejection velocities up to 2,300 kilometer per hour and beyond, as due to the lack of atmosphere of the moon, only minute resistance power is present. –from Contact Report 115
“As a by-product of this activity, sulfur, sulfur dioxide gas and silicate pyroclastic material (like ash) are blown up to 200 km (120 mi) into space, producing large, umbrella-shaped plumes…” –from “Io (moon), Volcanism” on Wikipedia.
Comment by die schwalbe — October 25, 2013 @ 2:40 am |
The paper referred to in the Wiki was apparently published in June 1979, well after Meier first published the information…of course.
Comment by michael812 — October 25, 2013 @ 7:50 pm |
Michael, when did Meier first publish “the information” that the volcanic ejecta “would reach ejection velocities up to 2,300 kilometer per hour and beyond“? In what publication (book, newspaper, magazine, …)?
Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2013 @ 1:32 pm
Perhaps because you’re so highly…specialized, you’re unnaware of the working definitions for “publish”:
1.
to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphicmaterial, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.
2.
to issue publicly the work of: Random House publishes Faulkner.
3.
to announce formally or officially; proclaim; promulgate.
4.
to make publicly or generally known.
Meier actually first published it, i.e. distributed to his group, etc., within days of the date of the contact. It was already in Wendelle Stevens’ possession by March 9, 1979, as he also stated. Interestingly, neither Stevens nor Meier ever pointed to the information that is now under discussion.
BTW, when I say interestingly, that only applies to people who know what’s actually involved in a comprehensive investigation, not those who choose to cherry pick what will be allowed into the presentation and discussion of evidence. The devil is in the details.
I suggest that you see:
http://theyfly.com/Wendelle-Stevens-Jupiter-Io.html
…and read the totality of the text presented in the four pages that are reproduced.
Comment by michael812 — October 26, 2013 @ 3:27 pm
Response to “Comment by michael812 — October 26, 2013 @ 3:27 pm”: thank you Michael.
Per this definition of “publish” of yours, “terrestrial scientists” will have published in any and all of the following circumstances (not intended to be a complete list):
– symposia, colloquia, workshops, lunch-time talks, etc, whether purely internal (i.e. team/department/university invitees only) or not
– research projects with more than one member active (which pretty much describes all of research in astronomy and planetary sciences today): the team emails/photocopied notes/work done using ‘collaboration’ software/etc
– the work of all PhD students, at least so far as such work is shared and reviewed by the students’ supervisors
– ditto for work required for any masters thesis
– papers submitted to journals, prior to their eventual publication (or not)
Michael, earlier (“Comment by michael812 — October 22, 2013 @ 9:24 pm”) you wrote “At the time that I orignally [sic] compiled my articles about Meier’s Jupiter information, I went online and searched out everything I could in order to find out if he indeed was copying “widely talked about” information. The linked information that I refer to in my articles was all that was available to me, through my searches, at that time and even later. Had I found information indicating that Meier was either wrong, or preempted by other writers, etc., I wouldn’t have made my claims.” What steps did you take to ensure that “publication” – as you have defined it – was unbiased? Specifically, how did you go about obtaining all the relevant publications of the kind in my list (above)?
You also write “It [“the contact notes for 19 October 1978”] was already in Wendelle Stevens’ possession by March 9, 1979, as he also stated.” How can this be objectively, and independently, verified? How can it be verified – objectively, and independently – that the contact notes referred to are the same as those published as CR 115 on the webpage Dr Robbins provides a link to in his podcast notes?
I am quite curious about this, not least because you say “neither Stevens nor Meier ever pointed to the information that is now under discussion.“
Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2013 @ 5:21 pm
Please, a little more…precision and accuracy. It isn”t “my” definition, it’s/they are obviously accepted DEFINITIONS by…definition.
How nice for the “terrestrial scientists”. As I’m, sure you, er, know, there are all sorts of OTHER people who publish information of all sorts that happens to be, and/or turns out/is proved to be, perfectly accurate and credible…even if they didn’t run it by you first for your approval. This is how the…real world operates.
As for the steps to determine bias, i.e. obtaining all the blah, blah, well, I actually used…common sense, unfamiliar with it as you may be. Allow me to spell it out just a wee bit. When I went online and found the various articles (and feel free to point out which ones you think are “biased”) I realized, i.e. thought things through using…common sense, that since Meier didn’t have a computer and access to the internet – obviously – and since Stevens gave the date by which he had it, and since I knew Stevens for 20 years – and I don’t know any of the sources online, let alone anything about you and your credibility, and since Meier and Stevens didn’t seek to point out, gain, or profit from it, etc., well by golly, unless there’s some big ol’ expose revealing a clever plot to deliberately drive all you pseudo-scientists up the wall…decades later, I guess I kinda accepted this, and dozens of other specific examples, as genuine. Oooops, we shouldn’t mention that, lest things get out of hand here, right?
This particular game is a nice exercise for me and I’m being darn generous with my time ENTERTAINING your desperate nonsense.
As for verifying Stevens’ possession of it…well, you’re pretending to be an “investigator”, how would YOU go about it?
And it’s about time that you actually were…CURIOUS, instead of so predictably, repeatedly determined to parade and posture as if you actually knew what you were talking about. I think in a classroom the professor would say, “That’s very nice, Ms./Mr. Nereid, you can sit down now.”
Oh how I’d LOVE to engage you in public debate and – layman that I am – allow the audience to see through the ridiculous, denial based, subterfugenous (my word) smoke screen that you feverishly generate. Hey, make that a physics class, professors and all. Y’all up for it?
Winner take…all.
Comment by michael812 — October 26, 2013 @ 6:52 pm
Response to “Comment by michael812 — October 26, 2013 @ 6:52 pm”:
Michael, you wrote “Please, a little more…precision and accuracy. It isn”t “my” definition, it’s/they are obviously accepted DEFINITIONS by…definition.” Yes, you’re right of course. I should have realised that common sense – not to mention junior high school levels of reading comprehension – would not apply. Instead of writing Per this definition of “publish” of yours, I should have been – what did you describe it as? – more selectively pedantic and picky and written something like “per the definition of publish that you have chosen to use.”
Would I be being rather pretentious, selectively pedantic, and picky if I were to describe this last comment of yours as a rant? one that contains essentially zero content relevant to this blog post and podcast?
Let’s see now … earlier (“Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2013 @ 11:25 am”) I asked you if you are the author of the words Dr Robbins uses as they central criterion for assessing the veracity of Meier’s claims*. So far, you have chosen not to reply. But no worries, with Google as my friend, I have confirmed that you are**. That’s good.
Why? Because we can now say that, according to Michael Horn’s own clarifications, not a single one of Meier’s claims investigated by Dr Robbins (in this podcast) contains specific, accurate information published (by Meier) years (or even decades) before publication by terrestrial scientists.
None, zip, nada.
And we can say this unequivocally. In part because of the pretentious, selectively pedantic, and picky work done by Dr Robbins, mahitigam, and myself.
That’s quite an accomplishment, wouldn’t you say Michael?
And let’s not downplay your own role in exposing the failure of all those predictions Michael; after all, you – of your own free will, openly and honestly – provided the key criterion for assessing Meier’s claims! Who’da thunk it.
* Here, again, is that para; the words I’m referring to are bolded:
** E.g. “Did Meier Know About Jupiter’s Rings First?”, By Michael Horn
Comment by Nereid — October 27, 2013 @ 12:22 am
Like Dr Robbins, I will assume that there are no material inaccuracies in the translated (into English) version of this part of CR 115 (I obtained this by clicking on the appropriate link in the transcript of the podcast):
There are some minor differences with the text you posted, die schwalbe, but the two quantitative predictions are the same in both: “reach heights of up to 180 kilometers” and “reach […] speeds of up to 2,300 kilometers per hour or higher“. So, what are the maximum heights of volcanic plumes on Io? And what are their maximum speeds of the ejecta in such plumes? I found many sources, with a range of different values, all of the ones I examined are at least somewhat inconsistent with what’s in CR 115. For example, from “Voyager Jupiter Science Summary — May 7, 1990” (“Courtesy of: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)“; Google is your friend):
So, Meier’s two quantitative predictions are both wrong.
What’s curious is that the numbers match*! But the units do not. This could be a coincidence, but it reminded me of another, equally strange, coincidence I discovered when investigating some other Meier claims (and which I wrote up in comments to an earlier Exposing PseudoAstronomy blog post**). First, here’s Dr Robbins, from the podcast transcript (my bold):
In this particular case, Dr Robbins is clearly wrong: the date associated with CR 115 (October 19, 1978) is the “date of contact”, NOT its date of publication! While Dr Robbins’ source for CR 115 gives the publication in which CR 115 is to be found (“Plejadisch-plejarische Kontakberichte, Gespräche, Block 3“), it does not give the publication date. Some quick checks on other CRs in that source suggest that the publication date of Plejadisch-plejarische Kontakberichte, Gespräche, Block 3 cannot be earlier than July, 1980.
Back to the concluding para of this blog post, and the clearly stated criterion for assessing Meier’s claims (my bold):
So, as I read it, establishing precedence can only be done – objectively, in an independently verifiable way – by comparing publication dates. And in the case of Io’s volcanism, Meier did not publish CR 115 until well after the Voyager findings had been widely published.
Of course, I cannot possibly be the first person to have discovered this … and I found that the strange numbers coincidence/units mismatch has been noted – and published – before (Google is your friend, as always; to help you, search on “Research Into Billy Meier’s Predictions,
An Informal Report by Ike42 on April 21, 2004”).
Taking Juice’s point (“Comment by Juice — October 25, 2013 @ 6:50 pm”), the failure to prove that Meier was and is in contact with extraterrestrials rests fairly and squarely on Michael Horn’s shoulders, in this particular case, as he is (apparently) the person who published the criterion Dr Robbins used.
There’s more: mahitigam (“Comment by mahigitam — October 23, 2013 @ 3:08 pm”) seems to have – quite independently – corroborated this ‘publication date mismatch’ with regard to a different CR and a different, specific Jupiter-related prediction (also covered in Dr Robbins’ podcast).
* Well, one matches exactly (2,300), and the other is very close (180 vs 190).
** With Dr Robbins’ permission, I’ll gladly provide as many, or as few, details as requested
Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2013 @ 1:21 pm |
Yes Michael, I accept your invitation to debate you openly and publicly^.
It took me a while to work out if your invitation was serious, but I think – after much consideration – that it is.
I applaud you for being willing to engage in such a debate under the terms you, and Dr Robbins, have all-but-explicitly stated; namely, that:
+ it be conducted on an internet forum (or similar) of Dr Robbins’ choosing
+ Dr Robbins, or someone he nominates, will act as moderator
+ the rules of debate will be those Dr Robbins sets (or approves, if he chooses to copy them from elsewhere)
+ the scope of the debate will be any and all of Meier’s published writing on Jupiter and Saturn, broadly defined, but only such topics.
Being the huge fan of common sense that you are, and having accepted – albeit reluctantly and with much grumbling – the scope of the comments on this blog post and podcast (as explicitly and clearly stated in the blog post), I can be confident that you issued your invitation only after accepting that the terms would be as I have just written (or very similar); anything else would mean you are cynically dishonest, and have no qualms about breaking any and all agreements you enter into*.
Too, Dr Robbins would not have allowed your invitations – plural – to be published had he not also believed that you were sincere in your offer, and had made it within the context of rules such as those I’ve posted above.
Of course, I could be wrong (I often am). So, Michael, would you please confirm that these (or something very similar) are the rules of debate you have already accepted? Thank you.
^ for those who may have missed this invitation, Michael posted it twice:
* yes, I am well aware that there’s plenty of objective, independently verifiable evidence – including your, explicit admissions – that in the past you have been cynically dishonest, and have broken agreements that you freely entered into. Nonetheless I am willing to accept that you have changed.
Comment by Nereid — October 27, 2013 @ 9:51 am |
While I wait for the applause to die down, I’ll allow myself to clarify – for all concerned – that I’d be delighted to engage in an “open and public debate” with you and Stuart Robbins, if you’d like, though he hasn’t shown himself to be of much help to you so far.
Oh! Now, now, Nereid, I’m glad to see that you’re ready to be open and public but it seems that you got just a wee bit ahead of yourself(ves). I’m sure you absolutely do know (despite the palpable anxiety expressed in your presumptive use of “all but explicitly stated”) that the words “open and public” have specific meanings. So, before we proceed with further details regarding the – yet to be agreed upon – ground rules, let’s just make sure we’re on the same page, shall we?
Regarding some definitions of “open” (and my commentaries):
1. Affording unobstructed passage or view
2. Having no protecting or concealing cover
3. Carried on in full view
MH: The above three definitions make it pretty hard to see just how such a debate through an online forum would satisfy not only those definitions but also make the debate:
4. Accessible to all; unrestricted as to participants
5. Free from limitations, boundaries, or restrictions
MH: Indeed, if it’s to be:
6. Characterized by lack of pretense or reserve
MH: …then it would need to be:
7. Completely obvious
MH: …exactly who you really are (would require too many caps, I’ll refrain), as opposed to a screen name, which, while acceptable only in online forums and not in polite, professional, respectful, courageous, company, completely lacks credibility to say nothing of that quaint term gravitas, and we wouldn’t want to see you inadvertently deprived of any of those, would we? Besides, in all of my experience, I’ve never openly debated an anonymous person (see above definitions, should memory have failed you).
Which brings us to our second definition of terms, “public”:
1. Participated in or attended by the people or community
2. , or government: public office.
3. Open to the knowledge or judgment of all
4. The community or the people as a whole.
5. In such a way as to be visible to the scrutiny of the people
MH: Get the idea? I’m sure you do.
That’s right, we’ll do this in the most open and public format (see above definitions for a refresher course).
Since, based on your contributions here, one could assume that you must undoubtedly hold a prominent position in a university, etc., and/or certainly have credibility and standing in such an institution, I think that our open and public debate would be most appropriately held in, though not exclusively limited to, such a facility, wouldn’t you agree?
May I hope that you won’t again show yourself to be “cynically dishonest” and give us evidence of “broken agreements”, such as the one you’re apparently willing to make/break here about an “open and public” debate.
Now, once we have your agreement to these definitions, we can proceed to define the actual terms of the engagement, as well as the location, etc.
Comment by michael812 — October 27, 2013 @ 11:14 am |
It’s good that you replied, Michael (I guess).
I can’t say I’m surprised about one thing though: despite the explicitly stated and clearly defined boundaries of acceptability, re comments to this blog post, and despite having had your comments blocked and edited, you have persisted in deliberately – and cynically? – violating those requirements. For whatever reasons, Dr Robbins has allowed you to continue to do so.
What does this tell me (I speak for myself only)? That you can’t be trusted, to stay on topic, to make commitments you’ll keep, and so on.
Then there’s your demand that any debate be “Free from limitations, boundaries, or restrictions“, which is ridiculous! A debate, by its very nature, MUST have limitations, boundaries, and restrictions (as you’re fond of quoting from dictionary definitions, I invite you to check that for yourself). Curiously, you yourself recognise this – “we can proceed to define the actual terms of the engagement“, terms of engagement are, of course, limitations, boundaries, or restrictions – but do not see the irony and inconsistency in demanding the opposite (apparently).
Enough.
Do you intend to answer any of the many direct questions I’ve asked you, in comments here? Do you have anything further to say on the points covered in this blog post and podcast, within the explicitly stated boundaries of acceptability?
Comment by Nereid — October 27, 2013 @ 12:46 pm
Michael – The answer is either “No,” or “Yes” and then explicitly stating terms or direct points related to the podcast. Any other post of yours will be blocked from this page unless it is of that form.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — October 27, 2013 @ 12:54 pm
One more time then. Any agreement is subject to negotiations. It’s especially necessary when dealing with people who, like Nereid and you, are quite selective in what they “run with”, e.g. picking only one of the definitions in order to obfuscate the issue, or trying to rule out evidence that simply makes the case for your opponent.
Hey, you wanna debate that’s “open and public” or not? I sure do. And sorry if you think you’re going to unilaterally control the terms of the discussion…in a matter that’s as important as this. You’re not..WE who agree to debate are.
Of course you can continue to try to evade what you claim you’re so ready to engage in. It’s already obvious to any intelligent observers that the LAST thing you want is to have to address ALL of the evidence…and me presenting it.
So, Stuart, my answer is YES, let’s debate this issue, in an open, public forum. And since a debate’s “winner” isn’t determined by the moderator, nor by the debaters but by the AUDIENCE…muster up a little courage there and be willing to put forth your best evidence, as your opponent should be allowed to do.
Otherwise stop posturing as if you’re doing anything less than trying to rig the game.
So, do we have a basic understanding, or are you waving the white flag?
Comment by michael812 — October 27, 2013 @ 2:03 pm |
I have zero interest or time in debating you at this point. I was fully willing to debate you on Bryan & Baxter’s show, but you became so obnoxious with your e-mails to them that they rescinded their offer. I also have zero interest in moderating a debate between you and someone else. I suggest that you take this to debate.org. They have an established system in place for doing this, allow five rounds only, require you to stay on-topic, and have audience votes.
Further discussion of a debate here will be blocked because it is now off-topic and I’m done indulging both of you in the discussion now that I have recommended an outlet for such.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — October 27, 2013 @ 2:18 pm |
Returning to the topic- of this blog post and podcast – may I remind you, Michael, of the direct questions I’ve put to you, on the topics covered in this blog post and podcast? Questions which you have not yet answered.
Here they are again:
* please explain what these folk [David Froning, Dr. Sanford Weinstein, Michael Malin, and Marcel Vogel] did, that is directly pertinent to Meier’s claims which are covered by Dr Robbins in this podcast and blog post I trust that Dr Robbins will delete any response from you that is not directly pertinent
* I note that you did not respond to Dr Robbins’ detailed comments on the, um, inaccuracies in yours. May I ask why not? (re Comment by Stuart Robbins — October 22, 2013 @ 7:13 pm)
* Michael, it’s his blog, his podcast, his rules. More generally, as I have pointed out to you – and Andy, et al. – many, many times, Dr Robbins has made it abundantly clear that the ground rule here is “science-based” (my phrase, not his). If you don’t like that, why do you keep posting here? Why do you persist in deliberately (and cynically) refusing to keep the discussion science-based?
* “Now I’d like very much to respond in detail to your criticisms.” Why haven’t you done so, within the explicitly-stated, easy to understand, scope of this blog post and podcast?
* Michael, you wrote: “To be clear, I am absolutely interested in determining the truth of the matter according to scientific and legal standards of proof.” In an earlier comment you wrote: “let me be clear that I have no formal background in science.” If the latter is true, may I ask how you go about “determining the truth of the matter according to scientific standards of proof“?
* How can it be verified – objectively, and independently – that the contact notes referred to are the same as those published as CR 115 on the webpage Dr Robbins provides a link to in his podcast notes?
Comment by Nereid — October 27, 2013 @ 4:18 pm |
Of these direct, pertinent questions to Michael, there’s one which anyone can at least try to answer, without waiting for him to respond*:
So, using my friend Google, I went looking for answers … and came up empty-handed.
As far as I could tell, none of them had anything whatsoever to do with the Jupiter and Saturn topics Dr Robbins addressed here. Looks like Michael was spamming. Again.
But perhaps I’m wrong; what have you got, Michael?
* All but one of the others are about Michael himself, so only he can answer. The ‘but one’ is the last question (How can it be verified – objectively, and independently – that the contact notes referred to are the same as those published as CR 115 on the webpage Dr Robbins provides a link to in his podcast notes?): speculating about approaches which plausibly could answer the question is easy to do, for example, and people – other than Michael – with deep familiarity with the relevant documents and people might also be able to answer.
Comment by Nereid — October 28, 2013 @ 11:59 am
Voyager 1 image taken on March 8, 1979 – PIA00379: Volcanic Eruptions on Io, Original Caption Released with Image: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00379
Comment by die schwalbe — October 27, 2013 @ 11:38 pm |
I was able to find the date on which at least one edition of the book in which CR 115 was published. The details from the buecher24.de website (Google is your friend) are:
This is a corroboration of what I found earlier; namely, that the date of publication of the book in which CR 115 was published cannot have been earlier than July, 1980.
So, Dr Robbins is wrong; CR 115 was not first published on October 19, 1978, but much later (no earlier than July, 1980). By Michael Horn’s own ‘standard of proof’ (“… Meier’s having published specific, accurate information years, and even decades, before terrestrial scientists“), concerning volcanism on Io, “terrestrial scientists” published well before Meier.
Curiously, the source Dr Robbins used for CR 115 calls the book “Plejadisch-plejarische Kontakberichte, Gespräche, Block 3“, so I guess Dyson was not involved.
Comment by Nereid — October 28, 2013 @ 8:16 am |
“The key here is to describe features of Earth’s magnetosphere – the Van Allen radiation belts – as “rings”. Well, it turns out that Mercury’s magnetosphere does have similar features, so the only thing that’s lacking is references in mass circulation/pop-sci publications to those features as being “rings”. The Martian magnetosphere is weak, and not as neatly structured as that of Earth or Mercury; it remains to be seen if some science writer chooses to call some features of that magnetosphere “rings”. So, six out of eight planets have “rings”. Way to be spectacularly wrong, Andy.”
I do not know what you have understood from my post but what i was trying to say is that context & additional description is more important when trying to analyse a text. Meier did not just used the word “ring/ring-system” in CR115, he went much further and gave enough information about the cause(Io), formation(volcanic ejection) & its constituents(sulfur). If someone uses the word “ring” in his/her explanations(just like the NYT article & other science papers), you could always read or ask him/her to give more information to clarify the issue, which obviously you have wilfully failed to do.
Infact the word ‘ring’ has folowing definitions(Meriam-Webster dictionary) that fits with Meier’s text.
1. a circular line, figure, or object
2. an encircling arrangement
Did Meier made an grammatical error ? If yes, then what is it ? Is Meier restricted to use only scientific nomenclatures ? If yes, then why is it ?
You still did not answer what logic the authors chose in the above science articles which i quoted in my first post(Io plamsa rings & Van allen rings) inorder to use the word “ring” in their papers.
“Now for the real kicker: in addition to a system of four rings, made of dust and the Io plasma torus , it seems there’s another system … a torus of (largely) neutral atoms, a gas, at about the same distance from Jupiter as the Galilean moon Europa.Did Meier specifically and accurately predict the existence of such a gas torus? It would seem not.”
Ignoring context seems to be your trademark, Nereid. First why should Meier have predicted that & what significance is that to your conclusions ?
“Can you, like mahigitam, read all five of Meier’s pieces and see consistency with what is now known about Jupiter’s ring system (and those of Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, where comparisons are made) and the Io plasma torus?”
If you are confused with Meier’s usuage of the same word ‘ring’ in different CRs. Then that has already been clarified by me in my first post. Besides he has given enough description on the type of “rings” he mentioned for us to reasonably assume what “ring” Meier was talking about.
Now, the following phrases are taken from CR 115, 1978 where Meier talked about a certain “ring”(singular) that is made by Io. From the description itself, it is quite evident that the “ring” which Meier was talking about is the IO plasma torus. DO you think of any other ring that fits Meier’s description ?
“..very different kind than the other two at Saturn and Uranus..consist of tiny particles ejected from large volcanoes of the moon IO..where portion is then attracted by Jupiter and very slowly condenses itself in its ring system into a heavy formation of sulphur ions.”
The following phrases are taken from both CR 201(1985) & from CR 210(1986). The reason why i combined the phrases from both CRs into one is because in both the CRs Meier was talking about a certain same “ring”. Refer to CR 210 for more information on the description of inner & outer rings of Jupiter by Meier:
“very fine ring around Jupiter, similar to Saturn’s ring..only a single and small comet worked; therefore, only a very small ring developed, but which will soon be dissolved(my quotes-“outer and extremely fine ring”)……..(CR210)…….The inner ring which is denser, in contrast to the outer one, is narrow and practically extends down to Jupiter’s atmosphere in a fine and visible vapour.”
CR 31 (1975): “whereby I also see once again that Jupiter has a fine ring, similar to the rings of Saturn …”
Just as the CR reads, Meier was talking about a fine ring around Jupiter which is similar to the rings of Saturn. No more description of the rings has been given in that CR, for us to reasonably say anything.
FIGU Bulletin 20(Jan 1999):
This bulletin just presents the 1998 findings by astronomers about the origin of the rings of Jupiter from a comet/meteor impacts on Jupiter’ inner moons.
“For starters, Meier seems very confused over how many rings there are, whether they are of one kind or more, their visibility, their composition, their origins, their similarities with rings and ring systems around the other giant planets*, how “narrow” any are and so on. In other words, the very antithesis of “specific, accurate information“.”
Firstly, this phrase “specific, accurate information“ – is used by MH and so you have to ask him. I take a different perspective. As i mentioned above, it is quite evident which “ring”(Io plasma torus) in CR115(crbr), Meier was talking about. So your references to unavailability of precise, specific, indepth information on the Jupiter planetary rings is irrelevant & misplaced. If you are familiar with Meier’s writings, you will understand why the course, content & depth of conversation on such topics are the way they are. Nowhere in the CR does it claim that they only would be publishing information that would be specific, accurate & indepth. No indepth information is presented unless when it is being asked or required to do. So most of the content in CRs would not be specific, accurate & indepth – the way a scientist would need for his/her study. For common folks(including Meier), they are irrelevant and unnecessary. More information on astronomy topics(besides in some CRs) is presented in other books like this one – Existentes Leben in Universum(1978/1993).
https://figu.org/shop/b%C3%BCcher/existentes-leben-im-universum?language=en
“* Meier is – or was – just as confused over how many of these have ring systems: he omits Neptune’s, and by saying “the other two” implies he was ignorant of that system”
The earliest reference where Meier talked on the Neptune rings(along with Jupiter, saturn & Uranus) is in this book Existentes Leben in Universum(1978/1993). Afaik, the fact that neptune has a ring(full) was not confirmed until 1989.
https://figu.org/shop/b%C3%BCcher/existentes-leben-im-universum?language=en
Info on Neptune rings is also available in CR182(1983) & CR210(1986), in the same FOM site which you were using for your searches. CR 182(1983) info was also available on the crbr page on FOM, the same page which Stuart used for his research.
“But it seems Dr Robbins was also right in his podcast conclusion (“And as with Earth, the sun also affects Jupiter’s aurora, … I consider this falsified as a prediction because, while it’s true, it was well known prior to mid-1986.“)…That’s the abstract of a 1984 paper – two years’ before Meier’s CR – by J. Isbell et al. “Magnetospheric energization by interaction between planetary spin and the solar wind” (Google is your friend).”
Thanks for finding out the earlier papers. Just as I mentioned in my first post, the 1984 paper may not be considered to be backed up with strong evidence or considered as a fact and besides that there will also be papers that argue against the conclusions present in the 1984 paper. I am assuming that Nichols paper would cite some of these papers. If this definite role of the solar wind on the Jovian auroras was known as a fact, Nichols would not have stated this in 2006: “Until now, scientists had believed that Jovian auroras were caused by the planet’s rapid spin and a stream of material emitted from the volcanic moon Io at the rate of one tonne per second. .. Until now, it has been thought that the system is completely dominated by this rotation, and that the energy imparted by the solar wind is negligible by comparison”.
The relevant, most important questions we have to ask is by what logic would Meier have used to select this specific model/hypothesis rather than the opposite one ? Was it just random or did Meier chose it based on the probability of models success/explanatory power ? A statistical analysis of all the pro & contra papers based on the models(relationship between Jovian auroras and solar wind probability of success/explanatory power, before the time of CR209(1986) might give us a clue. Otherwise just pointing out some papers that supports a particular position would lead to biased results. If we are going to respond based on just MH’s claims, then this pursuit is irrelevant.
“mahigitam, you wrote “Now is this information promoted as a crbr ? Obviously NO, because it was not bolded and there was no article presented to corroborate it. Only thing posted regarding Io is the discovery of volcanoes on it.” OK. But did Dr Robbins claim that it was being promoted “as a crbr“? If not, then you are not addressing what he actually wrote. Let’s find out … here’s an extract from near the start of the podcast:
The question then, for this episode is the very specific one of: Is the material published by Meier (a) correct, and if it is correct, was it (b) known before it was published by other people on Earth.”
You could have gone right to the start of the podcast rather than just near to the start. Stuart made clear that he is specifically going to address those statements which are being claimed by Meier suppporters as evidence of Meier’s foreknowledge:
“Recap: It is claimed by many that Billy Meier is a UFO contactee. As partial evidence of this, it is claimed that he wrote about things well before anyone on Earth (including scientists) knew about them. In this episode, I go through a lengthy process of exploring some such writings that people have claimed are good evidence of this, specifically ones related to Jupiter and Saturn…The purpose of this episode is to see how irrefutable these “facts” are and when they were actually known to terrestrial scientists.”
And moreover, just after what you have quoted, Stuart said this(wonder how could you miss this):
“The two weaknesses to this approach are first that I cannot possibly go through every single claim, so I’m going to go through some of the ones that have been argued about the most by others as being more iron-clad evidence of the contacts and ones that I find particularly interesting.”
Comment by mahigitam — October 30, 2013 @ 11:25 am |
Thanks for an interesting and thoughtful response, mahigitam.
I think the most pertinent part of your response is this: “Firstly, this phrase “specific, accurate information“ – is used by MH and so you have to ask him. I take a different perspective.” Yes, in context you are referring to just one small aspect; however, it’s worth noting that:
a) this the ‘standard of proof’ Dr Robbins explicitly stated he was going to use, and
b) if there is no information in Meier’s writing which is specific and accurate, how can we have a science-based discussion?
To expand a bit on b): anyone can expose Meier’s writings as pseudoastronomy simply by pointing out that it lacks specific and accurate information (directly relevant to astronomical phenomena and objects).
The next most pertinent is, perhaps, this (italics denote text which is quoted; bolding is mine):
In astronomy, the primary source documents are papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals. If you are seeking corroboration, then surely you’d rely on those, rather than secondary sources, wouldn’t you? From what you wrote, it would seem that you have not read the relevant Nichols paper(s), nor any of those which cite his, etc. Look at this another way: you seem to take great pains to ensure that what Meier actually published – in German – is accurately cited and understood. Yet when it comes to “crbrs”, you adopt a quite different approach. For example, you surely know by now that a great many press releases – e.g. from NASA – are not written by the scientists whose names are used in them; but did you know that, in many cases, the words the PRs, which look like quotes, are not? And that the named scientists find out what they (apparently) said only after the PR is published! To be clear here: I do not know if the words attributed to Dr Nichols are his or not; I am merely pointing out that articles such as the one you cite are not primary sources, and that their veracity must always be checked by referring to the primary sources.
Then there’s Meier’s selecting of a “specific model/hypothesis“. Let’s remind ourselves of what it actually is, shall we? “The effects of the Sun are also to be mentioned, which play a ‘gewisse Rolle’ (certain/definite role) in connection with the polar lights.” Well, yes, of course it does! Jupiter is a planet in a system dominated by the Sun (so the Sun certainly plays a ‘gewisse Rolle’); the Jovian magnetosphere – which contains the ions and electrons which are key in the Jovian aurorae – exists within the inter-planetary medium, whose behaviour is dominated by the Sun (so the Sun certainly plays a ‘gewisse Rolle’); and so on. In short, whatever Meier wrote, it cannot – by any stretch of the imagination – be called a “specific model/hypothesis“.
Re Jupiter’s rings and the Io plasma torus: I think you are saying that you have convinced yourself that what Meier wrote on this – the five extracts and their full contexts – can be interpreted coherently and consistently. Myself, I still find it confusing and inconsistent, even after carefully reading what you wrote.
Take just the reference which you think is to the Io plasma torus: “the following phrases are taken from CR 115, 1978 where Meier talked about a certain “ring”(singular) that is made by Io. From the description itself, it is quite evident that the “ring” which Meier was talking about is the IO plasma torus. DO you think of any other ring that fits Meier’s description ?”
Since Meier specifically refers to Io, clearly no other ring could fit his description. However, as the description is at best vague – certainly not “specific and accurate” – and at worst wrong1 – we can ask if there are other “rings” which do fit at least some parts of this description. And the answer is a resounding Yes! More than one, in fact: the trans-Europa gas torus, and Saturn’s E ring.
Then there’s the confusing conflating of ‘ring’ and ‘ring system’; Meier wrote “the other two [rings] at Saturn and Uranus“; both Saturn and Uranus have complex ring systems, not just one Saturn ring and one Uranus ring.Yet if Meier is referring to the Io plasma torus as a ring, it is not a ring system (and his description of the rings of Saturn and Uranus wrong).
In short, Meier’s writing – in CR 115, on Jupiter’s ring – is incoherent and inconsistent.
1 “where portion is then attracted by Jupiter and very slowly condenses itself in its ring system” – taken literally, both parts are clearly wrong
Comment by Nereid — November 3, 2013 @ 9:54 am |
There’s a typo (two actually) in the blockquote; it should read as follows:
Comment by Nereid — November 3, 2013 @ 9:57 am
“..however, it’s worth noting that:
a) this the ‘standard of proof’ Dr Robbins explicitly stated he was going to use, and
b) if there is no information in Meier’s writing which is specific and accurate, how can we have a science-based discussion?
To expand a bit on b): anyone can expose Meier’s writings as pseudoastronomy simply by pointing out that it lacks specific and accurate information (directly relevant to astronomical phenomena and objects).”
But Dr. Robbins seems to think otherwise(atleast for one “crbr” among the very few he analysed) which makes your opinions/beliefs on content value, investigative methods & verification of the “crbrs” severaly biased, meaningless & irrelevant to this type of investigations which deals with the alleged foreknowledge of information. You definitely should take some tips from Stuart when dealing with such type of investigations.
Let us take for example the “crbr 136” of Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet. In Episode 49(https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/podcast-episode-49-billy-meier-michael-horn-and-asteroid-apophis-prophecy/), you wrote that this shoemaker-Levy 9 crbr was definitely not a strong one but just a text which is unclear, vague & ambiguous. On the contrary Stuart who seems to be relatively more objective-oriented than you wrote these in the current episode 90:
“..IF the translation of Contact Report 123 is correct, and IF it is verifiable that the German used for that translation was published before 1992 – and the date on the report is 1979 – then this is a case where Meier was incredibly specific and appears to have forecast something that did happen.”
“Now, there are some admittedly very minor differences, like the number of fragments, the exact dates of impact, how big the original body was, and Meier’s whole back-story that I didn’t read to you about a so-called “Destroyer” that ripped it from its original Jovian orbit back in 13,384 B.C. One could quibble about them, but I consider those minor and unimportant IN THIS CASE.”
“..because Meier does not refer back to CR 123 which would seem to be a crowning achievement in prophetic accuracy of this event..I think AT BEST, all that can be said for this particular prediction is that it would seem to be very strong, but there is reasonable evidence to cast doubt on its authenticity.”
Putting aside for a moment, the absence of alleged Shoemaker-Levy 9 info in CR123 in published books before the event, as Stuart makes clear from the above quotes that even though there are “minor and unimportant”(stuarts quote) points in crbr 136, still there is information in crbr 136 that is “incredibly specific and appears to have forecast something that did happen”(stuarts quote), “seem to be a crowning achievement in prophetic accuracy”(stuarts quote) & “seem to be very strong”(stuarts quote).
Do you think Stuart is wrong in his claims ? If yes, then how and if no, then your assertions are wrong.
===========================================
“In astronomy, the primary source documents are papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals. If you are seeking corroboration, then surely you’d rely on those, rather than secondary sources, wouldn’t you?..Look at this another way: you seem to take great pains to ensure that what Meier actually published – in German – is accurately cited and understood. Yet when it comes to “crbrs”, you adopt a quite different approach.”
I would love to use primary sources but since I am not equipped with the skills required to understand those papers, I could not make much use of them. It is pretty difficult to interpret & understand what those science papers are saying. So, i assumed the secondary sources(press releases) are fairly represented & used them in my research.
More importantly you could ask yourself as to why did you choose to include the secondary sources(unofficial translations & claims of PR) in your investigations rather than the primary sources ? Just like Stuart and you(for clear reasons) did not base your research on the primary sources(german contact reports) but on secondary sources – unofficial translations that clearly stated that it may contain errors(see the disclaimer in each CR page on FOM) & interpretations/claims of PR-Michael Horn, i had to contend myself with using secondary sources.
I am not saying that you should not use secondary sources at all but we just need to acknowldge these limitations in our research and thus announce the same to the readers. FOr example, any results based on the MH claims(alleged foreknowledge of…etc) which in reality might never be claimed by Meier have zero effect on the Meier case* & thus have to be mentioned in our conclusions if we aim our research to be scientific, objective and to be unbiased(which Stuart seems to have acknowledged to an extent).
“From what you wrote, it would seem that you have not read the relevant Nichols paper(s), nor any of those which cite his, etc.”
I did read that paper but as I said above I could not understand & be certain on what the papers results were. In such cases, assistance from persons who are familiar with science papers like you & Stuart would truly help. Since you have enough skills to read his & other related papers, you could tell us what the results of his paper were & also at the same time cite sources for both the pro and con sides presented in his and related papers.
“For example, you surely know by now that a great many press releases – e.g. from NASA – are not written by the scientists whose names are used in them; but did you know that, in many cases, the words the PRs, which look like quotes, are not? And that the named scientists find out what they (apparently) said only after the PR is published!”
I came to know a lot regarding this after engaging with you people and I sincerely thank you for that. You should also know that these crbrs claims that are presented here & on other sites were never claimed in the Meier’s publications as crbrs nor made by Meier anywhere, afaik. These claims are just made by the supporters or US representative(PR) of the case just like the press releases of NASA were written down by PRs & not necesarrily by the scientists who authored the paper. The important difference in using the secondary sources by you & by me is that in german contact reports(primary source), Meier never claimed them to be corroborations at all which is totally different(relatively great leap compared to using NASA PRs) to the claims of MH(PR) whereas in NASA and related press releases, there are only minor/unimportant differences between science papers and press releases, thus making them fairly relevant and accurate, most of the times than using secondary sources you chose, in Meier case(unofficial, possible-error translatins & PR claims).
It can be said that based on the narrow restrictions & assumptions considered in the investigation of MH’s claims/unofficial translations of Meier case, Stuart seemed to have made justification to this podcast. But it would be doing injustice to the true scientific spirit/pursuit of knowledge & truth if our investigation is not conducted into the whole of the case(all types of evidence – photos, videos, metal samples, audio, witnesses, crbrs of all types & not just those selected astronomical crbrs), which obviously was not yet attempted by neither Stuart nor by you, Nereid. Hopefully everyone does it in time.
* – exceptions included
===========================================
“Let’s remind ourselves of what it actually is, shall we? “The effects of the Sun are also to be mentioned, which play a ‘gewisse Rolle’ (certain/definite role) in connection with the polar lights.” Well, yes, of course it does!”
If Nichols is right about the previous models predictions, then what you are asserting would be wrong. You haven’t yet responded to my earlier question: Comment by mahigitam — October 23, 2013 @ 3:08 pm
“Would like to know if the above scientists in the above article(my insertion-Dr Jonathan Nichols & others) were wrong in saying that the previous models predicted the solar wind as negligible in comparision.”
===========================================
“Since Meier specifically refers to Io, clearly no other ring could fit his description.”
So now you admit that the information in CR115 “specifically refers to Io”(your quotes) & its sulfur “ring-system”(Io Plasma Torus).
“However, as the description is at best vague – certainly not “specific and accurate” – and at worst wrong1 – we can ask if there are other “rings” which do fit at least some parts of this description. And the answer is a resounding Yes! More than one, in fact: the trans-Europa gas torus, and Saturn’s E ring.
1 “where portion is then attracted by Jupiter and very slowly condenses itself in its ring system” – taken literally, both parts are clearly wrong.”
Are you really serious ? Now your usuage of words – “vauge, specific & accurate” are themselves vague. You have to present which part of it is vague or which part of it is not specific & accurate. Is there no specific & accurate information regarding the subject of sulfur “ring-system”(Io Plasma Torus) at all ? If your answer is NO, then you are wrong since you have admitted this: “Since Meier specifically refers to Io, clearly no other ring could fit his description” – which is being specific in itself.
And based on what logic, did you take the sentences out of their places and derive meaning from the incomplete statements ?
Trans-Europa gas torus & Saturn’s E ring! – again how on earth are they related to the Meier’s description of Io’s sulfur “ring system”.
Your “methods”(if one can call it that way in the first place) again and again lend weight to my beliefs about your approach which i expressed at the beginning of this post.
Would you care to explain, what is wrong(when taken literally) with the sentence you denoted as ‘1’ ?
“Then there’s the confusing conflating of ‘ring’ and ‘ring system’; Meier wrote “the other two [rings] at Saturn and Uranus“; both Saturn and Uranus have complex ring systems, not just one Saturn ring and one Uranus ring.Yet if Meier is referring to the Io plasma torus as a ring, it is not a ring system (and his description of the rings of Saturn and Uranus wrong).”
This is the actual FULL quote from CR115:
Billy:..And does this also mean that it will now be found out that not only do Saturn and Uranus have a RING SYSTEM(Caps by me) but also even Jupiter, only that it is, indeed, of a very different kind than the other two at Saturn and Uranus?
Meier used the word ‘RING SYSTEM’ to denote the structure around the planets Saturn & Uranus and not [rings] as you mentioned in this phrase: “the other two [rings] at Saturn and Uranus“. Seems to be one more example of extreme confirmation bias that made the words before and after the selected words/sentence invisble to you.
Meier refers to the Io Plasma Torus in CR115 as:
“RING SYSTEM…of a very different kind than the other two at Saturn and Jupiter..”
“..RINGS consist of nearly invisible particles that are so minutely small and transparent that they can only be registered as CLOUDS..”
“..RING CLOUDS around Jupiter..”
“..condenses itself in its RING SYSTEM into a heavy formation of sulfur ions…”
Nowhere did he refer to the Io plasma torus as RING, and even if he did, there is no rule in science or logic to say that Meier in his CR(s) used these signifiers – [ring, rings, ring-system, ring clouds] – to signify a specific meaning(which is wrong according to you). Seems you are making assumptions & building your whole case by just focussing on the words – RINGS/RING-SYSTEM – instead of their full meaning which can only be understood in contextual information.
Meaning of a word can only be understood in context & not by ripping it apart from its place and put it under microscope of nonsense. Besides this whole enterprise of messing up with words is meaningless nonsense when there is a more specific, meaningful information(even admitted by you) given by Meier about this RING SYSTEM.
================================
You(including Stuart) still did not respond to my question: Comment by mahigitam — October 23, 2013 @ 3:08 pm
“Jupiter Sulfur Plasma Ring – 1979
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979EOSTr..60..307N
Images of Jupiter’s sulfur ring – 1979
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17809102
The WKB approximation and the plasma ring of Jupiter – 1991
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00057431
“A special feature of Jupiter is the plasma ring which surrounds the planet around the orbit Io, where material density is roughly 700 times greater than elsewhere.”
Io’s Neutral Clouds: From the Atmosphere to the Plasma Torus – 2006
caps.gsfc.nasa.gov/mburger/BurgerThesis/BurgerThesis.pdf?
“Since the discovery of sodium thirty years ago, observations of Io’s neutral features have provided essential insight into understanding the relationship between the Io’s atmosphere and the Io torus, a ring of plasma encircling Jupiter.”
Based on what rules of logic or science did these experts/researchers/professors/..etc used the word ‘ring'(even though Meier didn’t use it) in their papers ? If you are right, then all these science professors/experts/researchers/scientists/.. are wrong and vice versa. But based on your responses, I & even anyone can be most certain that they are far more qualified & logical than you. Hope you respond to this adequately & logically.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — October 22, 2013 @ 7:13 pm
“…if you are calling the Io plasma torus a “ring,” the particles trapped in the Van Allen belts around Earth are also a ring. But no one considers them to be a ring just as no one considers the plasma torus to be a ring, and the torus is governed by different physics than planetary rings are (electricity and magnetism versus gravity and collisions).”
“Wondering who does you refer to, when you repeat this “no one considers..”!
Van-Allen-Gürtel: Forscher lösen Geheimnis der irdischen Strahlungsringe – 2013
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltall/van-allen-guertel-lokale-teilchen-sind-quelle-fuer-strahlung-um-erde-a-913253.html
“Im Oktober 2012 kam den Astronomen dann ein kosmisches Ereignis zur Hilfe: Ein Sonnensturm raubte dem äußeren Van-Allen-Ring die meisten seiner Elektronen, blies also die geladenen Teilchen davon.”
Polar lights and other phenomena of the upper atmosphere as a consequence of the pressure of the solar wind on the magnetic field lines of the van Allen ring – 1977
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978KlBer..21..181W
“Even the origin of the van Allen ring itself can be explained… The origin of the van Allen ring is discussed and attention is given to the origin of whistler phenomena..”
What logic did these science writers/professors/researchers use the word ‘ring’ to represent VaN Allen belts(by the way in CRs, they are called as Van Allen belts) ? Hope this gets addressed. Words are just signifiers, used to signify something external or internal & are also contextually dependent. The approach & focus being made here gives the impression that we are left with only these words(rings & ring system) and no more description available, which ofcourse is blatant wrong.
=============================
Nereid & Stuart, if you want to deal with a strong crbr that has documentation which is provided online, why don’t you visit this link. I doubt that you guys would “investigate” because you can always claim that since it is not astronomy related you are not going to touch it & preset online. That is fair considering the purpose of this site/blog. But as i said, it would a great injustice to truth if a objetive, scientifc, truth-oriented mind neglects such evidence.
http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/5100_year_old_man.htm
Mr. Dereck barthlomaus has put this crbr under ‘coming soon’ tag in his prophecy deconstruction page for more than 2 years and still there is no progress. Can he openly admit that he was not able to refute it even after 2 years ? I very much doubt it because not all people who pretend and rally that they are scientific & objective-oriented are in reality not so.
http://www.billymeierufocase.com/index-5.html
Comment by mahigitam — November 5, 2013 @ 8:33 am |
This form of dialogue has reached its limit, for me, on these topics; I found your most recent comment very hard to read, mahigitam, and from what you wrote, it seems you are having considerable difficulty understanding mine.
So, as a wrap-up – for me, here, now – some general comments and observations.
First, a big thank you to mahigitam, and to you MH! Two of the apparently most interesting pieces in Meier’s writing (within the scope of this blog post/podcast) cannot be confirmed (objectively, in an independently verifiable way) as having been published before the directly relevant discoveries were widely reported in mass media (those concerning volcanos on Io, and the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet).
Second, the use of secondary sources for ‘corroboration’ is inconsistent with insisting on relying on original, German-language, in-context Meier sources. True, if you rely on the English translations MH seems so fond of touting, you will make many mistakes (why are so many of the translations so poor?); on the other hand, relying on mass media reports of scientific discoveries is deeply flawed.
To give just one illustration: if just a small percentage of the ‘medical breakthroughs’ reported in the mass media turned out to be true, cancer would surely be all but cured by now, wouldn’t it? What is rarely reported in the mass media are the results of painstaking research undertaken in the years following the discovery announcement; all too often, things did not pan out. Even within a science as hard as astronomy, years or decades of subsequent research have shown many ‘discoveries’ – reported with the usual mass media breathlessness – to be wrong, or at least requiring lengthy discussion of subtleties not appreciated at the time. I think you’d find, mahitigam, that the history of the understanding of the role the Sun plays in Jovian aurorae is so rich, and has so many twists and turns, that it makes Meier’s words essentially as bland as ‘the Moon plays a certain role in life’.
Third, something beyond the scope of this blog post/podcast (but which has been raised in the comments, if only somewhat obliquely): IF Meier THEN what? Specifically, if magically the world’s entire collection of astronomical telescopes – both on the ground and in space – and active space probes, were to be put at your disposal mahitigam/MH/Bruce/Andy/Juice/… what would you do with them?
It seems to me that with respect to the topics covered in Dr Robbins’ blog post and podcast, Meier’s so-called predictions/prophecies/discoveries/whatever are sterile; there’s nothing you can do with any of them, in terms of developing (or modifying) an astronomical research programme. Compare that with the huge range of choices I have, to do real research, using nothing but my computer: I can map Mercury and Vesta; I can create a highly accurate three dimensional model of the Milky Way; I can …
Comment by Nereid — November 6, 2013 @ 1:08 pm |
I love this blog, and site.Thank you for your efforts.
Really I have exhausted all possible angles trying to comprehend the gain in their game,scam hustle, conspiracy theory, or just senseless nonsense…..whatever it can be called Obviously these morons have to be on the dole of the Government Cheese, and can’t possibly have any type of gainful employment. Don’t think they are humble farmers either. Real work is too hard. All those trips to Switzerland, my my airfare is expensive, so I wonder who is paying for that! Y’all need to get real get a job, and let real science take it’s course, that is if it is not too much of a threat to your scrambled egg brains!!
Comment by theronuld — December 5, 2013 @ 1:03 am |