Exposing PseudoAstronomy

January 28, 2010

Another “The Conspiracy Skeptic” Interview – Update on T Pyx and Apophis (Concerning Billy Meier and Michael Horn)


Following my appearance on The Conspiracy Skeptic podcast on January 12, 2010, two events occurred that caused me to go running back to Karl Mamer (the host/producer/creator) and asking if he would deign to allow me back on to do a “quick” follow-up interview about what we had discussed. The first event was that two days later, Michael Horn (the Swiss alleged UFO-contactee Billy Meier’s American shill) was interviewed on the late-night 4-hour radio show Coast to Coast AM by George Noory, about asteroid Apophis. The second event was The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe podcast episode #235 where they also discussed T Pyx and that the astronomers got the numbers wrong … despite NO news source reporting on it other than what I could later find in Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy blog.

The Corrections/Updates

First, I encourage everyone to actually listen to the full episode (bottom of the page, or subscribe through iTunes).

But, if you don’t have time … here’s a quick summary:

(1) No, even if T Pyx is 1 kpc (~3200 light-years) away instead of 3.5 kpc away, if/when it goes supernova it will not kill us all. The astronomers used the incorrect energy values for how much energy is released in a Type 1a supernova, instead using the values for a gamma ray burst with the burst aimed right at us. Unfortunately, NO major media outlet has updated their story (Scientific American, Space.com, MSNBC, to name a few). Rather, I heard about it through the SGU episode and got the information from Phil Plait’s blog. I consider this a failure on my own part, too for not actually trying to run the numbers before appearing on Karl’s podcast — that’ll teach me to trust the news [said partially tongue-in-cheek].

(2) Apparently vampires don’t live forever and when their head is ripped off in the heat death of the universe, then they’ll die. My bad.

(3) Apophis still isn’t going to hit us. Unless you for some unfathomable reason believe in Billy Meier’s “prophecies” and what’s said by Michael Horn. This came wholly unexpected in that I hadn’t planned to ever address Meier and Horn until I heard Horn on the Coast to Coast AM show and then did my original post here. Based on everything I’d heard about Horn, I gave it about a 70% chance that he would find my blog and post a comment. I had decided before I even completed the post that if that happened, I would reply once to him, and that was it. Which I have maintained, despite the numerous (literally dozens) of comments on that particular post (I invite you to peruse them if you have time to kill). I then did a follow-up post that addresses not the language of the alleged contact predictions, but the actual content and shows that, no, Billy Meier did not predict Apophis and that it is going to hit.

Since that post, my blog has been picked up and re-posted by the Independent Investigations Group of the Center for Inquiry – Los Angeles as part of their exposé on Billy Meier and Michael Horn. It’s listed under “The Prophecies Of Billy Meier” as “Asteroid Apophis Deconstruction.” I encourage you to go through some of the links there to really understand the scope of the Meier alleged “contacts” as well as the disinformation and deceit by Michael Horn … if it wasn’t apparent already from the comments he has posted to my own blog. I’ve since offered my continued services to them in anything astronomy-related, but we’ll see what happens there.

Final Thoughts

That’s about it. The episode lasts about 55 minutes, which is shorter than my others on the show, but it’s one of the shortest episodes of the podcast in it’s new “Unplugged” format.



  1. Since Meier is the single most verifiably accurate source of what we call prophetic or predictive information, the attempted casual dismissal by this writer – who also makes the foolish mistake of citing IIG as a credible source! – is likewise ignorant and uninformed. Nothing personal, just stating facts.

    As was the case when I unloaded a nice bunch of verifiable, documented references of Meier’s prophetic accuracy for skeptics on other blogs – including the suspiciously evasive Phil Plait, who actually asked for “predictive evidence” and then apparently choked upon receiving it – the writer here will not be able to refute the authenticity of the information, should they ever actually delve into it.

    What I love about the skeptics is the dependably idiotic way that they approach something well beyond their ken, intent on disproving it rather than discovering whether it is or isn’t true.

    Now, if I do take pride in something it’s in presenting myself and the material with complete honesty, integrity and truthfulness. So when some wannabe accuses me of “disinformation and deceit” I know that he’s writing about someone else…perhaps he was actually referring to the folks at IIG who falsified my email when they found themselves so stuck in their own mud:


    They/he should also pay some particular attention to the lovely little retraction by head Bozo Derek Barholomaus who, after having YEARS to prepare the kill shot against the Meier case with his/their firmly concluded “model UFOs and model trees” theories, had to RETRACT it…naturally:


    When I make my presentation next month regarding Apophis, atmospheric collapse, etc., I will include some interesting information – from NASA itself – regarding Apophis that may make our confident little writer a little less confident.

    And of course Meier was referring to Apophis, as is clearly stated by Ptaah in the latest information. And equally of course the skeptic will try to say it was after the fact, which would mean that he’s either accusing Meier of being the actual author of all the information, or that Ptaah was lying. Either way, the accusing writer here has a problem. If Meier’s the source of all of this information, he’s even more of an outrageous genius than anyone could imagine. And if Ptaah was lying, well, then there is a Ptaah and that, my friends, would be some problem as well for the skeptics.

    It’s a safe bet that if I ever had the opportunity to present a pro vs. con on the Meier prophecies with any of these fine little skeptical folks taking their best shot, we’d have a repeat of Bartholomaus’ “I will also agree with Horn…”

    The question I often end up using to refer to these silly skeptics is, “Why do they send a boy to do a man’s job?”

    Comment by Michael Horn — January 28, 2010 @ 11:51 am | Reply

    • Michael, I’ve noticed that you have yet to provide additional documented sources in regards to the specific “prophecy” of Apophis that I documented in this post. If additional documentation actually exists, then let me know and I will re-evaluate my conclusions about whether or not Meier actually specifically predicted Apophis.

      Comment by astrostu206265 — January 28, 2010 @ 12:03 pm | Reply

  2. […] of what Biedny did with the one photograph – I went into detail on one prediction. The third post was more of a superficial discussion of it, discussing my discussion of the blog discussion during […]

    Pingback by How Could a Simple One-Armed Farmer … (A Bit More on Billy Meier / Michael Horn) And What Scientific Falsification Means « Exposing PseudoAstronomy — February 3, 2010 @ 5:47 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: