Exposing PseudoAstronomy

February 3, 2010

“How Could a Simple One-Armed Farmer …” A Bit More on Billy Meier / Michael Horn, And What Scientific Falsification Means


Introduction

In what is hopefully the last post for quite awhile on the alleged contactee status of Swiss farmer Billy Meier and his “Authorized American Media Representative” Michael Horn, I would like to discuss two very old (3+ years) interviews that Horn gave on the podcast, The Paracast. Specifically, I would like to address the second interview where Horn is presented with a specific analysis of a specific photograph that was shown beyond a reasonable doubt by one of the foremost experts in Photoshop to have been faked … and then Horn’s apparent refusal to actually answer the claims raised.

What Does it Mean to Falsify Something?

In science, there is pretty much no case where you can “prove” something. Just like the American legal system, someone is never “proven innocent,” nor are they “proven guilty.” They are either shown to be “not guilty” (very different from “innocent”) or that there is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that someone is guilty.

We operate much the same way in scientific circles. Even the two pillars of modern physics – Relativity and Quantum Mechanics – which I note are “theories,” have never been proven to be 100% true. They simply can’t be – science doesn’t operate that way. True, there are literally thousands of independent experiments that have tested these theories and shown them – so far, beyond a reasonable doubt – to precisely predict the results of the experiments to within measurement uncertainties and errors.

However, all it takes is ONE experiment, one piece of indisputable, independently reproducible evidence or an experiment or observation that is irreconcilable with any established theory, and the theory goes out the window. In historic hindsight, it’s really as simple as that, though of course during the process of the revolution it is a little messier.

Why do I bring this up? Well, it’s very relevant to the interviews that I’m going to address.

Paracast Interviews

Yet again, Conspiracy Skeptic Karl Mamer clued me into some older interviews that were done with Michael Horn and put out on June 27, 2006, and July 11, 2006. I think during that time I was on a 25-hr/day schedule to photograph the moon every night for two lunar months … but I digress.

Anyway, in the first interview, Horn was pretty much given free reign, much like in the Coast to Coast AM interviews I’ve heard. It was really the latter that this post will focus on. First off, The Paracast has two hosts – Gene Steinberg who is an award-winning journalist, and David Biedny (pronounced “Bee-ed-nee”) who is one of the world’s foremost experts in the Adobe program “Photoshop” and works at Industrial Light and Magic. His credits include working on the effects of Hudson Hawk, Terminator 2, Star Trek VI, The Rocketeer, Memoirs of an Invisible Man, and Hook (I wonder if he’s the one who digitally removed all of Robin Williams’ chest hair in that movie). The reason why I bring up Beidny’s credentials in what may seem like an obvious argument from authority (though it’s not and I’ll address that below) is that the second interview was almost all Biedny going head-to-head with Horn with the intent of his analysis of a single photograph that Horn claimed was genuine.

Burden of Proof versus Refutation

First, if you end up listening to The Paracast as a result of this blog post please note that it DOES have commercials annoyingly throughout it. Be fore-warned.

Moving on, if we ignore the front matter and the posturing, the real meat at the beginning of the interview as about falsification. The two hosts put forth the idea that if any single piece of Meier’s evidence that Horn was putting forth as genuine was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be faked (false/hoaxed/lied/etc.), then that should – and would in their eyes – call the entire thing into question. Following the logic of science that I laid out at the beginning of the post, that makes perfect sense to me.

However, without actually acknowledging that, Horn countered that if he could show that a bunch of it was true, then it should be accepted as true. The hosts, and I sitting in my little office, laughed at that.

Why? one may ask. After all, isn’t that only fair – wouldn’t it be a double-standard to think otherwise? The answer: No.

Think of it like this: In my apartment, I could use a mixture of some various chemicals to come up with something that looks like chocolate. I may have actually done this. I could then present it to people as, “This is genuine chocolate. Here, have a taste! It’s chocolate and you’ll be able to tell!” Those people – I may present it to hundreds – may agree with me that it’s real chocolate. I could then call on them as witnesses that it’s real chocolate. However, I may then give it to someone who is able to analyze it in a different way, or may be more sensitive to the actual taste of chocolate or the chemicals I’ve used, and that person could then demonstrate that, beyond a reasonable doubt, what I gave them as “genuine chocolate” was fake.

I could say, “But all these other experts said it was real!” That wouldn’t matter. I had fooled them. All it takes is one, irrefutable piece of evidence that I had hoaxed my chocolate that would then call everything else I had tried to pass off as chocolate into question. Even if some of it actually had been real.

So, that is why I can fairly easily say to Meier, or a creationist, or an astrologer, or anyone else, really, that once I’ve conclusively demonstrated that any one of the claims you’ve put forward as genuine is demonstrably false, then that should call into question everything else you’ve done. Just look at the South Korean scientist who was found out to have faked some of his stem cell research.

[As a side-note, to anyone reading this who has had any chocolate that I’ve made, I would never actually try to pass of fake stuff as real, and I’m up-front when I do use white chocolate which isn’t really chocolate.]

Getting Into It, But Not Really, or “How Could a Simple One-Armed Farmer …”

With this in mind, Biedny did an in-depth analysis of one of the photographs that Horn had been putting forward as genuine. On the episode, Biedny pointed to several artifacts in the photograph that clearly demonstrated compositing different images and models to create the single finished product. Getting into the details is not the purpose of this post – go listen to the episode if you’re interested.

Rather, Horn’s reaction is what I wanted to address. As has been the case in the comments section of my own blog, Horn has refused to directly address the refutations I gave of the alleged prognostication of asteroid Apophis. The first post on the subject contains the bulk of Horn’s comments which simply dodge the issue and point to other alleged predictions. The second post on the subject contained a detailed look at the timeline of the alleged prediction where I looked through all of the available documented evidence to show that Meier did not predict Apophis. For me, that was the equivalent 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 my discussion with Karl Mamer. Lots of discussing.

But none addressing the point — I directly challenged Horn on at least 4 occasions on my blog – both in posts and on the comments – to come up with a refute to my break-down of the timeline of the alleged prediction of Apophis. He has not done so.

Neither did he with any of the points that Biedny raised for the faked photograph. Rather, very conspicuously – and discussed during a recap during the last ~8 minutes of the latter Paracast episode – Horn dodged the points that Biedny raised. He had two main things he kept going back to. First was the various other experts that he claims have looked at the photograph and said it’s genuine. However, I refer you to my discussion of chocolate that I had a few paragraphs ago – it does not matter how many experts I have convinced that what I’m putting forward is real, it just takes one to shoot something down. The second thing he kept coming back to was, “Yes, but how could a simple one-armed farmer …” (the quote may have been “simple one-armed Swiss farmer” a few times, I don’t actually remember). I liked the host’s response to that after the upteenth time that Horn raised it (following is paraphrased even though it’s in quotes): “We’re not saying that he did. He could have had help. All we’re saying is that there is undeniable evidence that this photograph has been faked, we don’t care how he may have done it.”

Final Thoughts

That was really the extent of the discourse. Not once did Horn directly address Biedny’s demonstrable claims of pointing out flaws in the photo that show it to have been forged. Horn simply dodged the subject. Occasionally, Horn would ask, “But look at this [other] photograph.” Biedny’s response – in my mind – was quite proper, and it was effectively, “Why should I? I’ve neither the time nor inclination. I’ve shown one that you put forward as genuine has been faked beyond a reasonable doubt, calling into question all the rest of the claims.”

Similarly on my blog, Horn has refused to directly address the evidence I presented in terms of the Apophis timeline, and rather he has pointed to other alleged predictions and claims and lines of evidence that, at the moment, I have zero inclination nor time to pursue. But, I don’t think I need to. I have demonstrably shown with the available evidence that the claim that Meier predicted Apophis is false. I think that calls into question all the rest of his claims, and I don’t think I need to go into them, especially when others already have.

8 Comments »

  1. I’m sure that most of you have seen the movie “Groundhog Day” so you will at least understand my reference to it in relationship to this, er, brilliant bit of intellectual posturing. (Oh where, oh where, I have I seen and gone through all this before?) And, though I thought I had unsubscribed to this exercise in stunted growth, since this arrived and I’m in need of some exercise after long days of actual work, I’ll insert my responses below, an exercise in futility trying to teach the unteachable though it may be:

    EPA (Exposing Pseudo Astronomy): Introduction

    In what is hopefully the last post for quite awhile on the alleged contactee status of Swiss farmer Billy Meier and his “Authorized American Media Representative” Michael Horn, I would like to discuss two very old (3+ years) interviews that Horn gave on the podcast, The Paracast. Specifically, I would like to address the second interview where Horn is presented with a specific analysis of a specific photograph that was shown beyond a reasonable doubt by one of the foremost experts in Photoshop to have been faked … and then Horn’s apparent refusal to actually answer the claims raised.

    MH: Well not soooooooo fast there, big fella! It isn’t only Houston that has a problem, it’s you and anyone else that relied on Biedney’s UNSUBSTANTIATED claim. Not only unsubstantiated but actually refuted by one of his own PhotoShop buddies on the very forum where this was discussed:

    “I cannot confirm Biedny’s conclusion that this photo is in fact a
    forgery, especially since his strongest point of evidence (the line
    near the top of the photo) was not observed in my own analysis.”
    dx27s

    Oh yeah, Biedney did NOT disagree with, nor refute, him.

    So no, the photo WASN’T “shown beyond a reasonable doubt by one of the foremost experts in Photoshop to have been faked”. But there’s more. Not only did Biedney NOT claim that a second photo in the series was also “faked”, he declined to actually demonstrate his tidy little thesis, i.e. that Meier had used a “light fixture” and taken the photo inside against a “black curtain”.

    Now really, my esteemed and learned fellows, how hard would it be for a two-handed, professional photographer and “image specialist” to take a photo of a light fixture against a black curtain and, what, superimpose it against a nighttime, outdoor photo? Huh, just how hard is that? Doncha think that when you defame someone, accuse them of “hoaxing”, being a “cult leader”, “only in it for the money”, etc. that you are beholden to actually…SUBSTANTIATE your claims? Or in your tidy little world of pseudo “experts” is it enough to simply accuse someone and never have to back up your attack with facts and evidence?

    Of course, once you scour the the Para site, I’m sure you’ll find Biedney’s own version backing up his claims as to how Meier could have done it. RIght, keep looking.

    So now, after building your foundation on that piece of crap, let’s see where you went from there.

    EPA: What Does it Mean to Falsify Something?

    In science, there is pretty much no case where you can “prove” something. Just like the American legal system, someone is never “proven innocent,” nor are they “proven guilty.” They are either shown to be “not guilty” (very different from “innocent”) or that there is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that someone is guilty.

    We operate much the same way in scientific circles. Even the two pillars of modern physics – Relativity and Quantum Mechanics – which I note are “theories,” have never been proven to be 100% true. They simply can’t be – science doesn’t operate that way. True, there are literally thousands of independent experiments that have tested these theories and shown them – so far, beyond a reasonable doubt – to precisely predict the results of the experiments to within measurement uncertainties and errors.

    However, all it takes is ONE experiment, one piece of indisputable, independently reproducible evidence or an experiment or observation that is irreconcilable with any established theory, and the theory goes out the window. In historic hindsight, it’s really as simple as that, though of course during the process of the revolution it is a little messier.

    MH: And say, just before you bring that yup, may I point out to you that if just ONE Piece of evidence is found to be real, true, authentic, etc. – in this case a UFO photo – then you’re up against your own little postulate here and not looking too good right out the gate…again. And yes, we can define what that means regarding Meier’s photos, etc. but first, let’s hear what our already confused friend is offering.

    EPA: Why do I bring this up? Well, it’s very relevant to the interviews that I’m going to address.

    Paracast Interviews

    Yet again, Conspiracy Skeptic Karl Mamer clued me into some older interviews that were done with Michael Horn and put out on June 27, 2006, and July 11, 2006. I think during that time I was on a 25-hr/day schedule to photograph the moon every night for two lunar months … but I digress.

    Anyway, in the first interview, Horn was pretty much given free reign, much like in the Coast to Coast AM interviews I’ve heard. It was really the latter that this post will focus on. First off, The Paracast has two hosts – Gene Steinberg who is an award-winning journalist, and David Biedny (pronounced “Bee-ed-nee”) who is one of the world’s foremost experts in the Adobe program “Photoshop” and works at Industrial Light and Magic. His credits include working on the effects of Hudson Hawk, Terminator 2, Star Trek VI, The Rocketeer, Memoirs of an Invisible Man, and Hook (I wonder if he’s the one who digitally removed all of Robin Williams’ chest hair in that movie). The reason why I bring up Beidny’s credentials in what may seem like an obvious argument from authority (though it’s not and I’ll address that below) is that the second interview was almost all Biedny going head-to-head with Horn with the intent of his analysis of a single photograph that Horn claimed was genuine.

    Burden of Proof versus Refutation

    First, if you end up listening to The Paracast as a result of this blog post please note that it DOES have commercials annoyingly throughout it. Be fore-warned.

    Moving on, if we ignore the front matter and the posturing, the real meat at the beginning of the interview as about falsification. The two hosts put forth the idea that if any single piece of Meier’s evidence that Horn was putting forth as genuine was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be faked (false/hoaxed/lied/etc.), then that should – and would in their eyes – call the entire thing into question. Following the logic of science that I laid out at the beginning of the post, that makes perfect sense to me.

    MH: Is this not a nice place to draw attention, again, to how the implied logic of this “argument” cuts both ways?

    EPA: However, without actually acknowledging that, Horn countered that if he could show that a bunch of it was true, then it should be accepted as true. The hosts, and I sitting in my little office, laughed at that.

    Why? one may ask. After all, isn’t that only fair – wouldn’t it be a double-standard to think otherwise? The answer: No.

    Think of it like this: In my apartment, I could use a mixture of some various chemicals to come up with something that looks like chocolate. I may have actually done this. I could then present it to people as, “This is genuine chocolate. Here, have a taste! It’s chocolate and you’ll be able to tell!” Those people – I may present it to hundreds – may agree with me that it’s real chocolate. I could then call on them as witnesses that it’s real chocolate. However, I may then give it to someone who is able to analyze it in a different way, or may be more sensitive to the actual taste of chocolate or the chemicals I’ve used, and that person could then demonstrate that, beyond a reasonable doubt, what I gave them as “genuine chocolate” was fake.

    I could say, “But all these other experts said it was real!” That wouldn’t matter. I had fooled them. All it takes is one, irrefutable piece of evidence that I had hoaxed my chocolate that would then call everything else I had tried to pass off as chocolate into question. Even if some of it actually had been real.

    So, that is why I can fairly easily say to Meier, or a creationist, or an astrologer, or anyone else, really, that once I’ve conclusively demonstrated that any one of the claims you’ve put forward as genuine is demonstrably false, then that should call into question everything else you’ve done. Just look at the South Korean scientist who was found out to have faked some of his stem cell research.

    MH: We don’t want this good fellow to fly so high on his demonstrably goofy argument that we fail to remind you…of just how goofy it is, certainly in this context. And certainly because, as I began with, and as you can determine for yourselves, Biedney’s brilliant “conclusion” was refuted by another PS user (apparently respected enough by Biedney that he didn’t argue with him) and by Biedney’s own lack of being able to actually DEMONSTRATE his quaint, idiotic theory (for all ya sciontests out der who is big on dat “independently reproducible evidence” thang).

    Oh yes, there was another element, as may also be present in either the radio interview and/or the forum, i.e. that a man I’ve known for over 50 years, who is an expert in special effects, filmmaking etc. – and a UFO skeptic – absolutely disagreed with Biedney as well. My friend did not want a public part of this debate and when Biedney figured out who he was, based on some credits of his I had listed, he not only dragged him in by name but harassed him by email. Biedney has a bit of a record at harassment, as you’ll also learn if you do some online investigating.

    “Photo is triple exposure, probably in camera, accidental…
    skeptic should duplicate to prove otherwise.”
    K.S., movie, FX professional

    Now, let’s continue with this example of rigorous scientific “thinking” (after the chocolate comments, of course).

    EPA: [As a side-note, to anyone reading this who has had any chocolate that I’ve made, I would never actually try to pass of fake stuff as real, and I’m up-front when I do use white chocolate which isn’t really chocolate.]

    Getting Into It, But Not Really, or “How Could a Simple One-Armed Farmer …”

    With this in mind, Biedny did an in-depth analysis of one of the photographs that Horn had been putting forward as genuine. On the episode, Biedny pointed to several artifacts in the photograph that clearly demonstrated compositing different images and models to create the single finished product. Getting into the details is not the purpose of this post – go listen to the episode if you’re interested.

    MH: Hello, anybody home? Need I actually quote all the unsubstantiated, inaccurate, thoroughly refuted nonsense there AGAIN?

    EPA: Rather, Horn’s reaction is what I wanted to address. As has been the case in the comments section of my own blog, Horn has refused to directly address the refutations I gave of the alleged prognostication of asteroid Apophis. The first post on the subject contains the bulk of Horn’s comments which simply dodge the issue and point to other alleged predictions.

    MH: A;though I really should know better by now than to engage with this modern day church, it may come as a surprise that I probably overlooked that blog, or had the good sense to not engage in further senselessness…despite my doing so here again.

    EPA: The second post on the subject contained a detailed look at the timeline of the alleged prediction where I looked through all of the available documented evidence to show that Meier did not predict Apophis. For me, that was the equivalent 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 my discussion with Karl Mamer. Lots of discussing.

    But none addressing the point — I directly challenged Horn on at least 4 occasions on my blog – both in posts and on the comments – to come up with a refute to my break-down of the timeline of the alleged prediction of Apophis. He has not done so.

    MH: Okay, quickly now:

    Meier published the conversation pertaining to the Red Meteor in German and then in an English translation, in 1981, then it appeared in a copyrighted book in 2001.

    Ptaah confirms that the Red Meteor is indeed Apoophis.

    Oh but wait, you people BELIEVE that Meier is lying, that there is no Ptaah, that it’s only a convenient bit of lying to make himself look good, etc. Now, if Meier actually had a record of lying, actually had a lousy record with the prophecies and predictions he’s published…you might have a point. But you don’t simply because he has no record of lying and his record specific, prophetically accurate information exceeds anyone in human history…certainly the scientists who would LIKE to “predict” with 100% accuracy and confidence that Apophis won’t clobber the earth on either of the two dates offered.

    Obviously, in some 19 years as at a minimum, the possibility, the probability of some wee little thing interfering with, altering, etc. the course of the asteroid reduce the accuracy of ANY scientific calculations at this point to a meaningless level. You DO know that, don’t you?

    EPA: Neither did he with any of the points that Biedny raised for the faked photograph. Rather, very conspicuously – and discussed during a recap during the last ~8 minutes of the latter Paracast episode – Horn dodged the points that Biedny raised. He had two main things he kept going back to. First was the various other experts that he claims have looked at the photograph and said it’s genuine. However, I refer you to my discussion of chocolate that I had a few paragraphs ago – it does not matter how many experts I have convinced that what I’m putting forward is real, it just takes one to shoot something down. The second thing he kept coming back to was, “Yes, but how could a simple one-armed farmer …” (the quote may have been “simple one-armed Swiss farmer” a few times, I don’t actually remember). I liked the host’s response to that after the upteenth time that Horn raised it (following is paraphrased even though it’s in quotes): “We’re not saying that he did. He could have had help. All we’re saying is that there is undeniable evidence that this photograph has been faked, we don’t care how he may have done it.”

    MH: Well, it appears that you’ve built your castle on the same sandy shoal as the hapless Mr. Biedney, and have now decided to take occupancy in the same sinking structure that the bumbling, intolerably dopey, arrogant and incompetent folks at CFI-West/IIG have that would be starting with Vaughn Rees and, dare I say it, ending with Derek Bartholomaus. (DB aka “The Gift that Keeps on Giving” http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/Top_Skeptic_Fixed.htm and http://theyfly.com/SkepticsCaught.htm; you’re in good company indeed). Maybe YOU’D like to take nine years (as they have) to make your brilliant case, since you’ve gotten off to a rather poor start here.

    EPA: Final Thoughts

    That was really the extent of the discourse. Not once did Horn directly address Biedny’s demonstrable claims of pointing out flaws in the photo that show it to have been forged. Horn simply dodged the subject. Occasionally, Horn would ask, “But look at this [other] photograph.” Biedny’s response – in my mind – was quite proper, and it was effectively, “Why should I? I’ve neither the time nor inclination. I’ve shown one that you put forward as genuine has been faked beyond a reasonable doubt, calling into question all the rest of the claims.”

    MH: “Final Thoughts” would have been good…if there was any real thinking here. So, once again, I’ll point out that your foundational premise, that Biedney somehow effectively “proved” that the photo was a fake, is just as pathetically unsupported as poor ol’ DB’s premise that Meier used “model UFOs and model trees”.

    Now, unless I really am dealing with idiots let loose from an institution populated by numerous people who, rather than thinking that they’re “Jesus Christ” fancy themselves to be “Carl Sagan” instead, may I point out to the assembled know-it-alls here that (pardon me for yelling)…NINE YEARS IS A LONG TIME TO TAKE TO PROVE THAT A ONE-ARMED MAN UUSED MODELS TO HOAX HIS EVIDENCE…ONLY TO HAVE TO RETRACT, THAT’S R-E-T-R-A-C-T, THOSE CLAIMS.

    Are you pompous people, none of whom have ever gone and investigated this yourselves of course, not seriously embarrassed by the ease with which your ineptitude and folly are pointed out by…little ol’ me? Well, don’t chide yourselves, you’re in great company with the bozos at CFI-West/IIG who are simply steamed that they’ve flubbed their big moment…and have had their humiliation delivered in person by the likes of…me. (Okay, I can’t take all the credit, obviously it’s Meier’s irreproducible, eternally impervious and impenetrable evidence that sinks their boat each time they try to paddle it out of their safe little skeptic’s harbor.)

    EPA: Similarly on my blog, Horn has refused to directly address the evidence I presented in terms of the Apophis timeline, and rather he has pointed to other alleged predictions and claims and lines of evidence that, at the moment, I have zero inclination nor time to pursue. But, I don’t think I need to. I have demonstrably shown with the available evidence that the claim that Meier predicted Apophis is false. I think that calls into question all the rest of his claims, and I don’t think I need to go into them, especially when others already have.

    MH: I think that when any obviously incompetent, inept poseur who calls himself a “scientist”, makes unforgivably easily demolished, half-assed, pretentious, presumptuous and laughably unsubstantiated “arguments” such as the mess above, it’s ABSOLUTELY worthy of ridicule and disdain. The fact that this achingly self-important nobody has “zero inclination nor time” to actually research into what could be his best ammunition AGAINST the case if the evidence was bogus, also shows what pathetically low levels of intellectual ability are tolerated in whatever orifice of academia that burped him out.

    Gentlemen, I beg you, permanently reject me as a member of your little pathetic little club here, as belonging to it could seriously tarnish my own reputation.

    Comment by Michael Horn — February 3, 2010 @ 7:51 pm | Reply

  2. Wow, Horn, you’ve outdone yourself with the Penski file this time around. Do you just maintain a Word file and cut ‘n’ paste? Maybe it’s a firefox addon you have?

    I’ve noticed, you’ve yet again avoided answering the direct challenge. Aside from anyone already convinced Meier is in touch with Moff Zweebuk of the Mescaloid Federation, has anyone been convinced Meier predicted the Apophis? Anyone? Why?

    Comment by karl — February 3, 2010 @ 8:15 pm | Reply

  3. Well well well, another masterpiece by someone who cannot even give us his name or what circus university he allows himself to be manipulated by.

    I have to be honest. I got bored reading this article and could not finish reading it. Does the term “Beating a dead horse with a stick” mean anything to you (the author) which I will name you Coco.

    Seriously Coco your are going over ground that has been wakled over many times and which no one has ever proven Billy Meier’s material to be fake. Many persons have tried but they never put their work up for scientific scrutany, does that tell you something?. To this day, regardless of what ever you wrote in your above masterpiece Billy Meier’s material is still un-reproducable.

    So while you are writing this nonsence, which by the looks of things not many persons visit this website. Maybe 5 or 10 of your devout followers who are weak in consciousness and lacking in the ability to think for themselves, you are missing out on something truly unique and the best learning experience one can ever have. If only you could free your self from your own self importance, self gratification, self illusion that you are right about all you write here on this crapsite and truly start to open your mind to the truth then you will not find much good for yourself in your life.

    Michael Horn has truly studied the Meier Case for over 30 years. How long have you studied the Meier Case? A few hours? That does not make you a expert or even close to commenting on the Meier Case.

    Also Michael Horn has met Bily Meier FACE to FACE more than once. Have you?

    My point is truly you have no idea what you are writing about in this article, which is very boring. You are trying to make your self look big and cleaver, Oh look at me, I know it all, I know it all about Michael Horn and Billy Meier and I can prove is all fake.

    I now too request that “Gentlemen, I beg you, permanently reject me as a member of your little pathetic little club here, as belonging to it could seriously tarnish my own reputation.” and cloud my consciousness related evolition.

    Comment by Stephen Moore — February 3, 2010 @ 9:53 pm | Reply

  4. Okay folks, first off, it’s really not that hard to find out who I am. As I have stated at least twice, near the top of every page of this site is a link to an “About” page that contains a quick blurb about what I do and then a link to my personal website. Really, not that hard to find.

    Second, since both of you – Michael Horn and Stephen Moore – seem to want me to “permanently reject [you]” from the website, I can do so quite easily and no longer permit you to post comments. It would be my pleasure, though I’ve let the comments go through so far as a courtesy to you to allow you to present your views.

    Speaking of courtesy, it’s an amazing skill you seem to lack, Mr. Horn. Throughout all of my posts I have been reasonably polite, I’ve talked about the claims rather than you as a person, and I definitely have not resorted to name-calling. Compare this with your next-to-last paragraph (there are many other instances, but the next-to-last paragraph is generally more densely packed), where you call me (or my text): “obviously incompetent, inept poseur,” “half-assed, pretentious, presumptuous,” “achingly self-important nobody,” “pathetically low levels of intellectual ability,” and “orifice of academia that burped him out.”

    It’s truly fascinating that you claim I have “pathetically low levels of intellectual ability” when it is you who sinks to the level of simple ad hominem attacks.

    Speaking of which, I note that you still have not actually answered my challenge, Michael, which was the actual point of this post. I used The Paracast interview to make a point about how one “should” argue logically, as well as burden of proof versus refutation. I pointed out that, just as with my blog where you have not answered my – I’ll say it – debunking of the Apophis “prediction,” you did not directly answer the claims of Biedny when he made them, rather you side-stepped them (and you continuously mis-spell his name as “Biedney”). The purpose of this post was not actually on those claims, as I explicitly stated. The extent of your refute of my debunking is now:

    "Meier published the conversation pertaining to the Red Meteor in German and then in an English translation, in 1981, then it appeared in a copyrighted book in 2001.

    "Ptaah confirms that the Red Meteor is indeed Apoophis."

    That does not refute it, Mr. Horn and Moore. I plainly stated that that “red meteor” prediction was made in 1981. But that it wasn’t then linked to Apophis until 2008. If you have additional documentation to show otherwise, I ask you to produce it. Also, your claims, Michael, that you “probably overlooked” the post on the Apophis timeline is somewhat dubious, as I directly replied to your comments twice asking you to address it, and it was in other posts to which you replied.

    Mr. Moore, as for me having studied the Meier case for “a few hours” are actually beside the point. My purpose was never to refute the Meier case. Rather it was the simple claim that Apophis was predicted by Meier. The time I spent was enough to do this as that body of evidence is very small and can easily be synthesized in a few hours with no need to meet Meier face-to-face.

    Now, a small comment about my chocolate analogy. That’s what it was, an analogy to put into more every-day terms why one instance of showing something is false cannot be easily knocked away by many who thought it was true. They could have simply failed to pick up on the subtle signs that the final person was able to see and then can point out to others. Taking it literally is again missing the point.

    I’ll state it again as you did at the end: You state, “So, once again, I’ll point out that your foundational premise, that Biedney somehow effectively “proved” that the photo was a fake, is just as pathetically unsupported as poor ol’ DB’s premise that Meier used “model UFOs and model trees”.” This is missing the point completely of my post. In fact, it was explicitly stated that this post’s purpose was not to address the photography claim at all, but rather your response to a discussion aimed at showing it to have likely been faked, drawing the parallel to your lack of refuting my own debunking of your Apophis prediction, and then in general how science works.

    Now, I’m guessing that since both of you stated, “Gentlemen, I beg you, permanently reject me as a member of your little pathetic little club here, as belonging to it could seriously tarnish my own reputation,” you will no longer be posting here. Fine by me.

    Comment by astrostu206265 — February 3, 2010 @ 10:34 pm | Reply

  5. “Gentlemen, I beg you, permanently reject me as a member of your little pathetic little club here, as belonging to it could seriously tarnish my own reputation”

    It would seem to me the one requirement for membership in this “pathetic little club” is to post on Stu’s blog. “Gentlemen” your exit out of the club is obvious to most but maybe yourselves.

    But you’ll be back…

    Anyway, two things since you’re going to be back:

    – Please refute the Paracast’s DIRECT findings regarding the Meier photo.

    – Please provide any additional documented evidence that clearly connects Meier’s vague claim that a “meteor” is going to hit earth (a prediction made by real scientists long before Meier) with Apophis. The quotes Horn has provided are, to those who don’t already swallow the Mescaloid Space Federation story, make this claim utterly indistinguishable from a 100% lame retrodiction. “I said the Detroit Lions would win the Super Bowl in 1981 and they did in 2008! See! I’m a seer and revelator!” “But any NFL team will, in the fullness of time, eventually win a Super Bowl.” “Yes but I said they would win in a city that has a McDonald’s.” I’m not sure if you understand but for those who don’t simply accept your Mescaloid religion, your claims are as utterly silly as that.

    For those who need a good laugh. Check out these pictures of the Mescaloid’s Kill-o-zap super space ray gun:

    http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Gallery

    Comment by mindmetoo — February 4, 2010 @ 6:35 am | Reply

  6. It’s a real pity that I’m not 100% capable of the English language. I’m able to get the main pieces of the blog entry and also of the comments but my capabilities really lack for some of the comments’ details – I assume especially the parts that are … ehm .. of more personal and subjective than of objective and factual nature.

    Let me at least assure you that the same disputes can be found in any other of such types’ blogs with similar topics. Usually the lack of good arguments produces LONG and COMPLICATED replies with little to no factual substance. In German we call this (I recommend learning this little nice word) “Geschwurbel”.

    Anyway: Great block, I come over from time to time and must say: Its always a pleasure to read.

    Comment by knorke — February 25, 2010 @ 4:36 am | Reply

  7. This seemed like a nice spot to also post this:

    It may interest some to read what happens when a UFO skeptic bumbles in over his head, as all do who try to take on the Meier case:

    http://theyfly.com/Dialogue_with_a_Skeptic.htm

    FYI, Meier’s specific, astronomically related information is shown to trump “official discovery” often by decades. Not surprising since he got to see the various things first hand, himself. Talk amongst yourselves…

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 4, 2010 @ 12:03 pm | Reply

  8. Michael Horn is my friend. He has been to Switzerland to visit Billy Meier (over ten times) me… over four times: to see if he (Billy) is prone to lying and it is my pleasure to let you know… IMHO he never lies… well he never lied to me… and all his books make perfect sense… which is Science… right… explaining hypotheses… but in his case… new as yet undiscovered truths, which the Earth Twits have not come to their barbaric senses about… Love is not ALL there is… We still have wars… right?

    So anyway, to make a long story short… I’ve visited the guy four or five times and he has convinced me without a word other than his extensive writings… that he is the genuine article… skeptize as you may… this makes more sense than any other so called scientist I’ve ever read about nor communicated with… And no I don’t have a long title or belong to some hopped up scientific GuCCi establishment or academic hail mary… just a guy who uses logic and reason… that’s scientific… no?

    Tell me… have you ever had a friend for more than forty or fifty years? Well Billy Meier is surrounded by friends of fifty and sixty year long relationships on a yearly and possibly weekly basis… does that strike you as the behavior of friends of a liar?

    Thanks… keep it real… see the facts no matter how much clouding the fault finding know-it-alls try to muster…

    Randy Arena

    Comment by Randy Arena — August 21, 2011 @ 9:33 am | 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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: