Exposing PseudoAstronomy

January 12, 2011

Picking Apart Astrology Methods: 2011 Astrology Predictions from Terry Nazon


Ever since I started to write a series of posts (part 1 here) on 2012 claims of “Terry Nazon World Famous Celebrity Astrologer,” and then getting threatened by her (is that some rite of passage for a modern skeptic?), I’ve followed Ms. Nazon on and off.

With my recent post on looking over the 2010 “psychic” predictions made on a popular late-night radio program, I thought that for 2011 I would take a look at some sources other than just who happens to phone in to Coast to Coast.

Astrologic “Predictions”

It’s actually very difficult to look at astrologic predictions and to score them later on for accuracy. It’s really quite difficult to do that with the professional alleged psychics because they know to couch their claims in vague language (a great example being claimed “clairvoyant medium” Christian von Lahr who for 2010 predicted something really big with one of Obama’s daughters involving the letters “P,” “I,” “N,” and “K;” he noted that the letters may have spiritual meaning instead or be turned, like the “P” into a “b,” “d,” “6,” or “9,” or it could also look like a bed or a wheelbarrow … is that vague enough for you?). But I have found that astrologers are particularly bad – or good, depending on your point of view – at doing this.

So I’m not going to really use Ms. Nazon’s “forecast” for 2011 as something I’m going to score at the end of the year. Rather, I’m going to use it to point out (a) why Ms. Nazon still hasn’t a clue about astronomy nor grammar, and (b) how she uses such vague language and escape clauses so that almost anything would be considered a “hit” rather than a “miss.”

Everything discussed here is based on her “Year Ahead 2011 Forecast” as it appeared on January 11, 2011 (and Terry, if you change it, I have a saved copy).

First, the Astronomy

There is really very little astronomy in this forecast other than the common astrological nonsense about houses and having all the planets in the wrong place in the sky.

But in her next-to-last paragraph, Ms. Nazon claims, “Neptune takes about 172 years to complete its transit around the zodiac.”

In common terms, the “zodiac” is basically a line through the middle of the entire sky. In other words, she is stating that Neptune takes 172 years to orbit the sun. My question for her: Terry, how lazy are you? Seriously? The simplest of Google or Wikipedia search tells you that Neptune’s orbital period – its year – is 164.79 Earth years, or rounded to 165. Any astronomy textbook that wasn’t written before 1846 will tell you that, as well, unless it was written by someone who was illiterate. Where the heck do you get “172?!”

Vague Forecasts

Now that I got that out of my system, let’s look at the anatomy of her forecasts.

Part 1: Say something about planets that physically means nothing. “As 2011 begins Jupiter the expansive planet and Uranus the anything goes planet finish their transit through the last sign of the experiential zodiac wheel of life, Pisces.”

Part 2: Say that you (the astrologer) are an interpreter and are reading these signs. “This tells us that how we end things is as important as how we begin things.” Or, “It’s an astrologer’s job to translate what the cosmic consciousness is telling us through the planets.”

Part 3, version 1: Say something vague that will apply to 99% of your audience and that usually will require a precondition to be met that will lead 99% of that 1% that it didn’t apply to to that conclusion anyway. “When minds are focused on everything bad that is happening around us and to those we care about, we naturally fear the worst.” Or, “we are all ending some phase of our lives. No matter where you are in life, starting high school, starting college, beginning your careers, families, winding down your role as a parent or embarking on your retirement, it now is more significant than ever.”

Part 4, version 1: Don’t say what to do, give your client an “if” statement that almost always results in the desired conclusion. “How you end things is very important at this particular time. … So take some time and don’t leave things unfinished, clean your life and your house; don’t carry burdens, fights and garbage into 2011.”

Part 3, version 2: State what happened in the past when Part 1 happened. This makes it seem like you are actually giving a forecast. “Many of these transits, Uranus in Aries, Neptune in Pisces and Pluto in Capricorn have historically triggered major collapses of regimes, governments and economies when things have become too corrupt.” Or, “Could it be a massive volcanic eruption or a meteor hitting the earth ….”

Part 4, version 2: State that that may happen again, but it may not (the escape clause). “Not always though…as I have said before”this isn’t Granny’s depression and we aren’t like our granny’s at all”.” Or, continuing the second example from #3 v2, “… it could but historically it was just the uprising of people taking back their power.”

What it all boils down to is that there is nothing actually predicted here. If any single thing in your life vaguely relates to anything she said – and unless you live in a plastic bubble and don’t move for a year, it will – then it will end up validating something that she wrote because it’s just so vague. No where did she say, “On June 14, 2011, a bridge in San Diego will collapse.” Or, “2011 will have a record-breaking number of tornadoes across the US.”

Nor even did she give a vague “typical psychic” prediction that can be retrodicted to normal events, such as, “There will be a nuclear problem in 2011” (this could be retrodicted to fit a nuclear bomb, nuclear testing, nuclear-powered vehicles having some sort of problem, an alarm in a nuclear testing facility … you get the idea).

Instead, she says, “The 12th house rules karma. It’s the culmination of experiences and the final test. We’ve been here before, we all know what to do.”

I’ve gotten better predictions in a fortune cookie. And at least with fortune cookies you get to add “in bed” to the end.

And Then There’s the Grammar

I don’t know why it bugs me so much, but Ms. Nazon’s atrocious grammar makes her horrible forecasts and understanding of astronomy and archaeology even worse. Take this gem: “Not always though…as I have said before”this isn’t Granny’s depression and we aren’t like our granny’s at all”.”

First, she misses the space between “before” and the quote. Then she has an apostrophe (possessive) after the second “granny” even though it should not be possessive. Third, she puts the period punctuation outside of the quotation mark (declarative punctuation goes inside). Fourth, she misses the comma joining two sentences with a conjunction (there should be a comma after “depression” since “this isn’t Granny’s depression” and “we aren’t like our granny’s at all” are both complete sentences, and they are joined by the “and”).

Another example is she starts her second paragraph with, “As 2011 begins Jupiter the expansive planet and Uranus the anything goes planet finish their transit through the last sign of the experiential zodiac wheel of life, Pisces.” You may need to read that again. It took me three reads before I could figure out what she was trying to say.

Let me count the mistakes: 1. “As 2011 begins” is an appositive and a comma belongs after it. 2. “The expansive planet” is a description of the noun just used (Jupiter) and should be bound by commas. 3. Similarly, “the anything goes planet” should be bound by commas. Three in one sentence.

Final Thoughts

All this from “Terry Nazon World Famous Celebrity Astrologer” who charges now $99.00 for 15 minutes on the phone, $100.00 for an “E-Reading” via e-mail, and up to $365.20 for a full hour on the phone. Her prices have gone up since I last looked.

Oh, and I do apologize if this came off as a bit more ranty than usual. It’s late night here and my tongue is still partly numb after needing eight injections to go numb enough for a simple cavity filling yesterday.



  1. On new year’s eve, I heard a number of predictions for 2011 on Aussie TV and almost all of them fell into the category of “too vague” or “the probability of this happening is too close to 100%”. One example was that there will be a number of famous people who will die this year, including Zsa Zsa Gabor. This prediction is just ridiculous. If they’d predicted Prince William’s death, I’d be more interested, but predicting the death of a 92 year old with health problems? Forget it, too easy.

    Comment by Dave — January 12, 2011 @ 10:44 pm | Reply

  2. Maybe I should finally post the nine “comments” she made on my blog (with some additional comments from me)? They show that someone has some serious issues to deal with.

    Comment by Johan Normark — January 19, 2011 @ 12:56 am | Reply

    • That’s up to you. I already aired the dirty laundry directed at me in this post, but from your e-mails to me, she did far worse towards you.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 19, 2011 @ 1:02 am | Reply

  3. Hahahaaaa I read it, laughed. I read it again and laughed louder. The funny part is that all religious movements like political parties all have one thing in common. They preach morality but lack integrity. They lie to uninformed people to gain purpose, and their purpose is purely money. I loved the 172 years gig, was so stupid I wanted to fly over and smack her against the head for being so silly.


    Great site, I love it!

    A Warm Cheers from a sunny South Africa!


    Comment by Johan Duvenhage — January 26, 2011 @ 12:21 am | Reply

  4. The following is a true story. About two years ago I got a cal form a friend, Daivd H. Usually very cheerful and confident, David was depressed and sad. The reason was that he’d just received a phone call from his girlfriend in Thailand and she told him that her 9 year-old daughter had just been kidnaped off the streets of Bangkok. When I heard it my heart sunk; the prognosis from a safe return is extremely low in those cases. Child trafficking, etc. in various part of Asia, etc. is a lucrative industry.

    All I could think of telling him was to call my cousin, Adam, M., and to have him do…an astrological chart. David understandably rejected that suggestion as worthless but I persisted. He gave in to my badgering and indeed did call Adam and gave him the information he had, as to time, date, etc.

    About three days later Adam contacted us and asked to meet for dinner at a Persian restaurant in the Westwood area (of L.A.). Over dinner he told David and me the following: the little girkl had been taken by a family member on the father’s side, she was being held in an area that had some small farm or other animals and she would be returned safely reasonably soon. David was not impressed but he was cordial.

    Less than a week after that David called to tell me that the little girl had been returned. She had been taken and held by…a family member on her father’s side. David was quickly on his way to Thailand. When he returned he confirmed that she indeed had been in held in an area such as Adam had described. He had worked all of this out astrologically.

    I had also personally seen him find a lost object, specifically pinpointing its location, he correctly predicted the then approaching tock market crash some years ago; I wished I’d listen to his warnings some months before. He then told me about a particular stock that would actually rise quite a bit afterwards. i was a bit burned and didn’t listen. That stock did extremely well. Adam gave me specific information that led me to very successful 10 year career. And I know of other work that he’s done for people, internationally, that’s also been of this quality.

    For those who don’t think this is true because they are invested in their religious beliefs (skepticism is effectively a religion and not a science) all I can say is…too bad. Because there is a lot of fraud in the world there’s no reason to become too certain that all such claims are fraudulent. They aren’t. And there’s nothing paranormal either. Just things that are outside of current understanding.

    Adam doesn’t believe in extraterrestrial UFOs and so-called psychic. He has a Mensa level IQ. So, while the majority of so-called psychics and astrologers, etc. are basically charlatans, there are a small number who are the real deal. Adam is one such person.

    The evolution of skeptic into an objective (scientific) observer and researcher is a step up. Learning how to say, “I don’t know”, rather than leaping to defend skeptical prejudices and beliefs and the tendency to attack what is outside of your understanding, is a huge step in the right direction.

    Comment by Michael Horn — January 28, 2011 @ 5:10 pm | Reply

  5. Typos acknowledged, not caught in time…

    Comment by Michael Horn — January 28, 2011 @ 5:14 pm | Reply

    • I believe you, Michael. Totally.
      And I find your thoughts at the very end of your comment especially valuable.

      I am just wondering whether the astrology chart wasn’t a vehicle for Adam to engage other precognitive “tools”. I mean his own clairvoyance. (I have no doubts that clairvoyance exists, and I am not going to waste any time trying to convince anyone about it.)

      Anyway, it was a pleasure reading such an intelligent discourse.

      Comment by H. — October 9, 2011 @ 6:28 pm | Reply

      • I just returned from overseas and saw your comment. Thanks, I can tell you that Adam has done quite a bit with his abilities, though I don’t think it extended to any actual clairvoyance as such.

        Comment by Michael Horn — October 29, 2011 @ 5:59 pm

  6. “…skepticism (sic) is effectively a religion and not a science”.

    If true ‘supernatural’ power did exist, we would have known about it. I suppose everyone needs a Superman, but the reality is, superhuman, psychics, telepathists and all kinds of Marvel characters are just what it is – Characters from someone’s imagination, they are cool, but hardly real. Being a realist cannot possibly be cradled with a religion. As in being a sceptic, who is merely being reluctant to utter nonsense, such as astrologists, religious groups and people with psychic ability with one purpose, the purpose of reeling in cash from people with a need, understands the reality of a truth, not putting faith to a story or celestial plane created by another man with a lot of imagination. Astrology, like religion is out-dated. We live in the 21st century where science prevails; this is the dawn of man, not believing in the impossible feats of the ‘supernatural’ but believing that someday, the universe will be our home.

    “While there’s life, there’s hope” – Terence –

    Comment by Johan Duvenhage — January 30, 2011 @ 11:29 pm | Reply

  7. I gather that Johan wasn’t responding to my post, since he didn’t. It is remarkable though that while he chose to pontificate, and make some foolish, illogical assumption about what we would have known and when, he ignored the personal experiences of at least five people directly involved, over time, in this event.

    It occurred as stated and whatever his religious beliefs are, defined by him as being a “realist” or a skeptic/sceptic, they are trumped by the facts of the situation…and of the others I mentioned as well.

    Leave your beliefs at home, certainly at least until you can firmly and credibly comment on something that is outside of your knowledge and experience.

    Comment by Michael Horn — January 31, 2011 @ 6:27 pm | Reply

    • Michael, I understand where you are coming from. I have met one unique person myself. One thing is certain – knowing 5 people who had positive experience is hardly a fact or a reason to believe in the validity. If someone does predict something accurately, it will most likely not be due to astrology. People don’t rely on magic when they turn on a light switch and use energy, the same thing should go for their lives. It is never a good idea to rely on someone or something else… My 2 cents

      Comment by Alia — July 13, 2011 @ 3:35 am | Reply

      • Alia, most of what is called astrology today is justifiably criticized on a number of levels. Of course astrology as an art and/or science is many, many thousands of years old. That there may be a few people who actually know how to use the information, and do so with extreme accuracy, repeatedly, really should be examined rather than written off simply because people possess a BELIEF that it’s all bunk.

        My own work regarding the Billy Meier case, over the past 32 years, has caused me to expand my thinking and even perhaps change a couple of my own beliefs, in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

        Since I know Stuart doesn’t like me to go into details about the Meier case here, if you wish to contact me by email I will provide you with some of the scientific information that you can check out for yourself including some I recently came across and forwarded to a number of scientifically minded people…including Stuart (though I don’t know if he’s referred to it anywhere).

        Comment by Michael Horn — July 13, 2011 @ 10:25 am

  8. Mr. Horn, yes and the Pope is a Protestant.

    Well, I think I commented pretty clearly on your post. It is not difficult to see.

    For one, being a sceptic or being a realist is hardly a religion. It is not a belief either, but the understanding of accurate evidence through a series of events or experiments that proves the actuality of the matter at hand. Not by some heretic with ESP that feeds off people in dire need and prophesise irrelevant and bogus stories to such an extent, that the person/persona truly believes. Remember, like a charlatan, they try and make you believe through a series of untruths. The hand is quicker than the eye and in this instance ‘bs’ is a lot faster than the brain. (I know there is going be a wisecrack on this).

    But, let’s say it actually happened, which is unlikely but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. First off, I would mark Adam as a suspect followed by you, which is realistic thinking, not lateral. To account details in clarity, you must be familiar with the surroundings. But, seeing that neither of you were in the area at the time, this will be out of the question, unless Adam was the father of the little girl, and the following is why: You mention Adam saying the girl was taken by a family member on the fathers’ side, so the little girl had family in Thailand (Again, Adam would be suspected). The story is told in drips and drabs, seeing that the history in pardon of the situation and the people involved is unknown, a fair analysis is not obtainable.
    If she (girlfriend) then knew of family in Thailand, why did she not contact them? I would have, seeing that they live there; they should have had a better idea in procedures to follow in order to find any missing children. Again, realistic thinking and not imaginative, voilà, problem solved, and five people are hardly enough to prove the facts.
    What happened after she was found, were criminal charges brought against ‘the family member’? Where can I find any evidence, except for your half a story, of this actually being documented?

    You tell a story about “stock” that incredibly flew off the chart on the stock market, but couldn’t bother giving the exact investment details? Why is that sir? Because it is so easy to look for the evidence, rather give half a story to make the whole look real.
    How about that, he gave you information that led you to a 10 year successful career? What did you do the last ten years, wrote a series of children stories?

    I also find lost things; incredibly, I remember where I put them…

    “Man who walks sideways through airport turnstile, is going to Bangkok.” – Chinese Proverb –

    Comment by Johan Duvenhage — February 1, 2011 @ 12:38 am | Reply

    • Johan, precisely! You said everythig that I didn’t have patience to write. Thank you!

      Comment by Alia — July 13, 2011 @ 3:39 am | Reply

  9. Apparently it’s far more difficult for you to see…and understand.

    You need only be reminded – first – that science is not based on skepticism, it’s based on objective observation, reproducibility, etc. A scientist doesn’t come to the table with their mind made up, with prejudice, they leave that to the skeptics.

    Now, you’re a rather poor detective to begin with. You should have both read more carefully and asked for details. Did you notice this:

    “The reason was that he’d just received a phone call from his girlfriend in Thailand and she told him that her 9 year-old daughter had just been kidnaped off the streets of Bangkok.”

    So it’s not even necessary to address your further irrelevant presumptions, you didn’t pay good enough attention.

    It wasn’t that I couldn’t mention the stock, I simply didn’t.

    As for my career, read about my Sit & Get Fit program here: http://theyfly.com/pr/pr.htm

    As for children’s books, I’ve written a number of songs that were used in a musical for children.

    Try being objective, you’re simply being too good of an example of the obvious flaws being a skeptic.

    Comment by Michael Horn — February 1, 2011 @ 10:36 am | Reply

    • Michael, I think what Johan was trying to say is that although scientists must and should have curious and open minds the process by which something is proved or disproved is based on skepticism and thats what separates facts and laws from theories. Theories have to be tested and reproduced by many others. They only gain ground when everyone gets repeatedly the same result. Because Adam has been subjected to proper criteria, there’s only your word to vouch for him. A word that is an opinion.

      Comment by Alia — July 13, 2011 @ 3:48 am | Reply

      • Alia, the process by which things are proved ultimately is through objective, critical examination. Skepticism has its place, so long as its adherents don’t mistake their own limited knowledge for the last word on anything. In fact, Adam has more than my word to vouch for him, he’s got a pretty good track record professionally, having found other missing persons and a number of other verifiable accomplishments in the legal field that are more than anecdotal.

        I won’t bother to go into that in detail, it’s not the point. But I will point out that you, like everyone else on the planet, has had to “take the word” of numerous others as far as virtually everything that has happened before on the planet. In other words, some 90%+ (or far greater) of all “historical events” that we accept as having occurred, including the details, are simply anecdotal reportings by PEOPLE who gave their opinions.

        Actually, there’s no way of knowing, for the most part, how absolutely accurate most of it is. It’s one thing to say that a specific event occurred, which also may or may not be true, and another to trust that the details handed down over time are absolutely accurate. Even today, with photographic and video evidence, people disagree, reject, differ in opinion, etc. as to what is happening, its authenticity, etc.

        The search for the truth should be the unifying element in these discussions. And let it be said that there’s nothing “paranormal” being discussed, since the “paranormal” doesn’t exist. Many things DO exist, however, outside of current knowledge, as history has certainly repeatedly shown. And of course extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So, as far as criteria is concerned, I would think that everyone here would basically be in agreement. Now the issue would be HOW do we proceed to validate/disprove various claims, using acceptable scientific methods.

        Coming to the table with one’s mind made up as to the veracity of a situation that certainly hasn’t been disproved (we’re not talking about a “negative” here) isn’t an objective way to go about things.

        And I’ll only say that the area of my greatest interest, the Meier case, is so full of challenges to the skeptical belief system that it’s…a thing of beauty.

        Comment by Michael Horn — July 13, 2011 @ 4:28 pm

  10. “You need only be reminded – first – that science is not based on scepticism, it’s based on objective observation, reproducibility, etc. A scientist…”

    Right, to my understanding, as a sceptic, cynic or a person in this matter that doubt, a scientific experiment would be extraneous.
    This is like a religious terminology: James 1:6 -But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.
    I doubt, therefore I observe. I observe therefore I acknowledge. So, objective observation in this regard is conceding to fact? See I cannot do that, fallacies and science just do not mix.

    “The reason was that he’d just received a phone call from his girlfriend in Thailand and she told him that her 9 year-old daughter…”

    Mr Horn, this is not even close to addressing a presumption, you are rather litigating the question with an answer that has no relevance to my supposition in the first place. You seem like a well-informed individual, please understand that this is only a story you would like me to believe, which I can’t, not won’t no, just can’t. You cannot jump back to the beginning to proliferate your statement.

    “It wasn’t that I couldn’t mention the stock, I simply didn’t.”

    No, you couldn’t.

    “As for children’s books, I’ve written a number of songs that were used in a musical for children.”

    You have to admit, that was pretty close, actually, deep inside me I knew it.

    He who fears of being conquered is sure of defeat – Napoleon Bonaparte –

    Comment by Johan Duvenhage — February 1, 2011 @ 11:33 pm | Reply

  11. You continue to make oblique and irrelevant comments. Yes, I wrote songs but I also pioneered applications in water purification, was one of the first inventors who put digital books online, invented two therapeutic processes, etc.

    Further, there’s nothing to believe. Most of what you think you know historically can’t be proved and wasn’t witnessed by you.

    The events I described occurred, have numerous witnesses and are certainly not paranormal…any more than certain scientific discoveries made after 1700, 1800, 1900, etc., may not have seemed possible, impossible in fact, prior to their discovery are paranormal.

    Since you seem to have not understood this part either: the astrologer, my friend and I live in L.A. My friend’s girlfriend lives in Thailand. There was neither any way, nor any reason, for the astrologer or I to know, or be in any way involved, prior to being notified by my friend. Those are the facts and your own “beliefs” are irrelevant to them. They occurred, all of us would so testify under oath, and you may just want to start to employ the least used – and singularly most important – phrase that should be standard issue for skeptics, ” I DON’T KNOW.”

    Comment by Michael Horn — February 2, 2011 @ 10:18 am | Reply

  12. Sigh. You baited, I bit. “… you may just want to start to employ the least used – and singularly most important – phrase that should be standard issue for skeptics, ” I DON’T KNOW.”” Michael, it’s really mostly only in your own little straw man world that skeptics don’t say this. We like surprises, we like new discoveries, and I frequently say, “I don’t know.”

    Comment by Stuart Robbins — February 2, 2011 @ 10:30 am | Reply

  13. Stuart, as you grow up and mature, as I’m certain you will, you will also doubtless appreciate how under used it is by those who call themselves skeptics.

    And while my world is anything but little, and since you introduce the straw man fallacy argument into this chat pertaining to astrology, allow me to introduce…the Iceman (http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/5100_year_old_man.htm) as an example of something that will cause you to try to employ the straw man fallacy to avoid dealing with the facts.

    Or perhaps here you’ll recognize another opportunity for you to say…”I DON’T KNOW.”

    Comment by Michael Horn — February 2, 2011 @ 10:41 am | Reply

  14. “You continue to make oblique and irrelevant comments.”
    To you it seems so, yes.

    Before I even obtrude all the discoveries of note, I would say that I have respect for you. Your attributes to what you believe in, and the ability you share with woman in need. I do note that. You seem like a well-informed individual whom devote a lot of time and energy in various fields. Good for you, but, in the same breath I sense a personality that disregard any form of disinclination of any ‘fact’ you produce, you are the person who never loses or refuse to accept defeat.
    So your friends’ girlfriend is Taiwanese. Mail order brides are everywhere these days, besides, if there were ‘family’ in Taiwan, or two, or four if you like, she would have contacted them, other than that I would have suspected Adam.
    Then, the word Oath describes a basic term to adjudicate a statement as a word of honor, truth is, it means nothing, unless as stated in a court of law a truth be told under oath is a truth witnessed, if you then lie under oath, you are in trouble. It is then you may, if truth is unveiled contradicting your nuance of a truth, be prosecuted. So in all respect, your argument is meaningless, because the word ‘Oath’ cannot predicate any fact on the story you tell. Even if you do so under oath with the others, it will be meaningless. This, I know.

    Coming back to ‘May the truth be told’. Isn’t it a bit worrying that you yourself admitted in posting falsities to promote Billy Meier? Oh, I did read a lot of claims and posts made by various people from all over about the sightings. I don’t know why, but they are there.

    Some of the misleading articles are shown on iigwest.org with all the correspondence between yourself and the ‘skeptics’. Also, what about Anthony Wartons challenge? You know, the photographic and ET sample guy? Anyway, you can Google the examples mentioned by name. I did not want to infringe any copyright on my behalf.

    “It infuriates me to be wrong when I know I am right.” – Moliere –


    Comment by Johan Duvenhage — February 3, 2011 @ 4:14 am | Reply

  15. Thanks for your kind words, very nice and civil of you.

    As for “never loses, etc.”, I actually understand that perception and will offer a few thoughts. My position representing the Meier material is one that has necessitated my fighting my way up, through lots of vicious, unsubstantiated attacks on Meier by a whole lot of people. This still continues. Though there’s really no way to lose in that matter, since the evidence is accurate, authentic, etc.

    But let me point out that, again, you make all sorts of assumptions…and BIG errors:

    She is not Taiwanese, she is Thai, from Thailand.

    She is not a “mail order bride”. She had been in a relationship with David for many years. I met her in Switzerland several years ago, before the incident.

    I’ve known Adam for over 40 years. He was only recently introduced to David and never met, nor even spoke, with the woman.

    The willingness to put my word and honor behind the facts is the meaning of the “oath” thing.

    Now, as to your repeating the lies of IIG. First, I never lied, I made a typo, as I’ve probably done here above and in other places. Does that mean I “lied”? Of course not. But since you raised the issue, you’ll find a link here:


    …that shows that derek Bartholomaus and his friends falsified (a form of lying and defamation) my email. You’ll also find a link there that shows that he had to RETRACT his claims that Meier used UFO models and miniature trees (as James Randi did also). I gave an entire segment of my film, The Silent Revolution of Truth, to Derek’s skeptical challenge. And then he had to retract his claims. Are you beginning to see that the story that he and IIG tell isn’t the truth you accepted it to be, just because it’s published on the internet?

    Anthony Wharton’s challenge was not very good. Phil Langdon made better models and created better EFFECTS. I encouraged and actually helped Phil along (yes, I have the emails to prove it). But Phil’s best efforts failed, as they had to, simply because he uses small models close to the camera, which are always far too clear, unlike the large UFOs that Meier photographed/filmed a distance from the cameras. Other details reveal the differences too. And it shows that even someone very dedicated to making perfect little models, etc., can’t accomplish in months what Meier could in any given hour or two by photographing the real thing.

    I would suggest that you try to tackle the same task I gave Stuart, i.e. the 5,100 year-old Iceman information above. I think Stuart’s uncharacteristically long delay time in responding to what should be an “obvious hoax” may be an indication that he’s seriously looking into, and being stumped by, the matter, or maybe he’s discovering a new planet.

    Oh yeah, you may also want to read my article about…religion:


    Comment by Michael Horn — February 3, 2011 @ 10:29 am | Reply

    • Michael, as I have explained to you many times, I have thoroughly debunked your Apophis claims that you have not refuted, and I am not interested in others nor am I at your beck and call whenever you move to a different claim. I will be very clear: I know that your habit is to claim victory whenever someone doesn’t respond to you; that is NOT the case, you have not “stumped” me. Lack of a response does not mean you succeeded in anything other than being incredibly obnoxious to the point people stop listening to you.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — February 3, 2011 @ 11:12 am | Reply

  16. Stuart,

    In time you will see that the information is both truthful and accurate. I suggest not being a one-trick pony. What happens, for instance, when Johan looks into the article about the 5,100 year-old Iceman and finds out that it’s all quite authentic?

    And really, you make yourself out to be at least as foolish and pompous as you perceive me to be obnoxious, by not acknowledging your scientific inferiority to people like David Froning, Michael Malin, Marcel Vogel and others who, long ago authenticated the Meier case.

    I chalk it up to youthful inexperience and self-intoxication but you should try to outgrow it…sooner rather than later.

    Now that I think about it, your refusal to really look into the Meier material is not unlike the Church and Galileo situation.

    Comment by Michael Horn — February 3, 2011 @ 11:20 am | Reply

    • It’s truly remarkable that every crank, sooner or later, compares himself to Galileo.

      “Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.” -Robert L. Park

      Comment by Phil — November 26, 2011 @ 3:56 am | Reply

  17. “She is not Taiwanese, she is Thai, from Thailand.”
    Oops, typo. My bad, sorry. Thai from Thailand then, we South Africans are a bit slow sometimes. Taiwanese, Japanese, Congolese are all the same to us. Maybe not the Congolese though.
    The Mail Order bride comment was only a joke, not a relevant decree, just a silly note.
    Again, I say, to put anything of what you say about the story to Oath will be inapt, as I explained the notion of an oath, in this regard it will regrettably be meaningless.
    Then, Adam never met her, but you did? Do you have family in Thailand Mr. Horn?
    Well, if you made typo on the ‘Meier Saga’, and in other places, you certainly made a HUGE typo in the above story.

    Anyway, I again read a few spots of the ‘Meier Saga’ you promote.

    Questions to you. One: As you remember, you spoke about stock. What was is again? Oh, you didn’t mention it, not because you can’t, just because you didn’t. Why is that?

    Two: Why are some “UFO’s” so strangely fond of trees? Would that not be one of the effects the photographer palpably creates to make the observer feel that the effective dimensions corresponds with each other, which will in theory make the “UFO” larger than it is? It reasonably seems that the “UFO’s” play Hide-and-seek. Same as, why the girlfriend (whatever the name is) never contacted the so-called family in Bangkok?

    Three: No photographs of inside the crafts? Even when “in flight”, no photos? Seriously, did they also warn him of a possible lawsuit, or a definite probe if one photo was going to be taken showing inside? Well then. How about that. Again, giving halved evidence, with a story to attest fact proves that there is ambiguity.

    Four: The WCUFO? They must be Indian, I mean with the round shaped silver balls an’ all? These are the funniest pictures I have ever seen. Then, Photo 18 (65 on print) one with the aerial on top, what was that for, to catch a local Swedish Radio Station?
    The ‘Meier Saga’ in my opinion is a huge bogus story, concocted with evidently hoaxed pictures and film. For one, the blatant tree hugging of some shots makes it clear, it is deliberate fake photography. No shots from inside crafts, the funny angled pictures cutting the bottom areas with “UFO’s” stuck in trees. No shots of the “aliens”? No Mr. Horn, it’s a great imaginary story the kids will love, but to make it plausible and prove as fact is farfetched.

    I am no religious person Mr. Horn, as I mentioned this earlier. I do not believe. The significance of religion toward skepticism/realism can hardly be alike, I cannot see any resemblance.

    “…where the Bible makes illogical and or irrational statements and presents them as truth.”
    Well, that seems a lot like the ‘Meier Saga’ doesn’t it. But then again, maybe it is because I am too young and naïve to appreciate the “Real Thing”.

    “A lie has speed, but truth has endurance.” – Edgar J. Mohn –

    PS: I am off to feed my lions.

    Comment by Johan Duvenhage — February 4, 2011 @ 4:36 am | Reply

  18. Well first, I’m thrilled to be corresponding with someone who has a major city in their own country named after them.

    No, that’s not a typo, it’s an error on your part showing a lack of knowledge, attention and perhaps respect. But let’s move on and create a little structure here, okay?

    Now let me suggest that approaching the information I presented with accusations, innuendoes, etc., while typical of many skeptics, isn’t the correct way to go about it. Be a good, objective detective. Instead of accusing me of complicity, lying, etc., why not stick with formulating tight, pertinent questions that will accomplish far more and show some…respect ?

    So, to answer your actual questions, yes, I met her as I said and no, Adam never did. I’ve never been to, nor do I have family or friends in, Thailand.

    Regarding the stock, based on the way you communicate so far, it will not be productive to delve into that at this point. Perhaps, once we clarify this matter, I’ll be glad to tell you and you can check it out (or ask Adam to recommend some stocks for you now).

    Two: Why would you assume a fondness, a “strange” one at that, on the part of an inanimate object? Perhaps you meant on the part of whoever was in control of the object. Nonetheless, if you or anyone else is photographed somewhere, does it automatically mean that they have a “fondness” for any and all objects in the photo?

    But let me just explain the actual reason, in fact one that was taking good folks like you into careful consideration, futile as that may be. Having the UFO photographed right next to a known, large object is a reasonable way to show the attentive observer that there are no small models, miniature trees, etc. in play. Now when one actually reads the Photo Analysis document, they can learn about not only the experts and equipment that were used to analyze Meier’s evidence but also the numerous details that were examined and that confirmed that the objects were large and a distance from the camera, not small models close to it. BTW, this is where every skeptical attempt to duplicate Meier’s evidence falls on its face.

    There’s a saying, “The devil is in the details.” Skeptics very often flub this one badly, as you graciously demonstrate…repeatedly.

    Three: What difference would it make? You would most likely thrill me with more brilliant speculation. In all fairness, people could say that it was just a “set” or something…even though they’d not be able to prove it. However, Meier did take some photos from inside the craft, with two other UFOs in the distance (see the last two photos here: http://theyfly.com/photos/photos.htm). I will (try to) refrain from having too much fun at your expense, in hopes of assisting you to elevate your level of critical thinking. Generous as he may be, I don’t think that Stuart is quite ready to endorse your “arguments”, so let’s see if we can upgrade them to be worthy of his approval.

    Four: Since you brought up the WCUFO (in your own inimitable, bulls-eye on your forehead style) I will not resist the temptation to point out that making assumptions and jokes isn’t the most effective way to actually make a point…unless you’re as skilled at it as, for instance, I am.

    Again, you don’t seem to be quite clear on your geography. Mr. Meier lives in SWITZERLAND not SWEDEN.

    At this point I’ll point out that your “opinion” is not yet worth all those teeny little pixels that you’ve cobbled together to attempt to express it. But you do perform a much needed service (even though it’s repeatedly demonstrated by skeptics, one can’t really get too much of a good thing).

    I will AGAIN suggest that you tackle the 5,100 year-old man evidence (referred to somewhere above) and apply your impressive reasoning abilities to critiquing it. I know that Stuart has probably hired a team of lawyers to go over it but I’m sure you’ll do your usual splendid job of it.

    As for tpyos, I’m glad I never mkae them.

    Comment by Michael Horn — February 4, 2011 @ 11:55 am | Reply

  19. Brian,

    It’s just another case of idiots chasing lights in the sky that they presume simply must be ET in origin. More nonsense and distraction. I suggest a read of:


    …and viewing this video (no, it’s not false perspective, the object is sufficiently unclear and only gets clearer with the zoom, hence a LARGE object a good distance from the camera):


    Comment by Michael Horn — February 5, 2011 @ 12:14 pm | Reply

  20. Well first off I must thank you, for corresponding with someone in a country with a major city not so impalpably named after them.

    No, that is not a typo, it is a misconception on your behalf, the City of Johannesburg (I suppose you refer to this City) in Gauteng is named after two Officials of the ZAR, namely Johannes Meyer and Johannes Rissik. The name Johan is a Hebrew name derived from the word Yochanan, Johannes is a German Dutch name. Which in turn, makes it quite clear that Johan (pr. ‘you’-‘hun’ like hunt excl. ‘t’) is very far from the name Johannesburg (pr. ‘joe’-‘han’ like hand excl. ‘d’, ‘nis’-‘burg’), understand?

    I have not disrespected anyone. That idea is taken out of the situation at hand, a constructive argument does not yield any provocation of disrespect, if you feel that I have in any way disrespectfully challenged your ambiguities, well then I apologize profusely. I never accused you of anything; I merely implied a possibility by advocating a question. The questions are not “tight” but it is relevant enough, in this instance nonetheless. This is not a cross-examination, though I will gladly do so, although it takes time and the story is way too indefinite to bother, clear and simply not worth all the time even you have spent on it.
    Right, so you don’t have any Thai children nor does Adam, this still leaves room for David.
    The story is way too inconsistent, halved names, no names, no rational explanations given. No details pertaining to the activities of the suspects, nor detail of the case. Then we return to the “Magic Stock” you mentioned and yet to give detail on it. You might think it is not prolific to view that crucial part as evidence, but it is of utmost importance. This is probably the one and only part that might give substance to your story, without it, your story is exactly what it is, just a story.

    To move on to the “Meier Saga” – Any photographer would show keenness to an object, not necessarily to create an illusion but to emphasize it and give detail and structure to a photo.
    Like a model with a background. Think of the vivid shots you can get with a model dressed in an orange and red outfit, put her/him in the middle of the Namakwaland where veld flowers are one of the most amazing traits of that region during June through to August, and there, you accentuate the model with the vibrant milieu. Put a Prius next to a Truck, or a man next to an elephant. Put a mountaineer with a yellow jumpsuit on top of a snowed mountain, you accentuate the object or, as you say, show keenness.
    To have a shot of a “UFO” stuck in a tree with obvious areas duped is the same trait; you emphasize the object by applying the background. Some skew, some hiding in the trees, and as you said “Having the UFO photographed right next to a known, large object…” Well indeed, this is exactly what happened, am I right?

    I am not fully in support that the saying “The Devil is in the Details” should be used in this instance, especially not from yourself Mr. Horn, you show no religious interest whatsoever though you seem to dwell on superstition, again, I am implying not accusing.
    The difference that a (clear) picture of inside the craft would make is, well astronomical, I do not have a better word for it, and again, like the “Magic Stock”, this is a crucial part as evidence that is of utmost importance to give any substance to the story. Just to make it clear, a ‘blurred windowsill’ view is not a picture taken of the craft inside. There is a HUGE difference between left and right. This is suggested he took pictures from inside, what I ask is pictures of the craft, inside. Even a landed craft, physically on the ground, none is available. Again, why no pictures of the aliens themselves? If all objects are then factual, why are they still referred to as “UFO’s”, could the contacted species not have given Mr. Meier some indication of identifiable names for them? If for one second you think a religious squabble will be laughed out of court, this will get you straight into a white, padded room.
    Since I have brought up the “Wedding Cake Unidentified Flying Object”, I admit, the joke was a bit tasteless, though I think a Chicken Korma would be nice now, it is still early but Indian Cuisine can be enjoyed at any time. More seriously, again, the “craft” looks comical, the shots taken are very abstruse and frankly, just plain unbelievable. Respect to the time and detail taken to make them, I must admit, but clearly not something that can be realistically taken as fact.

    I did mean a Swedish Radio Station as Sweden is just over a thousand miles from Switzerland, with an antenna like the one depicted on the pictures discussed, it can easily, without a doubt receive signal, even stuck between branches of a tree, crisp and clear.

    Irrespective of your sarcasm, which is somewhat alienating, no pun intended, it performs a much needed service. Once defeat lurks, turn to sarcastic and pejorative terms to ensue onslaught, the fiend will weaken and victory shall be yours, or not. Then again, one cannot really get enough of a good thing.

    “If I know you’re very good in music, I can predict with just about zero accuracy whether you’re going to be good or bad in other things.” – Howard Gardner –

    Comment by Johan Duvenhage — February 7, 2011 @ 5:23 am | Reply

  21. A joke on my part about your name, obviously not perceived or appreciated since the city was founded well before the birth of anyone alive today. Nonetheless…

    Look, you’re less than an amateur sleuth and your questions show the typical assumptions of every skeptic I’ve interacted with, i.e. that you already know the truth and that I’ve obviously made a story up. Very similar to other religious types who try to fit everything into the particular cosmologies into which they’ve been indoctrinated and who show no restraint in attacking the honesty of a person in order to do so.

    While you needn’t take me at my word, though I happen to be a truthful person, somewhat in the public eye and never involved in anything that would cast doubt on my honesty (to the contrary of course, if you read my bio) you should learn to ask pertinent questions without basing them on already faulty assumptions and suppositions in order to determine my truthfulness.

    You’re not capable of a cross-examination, having sufficiently shown your ineptitude at direct examination. Cases in point of course are your foolish comments about the UFO photos (usually referred to as beamships but I didn’t feel the need to throw the word in) since you obviously did zero research into the Photo Analysis documentation, or any other, for that matter. You also know nothing about photography. You make silly assumptions about what “any photographer” would or wouldn’t do while you ascribe dishonest motives to people you don’t know and have never met. And then there are the frankly stupid comments like “obvious areas duped” “looks comical” and all the rest of your unsubstantiated, amateur…opinions. Of course when you say “obvious” the question is to whom, an inexperienced, amateur like yourself?

    As for David, your inference, in light of the fact that I’ve known the man – and his married American daughter for over 25 years – well, actually it’s both dumb and funny. Since you fancy yourself to be so insightful…why didn’t you just ASK if he had any children in Thailand? Not that it’s even remotely pertinent to the situation.

    Your assumptions about the stock not being true are equally stupid; based on your ineptitude, suspicions and innuendos that flew from the start, I’m delighted to not give you the satisfaction of knowing what it is, looking it up…and then coming back with the kind of foolish comments you’d be sure to make. “Anybody could have predicted that…” “How do I know that he really told you that before?” “Why doesn’t he tell me about another one, etc.?”

    I admit that this is just a little diversion from lots of serious work; I don’t play video games, drink, gamble or smoke. No, I occasionally jump in here and there with skeptics. I mainly do it to see if there are any real, legitimate questions about the Meier case that haven’t been answered sufficiently for an intelligent, objective observer. Okay, so I deliberately look in the wrong places.

    I note that you have failed to comment on the 5,100 year-old Iceman information, referred to several times above. I’m sure you “haven’t had the time” but it’s not strange that it hasn’t been debunked by anyone here since it’s another beautiful piece of evidence that will require the most convoluted, dishonest of skeptical approaches that, hopefully, no one here would even stoop to.

    I’ll give you something else to cut your teeth on:


    Should you read it and the accompanying documentation and wish to comment, I look forward to whatever convoluted, unsubstantiated assumptions and comments you can concoct. As I said, this is my equivalent of diversion, or perhaps Chinese water torture.

    Oh, I assume that you’re NOT currently involved, nor planning a future, in ANY form of legitimate investigative work, right?

    Comment by Michael Horn — February 7, 2011 @ 9:22 am | Reply

  22. This should really stoke Stuart and make him proud that he (kinda) knows me.


    In this Yahoo News article:


    …they linked here:


    BTW, Johan, before you comment on anything else to me, would you please establish that you’re…a real person, with a real identity, with your qualifications, etc., you know, as I have?

    After all, you’re mounting all of your “arguments” anonymously and, well, let’s know a little more about YOU, okay?

    Comment by Michael Horn — February 7, 2011 @ 4:13 pm | Reply

  23. Mr. Horn, this will be the last but not the least comment on your “story”. Though let us rather get one thing straighten out. Your inept, bias, self-righteous, discourteous and sarcastic attitude really does not scare, hurt or fret me in any way. It proves my previous point that you are somewhat of a sore loser. Especially when an amateur, like myself, steps on your toes. Truth be told, it is really agonising to have this monotonous conversation with someone clearly a bit too, how can I put it, touchy? You keep on treading on “religious” tendencies of sceptics trumping your findings and then try and delude the reader with the formulation of ambiguities that are totalled as truth. Irrespective of pertinent questions asked, not one has been answered; please do not call them stupid or dumb. They are simple yet imperative. There is no need to get all technical with the questions, for one, the images and stories are modest enough to eradicate an in-depth research.

    I could carry on asking and fill up the virtual world with a huge amount of questions, but then you will, as shown, get stuck like an old gramophone and persist on insulting people. What a shame. Anyway, like it was mentioned before, you do become a bit obnoxious when questioned. Try and abstain from that, maybe then we can continue this constructive argument.

    Nevertheless again, you revert from answering the question regarding the stock, by merely making a mockery of it, it is crucial, though you disregard the issue, as with the halved names, no names and again, no proof that the event actually occurred. An activity like that would be documented, if officials were involved. Like the photos from the craft inside, or of the “aliens” themselves? Again, making me a fool would certainly enable you to prove a point by allowing me to view the proof. Share it. You can’t because there is none. Stop wasting my time by trying to belittle me and show some respectable proof.

    On behalf of your self-indulgence, Ted Bundy graduated with a degree in psychology in 1972, was loved by his professors and was a very sociable person, so please stop referring to yourself as this honest individual, and this in the public eye. I really don’t care, nor do I care whether you drink, gamble, smoke, play video games, smirk at the populace or taking a gander at critics that might seem a little too “religious” for you.

    I certainly do not need to comment on the Apophis story; you can merely read the comments, then again, I did not read much about it anyway. The name joke, Ha, really? Comics yes, comedy? No. Stick with what you do best.

    To not say much about the apparent proof you shared, I must admit, the more I read it, the more it becomes a cesspool of ambiguities. The profound dialogues between the two characters are less intriguing than the photos and the rest of the story, and saying a person suffers from ailments that neither of you can confirm, for neither of you are psychiatrists, is very disconcerting. Again, halved “truths” are not factual.

    What is there to know about me, I live in Africa, there is not much to it Mr. Horn, though I can see a truth if a truth is real. I can see when you bludgeon the argument to death with repetitive insults, and I can see that this is becoming a strenuous walk to nowhere.

    Tot weersiens.

    Johan Duvenhage

    ps: No, I am not throwing in the towel, and my apologies for the intrusions Mr Robbins.

    “Hitch your wagon to a star.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson –

    Comment by Johan Duvenhage — February 8, 2011 @ 5:44 am | Reply

  24. Finally.

    Penetrating insight: “when an amateur, like myself”

    Admirable wisdom: “this will be the last”

    Comment by Michael Horn — February 8, 2011 @ 9:38 am | Reply

    • Wow.. Michael.. People may be more receptive to you and your ‘beliefs’ if you would practice more patience and less of defensive aggression. I did want to ask you questions, for I have reason to believe that UFOs are real. Unfortunately, your tone was very off-putting, and all of the name calling has seriously injured your credijlity. This is not a competition, it’s a search for truth. No need for insults please. If you are willing to have a ‘normal’ conversation I am more than willing to talk to you about the subject at hand and share knowledge.

      Comment by Alia — July 13, 2011 @ 4:49 am | Reply

      • Alia, ah, I just saw this one. I would be delighted to have the conversation using the UFO topic as an intro to heart of the matter. As I said in my previous response, please email me (unless Stuart actually wants such a conversation here).

        In case you don’t have it:


        Comment by Michael Horn — July 13, 2011 @ 10:29 am

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: