Exposing PseudoAstronomy

August 20, 2011

New Interview on “The Conspiracy Skeptic” Podcast


I was interviewed yet again by Canadian (but he’s still a good guy!) Karl Mamer, the self-annointed “Conspiracy Skeptic.” The episode is about an hour long, though unfortunately it was recorded 5 days before my new microphone arrived. Oh well.

This particular episode is a miscellany of topics, though it can be roughly summarized into three main ones: Physics for Skeptics, more talk about Michael Horn (the Billy Meier “media representative” in America), and other miscellaneous topics.

For the first item I gave a bit of a run-down of a talk I gave in Boulder for the 2011 Denver SkeptiCamp where I talked about a few things in modern physics that new-agers have used to promote their ideas, but that really don’t support their ideas. The middle topic is in response to a few recent blog posts Michael Horn made (and I’m sure he’s going to post a lot here in the comments to this post – so just FYI ahead of time, I will not be responding). And the miscellaneous items are a bunch of random things about me, what I’ve been doing, what I’m up to, and a quick rehash of a recent blogpost on 2012.

So, sit back, close your eyes, and listen. Or, don’t close your eyes if you’re driving.

And one more thing. I was negligent back last November and didn’t mention on here that I had been interviewed on The Conspiracy Skeptic again (second item on this page). That one is a more focused 75 minutes where I delved into the many different claims of Richard C. Hoagland (the guy who made his name with the “Face on Mars”). If you don’t subscribe to The Conspiracy Skeptic podcast but you enjoy listening to me ramble on it, then you should check out that episode, as well.

Edited to Add: For those of you who actually are interested in critical thinking – and for those of you who think I haven’t looked into Meier’s claims – I detailed a single study into Michael Horn’s claims of Meier’s “prophecies” about the asteroid Apophis in this blog post. Horn has yet to provide any additional information specific to that claim to show that Apophis was actually predicted in any way. Horn is happy to challenge me to look at other material. I’ve looked at this material and multiple times challenged him to provide actual evidence of prophecy in that case that he claimed. Still waiting.

277 Comments »

  1. Stuart,

    it’s too easy to talk about someone who isn’t there (Michael Horn) and to trash them without them being able to defend themselves; if you are so sure he is just another creationist type hypster & huckster, how about speaking with him on some radio show? If he is as you suggest, it will be no problem for you to logically and conclusively put his case to bed.

    Regards,
    Bruce

    Comment by Bruce — August 21, 2011 @ 3:50 am | Reply

  2. Dear Stuart,

    Given the opportunity to objectively investigate, let alone intelligently respond to, Billy Meier’s abundant, specific, preemptively published scientific information, unlike real scientists you and Karl instead impersonate a couple of snickering, giggly schoolgirls talking in class, and predictably miss the instructions and fail the test.

    In response to the question/statement regarding the Meier case being what I “do”, the answer is yes…and more. Representing the Meier material is what I gladly do, of course, but I continue to do, and excel in, quite a variety of fields. Information can be found quite easily with a click on my website. Seeing as how you didn’t get that far, I’ll post it below, sans most links of course:

    Michael Horn is the Authorized American Media Representative for the Billy Meier Contacts (www.theyfly.com), which he has researched since 1979 (and proved to be absolutely authentic). He is the writer and producer of the new, award-winning feature length documentary, “The Silent Revolution of Truth”, as well as the writer, producer and narrator of the DVD “The Meier Contacts – The Key To Our Future Survival”.

    Michael’s very eclectic background includes: award-winning film director, film producer, prize-winning painter, designer/creator of the still popular fashion fad “fingernail art” (featured in Harper’s Bazaar magazine), award-winning songwriter, one of the first creators of digital online book publishing (ebooks), music and video producer, science researcher, national and international lecturer, frequent media guest, published writer, credentialed teacher, humorist, pioneer in commercial water purification applications (Starbucks), set designer, health care professional, creator of the Future Self interactive therapeutic video technique, volunteer work with children and seniors.

    Michael is the creator of the Standing In Spirit stress relief program (which Michael was invited to teach to corporate and government leaders in Europe,such as BASF, Eurochemie, Rabobank, KLM, Cyco Software, ING Bank, Meta Visie, by a consultant to Princess Diana), creator/teacher of the Sit & Get Fit regenerative movement videotapes and program for seniors, as well as for personnel at U.S. corporations like Xerox and Candle.

    Michael has been featured in two issues of the international martial arts magazine INSIDE KUNG FU demonstrating advanced strength and flexibility Chi Gong exercises and has articles published in Nexus, Mystic Pop, UFO and Veritas magazines. Additionally, he teaches movement classes and has also created and taught a self-defense course for women for the City of Los Angeles Commission on the Status of Women. “More Than Just Survival”, Michael Horn’s song CD of all original songs, has been released featuring the single”Forgive Yourself”.

    “Breaking the Silence” is the new, award-winning, documentary about five courageous young women that Michael and his daughter produced. Michael also wrote the song for the film, “I’ll Be My Own Hero”.

    Be sure to listen to The Michael Horn Show full of comedy, controversy and conscious commentaries and visit his new blog.

    Stuart, being a momma’s boy who likes to make chocolate doesn’t exactly equate to having a heavy resume. But since you’re effectively just starting out in the world it’s understandable that your own comparatively limited accomplishments, and intellectual immaturity, reflect that. You seem like a nice young kid who, in time, may become a real scientist, should your ambition to be someone “important” be trumped by your desire to really…discover.

    In addition to Billy Meier, there are many people who are far, far beyond you in knowledge and understanding, surely you’d consider that. For instance, a scientist named David Froning, who shared the stage at a presentation of mine in Los Angeles, some years ago. You might give a moment’s thought to just why he would state what he did (and the other experts as well):

    http://www.theyfly.com/Scientific_Experts.html

    Since Galileo was mentioned in your interview with Karl, I’m sure that you know how much damage was also done by THAT church to scientific progress. My bet is that in some years you will kick yourself, so to speak, for pompously indulging your youthful inexperience and effete attitude, when the opportunity to grapple with something that is obviously far beyond your present, egoistic understanding presented itself. For now it seems that the high, and low, priests of the Church of Skeptology are content to merely pat each other’s backs as a substitute for any truly courageous, and intellectually honest, dialog.

    As I’ve certainly hinted, maturity is something that can’t be rushed. I’m sure your mom is proud of the initials after your name but they won’t replace, or exceed in importance, intellectual courage, honesty and excellence.

    As for not responding to my comments here, there’s really no need. You don’t yet know enough to make any kind of a credible rebuttal and are happily self-satisfied to remain that way. Karl has already demonstrated such sloppy and superficial knowledge in his hurried attempt to criticize Meier that I can guarantee he’ll not want to engage me. Really, didn’t he understand that his issue wasn’t with Meier but with the scientific, photographic and film experts who long ago already proved him wrong? Did either of you even bother to read the Photo Analysis…why not? And just how much trouble would it have been to learn the truth about the Akset & Nera controversy (http://www.theyfly.com/Asket_&_Nera.htm)?

    The very misplaced haughtiness is yours. While there are some good intelligent skeptics, like Tom Quinn, who was great to interview, even he got in waaaaay over his head when he tried to take on the Meier case (http://theyfly.com/Dialogue_with_a_Skeptic.htm). Do we even need to mention the hapless Derek Bartholomaus, who now finds himself helping to counter his own claims against the Meier case…again?

    However, if you ever want to deign to “teach me a thing or two”, I’d be delighted to accommodate you, though the consequences would be quite humiliating for you. I’d actually suggest that you protect yourself from that growth opportunity until you’re sure your still developing ego could handle it. Just so you know, a real man would make sure that when he went on the air to call someone names, that he had the courage to do so with his target present. You are clearly not yet that man.

    One day, when your youthful smugness has been sufficiently abraded by real life experiences outside of whatever particular shelters you prefer to inhabit, your own role in the Church of Skeptology as a suppressor of a modern day Galileo may penetrate your consciousness and leave a gaping hole in your confidence, through which the painful realization of your biggest missed opportunity will glaringly present itself.

    Of course for that you’ll have had to add two more letters after your name, G.U. – which stands for Grown Up.

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 21, 2011 @ 7:02 am | Reply

  3. Stuart , I don’t know you , and I’m sure your’e an intelligent man . Whatever your investment on scepticism of the Meier case is , I would ask that you at least give the possibilty to be a cut above the typical pass-along-the-sceptic-baton attitude and try to understand what it is you are missing in Meier’s material that makes your focus on him (in a negative way) , a mistake . You are simply missing the cutting edge of human understanding and spiritual clarity . Wait , did I sense the “garbage can lid” negation raise it’s ugly head ? precicely my point ; when human beings can raise their view mentally as well as all things psyche and physe related , will they all keep their mind in the garbage ? I sincerely hope not .

    This is not about Michael , or any running argument . There is always something to learn , and , yes , if you give it a chance you will see that the future of mankind relies on someone stepping up to the plate and simply stating ” If you all would stop bickering , there are true issues at hand , please see to it that you don’t miss out when the neccesary parts are being handed out ” .

    Thanks for your time , Mark Campbell , Austin, Texas

    Comment by Mark Campbell — August 21, 2011 @ 9:39 pm | Reply

  4. Stuart,

    I am finding it hard to understand your justification for your prejudice toward Michael Horn and even more so Billy Meier. I would make this into a question but you clearly state you will not replying to comments on here, which I find a bit cowardice. But another question which should be asked is what has Michael Horn or Billy Meier done to you to make you feel prejudice towards them? Have you met any of the two and had a argument or a such like?

    I cannot see any rhyme or reason to justify your articles attacking Michael Horn and Billy Meier. Are you trying to be a know it all or searching for your hours worth of fame?

    I truly hope you work out your thoughts and feelings and move away from your prejudices.

    Happy Days

    Comment by Stephen Moore — August 21, 2011 @ 11:22 pm | Reply

    • Stephen, I said I would not be replying to Michael Horn in the comments. As it seems as though you have not visited my blog before, or at least not commented before, I will very quickly re-hash: I have addressed a very specific claim – as I do on my blog – that Michael put forth that he claimed shows Meier’s power of prophecy or fore-knowledge of a subject. I then made a second post on the subject where I combed through the Meier material on the prediction and showed that it was pure retrodiction — the claimed evidence was not there to support Michael’s claim. Then I made yet a third post that addressed that specific claim as well as a the scientific process a bit more broadly, specifically what falsification means in science.

      There was no prejudice, I took a magnifying glass to that specific claim and looked for evidence that was not there.

      In addition, in all of my posts on this blog on the subject of Billy Meier and Michael Horn, I have remained fairly kind and courteous in my discussion of the claims themselves and the people involved. The same cannot be said for Mr. Horn. He seems to take a delight in ridiculing those who argue with him and making unveiled insults towards their motives, intelligence, conduct, and other things. If you are actually interested in logic, reason, evidence, and want to see for yourself, I invite you to read through the posts I linked to above and to read through the comments, specifically Michael’s. You will clearly see who is the prejudiced person and who is actually on the attack. Not replying to Mr. Horn anymore is also not cowardice, it is a reflection of my fatigue with his Gish Gallop and his method of arguing.

      I’ll also state, yet again, that Michael has refused to actually provide the evidence to refute my analysis of and the conclusion that the “prediction” of Apophis was a retrodiction. If he can supply further evidence for that claim that was not contained in my detailed analysis of it then I will of course look at it. So far, for over a year and a half, he has kept deflecting that question and keeps wanting me to look at other cases within the Meier library. That’s not how this game is played.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — August 21, 2011 @ 11:42 pm | Reply

  5. I am glad to see that Stuart responded here and also glad, quite honestly, that he brought up the Red Meteor/Apophis issue as unanswered by me. I’ll get to that but I also noticed that he said that I had been rude, harsh, insulting, etc. So let me address that first.

    Quite simply, I apologize for any and all unnecessary, gratuitous, inaccurate, etc. attacks. I’m sure that we both have been equally frustrated with what we each perceive to be the other’s failings, etc. but it’s not right of me to go overboard and insult Stuart undeservedly. I think that we both may have well deserved criticisms of each other’s points of view, so let me see if I can address the issues more clearly and, hopefully, satisfactorily.

    How Stuart Set the Tone

    Now, so that it’s also clear that I do hold Stuart and others responsible for what they say, and for also setting the trend and tone of these conversations, I’ll quote Stuart here as well:

    “Meier made a name for himself in the UFO community by producing alleged UFO photographs and video that is very widely regarded as fake, even among many if not most UFO researchers.”

    So Stuart is using very unscientific, word of mouth, opinion, devoid of substantiation, without attribution to credible sources, etc. to set the tone and to defame Meier, someone he neither knows nor has investigated. It’s also based on already discredited, retracted, disproved claims and hearsay (http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/Top_Skeptic_Fixed.htm http://theyflyblog.com/saying-goodbye-to-the-skeptical-challenge/07/12/2011)

    Stuart obviously didn’t dig too far into the matter. Is there any doubt about that? I think I can also show that his arguments regarding retrodiction proceed from the same unsubstantiated bias, and defamation.

    On Citing David Biedney

    In his links referring to his arguments against both my and Meier’s lack of credibility, which he includes here, Stuart seems to base his position regarding Meier’s evidence on the “work” of David Biedney, supporting Biedney’s conclusion that Meier faked a photo and therefore the whole matter was nonsense, or worse. So, in Biedney’s case he took his status as a supposedly objective, unbiased “expert” to be sufficient to endorse the “one hoaxed photo = all hoaxed photos” premise and conclusion as applied to Meier.

    The problems here are that Biedney wasn’t unbiased and objective, nor so “expert” that another PhotoShop “expert” on Biedney’s own forum didn’t disagree with him. As did a special effects expert I’ve known for 50 years…who’s a UFO skeptic. Quite simply, Stuart himself really didn’t establish Biedney’s as being the “be all and end all” as far as PHOTOGRAPHIC analysis experts go. (It was also mentioned that PhotoShop may not have been the best tool to determine what was going on with a photo from 1980, hence there were opinions and disagreements from various “experts”, as I recall. I don’t know PhotoShop, etc. well enough to comment.)

    And using Stuart’s own favorite logic about “if one photo is faked, etc.”, how come he hasn’t embraced, “If one ‘expert’ is discredited” in dismissing Biedney – who other experts disagreed with as being the ultimate word on what is and isn’t fake?

    By the way, if just one of Meier’s UFO photos is shown to be authentic, what happens to Biedney’s and Stuart’s tidy little, dismissive position?

    Actual Expert Analysis of Meier’s Evidence

    Well, certainly Stuart now has the opportunity to consider and answer that question in light of the following evidence that shows that the expert analysis of Meier UFO photos authenticated them (http://www.theyfly.com/PDF/PhotoAnalysis.pdf). Isn’t it quite arrogant to disregard the expert analyses – without even offering credible, substantiated rebuttal showing it to be false – and to then just take a rather biased “expert’s” opinion, without any knowledge of the matter oneself?

    The Problem is that Stuart has not taken the same regard for the actual, credentialed and credible SCIENTIFIC experts who have EXAMINED and ENORSED Meier’s authenticity, such as David Froning and others (http://www.theyfly.com/Scientific_Experts.html) or James Deardorff (www.tjresearch.info), who is certainly Stuart’s scientific superior and who has actually done a huge amount of research into the Meier evidence. (Deardorff even disagrees with elements in it but clearly explains why he supports its authenticity.) So this bit of cherry picking on Stuart’s part requires his addressing it.

    The Eyewitnesses

    Since Stuart has taken the word of someone with an ax to grind (look Biedney up on the internet!) – who is contradicted by experts in his own field – why hasn’t he looked into the massively abundant witness testimony, from credible people (http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/The_Witnesses), as James Deardorff has already suggested to him? And let’s preempt any nonsense about eyewitness testimony not being valid. That can certainly be the case but it usually applies to one-time events, to people being not well prepared and who are later trying to recall their observations, etc.

    In the cases of the many dozens of eyewitnesses – who are, after all, attesting to Meier’s honesty and truthfulness, when you get down to it, and which will be relevant when we discuss Apophis again – we’re talking about many people who were witnesses to multiple events, many who witnessed these things with each other and events that were often quite more than just fleeting; some occurred over the span of a number of years. There were also several OTHER photographers of the UFOs…including a Swiss skeptic (http://www.theyfly.com/Swiss%20Skeptic%20Photographs.htm).

    Are ALL these people – including the Swiss skeptic, including Derek Bartholmaus who RETRACTED his claims about Meier using models, etc, (a form of LYING, no?) – are ALL of these people in collusion with Billy Meier. Am I in collusion with a “liar”?

    An Easy Answer

    If Stuart or anyone else wants to take issue with these reports (and even the 17 or so witnesses who also passed lie detector tests) then by all means the first thing you should do is throw out ALL history books, as they are at best (and certainly not even always) eyewitness accounts. Let’s go a step further, there are court cases today with photographs, films and videos that juries disagree about and, contrary to the “obvious”, absolutely disregard in either convicting or acquitting people.

    Even SCIENTISTS disagree with each other. And dare I mention that the truth about most life experiences is NOT discovered within the confines of a nice little laboratory setting?

    If Stuart really wants to approach this scientifically, he should know that the man himself, and most of the witnesses – are still alive and well in Switzerland, where the contacts are said to be still ongoing. Go investigate it for yourself. What more could a real scientist want? This is something uniquely unavailable as far as visiting with the human beings at the center of historical events that we take for granted to be accurate and true. Go investigate it for yourself. What more could a real scientist want?

    Life is messy, Stuart. The truth is often to be found through not just (if ever or only) some nice, neat, undebatable, handy piece of evidence. And referring to what happens in courts of law, it can indeed be the case that the PREPONDERANCE of evidence, the preponderance of voluminous, convincingly CONSISTENT, NON SELF-CONTRADICTORY evidence, would prevail, even over opposing one so-called “expert” witness testimony.

    Honestly, anyone accused of a “crime” should only be so lucky as to have a comparable body of substantiating evidence, proof, eyewitness testimony and documented, preemptively published corroborating information to support their innocence!

    The Torino Scale and Meteor/Asteroid Issues

    Now, my own enthusiasm for the Austrian physicist’s interpreting a possible connection to the Torino scale – which certainly does take into account the possibility that ALL bases were being covered by a more advanced race of HUMAN beings, with all that that implies – or fine points as the definitions of meteor/asteroid, are both irrelevant to the issue, i.e. did Meier retrodict this information?

    The Real Issue: Is Meier Lying?

    Stuart will also have to take responsibility for accusing Meier of “retrodiction”. In plain language, he’s accusing him of lying, nothing less. The idea that a person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise must not be overlooked. Okay, what actual evidence does he have? None. He concludes that basically because of what Meier DIDN’T say then, i.e. the whole matter wasn’t put on the proverbial silver platter for us, that he’s a liar and a cheat. Stuart himself said, “I have demonstrably shown with the available evidence that the claim that Meier predicted Apophis is false.” No, he has called it into question but, as I hope all that has preceded has shown…all available, known information about Meier himself, and all corroborated, scientifically accurate information published by him, completely contradicts that aspersion.

    Meier’s character, honesty, integrity and credibility is demonstrably of the highest level. Again, THIS is what Stuart is attacking, from the beginning when he based it all on rumors and hearsay. In fact, BECAUSE of who Meier has shown himself to be as a human being, we can acquit him of Stuart’s defamatory accusation. Now, of course, would be the time for Stuart to bring forth the body of evidence substantiating his claims that Meier is a cheat and liar, the body of evidence that speaks to his CHARACTER being anything other than exemplary.

    Further, there is zero evidence that Meier himself sought to publicize or capitalize – in any way – on this or any other information; human beings do have motives of course.

    The Apophis Issue Itself

    Now, if you truly want to deal with the Apophis issue and its danger to Earth, as well as it indeed being what Meier warned about from the beginning, a HUGE amount of self-honesty is called for. I will suggest that, in the case of Stuart and the other skeptics, many of whom have falsely based and endorsed the unsubstantiated and, yes, defamatory charges against Meier, it is INCUMBENT upon THEM to do the due diligence required to draw credible conclusions. It really is a “put up or shut up” situation, and I don’t mean that in anything less than a matter of fact, straight up way.

    Of course, we may ask…just HOW IS it possible that this one man, indeed one-armed man, without accomplices or resources, etc., has managed to not only present all of the still irreproducible, authenticated physical evidence AND this immense body of prophetically accurate scientific information.

    We Saved You a Lot of Trouble, Now It’s Up to You

    Having mentioned doing the real due diligence, the good news is that so much of it has been, and continues to be, done for you. Of course, you can always check both Meier’s material and the claimed corroborative information to see if the connection is as we perceive it to be.

    Coincidentally perhaps, today’s press release presents yet another example of the ongoing corroboration of Meier’s information, even while we debate this:

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/8/prweb8735441.htm

    I would suggest that the argument not be made that “some scientists” disagree with this”, as we all know that some scientists always disagree with some things, which actually contributes to false science being ultimately corrected. There’s simply too much corroborated Meier information that’s solidly credible.

    So what we have come down to is a pivotal moment, one in which the skeptics can either try to assert their unsubstantiated claims that Meier’s a cheat and a liar, etc., or take what I will call the “JUST LOOK INTO THE TELESCOPE, WILL YA?” moment, akin to the pleas form Galileo to the Church.

    My guess is that if the integrity on the part of the skeptics will match that of Meier’s…the REAL question will not be, “How can you prove that he was talking about Apophis in 1981?” It will be, “Now how do we all come together and act on this warning from a demonstrably credible – though damned unusual – source?”

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 22, 2011 @ 10:09 am | Reply

    • Despite your very lengthy replies, as usual, you have yet to provide additional evidence that shows he predicted Apophis. We went from a “red meteor” prediction in 1981 to, four years after Apophis was discovered, Meier linking the two together. There is no evidence of any tie before Apophis was discovered. You have yet to produce any evidence of this. You have yet again dodged the issue, and this is why I will not engage you and why I will not comment any more to your nor your supporters on this post.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — August 22, 2011 @ 10:30 am | Reply

      • o snap you weren’t kidding stuart that was about a ten page comment! haha michael horn you are way out there!

        Comment by walter walkie — August 23, 2011 @ 9:13 am

  6. Stuart has decided to back out…and WITHOUT apologizing for his inexcusable defamation of Meier. Okay, I gave a “lengthy reply” because I actually…think these things through.

    Stuart is still too inexperienced in the real world to apparently understand its complexities.

    From his interview with Karl:

    38:37 Stuart Robbins: “In this case it’s Billy Meier’s ramblings and it’s of course in a different language and so when we can take liberties when adapting it to English which Michael Horn, er, speaks English and so you have these vague writings that are translated and then you can pretty much pull out from them what you want to fit the latest ideas.”

    Now, if there’s anything scientific – let alone accurate there – it escapes me. What liberties did I take as an English speaker? And really, why do you claim that Meier “rambles”, what does a “different language” have to do with anything, please tell us how his writings are in any way “vague”…unless of course you are completely unfamiliar with them. What you don’t like is that you’d actually have to figure out and deduce somethings…rather than be “right” in your prejudice.

    What really does your dissatisfaction with my answer have to do with Meier’s accuracy?

    The reason you won’t comment further is because you aren’t equipped to and, rather than admit it, and your own ethical errors, you want to take your marbles and go home.

    Again, that’s okay, you’re not the first skeptic to fold.

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 22, 2011 @ 11:50 am | Reply

  7. I feel badly, after rereading my own post I can understand why a skeptic would have trouble with it. So, here’s the abbreviated version, table of contents, whatever (since other not so deeply thinking skeptics may also read this):

    How Stuart Set the Tone
    Addressed defamation introduced and maintained by Stuart

    On Citing David Biedney
    Addressed Stuart’s introducing Biedney issue, relying on DB as an “expert”

    Actual Expert Analysis of Meier’s Evidence
    Referenced expert scientific analysis of Meier photos, introduced other experts

    The Eyewitnesses
    Referenced eyewitness testimony, other photographers; goes to character, truthfulness, etc.

    An Easy Answer
    Offered logical, easy means of personally investigating and assessing information, witnesses, locations, etc.

    The Torino Scale and Meteor/Asteroid Issues
    Pointed out these were not the real issue under discussion

    The Real Issue: Is Meier Lying?
    Pointed out real issue is defamation of Meier

    The Apophis Issue Itself
    Referencing known character of Meier, voluminous evidence of his accuracy, put responsibility on Stuart and skeptics to make an objective, encompassing assessment

    The Apophis Issue Itself
    Reiterated obvious means to objectively, impersonally determine the truth, introduced latest evidence

    Suggestions: Get out of the hallowed halls and into the real world; observe how your insults and defamation set the tone, which you found uncomfortable when directed at you, funny how that goes…do some real research before you jump to conclusions – or defame someone

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 22, 2011 @ 1:14 pm | Reply

  8. It case you never work it out Michael, you and Stuart are both lousy scientists.

    Comment by Mick — August 22, 2011 @ 3:06 pm | Reply

  9. Well, if nothing else, a one-liner IS refreshing.

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 22, 2011 @ 4:24 pm | Reply

  10. Mick, please feel free to give some scientifically sound responses, if you would.

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 23, 2011 @ 6:43 am | Reply

    • Would it really do any good? I wondered why anyone would follow someoneas crazy as Meier, but now I see you are as deluded as he

      Comment by mikekoz68 — August 23, 2011 @ 8:26 am | Reply

  11. Michael. Stuart is not ‘dodging the issue’ or a ‘folding skeptic’ I have seen many and strangely heard ufo’s. but I cannot offer any proof of those experiences and so they remain unscientific. I have read your often quoted ‘thefly’ website many times and can find no scientific proof for any of the claims (buildings cause earthquakes? Ehh!). You can obviously write a lot but you don’t seem to get the idea that personal experience is not proof, you just really really wish people would believe it. What use is that? A lot of people believe a lot of things with no proof that turn out to be rubbish. This is NOT science. If you have any PROOF then please wite it (in a few words please) if you have no proof then join the rest of us, it’s frustrating but at least it’s science.

    Comment by Mick — August 23, 2011 @ 8:27 am | Reply

  12. And no, it doesn’t matter if you can convince 99+% of people…… it’s still not science ehy Stuart.

    Comment by Mick — August 23, 2011 @ 8:30 am | Reply

  13. Thanks man! That was awesome to hear you again on Karl’s podcast! I will have to check out your podcast as well. This is what I posted on my facebook about it:

    In the last month or so I have had two real life humans tell me in real life (not online) they don’t like nasa because it is too secretive . one of these people was younger and an idiot (i think) and the other was older and pretty smart (i …think) . as a person who loves space exploration and is fascinated by discoveries being made everyday (messenger and dawn right now) i get pissed off if people don’t pay attention to what is really happening and at the same time claim to be interested in outer space . No wonder science programs and space exploration programs get low funding or cut if people think they are hiding evidence of aliens and the end of the world and stuff

    I’m in denver so I might be able to make it down to the springs for the skepticamp! Cheers ^ keep on reaching!

    Comment by walter walkie — August 23, 2011 @ 9:17 am | Reply

    • Thanks, WW. Hope to see you at Skepticamp.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — August 23, 2011 @ 9:41 am | Reply

      • aw i can’t go to skepticamp this weekend . bummer . maybe next time it will work out keep me posted ^^

        Comment by walter walkie — August 24, 2011 @ 2:48 pm

  14. Dr. Richard Kimble’s wife was killed by a one-armed man. Need I say more?

    Also, nice show Stuart. It’s always a pleasure to hear you and Karl on the CS podcast.

    Comment by Moewicus — August 23, 2011 @ 9:37 am | Reply

    • Thanks, Moewicus.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — August 23, 2011 @ 9:40 am | Reply

  15. haha i was thinking of Twin Peaks ^^ . anyway one more comment about michael horn / hoagland madness : if you don’t understand what you are looking at that does not mean there is a conspiracy, accepted history and the laws of science are all worng, or whatever you make up as an explanation is valid . for example if someone showed you a math problem and you don’t know how or why they took each step they did on the way to the solution , it is not a conspiracy – you just don’t understand the math , astronomy and planetary science works the same way , extraordinary claims – extraordinary evidence

    Comment by walter walkie — August 23, 2011 @ 9:51 am | Reply

  16. Well it’s actually reassuring to know that Stuart has a few other folks out there who support his efforts. The problem here – and with the skeptics in general – is their stubborn reluctance to lay their prejudices aside, without sacrificing critical thinking.

    So, before again pointing to where the documentation can be found, let me again point out that scientists whose expertise exceeds that of novices such as Stuart by many, many magnitude have already authenticated Meier’s evidence.

    And our esteemed scientists at NASA, JPL, Cornell University, etc. have already corroborated Meier’s preemptively published scientific information. You know, those “new discoveries” that are already in copyrighted, published books and documents by Meier, some more than 30 years BEFORE said discoveries.

    Now, scroll back up to where I, reluctantly, posted a few links to just SOME of the documentation. Of course there’s more. I also suggest not falling into the obviously stupid trap of trying to attack the scientists and facilities that tested and authenticated Meier’s evidence. It’s rather poor taste…unless of course you happen to be contemporaries/equals of the people involved and can document your own objections to their conclusions with credible, substantiated evidence.

    Okay, many of you have already indicated that reading any information rich, easily substantiated responses from me is beyond your pay grade or educational level. But, if you really do want more specifics, your request for it here will be obliged, of course.

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 23, 2011 @ 10:23 am | Reply

    • stuart might not be a veteran scientist but I like how he is making an effort to publicize exciting space science and relay information to the public which is something I think most scientists aren’t as good at . also on this issue he has almost all of the established veteran scientific field behind him (which is one reason they awarded him his degree ^ congratz^) . it is only when you get to the non-scientific public that any significant portion of people say they believe billy mier / hoagland crap . I’m glad to see an effort to clear up confusion on psuedo science which is exactly what you are talking about michael horn . you just said the same thing again michael horn! , Stuart was being very generous to address one of your crazy ideas in a sober thoughtful way , I can totally see that it would be a waste of time for him to continue responding to your other magical ideas . i blame michael horn and other pied piper’s like him for the sorry state of scientific understanding among our general population and especially our kids . when you run into junk like michael horn is spreading let people know it is wrong and the truth of what is going on is so much more interesting and exciting ^

      Comment by walter walkie — August 23, 2011 @ 11:24 am | Reply

  17. I see, very nice Walter. And tell me how you think of the quality of Stuart’s “scientific” thinking here:

    38:37 Stuart Robbins: “In this case it’s Billy Meier’s ramblings and it’s of course in a different language and so when we can take liberties when adapting it to English which Michael Horn, er, speaks English and so you have these vague writings that are translated and then you can pretty much pull out from them what you want to fit the latest ideas.”

    …let’s say when we compare it to what a defense industry scientist (with a top secret security clearance) like David Froning said about Meier:

    “My colleagues and I may have made breakthroughs in our understanding of possibilities and ways for traveling faster than light from Billy Meier’s accounts of his encounters with the Plejarens.” He also said, “If what this Meier is saying is just a hoax, he’s being cued by some very knowledgeable scientists. I’ve only discussed this Meier case with scientists who are fairly open-minded about interstellar flight, but I’ll tell you, the majority of them think it’s credible and agree at least part, or sometimes all, of the things talked about by the Pleiadians.”

    Stay focused, Walt, don’t ramble on there like Stu, just tell us why someone of Froning’s stature wouldn’t be taken seriously over someone with, well, no real stature yet. Is he just “spreading junk”?

    Take your time.

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 23, 2011 @ 1:11 pm | Reply

  18. Walter,

    While you try to figure out how to make more unsubstantiated and defamatory comments against very nicely, highly credentialed people, let’s add this fellow to the mix, none other than…

    Dr. Michael Malin: Principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera on NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft at Malin Space Science Systems (MSSS), San Diego, CA. Analyzed Meier’s photographs in 1981: “I find the photographs themselves credible, they’re good photographs. They appear to represent a real phenomenon. The story that some farmer in Switzerland is on a first name basis with dozens of aliens who come to visit him … I find that incredible. But I find the photographs more credible. They’re reasonable evidence of something. What that something is I don’t know.”Malin also said, “If the photographs are hoaxes then I am intrigued by the quality of the hoax. How did he do it? I’m always interested in seeing a master at work.”

    …and, contrary to any assertions from skeptics, Mailn signed off on this quote before the book was published.

    Go read the rest yourself and get educated: http://theyfly.com/Scientific_Experts.html

    Neither Stuart, you, nor any of the other skeptics have the credentials of the people who authenticated Meier’s evidence.

    Have a nice day.

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 23, 2011 @ 4:58 pm | Reply

  19. ok the reason someone with Froning’s stature isn’t taken seriously when he says crazy stuff that he heard from billy is because of science . it is the same reason a rookie on the scene starting out with not much stature can be taken very seriously

    people who think critically about the cosmos on thier own find information stuart conveys is more entertaining, important, and useful in thier efforts to learn

    i don’t care if a well respected scientist, the president of the united states, a professor, someone on TV, my boss at work, a friend, my dad, my girlfriend, or some god tells me that billy really met the Plejarens . I will always logically consider the information presented and make and open minded, best effort attempt to determine the quality of the information . I will decide on my own if what I’m being told is entertaining and useful

    i think we created science in an effort to break our reliance on prophets , Plejarens, or other types of authority and it has empowered us . the eveidence is everywhere

    Comment by Walter Walkie — August 23, 2011 @ 5:11 pm | Reply

  20. haha you posted again while i responded to your last post and all I have to say is ditto ^^ . that is laser like focus ! ZING!

    Comment by Walter Walkie — August 23, 2011 @ 5:13 pm | Reply

  21. Right, Stuart’s supporters actually do try to reduce people like Froning, Malin and anyone else who actually took the time to practice their science, i.e. were objective and evaluated the evidence, and fairly concluded that it was authentic.

    Really, what can one say to such arrogance and ignorance? Well, if Stuart has any integrity, HE will be the one to redress such nonsense…despite any blows to his own ego in doing so. These are your fellows, Stuart, indeed, they are your vastly far more accomplished, recognized superiors.

    The problem is that Stuart, in his youthful enthusiasm, decided to take on the easy targets of the New Age, psychics, astrologers, etc. Oh boy, won’t it be fun to knock them around! But not so much fun when he tries to be dismissive of the that pesky ol’ Meier case, with its EXPERT supporters, 26,000+ pages of info and stunning physical evidence, photo, sound and metal analysis, dozens of eyewitnesses, etc.

    So, since he and his friends are truly ignorant of the massive content – and expert endorsements – we get a bunch of bumbling, mumbling and stuff that is – unfortunately for Stuart – forming the early part of whatever legacy as a “scientist” he would like to build.

    Oh yes, a man of integrity apologizes for his unfairly defaming someone. Stuart, is there something you’d like to say to Mr. Meier?

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 23, 2011 @ 6:18 pm | Reply

  22. jesus what is the opposite of a laser like focus?

    Comment by Walter Walkie — August 23, 2011 @ 6:23 pm | Reply

  23. i think you are trying ten times harder and being ten times less effective at defamation ^ haha

    Comment by Walter Walkie — August 23, 2011 @ 6:25 pm | Reply

  24. Dear Mr (so far, pseudo-wanna-be scientist) Walter: – “…. Froning’s stature isn’t taken seriously when he says crazy stuff that he heard from billy is because of science”

    Where is the ‘science’ in that statement? I see only assumption and presumption, aka belief; not science deduced through logic from facts. To wit your belief that Billy says ‘crazy stuff’, therefore Froning’s (hard won/earned) ‘stature’ is not to be taken seriously.

    Not only have you woven the [unproven] belief/assumption/presumption that Billy says crazy stuff, therefore Froning’s ‘stature’ isn’t to be taken seriously; but this also presumes you have some sort of deserved stature that should be taken seriously. There is a whole lot of not-science/anti-science in your assumptions/presumptions/beliefs/biases.

    From Horn’s above [Froning] quote –
    “My colleagues and I may have made breakthroughs in our understanding of possibilities and ways for traveling faster than light from Billy Meier’s accounts of his encounters with the Plejarens.” He also said, “If what this Meier is saying is just a hoax, he’s being cued by some very knowledgeable scientists. I’ve only discussed this Meier case with scientists who are fairly open-minded about interstellar flight, but I’ll tell you, the majority of them think it’s credible and agree at least part, or sometimes all, of the things talked about by the Pleiadians.”

    Since you imply you are all about ‘science’, therefore fact based logical conclusions; have you examined Fronings breakthroughs for traveling faster than light, based on Meier’s accounts/words and therefore have come to the conclusion that Froning says crazy stuff because BIlly says crazy stuff?

    Prove your case through science/logic, not belief/assumption/prejudice/anti-science, then maybe you will earn stature and one can take you seriously. Until then, you are no better than/equal to, and simply, for all intents and purposes, another religious zealot.

    In other words, cite examples of Billy saying ‘crazy stuff’ and Froning saying ‘crazy stuff’.

    Regards,
    Bruce

    Comment by Bruce — August 24, 2011 @ 2:32 am | Reply

  25. Walter,

    Following up on Bruce’s clear, concise challenge to you, since you are interested in science, space, etc., perhaps you’ll actually take a very good, deep look at Meier’s information to see that it is anything but “crazy stuff”.

    I first noticed his scientific information being corroborated in 1988, pertaining to the connection between A-bomb testing/explosions and the ozone damage, which he first published in 1975. I noted more corroborations I was finding, in the 1990s, and began to compile a list that I ultimately posted (http://theyfly.com/prophecies/prophecies.htm) in about 2002. There may be one or two inaccuracies but I’ve left it as I put it up at that time. I still have the published books containing much of this information; obviously no “retrodiction” is possible.

    If you move on to the Henoch Prophecies below that, you’ll find many things that are now more apparent, some glaringly so. Meier was given that information in…1987, so things like the rise of Islamic radicalism, the conflicts between and involving certain countries, the emphasis on the coming dangers from computerized weapons, the at that time laughable idea that the U.S. would have two MORE civil wars…are not so laughable now.

    You’ll also notice that it says that Russia will launch future attacks from Arkhangelsk. I’d never heard of that place before, had you? Well, is Russia’s recently announced troop movement there just another lucky guess or coincidence (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/7/prweb8666756.htm)?

    You’ll find a huge amount of additional corroboration for Meier’s information in this compilation: http://theyfly.com/WILL_HUMANITY_WAKE_UP.html

    We’ve put out a couple dozen press releases pointing to some of Meier’s more glaringly obvious and important information here:

    http://theyfly.com/Press_Releases.html

    Additional prophecies and predictions can be found here:

    http://theyfly.com/Prophecies_Predictions.html

    I find the 5,100 Year-Old Iceman information (http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/5100_year_old_man.htm) to be rather astounding.

    If you want to see how well a very bright skeptic does when trying to thrash the Meier case, you’ll find that lengthy piece here: http://theyfly.com/Dialogue_with_a_Skeptic.htm

    Clearly, it would be easy to obnoxiously overwhelm any blog with links and references of substantial and substantiated material. And, if you’re a contemplative person, you may wonder why Meier himself
    never publicized all of this and left it to others to investigate and inform about.

    Perhaps you may also understand that should this be authentic, the hardest part of the entire matter has been cutting through the rigidity and resistance of people who – to a person – never actually researched the matter. Not ONE has availed themselves of the opportunity to visit the location, the principals, witnesses and original documentation. At best they cherry picked something they thought was an inconsistency or inaccuracy and justified their entire uninformed rejection of the information on that alone…despite the fact that they themselves may have been wrong. Stuart has based his own defamation of Meier on such unfounded assumptions.

    So, if you can muster the same laser like focus that I’ve been maintaining for over 32 years, and you can set aside your pre-judgments and prejudices, a simple, methodical scientific approach will serve to better inform you about this matter.

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 24, 2011 @ 6:24 am | Reply

  26. i went to wikipedia and read a couple paragraphs about billy to remind me who he was . i stopped reading after the part that said he had pictures from science fiction movies in his archive of thousands of ufo photos and his explanation was secret government agents put them in there in an attempt to discredit him . i therefore claim these special government agents messing with me privilages in any argument on this issue . i just posted a detailed thorough analysis of both billy and froning with citations but the secret gorvernment agents took it down from the website . i think they are trying to stop me from stopping billy’s crazy talk but I will never stop fighting to stop that from happening

    Comment by walter walkie — August 24, 2011 @ 7:30 am | Reply

  27. Okay, so you’re a clown and Wikipedia is your bible.

    Nonetheless, as unlikely as it certainly appears to be, should intelligent, objective, scientifically minded individuals somehow happen upon this site, ample documentation has been provided.

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 24, 2011 @ 7:39 am | Reply

  28. yes ^ i was also thinking there are already enough cited examples of crazy billy talk on this page . there is ample documentation , it has been provided , yes i agree ^ haha

    Comment by walter walkie — August 24, 2011 @ 7:58 am | Reply

  29. a friendly suggestion to bruce and michael horn : if you really care about people believing billy met the Plajerians you should go change the wikipedia page . or did you try that already ? hehe . those damn secret government agents !

    Comment by walter walkie — August 24, 2011 @ 8:13 am | Reply

  30. Horn’s a joke. Check out this video:

    How delusional can one person be?

    Comment by Chew Bird — August 24, 2011 @ 6:40 pm | Reply

    • Ha! I love the “teleportation” of that spaceship at 2:27. The aliens have the technology to shift between dimensions, and make any camera filming the event look exactly like it has been stopped and started again!

      Comment by Moewicus — August 24, 2011 @ 8:00 pm | Reply

  31. I clicked on one of Michael Horn’s links and followed it to this article to look into the claims on Meier’s behalf some more:

    http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/Top_Skeptic_Fixed.htm

    As something of a photographer, I found some claims within easy reach. In the first set of UFO photos, the clearest photo (the one on the left) shows the most evidence of fakery. The comparison with the tree in the background it affords means that these alien spaceships, if spaceships they be, are roughly the size of a hubcap. You can even see a hint of a string on the top of the saucer, pointing straight out of the frame.

    The photo of Alena holding a “laser weapon” is hilarious. The suit certainly looks like a thermal blanket-type material and a toy gun. The gun even has an orange tip. Hey, maybe it really is an alien with a laser gun, but the evidence presented is consistent with an earthling holding a toy in clothes made of materials available to earthlings. By the rules of evidence, I must privilege those explanations for which there is already ample precedent (toys, thermal blankets, humans) over those explanations which are in severe doubt (extraterrestrial visitation, hand-held laser weapons).

    Horn makes two claims about the “Quetzal” photograph which I’ll focus on:

    1. The lack of blurring in Meier’s photo shows that Meier was holding his hand still.

    2. The Olympus 35-ECR can’t take long exposures because there are no manual exposure controls.

    To support 1, Horn compares Meier’s photo with that of Bartholomaus, noting that in Bartholomaus’ picture, Derek’s hand is blurred. However, you will notice that some parts of the blur trail of Derek’s hand are clearer than others. Furthermore, Derek’s camera is situated at an angle relative to his arm’s plane of motion. Motion blurring would not be so obvious if the camera’s line of sight was parallel to the arm’s plane of motion, however, and a good distance away at that. However, even if we assume Meier’s hand is moving in a circle in the photograph, it is still quite possible that the bright light of the burning steel wool would wash out blurry areas.

    Claim 2, however, is absurd on its face. Any photographer can tell that a camera that somehow only had a narrow range of fast shutter speeds–especially in the days of film, when the sensitivity of the medium could not be adjusted without changing the film–would not be very useful at all. A quick search on the Olympus 35-ECR showed why: the camera’s light meter set the exposure, not the user. This site lists the camera’s range of available shutter speeds as 4 seconds to 1/800th of a second: http://35mm-compact.com/compact/olympus35ecr.htm
    The camera would automatically choose a long exposure time because of the dark conditions.

    The scenario given as an explanation of the picture is also hilarious. Apparently an alien set his spaceship to hover over a parking lot while Billy Meier stood under it and the alien took a picture to commemorate the event. This alien, Quetzal, was apparently much more cooperative than Alena in allowing Meier to prove its existence–Alena’s face isn’t even in the frame in her picture. Reading this made me notice something I hadn’t noticed before: the “burning static energy” is lopsided. Not only is it lopsided, but the angle of Meier’s hand is similar to the angle between the lowest horizontal light streaks and the highest light streaks on the left side of the picture. What sort of spaceship lets its engines (if that’s what they are) point more one way than another when it’s just hovering in place? The evidence can be parsimoniously explained as Meier swinging a burning piece of steel wool on the end of a string.

    This isn’t even clever fakery, this is just using crazy explanations of blurry pictures to draw in the credulous. Maybe Meier has some more cleverly designed stuff, but I’m not interested in looking at it unless Mr. Horn can provide one example of an unambiguous and successful prediction made by Meier which Meier can only have made by having access to special knowledge unavailable to other earthlings.

    Comment by Moewicus — August 24, 2011 @ 7:42 pm | Reply

  32. Thanks for your inquiries, I’ll be glad to post the information you requested (a little more than one example) and please note that, with just a few exceptions, I give the titles of the articles and press releases, all of which are either at http://www.theyfly.com or http://www.theyflyblog.com.

    MEIER’S UFO PHOTOS

    Regarding erroneous claims about Meier’s UFO photos being hoaxed:

    http://theyfly.com/PDF/PhotoAnalysis.pdf

    Additional comments from experts who actually DID examine Meier’s photographic evidence:

    Eric Eliason: U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona, created image-processing software so astrogeologists can analyze photographs of planets beamed back from space, spent two years producing the intricate radar map of cloud-covered Venus acquired by Pioneer 10: “In the photographs there were no sharp breaks where you could see it had been somehow artificially dubbed. And if that dubbing was registered in the film, the computer would have seen it. We didn’t see anything.”
    Robert Post: JPL photo laboratory for 22 years, was the head of that lab in 1979, and oversaw the developing and printing of every photograph that came out of JPL at the time: “From a photography standpoint, you couldn’t see anything that was fake about the Meier photos. That’s what struck me. They looked like legitimate photographs. I thought, ‘God, if this is real, this is going to be really something.”

    Dr. Michael Malin: Principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera on NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft at Malin Space Science Systems (MSSS), San Diego, CA. Analyzed Meier’s photographs in 1981: “I find the photographs themselves credible, they’re good photographs. They appear to represent a real phenomenon. The story that some farmer in Switzerland is on a first name basis with dozens of aliens who come to visit him … I find that incredible. But I find the photographs more credible. They’re reasonable evidence of something. What that something is I don’t know.” Malin also said, “If the photographs are hoaxes then I am intrigued by the quality of the hoax. How did he do it? I’m always interested in seeing a master at work.”

    Wally Gentleman: Director of Special Effects on the Canadian Film Board for ten years, director of special photographic effects for Stanley Kubrick’s film 2001, had viewed Meier’s 8mm film segments of the UFO’s. Showed that the manpower and costs to fake the films were clearly beyond Meier’s reach: “My greatest problem is that for anybody faking this” (referring to one of the photographs) “the shadow that is thrown onto that tree is correct. Therefore, if somebody is faking it they have an expert there. And being an expert myself, I know that that expert knowledge is very hard to come by. So I say, ‘Well, is that expert knowledge there or isn’t it there?’ Because if the expert knowledge isn’t there, this has got to be real.”

    Nippon TV: Did their own examination and also came to the conclusion that there were no models, special effects or hoaxing involved in Meier’s films.

    Further information regarding an infrared technique employed by Marcel Vogel to analyze Meier’s photographs is contained in:

    http://theyfly.com/products/products.htm#supplemental

    SKEPTICAL CLAIMS OF “HOAXING”

    Regarding skeptical claims of “hoaxed photos, strings, etc.:

    Saying Goodbye to the Skeptical Challenge

    Korff’s Deception

    SOUND RECORDINGS

    Regarding analysis of Meier’s sound recordings from four different outdoor events, with up to 15 witnesses, including a plainclothes, undercover policeman:

    http://theyfly.com/PDF/UFOSoundRecordings.pdf

    …and:

    Stephen Ambrose: Sound engineer for Stevie Wonder, inventor of the Micro Monitor radio set and speaker that fits inside Wonder’s ear, analyzed the Meier sound recordings of one of the UFO’s as it hovered above him. Not only was he unable to duplicate the sounds with synthesizers, he found they created totally unique patterns on a spectrum analyzer and on the oscilloscope. Another sound engineer named Nils Rognerud corroborated Ambrose’s findings. Think about this for just a moment, these experts, using state-of-the-art equipment, were unable to duplicate the sounds and the unique patterns they generated.

    METAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS

    Regarding expert analysis of metal samples (NOTE: Please don’t waste your time trying to assail the expertise, qualification and/or means of, and by which, Marcel Vogel conducted BOTH his electron scanning microscopic and X-ray diffraction and spectral analysis. Vogel was a multi-patent holding genius that IBM employed because of his demonstrable knowledge and abilities.):
    Marcel Vogel: Research chemist for IBM for twenty-two years, held thirty-two patents, and invented the magnetic disk coating memory system still used in IBM disk memories. A specialist in the conversion of energy inside crystals, Vogel probed crystalline structures with the most complete optical microscopic equipment available in the world – a system of scanning electron microscopes costing $250,000. Lieut. Col. Wendelle Stevens, USAF (Ret.): One of the original investigators in the Meier case. In 1979, he sent Vogel crystals and metal samples Meier had received from the Plejarens. Vogel reported, ”When I touched the oxide with a stainless steel probe, red streaks appeared and the oxide coating disappeared. I just touched the metal like that, and it started to deoxidize and become a pure metal. I have never seen a phenomenon like that before.” Of another metal sample containing nearly every element in the periodic table, Vogel stated, “Each pure element was bonded to each of the others, yet somehow retained its own identity.” X-ray diffraction and spectral analysis revealed both Thulium and Rhenium. “Thulium exists only in minute amounts. It is exceedingly expensive, far beyond platinum, and rare to come by. Someone would have to have an extensive metallurgical knowledge even to be aware of a composition of this type”, said Vogel. At 1600 X Vogel said, “A whole new world appears in the specimen. There are structures within structures – very unusual.” At 2500 X he found that the sample was, “metal, but at the same time … it is crystal!”

    Vogel put the full weight of his expertise in these summary comments: “With any technology that I know of, we could not achieve this on this planet! I could not put it together myself, as a scientist… And I think it is important that those of us who are in the scientific world sit down and do some serious study on these things instead of putting it off as people’s imagination.” Again, here is another top-level scientific specialist who is unable to duplicate the material presented to him by Meier.

    MILITARY DEFENSE ASTROPHYSICIST

    Of course we’ve already referred to David Froning’s comments:
    David Froning: At the time, Dr. Froning had already spent 25 years as an astronautical engineer at McDonnell Douglas in highly classified military defense and, in 1979, became interested in Meier’s accounts of Plejaren starship travel, which mentioned tachyon propulsion. Dr. Froning found Meier’s account of tachyon propulsion (which was only beginning to be discussed by a very small and select group of theoretical physicists), and his calculations for above light speed travel to be amazing. In 1983, he was pursuing his Quantum Interstellar Ramjet idea (JBIS vol. 33, no. 7, July 1980; AIAA 81-1533, July1981; IAF-85-492, October, 1985) and plugged in his Quantum Ramjet performance equations, assuming: a given starship density, vacuum energy conversion efficiency (in transforming positrons and electrons within the quantum vacuum into photons), and vacuum energy conversion scales of distance of the order of the Compton wavelength. The resulting vehicle acceleration enabled achievement of almost light speed in about 4.3 hours and deceleration from light speed in about 4.3 hours. Meier said that the elapsed time during the “hyperspace jump” took only several seconds. Thus, trip time between the Pleiades star cluster and Earth with Froning’s slower-than-light Quantum Ramjet Drive plus a hypothetical tachyon drive would be 8.6 hours, which was within 20% of the Plejaren trip time reported by Meier. But, while Froning’s calculations were based on many arbitrary assumptions, and in no way proved the truthfulness of Meier’s account (since it was a theoretical system he was working on, only time will tell as to which are correct) Froning was somewhat startled that his arbitrary flight time computations were within 20% of the flight time mentioned by Meier. Regarding the Meier material, Dr. Froning also publicly stated that, “My colleagues and I may have made breakthroughs in our understanding of possibilities and ways for traveling faster than light from Billy Meier’s accounts of his encounters with the Plejarens.” He also said, “If what this Meier is saying is just a hoax, he’s being cued by some very knowledgeable scientists. I’ve only discussed this Meier case with scientists who are fairly open-minded about interstellar flight, but I’ll tell you, the majority of them think it’s credible and agree at least part, or sometimes all, of the things talked about by the Pleiadians.”

    PROPHECIES & PREDICTIONS

    Regarding documentation of Meier’s prophetically accurate scientific information, warm up with these:

    NASA Discovery of Extraterrestrial DNA on Meteorites Confirms Billy Meier’s Information From 1988
    A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Mars

    Scientists’ ‘New Discovery’ About Moon’s Surface Already Published by UFO Contactee… in 1987!

    UFO Skeptics Throw in the Towel – How Did Meier Beat NASA by 32 Years?
    University of Arkansas Professor Confirming Meier’s Earthquake Warnings

    Meier Described 3-D Touch Screen Technology…in 1982

    Author Published World News Events Before They Occurred
    Neutrinos Have Mass: Meier Scooped Scientists AGAIN by 10 Years

    Stunning New Proof of Meier’s Prophetically Accurate Information!

    Scientists Again Echoing Meier’s Warnings…without Knowing It

    Regarding climate change, global warming, computers in every home interconnected electronically around the world, two U.S. wars with Iraq, AIDS, cell phones, financial collapse/bankruptcies of countries, Islamic terrorism, etc.:

    MANY INCONVENIENT TRUTHS: 1951

    TWO U.S. IRAQ WARS, AIDS, CELL PHONES, INTERNET: 1958

    …and a compilation of Meier’s specific, prophetically accurate climate and weather related information:
    UFOs, Extraterrestrials and…the Weather

    Regarding documented corroboration of Meier’s prophetically accurate information, most of which can be found in the dated, copyrighted published Message from the Pleaides, Vols. 1-4:

    • 7th Contact, February 25, 1975, and 35th Contact, September 16, 1975:
    Connection of A-bomb testing, explosions to ozone damage; high-frequency “elementary radiations” unknown to terrestrial scientists; damage to Earth’s rotation, magnetic disturbances, polar displacement; contribution of bromine gases to ozone damage; penetration of UV through holes, killing micro-organisms and leading to disruptions in food chain, genetic mutations and other long-term negative effects for humans and the planet.
    Corroborated: November 29, 1988, with report published by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories announced this “new discovery”: “Atom Bomb Testing Tied to Ozone Depletion”.
    Corroborated: 1991, when National Public Radio confirmed the connection between bromine gases and ozone layer damage.
    Corroborated: February 24, 1992, Los Angeles Times, “Ozone Hole Damages Food Chain”.

    • 29th Contact, July 7, 1975, and 31st Contact, July 17, 1975:
    Contact involved specific information about Venus, unknown at the time, including composition of atmospheric gases, surface temperatures, depth of clouds, wind speeds, atmospheric pressure, colouration, variation in terrain, etc.
    Corroborated: October 1975 and August 1976, confirmed by probes from the USSR and USA respectively.
    Corroborated: February 1981; USGS [US Geological Survey] was producing a topographical map of Venus which, as discovered by the investigative team, further confirmed the details Meier had published five years earlier.

    • 31st Contact, July 17, 1975:
    Semjase informed Meier that Mt Chimborazo, Ecuador, is the highest mountain on Earth (when measured from the center of the earth), contrary to Meier’s belief that it was Mt Everest. Corroborated: June 1996 in Earth magazine, 21 years later.

    • 45th Contact, February 25, 1976:
    Semjase (Meier’s extraterrestrial female contactor) warned him that our extraction of petroleum and natural gas from the Earth, the damming of waters and construction of huge cities are major factors contributing to increased earthquake/volcanic activity.
    Corroborated: June 27, 1990, in The Good Life newspaper (now defunct), Los Angeles: “Earthquakes, Oil Interact”.

    • 115th Contact, October 19, 1978:
    Meier described existence of Jupiter’s rings, saying they are composed mainly of dust, particles, sulphur ions flung off by volcanoes on Io; described Io as the most volcanically active body in the solar system, and smooth, level-surfaced with no water; described Europa as ice-encrusted; Jupiter said to have 17 “actual” moons (Plejaren don’t consider that all of Jupiter’s satellites meet their standards for moons); described nature of Jupiter’s huge funnel-shaped storm.
    Corroborated: March 5, 1979, NASA’s Voyager 1 probe discovered the rings of Jupiter, that Io is the most volcanically active body in the solar system and that Europa is covered in ice—five months after Meier published this information.
    Corroborated: September 15, 1998, Cornell University scientists confirmed particulate composition of rings from Jupiter’s moons (first theorised by astronomers on August 2, 1995). Meier’s information is 20 years ahead of Cornell’s. (While scientists believe that the source of the particulate matter is explosions caused by meteorite strikes on the moons’ surfaces, Meier’s information seems more accurate, i.e., matter being explosively propelled from volcanoes at speeds up to 2,300 km/hour to heights of 180 km is more likely the true source of most particulate-forming rings.)

    Additional information from the 115th Contact was accidentally given to lead investigator Col. Wendelle Stevens, USAF (Ret.), and shown by him to Maj. Rudolph Pestalozzi, USAF (Ret.) and Mr O. Richard Norton, former director of the Flandreau Planetarium, Tucson, Arizona.
    Witnessed by the three men, the information was secured until after the following specific, predicted events occurred:
    • Jonestown massacre (Nov 18, 1978)
    • Overthrow of the Shah of Iran (Jan 1979)
    • Chinese invasion of North Vietnam (Feb–Mar 1979)
    • Iran Hostage Crisis (Nov 1979–Jan 1981)
    • Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Dec 1979)
    • Terrorist attack on Iranian Embassy, London (Apr–May 1980)
    • Abdication of Queen Juliana of The Netherlands (Apr 1980)
    • Death of Tito of Yugoslavia (May 4, 1980)
    • Mount St Helens eruption (May 18, 1980)
    • Assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (Oct 31, 1984).

    • 1978:
    In a Wasserman publication, Meier foretold the launch of a telescope at end of the 1980s that would make unfathomable discoveries in space, and wrote that a comet would be discovered in the late 1980s to early 1990s; it would be named Toutatis, and may threaten Earth in September 2004..
    Corroborated: April 1990, Hubble telescope was launched.
    Corroborated: 1989, French astronomers discovered a comet [asteroid], named it Toutatis, and predicted it would come closest to Earth on September 29, 2004.

    • 1978, 1992:
    In his book, Existing Life in the Universe, Meier stated that there are two small planetary bodies outside Pluto’s orbit; he called them Trans-Pluto and Uni, and said scientists will discover them in the not-too-distant future.
    Corroborated: July 3, 2001 and October 7, 2002, the BBC reported that scientists have discovered a new planet beyond Pluto.

    • 150th Contact, October 10, 1981:
    Meier discussed information concerning the 29 actual moons of Saturn, and the origins of moons from asteroids.
    Corroborated: November 2000, scientists announced the discovery of 12 additional moons orbiting Saturn, bringing the “official” total to 28, just one shy of what Meier reported almost 20 years earlier; scientist corroborates the likelihood that moons originate from asteroids.

    • 215th Contact, February 28, 1987:
    Known as the Henoch (or Enoch) Prophecies, this contact contained a forewarning of the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) by terrorism, the series of worldwide wars that the US would subsequently launch, and military actions involving Russia, China, France, Germany, Spain, England, Scandinavia and many Third World and other countries.
    Corroborated: September 11, 2001, the WTC was destroyed; the United States has already attacked Afghanistan and Iraq as of the time of this writing.

    • 235th Contact, February 3, 1990:
    Warned of earthquake in California and eruption of the Redoubt volcano in Alaska for February 28, 1992.
    Corroborated: The Upland quake occurred on that precise date; and the Redoubt volcanic activity began on February 21 and continued through February 28, with more activity following in March.

    • 241st Contact, February 3, 1992:
    This contact contained specific corroborated warnings about:
    • Landslide in Brazil, March 1992: occurred March 18, 1992;
    • Nuclear accident in Russia during the third week of March: occurred March 27, 1992;
    • Landers earthquake in Los Angeles for April 23 or 24, 1992: occurred April 22, 1992;
    • Eruption of Mt Etna, Italy, in April 1992: reported April 15, 1992;
    • Eruption of Cerro Negro, Nicaragua, in April 1992: occurred April 9–12, 1992;
    • Earthquakes in Germany–Holland–Belgium area for April 1992: occurred April 13, 1992;
    • Earthquakes in China–Burma (Myanmar) April 1992: occurred China–Burma border April 23, 1992.

    • 249th Contact, June 13, 1994:
    Still speculative: In response to a question Meier asked regarding “mad cow disease”, Ptaah stated that “BSE pathogens cannot be destroyed by simply cooking the meat and other items, or by producing meat meal”, and that the temperatures necessary for killing the disease-causing prions would need to be “as high as 700°C [1292°F], and possibly even up to 1000°C [1832°F], for previously mutated pathogens that have existed for some time now”. Our scientists have been raising their own estimates as to the temperatures necessary to destroy the disease-causing prions and are now more closely approaching the temperatures that the Plejaren, Ptaah, stated.

    • 251st Contact, February 3, 1995:
    This contact contains startling information regarding technological developments such as hybrid warriors created by mixing human and pig DNA. People will have biochips attached to their nerve endings, and Meier warned of ominous biochipping with links to Deep Space Platform satellites and supercomputer.
    Corroborated: Human–pig DNA experiments have begun in the last several years; people are starting to get “chipped”.
    Still speculative: Creation of half-human/half-machine beings, clones and androids; discoveries that conclusively confirm existence of previous human life on Mars; rectification of the “ageing” and “aggression” genes; Plejaren warnings of deep-impact scenario, and need for a defence system for incoming objects.

    Of course this compilation may contain many items not noted elsewhere:

    WILL HUMANITY WAKE UP…IN TIME?

    REGARDING MORE INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS

    http://www.tjresearch.info

    REGARDING THE WITNESSES

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

    …and one of the best of all:

    Swiss Skeptic Photographs Plejaren UFOs!

    I think this should keep you busy for a little while. Since you’re a scientist, I’m sure you will welcome an abundance of specific, documented information and that – of course – you’ll not indulge in silly, unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks, gratuitous defamation, broad brush attempts to unscientifically dismiss the abundant evidence should it not accord with your belief systems…as has unfortunately been the case with the rather amateurish, impolite skeptics.

    Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

    MH
    http://www.theyfly.com

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 25, 2011 @ 8:51 am | Reply

  33. Ooooops, one more just in:

    http://www.theyfly.com/Earthquake_and_Volcano_Updates.html

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 25, 2011 @ 10:00 am | Reply

  34. mh wouldn’t you say a good scientist will best use his valuable time choosing the best data to examine so he can be the most effective? that last post was crazy huge! hehe . can’t you see how it makes sense for stuart to wait for you to convince him of the asteroid prediction thing that he looked at first? before risking wasting a bunch of time going through other things from the same source . it is like if you are in the desert and drinking water from an unknown source , you try a little bit first , if it tastes ok maybe you will drink more . you still have to change his mind about that first little taste he took , stop trying to convince him to taste and taste again from the same source it doesn’t make sense . i heard another scientist say this about some other thing like free energy but he said if I thought there was a 1% chance this could possibly be true I would spend 99% of my time working on it . you can spend your whole life reading and only get through like 0.0001 % (number pulled out of arse) of everything written we all have to decide what is good for ourselves

    Comment by walter walkie — August 25, 2011 @ 11:53 am | Reply

  35. No.

    There’s nothing to wait for. A cursory look first would be in order. Then going through each one would be next. I’ve taken 32+ years to research and assemble, it would only take a matter of hours, maybe days, for someone to examine the information.

    Certainly there are some people here and there who theorized SOME of these things. And, like the Chimborazo information, a few here and there who may have also known/come up with the same facts. But in the few cases where that is so, it’s also likely that the information never made headlines, perhaps was only reported in obscure sources and, of course, before the internet age, so it wasn’t online for so-called “plagiarizing”.

    When one factors in all of the known, REAL LIFE factors – carefully determined in about 10 years of ON-SITE investigation by two different teams – casual charges of “retrodiction”, falsifying, etc. go out the window.

    All of this is easily available, the great majority of it is free. If this is true then there is a wealth of benefit to humanity to be had…really without profit to Meier.

    It’s not about having to be “right”…or making anyone else…”wrong”. Everyone in life learns from making mistakes, no shame in that. It’s possible that the skeptics are simply…mistaken. If so, is there really any need to attack/defend…or gloat?

    Again, no. Why not learn what this improbable source has produced and has truly struggled to give to humankind…while we still have time to make certain course corrections?

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 25, 2011 @ 12:59 pm | Reply

  36. Stopping at a random spot in that wall of text:

    Hubble was conceived of and designed in the 1960s. Prediction fail.

    Toutatis is an asteroid, not a comet. There is a big difference in the orbits and composition of asteroids and comets. Prediction fail.

    This idiotic can even get his postdictions right.

    And most ridiculous of all: “may threaten Earth in September 2004..” may? may? may threaten Earth??? May, as in it [i]may[/i] not happen. That’s called heads you win, tails I lose. It’s also called cheating.

    Comment by Chew Bird — August 25, 2011 @ 1:58 pm | Reply

  37. Michael Horn, I asked for just one unambiguous prediction, not some big wall of text. Picking one of the alleged prophecies that seemed easy to look up, I found that Mt. Chimburatzo was thought to be the highest mountain on earth as early as 1802. This “prediction” is about as convincing as the photo of “Alena”. For simplicity and to save your cause such embarrasment, please instead choose your best single example of a fulfilled prophecy. And no, just claiming that prediction X, Y or Z was fulfilled does not count. The original language in which Meier made it is reqired. Most importantly it must have been published and on-record before the event occurred. So far Meier just sounds like
    a deceptive but intelligent and curious
    person. Sort of like a poor man’s Jules Verne.

    Comment by Moewicus — August 25, 2011 @ 4:58 pm | Reply

  38. Speaking of embarrassment, as in carelessness by someone looking to perhaps just trying to trip someone up instead of finding out what the truth is, maybe now you’ll notice my own comment re Chimborazo above, in no. 35., okay? As a matter of fact, I’d suggest rereading that post of mine.

    For the original language Meier used you’re going to have to actually…read it. Many of the texts are freely available at:

    http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/The_Pleiadian/Plejaren_Contact_Reports

    Some are only in the ebook versions of the original books.

    Suggestion, try to stay nice and objective and avoid premature conclusions, such as Meier being “deceptive”, for which there is zero evidence. It also helps me restrain myself from expressing how out of your league you don’t yet know yourself to be. BTW, I speak as someone who’s known Meier personally for 12 years…and tried to trick or trip him up on tiny details, four times in three years, with no success, simply because he was telling the truth.

    Oh, by the way, looks like another confirmation for Meier just came in…I mean unless someone here wrote about it before he did:

    Sex with cavemen gave humans an immune boost: study
    http://www.france24.com/en/20110825-sex-with-cavemen-gave-humans-immune-boost-study

    Neanderthals, Homo Sapiens and the Star Child Skull
    http://www.theyfly.com/Neanderthals.html

    …of course this one reminds me also of this one:

    http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/5100_year_old_man.htm

    …where Meier was not only told about the impending discovery but what actually KILLED the guy, 5,100 years ago…5-10 years BEFORE scientists actually discovered it.

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 25, 2011 @ 5:17 pm | Reply

  39. I admit, after being confronted by your Wall ‘O Text, I did not bother looking at post #35. You have a way of conditioning people to think that any given post of yours will be devoid of useful information. And Michael, if you knew it wouldn’t look like a prediction to someone who’s skeptical, then why include it?

    And for this:

    http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/5100_year_old_man.htm

    The only information I see that can be interpreted as a publication date indicates it was published in 1996, five years after the discovery. No, the unverifiable date on the alleged transcript doesn’t count as being on record at that date. Pretty weak stuff, as is the stuff about the Neanderthals. Unless you can show that it was published before the discovery of “Urk” it does not meet my criteria.

    Comment by Moewicus — August 25, 2011 @ 6:15 pm | Reply

    • haha “You have a way of conditioning people to think that any given post of yours will be devoid of useful information.”

      I concur!

      Comment by Walter Walkie — August 25, 2011 @ 6:48 pm | Reply

  40. mh as a friend once again . if you are passionate about billy’s ideas try to change his wikipedia page . a lot of people read stuff on wikipedia these days

    Comment by Walter Walkie — August 25, 2011 @ 6:45 pm | Reply

    • Thanks, I will try to get to that soon. I DO appreciate it. Until tomorrow then.

      Comment by Michael Horn — August 25, 2011 @ 6:53 pm | Reply

  41. Fine, let’s agree on 1996 because, of course, you think that Meier is…lying. And let’s remember that number, okay, 1996. Okay?

    Now please read this again, er, for the first time:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0115_020115iceman.html

    …you’ll notice that the x-ray examination that DISCOVERED the arrowhead didn’t occur until…2001. In fact, it’s referred to also here:

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/07/iceman/hall-text

    …and while you’re on this page, let your eyes, and your thoughts, slowly linger over this little gem too:

    “Update (September, 2007): Researchers report that head trauma along with uncontrolled bleeding ultimately killed the Iceman. Read more.”

    “Head trauma”? Sound familiar? Update 2007 by THEM? CLEAR ENOUGH?

    Resisting all temptation to do otherwise, I’ll simply point out – just so there’s no mistake about it – that the arrowhead in Mr. Urk’s back was discovered in…2001. 1996 – 2001 = Meier published FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE DISCOVERY. 1996 – 2007 = 9 years Meier published the head trauma info 9 years BEFORE the “Update”.

    Once again, I SINCERELY ask that a little more CARE is given to vetting this information. If that happens, we could actually end up getting on the…SAME PAGE with each other, so to speak. Wouldn’t that be nice and FrieNDLY, for a change?

    Now, the coming attraction for tomorrow, is a lovely little lesson on one the skeptics’ FAVORITE topics…the LASER GUN!

    Stay tuned, you do have a surprise in store…that you won’t want to miss.

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 25, 2011 @ 6:51 pm | Reply

    • Given the difficulty of assessing what was known about the Iceman in 1996, I don’t think this meets my criteria.

      The prediction is:

      1. Ambiguous in content and dating. The translation was done after 2008, casting doubt on the translator’s note about Otzi falling “some distance down,” since this is after the 2007 date on the information about “Urk’s” head wounds.

      2. Inconsistent with other information. The arrow that was lodged in Otzi was pulled out by someone. Why would someone in a sudden snowstorm go about pulling out an arrow? Meier’s interlocutor states that the companions were too busy saving themselves to help Otzi, and that the snowstorm started just as Otzi was wounded. The arrowhead itself is pointing into the body in a way that is inconsistent with Otzi being wounded by an arrow he was carrying, and consistent with the hypothesis that someone shot him. (X-ray here: http://www.donsmaps.com/images9/otzi431.jpg)

      3. Subject to speculation by an informed person. Even if we wave away the previous two points, Meier’s knowledge of Otzi is still a factor. Personally I can’t imagine how Jules Verne “predicted” submarines and tanks in the absence of their existence, but I do know that intelligent, informed people can look downright prescient in the long run, and if we ignore what they get wrong we can fool ourselves into thinking they were greater than they were. The point of asking for on-record predictions of things no human could otherwise know about is to eliminate Meier as a variable. Meier is still a variable in this.

      On a side note, I just saw Meier’s “Wedding Cake UFO” pictures in the last hour or so. They are a scream! The ones with it in his back yard clearly depict a small object a few inches away from the camera, set up on a support. You can tell by the depth of field and the framing of the “UFO” itself. I cannot imagine how anyone thinks they depict a spaceship. When the UFO photos are not carefully arranged to prohibit direct comparison with an adjacent object, they’re lodged in the side of a tree for no freaking reason (those are my favorites!). The Wedding Cake UFO video is a riot, too. The more I see of Meier’s photography and video, the more obvious it is that he is carefully arranging the viewer’s perceptions in order to achieve specific, limited effects. It is characteristic of his photography and video, and it’s not what you’d expect from genuine spaceships with real capabilities. This webpage is particularly hilarious:

      http://www.tjresearch.info/Wedcake.htm

      I love this bit especially:

      “It is especially important not to make this assumption when the aliens have good reason to provide negative skeptics with needed bits of plausible deniability.”

      The miracles are always for the believers. That shot of the out-of-focus christmas ornament with its top completely out of the frame is just evidence of how amazingly smart the aliens are. What supernatural perspicacity must it require, that the aliens always appear behind the car that looks exactly like a 2-inch long aluminum toy. Your work is futile, Michael Horn: clearly, beings far wiser than yourself have decided that I don’t get to believe the truth!

      Comment by Moewicus — August 26, 2011 @ 12:06 am | Reply

      • hahah omg those pictures are awesome ^ the first one I clicked to enlarge to look for the ufo and couldn’t see it . then I looked at the other photos and realized the ufo in the first picture is the metal thing sitting on the table in the forground hahaha . that is awesome . and the one with the cars , epic . mh – does billy ever pay money for ufo photos or other secret information? I have a lot of ground-breaking material I could sell to him please let me know if he is in the market.

        the ice man story is cool . moe – to the point of why would someone pull the arrow out of him even in a snowstorm I think good arrow shafts were hard to make back then so it would be logical if you shot someone to pull the arrow out if at all possible . kind of like saving shell casings these days to reload

        Comment by walter walkie — August 26, 2011 @ 9:32 am

      • 1. The German is there, and has been since 1991. Translate it for yourself; the 2008 translation is irrelevant to the argument.

        2. Pure speculation. People have fallen on all sorts of objects in all sorts of ways for a long time. The FACT that Meier was told that an arrow was the primary cause here is nothing less than spectacular.

        3. Indeed his knowledge of Otzi and the arrow and the fall, leading to a head wound, are about as good as it will ever get in real life. Add the three other items from yesterday – and the volumes of other specific information – and a fair-minded, objective person’s greatest difficulty will be…avoiding having his mind blown that that all of this is true and has been going on for nearly 70 years, largely unknown to the world due to MASSIVE behind the scenes efforts of intelligence agencies, a cooperative with them media, and other factors.

        Suggestion: Leave the UFO evidence for now, whatever one thinks of it the case doesn’t rest on it. It really rests on the information…and on human beings of OUR OWN world taking full self-responsibility for their own lives and future survival, which is greatly at risk. Much information, recommendations, suggestions, guidance, etc. is contained within the 26,000+ pages of Meier’s material. The people who will help the most will be those who can extract themselves from their (often anonymous) online personas and “virtual lives” and get down to the business at hand.

        Certainly the time for Americans to be waving their fingers in the air, shouting, “We’re number one!” has long since passed. If anyone doubts that, let them notice how the other things that have passed are their jobs, homes and the hopes of a people who spent too much time entertaining and exalting themselves, in their own minds, and not enough time dealing with reality…even when it includes some rather unusual, improbable and unexpected elements, like the Billy Meier case.

        Comment by Michael Horn — August 26, 2011 @ 9:41 am

      • mh – i think america will continue to be a global leader in this century . we have all of the right parts – the most innovative forward thinking people , the most productive and competitive businesses , and a huge supply of natural gas which will be crucial to energy needs . if you think about it china’s whole economy is based on us staying as leaders and consuming all the stuff they make . if and when the global community decides to regulate CO2, natural gas is the only option with adequate energy density and it produces less CO2 than oil and coal . even if we use other sources of energy (wind / solar / nuclear etc.) we will still need a baseline fossil fuel to provide energy, unless a huge breakthrough in some other technology comes . america is the saudi arabia of natural gas , when we start producing and using it more here and even exporting LNG (liquified natural gas) to asia and elsewhere the boom years will come back . we do have to chose as a nation if we want to be leaders or let things fall apart . i think we the comeback has already begun . churchill key quote : “Americans always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.”

        Comment by walter walkie — August 26, 2011 @ 11:04 am

  42. That’s Cold Michael… No pun intended.

    Please, for the love of ‘whatever you want to put in here’, DO NOT bring the laser gun into this discussion; it is worse than watching an episode of ‘Who’s Line Is It Anyway’. No wait, worse than ‘Oprah’ or even worse than ‘Infomercials’ NOOOOO!

    “I’ve taken 32+ years to research and assemble, it would only take a matter of hours, maybe days, for someone to examine the information.” 32 YEARS? Michael I hate to tell you but, you have wasted a LOT of time there!

    Oh and before I start my ranting und raving (http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/37526/ufo-base-found-in-himalayas/) I guess billy was there hey?

    Anyway enough preposterous talk – let me see. I have read all the replies, and thus far came to the same conclusion I have before of Mr Horn. You are such a bereaved liar, you believe yourself, either that or just as blinded by a stupendous story and hope that one day, you will have a 100 odd people at your feet licking the atrocities and utter drivels from your feet (my word that was big). Anyone, with half a brain can see that the photos and the rest of the story is so uniformly faked it is nauseating, and yes I will call him a liar because that is exactly what he is, besides I am not a well-informed individual like you boast yourself to be, so my views are null and void (although I can clearly state that Billy Meier Saga is a big ball of BS).

    For the part of the Laser Weapon flaunted, a foil covered arm of a person hiding behind god knows what is silly; really, a 5 year old can fake a limp better than those horrendous looking photos. Besides, the gun looks like a cheap Pakistani Made Hairdryer, and what is with the red tip?

    Michael, even his ex-wife admitted it being faked, and you still keep on beating an already decomposed horse. Like the arguments we had previously, with your vague stories of clairvoyance friends that can predict all kinds of strange and wonderful things. Still to date I await the clear indication of questions posed to yourself.
    Again, all due respect for whatever other things you do, but selling comic tales as truth is really low.

    Thanks for listening and have an awesome weekend.

    A cool cheers from South Africa.

    Ta (no no not the Ptaah.)

    Comment by Johan Duvenhage — August 26, 2011 @ 2:59 am | Reply

  43. The previous post, full of ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated claims, is only worth pointing to for those here who have actually helped to elevate the discussion beyond such nonsense to focusing on the evidence. It’s indeed strange how the truth can bring out the nastiest, most vile aspects of a, presumably, human being.

    Something actually historic has taken place here too. We have (again) come across plain as day, irrefutable, ironclad evidence of the authenticity of the Meier case, in large part BECAUSE of the challenges. It just so happened that on August 25 several news items appeared that corroborated more information in the Meier case, the strangest of all possibly being the one about Neanderthals and sex with humans.

    That story reminded me of the 5,100 year-old iceman story. By revisiting that one we came across another hugely important detail, one that was added by the National Geographic itself. Head trauma contributed to the Iceman’s death. Meier’s transcript from 1991 (and I’ll explain later how we can be sure it was from 1991, though 1996 would do) plainly states that he fell from a distance and landed on his back on the ground (and on his arrow).

    Is there some magical way that a man falling from a distance and landing on his back DOESN’T hit and injure his head, and quite severely at that?

    The solution to the Meier case requires good DETECTIVE work and good thinking. It was intentionally designed to make US do the work to determine its authenticity. If extraterrestrials in UFOs actually exist and can do all the things we may ascribe to, or imagine of, them, then surely they could have “proved” their existence, decades ago, in the short span of several minutes. They didn’t so that we didn’t – once again – have new “Gods” to worship or fear, as their own distant ancestors and others had previously caused to happen by their interference, setting in motion many of the greatest dangers, especially from religion(s), that we now face today.

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 26, 2011 @ 8:04 am | Reply

  44. Hi Walter,

    There is mention of another option which, while it will have some challenges of course, seems to be a very logical, environmentally safe, virtually inexhaustible source, i.e. thermal, specifically deep geothermal:

    http://www.theyfly.com/Fukushima.html

    I wouldn’t care if Shell Oil decided to become Shell Thermal, let the innovation and forward thinking qualities you point to be applied in a productive direction. I think there are links in that article pointing to development in some European countries.

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 26, 2011 @ 12:02 pm | Reply

  45. Michael, if you’ve been doing this for 32 years, how hard is it for you to find something that meets my criteria? Show me something that is unequivocally on record before any other information about the event came to light. People have been speculating about possible interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals for some time, and the ambiguity in the dating of the Otzi information makes it not worth my time. I acknowledge that the bit about the arrow is interesting, but it’s one point of agreement compared to other points of disagreement and ambiguity. Don’t waste your time or mine trying to “prove” it was made in May of 1991: if the evidence is as good as you claim it to be, there should be much better examples.

    I’ve given you my criteria, the “Urk” stuff doesn’t meet them.

    They didn’t so that we didn’t – once again – have new “Gods” to worship or fear, as their own distant ancestors and others had previously caused to happen by their interference, setting in motion many of the greatest dangers, especially from religion(s), that we now face today.

    So the aliens manipulate any and all of their appearances so skillfully that it is impossible to say whether Billy Meier is lying to us or not, keeping themselves in the realm of unfalsifiability just like religious claims about gods–but they also want us not to treat their existence like a religion. Do you not see the problem with this? And if the point of Meier’s predictions is to save humanity, why not make them more remarkable so we’ll take them seriously?

    Comment by Moewicus — August 26, 2011 @ 2:14 pm | Reply

  46. People have speculated about a lot of things. Meier doesn’t publish speculation.

    The Otzi info is ironclad, mind-blowingly so. The Neanderthal information, two corroborations there, similarly. Be honest with yourself, when did you, or anyone you know or know of, produce such evidence? And why not?

    It’s foolish to try to split hairs. It also shows that you may not have a comprehensive understanding of how to evaluate evidence, especially a preponderance (an abundant preponderance) of SPECIFIC, accurate, non self-contradictory evidence.

    It isn’t my job to convince you ultimately. If anything it would be to present enough than an objective person would do their own research. There is simply nothing, and no one, in human history who has produced such a body of significant information. The huge “laundry list” I posted up above is FULL of such solid evidence.

    Meier publishes the connection between A-bomb explosions and the ozone damage in 1975, I read it in 1986…it’s confirmed as a “new discovery” in 1988. There are DOZENS of these.

    And when I say comprehensive thinking that means that one takes into consideration ALL known aspects and facets of a man’s life that they can put into the equation. Things don’t occur in a vacuum. Meier is verifiably NOT a man who sits around, who even has the time to sit around conjuring things up, producing “fabricated” evidence. I know not just because I know the original investigators but because I’ve troubled myself to also got to Switzerland a dozen times to spend time with, interview, investigate, etc. the parties concerned, a few dozen of them.

    And I acn sure as well tell you that NO ONE spoon fed me anything. I read every book and document I could get my hands on, which is one of the reasons why, when these so-called “new discoveries” pop up, if they ring a bell I can find them more easily in the information.

    BTW, now that the east coast is in the news, it would be prudent if interested parties soon developed a plan to reduce the mass of the Cumbre Vieja volcano, at least on the side that WILL go into the sea when it DOES erupt, producing a tsunami that could wipe out about 20 million people on the east coast.

    Anyway, if any of this truly interests you and, pardon me, if you’re gonna be brutally honest enough with yourself to look at that verifiably preemptively published info from Meier predicting the discovery of Otzi – and the two EXACT things that killed him 5,100 years ago – you could be in for the discovery of a lifetime.

    Glad to help but this isn’t about belief, it’s about doing the detective work until you’re satisfied that it’s either true for you or not.

    That’s what i did. Up to you. Good luck!

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 26, 2011 @ 3:31 pm | Reply

    • People have speculated about a lot of things. Meier doesn’t publish speculation.

      Here you simply re-state as assertion exactly that which is in dispute.

      The Otzi info is ironclad, mind-blowingly so. The Neanderthal information, two corroborations there, similarly.

      I’ve already shown why these things are neither “ironclad” nor very interesting as corroborations. At the very best they are worth exploring only after Meier’s access to supernormal information has been established. By the way, the findings of forensic science are not speculation, and forensic scientists figured that Otzi was shot. I don’t see any reason to believe some random Swissman over actual scientists.

      There is simply nothing, and no one, in human history who has produced such a body of significant information. The huge “laundry list” I posted up above is FULL of such solid evidence.

      Anybody who makes tens of thousands of assertions is bound to get some right (Edgar Cayce also did, by the by). This is why I insist on the criteria I have presented. I don’t have the time to go through and tally the stuff Meier got right and what he got wrong (Stuart and people in this thread have presented plenty of examples of the latter already), nor am I inclined to wade through the verbiage of a man who passes off pictures of christmas ornaments as spaceships. This is why I insist on the criteria I have presented, and it is why I am asking Meier’s professional representative to give me just one example along with the appropriate documentation.

      BTW, your laundry list is not solid evidence, it is assertion.

      Meier publishes the connection between A-bomb explosions and the ozone damage in 1975, I read it in 1986…it’s confirmed as a “new discovery” in 1988. There are DOZENS of these.

      There’s a difference between “discovery” and “confirmation”. The media likes to present recently confirmed ideas as “discoveries,” but in reality many ideas have a fairly long history before they are finally put to the test and confirmed. Even without knowing anything about it I have shown why your rhetoric is probably much less impressive than reality. This is why I insist on the criteria I have presented. Also, this paper from 1973 discusses the Nitric Oxide released by nuclear detonations:

      http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/79bias/Goldsmith.pdf

      Science concerning the ozone goes back to the 1930s. This alleged prediction does not meet my criteria, so I will not consider it. I don’t care how many hits you list in this category of speculative prediction: I care about the misses you are not mentioning. THAT is the preponderance of evidence I care about.

      I read every book and document I could get my hands on, which is one of the reasons why, when these so-called “new discoveries” pop up, if they ring a bell I can find them more easily in the information.

      Good! So you should be able to present something that meets my criteria pretty easily, right?

      Comment by Moewicus — August 26, 2011 @ 7:29 pm | Reply

  47. P.S.

    Moewicus et al,

    I didn’t bring this up before because it’s NOT the kind of evidence I would present to make the case, it’s personal evidence. But, since we’re far enough into this that you will make up your own minds based on what you do with all of the above info, I’ll share it because it did happen to me.

    I was set up, due to perhaps being a little naive, and so I got some help because the “trap” could have very negatively affected not just my work but Meier and all that’s involved. There are people for whom the Meier is case is no joke, it’s a serious threat, hence the many attempts on his life…and the lengths that people will go to attack, falsify, attempt to discredit him, etc.

    The first link contains the details as expressed to someone in the UFO field that I was offering the Meier case to, in a futile effort to get them to stop promoting all this b.s. disinformation that IS the “UFO community”:

    http://theyfly.com/An-Open-Letter-to-Stephen-Bassett.html

    The emails referred to:

    http://theyfly.com/Evidence-for-Stephen-Bassett.html

    This last link explains how the main defamer, Kal Korff, enlisted help to falsify Meier’s photos. Again, there are powerful forces out there who will do all sorts of things, and enlist ALL sorts of people, to also try to assassinate Meier’s character, since they couldn’t kill him:

    http://theyfly.com/Korff.html

    Now it’s possible that it seems off point but again, I was about to walk into the rotating blades and neither I NOR Meier knew about the trap. What the Plejaren said turned out to be EXACTLY right, as the info details.

    If this is seemingly irrelevant to you guys, just ignore it. I certainly don’t want to argue it, NOR do I rest the case on it. It’s just something that happened to me that added to my certainty about this matter.

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 26, 2011 @ 4:31 pm | Reply

    • I read Meier’s account of the attempts on his life. I find it remarkable that the “Men in Black” he refers to will apparently stoop to anything–except hiring an effective assassin.

      I also find it interesting that you’ll put effort into writing these posts and finding those links, but that you will not focus on meeting the criteria that I have set forward. I’ve tried to make it easy and objective. The ball is entirely in your court.

      Comment by Moewicus — August 26, 2011 @ 7:45 pm | Reply

  48. mh – i’m not a scientist but btw – i think “reducing the mass of a volcano” is harder to do than moving a city or building proctection for a city to withstand a mega tsunami . they say the part that threatens to fall into the ocean is 500 cubic kilometers of earth . for the sake of argument say you only needed to move a fraction of 500 cubic kilometers . that is still going to be a lot of dirt and rocks

    moewicus – good point about the religion . even though some religions believe crazy things from seeing those photos believeing this billy stuff is much crazier . it is getting close to the point where a comet comes by and people choose mass suicide

    Comment by Walter Walkie — August 26, 2011 @ 5:08 pm | Reply

    • WW, I’m sure you’re right, it would be hard but there may be a way to do it, with explosives being used, for instance. The other part of the warning as I recall was that with our scientists indeed knowing that the dangers are very real, no evacuation plans have been made. Of course the threat of the 9.0 to the area around the Cascadia Subduction Zone is also known now with not a great deal of preparation for dealing with that one, from what I understand. Maybe the authorities in Oregon have been doing more that I am unaware of.

      Comment by Michael Horn — August 26, 2011 @ 6:04 pm | Reply

  49. Otzi died at about age 45, not 37, as Meier states. He died about 5300 years ago, not 5100, as Meier states.

    Comment by Chew Bird — August 26, 2011 @ 5:14 pm | Reply

    • You’re kidding, right? There is no possibility that Meier’s relayed info is correct and those stats you cite are incorrect?

      Brother Chew, how about the rest of the ridiculously detailed information and history given about Otzi or rather Urk, as his name was according to Ptaah? http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/5100_year_old_man.htm

      Do you think he dreamed all that up from an overactive imagination? That his imagination got the arrow correct? How about all the other insanely detailed info in there that may never be uncovered by earth historians or scientists?

      Comment by Bruce — August 26, 2011 @ 5:39 pm | Reply

    • Sure, there’s a tiny, exceedingly remote possibility Meier’s story is true, but it is far, far more probable Meier is lying. His story’s time of death (5100 years ago) and age at death (37) are very close to the initial estimates published. Later estimates based on new and improved technology come up with 5300 years ago and 45 years of age. It is far more likely Meier read about it then postdicted it. Who verifies the provenance to his “contact interviews”?

      Comment by Chew Bird — August 26, 2011 @ 6:46 pm | Reply

      • “Who” verifies? Little things like…copyrights and publication dates…and the existence of documentation, in several languages, all containing the same exact information.

        Comment by Michael Horn — August 27, 2011 @ 4:43 am

      • The interview was May 1991; iceman was found Sep 1991. When was this interview made public?

        Comment by Chew Bird — August 27, 2011 @ 8:54 am

      • I thought the included image in the iceman article which shows the copyright date was a mistake so I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I guess it wasn’t a mistake. Copyrighted 1996!!! 5 years AFTER the iceman was found! What a joke.

        Comment by Chew Bird — August 30, 2011 @ 7:29 am

  50. “The previous post, full of ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated claims, is only worth pointing to for those here who have actually helped to elevate the discussion beyond such nonsense to focusing on the evidence. It’s indeed strange how the truth can bring out the nastiest, most vile aspects of a, presumably, human being.”

    Oh I hate quoting people but Michael, you should stop dissing yourself like this, really.

    Comment by Johan Duvenhage — August 27, 2011 @ 6:39 am | Reply

    • Great comeback! WOW!!

      very impressive Johan

      Comment by Bruce — August 27, 2011 @ 7:20 am | Reply

  51. At this point about everything that needs to be put forth here has been. So just some final comments to cover a few items, which I’ll attempt to post in two parts to make it technically easier.

    On retrodiction:

    Every sentence spoken by each of the Plejaren, since 1975, has been…numbered sequentially in each contact (http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_1). The reason for this was exactly to deal with the kinds of charges of back dating that they knew would be leveled at Meier in the future when his information would be shown to be prophetically accurate. Since this was still the “paper” age, everything was typed out by Meier (from 60-200+ wpm, in German; see movie trailer at my site) copies made, published, disseminated mainly throughout Europe. All translations in English and other languages carry the same numbered sentence format, thereby absolutely eliminating back dating, obviously. Further, all contacts continue to also be published in print (Contact Blocks) further eliminating back dating issues. It must be noted that some TRANSLATORS initially don’t insert the numbers in Meier’s contacts but this is later done…and can be compared with the German language originals. So any concerns about back dating are the product of an overworked and suspicious mind.

    In fact, who else do you know who has verifiable records of their conversations going back over 36 YEARS? RIght.

    Two points regarding the laser gun:

    Those people who have pointed to the red tip, as indicative of a toy gun, should know that putting red tips on toy guns was only mandated into law around 1990, give or take a couple of years. So those who made a connection to toy guns because of the red tip should know that Meier’s photos were taken in 1977.

    The fact is that there was at least one “ray gun” with a red tip very similar (http://www.danefield.com/data/displayimage-23-3097.html#top_display_media) to the one in Meier’s photos that I could find, maybe there are more. Of course it’s not an exact match with the one in Meier’s photos (http://futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/The_Oval-Shaped_Laser_Hole) and of course the neither is the rest of the gun. Since it was made in Korea, there is a further unlikelihood that it was even imported into Switzerland in the 1970s.

    So certainly if it was available in Switzerland it should have easily been found there then…or even today. Obviously it hasn’t and also obviously the toy gun didn’t have the two chambers that Alena’s does. The significance of this detail is in the fact that it corresponds with reports about the chemical mixing process in lasers (http://theyfly.com/PDF/Horn_Proof.pdf). Let’s remember that Meier not only didn’t have the non-existent internet in 1977, he didn’t live near a university or library and had no subscriptions to science magazines, as was established through postal records by the investigators.

    (Continued)

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 27, 2011 @ 6:55 am | Reply

  52. The gold suit:

    To this day, despite the haughty and derisive comments by the skeptics, no one has EVER produced the gold suit…or the fabric it could have been made of. And of course no one has ever come forward claiming (and proving) to be the model. Nor has anyone came forward claiming (and proving) to e the assistants, collaborators, etc. of Meier . Obviously, in this materialistic world (as is also clearly evidenced even here by those who accuse Meier of some kind of hoax, which always has some kind of profit motive, demonstrably clearly missing in the Meier case) SOMEONE should ahve come forward by now to prove the hoax…and get big bucks for doing so.

    The WCUFO video:

    For those who claim that the WCUFO here is really a small model and a miniature tree, a couple things should be noted. If this really was a case of false or forced perspective using small objects only a few feet away from the camera, the objects would not only be CLEARER in the opening of the sequence than they are, it would have been unavoidable after a full five-second zoom in (:18 to :23) to not be so close up on the models that every detail would be stunningly clear. Such is obviously not the case. In fact, both the tree and the WCUFO, while clearer, are still not crystal clear by any means, indicating large objects at a distance. In fact, a bit more detail in regards to the branches and trunk can be seen, which serve to also give an indication regarding the real nature of both objects AND would be IMPOSSIBLE if this was simply a case of models. Further indication is evident from :45 to the end where both the tree and the WCUFO are just blurry shapes…OBVIOUSLY at a great distance from the camera, most likely hundreds of feet.

    You will find attempted video reproductions of Meier’s UFO photos, video, etc., which will ALWAYS be shown to be small, very well made scale models, close to the camera. This is detectable BECAUSE of the clarity of the models…and the stubborn ReFUSAL of the model makers othave their work tested to the same same standards as Meier’s. One more thing negates the claims that Meier’s evidence was thusly duplicated, i.e. it has been thoroughly established that no models and no strings were evident in his evidence (http://theyflyblog.com/saying-goodbye-to-the-skeptical-challenge/07/12/2011).

    One last thing about claims of suspended models – the only possible way, even according to the skeptics, that Meier could have hoaxed his photos, etc. – I have a set of SLIDES of many of Meier’s best UFO photos that I got in the late 1980s from Randy Winters, who obtained them sometime earlier in the 1980s. I used these slides in my own presentations, starting in about 1987 0r 1988. They were of course projected onto large screens. A very large screen was used in places like the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles. I think that early presentations at the IUFOC in Laughin, Nevada, may have also used slide projectors in pre-Power Point days. Not once, ever, was there any indication or evidence of ANY kinds of strings, lines, suspension, etc. such as was claimed and such as was FALSELY INSERTED by Kal Korff and perhaps other people trying to debunk Meier’s evidence. Such was even address here in 25. – 27.: http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_254.

    So, in the face of the monumental, interwoven, never contradictory, specific, accurate, voluminous evidence and proof of the most important story in al of human history…it will now be up to YOU, dear readers, to decide if projecting all of the easily dismissed suspicions, dishonestly, deviousness and deception with which many of you have approached and attacked the case – and the man – are more reflections of things with which you have become, unfortunately, too accustomed to in your fellow man -and possibly in yourselves.

    Will you attempt to put the pieces of the puzzle together without prejudice? Or will it all prove still to be too tempting to assail a man of honesty, integrity, character and unbelievable courage?

    And will the young host of this blog apply truly scientific, objective, researching and investigative skills into this elephant – this MAMMOTH – in the room, or will he retreat into comfortable little dissertations and commentaries on already known astronomical phenomena and launching derisive attacks on easy, New Age targets?

    Whatever the answer, I doubt that he will still be throwing terms like “retrodiction” around. Who knows, he may in fact live up to MY hope and expectation that he becomes a courageous beacon of discovery and truth for his generation, the one that will otherwise surely be witnessing the…Red Meteor, otherwise known as Apophis.

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 27, 2011 @ 6:56 am | Reply

  53. This just released:

    National Geographic Article, New Science Journal Study Confirm Billy Meier Information on Prehistoric Humans

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/8/prweb8755972.htm

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 30, 2011 @ 5:41 am | Reply

  54. we are almost to 80 comments people keep going !

    Comment by walter walkie — August 30, 2011 @ 11:34 am | Reply

  55. While I also subscribe to the idea that Silence is Golden, I think that anyone who now remains silent, in the face of yet more overwhelming proof of Meier’s authenticity and accuracy, is not someone who is not acting like a sincere truth seeker…or one who’s being honest with themselves.

    It would be nice if the people who have been interacting, and most critical, here will now come forward and acknowledge that we are indeed witnessing the most important story in all of human history – carefully presented to us in ways that most intelligent people should be able to perceive without experiencing irreparable damage to their beliefs and psyche. There really is no need to defend or deny anything, just be honest.

    Clearly, there is anything BUT the need to feel ashamed, embarrassed, “wrong”, etc. if truth is the thing that most matters…and if you recognize your place on this we’re-all-in-it-together planet. Finding the truth is not done without making mistakes – and it’s not done so that one person or another can exalt themselves above others, achieve fame or fortune, etc. It’s done – it should be done – to enrich all of humanity. And it would be nice to see that maturity and integrity of purpose present everywhere, including this little blog…as well as with self-professed skeptics such as Michael Shermer, Phil Plait, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Neil Shostak, etc.

    Unfortunately though, it appears that our host on this forum isn’t quite ready for such self-honesty and, of course, has posted yet another waste-of-time attack against one of the easiest targets, Richard Hoagland.

    Should I be surprised?

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 30, 2011 @ 1:51 pm | Reply

  56. Again I must note that Michael Horn has put a bunch of effort into writing rather long comments, but no effort into meeting the criteria I have clearly put forth. Michael’s excuses for the obvious nonsense put out by Meier are transparent and lame. Even his excuse about the ray gun–that toys weren’t mandated by law to have red tips when Meier took the photo–suffers from the same problem as his excuses for Meier’s pseudopredictions: why couldn’t a toy manufacturer have put a red tip on a toy gun before it was mandated? And as we all know, Meier’s records are verifiable because they have numbers on them. Numbers don’t lie, right?

    This is laughable. Michael Horn continues to rehash the same claims and introduce even more claims without providing adequate documentation. It is simply a childish strategy to keep on saying irrelevant things until one’s opponent loses interest, thus allowing one to declare victory. But it is in vain. Michael, every post you make without meeting the clear and objective criteria I have set forth is merely digging yourself deeper into a pit of your own design. It’s true, silence is golden, and I will not be responding again unless you provide ONE (1) and ONLY ONE (1) example of a fulfilled prediction, along with appropriate documentation, that is unambiguous, specific, and represents knowledge that no human could guess at. I will not respond to walls of text or obfuscation like “toy ray guns didn’t necessarily have to have red tips at the time Meier took the photo”. It’s okay if you want to wait a while: there will be much less uncertainty about the real date of a prediction Meier makes at some point in the future.

    Unfortunately I already know that Michael Horn won’t meet this simple challenge, because in looking into Billy Meier I have already found that Meier’s excuse–repeated by his acolytes, no less–for why he doesn’t present concrete information ahead of time is that the aliens won’t allow their existence to be verified by humans.

    The parsimonious conclusion, however, is that Meier is a conscious fraud. Whenever he is caught up by skeptics, for instance when it was found that the base of the Wedding Cake UFO is a match for a container lid that can be found on his property and which was available to him at the time he took the photos, he comes up with bizarre tales which explain far too much. Apparently some aliens transmitted the plans for the Wedding Cake UFO to the Nazis, but then stopped transmitting the plans when they found out they were going to use the plans for warfare. The result was that the now incomprehensible plans were abandoned for years–until they were used as inspiration for the very container lids found on Meier’s property. Or take the case of Otzi. You wouldn’t think that some random mummy would have some intimate connection with aliens, but no, Otzi saved the lives of some aliens and Meier’s contacts know all about the man–his name, his language, even what he was doing when he died. Everything is fodder for a story for Meier. When it turns out that his pictures of illustrations in books or of his television are found out, he comes up with wild tales of how the Men in Black switched them with the real pictures of Asket and Nera or the Pterodont in order to discredit Meier.

    Meier can and will predict everything ahead of time– everything, of course, except being found out.

    Michael, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong. We have all been deceived by something at some point in our lives, and been fervently sure that our falsehoods were truth. But eventually honest people must see their way out for their own good and the good of others. I guarantee I will respect you on the day you come out and say that you don’t think Meier really talks to aliens and that his pictures of christmas ornaments don’t depict alien spacecraft. I also guarantee I will not respect you for continuing to peddle baloney.

    And I just noticed Michael Horn finishes off his August 27 post calling Apophis “the Red Meteor”. No hope of reform, then, I guess.

    Comment by Moewicus — August 30, 2011 @ 7:33 pm | Reply

    • No matter how many times you are told the truth, you cast it into the wind, and you do not allow your paucity
      of knowledge and your paucity of wisdom to be strengthened through an open (unbiased/unprejudiced/ honest) search for truth, because
      you assume (believe) yourself to be thinking (prudent) and full of sageness (rationality) and insight (intellect)
      and you take great delight in this egoistic delusion, whereby you and all those you can convince of your presumptions (jaundiced eye) will suffer its effects of unsuccess, time and time again until your eyes clear and are once again able to see without ego clouding truth.

      Comment by Juice — August 31, 2011 @ 3:35 am | Reply

      • Ah, nicely and accurately put.

        Comment by Michael Horn — August 31, 2011 @ 8:18 am

      • I don’t see any evidence or argument in your comment, Juice. You merely state your conclusions. Have fun with those.

        Comment by Moewicus — August 31, 2011 @ 8:03 pm

  57. Methinks that thou protests too much. It may work in places like this but not in the real, scientific, thinking world. Not in the world of David Froning, Michael Malin, Marcel Vogel, Robert Post, USGS, National Geographic, Science Journal, NASA, JPL, etc. – all of whom (and more) have played a part in corroborating Meier…but you knew that, right, and just want to obfuscate.

    You don’t UNDERSTAND criteria, nor that Meier’s evidence met and still meets the most stringent of actual criteria.

    Toy gun manufacturer’s of course COULD put a red tip on them but…where’s YOUR evidence that one did? Meet THAT criteria. YOUR evidence. After all, it’s YOUR claim.

    Your conflating of opinions and innuendos presented as facts avoid the evidence as well. Don’t like the WCUFO? Here’s the video, apply the CRITERIA I outlined above as to why it’s a large object far from the camera. No small model, obviously:

    http://www.steelmarkonline.com/media/Wedding_Cake_ship.mpg

    Don’t like the ironclad nature of Meier’s copyrighted, dated published information about Otzi? Sure throw in some irrelevant comments to demonstrate that you don’t UNDERSTAND evidence, nor know how to think. Go argue with National Geographic:

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/8/prweb8755972.htm

    You’re a very AMATEUR thinker, even less of an investigator. Clear now?

    Comment by Michael Horn — August 31, 2011 @ 5:48 am | Reply

  58. Michael Horn tells me I don’t know how to think. I love it! He even tells me to “argue with National Geographic” after he has dismissed the findings of forensic scientists as speculation. I have apparently shocked him into terseness, too. I’ll be waiting on that single, unambiguous, prediction that no human could reasonably speculate about. (Arrows were found with Otzi, BTW).

    I’ll be waiting. And waiting. And waiting. And waiting. And waiting…

    Comment by Moewicus — August 31, 2011 @ 8:18 pm | Reply

    • Instead of waiting for what has already been given but not understood, study, study…STUDY. This will also help:

      http://theyflyblog.com/you-cant-handle-the-truth/09/01/2011

      Comment by Michael Horn — September 2, 2011 @ 7:51 am | Reply

      • Hey Michael, are you going to publish a retraction of your claims about the Olympus 35-ECR? Or if you will not acknowledge that those claims were wrong, will you publicly acknowledge that the information you have put out about it is potentially misleading and publish objective information about the camera?

        To recap:

        The camera sets exposure automatically based on its light meter.
        Its range of shutter speeds are 4 seconds through 1/800th of a second.

        As for “study, study, STUDY” I’ve already told you why the evidence you’ve presented does not meet my criteria and why studying Billy Meier is not worth my time. BTW, your article is, as usual, another list of assertions. It is a paltry dodge of the damning issues I have brought up. Your evidence is dubious as well, since a) lie detectors are unreliable (Chew Bird brings up all my other issues with that) b) it is not at all clear how the skills a body language consultant would apply to potentially delusional people speaking in a context in which they are unlikely to be disbelieved c) Meier’s ex-wife has said that Meier is a fraud, so at best she is highly unreliable corroboration of Meier’s claims and it is therefore silly to use her to do so.

        I’m still waiting. Just the one thing. It should be simple.

        Comment by Moewicus — September 2, 2011 @ 11:13 am

    • You conveniently left out a few key details about the 16 other people who passed this alleged polygraph test, namely, their NAMES, the date, who administered the polygraph, where it was done, etc. No doubt you left those details out because those details were a figment of your imagination.

      Here’s something you should study: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

      Comment by Chew Bird — September 2, 2011 @ 10:27 am | Reply

  59. It can all be found here:

    http://theyfly.com/products/products.htm#preliminary

    http://theyfly.com/products/products.htm#supplemental

    …all done long before you fell out of your little nest.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 2, 2011 @ 11:32 am | Reply

    • Nothing to say about your Olympus 35-ECR claims?

      Comment by Moewicus — September 2, 2011 @ 1:54 pm | Reply

  60. Study, drop attitude and assumptions, they only show that…you don’t know.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 2, 2011 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

  61. IIG West has compiled an evaluation of Meier’s predictions–importantly, unlike Michael Horn, they give you what Meier got right as well as what Meier got wrong, along with sources.

    http://www.iigwest.com/investigations/meier/ike42report.htm#01introduction

    An example of a badly wrong claim:

    http://www.iigwest.com/investigations/meier/ike42report.htm#11eruptioninfo

    My impression of Meier’s “predictive” methodology is confirmed, although I was giving him too much credit. He even mixes up metric with imperial. This is pretty much all I need. I don’t think Michael Horn will ever be meeting my criteria.

    Comment by Moewicus — September 2, 2011 @ 3:45 pm | Reply

  62. Well it’s an interesting, though hardly determining, point. You could actually write to Christian Frehener yourself for clarification. He may well have meant that that feature didn’t work on Meier’s camera (along with th eproblem of the fixed focus) and I proceeded from that information.

    Also, if I read the information correctly, the camera prevents double exposures, which would present a challenge to the skeptics who claim that Meier “hoaxed” some photos that way.

    But while it’s actually good that you’re going into details, I would suggest on focusing on the most abundant and important ones. Now, lest anyone misunderstand, I am speaking about the prophetic material, which is consistent, not self-contradictory and a major part of the reason for the contacts.

    I will say one thing in regards to Meier’s UFO photos, films, etc. Stuart had, rather foolishly it seems to me, disregarded the problem that the skeptics have, i.e that if ONE of Meier’s UFO photos is authentic (and we claim that hundreds are) claims of hoaxing, fraud, etc. have to be completely dismissed.

    As i mentioned, the skeptics themselves have settled on the suspended model theory as the foundation of their claims…and I have already shown that that is a completely unsubstantiated, incorrect conclusion. If you want to focus on the time exposure aspect of the camera, perhaps you’ll also show it’s significance in the overall matter.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 2, 2011 @ 4:00 pm | Reply

    • Michael, the point is not the abilities of the camera, the point is whether you are willing to correct a misleading impression with objective information. Nothing in Frehner’s statement indicated anything about Meier’s camera being broken. I’m telling you: the information on your page is misrepresenting the capabilities of the Olympus 35-ECR model. If you genuinely believe in open and honest inquiry you will correct that misleading impression.

      For another thing, proving one photograph to be genuinely an alien spacecraft does not show any others not to have been hoaxed by Meier. The evidence of hoaxing, however, casts strong doubt on the more difficult to duplicate shots. The model hypothesis is consistent with the evidence so far. Even Meier’s bizarre story about flying saucer plans being used for the design of his garbage can lids acknowledges that the evidence is consistent with a) hoaxing and b) the model hypothesis. That’s the whole reason it has to be excused with that stupid story.

      Comment by Moewicus — September 2, 2011 @ 4:21 pm | Reply

  63. First, since you’re apparently just starting out in terms of research, investigation and learning how to think, it would be a good idea to not become petulant or declarative of firm conclusions based on your “impressions” of other incorrectly drawn conclusions.

    For the record, Wendelle Stevens was in possession of Meier’s information about Io PRIOR to March 12, 1979 (March 9, actually, three days BEFORE NASA’s announcement). As a matter of fact, I detail a lot of that here:

    http://theyfly.com/Jupiter.htm

    Feel free to comment after digesting all of that…and after THINKING just how and why all of these people would effectively CONSPIRE to try to fool you and everyone else, though they would make NO effort themselves to do so. And they were NOT the ones to draw attention to the Io material, which is actually the crux of the matter…and NASA’s most important discovery of that mission.

    In other words, think in REAL LIFE terms, not in the terms of an “armchair expert” with zero actual experience in investigating this case, or any other REAL LIFE matter, with the inherent complexity attendant to it.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 2, 2011 @ 4:17 pm | Reply

    • That’s pretty lame, Michael. An undated, unsourced statement from a guy who may or may not have a financial interest in Meier’s ministry, that conveniently goes to just three days before one of the predictions was fulfilled. Your link ignores the clear pattern in Meier’s predicitons: his statements match material available in the media at around the same time and are in several places contradicted by later, better information. Take this one, as stated by the same Wendelle Stevens:

      It can safely be stated that the Plejarans told Meier that there are in fact 17 Moons of Jupiter, but that it would be many months before we discover the next ones.

      In fact there are now 64 confirmed Moons of Jupiter.

      Still waiting.

      Comment by Moewicus — September 2, 2011 @ 4:30 pm | Reply

  64. And now a little challenge for YOU and anyone else here who so loosely accuse people of lying. I know that this is the internet, where no standards of ethical, moral conduct are required, unlike in the days (yes, they actually existed) when people who slandered, libeled and defamed others were very often held accountable.

    However, I posted a blog (http://theyflyblog.com/you-cant-handle-the-truth/09/01/2011) that fully explained that the man that you continue to defame not only passed a lie detector test, is supported by dozens of eyewitnesses and CHARACTER witnesses but also got a thumbs up for honesty from an expert consultant to the U.S. Army Special Forces. Is there something else you’d need?

    Just what is it about REAL LIFE and how it works that seems to elude you, especially when it comes to understanding that your fundamentally nasty accusations are without substance or merit? Really, at what point do you take a look at your OWN obvious intellectual and CHARACTER flaws for continuing to defy the evidence of a man’s truthfulness and honesty?

    Is that not part of your world, or is it only comprised of sitting in your chair, trying to take someone down rather than to find the truth?

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 2, 2011 @ 4:35 pm | Reply

    • I must admit, you’re a rather skillful dodger. Did or did Meier not say that Jupiter has 17 moons?

      I already read your blog post and I presented my problems with it above in an earlier comment. I’m not going to read a bunch of books about the topic.

      I find it rather hypocritical to say:

      just how and why all of these people would effectively CONSPIRE to try to fool you and everyone else, though they would make NO effort themselves to do so.

      And then say:

      Just what is it about REAL LIFE and how it works that seems to elude you, especially when it comes to understanding that your fundamentally nasty accusations are without substance or merit? Really, at what point do you take a look at your OWN obvious intellectual and CHARACTER flaws for continuing to defy the evidence of a man’s truthfulness and honesty?

      Motes and own eyes, etc.. If you get to invent conspiracies to deceive, then so do I, and we are thus left where we should still be: dealing with the hard evidence.

      Anyways: disconfirming evidence is decisive. Meier has reported things allegedly from scientifically advanced aliens that have been contradicted by later facts, and which match information available to him at the time. This disconfirms the alien contact hypothesis. My armchair is comfy and it does not take a field investigation to smell a fish.

      Comment by Moewicus — September 2, 2011 @ 5:06 pm | Reply

  65. Okay, I put up my last comment before seeing your last two.

    Two things, the first is that you obviously DON’T know a thing about research, investigation and, as I said…thinking. If this was a radio show, live presentation, etc., I’d take you through the challenges in detail…again.

    You’re all over the place, trying to conflate your slanted versions and uninformed opinions in with the facts. The model hypothesis is DEAD in the water, without evidence, proof, etc. And – of course – you’ve failed to present any.

    The statement about Jupiter’s moons also disregards the criteria expressed, i.e. that not all small orbiting bodies are considered moons by the Plejaren. (Well you probably were someone who also “falsely” considered Pluto a planet…until the “scientists” told you it wasn’t one, so don’t bother criticizing the definition.)

    Then of course you go on to effectively claim that Stevens was lying and you provide only your innuendo and conjecture.

    I am in the process, strangely enough, of writing an article addressing WHY I bother to interact on these forums. And you, among a number of people, have given me some material for it but, sadly, you also make me feel a bit hopeless in terms of the thinking capabilities of far too many people in this world. Honestly, the problem may be that you DON’T know that you DON’T know…and that you don’t WANT to know.

    You are presented with a small part of 26,000+ pages of astounding information, presented by ONE human being, who also presented voluminous physical evidence…and you can’t get past your own illusions and delusions about what is really in front of you. I can’t explain it any better. You don’t get the difference between REAL LIFE and your make believe, online, armchair expert meanderings…and how off base and irrelevant they are to what’s already been LONG established, by REAL experts, scientists, professional investigators, etc. in this matter that has been ongoing – and surviving every challenge – for some 60+ years.

    But no, YOU’VE got a…computer and that makes you some kind of a genius, oh boy.

    And I know that you’ll want to resort to your little self-satisfied tag line, “I’m still waiting” (if I haven’t ruined that moment for you).

    Of course, you could always take your particular brand of genius to to the FIGU forum and make your brilliant arguments there, though I doubt that you will.

    So, I wish you – and all the others like you – the real, well deserved fruits of your labors. I wish for you to experience that which will convincingly reveal to you whether the Meier case – and all that it attempted to offer to a world of lazy, intellectually inadequate (but VERY self-IMPRESSED) people – is true or not.

    Unfortunately, it’s not a very happy wish, as I do think you’re going to eventually realize.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 2, 2011 @ 5:09 pm | Reply

    • The model hypothesis is DEAD in the water, without evidence, proof, etc.

      1) Close reproductions of many of Meier’s photos.
      2) Meier’s ridiculous, obviously ad hoc story about UFO plans being used for garbage can lids.

      That’s plenty of evidence. Far more than there is that Meier is contacting aliens.

      The statement about Jupiter’s moons also disregards the criteria expressed, i.e. that not all small orbiting bodies are considered moons by the Plejaren.

      I was going by Wendelle Stevens’ statement. Please provide a paragraph number citation: I find the claim about the number of Jupiter’s moons to be unsearchable.

      http://futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_115

      In any case, the publication date of that set was 1982, making it not meet my criteria. Additionally, Meier’s claim that Io’s eruptions are the source of Jupiter’s ring are now known to be incorrect.

      Then of course you go on to effectively claim that Stevens was lying and you provide only your innuendo and conjecture.

      You effectively told me “some guy said it’s true” and I said “I won’t just believe some guy without documentation.” That is what I have been saying all along.

      But no, YOU’VE got a…computer and that makes you some kind of a genius, oh boy.

      Did I ever claim to be a genius? Stake my claims on my own person? No. I provided some simple, clear criteria for you to meet. You still haven’t. I’m still waiting.

      Comment by Moewicus — September 2, 2011 @ 5:39 pm | Reply

  66. P.S. As a matter of fact, since this is simply a hopeless place to try to reason with people who can’t, I will be interviewed on these dates by these radio hosts, I think most are live shows, feel free to challenge me there:

    Sept. 21
    12:00 Midnight show with Robert Pepino

    Sept. 27
    10:15 Michael Vara

    Nov. 10
    9:00 Betsey Lewis

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 2, 2011 @ 5:14 pm | Reply

    • I don’t see any point in talking to you live when, given all the free time that written responses allow, you still haven’t met my criteria. I only want one, remember.

      And are you ever going to correct that misinformation about the Olympus 35-ECR? A simple yes or no answer will do. Maybe you should post the information on both the Bartholomaus page and your blog, for the sake of openness.

      Remember: it’s an (E)lectronically (C)ontrolled (R)angefinder meaning it sets itself and its range of shutter speeds is 4 sec – 1/800th of a second.

      Comment by Moewicus — September 2, 2011 @ 5:43 pm | Reply

  67. Michael Horn,
    Regarding your comment 57, if David Froning is the same scientist as seen here, at about 9.00, why don’t you submit Meier’s physical evidence, including the metal sample, to him for study?

    David Froning would certainly be able to find other qualified and equally open minded scientists, meet the needed scientific requirements, conduct the study in a controlled environment and submit his findings to peer review.

    I assume, that Moewicus, Stuart Robbins, Phil Platt, Karl Mamer, …the scientific community would support such a step and the truthfulness of the Meier case would be definitively established.

    Regards.

    Comment by Jennifer D. — September 4, 2011 @ 2:22 am | Reply

  68. Hi Jennifer,

    I think you should know that David Froning already supports the Meier case, based on his very expert knowledge. He expressed that support when he shared the stage during a presentation of mine in Los Angeles…and he expressed it to me privately as well. Of course Marcel Vogel already did analysis of the metals, using both electron scanning microscope and spectral analysis. You perhaps also saw the comments by Michael Malin and other experts who, already long ago, have authenticated Meier’s physical evidence.

    I think you’ll find that the scientists who have authenticated Meier’s evidence have FAR more experience, higher standing and more impressive credentials that the fellows you cited. Perhaps it’s THEY who should take the lesson here.

    BTW, the information about Tunguska apparently supports what Meier was told about the that event, i.e. it was the result of an extraterrestrial craft self-destructing:

    http://www.theyfly.com/PDF/The%20Tunguska%20Event.pdf (posted on my site in August 2006)

    http://www.theyfly.com/Tunguska1.htm

    And thanks for sharing that video clip. It’s true that the Russians are far more scientific in their approach to this subject. Add of course Jim Dilettoso and Lee Elders, also featured in that clip, did many years’ worth of investigation into the Meier case, resulting in their own evidence and conclusions that the case is authentic. As a matter of fact, while the amateur, armchair experts like to criticize Meier’s UFO photos, the freely available Photo Analysis has not been successfully rebutted by them.

    So there’s really no need to again analyze physical evidence, especially since Meier’s scientific information constitutes the biggest and best corroboration of the extraterrestrial nature of this case. I’m working on another article about it that I’ll share a link to when through. But if you visit the page on my site titled:

    CORROBORATED INFORMATION SOURCES

    …you should have ample evidence that the Meier case is authentic.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 4, 2011 @ 11:42 am | Reply

    • Michael: still no response to my yes-or-no question?

      Comment by Moewicus — September 4, 2011 @ 2:39 pm | Reply

  69. Jennifer, I would certainly support a peer-reviewed study of the physical evidence presented by the proponents of Meier. Unfortunately Mr. Horn et al seem to be satisfied by having a few people with degrees agreeing with them. As it stands, Michael Horn’s presentation of those who agree with him is simply cherry-picking. Any one scientist can go around saying he or she agrees that Billy Meier is contacting Plejarens, but any one scientist can be motivated and convinced by any number of inadequate reasons which peer review would weed out. No individual scientist’s opinions should be confused with science.

    Some things Michael is not telling us:

    Page 214 of the 2001 book And Yet…They Fly! states the following:

    “A metallurgist from the University of Arizona examined one of the metal fragments and analyzed it as a simple ‘cooking pot metal’ or cheap cast metal alloy used to produce such things as tin soldiers.”

    Originally a qualified metallurgist using spectrometry analyzed the metal and the sample was revealed to be nothing more than a combination of ordinary silver and copper.

    From: http://billymeierufocase.com/metaldeconstruction.html

    As for his litany of expert quotations, when you boil it down it is not very impressive:

    a) A statement that close examination of the Meier photographs precludes them being paste-ups or projections. This does not address the model hypothesis, which is supported by close reproductions of Meier’s photographs using models. The only thing the more detailed analysis he posted a link to establishes is that, yes, the evidence is consistent with the use of models.

    b) Marcel Vogel saying some extraordinary things about Meier’s metal. Vogel, however, is not a metallurgist and was not using a tool that could determine the composition of the sample.

    c) David Froning saying he’s made vaguely-referred-to “breakthroughs” in FTL travel. What breakthroughs? Has Froning gotten anything to travel faster than light? Have his findings been subjected to peer review? All we have is the word of one guy that vague things are happening.

    Unfortunately there are a lot of scientists who are cranks. Linus Pauling had more scientific acumen than I will ever be able to dream of, but he was still wrong about Vitamin C–and it is simply not an argument to say that he is more qualified than I am. Not being able to review the physical evidence for myself, not only do I not have any reason to believe David Froning or Marcel Vogel in light of conflicting evaluations of the evidence, I have no right to take their word for it in the absence of extensive peer review–and Horn’s frequent appeals to how “qualified” they are are revealed as fallacious appeals to authority.

    I have already laid out the evidence I would find acceptable. Unfortunately Michael Horn stubbornly refuses to give it. Not only that, he appears to have trouble acknowledging that he has provided faulty information on the topic of the Olympus 35-ECR. He has consistently refused to even address the issue except to excuse the information on obviously flawed grounds. Here’s a prediction you can test: Michael Horn will not correct his information. My yes or no question will remain unanswered indefinitely.

    Comment by Moewicus — September 4, 2011 @ 3:29 pm | Reply

  70. It’s Sunday night and what do we have here:

    A. Wrong. The Photo Analysis utilized state-of-the-art technologies to determine that the objects were large and a distance from the camera. Read it for yourself, Jennifer. The end of the model hypothesis couldn’t be clearer:

    http://theyflyblog.com/saying-goodbye-to-the-skeptical-challenge/07/12/2011

    Of course, if ANY of the people who’ve made and photographed models of Meier’s ORIGINAL photos had theirs tested to the same standards, we’d have something to compare to. If the models all produced the same results then we may be able to conclude that Meier used models. But they’ve ALL refused to get their photos tested. Surprised?

    B. Wrong. As stated frequently, Vogel was a multi-disciplinary genius who used EXACTLY the correct technologies in examining the metal.

    One of the most imbecilic arguments is the “Not being able to review the physical evidence for myself” one, which if carried to logical conclusions eliminates our very confused friend here from accepting ANYTHING that he didn’t personally review, which means 99.99% of all history, scientific discoveries, etc.

    Running neck and neck for the title of convoluted illogical nonsense (imbecilic arguments) is accusing on one hand what he calls “fallacious appeals to authority” while calling for “peer review”, obviously by “a few people with degrees”, who he has already relegated categorically to irrelevance.

    C. Is there really a comment necessary on this self-contradictory, presumptuous bit of double-talk?

    Oh and:

    “It is also likely that volcanic particles from Io contribute to Jupiter’s faint ring system.”

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KYhCRaMqDdMJ:www.astronomy-education.com/index.php%3Fpage%3D77+Io+eruptions+contribute+to+Jupiteer's+rings&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

    Jennifer, as I suggested, read and THINK through all of the corroborated information. Your questions then may actually be…why is anyone carrying on about the physical evidence in light of the massive body of scientifically corroborated information? Or, in other words, now that we have your attention (the controversy about the physical evidence) here’s the REASON for the contacts (the information).

    And I’ll go one step further, while Mr. W is simply incorrect in his first two sentences in A. he is deliberately lying in his statement, “The only thing the more detailed analysis he posted a link to establishes is that, yes, the evidence is consistent with the use of models.”

    I will leave it to others to figure out why.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 4, 2011 @ 4:12 pm | Reply

  71. P.S. Just a couple of quotes from the actual Photo Analysis document to show that I wasn’t falsely accusing Mr. W here of lying (I should add misleading, distorting, misrepresenting, etc.)

    “We still find no evidence of fraud or trickery in any of these photographs so enhanced. On the other hand, we find details revealed that tend more to establish the validity of the story told by the witness….”

    “Then the print, color copy negatives, and color separation black and white negatives were carefully examined for evidence of double exposure, photo paste-up, model at short range suspended on a string, etc., and nothing was found to indicate a hoax…”

    “In digital analysis we can draw certain conclusions about how distant things are by how sharp the real focus is. This is observed and registered as blur factor. By going to the object most in focus and then deciding where the true depth of field actually lies, we can determine the depth of field of each point in the picture, and whether it is nearer or farther than another point. We can then set up holographic plates for each depth of field in the photograph and can create a distance scale within the computer. Then, when we have defined the planes, we extract them out. We now know what is farthest away and so we lift all elements of that blur factor out and store it. We will make a holographic plate of that and save it. Then we will go to the true focus field in the picture, divided it into 3 or 4 planes and make a plate for each and save them also. Then we go to the closest focus plane and do the same with it.

    Now, we are not just making a transfer of a photograph into the computer – we are making a 3-dimensional transfer on each depth of field into the computer. We are then able to analyze just where any object is within the actual depth of field – and then we have the computer bring it closer and move it farther away by simulating the entire photograph in 3-dimension in the computer. The computer hologram will look at every line and really be able to scan and make judgments about what is in focus. That’s what laser holography can do. It is analyzing, area by area, the density, color scale, gray scale, blurring, light scatter, and any other variable in the picture. We now run aspect size tests on the UFO image and then begin analyzing all the data. We can now say the object is this big, it is moving this much, and it is doing this. And we can tell within a very small percentage how far away it is in distance, and is it moving or not moving, and which direction. We can definitely tell whether it is a small object at a slow velocity or a large object at a much higher velocity. We can also set up programs to tell us what the shutter speed of the camera must have been and other characteristics of the snapshot and how the picture was taken…”

    Can we begin to see just how focused on detail and fact finding the photo analysis really was? Do you see any indication that Mr. W’s deliberately false statement, “The only thing the more detailed analysis he posted a link to establishes is that, yes, the evidence is consistent with the use of models.” is actually supported?

    The fact is that we know a lot about Meier’s character and nothing (good) about Mr. W.’s, only his freewheeling willingness to try to impugn the honesty, character, qualifications, etc. of others with no evidence presented that he is any way qualified to, nor that he can substantiate his attacks.

    But this is the internet, where the democratization of mediocrity, and the unchecked flow of defamation from largely anonymous wannabes pours forth as a continuous flood, more indicative of the degeneration of character, values, understanding, etc. on the part of the defamers of course.

    What we have in Mr. W is yet another one, without credibility or integrity, who undeservedly, falsely attacks others as a substitute for his own inadequacies and lack of significant achievements. He has, ironically, give us the chance to apply his own criticism to him, we simply “do not have any reason to believe” him.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 4, 2011 @ 4:50 pm | Reply

  72. Again and again Michael avoids my simple yes or no question. Why does a man so concerned when someone on the internet impugns someone’s honesty not strive for openness and transparency in his own dealings? Why should I have to bring up Horn’s misinformation about the Olympus 35-ECR again and again if the evidence for his case is so solid? An honest person should be willing to say he or she is wrong when corrected and publish the correction post-haste. For myself I acknowledge that the authors of the photo analysis conclude that the model hypothesis is false, but the very “detail oriented” nature of the analysis is part of the problem: it quite literally ignores the bigger picture. I invite anyone to take this simple quiz and try to distinguish between the photos that have been acknowledged by their creator to be of models (Phil Langdon) and those asserted by their creator to be of alien spacecraft (Billy Meier):

    http://billymeierufocase.com/wcufophotoquiz1.html

    Michael Horn asserts again and again that the model hypothesis is “dead in the water” but even Meier’s obviously ad hoc story explaining the obvious similarity between the model’s–sorry, the UFO’s–base and the rim of one of Meier’s own trash-can lids acknowledges the power of the model hypothesis.

    One of the most imbecilic arguments is the “Not being able to review the physical evidence for myself” one, which if carried to logical conclusions eliminates our very confused friend here from accepting ANYTHING that he didn’t personally review, which means 99.99% of all history, scientific discoveries, etc.

    Here, Horn drastically misunderstands the call for peer review and scientific testing. 99.99% of scientific discoveries and advances have been peer reviewed and tested. My computer provides ample evidence every single day of the importance of repeatability. I don’t have to take Galileo’s word that the Moon has mountains on it just because he was a genius, either: I can buy a telescope myself and look, and I can look up the results of telescopic observations of thousands of people, both amateur and professional. Michael Horn, on the other hand, ignores contradictory evaluations of the evidence in favor of those experts who have self-selected into the group of people with whom he agrees. His bald dismissal of my questions about what David Froning has actually done and had repeatably demonstrated in a lab further reveal his arguments as fallacious appeals to authority. His refusal to provide any documentation for Wendelle Stevens’ statement about receiving Meier’s documents on March 9 1979, and instead complain that I am calling Stevens a liar, indicates that he has a problem distinguishing between evidence and authority. These are not the rules people arguing about evidence play by.

    Comment by Moewicus — September 4, 2011 @ 5:27 pm | Reply

  73. I would like observers of this conversation to note how frequently Mr. Horn resorts to attacking my person:

    What we have in Mr. W is yet another one, without credibility or integrity, who undeservedly, falsely attacks others as a substitute for his own inadequacies and lack of significant achievements. He has, ironically, give us the chance to apply his own criticism to him, we simply “do not have any reason to believe” him.

    […]

    But no, YOU’VE got a…computer and that makes you some kind of a genius, oh boy.

    But it is Michael Horn and not myself who gratuitously brings up my integrity, intelligence, ability to think, “lack of significant achievements”–only to denigrate my person. Moreover, it is simply not relevant to get indignant that someone (say, Wendelle Stevens) is being called a liar when a) such an incredible (as in, unbelievable) hypothesis is being advanced and b) it is an impersonal matter of hard evidence. Finally when he says “we simply ‘do not have any reason to believe’ him” he flips the burden of proof completely on its head: I’m not the one asking people to believe something completely without precedent, nor am I the one who changes his story ad hoc when his evidence is revealed to be of terrestrial origin. That would be Billy Meier, and it casts doubt on everything he says and lends itself to the more parsimonious conclusion that he is engaging in fakery.

    But the only thing I want, the one thing I have asked for, depends not on how wonderful and smart I supposedly believe myself to be or on Billy Meier’s character, but on publication dates and unambiguously fulfilled predictions. For which I am still waiting, probably in vain.

    Comment by Moewicus — September 4, 2011 @ 5:55 pm | Reply

  74. Just because it’s so…obvious:

    Compare Photo 2. (Billy Meier)

    with…

    Photo 7. (Phil Langdon)

    …count the “grooves”, or spaces between the thin, raised lines going around the base of the objects) on the base of the real WCUFO: 4

    …and on the Langdon model: 3

    Notice that the top flange (just below the rim of jewel-like lights) on Meier’s WCUFO is much thinner and angled differently than on Langdon’s model.

    Notice that the bottom flange on the WCUFO is different, i.e. it has no rim in which the the body of the object sits, while Langdon’s does.

    You will also find that Langdon’s photos are characteristically clearer than Meier’s because of things like…”blur factor”, as I – coincidentally, or was it “psychically” noted in 71. above. In my personal correspondence with Langdon, going back over two years, I told him that I thought he had made good models of Meier’s original UFOs. Those are…MODELS, based on ORIGINALS. Good model makers can reproduce the EFFECT of all sorts of objects, even cities, etc. – as we all should know by now.

    So much for the “the obvious similarity” that Mr. W would like us to convict Meier of fakery on. And let’s remember, it’s Langdon, Mr. W and all the skeptics who have steadily claimed that Meier used that garbage can lid to make a “model” WCUFO. Tell me then, my oh so astute friend…why are they OBVIOUSLY not the same…as in NOT the same?

    No wonder he doesn’t like my attention to…details.

    Now that I’ve pointed out some of the OBVIOUS discrepancies in Langdon’s work, all of the bluster from Mr. W shows us that he simply – once again – doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And he trusted his OWN eyes to enthusiastically stick his foot in his mouth.

    Really Mr W., are you THAT blind that you couldn’t tell the difference between the models and Meier’s photos…right away? Despite the fact that Langdon has had YEARS to painstakingly study the photos and films that Meier simply snapped of these objects, he could only approximate the effect and get the core details ABSOLUTELY WRONG? Looks like Mr. W “self-selected” another wannabe to be his “expert”. And just wait until the films by Landgdon get paraded out as duplicating Meier’s…and get shot down just as easily.

    For anyone who really cares – aren’t some people going to an AWFUL lot of trouble to try to convince you that Meier must be some kind of a brilliant “hoaxer”? And how can I thank Mr. W enough for giving me the opportunity to BEGIN to unload on this desperate disinformation campaign?

    Attacking your person, Mr. W? Well then…rightly so. Oh, add “incompetent” (noun) to your resume.

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ll get some…beauty sleep. While you rack your brain trying to figure out how to extract that foot (or two) of yours out of your mouth.

    P.S. YES, the details DO count. Three vs. four, thicker vs. thinner, extra rim vs. no rim., etc.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 4, 2011 @ 6:35 pm | Reply

  75. Really Mr W., are you THAT blind that you couldn’t tell the difference between the models and Meier’s photos…right away?

    Actually the particular picture of Langdon’s to which you refer was by far the easiest for me to distinguish from Meier’s. But don’t let that get in the way of your presumption.

    …count the “grooves”, or spaces between the thin, raised lines going around the base of the objects) on the base of the real WCUFO: 4

    …and on the Langdon model: 3

    Because as we all know, all trash can lids ever are the same, right? Wrong.

    This image shows a closer match between Meier’s UFO picture and the lid type singled out:

    From here: http://billymeierufocase.com/wcufodeconstruction.html

    Notice the four grooves? Little details do count. From the alleged explanation of “Ptaah”:

    since you yourself provided one of these covers to clarify the fact, it was very simple for us to compare the receptacle cover with construction details of the flying device. We, too, noticed the stunning similarity and began focusing our attention on this matter. We thoroughly investigated the entire situation and discovered that the old, newly re-emerged drawings were used for the design and production of these receptacle covers.

    So I guess Michael Horn disagrees with Ptaah.

    Ah, but one protests: Langdon didn’t create exact copies of Meier’s photos! Of course not. We found a matching garbage can lid, which “Ptaah’s” explanation acknowledges, and Langdon recreated the effect of many of Meier’s photos–which is what’s actually important, because it demonstrates how forced perspective and the ability to control what the viewer sees can create a false impression of size and scale (but which is vulnerable to analysis by the experience eye). Griping about small differences in detail just shows how you’re ignoring the bigger picture. As for why Langdon’s model looks different from Meier’s, I don’t know exactly how Langdon constructed it, or whether the lid design has been changed over time, etc.. So now by the rules of Ad Hominem Circus, do I now get to call you incompetent or just blind?

    But do feel free to use any excuse you can to obfuscate and deny the obvious similarities.

    And still Michael Horn refrains from posting a simple yes or no answer to my question. It’s a pretty simple matter to correct misleading information one has unwittingly propagated, but when you drag your feet this much, even when you do get around to correcting it one must ask “what took so long?”. I predict that Mr. Horn will continue to use any excuse to avoid addressing the subject of the Olympus 35-ECR and to avoid meeting my criteria. So far I am batting 1000.

    Comment by Moewicus — September 4, 2011 @ 9:32 pm | Reply

  76. Observers of this conversation should also note Michael Horn’s reference to Stephen Ambrose in his Wall O’ Experts:

    Sound engineer for Stevie Wonder, inventor of the Micro Monitor radio set and speaker that fits inside Wonder’s ear, analyzed the Meier sound recordings of one of the UFO’s as it hovered above him. Not only was he unable to duplicate the sounds with synthesizers, he found they created totally unique patterns on a spectrum analyzer and on the oscilloscope. Another sound engineer named Nils Rognerud corroborated Ambrose’s findings. Think about this for just a moment, these experts, using state-of-the-art equipment, were unable to duplicate the sounds and the unique patterns they generated.

    http://www.theyfly.com/Scientific_Experts.html

    This, too, turns out to be empty rhetoric, since Phil Langdon has replicated the sound:

    http://billymeierufocase.com/whatisthatsound.html

    Note that Langdon reproduced the sound while using a model to reproduce Meier’s photographs. It’s just another way in which the model hypothesis is supported by the evidence–in this case, entirely providentially.

    Comment by Moewicus — September 4, 2011 @ 10:02 pm | Reply

  77. Thanks for your feedbacks, gentlemen; i shall take my time and go through the documents and evidence you provided.

    For the time being, i do only have a couple of observations – ‘Bemerkungen’, as we say in German – pertaining to my inquiry.

    Michael Horn: “So there’s really no need to again analyze physical evidence, especially since Meier’s scientific information constitutes the biggest and best corroboration of the extraterrestrial nature of this case.”

    I am afraid, that this blog alone and the ongoing discussion hier, i.e. the need to meet scientific requirements, demonstrate the need of a new, monitored, public and peer-reviewed study of Meier’s physical evidence.

    The metal sample itself is a core evidence, as it is supposed to be of extraterrestrial origin and is a physical evidence, and precisely its analysis in the abovementioned setting would be conclusive and would constitute the biggest and best corroboration of the extraterrestrial nature of the Meier case.

    It shouldn’t matter that the study of the metal sample already took place, for science is a relentless process and scientific testings and experiments are and should be repeated, also because scientific tools keep improving, leading to new understanding und discoveries.
    Even if the metal sample has been studied hundreds of times by hundreds of highly qualified scientists and the last study took place just yesterday, what would be the problem with another study of that sample (or even of another sample) today or tomorrow?

    As George Knapp noted in the video, at about 2.20, scientists state, that “there is nothing to study, there is no physical evidence.”

    So, why don’t you present the physical evidence you possess to another panel of scientists?
    You and Meier have nothing to lose, but all to win.

    And finally, Moewicus backed the approach i suggested; would other participants express their readiness to go along?

    All the best.

    Comment by Jennifer D. — September 5, 2011 @ 4:11 am | Reply

  78. The claim is that Langdon duplicated Meier’s photos. He didn’t. He created SIMILAR effects. Now of course it serves one to lie and distort what Ptaah said:

    “We found a matching garbage can lid, which ‘Ptaah’s’ explanation acknowledges, and Langdon recreated the effect of many of Meier’s photos–which is what’s actually important, because it demonstrates how forced perspective and the ability to control what the viewer sees can create a false impression of size and scale (but which is vulnerable to analysis by the experience eye). Griping about small differences in detail just shows how you’re ignoring the bigger picture.”

    No, you didn’t find “a matching garbage can lid”, you found a similar one. Not the same. Yes, Langdon recreated EFFECTS. So, since the stubbornness factor here is indeed…astronomical, I’m going to provide you with a link, one that I provided to Phil a year ago:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/24796741@N05/sets/72157604247242338/show/with/2346008881/

    So tell us, are those reproductions of “models”? Do they “prove” that the originals there were “models”? Are they the…SAME, made from the SAME items, as the objects they were MODELED on?

    By the skeptic’s logic, it MUST be so. The EFFECTS seem to be the same.

    And by the skeptics logic and imprecision, the last two gold WCUFO photos on this page are indeed the same:

    https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/new-interview-on-the-conspiracy-skeptic-podcast/#comment-2796

    …even though one can already detect the obvious differences in size and scale of components. So I’m just “Griping about small differences in detail just shows how you’re ignoring the bigger picture.”

    Truly, this is why you’re NOT scientific.

    I can hardly wait for the mental/semantic gymnastics to begin.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 5, 2011 @ 6:04 am | Reply

  79. Correction on second link:

    http://www.thebiggestsecret.org/home/index.php/articles/ufo-et/meier-hoax/60-meier-hoax/76-meier-smoking-gun

    …and I’ll bet everyone thought the cars were real too.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 5, 2011 @ 8:51 am | Reply

  80. And for Jennifer, the answer:

    http://theyflyblog.com/?p=860

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 5, 2011 @ 10:08 am | Reply

  81. Michael, I’m getting tired of this back-and-forth between you and Moewicus. You will directly answer him about whether you will correct Olympus camera information on your website, continue to provide wrong information about it on your website, or you will supply a manufacturer’s specs backing you your claim or refuting his. Or, you will not be posting a reply to this thread again.

    Comment by Stuart Robbins — September 5, 2011 @ 10:43 am | Reply

  82. Hi Stuart,

    Now that’s a pretty uppity attitude for a guy who’s blog I have helped to create more action on than has been produced by any of your NPRish radio shows or over-kills on the easy targets of religious fundamentalists, etc.!

    But sure, I’ve updated that article to include that…detail.

    Now, since I assume that you’re an equal opportunity guy, how’s about having Moewicus correct his own incorrect statements that I pointed out, lies actually, as well as the little…DETAIL that he wants to run from about the WCUFO model NOT being identical with Meier’s WCUFO?

    Fair is fair, right?

    I’ll bet that you as a scientist can name all sorts of elements, astronomical phenomena, etc. that may be SIMILAR to others but you know, a molecule here, an atom there, the presence of absence of a particular gas, etc. is what makes them…NOT the same.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 5, 2011 @ 12:09 pm | Reply

    • Michael, I realize that the word “evidence” may have a different definition for you than the rest of us, but would you care to back up your statement that you “have helped to create more action on than has been produced by any of your NPRish radio shows or over-kills on the easy targets of religious fundamentalists”? I can actually back up my claim that the sum total of all traffic to my site to the posts I’ve made about you and Billy Meier accounts for roughly 1% of the traffic. And that’s all traffic to those posts, which includes Google and other search engine searches and posts by people on forums about this topic.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — September 5, 2011 @ 12:41 pm | Reply

  83. Well Stuart, I’ll pick my battles carefully, so let’s indeed see if the word “evidence” has the same, or different meaning for all of us, including you as a scientist:

    Now, since we’ve got those two, hard fought for answers for Mr. W, let’s see if we can actually USE them to make some headway here. I’m sure everyone is tired of having me point out that the thinking is deficient while the attacks, accusations, assumptions and all other manifestation of non-scientific cynicism abound.

    So let’s go to the one issue of the two that is most laden with implications about the truthfulness of the matter, i.e. the statement by Stevens that he had the Jupiter material in his possession by March 9, 1979, three days before NASA’s announcement that the MOST important discovery of the Voyager mission was that Io was the most volcanically active body in the solar system.

    What’s most remarkable about Stevens information about that contact in the book is the ABSENCE of ANY mention of Io. That’s right, he DIDN’T mention it! Instead, Stevens was focused on about a dozen specific predictions contained in that document, and info about the NUMBER of Jupiter’s moons, that he received ACCIDENTALLY from Meier. You can find a list of those predictions in the 115th Contact here:

    http://theyfly.com/prophecies/prophecies.htm

    Stevens also noted in the book, as I also posted there, that he had shown the information to two trusted men; they all signed off on it and agreed to keep it secret until the events had occurred. Now, since people have accused Meier of back-dating, retrodiction, having access to all sorts of scientific information, etc. – all of which was discovered to NOT be the case in both separate investigations into the case – how is it that Stevens didn’t mention the Io information, wasn’t it in the document?

    Well the answer to the second part is of course it was, and is, in EVERY version of the Contact Notes, including in Stevens’ own books! The answer to the first part is most likely because neither he nor Meier were paying attention to the importance of the NASA announcement and in fact probably weren’t even aware of it. It has to be emphasized that all this was happening long before the internet age, that Meier neither lived near a library, university, newsstand, nor had ANY subscriptions or access to scientific journals (which wouldn’t have carried the information about Io until long after March 12). The information in English wouldn’t have been available to him and even in German there’s absolutely NO evidence that he ever had access to it…long after the events that it would have been in the slow, non-computer age.

    Further, information about the DISCOVERY of the “ring of singly ionized sulfur encircling Jupiter” wasn’t made until April 1979 (http://theyfly.com/Jupiter.htm), about a month AFTER Stevens already had the information…and which apparently didn’t seem to hold much interest for him. Certainly Meier wasn’t banging on anyone’s door about it…or any of his other spot on, preemptively published scientific information.

    Sure DOESN’T sound like a couple of scoundrels and back-daters at work to me.

    And just WHY was a so-called Swiss farmer publishing information about Jupiter, Io, Venus, Saturn, Mars, the two planets beyond Pluto and consistently doing so before “official discovery”? And do note that Meier had already referred to these last two objects, at the times undiscovered, as planetoids, back in 1978 and 1992…in published books. He had also foretold the discovery of the two objects as far back as…1958:

    http://theyfly.com/lost/meier.prophecies.1958.htm

    Now, INSTEAD of hurling unsubstantiated accusations and attacks against either Meier or Stevens, why not actually think this through. And let’s remember one of the skeptic’s own favorite principles:

    Occam’s razor

    And apply the same reasoning and FAIRNESS that you’d want others to apply to…YOU.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 5, 2011 @ 1:00 pm | Reply

  84. P.S. I see what you mean. Well what I meant was that a cursory look, going back many months in your archives, showed me that the blogs I’ve posted on seem to have accounted for more comments than any others, during that period combined.

    Could I have miscounted, could misperceive the causal relationship, etc.? Sure but I think it’s still fair to say that the commentaries have been voluminous around these topics, in some small measure perhaps aided by my humble presence.

    BTW, any time you want to start getting into the details that concern me would be fine. Of course my last post should be an interesting one to comment on, from an objective, logical, investigatory standpoint of course.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 5, 2011 @ 1:10 pm | Reply

  85. how’s about having Moewicus correct his own incorrect statements that I pointed out, lies actually, as well as the little…DETAIL that he wants to run from about the WCUFO model NOT being identical with Meier’s WCUFO?

    Actually I fully acknowledged that Phil Langdon’s model is not the same as the object depicted in Meier’s images. To quote myself:

    As for why Langdon’s model looks different from Meier’s, I don’t know exactly how Langdon constructed it, or whether the lid design has been changed over time, etc..

    And if you claim that my statement that Marcel Vogel was not using the right equipment to determine the composition of the metal sample is wrong, you need only provide some documentation. You remember that thing I did multiple times regarding the shutter speed of the Olympus 35-ECR–posting a link along with the relevant information? Do it like that.

    When you write this:

    Do they “prove” that the originals there were “models”?

    You misunderstand my argument. I don’t believe I’ve claimed that Langdon’s reproductions prove Meier used models. Only that they support the model hypothesis. Langdon’s reproduction of Meier’s “beamship” audio under the proposed circumstances Meier would have to use to engage in a hoax and Meier’s/”Ptaah’s” explanation of why the alleged WCUFO looks like that garbage can lid also support the model hypothesis.

    The stubbornness here is indeed astronomical. If Langdon produced a 1:1 copy of the WCUFO you could just say “convincing models can be made, but so what?” Your argument about the details is irrelevant to your own case.

    Now since the host of this blog has expressed some displeasure at this ongoing exchange, I’ll be refraining from posting for a while at least. I do find it remarkable that you only bothered to correct the misleading information about the Olympus 35-ECR only after Stuart threatened to block you–and you have the gall to impugn my integrity, but only do the right thing when threatened!– and that even so you have still refrained from posting the camera’s range of shutter speeds, and instead emphasize that information which might salvage the claim. Observers of this conversation should note where Christian Frehner says “It [the camera] was an instant shot.” Who uses that kind of phrase for a broken camera? You are reading in the only thing that would save this claim about the camera. You also provide a straw-man of my concerns about the claim, as nowhere have I attempted to summarily dismiss the Meier case on those grounds. I also note that you continue to claim “there is absolutely no evidence” of steel wool particles bouncing on the ground when there clearly is. It’s like squeezing blood from a stone.

    But, as you continue to say, it is all irrelevant if you can produce a prediction that fulfills the criteria I have provided. Given how you continue to balk at providing one, or even of providing documentation for Wendelle Stevens’ statement which I called into question (what feels like) so long ago, I think I will still be waiting for a good while.

    Comment by Moewicus — September 5, 2011 @ 1:50 pm | Reply

  86. Claim after claim after claim, all without supporting documentation, just links to Meier’s prophecies. Even references to alleged prophecies that were “found” after the fact. This is so far from my simple criteria, it is not even funny.

    Michael, have you note gotten the point that this argument is one big [citation needed]?

    For those who think Meier couldn’t be reading the newspaper:

    http://www.iigwest.com/investigations/meier/ike42report.htm

    That’s all, folks!

    Comment by Moewicus — September 5, 2011 @ 2:03 pm | Reply

  87. Re Langdon, what’s being missed here, in my opinion, is that here are MANY ways to make a model (plastic, wood, plaster, metal, etc.) so anyone who makes a good model in any of those material, could make the same essential claim, i.e. see this is how Meier did it. Well, just like religions, they couldn’t all be right, could they? In fact, none of them would be.

    The model maker I put a up a link to is so good that I was sure I was seeing real cars, real streets, etc. Did that mean that the real cars, streets, etc. were also models? I first challenged the guys at CFI-West/IIG in 2002, they’ve had 9 years to study and make/recruit the best model making efforts. In a three-year period, Meier presented over 1,200 UFO photos and films, metal samples, sound recordings and volumes of information. Those are just the facts, interpret them as you wish.

    I long ago posted a link to where you can find out what Marcel Vogel used in his analysis.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 5, 2011 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

  88. (continued)

    I no longer have the complete video but it’s still out there somewhere, try to find it.

    Langdon, to my knowledge, has also not had his sounds tested, nor has he demonstrated that they can be heard for…4 kilometers. Further, there were numerous witnesses to the recording events; I’ve been to one location many times. I suggest that you don’t even bother trying to float the fishing line hypothesis, certainly not till you’ve visited the location and spoken to the witnesses. I HAVE spoken to many of the witnesses, so also please refrain from being dismissive about people you don’t know, or about the so-called “unreliability” of witnesses…especially when some of the events produced up to 40 minutes of recording of super loud sounds in huge, open meadows.

    I still don’t find the camera information that important and it was certainly not deliberately “misleading”. Maybe it’s wrong, maybe it isn’t, the case certainly doesn’t rest on it. The case rests on the things YOU avoid, misrepresent, go around, etc.

    And I would also suggest that your suspicion laden, “Who uses that kind of phrase, etc.?” is subjective and unscientific, as is much of what you present. I certainly can be wrong about my opinions but I’ve never deliberately misrepresented the facts, i.e. LIED as you have done, neither has Meier. Why on earth would we, why would we NEED to? The whole matter is so unique, startling – and never self-contradictory – that even someone who would lie…wouldn’t need to.

    Of course you’re still a bit sloppy, as the Wendelle information was included in my Letter to Jennifer linked above. The information is in that book – along with tons more – why haven’t YOU addressed it? You did ask for it, right?

    As for Meier “could have gotten the information form newspapers” no, he couldn’t and didn’t, despite ol’ armchair Ike. Of course if you want to show that he did…please, be my guest.

    But I think that until you can logically, objectively substantially address my presentation of the information about Wendelle – after all, YOU wanted to know it – then it’s best if you sit this out. I’ve gone to some lengths here to present information that is extremely well documented. I dare say you wouldn’t in a million years be able to present verbatim transcripts of the most important conversations in your life over a 10-year period…let alone over a 53-YEAR period, as Meier has.

    You’ve made it clear that not only are you not objective, you don’t apply the same standards to yourself…let alone Phil Langdon. What do YOU know about him, why do YOU take his word for what he’s done, how he’s done, who has or hasn’t helped him, etc.? You cite him and his work but not any of the considerations that you try to apply to Meier. Oh, because he’s NOT claiming that the UFOs were ET in origin, who cares. I want to know what YOU know about Phil Langdon, heck…who the hell are YOU other than an anonymous guy/girl/group using a screen name to try to pick apart, rather than discover the truth about something?

    Do you really think that the absurdity of anonymous defamers is lost on me, someone who puts myself clearly out front and takes on all comers with the truth? So before you hurl another innuendo, another unsupported attack on people you don’t know…let’s at least have you put YOUR full identity on the table.

    Now, if anyone here wants to go over the facts pertaining to Wendelle Stevens possessing the information that would turn out to be the MOST IMPORTANT of the entire Voyager mission – before it was “officially” announced, then how’s about doing so as if you were discussing any other claim of prior publication?

    Let’s focus now on the information that Mr. (?) W was so desperate to have substantiated. I told you where it is…maybe this is your opportunity to catch me in a lie, right?

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 5, 2011 @ 2:54 pm | Reply

  89. Let’s level the playing field a little more, shall we? You bring forward the work of Phil Langdon, who is VERY closely associated with…Kal Korff. Do an internet search on Korff for a little background.

    And also note that the “imaginary Plejaren” busted him pretty good, saving me from a LOT of trouble that he had indeed been planing, unbeknownst to me or Meier:

    http://theyfly.com/Evidence-for-Stephen-Bassett.html

    http://theyfly.com/Korff.html

    So you blindly accept, and champion, the work of someone YOU know NOTHING about who’s tied into one of the most scurrilous characters on the internet, whose site was taken down THREE times by THREE different web hosting companies for…defamation, threats against our lives, etc. This is Phil Langdon’s confidant. And Phil Langdon is now one of your referred sources. Uh-huh.

    And Meier, who has the support of expert scientists, dozens and dozens of credible witnesses, THUMBS UP FROM AN EXPERT CONSULTANT TO THE U.S. ARMY SPECIAL FORCES, etc., gets the third degree, and worse, from some people here. Why? Where are YOUR values and ethics?

    Perhaps now my utter contempt for attacks by anonymous, under-qualified armchair experts can be understood.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 5, 2011 @ 3:18 pm | Reply

  90. some scientist stuart …. , attacking a man you`ve never spoken too, or visited. go look through the mentioned material by michael …thoroughly ..and go on michaels radio show , or any radio show for that matter , i dont have to ask michael ..i know hes the sort of guy who will jump at the chance to put it all out there for the public to listen too , sounds fair to me .

    but of course its so much easier throwing abuse at someone you know nothing about !
    also …. i taught scientists love detail ??

    Comment by Mr.P.Wrenn AQAURIAN AGE-FACEBOOK — September 5, 2011 @ 4:00 pm | Reply

  91. Hey another coincidence! Go figure … Meier is hoaxing overtime ….. This time he beats genome sequencers by 2 full years and the publishers of their work by 3 full years. I don’t know how he does it, but he is one baddass hoaxman!

    Sep 5, 2011 http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110905/full/news.2011.518.html

    “Last year, an analysis comparing the Neanderthal genome sequence to that of modern H. sapiens showed that some interbreeding did take place between the two species in Europe some time between 80 and 30,000 years ago and that, to a certain extent, Neanderthals ‘live on’ in the genes of modern humans.”

    August 11, 2008 http://www.theyfly.com/Neanderthals.html

    Billy: Then another question regarding the Neanderthals, of which ever more bones were found during the last years and decades. Generally it is said that they disappeared from Earth when the so-called modern human being, homo sapiens, appeared. Until now it is totally unknown why the Neanderthals have disappeared. It is also not known whether they interbred – at least partially – with the modern human beings.

    Ptaah: It was indeed so that the modern human beings interbred with Neanderthals and begot offspring. This however was not the rule, but occurred rather sparsely. As a rule, the modern human beings were hunting the Neanderthals and killing them, to use them as food, because the early homo sapiens were cannibals, and as such they by and by wiped out the Neanderthals. Partly, the modern human beings held Neanderthals as captives, which they killed and ate in case of need for food. Such captives were also used, on certain occasions, to perform sexual acts with the homo sapiens, and that with both sexes. As a result, certain female Neanderthals and homo sapiens bore offspring, which, however, was not often the case.

    Comment by Bruce — September 5, 2011 @ 5:37 pm | Reply

    • Geneticists have been speculating for decades whether or not Neanderthals interbred with Homo Sapiens. This is just another postdiction.

      Comment by Chew Bird — September 6, 2011 @ 10:17 am | Reply

      • Speculation is one thing and saying “It was indeed so …. ” , is another.

        Ptaah’s definitive statement came out 2 full years before the geneticists analysis of the Neanderthal genome sequence took place.

        What ‘postdiction’ are you incorrectly asserting and speculating about, or do you just make presumptive comments to fit your non-scientific agenda/anti-Meier religious-like fervor ?

        Comment by Bruce — September 6, 2011 @ 11:57 am

  92. Dear Mr Horn,

    “Do you really think that the absurdity of anonymous defamers is lost on me, someone who puts myself clearly out front and takes on all comers with the truth? So before you hurl another innuendo, another unsupported attack on people you don’t know…let’s at least have you put YOUR full identity on the table.”

    Why does that sound so familiar? I wonder.

    “…deliberately misrepresented the facts, i.e. LIED as you have done, neither has Meier.”
    Well, I don’t know about that one, you see, all of the footage, claims, photos, written information is fake. He took fake photos of dinosaurs; even his wife admitted he faked everything. So maybe it is all accidental, seeing that you will not “deliberately misinterpret facts”. I accidently stabbed my wife to death, or I accidently said you are a liar; I would never deliberately call someone a prevaricator or decisively stab anyone. The photos from inside the craft, never explained why he did not take photos of inside the crafts, one of so many inexplicable things that you believe to be true, or try so hard to make people believe it’s true. Or so to say in this case, deliberately distance yourself from that, rather than accidently call it honest and true.

    Lekker dag verder.

    J Duvenhage

    Comment by Johan Duvenhage — September 6, 2011 @ 1:27 am | Reply

    • Johan,

      Your Meier 101 fraud accusations have already been launched, a thousand fold times,.. and rebuffed. If you wish to jump in midstream, do some homework.

      I won’t bother with the ex-wife nonsense and your other knee-jerk blanket idiocy [“you see, all of the footage, claims, photos, written information is fake”] . Well, since the great Johan Duvenhage says it is all fake, it must be.

      But I’ll toss your way 6 of the supposedly authentic pics taken on a prehistoric planet. A few dino pics, a couple ‘cavemen’ types and pyramids.

      Comment by Bruce — September 6, 2011 @ 2:31 am | Reply

  93. In the years before Meier’s “prediction”, numerous researchers published findings that some genes were shared by Homo sapiens and Neanderthal. Meier’s “prediction” was predicted after the fact, therefore, it was a postdiction.

    Comment by Chew Bird — September 6, 2011 @ 3:46 pm | Reply

    • Mr. Chew,

      You originally said;
      “Geneticists have been speculating for decades whether or not Neanderthals interbred with Homo Sapiens.”
      Now you are saying
      “numerous researchers published findings that some genes were shared … ”

      Which is the correct statement; that they were speculating or they had hard evidence?

      Meier did not predict anything here. He had a conversation, recorded it and shared it. Ptaah was the one revealing the info you assert was a postdiction. However the arcticle in nature.com says
      “Last year, an analysis comparing the Neanderthal genome sequence to that of modern H. sapiens showed that some interbreeding did take place between the two species… ”

      ‘Last year’ being 2 years after Meier’s conversation with Ptaah.

      The end of the article says –
      “Analyses of whole genome sequences of these populations will be necessary to more definitively test this hypothesis,”

      So it seems this issue is still in the hypothesis stage.

      According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project

      “The Neanderthal genome project is a collaboration of scientists coordinated by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany and 454 Life Sciences in the United States to sequence the Neanderthal genome.

      Founded in July 2006, the project published their results in the May 2010 journal Science detailing an initial draft of the Neanderthal genome based on the analysis of four billion base pairs of Neanderthal DNA. The study determined that some mixture of genes occurred between Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans and presented evidence that elements of their genome remain in that of non-African modern humans.”

      Accordingly, The Neanderthal genome project published their results nearly two years after Meier & Ptaah’s conversation August 11, 2008.

      I don’t see any possible evidence of postdiction.

      Please present your case.

      Comment by Bruce — September 6, 2011 @ 6:06 pm | Reply

      • My case is in the Wikipedia link you supplied, under the section “History”. The discovery of shared genes between Neanderthal and Homo sapiens was announced in 2006, two years before Meier’s “prediction”. You cannot predict something after it has been announced..

        Comment by Chew Bird — September 6, 2011 @ 8:59 pm

  94. I appreciate your letter and your proposal, Michael Horn, but i am not looking for guidance, spiritual experience or things like that; i manage my life just fine.

    My involvement in this discussion is due to the fact that i am a little bit interested in fringe cosmology and i recently read a book of Meier of 1993, titled ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’, and i found his review and analysis of the publications and mean theoretical models of the universe of that time (‘Trichter-Universum’ von Professor George Ellis; Fred Hoyle, Herman Bondi und Thomas Gold; ‘Sattel-Universum’; ‘Kugeluniversum’; ‘Spiral-Universum’ von Professor Slomann) in that book pretty entertaining.
    I am actually planning to study at the department of Astronomy and Astrophysics of Berlin University of Technology and that is why i sometimes visit such websites.

    I made that suggestion, just because i see it as a missed chance and it seems illogical to me, that you don’t make use of the means and procedures, which science offers and accepts, in order to validate your point, gain scientific recognition for Meier’s perspective and thus bring it in the meanstream media, if the Meier case you represent is that important and crucial to the survival of mankind.

    Kind regards.

    Comment by Jennifer D. — September 7, 2011 @ 2:52 am | Reply

    • P.S. Would you like to answer the question, i.e. if the metals were determiend to be of non-earthly origin, just what would you do then?

      Comment by Michael Horn — September 7, 2011 @ 2:38 pm | Reply

  95. “In 2006, two research teams working on the same Neanderthal sample published their results. One group suggested there was a hint of mixing between human and Neanderthal genomes, while the other found none, but both teams recognized that the data set was not large enough to give a definitive answer.”

    Perhaps because of this research, Billy posed the question to Ptaah, as he has done throughout the years in light of topical events: Humans tend to do that kind of thing.

    Billy: “Then another question regarding the Neanderthals, of which ever more bones were found during the last years and decades. Generally it is said that they disappeared from Earth when the so-called modern human being, homo sapiens, appeared. Until now it is totally unknown why the Neanderthals have disappeared. It is also not known whether they interbred – at least partially – with the modern human beings.”

    If you’ll note, in 2006 there was no definitive answer. And even in 2010, there was no definitive answer. “Analyses of whole genome sequences of these populations will be necessary to more definitively test this hypothesis,”

    However in August 2008, Ptaah gave a definitive answer to Billy’s curiosity over the recent research going on:

    Ptaah: “It was indeed so that the modern human beings interbred with Neanderthals and begot offspring. This however was not the rule, but occurred rather sparsely. As a rule, the modern human beings were hunting the Neanderthals and killing them, to use them as food, because the early homo sapiens were cannibals, and as such they by and by wiped out the Neanderthals. Partly, the modern human beings held Neanderthals as captives, which they killed and ate in case of need for food. Such captives were also used, on certain occasions, to perform sexual acts with the homo sapiens, and that with both sexes. As a result, certain female Neanderthals and homo sapiens bore offspring, which, however, was not often the case.”

    —————————

    So one more time, as you twist the facts to support your knee-jerk anti-Meier fundamentalist fervor, devoid of actual facts.:

    Meier asked a topical question. Meier did not make a prediction.
    Ptaah answered Meiers topical question. Ptaah did not make a prediction.

    As there is no claim, allusion to, inference of a “prediction”, your case has no logical basis in fact and is moot.

    Your case has its roots in the illogic of presumptive bias, not in the logic of fact based truth.

    Comment by Bruce — September 7, 2011 @ 2:54 am | Reply

    • “Perhaps because of this research, Billy posed the question to Ptaah, as he has done throughout the years in light of topical events: Humans tend to do that kind of thing.”

      That’s one interpretation; the interpretation not based on fantasy and a gullible worldview, would be Meier read about the study that confirmed the shared genes and pulled another “prediction” out of his backside.

      Comment by Chew Bird — September 7, 2011 @ 6:26 am | Reply

      • You are relentless, Mr Chew … relentlessly off base.

        1 ) There was/is no confirmation of shared genes. Hypothesis does not equal confirmation. – “Analyses of whole genome sequences of these populations will be necessary to more definitively test this hypothesis,”

        2 ) Considering Meier posed a question, your continued false assertion that he made any sort of prediction is not worth the pixels on this page.

        I have a suggestion for you. Stay away from the Meier material. You shouldn’t even read it out of boredom, curiosity, entertainment, etc… I have no doubts that will not be a problem for you.

        Comment by Bruce — September 7, 2011 @ 9:01 am

  96. Dear Jennifer,

    I am glad to hear that you will pursue studies in the astronomy and astrophysics. Please note that David Froning and his associates, Michael Malin and others, found Meier’s information more than pretty entertaining. Of course that may be because they have many, many more decades of actual knowledge and application in astrophysics, etc. than you could currently have.

    And I’m sure that you understand that part of being a good student in any field is to not only read but understand what has been said, in this case many times before. So please allow me to, once again, state the facts. The metal samples were tested and analyzed; a video recording was also made by Marcel Vogel in which he explained his process and findings. This of course already sets the situation apart from 99% of all other discoveries, scientific tests, etc. in human history for which there is no such record.

    The survival of mankind must also depend on…mankind itself. And that means that truly inquiring minds must take the initiative to pursue the cues and clues that abound in many different areas of interest and information. If the attitude remains that we will only trust and rely on a new crop of experts – when nothing has been shown to be invalid about the conclusions of the previous ones – or that we will wait until they tell us what is and isn’t so, then we will always avoid taking responsibility for ourselves and, ultimately, our own survival.

    I understand that people like to be spoon fed everything, that they like to cede their own responsibilities for thinking things through to people with initials after their names, various “experts”, etc. But for those of us who are not so religiously inclined, who weigh things based on evidence, logic, etc., we will continue to take responsibility for doing so and for indeed considering and respecting the opinions of those who do likewise, including scientists and non-scientists alike, credentialed or otherwise.

    Of course we respect that certain human beings grant other human beings different levels of status, credentials, etc. based on certain criteria. However there are also those who demonstrate their expertise, and bring benefit to humanity, who may not have previously acquired such recognition…though their practical experience and knowledge may be lights years beyond anyone else.

    (As a side note, when in 1995 I came up with the idea of ebooks and the handheld reader, my sister – a world-class book editor – told me I was crazy. Of course while she may still think I’m crazy, needless to say that she is among the many who now recognize and utilize that development. Oh, if only the people I partnered with had stuck with it…but that’s another story. See: http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/2-9-98/411578&EDATE=)

    In certain critical areas of life, it’s the results that matter. If your house is on fire, anyone with the ability to throw water on the fire is welcome. The mainstream media doesn’t exist for the purpose of putting out the fires that threaten mankind, more for stoking them. And while I nonetheless attempt to bring the information about the Meier case to and through it, I don’t suffer from the illusion that the mainstream media will very useful in that regard.

    By the way, since you did read Existing Life in the Universe in 1993, did you happen to notice that Meier also mentioned the existence of…one of two planets beyond Pluto (http://www.theyfly.com/PDF/NewCorroboration.pdf)? Did you take note of this at the time, or perhaps recall it later when the two planetoids were indeed discovered? Maybe that’s part of what you found to be entertaining at the time.

    And perhaps you didn’t know that Meier first foretold the existence – and possible discovery – of the two objects beyond Pluto in 1958 and, of course, it’s again mentioned by Wendelle Stevens in the copyrighted material I refer to here:

    http://theyfly.com/Wendelle-Stevens-Jupiter-Io.html

    You are aware I’m sure that a copyrighted, dated, published book constitutes a certain kind of LEGAL proof; copyrights exist also for that purpose. Now, if claims are made – especially of a scientific nature – and there is such proof as copyrighted material offers, then certainly scientists are intelligent enough to, at the very least, investigate the content of those established claims for accuracy and significance.

    Jennifer, considering that there are at least three verifiable sources where Meier unambiguously stated the existence, and probable discovery of the two planetoids after the turn of the century, is there some further “testing” that you would need to validate that – and to validate your OWN personal experience of reading that information…18 years ago?

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 7, 2011 @ 9:07 am | Reply

  97. P.S. Here’s a new blog for the thinkers among you that provides further clarification:

    http://theyflyblog.com/?p=873

    For further irritation value (unfortunately for Stuart and others who believe the FIRST U.S. moon landing fable) I will later publish another bit of predictive accuracy by Meier and the Plejaren about how it will continue to be covered up. And, of course, we can PROVE it was published BEFORE the fraudulent explanation that it thoroughly, preemptively destroyed.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 7, 2011 @ 11:32 am | Reply

  98. “1 ) There was/is no confirmation of shared genes. Hypothesis does not equal confirmation. – “Analyses of whole genome sequences of these populations will be necessary to more definitively test this hypothesis,” ”

    It doesn’t matter if it was confirmed or not; the original report on shared gene was published in the press. That is where Meier read about it and then he decided to do another “interview” for his ever-eager incredulous fanatics.

    Comment by Chew Bird — September 7, 2011 @ 12:46 pm | Reply

    • Here’s a prediction for you. http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_437#Further_Information_Regarding_the_Future_San_Francisco_Earthquake

      You have been forewarned.

      Saturday, November 18th, 2006, 9:57am

      Billy:
      Then something else: I was discussing the big quake in California with Quetzal – that is to say, San Francisco – which is already overdue.

      Have any new things come about there, or does everything remain as Quetzal told me; that the earthquake is to be expected in the foreseeable future and that it will be the biggest natural disaster in living memory?

      The quake will not just have a negative impact upon San Francisco, but also Los Angeles, San Diego and various other places.

      And as Quetzal said, possibly the seaward part of the San Andreas Fault will tear off, whereby an elongated island would result.

      Ptaah:
      46. You have seen the enormous destruction in the future, however, only in relation to the “Erstzeit”[1].

      47. But the entirety will, however, be much worse when the great quake occurs. The point in time has remained the same as that which Quetzal named for you.

      Billy:
      Therefore, everything remains as predicted and as it was, as I have seen then through the travel into the future.

      Ptaah:
      48. It was, at that time, a journey into the real time of the future of the real event; consequently also nothing about it can change.

      Billy
      Naturally – how stupid of me

      ↑ “Erstzeit” is an unknown term. (Erst = first, Zeit = time) ??

      Comment by Bruce — September 8, 2011 @ 4:50 am | Reply

      • “that the earthquake is to be expected in the foreseeable future”
        No date or time, no epicenter location? How vague can one prediction be? Another gutless prediction. C’mon Billy! Have some balls and give us an exact date and time!

        “and that it will be the biggest natural disaster in living memory?”
        Did you really not notice the weasel words that allows him to fit any earthquake to meet his “prediction”? “in living memory” Who’s living memory? A one year old baby’s memory? Another cop out by Meier.

        “The quake will not just have a negative impact upon San Francisco, but also Los Angeles, San Diego and various other places.”
        Or course, he doesn’t define “negative impact”. He doesn’t follow up with specific claims. A housewife in San Diego chips a nail during an earthquake in San Fran: ZOMG! Meier predicted it!!!11!

        “And as Quetzal said, possibly the seaward part of the San Andreas Fault will tear off, whereby an elongated island would result.” Possibly? Possibly??? POSSIBLY??? C’mon, dude, you must have noticed these escape clauses! Before you were saying the aliens were spot on about the iceman. Now, the aliens aren’t sure if California is going to fall into the ocean??? Grow up, learn to think critically, stop throwing out skeptically sounding words because you obviously don’t understand their meaning, and stop invoking science because you have no idea what the scientific method is. Meier is a fraud, Horn is a joke, and you, my gullible friend, have been fooled by a fraud and a joke.

        Comment by Chew Bird — September 8, 2011 @ 8:58 am

  99. Plenty of accurate predictions, as noted herein:

    Ooops! Did NASA just Prove They HOAXED the First Apollo Moon Landing?

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/9/prweb8779003.htm

    P.S. This is for the benefit of the real people who may observe/participate here, not anonymous, uninformed, wannabes living virtual little lives online.

    Thank you,
    [edited] Michael Horn

    NOTE from Stuart: Michael, this is getting close to you being banned. Remember my comments policy on civil discourse. I’ve given you a lot of leeway and you keep pushing. I am “the management” on this blog, not you.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 8, 2011 @ 3:55 pm | Reply

    • “Plenty of accurate predictions, as noted herein:”

      He got the dates wrong for the Luna 2 lunar impact and the Apollo 11 landing! How lame do you have to be to get two dates wrong when NASA’s had their documents on the web for the last 20 years!

      “not anonymous, uninformed, wannabes living virtual little lives online” Ah, yes, more hypocritical inconsistency. The defining characteristic of the True Believer. True Believers demand iron-clad evidence of fraud from their critics and dismiss it when it is given, yet believe everything their Prophet Billy Meier publishes even though his copyright dates are always months and years after what the mainstream media has already published.

      Comment by Chew Bird — September 8, 2011 @ 4:42 pm | Reply

    • Dear Stuart, I hoped it would bring you out…so that you may notice that relentless accusations of people being “frauds”, etc., especially by anonymous detractors, without any substantiation would perhaps get THEM banned.

      As far as anonymity on the internet is concerned, of course I recognize that there can be various reasons that people want to participate without identifying themselves, not that I necessarily agree with more than a couple of them. However, once an anonymous person starts to defame and attack someone, in MY ethical world, the FIRST thing that they should be REQUIRED to do is to come forward and accurately identify themselves.

      As you know, it’s much harder to pursue actual legal actions against people who defame, slander, libel, etc. in the internet age, so people who would have been far more cautious before doing so previously, now have great leeway and latitude knowing they are otherwise immune from the consequences of their actions, at least legally. However, you use your real name and, I’m sure, are not looking to create a legacy for yourself as someone whose main support came from anonymous, reckless, unleashed individuals who were bound neither by civility, nor the facts.

      And this does give me the opportunity, which I was otherwise trying to save for our centennial celebration here, to pose this to you:

      My dear friend Stuart,

      I have now provided you and everyone else with proof of dated, copyrighted material, such as is contained in the Preliminary Investigation Report, that establishes a number of things pertaining to the who, what, when and where of facts regarding the Jupiter-Io (and two moons beyond Pluto, etc.) information. This does constitute legal proof of the existence of that which is contained within the book and other documents, as an examination of them can easily confirm.

      So my question to you now is this, from here on will YOU be the scientists…OR the skeptic? Science has skepticism inherent in it but the same is not automatically, axiomatically true about skepticism. As I do think you know by now, we have an abundance of evidence that simply should be examined, without prejudgment, prejudice, or derisive assumptions, etc. I’m asking you now to approach this in that kind of a scientific manner.

      Unsubstantiated claims and assumptions that someone “could have had access, etc.” are not scientific; they don’t deserve any consideration without actual, factual evidence that compels us to accept the high possibility that the person whose honesty, character and evidence are under attack did in FACT have that information. In this case, based on all the investigative work done by PROFESSIONALS, one would have to believe in magic to even further consider such charges. But that too could also be addressed in what I am asking you to do now.

      I would like you to be the scientist, therefore, and start with this specific evidence and…ask the necessary questions, just as if you were investigating something with which you DIDN’T have personal, belief-based difficulties. Really, this is what I am asking.

      If you use such protocols the facts will reveal themselves, without the need for skepticism, or for claims in support of authenticity. A clear, clean, objective, logical, fact-based approach will win the day. It will result in clarification and a determination of the truth, whatever that may be. This is, of course, beyond any person’s vested interested, ego-based concerns, etc. We are all simply looking for the truth. And, while I have never attended such classes as you did in pursuit of your credentials, I somehow doubt that the scientific means and processes that you learned and practiced more resemble (even your) internet blog/forum than the basic protocols that I am asking to be followed here now.

      That being said, certain important matters DID arise in this online process, which is at the heart of the reason why I participate in them; stepping into most discussions on the internet about Billy Meier are the equivalent of walking into a raging inferno or a lion’s den, as can also be seen here. But let me just add that Jennifer, who certainly has expressed her skepticism, has herself given us confirmation that she read a German language book, published decades ago, in which Meier foretold the discovery of the two planetoids beyond Pluto around the turn of the millennium. As I said, I participate in what may euphemistically can be called “enemy territory” because it almost always yields some unexpectedly valuable information.

      So, please simply come forward now and accept my sincere offer to elevate this entire matter to the level that you – as a scientist – are certainly capable of conducting. I am sure that if you do so you will pose logical questions and objectively consider and address the responses. And your participatory presence in itself would turn down the background noise, so to speak. It’s not that being a skeptic, anonymous or otherwise, precludes someone from raising valid or invalid points and issues. It’s just that having such a discussion as this be a truly honest and objective discussion, conducted in a clean, impersonal, scientific manner by all concerned, is likely to result in further discovery of the truth.

      I sincerely look forward to it.

      Comment by Michael Horn — September 9, 2011 @ 7:38 am | Reply

      • “Dear Stuart, I hoped it would bring you out”

        Horn, when your first sentence in what will no doubt be another long babbling rant is a lie, don’t expect people to keep reading.

        Comment by Chew Bird — September 9, 2011 @ 7:54 am

  100. Uh oh!

    No Neandertal hanky-panky http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/333990/title/News_in_Brief_Humans

    Comment by Chew Bird — September 9, 2011 @ 10:57 am | Reply

    • yep, meier’s a fruad, horn’s a liar & chew bird is king of the debunkers, not to mention a scientists scientist & not an anonymous internet blow hard

      Comment by Bruce — September 9, 2011 @ 12:57 pm | Reply

      • More examples of the True Believer’s incredible inconsistency. I’m an anonymous internet blow hard, but you’re not? The True Believer’s inability to detect hypocrisy could provide psychologists a century of research projects.

        Comment by Chew Bird — September 9, 2011 @ 1:31 pm

      • Bruce, thank you for making your final comment to this post. I had already warned you once.

        Comment by Stuart Robbins — September 9, 2011 @ 1:37 pm

  101. Dear Stuart,

    I’m disappointed to see that you haven’t acted as a true leader in this matter.

    Being consistent, principled and even-handed is required if someone wants to have credibility.

    By not immediately applying the same standards to the defamer Chew Bird, who went on to call me a liar right after your admonition against such behavior, you are showing a willingness to let anonymous defamers speak for you by proxy. You are effectively condoning the very thing that you said you wouldn’t tolerate.

    Now, I have issued a sincere, credible offer to you to choose to undertake a scientific approach to the examination of the evidence that you now have, in fact that I personally sent to you before posting it here.

    I would ask you to accept that offer and to proceed to see where such an inquiry leads.

    There’s also an old saying, “No answer is also an answer.” I’d prefer to see your answer and, of course, I hope it affirms my open-handed approach to you.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 9, 2011 @ 3:32 pm | Reply

  102. While there was not answer form stuart, here is The Answer that Stuart has long been waiting for:

    http://theyflyblog.com/?p=908

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 14, 2011 @ 6:57 am | Reply

  103. New response to SR, Chew, etc. about THIS blog:

    http://theyflyblog.com/?p=916

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 15, 2011 @ 10:58 am | Reply

    • Except… here we go again! Jennifer said she recently read a Meier book published in 1993; she did not say anything about it’s claimed predictions.

      Comment by Chew Bird — September 15, 2011 @ 1:46 pm | Reply

  104. Really Stuart, come out of hiding and explain to this anonymous entity that what’s contained in a dated, copyrighted, published book…DOESN’T change or disappear because someone doesn’t acknowledge what’s in it.

    Of course you could ask Jennifer to pick up the book and confirm it…if you’re really as desperately in denial as the anonymous critic.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 15, 2011 @ 4:25 pm | Reply

    • Right, the book Jennifer read that was copyrighted in 1993 that predicted the discovery of Toutatis… that was discovered in 1989.

      Meier claims to have been given the name of Toutatis by his cute little aliens yet they could not be bothered to provide the names of the 3 TNO dwarf planets. Oh, right, he had to wait until they were discovered until he could pull another Contact Report out of his ass.

      Comment by Chew Bird — September 15, 2011 @ 4:51 pm | Reply

  105. Stuart-Bird, Bird-Stuart, probably the same person, who can’t bring himself to…rein himself in!

    Out of control, eh? Frustrating, isn’t it? Boxed into a tight little corner, flailing around hopelessly. First copyright date, 1978. Two planets beyond Pluto – in TWO books and the letter – all published years BEFORE discovery.

    Gawd, this must really be excruciating for pompous little know-it-alls, bested by a “simple, one-armed Swiss farmer”.

    Painful of course for pseudo-scientists…a matter of great interest to REAL ones.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 15, 2011 @ 6:43 pm | Reply

    • Right, except the second copyright date of the book is 1993, which is 4 years after Toutatis’ discovery. If these amazing predictions were true why get a second copyright? Oh yeah, gotta add an asteroid to it.

      And we’re back to “planets” again, that would be discovered “near or after the turn of the century”. Gee, what a precise, detailed prediction. Except for the names they would be given, the dates they were discovered, their orbital periods, semi-major axis, period, eccentricity, inclination, diameters, masses, albedos, which ones will have moons, who would find them, what an amazing prediction! But then you’ll pathetically cite the “if I’m wrong then I’m really right because the aliens told me so” clause, AKA we don’t need no scientific method!

      Makemake, Eris, Haumea. So the aliens probed Billy the One-Armed Conman with the name of an asteroid 4 years after it happened, yet they didn’t bother to tell him the names of the 3, count em, 3 dwarf planets to be so far discovered in new century.

      Comment by Chew Bird — September 15, 2011 @ 8:06 pm | Reply

  106. Michael Horn, i thought you were a serious and honest person, but you wrote all those wrong things on my back, hier and on your site!
    You wrote, that i said that i read about the prediction of the discovery of new planets, but i did not write on this.
    You said, i am a skeptic.
    I am only 17 years old!
    When i saw, that you wrote i read ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’ in 1993, i first had to laugh, because i was not born at that time, before i became very sad.
    I read this book last month, when i was with my vader at Hanse Sail, in Rostock, because contrary to my vader i don’t like boats very much.

    I don’t understand you anymore and i don’t understand too why you come to this science website to write wrong things, because after you did all this i did a research on this book and i found this information on the website of Billy Meier himself:
    There someone, Mahigitam, asked the same question in the post 340 about what you write on this book and it is not true!
    “Hi,

    I have read the article on Toutais here, http://www.theyfly.com/gaia/toutatis.htm.
    IIGWEST investigators speculate that the Toutatis information could have been added to the book “Existentes Leben im Universum” in 1993 edition.
    Does anyone of you know anybody having the 1978 edition of that book. I would like to see & have a copy of that copyright page of 1978 edition with that specific page talking above Toutatis. If you dont have and know someone who has it, please let me know. I would request them.
    There is this present in ,http://www.theyfly.com/A_True_Prophet_Revealed.html “Naturally, it will be noticed that the copyright dates for the book above are 1978/1993. There is documentation for all of the information from 1978 to 1993.” Does it mean that, what extra information added to that 1993 edition is documented ? If so how can i access it ?”

    Everybody can go there and read it: http://forum.figu.org/us/messages/2200/3577.html?1309945287

    This Mahigitam wrote also this:
    “I emailed Christian long time back about this and i got the reply that there is no 1978 edition of the “Existentes Leben im Universum” . The information from 1978 was present among the various periodicals of ‘Stimme der Wassermannzeit’.
    I think it would be nice, if someone has those periodicals from 1978 upto 1989(year in which Toutatis was discovered) in which information about “Toutatis” was published.”

    The information in the post of the other one, Phenix, too shows, that you don’t write the truth, because it says, that ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’ was still not published in 1988.
    (The German letters there are not correct, so i corrected it hier; but the translation to English is good)
    “Mahigitam,

    The book OM, Omfalon Murado, offers the following data and explanation, at pages 6 and 7:

    “Existentes Leben im Universum
    April 81- März 84. Billy schrieb dieses Werk unter dem Titel ‘Das Universum’ zuerst als Fortsetzungen für die ‘Stimme der Wassermannzeit’.
    Er war seit vielen Jahren immer wieder auf widersprüchliche Angaben von Wissenschaftlern über die Grösse und Entstehung unseres Universums gestossen. Die jeweils gemachten Angaben wurden fast von Jahr zu Jahr und nach jeder Neuentdeckung von weiteren Galaxien widerrufen und abgeändert.
    Billys eigene Angaben aber, die er zum Teil selbst berechnete, teilweise aber auch von den Plejadiern erhalten hatte, wurden und werden auch heute noch von den Wissenschaftlern belächelt und verspottet, auch nachdem sich in den vergangenen Jahren seine sämtlichen bis dahin gemachten Voraussagen bestätigt haben.
    Da sich nach der Fortsetzungsbeendigung auf astronomischem Gebiet nochmals viele Neuentdeckungen ergaben, die wiederum zum neuen Erkenntnissen der Wissenschaftler führten, arbeitete Billy im Jahre 1984, trotz schwerster gesundheitlicher Beeinträchtigungen, die auf seinen Unfall vom November 1982 zurückführen, die bestehenden Fakten noch weiter aus und schrieb darüber ein umfangreiches Manuskript, das bis im Jahre 1988 jedoch noch unveröffentlicht ist, da die Vorarbeiten für die Herausgabe des Buches OM vorrangig waren.”

    “Existing life in the Universe
    April 81-March 84. Billy wrote this work, under the title ‘The universe’, initially as a continuation of/supplement/appendix/contribution to the ‘Voice of Aquarius’.
    For many years, he has been repeatedly coming across contradictory statements/data of scientists on the size and the origin/genesis of our universe. The statements, which were made over and over again, were almost from year to year and after/following each new discovery of other galaxies recanted and changed/altered/modified/revised/amended.
    Billy’s own statements, which he partially calculated/figured out himself and partially received from the Plejaren, however were and are also today laughed at and satirized by scientists, even after all his statements have confirmed themselves in the past years.
    After the completion of that continuation of/supplement/appendix/contribution to the ‘Voice of Aquarius’, as once again many new discoveries have been taking place in the field of astronomy, which (new discoveries) again led to new insights of scientists, in 1984, Billy developed further/elaborated on the existing data – despite the most severe health harming, which was caused by his accident of november 1982 – and wrote thereon an extensive manuscript, which however up to the year 1988 was still not published, as the preparations for the publication of the book OM had top priority.”

    You have to know, Michael Horn, in German we call people like you ‘Schwindler’, and i hope Billy Meier will know what you are doing!

    I don’t say ‘regards’ to you.

    Comment by Jennifer D. — September 16, 2011 @ 6:25 am | Reply

  107. Hi Jennifer,

    Yes, I am quite honest and serious. I think my mistake is saying that you read the book in 1993, which you obviously didn’t, as I had observed before too. I am aware of course of the info re Toutatis thank you. However, my main points regarding the two planetoids beyond Pluto information, in that book, in Wendelle’s book and in Meier’s letter – all published before the discoveries were made – absolutely still stands.

    Your letter deserves more of an answer of course and when I return this evening I will do so. However, the main point about the planets beyond Pluto has not been effectively disputed, as tons of Meier’s specific scientific information remains irrefutable. I do possess the books that much of it is in.

    So, I will further address any remaining points. In the meantime, if anyone CAN challenge the Pluto information, you have several more hours in which to do so.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 16, 2011 @ 8:58 am | Reply

  108. How would you feel, if today, someone writes a blog, saying:
    “Michael Horn claims, that a German schoolgirl of 17 read the book ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’ of Billy Meier back in…1993!”?
    You tell me, bitte!

    Regarding “the two planetoids beyond Pluto information”, if you have been patient enough and honest to wait for my answer, because i have other things to do, then i would have said, yes, on page 97 of the book ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’, Billy Meier wrote about the possible future discovery of small planets beyond Pluto, close to the turn of the millennium or maybe only a short time after the turn of the millennium:

    I write that passage in German, as you said you have this book and because i suppose, that you can read German.

    “Planet Uni – Jenseits von Pluto
    So wie der Kleinstplanet Vulcano seine äussert schnelle und ungemein nahe Bahn um die Sonne zieht, so eilt der Kleinstplanet UNI im äussersten SOL-Bereich und ausserhalb der Plutobahn um das Zentralgestirn.
    UNI ist dabei so weit von der Sonne entfernt, dass er so gut wie kein Sonnenlicht mehr reflektiert und daher von der Erde aus nicht gesehen werden kann, wenigstens zum heutigen Zeitpunkt noch nicht.
    Gegen die Kommende Jahrtausendwende jedoch oder vielleicht auch erst etwas danach, dürfte auch dieser Sonnentrabant entdeckt werden, wenn die verbesserte Technik der Weltraumforschung dies zulässt.
    Vom Kleinstplaneten UNI darf man nicht zuviel erwarten, denn einerseits handelt es sich bei ihm praktisch um eine Eiswelt, wie beim Plutomond Charon, wie die Plejadier sagen, dass dieser genannt wird, und andererseits ist er so klein, dass man eigentlich schon nicht mehr von einem Planeten sprechen kann, sondern wenn schon, dann nur noch von einem Kleinstplaneten, wie dies auch beim sonnennächsten Trabanten Vulcano der Fall ist. Eigentlich handelt es sich bei diesen Kleinstplaneten mehr um komentenähnliche Gebilde, wie bei jenem, das zwischen Saturn und Uranus umherzieht und dessen Bahn bis nahe an den Neptunbereich heranreicht. Wie dieser ‘Geisterball’, der Chiron genannt wird und der eine respektable Grösse aufweist, existieren noch andere gleichartige Gesellen im SOL-System, ganz besonders jenseits der Pluto Bahn, wo die Kometen und viele Meteoriten usw. beheimatet sind.”

    So, you have planet ‘Vulcano’, then ‘UNI’, ‘Charon’ and ‘Chiron’.

    I have to say, that i don’t see why and how it is that important to you, as Billy Meier did not hide, that he followed the news about astronomy, new discoveries and the progress of sciences:
    “For many years, he has been repeatedly coming across contradictory statements/data of scientists on the size and the origin/genesis of our universe. The statements, which were made over and over again, were almost from year to year and after/following each new discovery of other galaxies recanted and changed/altered/modified/revised/amended.”
    “After the completion of that continuation of/supplement/appendix/contribution to the ‘Voice of Aquarius’, as once again many new discoveries have been taking place in the field of astronomy, which (new discoveries) again led to new insights of scientists,”

    You asked me: “P.S. Would you like to answer the question, i.e. if the metals were determiend to be of non-earthly origin, just what would you do then?”

    Wohl, if scientists follow the lawful scientific procedures, examine the metals and submit their results to peer-review, and it appeared, that the metals are of non-earth origin, i would ask myself, why it took you and Billy Meier so long to do so!

    In the comment 96 to me, you write:
    “The mainstream media doesn’t exist for the purpose of putting out the fires that threaten mankind, more for stoking them. And while I nonetheless attempt to bring the information about the Meier case to and through it, I don’t suffer from the illusion that the mainstream media will very useful in that regard.”

    I really do not understand this too, because if you are so skeptical about mainstream media, then why did you become the media representative of Billy Meier, the case of who (or whom, or which?) you say is “The Key To Our Future Survival”?
    And what are you then doing here?

    Comment by Jennifer D. — September 16, 2011 @ 11:58 am | Reply

  109. As promised:

    Dear Jennifer (Part 2):

    http://theyflyblog.com/?p=936

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 16, 2011 @ 5:09 pm | Reply

  110. Jennifer, I don’t know if you’ve read it yet but IGWEST has some articles about Michael Horn:
    http://www.iigwest.org/investigations/meier/misquotes_of_michael_horn.html

    This one is particularly revealing:
    http://www.iigwest.org/investigations/meier/horn_email_summary.html

    It will show you how he claims to be honest but is not.

    Comment by Chew Bird — September 16, 2011 @ 5:32 pm | Reply

  111. Thank you, Chew bird; i will visit these links.
    I hoped, that people could work together to scientifically establish the truthfulness of the Meier case, but i now see, that Michael Horn is not interested in that. It is a pity.
    This story is now closed for me.

    Regards,

    Jennifer Dreixler.

    Comment by Jennifer D. — September 17, 2011 @ 1:48 am | Reply

    • Jennifer D.,

      What are your final conclusions regarding the Meier case, for the record;

      1: That Michael Horn is not interested in working together to establish the truthfulness of the Meier case, and that is a pity?
      2. That the Meier case is not worth investigating because of Michael Horn?
      3. That the Meier case is not worth investigating because it (Billy Meier) is not truthful, a hoax, a fraud, etc?

      Regards,
      Bruce

      Comment by Bruce — September 17, 2011 @ 9:12 am | Reply

  112. Dear Jennifer,

    I think you have made a very wise decision.

    Venturing into the essence and details of the Billy Meier information is not for those who are given to the glib, emotional assessments of serious information. And it certainly isn’t for those who are unable or unwilling to deal with the answers to their questions.

    However, since you are more interested in gossip and lies from pseudo-scientific simpletons, you’ll find plenty of it at IIG.

    Of course there is another side to the story, which probably won’t interest you. But let’s remember that others may arrive here in the future who may be glad it’s referenced:

    http://theyfly.com/Skeptics_Caught.htm

    http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/Top_Skeptic_Fixed.htm

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 17, 2011 @ 6:13 am | Reply

  113. Good day Bruce,

    Thank you for your message.

    I answer your questions like this:

    3. I think, that the Meier case is worth investigating in the manner sciences do to get good and reliable results.
    This is the big thing i wrote in my first post and i repeated it many times hier.
    I don’t know, if Billy Meier is truthful, a hoax, a fraud.
    That is why, after i read what Michael Horn writes about the scientist David Froning and saw in the video of Tunguska, that scienstists say “there is nothing to study, there is no physical evidence.”, i thought this is a good chance for Billy Meier and Michael Horn and maybe for everybody, as Michael Horn says ““The Meier Contacts – The Key To Our Future Survival”.
    So, ja, it is a pity, that Michael Horn does not want to do that and i don’t understand that.

    1. and 2. I answer to this with this:
    Bruce, you are in this conversation from the beginning, did you see anything in my writings, which could justify that Michael Horn writes this?
    ‘SKEPTIC Admits Reading Billy Meier Predictions… Foretold BEFORE Events Occurred’
    With this: “Rising skeptical star eclipsed by super-nova, the dark, skeptical night illuminated by Germanic Jennifer’s close encounter with the truth”
    This: “A German-speaking skeptic named Jennifer mentioned (post 93.) having read Meier’s German language book, ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’. The book, first published in 1978, not only accurately predicts the discovery of a then unknown comet and that it would be named Toutatis – it also contains Meier’s accurate prediction that two unknown planetoids beyond Pluto would be discovered around the turn of the century.
    Thus, Jennifer becomes the first skeptic** to admit having read two examples of Meier’s prophetically accurate information, verifiably published years, and decades, before the “official discoveries” were made.”
    Und this: “Volcanic Implications

    The significance of this is even greater than it may seem. The issue under dispute at the point at which Jennifer serendipitously demolished Robbins’ pseudo-science, was Meier’s prophetically accurate information that Jupiter’s moon, Io, was the most volcanically active body in the solar system. The skeptics, of course, claimed that Meier either backdated, or retrodicted, the information.”

    Is this true? Is this Honest? Is this serious?

    This is just like what the people of IGWEST, which Chew Bird indicated, say Michael Horn does with what other people and scientists say or write.
    And now this is traveling on internet!

    You see, i also read in ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’, at pages 13 and 14, pages 69 to 74 and 76 to 78, pages 101 to 121, and pages 185 to 186, that lies and falsifications, which are also in the religions, are our biggest problems, that Billy Meier is the reincarnation of Jmmanuel, who religions in their lies call ‘Jesus Christ, and that Billy Meier found the real teachings of Jmmanuel, to which he gave the title ‘Talmud Jmmanuel’ and that this teaching of Jmmanuel brings the truth to humanity.

    And now, i found this writing of Michael horn on the page ‘jmmanuel Teacher Of Truth’, hier: http://jmmanuelteacheroftruth.blogspot.com/

    I hope, that you see how what Michael Horn does, does not help the Meier case.

    Regards to you as well.

    Comment by Jennifer D. — September 18, 2011 @ 2:16 am | Reply

    • Hi Jennifer,

      I do agree; I think Michael took your participation on this blog, in other words, your comments here, too far; that he made too much out of them. And if that was the point of what IIGWEST wrote, I can agree that Michael went too far in assigning validating remarks to “expert” sources unaware of their participation in all this. Those sources should have been contacted prior to using their remarks, if they weren’t.

      However the same can be said from IIGWEST/Derek Bartholomaus regarding statements attributed to Michael Horn. Their work is shoddy and in particular Derek’s work is of low quality. And Derek is now attempting to make a living out of his rather unscientific and pathetic attempts at debunking Meier. Frankly, his work is full of non-scientific method and preconceived bias. And with his pathetic failure of debunking behind him and all that time wasted, he is trying to salvage something for his lost time and efforts by attempting to cash in on failure from anyone who would listen. –> http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/8/prweb8742382.htm

      Getting back to the IIGWEST link. Buried in all this are the statements from IIG investigators about Michael Horns statement: “The statement is kind of correct… But not 100% accurate and a bit simplified. ”
      – so fwiw, what Michael said seems like it was more correct than not.

      and regarding Billy Meiers shots: “at the time these were supposedly shot – it would have been very hard, probably even impossible, to fake this kind of shot.”
      – so, I don’t think that statement should be taken lightly considering even IIGWEST is blessing the work of the investigator Marc Weigert and his partner who admit to the impossibility of faking that kind of shot.

      Frankly, this is not about Michaels overzealous use of your comments or others comments, to prove the Billy Meier case’s truthfulness and utility for mankind. Going after Michael is a distraction from Billy’s work, of which you have read some. And consider yourself lucky in that you speak, read and understand German, the language that BIlly writes in, and that you are more than qualified and able to reach your own logically based conclusions.. You are not restricted to what has been translated to English. And consider yourself lucky in that you are only 17, as you have said, hopefully truthfully; because you are very young and have much in front of you and much to learn, as we all do, except for arrogant know-it-alls, that have chimed in here on a regular basis.

      So yes, I don’t agree with how Michael used your comments and I do find it distasteful. But I do agree with much of what he says on his blog and on this blog. One may not like his style but he has many many valid points.

      Regards,
      Bruce

      Comment by Bruce — September 18, 2011 @ 1:16 pm | Reply

      • I will only add that ALL of the scientific experts quoted, if you are referring to that particular page on my site, SIGNED OFF on them prior to publication in Gary Kinder’s book. Additionally, I obtained David Froning’s permission to use his comments, including the ones he made at my presentation in L.A.

        Comment by Michael Horn — September 18, 2011 @ 2:01 pm

  114. Just for the record here. Stuart claimed that Meier retrodicted his information on the Red Meteor to make it fit with the Apophis asteroid information. He asked for proof that Meier didn’t, i.e. presumed him guilty rather than innocent.

    The Answer was given here:

    http://theyflyblog.com/the-answer/09/14/2011

    There was no comment – or apology – from Stuart.

    Ample additional documentation was given/linked to of Meier’s prophetically accurate scientific information, such as in numbers 32., 38., 53., 63., 91., etc.

    Three irrefutable sources of documentation were presented than confirmed Meier’s preemptive publication regarding the discovery of two planetoids beyond Pluto around the turn of the century.

    Jennifer was upset that I claimed that she read prophetic information from Meier that was published years before the discoveries occurred. Jennifer herself then CONFIRMED that she indeed read that information. It’s worth repeating:

    “Regarding ‘the two planetoids beyond Pluto information’, if you have been patient enough and honest to wait for my answer, because i have other things to do, then i would have said, yes, on page 97 of the book ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’, Billy Meier wrote about the possible future discovery of small planets beyond Pluto, close to the turn of the millennium or maybe only a short time after the turn of the millennium…”

    Her answer to what she would do if retesting of the metal samples confirmed their extraterrestrial origin showed the skeptical vacuousness of her request for retesting in the first place.

    So, the requested information, documentation, etc. was presented for Apophis, the planetoids beyond Pluto, Io being the most volcanically active body in the solar system, the discovery of what killed the Iceman, etc.

    The result is that the author of this blog FAILED to respond with credibility or integrity – including failing to hold his defaming minions to the same standards as he holds his opponents.

    Jennifer mistakenly presumed this to be a “scientific” blog but it isn’t. As the plain evidence shows, it’s merely a platform for a celebrity-seeking pseudo-scientist and the mainly cynical debunkers he attracts.

    A final note to Jennifer. Let’s actually hope that Meier’s wrong regarding Apophis. Otherwise you will surely have a very close seat (should you remain at home) to witness a rather historical event with the arrival of the asteroid as it slams into your neighborhood. Unless of course you choose to use your own ample intelligence and do what YOU can to assure a mission to DEFLECT it from its course, as Ptaah suggested. I don’t think you’d want to rely on Americans like Stuart Robbins for your future survival.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 18, 2011 @ 8:57 am | Reply

  115. Michael Horn, i am more than upset, i am deeply disappointed by you and by your manners, because i expected people associated and oder representing Billy Meier to think, speak and write the truth, and to be honest and responsible, but you are not like that.

    You wrote: “Her answer to what she would do if retesting of the metal samples confirmed their extraterrestrial origin showed the skeptical vacuousness of her request for retesting in the first place.”

    First, you called me a skeptic in your ‘SKEPTIC Admits Reading Billy Meier Predictions… Foretold BEFORE Events Occurred’, where you also said all those wrong things, before i answered to your question on the planetoids beyond Pluto and before i reacted to your question on the metals.
    I answerered with this “if scientists follow the lawful scientific procedures, examine the metals and submit their results to peer-review, and it appeared, that the metals are of non-earth origin, i would ask myself, why it took you and Billy Meier so long to do so!”, because i thought, that this “The Meier Contacts – The Key To Our Future Survival” is serious, and i could not understand why you, as the media representative of Billy Meier, don’t use the best possibilities to reach as much people as possible and very quickly.
    My answer was actually already hier “I made that suggestion, just because i see it as a missed chance and it seems illogical to me, that you don’t make use of the means and procedures, which science offers and accepts, in order to validate your point, gain scientific recognition for Meier’s perspective and thus bring it in the meanstream media, if the Meier case you represent is that important and crucial to the survival of mankind.”
    So, here again you gave me intentions i do not have.
    You also use ‘skeptic’ as a bad word.
    Wohl, i am dann a skeptic also in your vocabulary, if asking good, scientific evidence is to be a skeptic, because i will always ask good scientific evidence and think by myself, as i don’t want to go back to the middle ages, when people had to believe on authority and could not ask for evidence, as religions continue to do today too.

    Second, after my comment 106 of 16. September, where i posted information showing, that the book ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’, where the information on ‘Toutatis’ is, was still not published in 1988, in your message 107 of 16. September, you wrote “I am aware of course of the info re Toutatis thank you.”, but in the ‘SKEPTIC Admits Reading Billy Meier Predictions… Foretold BEFORE Events Occurred’, which you posted the day before, on 15. September, on your website, you still wrote “book, ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’. The book, first published in 1978,”

    Why you did this then?

    For me, it is or you did not know and you lied, of you knew, but continue to lie.

    Third, you posted “The issue under dispute at the point at which Jennifer serendipitously demolished Robbins’ pseudo-science, was Meier’s prophetically accurate information that Jupiter’s moon, Io, was the most volcanically active body in the solar system.”

    I was hier, but i do not remember doing what you wrote!
    Besides, scientists discovered, that Io could be the most volcanically active body in the solar system in 1979.
    Probably everybody hier knows it, but hier it is: http://www.planetaryexploration.net/jupiter/io/volcanism_on_io.html

    Again about the planetoids, you wrote “it also contains Meier’s accurate prediction that two unknown planetoids beyond Pluto would be discovered around the turn of the century.”
    I already wrote, that i read ‘Vulcano’, then ‘UNI’, ‘Charon’ and ‘Chiron’.
    I do not know, which is the second planetoid, but i found, that moon ‘Charon’ was discovered in 1978: http://www.universetoday.com/13878/plutos-moon-charon/

    And now, as we know, that the book ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’ was still not published in 1988, it becomes more ununderstandable to me, why you don’t submit the metals for a proper scientific study, in place of posting all this wrong information again and again!

    Regarding your final note, i am not scare and i am not afraid of death.

    All the best.

    Comment by Jennifer D. — September 18, 2011 @ 12:46 pm | Reply

  116. dear Jennifer,

    Your answer – about which you’ve had a long time to think – shed no light on anything. I GUARANTEE you that if the scientists all agreed that they couldn’t make the metal with any technology available to them even today the skeptics would say, “That doesn’t mean that extraterrestrials made it.” In a sense they would be right, mainly because no scientists would today dare put themselves at risk by stating that ETs did make the metal. And then what, would you still say, “What took you so long?”

    Of course it’s all conjecture because even you too don’t quite live in the real world yet. As I responded to a brainless skeptic on a blog of my own:

    “If all of the items that Meier foretold were related to CRIMES…he would have been picked up and questioned, if not arrested, because of the obvious, uncanny, foreknowledge, far beyond mere coincidence or lucky guesses that the…SKEPTICS would like to attribute to him.”

    I accepted that the information that Meier wrote about the two planets beyond Pluto, that was incorporated into the book, was indeed published in the Stimme der Wassermannzeit…since it coincides with the copyrighted, dated, published book by Stevens, to say nothing of Meier’s first mention in 1958. So, while you also refer to discovery of a moon in 1978, Meier had already predicted it in…1958. That’s 1958, 20 years BEFORE the discovery, etc.

    Deal with the FACTS of its documented publication. Bruce has already advised you that you may not like my style.

    Skeptic as a bad word? Guilty as charged…especially when the other choice is scientist.

    As for this nonsensical concept of “argument from authority” that many skeptics freely float, the problem is that if you don’t substantiate your claims with documentation they attack for that. And since you want new scientific testing, I should ask…why, so that new authorities can be quoted?

    I said it before, the testing done by Marcel Vogel was credible and employed the appropriate means. Logically, I suppose that any testing done on anything you’re uncomfortable with, or anything tested before your arrival into this world, should be redone. Good luck.

    Now, if you’re actually wanting to argue about the Io information, then note that Meier first published it in October 1978…that’s 1978. That was five months BEFORE the probe got there. Stevens attested to already having that information three days BEFORE the “official announcement” was made.

    If you REALLY want the truth of the matter in the Meier case, the scientifically corroborated information is FAR more important than UFO photos, metals, etc. You really should realize that.

    So, I’d suggest that you busy yourself with it and see if there indeed is a preponderance of evidence that clearly substantiates his authenticity. Really, check out “preponderance of evidence”, it’s a nifty concept that is quite fitting here.

    As for your not being afraid to die, congratulations. However that isn’t the point. The point is that the NEEDLESS deaths of MILLIONS of other people – some of whom might actually like to be around a little longer than you – could be prevented if enough intelligent, thinking people get their priorities straight.

    Of course if you’re still convinced that Meier retrodicted the information, i.e. lied, well then I guess that’s more important to you.

    Now if you don’t mind me asking, what is your REAL concern with this?

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 18, 2011 @ 5:26 pm | Reply

  117. Thank you for your views, Bruce.

    Have a nice day or night,

    Jennifer.

    Comment by Jennifer D. — September 19, 2011 @ 2:21 am | Reply

  118. This article is consistent with the information told to me by the investigators about 20 years ago:

    http://www.ufodigest.com/article/billy-meier-and-cia

    …and no, I’m not Ray Young.

    Also note that Stevens published info spans 3,000 pages. Some “hoax”, huh?

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 20, 2011 @ 4:02 am | Reply

  119. As I just said in my blog, interestingly enough, I was just sent this link, which seems to indicate that scientists may be moving in the direction indicated in Meier’s information from 1986:

    http://io9.com/5805202/mysterious-cosmic-explosion-might-be-first-ever-proof-of-white-holes

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 20, 2011 @ 5:21 pm | Reply

    • Don’t waste your keyboard strokes, Michael. It’s just more backdating by Meier. There is no way he mentioned anything about white holes 25 years ago. No way. Just ask the Chew, or the Stu … or Phil the Plait.

      Comment by Bruce — September 20, 2011 @ 5:47 pm | Reply

  120. Oh, you don’t have the book and don’t read German anyway?

    Well it just so happens that we’ve had that info up on the site for a while:

    http://www.theyfly.com/gaia/toutatis.htm

    …what a coincidence, I mean “retrodiction”. Of course we really should wait for the “final conclusions” from our own scientists, right?

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 21, 2011 @ 5:27 am | Reply

  121. Hallo everybody,
    I was busy with the enrolment for my study and other things, but now i have free time.

    Michael Horn,
    In post 116, you wrote this: “I accepted that the information that Meier wrote about the two planets beyond Pluto, that was incorporated into the book, was indeed published in the Stimme der Wassermannzeit…since it coincides with the copyrighted, dated, published book by Stevens, to say nothing of Meier’s first mention in 1958. So, while you also refer to discovery of a moon in 1978, Meier had already predicted it in…1958. That’s 1958, 20 years BEFORE the discovery, etc.”
    And this: “Now, if you’re actually wanting to argue about the Io information, then note that Meier first published it in October 1978…that’s 1978. That was five months BEFORE the probe got there. Stevens attested to already having that information three days BEFORE the “official announcement” was made.”

    Regarding this: “Now, if you’re actually wanting to argue about the Io information, then note that Meier first published it in October 1978…that’s 1978. That was five months BEFORE the probe got there. Stevens attested to already having that information three days BEFORE the “official announcement” was made.”

    I went again to your ‘http://theyfly.com/Wendelle-Stevens-Jupiter-Io.html’, but the only information there about astronomy is this:
    “It can be safely stated that the Pleiadians told Meier that there are in fact 17 months of Jupiter, but that it would be many months before we discover the next ones. They also observed that there are still 2 more planets in our solar system still to be discovered, both beyond Pluto and one well beyond.”

    It says ‘Planets’, not ‘Planetoids’ or ‘moons’; there are no names, like planet ‘Vulcano’, ‘UNI’, ‘Charon’ and ‘Chiron’; there is no word or name Io!

    Und regarding this: “I accepted that the information that Meier wrote about the two planets beyond Pluto, that was incorporated into the book, was indeed published in the Stimme der Wassermannzeit…since it coincides with the copyrighted, dated, published book by Stevens, to say nothing of Meier’s first mention in 1958. So, while you also refer to discovery of a moon in 1978, Meier had already predicted it in…1958. That’s 1958, 20 years BEFORE the discovery, etc.”

    You did not give enough informations, but wrote only ‘Stimme der Wassermannzeit’ and ‘1958’.
    But no problem, because on ‘1958’ i saw in your post 107 this “However, my main points regarding the two planetoids beyond Pluto information, in that book, in Wendelle’s book and in Meier’s letter – all published before the discoveries were made – absolutely still stands.” and so i looked for ‘Billy Meier’s Letter 1958’ and this is the only result:
    http://www.theyfly.com/lost/meier.prophecies.1958.htm

    This is however the only informations on this topic there:

    “45.) Towards the end of the Twentieth Century new planets will continuously be discovered at distant solar systems that however can bear no human life.
    46.) New solar satellites will also be discovered in our solar system that move far outside the orbit of Pluto, yet that will first be after the turn of the millennium.”

    First, on discovery around Pluto, it said “after the turn of the millennium”.
    Second, it said “new solar satellites” and not ‘Planetoids’ und there are hier too no names like ‘Planet Vulcano’, ‘UNI’, ‘Charon’, ‘Chiron’!

    So, what are you talking about?

    If i think about the truth on the publication of the book ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’, this looks really like the prediction of ‘Apophis’ you wrote, on which Stuart Robbins does not agree with you.

    Regarding ‘Stimme der Wassermannzeit’, you did not say which, and i think, it is because you don’t know.
    But no problem hier also, because it is in German and i will find it, because i easily find things and that is why i want to study astronomy. I hope to find many new things in the sky!
    It is not difficult and not very expensive to order things from Switzerland to Germany and if there is need, i will ask my Family relatives who live in Switzerland to go to Hinterschmidrüti to get that ‘Stimme der Wassermannzeit’.

    I am also very surprised, that this letter ‘Warnung an alle Regierungen Europas’, hier http://www.theyfly.com/lost/meier.prophecies.1958.htm, says ‘1958’, but before the letter, it says ‘Hinterschmidtruti, September 4th, 2005 Billy’.

    This “These 162 verses were written down on the 24th of August 1958, and sent to Karl und Anny Veit, from “DUIST”, respectively “German Ufological Study Community”, in Wiesbaden Germany, to publish in their “UFO-News”. A resonance still remains from that because “DUIST”, respectively K. and A. Veit, cloak themselves in silence and not even once found it necessary to inform their readers about the prophecies and predictions.” is also very strange, because i don’t understand why Billy Meier sent this important letter only to Karl und Anny Veit!

    I want to know the truth and i will find Karl und Anny veit, because they are Germans and i can easily write oder speak to them.

    First, i wanted to listen to the good advice of Bruce and forget you, but you don’t want to stop to write wrong things.
    I don’t think, that i will again take seriously what you write, and now i begin to ask myself questions on Billy Meier as well.

    Alles Gute!

    Comment by Jennifer D. — September 21, 2011 @ 6:55 am | Reply

  122. Hello Jennifer,

    I am writing to you now from an internet cafe in a small mountain town in Brazil, so I don´t have my papers with me, of course. I will give you more specifics later, if necessary, but for now let me clarify somethings if I can, from memory.

    The information regarding Io is in Contact 115, which Stevens refers to – in that copyrighted book – when he said that he had the information on the predictions. Those predictions – and the information about Jupiter and Io – are all in that contact. I think the date was October 19, 1978. I know that I have copied the text somewhere on my site, perhaps in the Jupiter document that I linked to above somewhere. Take a look. I can always repost that information should you not find it.

    As for planets and not planetoids, please note that planets was the way that Stevens expressed but, as has already been shown, Meier used the term planetoids, which also turned out to be correct. As for the names of the objects, I think it´s quite understandable that the Plejaren would use their terms for objects already LONG KNOWN to THEM but not yet to us.

    Please let´s not apply our perhaps limited reasoning especially to points that are not critical to determining the truth. And the truth is what we´re after, right?

    And I think your idea of obtaining information directly from FIGU, since you are fortunate enough to read as much as you want in the original language, is brilliant. You would also I´m sure be able to direct questions to the German speaking people there.

    Also, my understanding is that the 1958 letter went out to many people. As for the 2005 date, that was from the commentrary that Meier made. I would suggest that you go back and read the whole page from the beginning. You may also want to `put your gun back in your holster`as we might say in America (though we rarely do it), meaning get a clear idea if indeed there is some kind of threat to you first and then if it requires preemptive attacks. This is a strangely American philosophy that I hope you are´t being taught in school. It also makes it a bit diffivult to learn and to acknowledge one´s own errors when they have accused and attacked others…for things they aren´t guilty of.

    Remember the little analogy I used about your father being wrongly accused? I noticed that you never commented on it. I suggest reading it again, since you may in the process of becoming a `wrong accuser`yourself, at an early age.

    Fortunately, you are also at a time and place in your life where that bad habit can be easily corrected, if you wish.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 21, 2011 @ 12:30 pm | Reply

  123. The probability of discovering planetoids outside of Pluto’s orbit is 100%. There will be more. As for Planets, well that’s another story.

    Comment by John — September 22, 2011 @ 2:28 am | Reply

    • Of course, sure, right. And what’s the…PROBABILITY that a so-called “simple Swiss farmer” would scoop NASA and other scientists on major discoveries for the past 60 years?

      Good gawd, do you people EVER approach these things as REAL investigators and scientists would…or just as “expert” armchair skeptics?

      What a legacy for future generations, who will curse us for our neglect, arrogance and destruction.

      Comment by Michael Horn — September 22, 2011 @ 9:45 am | Reply

  124. Dear Jennifer,

    You asked before why I post on this blog. This is supposed to be a scientifically focused blog that deals with astronomy.

    As you can see throughout my posts I have tried to put the Meier information pertaining to astronomical matters here for discussion and examination. I just linked to TWO MORE astronomy related items that deserve serious consideration. None of the information has gotten it, certainly not from the host of this blog.

    In fact, while you jump to some unfair conclusions and accusations, yours is the best example of due diligence and intellectual curiosity I’ve seen on this blog (and others where the Meier material is attacked).

    Maybe it´s a rare display of wisdom on Stuart´s part that he has gracefully retreated in the face of evidence and information that is beyond his abilities. Unfortunately, those abilities are primarily as a self-described skeptic, so naturally it´s intimidating to be confronted with voluminous evidence presented by someone he presumed himself to be so superior to.

    On the other hand, a real scientist, like David Froning, was intrigued and impressed with the information. He was MATURE enough to not have his ego threatened by someone from whom he could learn much pertaining to his own field of expertise.

    I also think that the banning of Bruce from this forum further speaks to the egoism and thin-skinned nature of our host here.

    MH

    P.S. Would it surprise you to know that the “Dr. Mick” person posting here is using phony email addresses from UK university that have no record of them/him?

    Such is the kind of trouble cowardly people will go to in order to try to attack what they don’t know, fear and are envious of.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 22, 2011 @ 8:53 am | Reply

  125. Jennifer, I’m sure you’ve noticed that most of Horn’s arguments fall into a few categories: non sequiturs, arguments from authority and argument from motive. I urge you to study about logical fallacies before continuing any other research.

    Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of logical fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

    After you’ve familiarized yourself with them you will spot them in almost everything Horn writes.

    Comment by Chew Bird — September 22, 2011 @ 9:55 am | Reply

  126. Yes, Jennifer, be sure to NOT examine Meier’s evidence for yourself, especially since you are in a good position to get the German language information.

    Since anonymous DISINFORMATION specialists can’t possibly refute the ongoing corroboration of Meier’s scientific information, they will try to distract you with semantics and other IMPOTENT strategies.

    It isn’t what “Horn writes” that’s important…it’s Meier’s information.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 22, 2011 @ 10:57 am | Reply

    • Horn’s latest reply should be a good key for you, Jennifer. I recommend studying about logical fallacies (i.e. how to construct to a logical argument) and I am called a disinformation specialist. Notice his constant use of the word “anonymous”. That is the ad hominem argument: attack the arguer, not the argument. If an argument is valid does it matter who makes it?

      Comment by Chew Bird — September 22, 2011 @ 3:17 pm | Reply

  127. How is your career going Michael. After all isn’t that what it’s all about? “scoop NASA and other scientists on major discoveries” what discoveries apart from the obvious and inane?

    Comment by John — September 22, 2011 @ 11:14 am | Reply

  128. Thanks everybody for your help and advices.
    Me too i don’t understand why Michael Horn uses so many words and also many bad words against others, if his case is so true, very important and spiritual.
    (You must forgive my bad English, because my Friend Kirsten, who studies English and helped me correctly write my first 2 or 3 messages, went back to her own city and she is now very busy. Leider!)

    Michael Horn,
    You want my answer to this: “Remember the little analogy I used about your father being wrongly accused?”

    If my Father is accused, i will support him and first try to see if the accusations are wrong.
    If my father is guilty, then he has to be responsible and pay for what he did.
    If the accusations are wrong, i will help my father and seriously ask him to use the best lawful and convincing means and methods to prove his innocence and present his evidence to the Judge and anyone who does not believe him, so that no one will have a doubt on him again.

    So, in your case i still think, that the best lawful and convincing methods to prove the innocence of Billy Meier is to submit his physical evidence to scientists for a good, lawful and public study.

    You also wrote this: “I said it before, the testing done by Marcel Vogel was credible and employed the appropriate means. Logically, I suppose that any testing done on anything you’re uncomfortable with, or anything tested before your arrival into this world, should be redone. Good luck.”

    Thank you for the ‘Good luck’, because if there is a scientific discovery or result, which only one or two scientists only studied or tested, i will not be very much convinced by it and i will wish, that more studies and tests on this discovery or result will be done by other scientists.
    This is what we agreed about sciences, scientific discoveries and results, and scientific methods.
    You also like to write about the ‘Iceman’, but you don’t want to see, that many scientists study him and many times, and each time the scientists find new things. Is this not the truth?

    You answerded: “Also, my understanding is that the 1958 letter went out to many people.”
    To which people, please?
    I ask you this, because i found, that Karl and Anny Veit died in 2000 und 2001, and this is not good, because Karl und Anny Veit did not know about the publication of these prophecies and the explanation of Billy Meier in 2005 and so they could not say, if it is true or not.
    You can read about them here: http://www.ufo-und-alienforum.de/wiki/index.php/Karl_L._Veit, http://www.ufo-und-alienforum.de/wiki/index.php/Anny_Veit

    But do not worry, i found Herrn Werner L. Forster, who ist now the owner of ‘DUIST’ and i will write to him about this question or visit him later.
    Here is the website: http://www.ufo-nachrichten.com/index.html

    On this question, you wrote: “As for the 2005 date, that was from the commentrary that Meier made.”
    Good, i understand; but if those predictions were lost, it means that no one, except Karl und Anny Veit and ‘many people’, saw them, before Billy Meier finds them again in 2005.
    This is again very strange!

    Regarding the predictions of ‘Toutatis’, then ‘Planet Vulcano’, ‘UNI’, ‘Charon’ und ‘Chiron’, and ‘Io’ and its vulcanism, first you wrote that they are in the book ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’, which as we see, was still not published in 1988, then in the document of Wendelle Stevens and the letter ‘Warnung an alle Regierungen Europas 1958’, which is also not correct, and now it is in Contact Report 115.
    I went and read Contact report 115 at the website ‘Future of mankind’, and that information is there.
    I may have thought, that it is true and very convincing, if i did not read ‘http://www.iigwest.com/investigations/meier/ike42report.htm’, which Moewicus posted here, but now i really have a big doubt.

    I also wrote this: “Second, after my comment 106 of 16. September, where i posted information showing, that the book ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’, where the information on ‘Toutatis’ is, was still not published in 1988, in your message 107 of 16. September, you wrote “I am aware of course of the info re Toutatis thank you.”, but in the ‘SKEPTIC Admits Reading Billy Meier Predictions… Foretold BEFORE Events Occurred’, which you posted the day before, on 15. September, on your website, you still wrote “book, ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’. The book, first published in 1978,”

    Why you did this then?

    For me, it is or you did not know and you lied, of you knew, but continue to lie.”

    But you did not give answers to that; why don’t you answer?

    Besides, you wrote, that Billy Meier said “the two unknown planetoids beyond Pluto would be discovered around the turn of the century.”, but this is no correct, because in in the letter ‘Warnung an alle Regierungen Europas 1958’, it said “after the turn of the millennium”, which is anyway not true, because the moon ‘Charon’ was discovered in 1978, before the turn of the millennium!

    Hier it is: http://www.theyfly.com/lost/meier.prophecies.1958.htm
    “46.) New solar satellites will also be discovered in our solar system that move far outside the orbit of Pluto, yet that will first be after the turn of the millennium.”

    And here is again the discovery of moon ‘Charon’ in 1978: http://www.universetoday.com/13878/plutos-moon-charon/

    Explain this, please?

    I am still looking for the ‘Stimme der Wassermannzeit’.

    Before i go, i want to say, that i accuse nobody; i only search the truth.

    Have a nice week.

    Comment by Jennifer D. — September 23, 2011 @ 5:42 am | Reply

  129. Oh, I see another anonymous person is enquiring about my well-being, how nice.

    And if you think that NASA’s discoveries are so obvious and inane…take it up with them.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 23, 2011 @ 6:38 am | Reply

    • For ‘obvious and inane’ read inevitable and predictable. and not just by aliens. Do I have to spell everything out MH? Well …. obviously yes.

      Comment by John — September 25, 2011 @ 9:12 am | Reply

  130. Dear Jennifer,

    Some quick replies.

    You are a little confused about how the “law” works in most civilized countries, there is what is called a presumption of innocence; guilt must be PROVEN, not innocence. I think that your father will be happy to know that too.

    I also suggest that you go back and contemplate what constitutes evidence. Meier has six categories of physical evidence and – far more importantly – volumes of specific, prophetically accurate scientific information. As I may have said before, if that information, if each of those items referred to a CRIME (instead of a scientific discovery) Meier certainly would have been considered a prime suspect and even arrested by now. Heck, in some places they probably WOULD have convicted him of the “crimes” -certainly if had predicted the hundreds of them instead of scientific discoveries. That’s how demonstrable foreknowledge of a CRIME can get you “noticed”.

    However, when we are talking about pseudo-scientists who have already made up their minds about what can POSSIBLY be true or not, Meier’s demonstrable scientific foreknowledge is an inconvenient, embarrassing disruption to their prejudicial, NON-scientific thinking.

    Please focus regarding the Iceman. Meier was told about the discovery before it happened. Okay, you don’t want to accept his 1991 publication but the 1996 one is there, with the copyright date. And the important information as I see it is that Meier was told that the man fell, which would account for the head injury and – most amazingly of all – he was told that he fell on an arrow. An arrowhead was found in his back by the scientists many years later. A broken arrow was also found next to him. Are you beginning to allow this to register; what are the odds of all that?

    I’ll bet that you too could think of at least 15 ways that a man may have died 5,100 years ago. And the man who has published all of the information referred to above, and tons more still in German, was told that it was form an arrow (and the head injury). Again, if you want to argue about that then you have many years of training in thinking necessary.

    Regarding the 1958 letter, a couple of things. You can contact FIGU and discuss it with them, in German, again this is a good way to go. And if you will keep that letter (and the rest of Meier’s prophecies and predictions handy) you’ll get all the proof you need of his accuracy. Most of humanity, including the stubborn skeptics who need things to drop on their heads before they will notice them, are assuring the fulfillment of all too many things. As you will be able to see, the prophecies and predictions of these things will be – and have already been – fulfilling themselves after any and all possible copyright an/or publication dates. Pay attention to the one about biometric chips being implanted…pay real good attention to it.

    However, it appears that you either overlooked, or didn’t understand, both the title:

    Warning to all the governments of Europe!

    …and the opening of the letter:

    “The contents of this brochure were already written by 1958, constructed out of revelations from the extraterrestrials Sfath and Asket, whereby the letter of August 25th, 1958 was sent as a “Warning to all the governments of Europe!”. No answer to it was ever received, as all these governments cloaked themselves in deep silence, besides which, they did not heed the warning or take any of the necessary precautions at all in order to avoid the prophesied catastrophes, evil and destruction, and so on, which, as the time in between has shown, have struck as announced catastrophes without exception…”

    I think the number of countries t was sent to was…25. And, as Meier says, “No answer to it was ever received…” Maybe that’s the “strange” part but not really considering human behavior, as Meier himself further notes.

    As for the Ike attempt to disprove Meier’s Io info, it is so based on speculation, as well as on easily refuted errors, that if you really want I’ll go ahead and debunk it for you. I’m sure whoever is watching this blog will love it. Let me know if you want me to dedicate a little time to it and I” do it…when I have the time.

    As for Toutatis info, as you also found out, that info was published in the periodical in 1978 that was included in the book. I happen to accept that Meier did indeed write and first publish it then (1978). I don’t consider that a lie but if you don’t want to accept it you’re free not to. It’s that easy.

    Now, back to the two objects beyond Pluto, in the 1958 letter:

    46.) New solar satellites will also be discovered in our solar system that move far outside the orbit of Pluto, yet that will first be after the turn of the millennium.

    Check:

    http://futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/FIGU_Bulletin_011

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/mar/15/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/planet_like_body.html

    “…around the turn of the century.” I’d say those qualify, wouldn’t you?

    And some more information for contemplation:

    http://theyflyblog.com/?p=952

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 23, 2011 @ 5:37 pm | Reply

  131. “New solar satellites will also be discovered in our solar system that move far outside the orbit of Pluto”

    Your kidding, no surely not, You mean orbiting bodies OUTSIDE of the orbit of Pluto. But I assumed that was impossible. How on Earth could anyone predict that. They must have been aliens with incredible knowledge of the future of mankind. I think we should fundamentally change our view of the world and realise that we have been visited by extraterrestrials. Rock and ice beyond Pluto, Christ I have wasted my life, we should all wake up and realise that Michael Horn is a genius and not an intellectually limited twit with no grasp of science and probability.

    Comment by John — September 25, 2011 @ 9:19 am | Reply

  132. Michael Horn and everybody,
    Friday, i wrote “Have a nice week”, because i thought, that i will contact Herrn Werner L. Forster of ‘DUIST’ to receive information on Billy Meier’s letter ‘Warnung an alle Regierungen Europas’ from independent source, and that a week will pass before i get the answer, but this is not necessary.
    I explain why.

    First, i have big doubt on the information of Billy Meier on Jupiter and vulcanism of Io not only because of this ‘http://www.iigwest.com/investigations/meier/ike42report.htm’, but also because of this, where Billy Meier clearly says, that he followed the news on astronomy, new scientific discoveries and the progress of sciences: http://forum.figu.org/us/messages/2200/3577.html?1309945287
    “For many years, he has been repeatedly coming across contradictory statements/data of scientists on the size and the origin/genesis of our universe. The statements, which were made over and over again, were almost from year to year and after/following each new discovery of other galaxies recanted and changed/altered/modified/revised/amended.”
    “After the completion of that continuation of/supplement/appendix/contribution to the ‘Voice of Aquarius’, as once again many new discoveries have been taking place in the field of astronomy, which (new discoveries) again led to new insights of scientists,”
    And i think, if Ike42 knew, that the book ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’ was still not published in 1988, this person would not waste time on the information on ‘Toutatis’.

    Regarding the story of the ‘Iceman’, on which you wrote again, but again without saying, that it true ist , that many scientific tests and studies by different scientists are necessary to find the truth, i went back to your website and read this: http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/5100_year_old_man.htm
    “PP Block 6, Seite 397 bis 402; 238th contact of May 18, 1991
    572. Als nächstes wird sich etwas zutragen in den Öztaler Bergen in Österreich, und zwar auf dem Similaungletscher.
    Ptaah: The next thing will happen in the Oetztal Mountains, on the Similaun glacier.
    573. Dort nämlich werden die mumifizierten Überreste resp. die mumifizierte Leiche eines Mannes gefunden, der vor 5105 Jahren dort den Tod fand und durch die Naturkräfte konserviert wurde.
    There the mummified remains, or more precisely the mummified corpse of a man will be found who has lost his life there 5,105 years ago and was preserved by nature’s forces.”

    But on the other website you wrote, i read this: http://futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_238
    “Contact Report Volume: 6
    Date/time of contact: 18th May 1991 12:55
    Ptaah
    586. The next thing will happen in the Oetztal Mountains, on the Similaun glacier.
    586. Als nächstes wird sich etwas zutragen in den Öztaler Bergen in Österreich, und zwar auf dem Similaungletscher.
    587. There the mummified remains, or more precisely the mummified corpse of a man will be found who has lost his life there 5,105 years ago and was preserved by nature’s forces.
    587. Dort nämlich werden die mumifizierten Überreste resp. die mumifizierte Leiche eines Mannes gefunden, der vor 5105 Jahren dort den Tod fand und durch die Naturkräfte konserviert wurde.”

    The fact, that the story of the ‘Iceman’ is on your website sentences 572 and 573 and on the other website ist it sentences 586 and 587, shows to me, that the writings of Billy Meier are not good evidence, because numbers change from one publication to another.

    I also read this about the people of Israel, which i can not understand: http://futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_070
    “Semjase:
    140. The third Earth people was actually, in and of itself, no such thing, because it concerned a very widely disseminated alliance of gypsies, which was interspersed with Jehavon\’s spies and saboteurs, who, in unity with the gypsies, brought about dissention everywhere, greedily drawing everything to themselves and were always constantly eager to murder, burn and rob, for which reason one named them the Hebrons by the original language of our forefathers, therefore Hebraon and later then Hebrons.
    141. These names correspond to gypsy, scum and outcast in the sense of the original language, which therefore has not been transferred to your present languages, because the sense of your present term for gypsy still only means the wanderers, the itinerant, and the unsettled ones.
    142. Thereby it should be clarified that the present gypsy people have not the least in common with the Hebraons of that time, who proclaimed themselves the first born and the chosen ones, just as much as do their distant descendents, who today still dare to assert this.
    143. In truth, the Hebraons were the real scum and outcasts of Earth humanity, because through them fights and quarrels within the whole world were constantly stirred up and yet further spread, which has been maintained until the present day.
    144. Earth will first finally be calm, then, when this power-hungry and bloodthirsty Hebraon alliance, and which they themselves named as a people, which has split into various sects addicted to world control, and so forth, is fully dissolved.”

    I see hier no spirituality, no truth, no reason, no logic, no good manners and good education and i want nothing from these racist things!
    I have regrets, that i waste my time with this and i am ashamed, that i almost took this story seriously.

    I hope, that you too, Michael Horn, will be ashamed and will stop saying lies.

    Lebewohl!

    Comment by Jennifer D. — September 26, 2011 @ 2:57 am | Reply

    • Hi Jennifer,

      I will take your response to mean, among other things, that you DO want to have my debunking of Ike42/IIG’s erroneous claims. Just so that we’re VERY clear here, when I do this, and when you see that it’s ironclad, I will expect YOU to affirm its accuracy, which will mean exactly what I said in my post earlier today – that Meier is authentic, telling the truth and getting his scientific information not from publications that either didn’t exist or to which he had no possible access…but from the Plejaren extraterrestrials.

      Please carefully note what I’m saying here.

      Now, I have written to Switzerland to find out why the numbering is different. There is such a thing as human error, which occasionally happens in real life…as you may discover as you gain more life experience. However, if you’d like to try to claim that this invalidates Meier’s preemptively publishing the EXACT cause(s) of death of the Iceman, please do so with specifics. We do have the text in a copyrighted documented form, years before the discoveries pertaining to the cause(s).

      As soon as I hear form FIGU I will post their response.

      As for the comments pertaining to the Israelites, etc., please be specific. As a matter fact, I too first thought this was outrageous…until I took the trouble to open the Old Testament and get quite a shock at what actually happened, at least according to the book itself. The land of Israel was created through genocide, rape, murder, theft, etc., all at the command of the terrorist who was the god of the Jews.

      Needless to say, as someone whose own parents fled the holocaust and came to America, all of this was quite troubling, as well as revelatory for me.

      May I also suggest that if you want me to believe that you really are a 17 year-old girl from a nice German home, that YOU will stop calling people liars who don’t lie? May I also suggest that you prepare yourself to apologize THOROUGHLY?

      Now I will go and get into the nonsense from Ike42/IIG and put out a nice little page with it that I will invite you to read.

      And do practice your apology for me, okay?

      Comment by Michael Horn — September 26, 2011 @ 9:11 am | Reply

  133. Dear Jennifer,

    Now what do you think of that? Some very impolite fellow is calling me names to start the week. And he thinks that the foretold discovery of the two objects was really insignificant and silly, obvious too.

    Now while I doubt that he has foretold anything (of note or otherwise), YOU did seem to think that such a claim was important enough to really make sure it was in the material I referred you to.

    Does that also make you “an intellectually limited twit with no grasp of science and probability.”?

    And of course you did challenge that Meier actually foretold that Io was the most volcanically active body in our solar system – a fact that was regarded as the MOST important discovery of the Voyager mission.

    Now of course the defamer here, who resorts to attacking me, didn’t foretell that. So, since I offered to thoroughly shred the IIG rebuttal, to show how utterly incompetent and completely wrong it was, I also said I would only take the time to do that if YOU requested me to.

    If you do, I think that I will come up with something that will compel the anonymous “John” to sulk away with his tail between his legs…or really make himself look even more ridiculous in the process!

    Oh, and if I do, it would be ironclad proof that Meier indeed published that information BEFORE “official discovery”. That would mean that ALL the skeptics are wrong and that Meier indeed gets scientific information from some “very knowledgeable source”, as David Froning said. And it would mean that the ONLY possible source for Meier’s prophetic accuracy is indeed a race of extraterrestrial human beings.

    Do let me know, unless of course you want to save me the time…and everyone on this blog/forum further having their precious, religiously skeptical BELIEFS utterly demolished.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 26, 2011 @ 6:14 am | Reply

  134. Well hi there, Jennifer, I did that little bit of homework, s promised…and just a little bit more.

    I hope this post also isn’t removed/censored here but no matter, I will have already screen captured it…for the record.

    So please feel free to come on over and read ALL the information I’ve prepared for you and any other interested parties. As you’ll see that I mention at my blog, feel free to comment there. You can also see that I have no objection to exposing frauds, cowards, liars, etc. It’s just that they turn out to be different people than you have prematurely assumed.

    Okay, you can begin here…Jennifer:

    http://theyflyblog.com/?p=956

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 26, 2011 @ 12:54 pm | Reply

  135. “Does that also make you (Jennifer) “an intellectually limited twit with no grasp of science and probability.”

    It did until she realized it was nonsense

    “Now of course the defamer here, who resorts to attacking me”

    I’m not defaming you, I am defaming your evidence for ET. I never realized that you had been ‘famed’ anyway.

    Comment by John — September 26, 2011 @ 12:58 pm | Reply

  136. P.S. You may also want to go here:

    http://theyfly.com/Special-Evidence-Research.htm

    …and think through a few things that you may not actually be aware of, hard to believe as that may be.

    Happy reading, Jennifer.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 26, 2011 @ 1:00 pm | Reply

  137. Bwahahahaha! Horn fell for nonsense in the “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” movie! Oh, man. That is too rich. What a rube!

    Comment by Chew Bird — September 26, 2011 @ 1:27 pm | Reply

  138. So. The story so far. Et has traveled 20 pillion miles to tell us that there is debris outside the orbit of Pluto (you don’t say), The a moon of Jupiter is very volcanically active (fair enough) and our buildings are too heavy and are causing earthquakes. (try doing a psi calc on that one). Any other useful news ET or is that it. Oh yes, we need to ‘wake up’. Well thanks for that ‘Et’ but any useful information. No? OK. I’ll write a book on it, well a pamphlet..

    Comment by John — September 27, 2011 @ 2:51 am | Reply

  139. Jennifer

    Before trusting the MH (theflyblog) site bear in mind his recent posting that contributors should provide their email address, using their real name, along with a photo and their location. Check

    http://theyflyblog.com/skeptic-admits-reading-billy-meier-predictions%E2%80%A6-foretold-before-events-occurred/09/15/2011

    Make of this what you will.

    Comment by Mart — September 27, 2011 @ 4:02 am | Reply

  140. “NOTE: Naturally, it turns out that the so-called “Dr. Mick” is also a fictional person who uses “spoofed” email addresses. Of course I allow criticisms, challenges, questions, etc, including from people using screen names. But I don’t allow defamatory comments form anonymous people hiding behind screen names. And it’s defamatory if there’s no substantiation for the charges.

    So anyone wanting to attack in that manner will need to be thoroughly, verifiably transparent, i.e. post using their real name, along with a photo and their location…as well as substantiation for their charges.”

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 27, 2011 @ 5:47 am | Reply

  141. Between you and me Mart I recon these ET’s are disingenous, deceiving self benefiting thugs. I would stay well clear of them if I were you.

    Comment by John — September 27, 2011 @ 11:04 am | Reply

    • disingenous, deceiving self benefiting thugs – seems like you’re talking about yourself, and the blog owner .. not to mention chew dog

      Comment by Bruce — September 27, 2011 @ 1:11 pm | Reply

  142. Hallo Mart,
    I don’t write at the site of Michael Horn, not because of that, but because i have no interest for UFO, unless i see one by myself or unless there is good scientific evidence about it, and also my study is astronomy and i am only a little bit curious about fringe astronomy. This is why i post only hier.
    Plus, after what Michael Horn did with my comments here, i can not have good assurance on what he would do with my words on his website.

    Hallo Michael Horn,
    I did not want to speak to you again, because i am disappointed by what i read about the people of Israel and other things in the writings of Billy Meier, but i will say two or three things:

    You wrote about accusations from me, saying i also called you a liar.
    This is not true.
    I used only the word ‘Schwindler’, after you wrote about me in your ‘SKEPTIC Admits Reading Billy Meier Predictions… Foretold BEFORE Events Occurred’, which is very wrong and Bruce hier agreed with much of my feelings about your action.
    I don’t know it in English, but in German ‘Schwindler’ means someone who uses non honest ways and change, wrongly interpret or use the words, intentions and goods of other people for his own interest and profit.
    Und this is exactly what you did.
    I did not write “you are a liar”; i said “stop saying lies” on the date of publication of the book ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’ and the information on ‘Toutatis’, because you still say, that the book ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’ with the information on ‘Toutatis’ is first published in 1978, but everybody sees, that this book was still not published in 1988.

    That is why i wrote ‘Schwindler’ and this is what i call “saying lies”, but as you are offended by that, i say sorry from my heart.

    Back to ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’ oder ‘Existing life in the universe’, Christian, who i understood is the Christian Frehner who translated the contact note about the ‘Iceman’ on your site and knows a lot about the publications of Billy Meier, says also, that there is no 1978 edition of the book ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’.
    But, as you say that that edition exists, say where it is; i will buy it.

    And also, if there is no 1978 edition of that book, like Christian says, why it says ‘COPYRIGHT UND URHEBERRECHT 1978/1993’ in the book i have?
    Ask this question as well in Switzerland.

    Und if you have doubt about that and if you wish, i can scan that page and post it hier, or if not possible, i could send it per post to Stuart Robbins, so he can post it.

    You write later, that the information on ‘Toutatis’ in the periodical ‘Stimme der Wassermannzeit’ in 1978 is, but you don’t show us that periodical, which would solve the problem and give you and Billy Meier right on ‘Toutatis’.
    I can not find it; so, where is that periodical ‘Stimme der Wassermannzeit’, bitte?

    Also since i begin to disagree with you, you begin to write, that i am not Jennifer, that i am not 17 years old, that i am a government secret agent!
    This is crazy and i think, that this way of thinking is like paranoia and too much belief in conspiracies!
    It is also not logical and contradictory, because, first you always say, that what important ist, is what a person writes or says or the arguments of the person, not the person, but you write all those things on my person.
    But good, if this is very important to you, than come to Berlin or send a Friend, we will make appointment.
    Und if you can not do it and this is very important to you, then ask Billy Meier und the Plejaren who i am then, they can do that, yes?

    Regarding the different numbers for sentences in the story of the ‘Iceman’, you say: “There is such a thing as human error, which occasionally happens in real life…that it is human mistake.”
    No, Michael Horn, this is much than human mistake, because you wrote, that the existence of the same numbers for sentences everywhere in the writings of Billy Meier a very important evidence ist.
    Hier you say it, in comment 51, of 27. August:
    “Every sentence spoken by each of the Plejaren, since 1975, has been…numbered sequentially in each contact (http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_1). The reason for this was exactly to deal with the kinds of charges of back dating that they knew would be leveled at Meier in the future when his information would be shown to be prophetically accurate. Since this was still the “paper” age, everything was typed out by Meier (from 60-200+ wpm, in German; see movie trailer at my site) copies made, published, disseminated mainly throughout Europe. All translations in English and other languages carry the same numbered sentence format, thereby absolutely eliminating back dating, obviously. Further, all contacts continue to also be published in print (Contact Blocks) further eliminating back dating issues. It must be noted that some TRANSLATORS initially don’t insert the numbers in Meier’s contacts but this is later done…and can be compared with the German language originals. So any concerns about back dating are the product of an overworked and suspicious mind.”

    So, what now?

    By the way, i changed my mind and i will doch ask for independent information on the letter of Billy Meier of 1958, ‘Warnung an alle Regierungen Europas’, bei Herrn Werner L. Forster of ‘DUIST’.
    Everybody who wish, can do that; hier ist the website again: http://www.ufo-nachrichten.com/index.html

    See you later.

    Comment by Jennifer D. — September 28, 2011 @ 5:01 am | Reply

  143. The scanned pages re the Iceman show the correct numbering in the copyrighted book. It was human error when it was copied and sent to me. Christian Frehner sent me the correct numbered translation that corresponds to the published page and I’ll correct it on my site. If you have any challenges on the actual book publication date, as shown on the cover, or the contact itself, it should be directed to FIGU.

    I’m also going to note what Jennifer has raised re the copyright date on the other book and will put that on my site too. It’s fair enough and should be stated. Again, Jennifer is apparently still too young to distinguish between human error and intentional “lies”. Perhaps she also thinks that Stuart and every astronomer and scientist out there are all liars too because they claimed that a particular asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs.

    Of course, REAL scientists are ALWAYS searching for the truth and so, when they find that they were in error (that little human thing that Jennifer will grow to not only understand but make many more of) then they correct it.

    Thank you I accept your apology.

    However, you failed to respond to the Jupiter-Io information that I provided. It PROVES that IIG was absolutely WRONG, Meier was right and…Meier is authentic. I think that’s where you should make your next apology…and pretty quickly.

    Of course the fact now has been established on this skeptic’s blog, with Jennifer’s helpful challenges, that Meier publishes specific, detailed, prophetically accurate scientific information from “very knowledgeable scientific sources”. Obviously they don’t live on this world. And a dedicated skeptic, working in a huge library and on the internet, couldn’t disprove it.

    Let’s see if there’s ANY scientific INTEGRITY here or if the avoidance and denial will continue, which is where I’ll place my bet, unfortunately.

    I’d love to be surprised.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 28, 2011 @ 3:51 pm | Reply

  144. P.S. I actually just found a numbering discrepancy between our original version, which includes the scanned pages of the German, and the one on FOM. So I will now have Christian double check. It may be that the one I originally posted is indeed correct, since it accords with the German original.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 28, 2011 @ 5:50 pm | Reply

  145. I can not believe this!
    Michael Horn, i thought, that you could be honest, but i wake up this morning and see, that you are still doing the same!

    You write a silly explanation about the different numbers of sentences, saying it is just human mistake and my jung age part of your evidence ist, after you have been saying to everybody hier, that the existence of the same numbers for sentences everywhere in the writings of Billy Meier a big decision of the Plejaren und a guarantee of authenticity and a very important evidence ist!
    You give no answers to my direct questions, like “You write later, that the information on ‘Toutatis’ in the periodical ‘Stimme der Wassermannzeit’ in 1978 is, but you don’t show us that periodical, which would solve the problem and give you and Billy Meier right on ‘Toutatis’.
    I can not find it; so, where is that periodical ‘Stimme der Wassermannzeit’, bitte?”; in place of that, you wrongly use my words und twist them to say, that your story is proved, und again you nonhonestly use my words and me to say bad things about others, including Stuart Robbins, who very patient ist and allows you to post your story hier.
    You must be ashamed!

    Wohl, you must know, that i made no apology to you; you did not understand it, but i thought, that you have human feelings and that your human feelings are offended by the words ‘Schwindler’ und “stop saying lies” on the date of publication of the book ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’ and the information on ‘Toutatis’ i used; but i now clearly see, that you have no human feelings, so there is nothing to say sorry from my heart to.
    My judgement about you and about your actions is the same: in German we call people like you ‘Schwindler’ and you must stop saying lies about the date of publication of the book ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’ und the information on ‘Toutatis’.

    Really only a sad person, who lives in a world of sick imagination can see this in my words and write this from my words:
    “However, you failed to respond to the Jupiter-Io information that I provided. It PROVES that IIG was absolutely WRONG, Meier was right and…Meier is authentic. I think that’s where you should make your next apology…and pretty quickly.
    Of course the fact now has been established on this skeptic’s blog, with Jennifer’s helpful challenges, that Meier publishes specific, detailed, prophetically accurate scientific information from “very knowledgeable scientific sources”. Obviously they don’t live on this world. And a dedicated skeptic, working in a huge library and on the internet, couldn’t disprove it.”

    You are really hopelos, Michael Horn; you are not honest, you don’t care about the truth and now i say it, you are a liar!

    Also i have now more conviction, that you and all your story a waste of time are, but all the same i will write to Herrn Werner L. Forster of ‘DUIST’, and i will post his answer hier, no matter what it ist, because contrary to you, me i am honest and i search the truth.

    I hope, that you will have the courage to change your life and to look for a honest job.

    Comment by Jennifer D. — September 29, 2011 @ 1:12 am | Reply

  146. First, below I will post information from Christian Frehner on both issues, which also will of course raise predictable attacks. But before doing so, please note that the information on the Iceman of course still stands, as it was PUBLISHED in the brown paperback version as stated. It contains the critical information that establishes – once again – that Meier preemptively published scientific findings years before they occurred.

    Since I don’t read German, I personally never have, nor refer to, the PP blocks. So any criticisms, attacks on Meier, claims of backdating, etc. fall flat. In fact, I was out of the loop on the PP blocks, which is just as well since the first published contact reports are, as I said, my sources:

    “Hi Michael,

    The upper text is NOT the original, it’s just a scan of the paperback edition. The original contact notes are NOT numbered.

    Having new numbers in the “Plejadisch-plejarische Kontaktberichte, Block 1 ff.” means that after the correction process with Ptaah and Enjana/Florena some additional information has been inserted into a contact, or that one sentence has been parted into two, etc. etc.

    Only the PP Blocks are published AFTER examination/correction by the P’s. The brown paperback editions are made based on the original notes, but the original notes at that time are not yet corrected by the P’s.

    I hope that this clarifies the issue.

    Salome,
    Christian”

    “Hi Michael,

    In the “Stimme der Wassermannzeit” a first draft of the book “Existentes Leben im Universum” was published as a series. Based on this draft edition (not available as a book, at least if I remember correctly), Billy later wrote the extended version that is now available as a book.
    The copyright date of 1978 refers to the first, initial version.

    Salome,
    Christian”

    Now, any issues with the information in the emails can be taken up with FIGU. However, the point still stands about the numbering in ALL copies of the non-PP block copies. Further, even if there were NO numbers, the sentences in all the non-PP copies will be the same. If anyone obtains the copies in different languages, etc. and can point to any discrepancies then they can challenge it.

    Whoever Jennifer is, whether she’s 7, 17 or 71, she’s in need of some manners, less she end up as a skeptic instead of a scientist. And isn’t it funny how all the outrage is followed by yet another accusation of me being a liar…and more AVOIDANCE?

    She is anything but honest, certainly she is willfully avoiding the main and most powerful point. A nice attempt at distracting away from it though: quote my words pointing to her failing to be able to support the IIG challenge SHE pointed to, call me names and huff and puff her way out – without ever rebutting my nice little dissembling of the junk from IIG or, as any decent, well educated young woman (or older person of either sex) would do – APOLOGIZE for being stone wrong.

    Jennifer has played her last moral outrage and defamatory comment card. To say ANYTHING further without now admitting that Meier’s Jupiter-Io information is absolutely accurate, preemptively published and authenticates his obtaining it from sources that cannot possibly reside here would be a futile continuation of this dishonest farce.

    Let’s also see if “Jennifer” ever contacts FIGU and establishes her true identity with them.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 29, 2011 @ 7:00 am | Reply

  147. Okay, since it’s now inevitable that the question is arising in some people’s minds here, if there are any people who can actually think, if…I am actually Jennifer.

    Obviously at this point Jennifer has painted herself into a tight little corner. Could all of the indignant, seemingly outrageous responses and accusations about me “lying”, getting her to post the idiocy from IIG – which when critiqued actually PROVES Meier’s unique, solitary authenticity – attacking FIGU, etc., could that all that have been a set-up so that I could assure that there would be an indelible record of just what kind of tripe the pseudo-scientists rely on to try to DISPROVE Meier…instead of searching for the TRUTH?

    Well, why should I say anymore about it. Right…”Jennifer”?

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 29, 2011 @ 10:19 am | Reply

    • The problem with the logic of your stance Michael is that if ONE of the ET claims can be shown to be wrong (and several others being unsubstantiatable, although not all) then the initial claim falls. IE. ET claims building mass is causing earthquakes. This is falsifiable therefore ET is either a myth (ie your claim that ET is the source) or they are untrustworthy supplier of information. So Why wouldthey? Either the source is human or ET is giving sketchy info. One has to conclude that the source is human.

      Comment by Dave — October 1, 2011 @ 4:52 am | Reply

  148. Dave,

    Io…deal with it.

    Io….stay on topic and realize that it’s over for the skeptics.

    Comment by Michael Horn — October 1, 2011 @ 2:11 pm | Reply

  149. Yes but if one prediction (Io) is correct but others are wrong or inevitable then scientifically informed guessing would explain it. With a say 1 in 5 hit rate. You are not getting this are you?

    Comment by Dave — October 2, 2011 @ 7:00 am | Reply

  150. “construction of huge cities are major factors contributing to increased earthquake/volcanic activity”

    “If, as some people might think, Meier somehow guessed…. there must be a ……body of randomly generated erroneous information”

    Nexus article quote.

    Comment by Dave — October 2, 2011 @ 8:02 am | Reply

  151. “Jupiter said to have 17 “actual” moons (Plejaren don’t consider that all of Jupiter’s satellites meet their standards for moons)”

    Neither do they name Io. They quite understandably have their own name for it and number of moons.

    With Juipter’s mass where would YOU expect the “most volcanically activity body in the solar system to be?”

    It just unravels.

    Comment by Dave — October 2, 2011 @ 8:09 am | Reply

    • The only thing unraveling is your logic.

      Y’all are silly, knee jerk rejector’s of the Meier case. Nearly every single day, these days; (with the current rapid advance in technologies) more and more of the voluminous (unmatched in depth and scope by anyone in the history of this planet) material put forth by Meier, for decades and decades, is being corroborated by current events, science, historians, currents technologies. Y’all focus on finding fault in unimportant minutia, and in the process you miss and dismiss the entirety of this human beings work; one who has tirelessly worked, gaining ever more enemies of those threatened by the truth, who profit by maintaining their status quo of lies, power and deceit in politics, religion, science,. His only interest is to bring truth, peace, harmony, freedom, wisdom, true love to the human being of planet earth.

      And that includes the blog owner here, who sticks his head in the sand, ostrich style, over the red meteor/apophis mentions in the Meier material. Iow, he “misses the forest for the trees”. And he knee-jerk slaps the label ‘retrodiction’ on the matter, when he hasn’t bothered to get to the bottom of the story. Much easier to dismiss the whole thing, than to actually dig like a respectable investigative reporter, than to possibly admit the veracity of Meier and his material, and then subsequently look into the rest of it. Iow, Stuart is lazy and he profits from maintaining the current status quo in the science community, where he earns his bread and butter, rather than risk getting cut off by his sponsors, through backing a societal fringe nutcase like Meier, who has enemies galore, so much so that assassination attempts number over 20.

      A few ancient aphorisms for the blog owner and his lackeys and supporter here:

      “A wise man does not sleep in a soft bed.” iow, get off your asses, stop being so intellectually lazy, morally weak/bankrupt and do some real work, irrespective of your peers/sponsors/partners in the status quo.
      “A human’s honor is more important than money and possessions.”
      “The golden key of truth opens all doors.”
      “He who loses his honor loses everything.”
      “He who has many enemies also has much honor.”
      “Knowledge moves mountains. Belief makes slaves.”
      “He who does not crack the nut will not come to the kernel.”
      “There are not enough shovels to bury the truth.”
      “The most priceless treasures are the truth, the knowledge the love and the logic in wisdom.”
      “The dead always go with the flow.”
      “Ignorance is freely chosen unhappiness.”

      Star travel may not happen in your lifetime but it is coming … quickly. http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20111002/NEWS02/310020018/Star-travel-Make-experts-say

      Comment by Bruce — October 3, 2011 @ 2:58 am | Reply

      • Bruce, you obviously have NO idea how science works. I’d direct you mostly to this post, though this one or this would do. I also mention in many posts on this blog that people don’t advance in science nor get new funding by maintaining the status quo. This is such a frequent refrain of people who have a pseudoscientific belief — “Oh, well mainstream scientists CAN’T accept what we say because they’d lose funding!” It just shows that you have absolutely no clue how degrees, funding, hiring, publications, and notoriety works.

        Comment by Stuart Robbins — October 3, 2011 @ 11:44 am

  152. It’s too bad that a comprehensive, spot-on post by Bruce wasn’t allowed by Stuart. That was probably also because Bruce so thoroughly and honestly outted Stuart for his cowardice and pseudo-scientific responses…and his lack of responses as well.

    All that needs to be said is that Meier preemptively published the Jupiter-Io information long before “official discovery”. That’s now indisputable…or some brilliant skeptic would take my article and rebut it based on, what, other “facts” that they would invent? Even “Jennifer” hasn’t yet found the ammunition to challenge the information, which is unfortunate since we all miss, “Michael Horn you tell lies…”, don’t we?

    All the ugly accusations, snickering, obfuscation and avoidance of the authenticity of the Meier case is like water off a duck’s back. 60 years after first publishing his prophetically accurate information the truth remains unassailable. And history will CONTINUE to show that the know-it-alls and poseurs AGAIN squandered a life-enriching opportunity.

    And for the brilliant person who thinks that Meier is just making “to be expected” comments,why do think they sent the Voyager mission if they already even “suspected” everything that Meier published…BEFORE they confirmed it? As I wrote on my own blog, skepticism as an approach is poison to the scientific mind…as is more than amply demonstrated, repeatedly, on this blog.

    Comment by Michael Horn — October 3, 2011 @ 8:37 am | Reply

  153. Well that was a lot of words. I’ve picked out the ones that actually say something (god knows they are few and far between, in fact completely absent in Bruce’s rant). Here goes..

    “why do think they sent the Voyager mission if they already even “suspected” everything that Meier published”

    Because even though the scientists could have guessed the high volcanic activity of a moon of Jupiter, they don’t operate on speculation they operate on evidence. Any one of them could have made a Meier type speculation BEFORE the mission but that would not be science, just an informed guess. But that would not have made them an ET.

    And Bruce, say something useful or get a hobby will you.

    Comment by Dave — October 3, 2011 @ 11:50 am | Reply

  154. Ok, Horn. Why don’t you tell everybody Meier’s next prediction?

    Comment by Chew Bird — October 3, 2011 @ 12:05 pm | Reply

  155. Dave,

    I’m sure even Stuart is cringing with that silly supposition business of yours. It’s so typical of pseudo-scientific skepticism. Why don’t you go and search to see if any scientists actually DID speculate that? And see if any of them also speculated the ionized sulfur particle composition of Jupiter’s ring and that it could be from Io’s volcanoes, etc., etc.

    And since the MOST important discovery of the Voyager mission WAS Io’s unique volcanic activity, when did YOU (or the astronomer here!) “speculate” about it and when did any farmers you’ve ever heard of also speculate about it?

    Your type of “answers” here are extremely disingenuous, as well as sophomoric in light of the very FACTS that you keep trying to avoid and squirm away from. Just why is that, Dave? Is there something about being…WRONG that is simply intolerable to you? Do you gag on those three magic little words – “I don’t know?”

    Address EACH of the 7 points in the Io article FIRST, and do so honestly, then you may have some credibility.

    As far as the other anonymous guy is concerned, you’re putting the cart before the horse.

    First, why not do the credible thing and – as Dave is certainly about to do – address EACH of the 7 points in the Io article FIRST, and do so honestly, then you get more specifics to try to attack to prove that you too hate being wrong and being forced to speak a foreign language, you know, those three little words.

    And you can all thrill to my defense of the Meier case as a sleptic – from the “UFO community” – asks me tough questions for over an hour…tonight. See:

    http://theyfly.com/Special-Evidence-Research.htm

    …for more information.

    Comment by Michael Horn — October 3, 2011 @ 4:08 pm | Reply

  156. Oh, that’s right. We have to wait a few years after something happens before Meier can make an accurate prediction about it.

    Comment by Chew Bird — October 3, 2011 @ 6:33 pm | Reply

  157. Stuart, your little chastisement doesn’t explain your lack of effort and thinking in your apophis/red meteor complaint. Labeling Meier’s use of dates for the rocks rendezvous with earth, a ‘retrodiction’, is an erroneous assumption (not scientific examination of facts). Considering Meier has had monthly contacts with his ET contacts/friends for nearly 70 years, the mention of the red meteors date with earth, could have been revealed much much earlier than in one of the english translations. Since you don’t read German or have the ability to search the German contact reports, you cannot conclude that the date appeared out of thin air and was retrodicted. That is a non-scientific assumption. With the incomplete evidence you looked at, one could only consider the case open or inconclusive, unless one had a bias against the case to begin with.

    What if your giant leap of an assumption is incorrect? Then maybe just maybe, Meier is in contact with humans whose civilization is perhaps hundreds of thousands of years more advanced than ours and has the technologies to travel through time and space among other things we couldn’t begin to imagine.

    Do you think we humans of earth are alone in this universe or other universes? Do you think we will eventually be able to conquer the great expanses of space? and to do that we’d have to solve the riddle of time. Pay attention to the news. http://kykernel.com/2011/10/03/particle-may-travel-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/ All this talk of particles traveling faster than the speed of light is the beginning of eliminating the time factor. Meier spoke years ago of Einsteins theory of relativity undergoing revisions; did any of the brain trust here think of this without the benefit of hindsight?

    From the news today. http://www.space.com/13162-asteroid-vesta-giant-mountain-craters.html “Giant Asteroid Vesta Has Mountain Taller Than Anything on Earth” Where do you scientists stand on the origination of the asteroid belt?

    Billy’s friends say it was originally a planet named Malona or rather Phaeton, destroyed in war. http://futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Malona perhaps that would help explain why Vesta has such mountains.

    Where do all the know-it-alls around here stand on the formation/origination of the asteroid belt?

    Comment by Bruce — October 4, 2011 @ 3:36 am | Reply

  158. Not at all!

    “We” only have to wait until you address the the Jupiter-Io information, in detail, that just won’t go away.

    But I’ll be that you do before you ever answer the question.

    Comment by Michael Horn — October 4, 2011 @ 5:08 am | Reply

  159. Michael

    “see if any scientists actually DID speculate that?”

    Yes they did.

    “and when did any farmers you’ve ever heard of also speculate about it?”

    That is the only point you have in your favour. By the way ET dd not name Io.

    Meiers was only a farmer how did he think of this stuff. Scientists DID but they are not farmers.

    Comment by Dave — October 4, 2011 @ 7:06 am | Reply

    • They are amazing speculations of Meiers, some accurate and correct, some not so accurate, some obvious, some just wrong. But where did Meiers get these ideas? …. I have no idea but I think people should stop short of concluding Extra terrestrials…. for now.

      Comment by Dave — October 4, 2011 @ 8:15 am | Reply

  160. Just for the record, please include the information about the speculating scientists.

    And you’re missing the point, MEIER himself described all of the information about Io, specifically. It would help if you actually looked it up instead of making false statements.

    The points I have in my favor – among hundreds – are the SEVEN ones that Meier preemptively published before “official discovery”, as I show in my article debunking the incompetent skeptic Ike42.

    Now, please address all those pints, including the FACT that Meier referred to IO by, along with all the details.

    Comment by Michael Horn — October 4, 2011 @ 8:31 am | Reply

  161. Yes I realise that Meiers himself made the statements (from ET info I assume is the claim). I also understand that Io was not mentioned by name (as the ET’s had a different name for their moons of Jupiter and a different number) I suspect you meant points. Scientists speculate all the time, sometimes rubbish but there you go. And again I agree that the Meier info is amazing and sometimes wrong and sometimes obvious (weird for ET info) but from there to an ET source is just a err phantasmogorical leap.

    Comment by Dave — October 4, 2011 @ 10:31 am | Reply

  162. One more time, Io WAS MENTIONED BY NAME…by Meier.

    Please go back and read the information.

    Then please show what was “wrong”. The seven points were the main ones in contention that Ike42 claimed were all wrong, back-dated, etc.

    I showed that Meier was CORRECT on ALL of them..and that backdating was clearly, obviously impossible, due to dated,copyrighted published documents.

    We’re almost there, Dave, just a little due diligence on your part and the ironclad, conclusiveness of the information will magically appear before your very eyes, wiping away false impressions and nasty, pseudo-scientific assertions form the skeptical contingent…who never bothered to do the work for themselves.

    And whatever happened to…Jennifer?

    Comment by Michael Horn — October 4, 2011 @ 10:59 am | Reply

  163. Well it seems that while we’ve been trying to get the skeptics to utter the words they most fear, such as “Meier’s indeed authentic”, or…”I don’t know”, Stuart has been busy – not answering or addressing the information that I provided in response to his request, and not addressing the death knell to the skeptical position that the Jupiter-Io information sounds.

    No, he’s been busy…threatening my web hosting company because he can’t take the heat.

    To find out more, please see:

    http://theyflyblog.com/?p=967

    Pretty courageous, these pseudo-scientific skeptics, eh?

    Comment by Michael Horn — October 4, 2011 @ 1:45 pm | Reply

  164. “One more time, Io WAS MENTIONED BY NAME…by Meier.”

    1) Yes I get that. I was looking for a passage where the ET’s mentioned it by name FIRST.
    2) The WRONG statement was the “the mass of your buildings are causing earthquakes”
    3) The OBVIOUS statement was along the lines of “debris will be found outside of pluto’s orbit.”

    I would like a reference to show 1) and I don’t understand why ET’s would give 2) and 3). The only difference between ‘sceptis’ and ‘believers is the amount of evidence they need before they come to a conclusion. Can you give a reference for 1) and explain why ET would give such info given in 2) and 3).

    Comment by Dave — October 5, 2011 @ 6:25 am | Reply

  165. Dave,

    Okay, glad to try to answer.

    The excerpt here:

    http://theyfly.com/Jupiter.htm

    …is from the English language transcript:

    Billy: On the other hand, I wonder if the Voyager I, sent on its journey by the U.S.A., will bring in good results.

    Semjase:
    53. According to our calculations and the flight path of the probe, it has to pass very closely by Jupiter and several of its moons, which means that good results would have to be achieved, if the apparati of the exploration unit work flawlessly.

    Billy: Does this mean that the time will come, when the scientists in truth will discover that the so-called red spot of Jupiter is a rotating and crater shaped hole on the wildly heaving surface of this incomplete sun, and that this funnel-hole is the center of a gigantic and many millenia-old storm? And does this also mean that now well be discovered, that not only Saturn and Uranus possess a ring, but Jupiter as well, only that this one is much thinner and smaller than the other two around Saturn and Uranus?

    Semjase:
    54. Sure, even that has to be noticed, because the probe will be steered so closely to the heavenly body, that it has to record these matters.

    Billy: Aha, and will then perhaps also be discovered, that the ring around Jupiter, for the most part, consists of particles catapulted outward by large volcanos of the moon, Io, which partially are captured by Jupiter while, however, the largest portion of all the outward catapulted material again falls back on Io, and practically closes all volcano openings again, but also the gigantic plateaus and mountains, which this moon, in contrast to the other moons of Jupiter, proves to have no carter landscape, but a phantastic evenness, despite the many craters?

    Semjase:
    55. You have listened very closely to my explanations on your journeys with me and admirably retained them in memory.

    56. Are you able to remember still other things?

    57. Besides, these facts will with certainty be discovered by this exploration device.

    Billy: Fine, naturally, I still know a few more things, because I did not forget everything that you and Ptaah explained to me. I am able to remember rather well, that the various large Jupiter moons were of various colors, as for instance red, yellow, brown and white as also orange. I also still know, that you said to me, Jupiter actually should have become a sun, but its measurements were too small, so that this star really could have developed into a sun. Nevertheless the entire structure principally consists of liquid helium and hydrogen. Also I know still that you or Ptaah explained to me that chiefly potassium salts and sulphur combinations would constitute the surface and deep into it, and that everything has settled as a very thick crust, after the masses of water on this satellite had receded. Particularly, I think to remember, you said that especially the moon, Io, once was totally covered with water. If I remember correctly, you said to me, I do not know anymore whether you or Ptaah, that the moon Europa is exactly the stark opposite of Io, that there the masses of water not evaporated and changed, but that they are frozen to a gigantic armour of ice. In addition, you told me many other things and gave me explanations, of which I still remember a lot. Thus you also told me, that a particular moon would only measure approximately 200 km in length, which I defined as a gigantic hen’s egg. I believe it was the moon closest to Jupiter, the name of which I do not remember any more.

    Semjase:
    58. In all things you have an admirable memory.

    59. The moon, which you have just mentioned, is call by you, Amalthea.

    60. The moon, Io itself, of which you said several things, moreover is the most volcano-active planetary body in the SOL-system.

    61. That was explained to you at that time, if you are still able to remember?

    Billy: Naturally, such things I do not forget so fast. You said at that time, that this moon was much more active volcanically than the Earth. Besides, I still remember exactly, you explained that the mile-size cloud formations in the storm funnel of Jupiter would move at extremely high velocity and in a counter-clockwise direction.

    Semjase:
    62. Sure, that I explained to you.

    Billy: Now I am still wondering, if regarding the volcanic action on the moon Io, I remember correctly. If I am right, then you explained that the volcanic eruptions there would occur with primordial power and resemble monstrous explosions, which would thrust up their ejected material like atomic mushrooms, whereby sometimes heights would be reached up to 180 kilometer. Principally, it involves dust particles, gasses, ashes and some magma, but which would reach ejection velocities up to 2,300 kilometer per hour and beyond, as due to the lack of atmosphere of the moon, only minute resistance power is present. But you also said that the largest portion of all ejected material again falls back on the moon, as I already mentioned before. The rest, you explained, would be pushed out into space, while a part of it is drawn by Jupiter and very slowly densifies in its ring to a heavy sulphur-ion-combination. Is that correct?

    Semjase:
    63. Your memories are quite correct.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Also, from: http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/jupiter.html

    “Jupiter also has a faint ring made of dust which was only recently discovered.”

    Also, regarding dust ring discovery from 1998: http://carlkop.home.xs4all.nl/dustring.html

    As for point number 2. why do you say it’s WRONG when you probably should at least say, “as yet unproven”? I’ll also suggest that you be patient regarding the “proof” on that.

    As for number 3., who are you quoting? What was referred to earlier as far as specifics go was the discovery of two satellites/planetoids outside of Pluto’s orbit, around the turn of the century. Certainly there’s a lot of “debris” out there but that wasn’t what the focal point of the prophetic information was.

    Let me know how we’re doing on this now.

    Comment by Michael Horn — October 5, 2011 @ 2:23 pm | Reply

  166. 1)

    57 Billy “you (Semjase) said that especially the moon, Io, once was totally covered with water”
    60. Semjase: “The moon, Io itself, of which you said several things,”

    These are accounts of Billy ‘remembering’ PREVIOUS ‘conversations/teachings’ with ET. Not accounts of Billy being actually told at THAT time. Is that correct?

    Hence
    61. Semjase That was explained to you at that time, if you are still able to remember?”

    So Billy is recalling all this info from ‘memory’ including the teachings….Yes? and BILLY is coming out with all the information in this passage, with ET just saying “that is correct” or “that is what you were taught” Yes?

    2)

    I cannot accept ‘future proof’ as evidence of Billy’s insights. This info is at best highly unlikely.

    3) Planetoids outside Pluto is still to likely to make me concluded Billy has non human insight in this case.

    So the only evidence I can accept is in 1). Which is Billy’s memory recall, is that right?

    Comment by Dave — October 6, 2011 @ 2:41 am | Reply

  167. Or to put it in essence

    Who first provides the information that the relevant moon of Jupiter is called Io. Is it ET in a previous teaching (not documented at the time but later recalled here in your ref) or is this information first volunteered by Billy?

    Comment by Dave — October 6, 2011 @ 3:42 am | Reply

  168. Dave,

    i have to admit that I don’t have the faintest idea what you’re really after. So let me state it one more time:

    Meier preemptively published specifically, prophetically accurate information – unambiguously pertaining to Jupiter, its rings, Io, etc. – PRIOR to “official discovery”.

    The attempt by Ike42, at the IIG website, to dispute these facts has been thoroughly refuted and demolished by me in the article here:

    http://www.theyfly.com/Confirming-Meier.htm

    You, Stuart Robbins, Phil Plait and any and everyone else in creation are free to try to poke holes in it but OBVIOUSLY it’s ironclad. They know. By now you should know it too.

    This information alone (among volumes of similarly ironclad evidence) PROVES that Meier – a so-called dirt poor, one-armed Swiss farmer – has been getting absolutely amazingly accurate SCIENTIFIC information long BEFORE any of our scientists “discover” it.

    The only obvious conclusion – since all others have been exhausted – is that Meier has been telling the truth about his contacts with extraterrestrials that span some…70 YEARS.

    Now, if you, Robbins and/or anyone else wish to play dumb, avoid the issue, hope it will just go away, etc. – I’m sorry to disappoint you. Stuart Robbins opened a can of proverbial worms which, because of the foolish, immature, unethical way he handled it, will FOREVER be a testament to his own stubbornly defended failings, the inevitable consequence of embracing the fundamentalist religion known as Skepticism over science.

    You may want to see the following for more information:

    http://theyflyblog.com/?p=981

    Comment by Michael Horn — October 6, 2011 @ 8:55 am | Reply

  169. The document you quote is a recall of a previous encounter. Billy comes out with ALL the information in this transcript.

    These are ET’s comments

    53. According to our calculations and the flight path of the probe, it has to pass very closely by Jupiter and several of its moons, which means that good results would have to be achieved, if the apparati of the exploration unit work flawlessly.
    54. Sure, even that has to be noticed, because the probe will be steered so closely to the heavenly body, that it has to record these matters.
    55. You have listened very closely to my explanations on your journeys with me and admirably retained them in memory.
    56. Are you able to remember still other things?
    57. Besides, these facts will with certainty be discovered by this exploration device.
    58. In all things you have an admirable memory.
    59. The moon, which you have just mentioned, is call by you, Amalthea.
    60. The moon, Io itself, of which you (Billy) said several things, moreover is the most volcano-active planetary body in the SOL-system.
    61. That was explained to you at that time, if you are still able to remember?
    62. Sure, that I explained to you.
    63. Your memories are quite correct.

    The record shows NO information coming from ET IN THIS ENCOUNTER. Billy is the SOURCE of ALL information. When was Billy given this information and why was THAT encounter NOT documented at the time? I repeat Billy is the SOURCE of ALL information in this document he is not being told ANYTHING by ET in this document. Which document records ET GIVING the information to Billy?

    Comment by Dave — October 6, 2011 @ 10:48 am | Reply

  170. But they do say this

    25. The monstrous mass and weight of the cities and villages continuously stress the inner structures of the Earth more and more through which the tectonic plates will be adversely affected, inevitably leading to increasing tectonic displacements and faults, through which immense tremors will be evoked world-wide, whereby finally the deaths will go into the hundreds of thousands and into the millions.

    So where do they GIVE the info about Io?

    Comment by Dave — October 6, 2011 @ 11:14 am | Reply

  171. Dave,

    If you insist on crediting Meier with being the author of that information not only does it make NO difference, it’s absolutely fine with me…since YOU are now asserting that Meier indeed not only published that information well before “official discovery” but was the source of it. That’s great but I have a feeling that Stuart would like to see you in his office…RIGHT AWAY.

    In case there’s any doubt in your mind as to what YOU are saying, and what it means, one more time:

    You are confirming that Meier indeed stated and published the prophetically accurate scientific information about Io (Jupiter and Jupiter’s rings)…BEFRE OUR SCIENTISTS KNEW AND/OR PUBLISHED IT.

    Therefore, you have made my points for me and I thank you.

    Billy may have FIRST been given that information as early as 1975. However, the October 19, 1978 date is still SIX MONTHS before the probe got there. Wendelle Stevens having the information in his possession by no later than March 9, 1979, is still THREE DAYS BEFORE NASA made the announcement.

    All that remains now is for…Stuart to step up to the plate and make his comments.

    And supposing that he says something equal to, “Yes, that would confirm Meier as preemptively publishing scientifically accurate information that he got from sources that could not exist on this world…since it was not yet known to the scientists here.”

    What would my response be? Would I be gloating and trying to rub his face in the dirt about it…as I have been since he’s been stubbornly avoiding and/or obfuscating the truth?

    My answer is an unequivocal…NO.

    I would welcome the response and hope that it would lead to some serious, objective research and investigation, in order that the scientific content and WARNINGS in the Meier case would be examined CAREFULLY to ascertain what value they had for humanity.

    My job pertaining to bringing it to the attention to the resource-rich scientific community would be accomplished. The responsibility then would fall to the scientists who certainly would be well equipped – they could certainly even obtain the services of translators for the additional information (26,000+ pages in German) – and would, undoubtedly, receive unlimited, free assistance and direction/suggestions as to where to look for additional specific, immediately relevant information.

    Then everything that transpired up to this point would be regarded as the growing pains that all concerned went through. We could shake hands, put the past aside, remove all sorts of critiques and attacks and go on about the business of discovery.

    Not only would NOBODY be any the less for it, everyone, possibly on the entire planet, would be all the RICHER for it.

    Before answering any more questions I would like to hear Stuart’s response.

    Comment by Michael Horn — October 6, 2011 @ 2:46 pm | Reply

  172. Michael

    25. The monstrous mass and weight of the cities and villages continuously stress the inner structures of the Earth more and more through which the tectonic plates will be adversely affected,

    If you flatten a city and spread the material around it gives a height of rubble about 1 foot. This is NOT earthquake causing. i.e This information given by ET is nonsense. IE the information they give is sometimes untrustworthy rubbish and some time blatantly obvious (outer Ptuto bodies ).

    Secondly, ‘ET’ are not even documented as the original SOURCE of the Io name or information, Meiers is. So we can either scrap the ET theory (i.e they don’t exist) or not trust them (the information is dubious) or ignore them (they aren’t saying anything useful). Meiers may have got the information from somewhere (maybe he is a telepath) but I would leave the ET theory alone because they are at best untrustworthy and at worst, don’t exist.

    So where do I suspect Meiers got his info from? 1 )unknowing telepathic or 2) someone is playing a backdating game who is spewing out rubbbish and speculation.

    ET would NOT give rubbish information (cities cause earthquakes) this is unfortunately a fact, but SOMEONE is

    Comment by Dave — October 7, 2011 @ 3:01 am | Reply

  173. Either way this ain’t no ET, I would look further to uncover the truth of this.

    Comment by Dave — October 7, 2011 @ 4:24 am | Reply

  174. Moving right along, now that Dave insists on making sure that everyone knows that Meier himself came up with the indisputably correct information regarding Jupiter-Io (which also caused Jennifer to disappear after realizing it), well, you really have to wonder just why those wacky, “imaginary” Plejaren would be telling some farmer all this crazy stuff about “brain acids” and the aging process, various calculations, etc.:

    http://www.myspace.com/billymeiercontactreports/blog/544409714

    I mean, don’t they know that he’s just farmer who has so much time on his one hand that he builds a dozen, flawless, different “models” of UFOs just irritate the brilliant pseudo-scientific skeptics?

    Comment by Michael Horn — October 7, 2011 @ 9:18 am | Reply

    • Give it up, Dave. Horn’s reading comprehension is so poor you could tell him he is stupid and the next day he’ll send out a press release saying “Skeptics say I is smart!”.

      But you gotta read the latest link Horn provided. It’s hilariously entertaining nonsense about numerology and astrology!

      Here’s a test Horn can have his little alien friends run. On top of my TV I placed a sticky with a number written on it. Since Horn is afraid to put his nickel down and tell us what Meier’s next big prediction will be then maybe his aliens can tell Horn what number I wrote down.

      Comment by Chew Bird — October 7, 2011 @ 10:50 am | Reply

  175. Billy:
    Ah, good. Is it right that the total number of elements is 280?

    Semjase:
    58. How did you come across this result?

    Billy:
    It wasn’t me, my child, but Guido. For my part, I’ve only calculated that this number must, indeed, correspond to the correctness because it has been found that this number, multiplied in a sevenfold form with the original height of the Giza Pyramid, results in the current speed of light to the tenths place exactly.

    Semjase:
    59. You are simply unbelievable

    “Horn’s reading comprehension is so poor” That is true but this stuff above is, as ‘Semjase’ says Unbelievable. And who the hell is Guido? This just gets better. Billy is not a well man. Horn is a genius, this should be made into a film.

    “You will find an acid in ten years but you will call it by a different name” Priceless

    “Your buildings are too heavy”

    Did these ET’s arrive in a banana boat.

    Comment by Dave — October 7, 2011 @ 11:19 am | Reply

    • Yeah, no doubt Billy is making up the most outrageous nonsense just so he can laugh at his gullible believers.

      Comment by Chew Bird — October 11, 2011 @ 11:01 am | Reply

  176. I thought I would help to immortalize Stuart’s amateurish, unscientific and frankly religiously tinged attitude towards Billy Meier’s ironclad, impeccably prophetically accurate information regarding Jupiter’s moon Io and related matters.

    While Stuart only hoped that the information, and my advocacy of it, would fade into oblivion, I think that he will find that he’s instead carved a path to his own irrelevance, with his decidedly uncourageous preference for celebrity seeking and targeting the various lightweights in the paranormal field.

    I don’t know that I’ve ever seen Stuart use, or emphasize, the word – truth – but truth is all that matters. And since Meier still prevails, more than 60 years after publishing his first painfully accurate warnings to the sleepy masses, it will be the skeptics that will be known for their deliberate obstructions and disinformation, which unfortunately only helped to prolong human ignorance.

    However, like the other religions, the “Church of Skeptology” will fall heavily in upon itself, leaving its disgraced adherents to be relegated to irrelevancy…and contempt.

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/10/prweb8922086.htm

    And, surprisingly even to us, the online viewing of The Silent Revolution of Truth has gotten off to a record setting start in terms of online views (nearly 50,000 in just one week!). We think this breakthrough will accelerate public awareness of the Meier case quite nicely…long overdue as it is:

    Comment by Michael Horn — November 2, 2011 @ 8:02 am | Reply

    • “However, like the other religions, the “Church of Skeptology” will fall heavily in upon itself, leaving its disgraced adherents to be relegated to irrelevancy…and contempt.”

      Ok, Horn, so when do your little alien friends say this will happen? Your aliens are really good at retrodicting things but let’s see how good they are at really predicting things: when will the New York Times publish a front page story about Meier’s predictions being true? Don’t say “soon” or “sometime in the future” or “it would destroy your worldview” but give us a date, month and year.

      Oh, and I’m still waiting for your little alien friends to tell me what number is written on top of my TV.

      Comment by Chew Bird — November 2, 2011 @ 11:36 am | Reply

  177. First things first. Either disprove or acknowledge the factual accuracy of Meier’s Jupiter-Io information and its verifiable publication BEFORE “official discovery” by NASA, or acknowledge and admit that it’s accurate, which proves Meier’s extraterrestrial contacts.

    THEN you will get the verification of your number.

    Comment by Michael Horn — November 5, 2011 @ 6:40 am | Reply

    • Why? So you can make another idiotic “skeptics admit” press release? No thanks.

      Instead I’ll claim “Horn chickens out when asked for a specific non-vague actual prediction before the event actually happened.”

      Comment by Chew Bird — November 5, 2011 @ 12:27 pm | Reply

  178. Oh, yoohoo, here birdie, birdie, birdie:

    http://theyflyblog.com/?p=1013

    Comment by Michael Horn — November 6, 2011 @ 8:30 am | Reply

    • Wow. I knew you were delusional but I had no idea how divorced you were from reality. I couldn’t satirize you more than you do yourself. You are your own worst enemy.

      On what date will the New York Times write a front page article admitting Meier was right?

      The number on my TV was 24712. I just changed the number so try again.

      Comment by Chew Bird — November 6, 2011 @ 2:27 pm | Reply

  179. Why that’s the exact number that I came up with myself!

    Comment by Michael Horn — November 7, 2011 @ 12:17 pm | Reply

    • Just like all of Meier’s “predictions”, it’s too bad you didn’t provide an answer before I told you what it was.

      There is a new number on my TV. If you can’t provide the answer then you’re admitting Meier is a fraud.

      Comment by Chew Bird — November 7, 2011 @ 2:56 pm | Reply

  180. “As David Icke Has Been Saying and Writing for 20 Years – the Speed of Light is Not the Fastest Speed Possible as Italian Physicists are Now Confirming ”

    Even David Icke must have been talking to aliens. Am I the only one who has not?

    Comment by John — November 19, 2011 @ 4:05 am | Reply

  181. Gosh, I guess Meier and the Plejaren have been a bit too busy foretelling specific scientific “discoveries” to play the numbers game here:

    http://theyflyblog.com/it’s-a-skeptic’s-wet-dream/11/27/2011

    But good thing that Stuart considers himself above such things as giving credible explanations for how a “Swiss prophet and UFO contactee” beats all of our scientists to the punch…otherwise we’d be treated to another one of his remarkable displays of sophistry and pseudo-scientific tap dance.

    Comment by Michael Horn — November 28, 2011 @ 9:42 pm | Reply

    • Oh, I’m sorry, but that webpage is from 2010 while the BBC article is from 2002. And the Wayback Machine’s earliest date for your Henoch Poopies page only goes back to 2005. Sorry, you lose. But thanks for playing. Try reality next time.

      And, oh yeah, Billy predicted Touchscreen technology 14 years AFTER it was invented! Amazing!

      Tell your little alien friends to tell you what number is written on my TV or you will be admitting Meier is a fraud.

      Comment by Chew Bird — November 28, 2011 @ 10:38 pm | Reply

      • It’s a probability problem. How many ‘predictions’ equals proof?

        Comment by Mick — November 29, 2011 @ 5:34 am

      • Depends on how specific the prediction is. The “Red Meteor” is so lame. It was so vague the True Believers could cram the stupidest evidence into the claim and call it a fit. The Torino Scale because it’s red??? Bwahahahahaha!

        Any detailed predictions made by Meier can be shown to have been made after the information was already published in the press. One of Meier’s video shows an alien ship shifting in and out of our dimension. If that is true then it should not be a problem for them to find my house and look on top of the TV in my bedroom and see the number I have written on a yellow sticky. I’ll even give Horn a clue: the number has 5 digits. So his chance of a lucky guess is 1 in 100,000.

        Horn wrote, “However, like the other religions, the “Church of Skeptology” will fall heavily in upon itself, leaving its disgraced adherents to be relegated to irrelevancy…and contempt.”

        I have repeatedly asked Horn when the New York Times will print on their front page that Meier was right and Horn gives kindergarten excuses. Try it, Mick. Ask Horn for a real prediction and watch him ignore it.

        How about some more predictions, Horn? Answer these questions or you are admitting (again!) that Meier is a fraud:

        What will Dark Matter turn out to really be?
        Where is Amelia Earhart’s body?

        Comment by Chew Bird — November 29, 2011 @ 7:43 am

  182. Is it

    a) 12345
    b) Non electromagnetic energy
    c) In the sea

    Comment by Mick — November 30, 2011 @ 4:41 am | Reply

    • “Is it

      12345”

      That’s the combination on my luggage!

      Your other answers are so vague they would make Slyvia Brown proud.

      Comment by Chew Bird — November 30, 2011 @ 11:18 am | Reply

      • I told you it was a probability thing.

        Comment by Mick — December 1, 2011 @ 6:09 am

  183. Billy Meier’s shtick is so laughably absurd and ridiculous that EVEN OTHER NUTS CASES in the ufo community regularly dismiss his claims and photos. Rest assured the ubiquitous and enigmatic Michael Horny, always on the prowl, will eventually arise to defend his savior and prophet. Check this stuff out!

    http://www.openminds.tv/beamships-busted/

    Comment by Filthy Jesus Bastard — December 5, 2011 @ 8:52 pm | Reply

    • You may be correct but your posting name suggests that you should read more. Ignorance is not a virtue but knowledge does not come to the arrogant.

      Comment by Mick — December 6, 2011 @ 3:38 am | Reply

      • So the simple fact that my posting name offends you means that I need to read more? And you call me arrogant? hmm… That really doesn’t make any sense to me, perhaps you could enlighten me my friend.

        Comment by Filthy Jesus Bastard — December 6, 2011 @ 7:12 pm

      • I doubt that anything makes sense to you. Like Mick suggests you need to read more.

        Comment by Academics are morons — January 12, 2012 @ 6:06 am

  184. Interessanter German Article:
    Billy Meiers Sohn spricht Klartext: «Lieber Vater, mir reichts!» (Son of Billy Meier speaks out: “Dear Father, I’ve had enough!”)

    “Methusalem Meier (38), the second-oldest son of the controversial Swiss “UFO prophet” Billy Meier (74), has finally had enough: In an open letter, twelve pages long, he casts a very harsh judgement on his father, but also on himself – and equally on the members of Billy’s controversial UFO sect, FIGU, and its alien fairytales.
    The accusations are substantial: Methusalem accuses his father of being physically violent both to his mother, Kalliope, and himself over the course of many years.

    Why has he done so publicly?
    “Because I want to distance myself once and for all from the nasty games and machinations of my father – in order finally to start a new life.”

    The entire german letter from Methusalem Meier can be downloaded as a PDF file (see the link below).
    In contrast to Billy, Methusalem Meier is willing at all times to answer questions: “I have nothing to hide. It’s high time that the world discovers the sad truth about my father.”

    Whoever wants to contact Methusalem Meier personally can do so at his direct e-mail address: methi77@bluewin.ch

    http://www.mysteries-magazin.com/index.php?op=news&func=news&id=5272&PHPSESSID=15bfd8cccd6a0cbe7e5f24625c48f423

    http://www.mysteries-magazin.com/dokumente/meier.pdf

    Happy Holidays!

    Comment by Jennifer D. — December 14, 2011 @ 2:55 am | Reply

    • Nothing like a little schadenfreude for the ‘Happy Holidays’, eh Jennifer?

      Since I don’t understand German and google translate doesn’t yield an understandable translation, feel free to translate a few of the highlights and lowlights for us.

      Comment by Bruce — December 20, 2011 @ 10:42 am | Reply

    • Jennifer,

      I still await your translation efforts. But whilst I wait (as your petty bout of schadenfreude passes, it always does and then you will need to schadenfreude some other unfortunate fellow human being to keep up your air of superiority and good feeling), I have used google translate. Basically Methusalem Meier has said that he believes in the mission and his fathers teachings. he has said he still respects his father. He also says the extraterrestrials are real, the contacts are real. He has accused his father of physical and psychological abuse to his mother and himself.

      How am I doing so far, Ms. D?

      Comment by Bruce — December 22, 2011 @ 11:03 am | Reply

  185. Hallo Bruce,

    Your messages are big surprise for me.
    I don’t see how and where you find Schadenfreude, because this document for me only interesting is; it was the period of Holidays, i was leaving to the country to celebrate with my Family and i wrote ‘Happy Holidays!’. What is wrong with that?
    I hope nevertheless, that you a nice Christmas had and 2012 good begon has for you.

    I have no time to translate it, but some big lines are:
    – Methusalem has enough after 30 years of bad treatments, accusations of lies, stealings and so on from some members of FIGU and his father, who pretend to be perfect and high evolved and write big things about respect for other people.
    The FIGU’ s members must finally understand, that even if his father is considered the prophet of new time, he too makes some mistakes.
    – His father gives him in the last months financial help, he is grateful for that, but dies is no reason to let himself be treated as shit and he wants to make it clear, that he don’t question the mission und the teachings.
    – He is sure, that the members of FIGU, under the order of his father or his father himself, to this letter will react with dubious explanations and other discredits against him.
    – It is so: officially he spreaded the rumours, that he in the Swiss Alpes was for cure, but he only played the game, that his father used to play and he applied the method of his father, by spreading rumours of one story so that he can learn another.
    – He told nobody, that he with A.C.C. a plan had to create a FIGU office in Amerika and this, because he has enough of these intrigues and playing-garden things. He has no illusions, he has never spoken on the matters of FIGU, he only said, that he from own experiences do not want to touch the matters of FIGU.
    – He now has in writing the evidence on how they accuse him of false things.
    – He asks regarding this letter and the nervous interest of FIGU for it, if his father is afraid of it and he concluded, that his father wanted to know what it is about, so that he could say, that Ptah already told him about it before.
    – He asks his father to stop playing bad games, he can now too play the same bad games, because he learned from the best teacher in this kind of games, who is his father.
    – He asks FIGU people to imagine how it is, that when he was 5,8 or 12 years he saw many times how his mother was hardly beat by his father, who allowed other FIGU people to beat her too.
    – His father beat him many times wrongly, because of Y as well.
    – They don’ t tell to this Y, who is choosed to be the successor of Billy Meier, who his real father is and Billy Meier arranged this choice by changing old contact notes about this question. Methusalem saw the old contact notes and can prove it.
    – There is also another person in the inside group of FIGU, about who Methusalem do not know if they told him the truth about who his real father is.
    – He wrote this open letter as a cure against the psychologic problems he has because of all those bad things inside FIGU.
    – He knows, that he is not perfect and himself many mistakes has made, but the members of the inside group of FIGU are not better, because there are in reality some of them who smoke weed/haschisch, which against the rules of FIGU is, but no measures are taken against them.
    – He finally asks himself, which other things are lies also from the side of his father. He don’t believe the half of what his father tells.
    It will not surprise him, if soon his father will come with a contact note, where it will be said, that he is crazy or under bad influence and he has enough of those games of Semjase says this, Ptah says that, Quetzal says that.
    About Ptah and his other people, Methusalem do not trust what his father says and Ptah or someone else must come to him in person, speak to him and answer his question.
    He laughs, he is not convinced, he do not care about the explanations of his father, that they can have contact only with him, because their technics must protect them.
    Too many things are suspicious and he no longer trusts the reports of his father.

    This is all i can do, Bruce.
    I hope, that i can say ‘Good Day’ and you will not see Schadenfreude there.

    Comment by Jennifer D. — January 3, 2012 @ 9:00 am | Reply

  186. Thanks for your translation efforts, Jennifer. Much appreciated. Although Methusalem posted his own translation. http://methimeier.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/an-open-letter-to-the-figu/

    I accuse you of Schadenfreude because you are clearly anti-Billy Meier, and so delivering this negative news by Billy’s own son, obviously gives you glee, demonstrated in your “Happy Holidays” wishes, after the links to Methusalem’s accusations. Of course, you feign(act) innocence of all pleasure derived from delivering this luckily found ‘bad’ news against the subject of conversation here.

    I am sure Billy will have something to say soon enough.

    Happy 2012! 😉

    Comment by Bruce — January 4, 2012 @ 3:48 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: