Exposing PseudoAstronomy

April 24, 2012

Podcast Episode 32: Billy Meier UFO Case, Interview with Derek Bartholomaus

This episode is a rather long interview (around an hour-twenty) with the researcher Derek Bartholomaus. Derek has spent time during the past eleven years looking into the UFO and related claims of Billy Meier, and much of his research is published on his website. I found it really interesting, and I hope you do, too. It’s an “intro” episode because in the future, I’ll talk about one or two of the claimed predictions of Billy Meier that deal with astronomy, but I thought it’d be good to introduce the topic first.

And now for the disclaimer: This kind of topic is very much like the Apollo Moon Hoax conspiracy ideas. There are many, many claims that go into it. An investigator could spend a year meticulously showing that one of the claims made is completely wrong, and people who believe in the case will just move onto the next claim.

In this interview, we talk about several of the major – and one or two of the minor – claims made to allegedly prove alien contact within the Billy Meier material. I think that Derek presented enough evidence to at least convincingly show that a subset of those are false or made up. The question should be, then, if these are some of the main claims put forward, and they’re wrong, then why should you believe others? Why should you spend the time looking into other ones if these were supposedly iron-clad and they fall apart under scrutiny?

This is more a rhetorical question – I’m not going to really answer peoples’ comments to this post. I will also take this opportunity to point out my comments policy. If, in my opinion, your comments violate that policy, they may be rejected or removed without warning.

I would also remind people in an episode such as this about claimed arguments from authority. All because a guy (or gal) with a Ph.D. or M.S. or whatever says something or does something, it does not mean that it’s true or accurate or done correctly. You always need corroboration, and when that corroboration comes out to show you were wrong, you need to look into it more.

Similarly, if someone is misquoted, one should make efforts to correct that. If someone says, “I never said what so-and-so says I did,” and yet so-and-so continues to make that claim when it’s the opposite of what that person thinks, that should be taken into account when evaluating a story.



  1. So you haven’t given up on the interviews. That’s good, this should be quite interesting then.

    Comment by eyeonicr — April 25, 2012 @ 2:00 am | Reply

    • No, haven’t given up on interviews, just need people. But, I have a lawyer pair lined up for May 24, and my advisor regarding astrobiology sometime in July.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — April 25, 2012 @ 9:22 am | Reply

  2. Hello, I have been reading & exploring the Meier case(including the views of supporters, skeptics & debunkers) for some years. My interest in the subject of ET life, their alleged existence & visitation allowed me to spend considerable amount of time to dwelve deep into the case. And i can easily spot when one makes errors or mistakes in their representation of the already documented evidence in Meier case. I have corresponded with Derek Bartholomaus(DB) through mails & online forums going back to 2009. Since then i have found many errors(made either intentionally or unintentionally) in the presentation & arguments of DB. Even when i brought them to the notice of DB, he didn’t respond for whatever reasons i don’t know nor want to comment. The degree & number of errors he made during the course of years didn’t surprise me when DB said at 1:13:00 of the interview – “I spent utmost 1 week a year doing this, i spend like a couple weekends spread throughout the year addressing a certain things…”. Anybody can guess on what would be the quality of the research that would be coming from a guy who just spends just 7 days out of 365 days for each year on the case, by the way which took several years to document & analyse by the main investigators team. I won’t be going into all the arguments made by DB but only be addressing some of which might be interesting to the readers. Generally when a prestigious institution like IIG has taken up the Meier case for investigation, one would expect a objective, qualitative research and evidence to back it up. Being a human, naturally errors or mistakes in interpretation are expected but what i found from my research is that the errors made by DB had occured not only in interpreting the data but also in the gathering & investigating areas where the relevant information is already available in books, videos & online for free. I am going to demonstrate that most of the important evidence has been ignored or misrepresented.

    The host of the radio interview made a very good point at 1:21:20 – “I recommend & encourage that you do your own research into the subjects that i talked about. Don’t just take my word for it, don’t just take Dereck’s word for it but also don’t just take Billy Meier’s or MH’s or other people’s word for it. Do you own research into the subject & look at all of the evidence, not just what one side or the other side claims to present as facts”. Wish each one of us all be inspired & would do the same as suggested by the host.


    11:46 – His wife came out & said he made all of this stuff up & recently his son came out & said that he made all of this stuff up.

    I do not know where Derek got that information on Meier’s son saying that everything in the case was a hoax. Actually Methusalem Meier, the son of Billy Meier still stands by the view that his father has been in contact with ETs and that the case is authentic. The letter which he published in his blog was targeted not on the authenticity of the case but on the personal issues with FIGU, his father & mother. When asked on the authenticity of the case by the people who read the letter, Methusalem replied in his comments section – “As i also explaned allready in my open letter, i do not disclaim the contacts, they realy happened. So for this the Billy Meier Csae is true…”.

    An open Letter to the FIGU(Dec 2011)

    13:48 – DB: He(B) was a bus driver in India in 1960’s & one day….got into a crash & his arm got severed at the elbow..my understanding is that he has the elbow but not the forearm.

    14:10 – Host: So why didn’t the aliens..give him a new arm ?
    DB: Because he says it that they wanted to keep him humble

    Meier never was a bus driver(as far as i know) nor had he lost his arm in India. DB is also wrong about the arm severing, leaving the elbow intact. Here is the quote from Gary Kinder’s book Light years – “Meier had only one arm. His left arm had been severed just above the elbow in a bus accident in 1965, as he traveled from India, through Turkey, and back to Switzerland.”

    Light Years(1987)

    DB is also wrong in quoting Meier as saying that ET’s didnt want to give a new arm to meier because they wanted to keep him humble. And it is Meier(not ETs) who refused a new half-organic arm when offered by Asket. The reasons Meier gave are based entirely on ethical, moral & security reasons.

    CR 31, 1975(Bad translation from 1970’s)
    ..Yet why do you not wear a help ?

    On earth unfortunately these things are still very primitive.

    I could let prepare one for you, which would substitute your arm completely.A half-organical gear.

    Thank you verymuch, Asket, that is real very kind by you, but believe me, on one side i can no more imagine for me a life with 2 arms, and on the other side i know very good, not having lost my arm simply without meaning. The accident & the loss of the arm had to be. I have learnt extremely much by it, and will further on certainly learn very much.

    These thoughts are very dignant to you…

    ..Know, such an instrument would evoke on the earth even many difficulties, too. We have there very many limb-amputated, who then also would want such gears and ahead these it were unfair from me to withhold these gears from them. To this adds itself the problem, that many of these human beings, if they had such help means, would become again for incontent creatures you know, it behaves so at us, the humanbeing manyfold falls at once again to the materilism, when he is well up again. On the other side, even scientists & governments would get known to the matter, and this could lead to catastrophy….scientists would construct robots & similar…wicked & war-minded purposes…

    Message from the Pleiades(1988), VOl 1, page 324

    14:20 – DB: There are many ways for his aliens…if they are real could demonstrate their reality & yet every single time they chose not to.

    1:14:52 – DB: ..What the damn ship land, have them come out, have someone go in & fly off again & have that person come back & having video taped everything that happened. That would be really really good evidence of something happening.

    Or most people would say, why wouldn’t the ETs just land in the white house lawn(undeniable evidence) rather than offering vulnerable, deniable evidence ? Such questions are very crucial which unfortunately also are the same questions which are left out in discussions or debates. Some experts in SETI, thinktanks & other scientific groups have tackled this issue well. If one goes through these studies going back to 18th century, it becomes clear that any ethical ET race would never disclose nor try to prove undeniably their existence to lower level civilizations. Which is also the same principle that is being followed by Plejaren. They never claimed that they would give undeniable evidence that proves their existence. If it is claimed otherwise, then i request the person to direct me to the source where Plejaren claims to give undeniable evidence. The Plejaren motives & mission on earth has been layed out clearly in the first contact reports.

    Comment by mahigitam — April 25, 2012 @ 11:51 am | Reply

  3. 25:18 – DB says that Meier originally said that the ETs came from Pleiades & when astronomers said that life could not possibly be there, then Meier changed the name of ETs from pleideans to Plejaren.

    The following is a post by DB made on ATS forum a year ago, to which i responded by showing him his mistake. Somehow he doesn’t want to correct it.

    DB: “Here’s just a brief comment regarding the Pleiades/Plejaren naming situation. When Billy Meier’s story first started getting publicity in the 1970s he said that his contacts came from the Pleiades Star Cluster. Around the 1990s/2000s (I’m not sure exactly when) astronomers who had been examining that area of space discovered that the system was very young, only around 100 million years old, and very hot due to the large number of star forming regions and was therefore unlikely to contain that many planets and if planets did exist then they would be unlikely to support any form of life, let alone intelligent life. When presented with this information Billy Meier changed his story and started to say that the “visitors” were not “Pleiadiens” themselves, but they were “Plejarens” from an alternate space/time/dimension/universe located “near” the Pleiades Star Cluster. Like so many situations regarding the case, when confronted with contradictory scientific evidence Meier simply changes his story and “moves the goalposts”.”

    My Response: CR 97, December 28, Wednesday 1977(pg 279-280, Message from Pleiades, Vol IV)

    Billy:..from which i assume you lining on the Pleiades in somehow other dimensioned form. By this, i want to say, you are all right being there inside of our universe and our time, as semjase once told me, but that you are dimensionally-shifted, which is inside of a parallel system of the Pleiades…

    Since the beginning of contacts from 1970’s, Meier has maintained that ETs came from other dimension & not from our pleiades star cluster as has been claimed. Even if Meier maintains that they live in the pleiades star cluster, concluding that alleged ET’s(who are millions of years ahead in technological progress) cannot geo-engineer & live in the star cluster is foolish.

    32:50 – DB: Meier also claims that he is the only person on earth ever to be contacted by ET’s & that every other person who has ever claimed that they are being contacted by ET’s is a liar & a fraud.

    The above statement is utterly false. In contact reports, one can see lists of several names of ET contactees provided by Meier. What Meier says is that he is the only contactee with Plejaren ET’s to have a conscious physical & telepathic contact from both sides.

    37:27 – Host: How long had he been promoting that(Pteranodon photo) as real ?
    DB: Since the 1980’s.

    Blatantly wrong. Only photos that are considered authentic were available in Billy Meier albums & thus were available for sale or for publishing. The photos of Pteranodon photo were not available for sale since 1970’s because almost all of the photos that were taken when meier allegedely travelled with ETs are said to be either manipulated, doctored, stolen or lost. This fact is well known since 1970’s. Since, DB makes the claim on his webpage –
    “CLAIM: Billy Meier Published Photographs Of Dinosaurs That He Claims Were From A Trip He Took Into The Distant Past”, the burden of proof is on his side to provide the source of the alleged “Published Photographs Of Dinosaurs” by Billy. http://www.billymeierufocase.com/dinosaurphotodeconstruction.html

    43:35 – DB says that “Jim Deardorff” asked the people that were analysing the photos (with reflection of “water” underside the beamship) to actually do that for him to look more realistic.

    DB doesn’t even know the names of the persons involved in the investigation of the case. It was Jim dilettoso, not James Deardoff who is relevant to this episode. And it is not about the reflection of water but the reflection of landscape. The source of this allegation is from Kal Korff who interviewed Ken Dinwiddie(KD), manager at the DeAnza systems. As usual, this allegation is baseless born out of misunderstanding. Wendelle Stevens on pg 516, Supplimentary Investigative Report(1989) book, clarified the issue. Even after two decades of clarification, the same issue is again & again brought up by uninformed individuals.

    57:08 – Somehow able to record audio frequencies outside the audible range of humans…In 2008 after i published this information then MH says ohh..the 8 inaudible sounds were actually just a mathematical calculation based on audible sounds which ofcourse is not what was said. It was just one of the long line of MH & other followers of MH making stuff up.

    The information of 8 inaudible frequencies being formulated from mathematical calculations has been available since 1982 & is not the creation of MH or other followers. On Wendelle’s book, A Preliminary Investigative Report(1982), page 430, it reads:

    “They proceeded to make some tests on the sounds in the audible range,from 20 Hz,deep base to 20,000 Hz,high limits of human audio hearing. They found a harmonic formula in there. In that recording all the frequencies are present at the same time. By “extending the formula” they could conjecture the frequencies,that are out of the human hearing range,above and below,by just plotting a graph.They found that there are 32 frequencies present simultaneously, 24 in the audible range and 8 out.”

    1:04:00 – DB:..he(B) made several astronomical predictions, all of which basically tend to be retrodiction and thats how most of these prophecies are…My favourite is Bugey powerstation…promoted by Meier, by MH as being the best case example of Meier’s predicted ability… DB then goes on to explain as to why the 2003 or 2001 event were not even considered as accidents.

    DB claims that the 2001 event cannot be described as an accident either. And he supports it by saying – “There was a decree on August 30, 1996 to decommission the Bugey 1 reactor. In 2001 the scheduled shutdown and dismantling of the reactor began. That’s it”. In ‘Silent Revolution of Truth’ doc, Michael Horn shows an article with title- ‘EDF to Make Repairs at Nuclear Plant After Design Error Found’. That article and other similar articles listed below as sources talks about design flaw(INES level-1) that has been detected in Bugey-2 ASG & PTR tanks and has nothing to do with Bugey-1 reactor which had a scheduled shutdown.

    They detected a design flaw in Bugey and after this they checked out other reactors for the same flaw. They found the similar design flaw in 5 other reactors(different locations) & fixed them subsequently. As the Bugey reactor, near to Lyon,, if hit by a strong earthquake, could cause severe damage if design flaw is not resolved. Was Meier referring to this ? No one knows & it cannot be independently verified because it is a prophecy & so can be changed.

    Even if we obtain articles discussing critical repairs done to the reactor in time, problem is that every year and for all the coming years, there will be flaws or errors that would be detected & repaired, thus impossible to identify the prophecy being fulfilled. “Lyon prophecy” is not verifiable and open to multiple events. So, any corroborating & debunking efforts are useless.


    1:16:31 – DB said he would ask MH to provide the 8 mm films for proper transfer to video ?

    Based on information gathered on Meier case, I made a flowchart showing, how the evidence – Original 8 mm films, slides/negatives & metal samples were circulated among labs, experts, studios which finally either got lost or stolen or manipulated.


    Comment by mahigitam — April 25, 2012 @ 11:54 am | Reply

    • You missed my intent of the final question asked. It was a “wish list” with a “wish list ideal” answer. Since it will never happen, as I don’t expect Derek and Billy to ever be locked in a room together, there’s really no point in critiquing it.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — April 25, 2012 @ 4:21 pm | Reply

      • I very well understood your intention, but Derek doesn’t think so, since he put up a webpage challenging Meier & FIGU to submit “original” 8mm films.

        “As I have described here, the 8mm and Super-8mm movies taken by Billy Meier in the 1970s/1980s have never been professionally transferred to video. At several points throughout the years I have asked Lee Elders, Michael Horn, and FIGU for the opportunity to pay for professional High Definition transfers of the original movies. Lee Elders and Michael Horn have said that they have no idea if the original movies even exist any longer and FIGU has never responded to my inquiries.

        I work professionally as a Post Production Producer in Hollywood on various television shows. You can read about my professional work history here. There is a facility called Pro8mm that has the ability to create High Definition Film Scans of 8mm and Super-8mm movies. I am willing to pay the full cost of scanning the movies to two hard drives. One hard drive will be for Meier, or his associates, to use however they wish. The second hard drive will be for me to use to analyze the movies.

        I can understand the reluctance that Meier, and his associates, might have in releasing the original movies to me, but I don’t have to ever come into contact with the movies. They can be given to an associate of his who can meet me at Pro8mm for the transfer session. I am not looking to manipulate or distort the movies to prove any preconceived of point of view. I simply want to have properly conducted, professional transfers of the original movies done so that we can see them how they were supposed to be seen. NO ONE has ever seen the movies as they were originally shot, unless they were watching Billy Meier project them in his house. All of the various analyses that have been conducted on the movies are basically worthless because the analysis was done using faulty and unprofessional transfers.

        Will Billy Meier allow me to pay whatever it costs to finally have professional High Definition transfers of his original 8mm and Super-8mm movies created? I don’t know, but unless he does then he, and his associates, need to stop making claims about what the movies represent, or demonstrate, about the alleged extra-terrestrial nature of the “UFOs” appearing in them.”

        Comment by mahigitam — April 25, 2012 @ 9:34 pm

  4. 22:22 – Host: Most of these people who are big in UFO community like Stanton Friedman or Jacques Valle….say that in their opinion the Meier stuff is ..hoax

    I think they based their evidence on the “analysis” by Kal Korff-GSW(Ground Sacuer Watch) for which there is no scientific reports or evidence except opinions & wishful thinking. To get an idea on how the “analysis” took place, watch this
    Part 1 – http://youtu.be/a1MWauTeWAY
    Part 2 – http://youtu.be/ob-puxkZABw

    24:00 – DB: When asked why all the contact notes..are in german & why are the conversations all in german..the aliens said it that it was the one true language…thats kind of gets you little creepy..

    One of the obvious reasons for choosing german as a language in contact notes is that Meier was born in german speaking country. Other reasons is that the german language structure & vocabulary is close to alleged ET’s language. There are several other reasons which are explained in the below links which are mostly based on linguistic reasons. So DB’s reaction to it as being creepy is meaningless.

    p.s: Robbins, could you delete the duplicated message above..wish there was an edit option.

    Comment by mahigitam — April 25, 2012 @ 11:58 am | Reply

    • Comments are numbered. Which should I delete?

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — April 25, 2012 @ 12:00 pm | Reply

      • Actually 2 & 4 are the same. I want 4(neatly spaced) to be in the place of 2(extra spaces between lines). If it is not possible to rearrange, then delete 4. Thank you.

        Comment by mahigitam — April 25, 2012 @ 12:04 pm

  5. As more people look into the Meier case and its evidence for themselves, the shoddiness and ineptitude of the debunkers becomes glaringly obvious. DB had to retract his own claims (that Meier used model UFOs and miniature trees) that he signed off on in the Special Features section of our documentary on Meier several years ago. As many have now also understood, the bumbling skeptics and opponents have done more to help authenticate the content than to do it any damage, something that Meier himself was made well aware would be the case many years ago.

    Of course pseudo-scientists like DB, Stuart and others are completely unable to dismiss or debunk the ever-increasing number of highly specific, prophetically accurate information from Meier that are being corroborated all the time.

    Mahigitam does a fine job of showing the kind of incompetence, bias and farcical nonsense that emanates from the anti-Meier attackers. Fortunately, DB never disappoints those who enjoy a good laugh but many skeptics may come to believe that he’s secretly on Meier’s side and is just using bad, fabricated “research” to show just how ridiculous the skeptics are.

    Comment by Michael Horn — April 25, 2012 @ 10:01 pm | Reply

  6. Since people like Stuart, and certainly DB, simply don’t know when they’ve been bested by the truth, and since their egos dominate their reasoning abilities, it may be helpful to educate them with…their own rhetoric.

    Stuart said:

    “The question should be, then, if these are some of the main claims put forward, and they’re wrong, then why should you believe others? Why should you spend the time looking into other ones if these were supposedly iron-clad and they fall apart under scrutiny?”

    So the question he is indeed begging is, just when are the incorrect, utterly erroneous claims by incompetents like SR and DB (among many), which “fall apart under scrutiny”, sufficient to disqualify them from any further consideration, any “belief” in any of THEIR claims?

    Do skeptics enjoy some exemption from their own standards, such as they may be? Does their masquerade as “serious” researchers, etc. entitle them to be given one pass after another?

    Is the fact that “Derek has spent time during the past eleven years looking into the UFO and related claims of Billy Meier” and can’t even get the basic facts straight not sufficient in itself to encourage these bozos to get back on their bus and ride it out of town?

    Does DB’s admitted inability to read and understand German, as well as his admitted unfamiliarity, therefore, with massive amounts of Meier’s UNTRANSLATED information not further implicate him as a clown?

    Pardon me if words such as bozo and clown are a bit harsh…for our host who has no trouble implying that Meier is a liar, based on his own “research” as well as DB’s.

    While many of us who have long perceived the authenticity of the information in the Meier case, and understood that it’s credibility was also meant to encourage us to at least look at all of the warnings of events that we still could have possibly altered, mitigated, or avoided, the hapless skeptics and their little cult followers are still trying to tear down the messenger rather than get the message. And truly, these blades are the sharpest that the skeptics have in their attempt to hack at the mountain. No doubt they will still indulge in their self-congratulatory, condescending comments…despite the absolute nakedly insubstantial, incorrect and transparently pathetic impotence of their efforts.

    Comment by Michael Horn — April 26, 2012 @ 11:10 am | Reply

  7. Hi

    It is and whill always stay a very controveral story.
    Although i have seen several ufos during my entire life still it is diffcult to believe what Billy saw..
    Thanks for the information

    Comment by Geepee — April 26, 2012 @ 11:10 am | Reply

  8. To our dearly beloved Mr. Michael Horn,

    I would jut like to compliment you sir on the very professional and articulate responses provided above! As evident by your very restrained, subtle, and considerate debate tactics you of course realize sir that in order to establish credibility and legitimacy among professionals and academics it is ALWAYS appropriate to employ numerous ad hominem attacks INSTEAD of addressing specific critiques and points of a claim or of an argument. To this end, you sir have enlightened hordes of skeptics and non-believers the world over! My hats off to the ever enthralling, irascible, enigmatic, yet cantankerous Mr. Michael Horn!! You sir are an exemplar of exuberance and virtue!!

    Oh, and one more thing……I sure would love to get an autograph from one of the lovely singers from the Dean Martin Variety Show! You think you could hook me up with contact info dude?

    Yours truly,

    Jesus’ Helper

    Comment by Jesus' Helper — April 26, 2012 @ 6:42 pm | Reply

    • JH

      As for your concern about Asket – These links would help you – pick one or many who you think don’t match.





      There are many ways to address a futile argument. How important is it for people to have proof of someones identity, as a key factor, to confirm truth? Truth is cognitive and takes no rise from outward things…and old saying btw.

      The Pleiadian or Plajeran (different dialect same race) have been visiting Earth (Terra) since time immemorial. Insurmountable evidence of their involvement on this planet can be found surrounding ‘myths’ about BULL worship…yes myth…truth undiscovered. Existing to date are megalithic monuments marking their place in the universe as well as Orion, Ophicius and many others who planted their genetic seeds here. It’s obvious that man, especially if one accepts evolution story, could not have built these structures without help or supervision. However that’s debatable and another blog I guess.

      The thing is that every piece of evidence presented seems to be scrutinized as if – hey! I found it, yippee this guy is a charlatan – when in fact all else of real importance goes overlooked. Why is that?

      Look at the state of religions on our world and research the cause of its 11000 odd denominations and ask yourself why? Let me point out that the very reason seems to be in parallel with Meier skeptics. So here comes along the know it alls and present their ‘fact’ with pointless semantics imbuing new know it alls and hey! A new founder and new group is established. It is new groups and labels that competively blemish a cause that btw intends no harm. In other words, the same cause expressed by ignorance has just lost it luster. Thats what has happened in religions and impervious skeptics can’t wait for their moment in the sun and beat their chest with inane victory, a bonobo moment. After all it seems evolution still occurrs in personalities.

      Back to the BULLS who have come here to express their reviews on the state of mankind but! Despite the accuracy in their reports they met with hostility and vehement skeptics who are only prepared to ‘accept’ if they offer them a flight allowing video and photographic evidence. Paradoxically though this has been presented yet challenged. Ask yourself – who would believe you if you were that guy?

      ‘Seeing’ should not always render belief, rather prudential discernment should aid ones investigation of truth – feel it then compare, whats happening on our world, with your ‘own’ finds.

      Take care

      Comment by Shane — July 28, 2012 @ 2:10 am | Reply

  9. Dear JH,

    Thanks very much but it really isn’t necessary for me to be even more specific when Mahigitam has already dissembled DB quite nicely. I’ve done the same with him numerous times.

    We do tend to be quite specific in presenting and responding to critiques, etc. I’d suggest that you visit my site and read what happened to some of the skeptics, including a truly fine fellow name Tom Quinn, when he ventured too far from the security of silly skeptic land.

    Regarding the singer, I’m afraid I don’t have the faintest idea, my only knowledge of her is connected to the similar, but discernibly different extraterrestrial woman, Asket. Since you brought up the topic, I’m sure Stuart wouldn’t mind my providing substantiation for my response, i.e. informing you that you are vastly mistaken and uneducated if you are confusing the two women: http://theyfly.com/Asket_&_Nera.htm

    Comment by Michael Horn — April 26, 2012 @ 10:21 pm | Reply

  10. Oh dear! Well Mr. Horn despite the late hour I went ahead a took a gander at your delightfully entertaining document titled “IIG AND THE ASKET AND NERA PHOTO DECONSTRUCTION.” And despite your diligent attempt my friend, I’m afraid that although you see two different photos, what I still see is the same one! This story you present is amusing, but let me remind you sir, along with anyone else within the UFOLOGY religion/movement, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. As someone who is unapologetically atheist I tell almost everyone I know who either believes in a god or in aliens or Bigfoot or whatever that the burden of proof ALWAYS rests upon the shoulders of those who are making the claims. And from my humble opinion sir, all you’ve got here is an extraordinary claim.

    First of all, the claim that “Schmid was very harshly threatened and pressured by the ‘Men in Black’ into adulterating Billy’s photos on their behalf” is so ridiculous that I’m not even sure what the hell to say about it. I mean, REALLY DUDE?!?!? MEN IN BLACK?? REALLY???? Let me remind everyone that outside of cheesy blockbuster movies, we have never really seen any proof of their existence in our universe whatsoever, at least not to my knowledge.

    Secondly, you claim that “In the contact notes of the 68th contact on November 12, 1976 it is mentioned that space-trip pictures have been severely tampered with, and substitutions made in some cases and the photos not returned in other cases, during the photo processing.” Furthermore you write that “another important point they fail to mention is the fact that it is mentioned in Contact #39 in 1975 that Asket and Nera had doubles, or look-alikes, in America.” Well sir, with all due respect, I have absolutely no way of verifying not only whether or not these documents actually exist, but if they do, if they were actually published in 1975 & 1976 or not. If they were, do the originals actually contain the text that you mention in the unaltered and original state? I have a feeling that these questions will NEVER BE SATISFACTORILY ANSWERED!! Not by you, nor by anyone else for that matter!!

    Third, your claim that the faces are different is not convincing enough for me. I don’t really know what else to say but that you have an uphill battle attempting to convince anyone of sound mind that these are two different women. And your claim that “Meier photo #109 greatly resembles the frame presented by IIG, however a closer look shows it certainly isn’t a 100% match.” After having seen the photos, you just can’t sell me on this my friend.

    We need to keep in mind that most “mainstream” ufologists such as Stanton Friedman or whoever, usually present documents, some of which are partially redacted, and accounts/stories. This type of “evidence” isn’t as easy to refute. But the evidence put forth by Mr. Billy Meier is just so laughably ridiculous that I honestly feel bad for anyone who attempts to sell it as genuine. Despite all of this, I do see potential in you my friend. Mr. Horn, I think that you are a brilliant spinmeister who’s just had the unfortunate task of trying to sell a ridiculous and unbelievable story to the American people. However, your task may prove to be easier in this country, after all, I have no qualms in repeating that old maxim that “no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the american people.” However, I think that you’re skills would be much better utilized elsewhere. Have you ever considered working as a publicist or spokesman for a politician? Personally I think that perhaps you should drop Mr. Meier and go to work for Sarah Palin. Despite the fact that this women is a complete and utter moron, I still think that she would be an easier sell to the American people than Mr. Meier!

    Comment by Jesus' Helper — April 27, 2012 @ 12:38 am | Reply

  11. An excellent interview. It’s amazing what Bartholomew and friends have done to duplicate the Meier “evidence”. Finding out what made the Meier UFO sound was a real coup.

    Of course, I had to stop by here and watch the fireworks! Horn and the other Meier believers have called skeptics names, but haven’t provided any proof of Meier’s claims.

    Plus, the interview barely scratched the surface of the Meier nonsense. Apparently, the Asket and Nera photos were (according to Meier) tampered with by the CIA to replace them with American lookalikes! (The Gold Diggers dancers were top spies, I’m sure.) Oh, and why can no one remember the tree in the UFO photograph? According to Meier, the Pleajans had removed the tree, and all memories of its existence!

    A great show. Please keep it up.

    Comment by Stephen from SV — April 27, 2012 @ 12:45 am | Reply

    • It seems to me that you are mistaken.

      If something is fact, it is not an opinion and therefor not a belief.

      So if I state something of fact your response is to call me a believer you may want to rethink that.

      Second you need to define what you call proof because anything that comes from Meier you flippantly discredit.

      So tell me what you think proof is so that maybe we can find something that is conducive to you way of thinking.

      Your two points:

      Asket and Nera.
      If you could reproduce the photo for the whole world to see it would muster the fame only sycophants could give.
      Truly finding the film frame that could overlay Meier’s Asket photo for an exact match proves your point.

      If this is too much trouble then just
      Explain how Meier could take a picture from a tv and not have the color cathodes not show up.

      Now it is time for you to put your self in Meier’s shoes.
      If you took a picture of your friend, go get it developed, it into a box then years later when you are showing these pictures someone notices that hey that’s not your friend because the person whom you claim to be your friend looks like a celebrity on tv. How could you prove that the person in the photo wasn’t from the TV?

      Really, the tree exist?
      Ohhh boy, really!?!
      The mountains do.
      The depth of field does.
      The horizon line does as well.
      You can have a looks-y for yourself.

      Comment by natdrip — April 29, 2012 @ 5:09 pm | Reply

  12. Oh yeah, and Mr. Horn, after having looked at the photos I have reached a definitive conclusion outlined in the paragraphs above. If the fact that my interpretation of the photos differs from yours makes me “mistaken and uneducated” well then that’s fine by me. Feel free to call me stupid, uneducated, or whatever you wish!

    Comment by Jesus' Helper — April 27, 2012 @ 12:47 am | Reply

    • Then if you don’t mind, would you provide a link and explanation within to explain your position. As it is now, its unsubstantiated. I’m fairly convinced these days are jsut trying to disprove it simply out of principle.

      Comment by Sarah — April 27, 2012 @ 2:49 pm | Reply

  13. There is one problem about the “one and a half arm.” First, that still makes him have one arm, because he doesn’t have a hand. Unless your telling me he can build something with a stump?

    Comment by Sarah — April 27, 2012 @ 3:12 pm | Reply

    • If you look at the example videos you will see PL showing that he could use one arm and a stump at the elbow to make the models – so yes, that is exactly what is being said. Losing a hand is not the same as losing an arm by a long shot.

      Comment by muklowd — May 1, 2012 @ 6:46 pm | Reply

  14. JH,

    I’d suggest that you focus on specifically defending what DB and the other skeptics claim, which of course would be daunting since it’s incompetent and factually incorrect. Trying to “debate” me is a demonstrably futile exercise since I’m more than well armed with facts, whether you like the facts or not is irrelevant.

    So long as uninformed, fundamentalist skeptics insist on casting aspersions on Meier’s character, insinuating – without a shred of proof – that he’s a liar, “hoaxer”, etc., it’s more than polite of me to refer to this hapless lot in the mildly derogatory, but completely accurate, terms that I use.

    Yes, the copyrighted, dated, published books are available as collector’s items online and, fortunately, we have scanned copies that clearly show the date of copyright, etc. (See the online shop at my site, they’re all available there.) It may be helpful to consider that neither Mr. Meier, nor I, or anyone involved with the decades of research of this case is trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes and a serious, reasoned investigation of ALL facets and facts would result in logically concluding the same.

    If you ever want to debate the case on its merits, first REALLY bone up on the facts, such as the ongoing scientific corroboration of Meier’s verifiably previously published, specifically accurate information. But, as I suggested above, for now please present a vigorous defense of the bumbling incompetence of DB, which has been so nicely skewered by Mahigitam.

    Perhaps you don’t want to abide by Stuart’s suggestion re claims that proved to be wrong, which mainly apply to members of the Church of Skeptology. And do read my dialogue with Tom Quinn, a genuinely nice, bright fellow who simply made the same mistake that many other skeptics have. BTW, it’s a mistake that various skeptics studiously try to AVOID making by NOT engaging me in debate on radio, etc.

    Have a nice day and let’s read your glowing, detailed defense of DB’s loony musings soon, shall we?

    Comment by Michael Horn — April 27, 2012 @ 3:46 pm | Reply

  15. There you go, bingo. According to this, https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/podcast-episode-32-billy-meier-ufo-case-interview-with-derek-bartholomaus/ Meier never claimed that photo was genuine. see what good research can do? So you ended up making a straw man argument.

    Comment by Sarah — April 27, 2012 @ 4:12 pm | Reply

    • Think link you provided just points back to the top of this page, where no statement is made that “Meier never claimed that photo was genuine” – did you mean to provide a different link?

      Comment by muklowd — May 1, 2012 @ 7:03 pm | Reply

      • Yea, I’ll post it later. I have a project I need to work on.:3

        Comment by Sarah — May 8, 2012 @ 2:29 pm

  16. The Meier case has been verily misrepresented by DB.

    I would suggest that anyone looking for the truth research the Meier material.

    Encourage yourself to ask the tough questions and don’t be afraid of the answer.

    DB mentions Phil Langdon as someone who had reproduced Meier’s material, not by along shot.
    Phil makes some great models, but Phil’s work never establishes a control.
    Phil never states how you can tell if something is a model or real when dealing with a 2d photo.
    For that I would suggest anyone to Google Jim Dilettoso

    Comment by natdrip — April 29, 2012 @ 3:54 pm | Reply

    • Quite true. As a matter of fact Langdon – who I personally encouraged to give it his best try – REFUSES to have his photos tested to the same standards as Meier’s. Obviously he knows that fact that he’s used small models close to the camera will be revealed (confirmed) by testing…as of course will be the case since that’s exactly what they are.

      Comment by Michael Horn — April 29, 2012 @ 7:28 pm | Reply

    • Jim Dilettoso is the buffoon who said he spectroscopically analyzed a photograph!

      Comment by Chew Bird — May 1, 2012 @ 1:04 pm | Reply

      • Here is the education you need from the horses mouth

        In order not to be mistaken and uneducated, you’ll need to watch the whole thing Phil, err… I mean chew bird!

        If you feel you don’t have the time and want to get to the heart of your comment start watching at 1:05:50.

        Comment by natdrip — May 1, 2012 @ 3:49 pm

  17. Dear Stu,

    May I suggest a well deserved…retreat on your part? By all means, do go after the loony film-flam artists and delusional religious types, New Age scammers, etc. But find no shame in reconsidering that the Billy Meier UFO case, and its evidence, prophecies and predictions, etc., simply is authentic…and therefore of great value for those who would bother to delve into it.

    Comment by Michael Horn — April 30, 2012 @ 1:51 pm | Reply

    • Like me for example, who was originally skeptical, but was willing to take the time to actually read it. Even if the whole alien contact thing turns out to not be true. The whole philosophy of it is so profound, that I don’t see why anyone would ignore it.

      Comment by Sarah — May 8, 2012 @ 2:35 pm | Reply

      • A philosophy based on a lie is still a philosophy based on a lie. If you want to follow his philosophy that’s fine. See any of my posts on creationism. If you want to make science claims, that’s a different issue.

        Comment by Stuart Robbins — May 8, 2012 @ 2:43 pm

  18. Not to be so bold, by after looking at Derek’s website, he doesnt provide any contact details on how to get in touch with him. So I could not find out whether he has kept the logs on his corrospodence between him and dellafave. Perhaps if you have him on again, can you have him provide the logs? I suppose I couldn’t listen again and see if he provides the emails. But last time I tried that link was broken.

    Comment by Sarah — April 30, 2012 @ 6:40 pm | Reply

    • On the main landing page of the site, there are three paragraphs below the “welcome.” Clearly at the end of the third paragraph is the statement and link: If you have any questions about the material presented on this website you can contact Derek Bartholomaus by sending an email to info@BillyMeierUFOCase.com

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — April 30, 2012 @ 6:42 pm | Reply

  19. natdrip, thank you for proving my point with a video. He talks a lot of gobbledygook, discusses a special instrument that is incapable of analyzing the spectrum of a home video camera, then does the exact same thing he was busted for, what?, 15 years ago: taking a color profile and calling it a spectrum analysis. Not only is he a buffoon, he is a buffoon who can’t admit he made a mistake and can’t learn from his mistakes.

    Comment by Chew Bird — May 2, 2012 @ 4:44 pm | Reply

    • Nope it does not prove your point, you are mistaken?

      Please watch it again until you understand what is being disseminated; so that you may get your facts correct.

      I think that someone who demonstrates a process and explains the what, where, when, why, and how in such a way that the sum can use it to determine facts deserves admiration.
      Perhaps a different title one other then buffoon. Like Instructor, engineer, educator, intelligent, scholarly, well read, experienced, professional, ishwish, etc.

      There maybe another reason as to why you are concluding the process as gobbledygook without offering a logical explanation as to why.

      The concepts in the video maybe over your head. That is understandable. Just admit that to your self and then go about fixing the problem.

      Here is a push to get you started:
      “multivariate hyperspectral analysis”

      Comment by natdrip — May 3, 2012 @ 12:16 am | Reply

      • What is it about “multivariate hyperspectral analysis” that requires a spectrometer to work that confuses you? Besides, Dilettoso was interviewed about the computer program he used and he said he used Image Pro Plus.

        Comment by Chew Bird — May 3, 2012 @ 7:43 am

      • You are still misrepresenting the information

        Please start watching the video @ 1:05:50.

        Comment by natdrip — May 3, 2012 @ 7:50 am

  20. I’ve watched it twice already. Dilettoso is lying. He used Image Pro Plus, got his analysis rammed up his rear end by real scientists who actually work in spectroscopy, and now he is trying to retroactively cover his mistakes. Home video cameras do not have spectrometers in them and home video magnetic tape is incapable of recording a spectrum to any degree necessary to support the analysis he claims he achieved.
    Other howlers in the video:
    1:08:40 Hyperspectral imaging was never classified by the DoD. It was not available at the time he did his first claimed spectral analysis. In all the recorded news interviews he did he showed the reporters what he did. He was recorded using Image Pro Plus and showed how he measured the amount of red, green and blue and calling it a “spectral analysis”.
    1:09:30 The video spectral comparator is a device with a video camera with a spectrometer. You cannot just load a video into it and read the spectrum off the video.
    1:09:50 The Full-Spectrum Spectral Imaging System Analytical Model, keyword “system”, is a spectrometer.
    1:11:14 He does the exact same thing he did with Image Pro Plus! He merely measured the color histogram of a flare (the slide is even named “Histrogram – Witness #2”!).
    1:12:06 He keeps saying “sigma” and has a slide labeled “Sigma” but he has no idea what it means! It’s hilarious!
    1:12:21 He says, “How many frames do you have to test to have done enough?” and talks about overlaying frames. But he doesn’t show the frames overlayed because he knows, just like when he first showed how he measured RGB and failed to get the same histogram of the same flare after multiple attempts, that they won’t stack. Because it’s not a spectrograph, it’s a histogram.

    Comment by Chew Bird — May 3, 2012 @ 10:40 am | Reply

    • How’s about a little bit of your own logic right back at you:
      You have not watched it twice already. You are lying!
      … okay enough of my tom foolery.

      What do you have to support he is lying?
      Other then his original statement “Which he admitted to saying” you have nothing.

      The reasons why he said what he said
      “multivariate hyperspectral analysis” or “spectral analysis” for short
      Then what do you know, the FBI along with the IEEE releases information corroborating what he said.
      For your reference
      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/oct1999/mokrzyck.htm#Coaxial Light

      Your logic is following the form of “The sky isn’t blue because blue is a color”

      What you said about magnetic tape is irrelevant because magnetic tape is used to store data. With magnetic storage there are many protocols also known as industrial standards This is what makes it possible to use different manufactures tape with one another’s interpreters. “One frame out of a two and a half minute movie” not one magnetic strip. Here you have demonstrated an argument from fallacy with a bit of kettle logic.
      This is an easy reproducible logic line.
      The equation is k = known, u = unknown, c = camera, l=light, f=flare, .

      k(f l)/c = kl or (f l)/c = L you have a light from a known light source and you film it with a known camera,

      u(? l)/c = ul or (? l)/c = L you have a light from an unknown light source and you film it with a known camera,

      comparing the || of the L they should be the same or similar

      If they are not then you can conclude that L is not caused by the same light source

      1:08:40 “Hyperspectral imaging was never classified by the DoD”
      How do you know? Are you lying again or did you file a FOIA and get a response already?
      Here once again you are very selective on what you choose to include from the video.
      As for the rest of your comment JD gives a reasonable argument as to why he said what he said.

      1:09:30 The video spectral comparator is a device with a video camera with a spectrometer. You cannot just load a video into it and read the spectrum off the video.
      You need to re-watch the video and listen for the whole part about determining and creating a database of known(s). You and and he did.
      1:09:50 The Full-Spectrum Spectral Imaging System Analytical Model, keyword “system”, is a spectrometer.
      You’ll need to read the link I gave you at the top

      1:11:14 He does the exact same thing he did with Image Pro Plus! He merely measured the color histogram of a flare (the slide is even named “Histrogram – Witness #2″!).
      You keep on mentioning Image Pro Plus, why do you think this is this relevant? Yes, but why did he do this?

      1:12:06 He keeps saying “sigma” and has a slide labeled “Sigma” but he has no idea what it means! It’s hilarious!
      This is a very childish remark.

      You last statement is just conjecture and has not been substantiated by fact.

      Comment by natdrip — May 3, 2012 @ 6:12 pm | Reply

  21. What Chew has stated is factually correct — Dilettoso’s fundamental premise, that you can derive spectrally meaningful data from an uncalibrated video tape or camera (film or digital) whether it’s been scanned/imported to computer or not, is flawed. As in, you can’t. I’ve added this basic idea (image processing) to future planned podcast episodes.

    Comment by Stuart Robbins — May 3, 2012 @ 11:15 am | Reply

    • Cool but you can.
      I’ve explained it in the comment 20 above.
      Hope you get Dilettoso on for the (image processing) show.

      Comment by natdrip — May 3, 2012 @ 6:18 pm | Reply

      • Except no, you can’t. I’m trained in image analysis and spectroscopy. If you take incredible pains to properly calibrate, som BASIC broad color analysis can be done, but it is NOT spectroscopy and you can’t get any sort of composition information. But taking a photo or a film frame and scanning it into a computer, and then separating out the red, green, and blue channels and saying this is anything scientific or meaningful in terms of composition or comparing objects is flat-out false.

        Comment by Stuart Robbins — May 3, 2012 @ 7:17 pm

      • regardless of equipment calibration –
        Once you have a given ratio of a range over a domain of an unknown
        Once you defined a control or a group of controls
        you can solve for that unknown against that control group

        Where is the problem here?

        Comment by natdrip — May 5, 2012 @ 4:41 pm

      • If you have a control that is a known RGB within that frame, then it is somewhat more calibrated. But you still haven’t done any dark-subtraction, flat-fielding, controlled for coma, nor other things. And if your control is NOT from that frame, then it is not a valid control/calibration.

        Comment by Stuart Robbins — May 5, 2012 @ 8:56 pm

    • You removed my clarification comment above.
      Kinda makes the point moot.
      Don’t you think?

      Comment by natdrip — May 8, 2012 @ 2:46 pm | Reply

      • Your comment was flagged automatically as spam. I do not read my spam folder. I have now removed it from spam and approved it. One should not assume malice without evidence.

        Comment by Stuart Robbins — May 8, 2012 @ 2:56 pm

      • Sorry, didn’t understand how your administration wordpress was setup.

        Comment by natdrip — May 8, 2012 @ 3:00 pm

  22. Parrot: I just briefly skimmed the comment – one part that caught my eye was how he was disputing the details of the accident by which Meier lost half his arm. As though it mattered to the discussion whether the man was driving the bus or not.

    That’s dedication to pedantry right there! I love it!

    AstroStu: Yeah, agreed. As I said – he’s just kinda nitpicking on minor things that don’t matter towards the authenticity of the case.

    Source: http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=37186.435

    First of all, we were not discussing the authenticity of the case. Second, the show is about Derek Bartholomaus & his “research” into the Meier case. All i wanted to show is that people who calls themselves objective & representing a reputed scientific organisation(IIG) have failed to present the facts(facts that are freely available online) straight. He misrepresented, ignored , avoided & was being reluctant to correct his mistakes/errors in the information which he presents on his website to support his theory on Meier & evidence & claims to disprove the meier case.

    Comment by mahigitam — May 4, 2012 @ 1:18 am | Reply

    • I think you might be overstating the case here a bit Mahigitam … you say “he misrepresented, ignored, avoided and was reluctant to correct …” In reality, given how tangential to the topic how Meier lost his arm and how much he lost is, it’s far more likely that DB just simply hasn’t put any effort into finding that out. In relation to the topic of Meier’s claims it is about as relevant as whether his eyes are blue or brown.

      Comment by muklowd — May 4, 2012 @ 2:08 am | Reply

      • To understand the meaning & in what context i said, you need to read my first comment on this page. And when i said – “he misrepresented, ignored, avoided and was reluctant to correct …”, its not about the issue of Meier’s losing his arm(a minor one) but refers to the sound, metal & photo analysis which are considered as the major part of the evidence by IIG in exposing Meier’s “trickery”. I have the mails & weblinks where DB was already made aware of the errors & fallacies he made on this show(& others) going back to 2009, but refused to address them except one in december 2011 after recieving mail(s) on metal samples analysis where he admitted his mistake(after 2 years).

        Comment by mahigitam — May 4, 2012 @ 10:35 am

      • OK fair enough – but the bits you quoted at the top of your comment where about the “controversy” of the arm – that’s probably a little confusing if it is not what the rest of your post is about.

        Comment by muklowd — May 4, 2012 @ 7:55 pm

  23. To all concerned, please note that in DB actually RETRACTED his own claims, which he made in the Special features section of The Silent revolution of Truth, that Meier had hoaxed his UFO photos using model UFOs and miniature/model trees.

    Not exactly the sharpest blade, if you catch my drift. And, as I stated above, why would anyone take any of DB’s claims seriously since his track record is so miserable? Stu himself dissuades us from such wasteful considerations. No more chances for these bozos.

    Comment by Michael Horn — May 4, 2012 @ 3:36 pm | Reply

    • Interesting… where did he retract his claims? Do you have a link to that?

      Comment by muklowd — May 4, 2012 @ 7:52 pm | Reply

    • yeahhh… not quite what I meant – linking to an article on your own website in support of your contention that DB has recanted does not really count as corroboration. Now if you had a link to HIS website where he makes that same statement, then people might be convinced.

      Comment by muklowd — May 5, 2012 @ 11:05 pm | Reply

  24. Thinking does come difficult for those who find that the truth doesn’t conform to their preconceptions. So try this, since you’re obviously implying that it isn’t true:

    Ask DB to deny it.

    Posting something on my website that you don’t like doesn’t make it untrue.

    Comment by Michael Horn — May 6, 2012 @ 8:19 am | Reply

    • Actually I wasn’t implying that what you said wasn’t true – I was genuinely intrigued to find out if DB had in fact changed his position. I don’t really have the preconceptions that you seem to be accusing me of holding. I have not said that I “don’t like” your claim, And you are of course free to post anything you like on your own website. But my point is that REGARDLESS of the veracity of the claim, you really can’t point to your own article as proof of the point you are making and expect anyone to be convinced. At the very least either the article on your website or your comment on this one should have included a link to where DB actually retracted his claims.

      Comment by muklowd — May 6, 2012 @ 12:13 pm | Reply

    • OK, so I did what you asked and asked DB to deny it. And deny it he did I’m afraid.

      The essence of it seems to be that sometime in 2008/2009 he made a comment on a message board that said that the “wandering tree” section of his presentation was the weakest part of the presentation. I saw some reference to this in the link that you provided to the iigwest site in comment # 26. DB goes on to say “That does not mean that it is incorrect, just not as strong as the Asket Photo/Audio/Bugey Prophecy Deconstructions.” I do recall seeing the “weakest part” comment when I was reading that PDF because it was in bold. But I also recall thinking at the time that admitting that the “wandering tree” section was the weakest part of the presentation is a long way from actually admitting that it is wrong, and does not even really hint at a retraction of his previously stated position.

      Comment by muklowd — May 8, 2012 @ 4:20 pm | Reply

  25. Point well taken then.

    It’s referred to here:

    Click to access 20080318_Email.pdf

    …but it looks like the original posting is no lover available. So you still may wish to ask DB to deny it, etc.

    Comment by Michael Horn — May 6, 2012 @ 2:02 pm | Reply

  26. Er, just caught it, should be…”no longer available.”

    Comment by Michael Horn — May 6, 2012 @ 7:35 pm | Reply

  27. My new blog on Meier’s Mars information is now out and, once again, he has scooped the scientists by decades. So, the question to all the skeptical geniuses is, do you think he used…model UFOs and model trees to produce this and the rest of the voluminous amount of prophetically accurate information?

    Comment by Michael Horn — May 9, 2012 @ 2:58 pm | Reply

    • News Flash! Loser predicts water on Mars 10 years after it was discovered!

      Comment by Chew Bird — May 12, 2012 @ 9:33 am | Reply

      • Once again chew bird, refusing to do your own research makes you not look so good. And your youtube cult use the same kind of logic.

        Comment by Sarah — May 19, 2012 @ 2:33 pm

  28. What logic would that be? That a prediction made with a copyrighted date years after a fact was already known is not a prediction?

    Have you seen the copyrighted date of the prediction?

    Comment by Chew Bird — May 19, 2012 @ 7:23 pm | Reply

    • How about some integrity here Phil?

      Like Sarah stated “refusing to do your own research makes you not look so good”.

      I think you may have the book “And still they fly”

      You know, you could, if your weren’t so lazy, validate information found there.
      With the copy write dates 1st edition August 2001 and the 2nd edition February 2004.

      Comment by natdrip — May 20, 2012 @ 12:23 pm | Reply

      • OK so now I admit to being a bit lost – what is the significance of the copyright dates?

        Comment by muklowd — May 20, 2012 @ 1:43 pm

      • The copyright* date disproves the backdating theory put forth by CB.

        For example
        The book I have “and still they fly” has a section called the Henoch prophecies.
        .On page 316 it reads
        … Yet Russia will not rest and will attack Scandinavia and in doing so, embroil all of Europe; and months before that,
        a terrible tornado will have swept across northern Europe, causing great devastation and
        destruction it must be stated that the Russian attack will occur during the summer, in fact from Archangelsk….

        Then on July 1st of 2011 this report happens

        the mentioning of …Arkhangelsk

        Sent chills up my spine.

        copyright 2nd edition February 2004.

        Comment by natdrip — May 20, 2012 @ 8:52 pm

      • OK – I think I get what was confusing me now. I thought we were talking about Water on Mars. Your quoted copyright dates are about 30 years AFTER the first evidence we discovered for water having been on Mars, hence my puzzlement. But if it’s not Water on Mars we are talking about then it’s not such a problem … 🙂

        Comment by muklowd — May 20, 2012 @ 9:21 pm

      • And prove a straw man? Setting people up to fail? Making us follow your rules, have us prove what you want us to prove? Seriously most of us aren’t even stuck on the ufo part of the Meier case.

        Comment by Sarah — June 9, 2012 @ 4:06 pm

  29. And the hits just keep coming: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/04/speed-of-light-not-a-constant-it-varies-.html

    I beleive it was Stuart himself who, somewhere in this discussion, put up a big stink about Meier claiming the speed of light was not in fact constant. Linked above we may have yet another instance of terrestrial scientists beginning to catch up to Meier’s clearly vastly superior knowledge and wisdom.

    Comment by Andy — April 26, 2013 @ 4:14 pm | Reply

    • This is a theoretical result. It has yet to be observed. If it is, it would be very neat. It also has nothing to do with Meier validity (though that particular critique of mine would no longer be valid) as Meier was FAR from the first person to ever claim that the speed of light is not constant.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — April 26, 2013 @ 4:23 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: