Sorry this episode is coming out late in the day. Pretty much all of today was spent catching up on sleep and working on this and some other blog posts. Plus I’m working on three papers and two conference abstracts plus a grant proposal, all due in the very near future. Fortunately or unfortunately, my normal weekend social engagement won’t be happening so this’ll give me a chance to get more done …
Anyway, this is really an analysis two years later of the whole saga of the “red meteor” “prophecy” of Billy Meier and the analysis I did in 2010 and the responses since then. For background on Meier podcast-wise, check out Episode 32.
This episode returns to my median length of around 30 minutes for an episode, but to get it that length the only segments other than the main one are a quick New News and then a single standard announcement. No puzzler this time. I also haven’t 100% figured out what the next episode is going to be, possibly earthquakes caused by the full moon.
P.S. (8/28) – As I expected, numerous people have come out of the woodwork on this post who have criticized my posts before on Meier. I’ll repeat again that no matter what their criticism is, unless they have evidence linking the “red meteor” to Apophis with specific information before Apophis was discovered, then the root conclusion that it was a retrodiction still stands.
Exposing PseudoAstronomy 
Stuart, you have proven that this red meteor/apophis case is one of retrodiction, iow, that Billy Meier deviously, blatantly twisted & tortured previous words and conversations, solely with the intent of deceiving his fellow humans and making former statements and conversations fit current events in order to claim that he predicted the whole thing, in order to profit somehow, financially, megalomaniacally, to claim some sort of fame for himself, etc ? iow, that Billy Meier is dishonest, is a liar, deceiver of human beings, etc?
Comment by Juice — August 25, 2012 @ 3:06 am |
If you actually read what I’ve written or recorded on the subject you would know the answer to your questions.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — August 25, 2012 @ 3:09 am |
You’ve (incorrectly) assumed I hadn’t actually read what you’ve written http://podcast.sjrdesign.net/shownotes_049.php on the subject .
You conclude with: “It’s a retrodiction until other evidence refuting it is brought to light.”
So, I ask you again, considering you call it a retrodiction, therefore making Billy Meier a retrodicter: you are essentially saying and implying that Billy Meier deviously, dishonestly, blatantly twisted & tortured previous words and conversations, solely with the intent of deceiving his fellow humans and making former statements and conversations fit current events in order to claim that he predicted the whole thing, in order to profit somehow, financially, for megalomaniacal egoistic purposes, to claim some sort of fame for himself, etc. iow, that Billy Meier is dishonest, is a liar, deceiver of human beings, etc.
Would that be a fair assessment of your viewpoint regarding Billy Meier?
Comment by Juice — August 25, 2012 @ 5:38 am
What Yakaru said. If you somehow got what you wrote from what I stated, then your reading comprehension skills need some honing. Perhaps you should read my post on hatred.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — August 25, 2012 @ 12:49 pm
@Juice,
What I read and heard was “the only EVIDENCE that we have is most consistent with the retrodiction hypothesis” and that Billy Meier did it “either intentionally or unintentionally”. I didn’t read or hear any speculation about his motives.
Comment by Yakaru — August 25, 2012 @ 8:26 am |
Well, when you label someone a ‘retrodicter’, you are not assigning positive values or motives to such a person.
So back in 1981, Queztal says the red meteor mentioned in some prophecies, should it happen, would split the earths crust from the North Sea to the Black Sea. Then in December 2002, Meier is asked if this red meteor is still on the way and Billy replies that it indeed is.
Then in November 2008, Billy brings in the meteor/asteroid calculated fly-by dates given to him by Quetzal that Stuart rightly questions considering they are not in any current English translations. Therefore, I must agree that for this Red Meteor/Apophis matter to be resolved one way or the other, more information is needed regarding how those dates mentioned entered the conversation.
Comment by Juice — August 26, 2012 @ 3:24 am |
No one has been “labeled a retrodicter”. That would mean that Dr Robbins claims that Meier always retrodicts things. Instead, Stuart is talking about this one instance, limiting himself to the evidence that he has painstakingly assembled. He suggested a *hypothesis* (that retrodiction has occurred), and clearly stated that he does not know whether it was intentional or unintentional. That is not labeling a person.
Comment by Yakaru — August 26, 2012 @ 12:38 pm
Billy Meier?,the space traveler paparazzi who was responsible for taking pictures of dinosaurs,pterodactyl & birthday cake UFO spaceships?
Comment by Tara Jordan — August 27, 2012 @ 6:00 am
Uh Tara, did you gloss over the fact that Meier personally does not take credit for the dinosaur pictures? Even he says they are fake.
Comment by Sarah — January 9, 2013 @ 10:08 am
At what point is a UFO believer not even worth commenting on? John Lear’s claims were so ludicrous that it hardly seemed worth the time to debunk them; Meier claims, after all, that he is the only one who has ever had contact with aliens, so that makes him an outcast in an already fringe community. Is it simply for the sake of making sure people know why rather than just dismissing them as knee jerk reactions. This I can understand- my brother was dismissive of Y2K, the 2012 Apocalypse, all these things. But he’s dismissive of them the same we he is of man made climate change- not wanting to believe it because he thinks he’s stupid, and in that case that approach leads him the wrong way. He simply chooses not to believe them than wanting to understand why they would be wrong, I suppose that is a good motivation- to show people why they’re right not to believe these characters and teach a thing or two in the process.
Comment by DC — August 25, 2012 @ 7:27 pm |
Usually I address something just ’cause it strikes my fancy. Flat Earth stuff is probably the most insane, but I still have talked about it. Sometimes I bring it up just to show people how weird the beliefs of others can be (like Lear). Sometimes because it’s a good example of how to investigate something.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — August 26, 2012 @ 12:04 am |
Hi Stuart, would it be possible for you to clarify my doubts raised below after reading your previous articles(published in Jan, 2010) on Apophis a couple of days back ?
Comment by mahigitam — August 28, 2012 @ 3:25 am
1) “At this point(CR 475, November 2008), we have fully linked to Apophis, calling it by name (sort of), though still getting some information wrong – it was never thought to hit in 2029, just come close and possibly go through a “keyhole” region that, if it did, would alter its orbit in such a way that it would hit in 2036.”
Source: https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/follow-up-on-apophis-and-michael-horn-billy-meier-documented-claims/
Wasn’t Apophis ever considered to hit earth in 2029 at all ? If that is what you mean, then doesn’t it contradicts with the available information online ?
“.. is a near-Earth asteroid that caused a brief period of concern in December 2004 because initial observations indicated a small probability (up to 2.7%) that it would strike the Earth in 2029”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis
“I’m going to be very brief here in my overview because I go into a fair amount of depth about this Earth-crossing asteroid during my interview. Apophis was discovered in 2004 and preliminary calculations gave it about a 1 in 40 chance of hitting Earth in 2036. ”
Source: https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/asteroid-apophis-and-the-michael-horn-claims-of-billy-meier/
Wasn’t the 1 in 40 chance for Apophis to hit earth calculated for the year 2029 ?
” For a brief period of time last winter, scientists had given Apophis, then known as 2004 MN4, a 1-in-40 chance of colliding with Earth in 2029.”
http://www.space.com/1461-astronomers-gear-historic-asteroid-pass-2029.html
2) Another point is regarding the questions a man named George Madeyski posed to Meier in 2002.
“The response: “It is still on its way. It has not yet been discovered. Well, “officially” Billy doesn’t know. Regarding the end question: No, and the Earth will not explode.” I am assuming this response was actually made by Michael Horn rather than Meier speaking in the third person.”
Source: https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/follow-up-on-apophis-and-michael-horn-billy-meier-documented-claims/
‘Questions to Billy’ are always answered by either Billy or Christian Frehner(CF, FIGU center director) but not Michael Horn.
Comment by mahigitam — August 25, 2012 @ 11:21 pm |
I see that you have posted the right information in episode 49 but not in the above earlier links.
“When its orbit was initially determined, there was a 2.7% chance that it would strike Earth in 2029..”
http://podcast.sjrdesign.net/shownotes_049.php
Comment by mahigitam — August 25, 2012 @ 11:58 pm |
I have updated the posts.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — September 11, 2012 @ 6:20 am |
You were right, they really do come out of the woodwork when you do a Billy Meier episode!
Comment by Belgarath — August 27, 2012 @ 9:32 pm |
I recently received notice that Stuart Robbins had again commented on Billy Meier’s information pertaining to the Apophis asteroid, about which Meier published information in 1981, calling it the Red Meteor. Before I explain why Stuart’s conclusions are wrong, I’ll talk a little bit about an area of agreement with Stuart.
I am not a photo expert, and haven’t spent much time doing any in depth investigation at either Mike Mara’s blog or Stuart’s. The reason I don’t think the ziggurat is genuine is that, as is often the case in these so-called paranormal matters, things just don’t…make sense.
As I understand it, the object is referred to as a ziggurat, which is a specific type of pyramidal shaped, temple tower that has a shrine on top. Now, since there’s zero evidence for any life, past or present on the moon, I suppose the conspiracy theorists presume that so-called “aliens” must have constructed it. There are so many dopey assumptions and inconsistencies connected to this notion, such as that intelligent beings who somehow got to the moon were also some form of deity worshippers who just had to build a temple to climb steps to perform idiotic rituals, etc., that to even discuss a so-called ziggurat up there is ludicrous. (There are other elements that also make this premise idiotic.)
I could go on and on about this but my real point is that I could draw the same conclusion that Stuart did and, presuming that we are both correct, we came to our correct conclusions using different methodologies. I certainly didn’t rely on photographic analysis. I used rational thinking and…common sense. Certainly photographic analysis can be extremely useful. Photographic experts concluded that Billy Meier’s UFO photos and films were not taken using small model UFOs and miniature trees, etc. Claims by model makers that they have “duplicated” Meier’s UFO photographic evidence suffer from one inadequacy, i.e. they REFUSE to have their work tested by the same professional standards that established the authenticity of Meier’s evidence. The simple reason is their accurate understanding that their photos WILL reveal small models close to the camera…because that’s what they are.
One thing that has puzzled me is that Stuart claims that Meier retrodicted his information about the Red Meteor referring to the later discovered Apophis asteroid. Now, considering that Meier is firm that the object will hit the Earth, and that NASA is firm that it won’t. So why would Meier – with a stand alone, impeccable record of prophetic accuracy – “retrodict” something that essentially disagrees with his information? Why wouldn’t he continue to say that the Red Meteor still hasn’t been discovered, at least until scientists discovered some object that they did say posed a real danger to us?
The major problem, however, is that Stuart is willfully ignorant of the aforementioned record of prophetic accuracy. I think he’s stated that if the Apophis matter didn’t pass his sniff test then why look at anything else Meier wrote? Unfortunately, Stuart doesn’t seem to admit the notion that he could be wrong about Meier retrodicting, not only because of my previous suggestion but also because he really provides zero actual proof that the man is a falsifier, which is essentially what he’s saying.
Now it must be said that when anyone identifies themselves as a skeptic, they are essentially admitting that they have certain beliefs, like other religious people. This is quite different than someone who says that they are skeptical of particular claims, etc. but who has the strict intellectual honesty and integrity to conduct objective examinations of evidence without prejudice. This is virtually impossible for anyone who identifies himself as a skeptic and is presented with evidence that goes against his beliefs.
For those people of any stripe, any belief system, etc., who are honest and objective enough to apply clear, clean logic and rational thinking to it, the 22 minutes of over 50 specific examples of Meier’s verifiably, prophetically accurate SCIENTIFIC information that we present, unrelentingly, in the new film on the Meier case, the inescapable conclusion is that – however he accomplished it – Meier is indeed truthful and absolutely didn’t (and COULDN’T have) retrodicted anything.
It matters not at all that people will attempt to trash a man and his evidence with no actual knowledge, research, investigation, etc. It matters not that so-called experts want to tell you that there’s no proof for extraterrestrial life, etc. Put yourself through those 22 minutes and then – refute the copyrighted, dated, published information that Meier has presented years and decades before “official discovery”.
If you take that opportunity and you’re invested in skepticism…you are about to become very, very uncomfortable.
Comment by Michael Horn — August 27, 2012 @ 10:22 pm |
Hi Michael – do you have a link to this film?
Comment by Kurious — August 28, 2012 @ 6:46 pm |
Yes:
http://www.scubbly.com/item/76006/
Comment by Michael Horn — August 28, 2012 @ 7:06 pm
Billy Meier UFO cult is essentially Raëlism without the sexual Mumbo jumbo.The idea that a former Swiss bus driver made “predictions” about an invisible asteroid – Meteor is not very entertaining. What makes me “very, very uncomfortable” is the fact that some people are willing to believe in such absolute crap.
Comment by Tara Jordan — August 28, 2012 @ 7:31 pm |
Yakaru – “No one has been “labeled a retrodicter”. That would mean that Dr Robbins claims that Meier always retrodicts things. Instead, Stuart is talking about this one instance, limiting himself to the evidence that he has painstakingly assembled. He suggested a *hypothesis* (that retrodiction has occurred), and clearly stated that he does not know whether it was intentional or unintentional. That is not labeling a person.”
Yakaru: You are splitting hairs in a way only a pseudo-scientist, a pseudo-intellectual or a biased lawyer in the courtroom would; Dr. Robbins has gone on talk-radio and had a snicker or two or ten with his radio hosts over Meier, insinuating directly or with undertones & overtones that he is a fraud, hoaxer, huckster, etc.
Dr. Robbins – “Meier, in what he calls a conversation with the Plejaran Ptaah (which sounds kinda Klingon),” …..
He is hardly objective despite attempting to wear his truly-objective-scientist hat on this blog. Just lilke his idol Phil Plaitt, Mr. I know more about ‘science’ than you do.
Dr. Stuart Robbins – ” based on the evidence gathered, it turned out to be a retrodiction. ”
Case closed I guess, even though his so-called ‘painstakingly assembled evidence’ is hardly complete, otherwise known as incomplete, yet his judgement is in – “it turned out to be a retrodiction” .. yes and he did not call Meier a retrodicter.
Why label something as ‘retrodiction’, while attempting to water it down by saying it was either intentional or unintentional if the evidence is inconclusive. That is an awful strong word implying dishonesty, dishonorableness, undignity, unscrupulousness, and several other negative values. The fact remains that Meier may have had private conversations, not recorded in official contact conversations, with Quetzal regarding or confirming the dates that earth scientists calculated for the Apophis encounter or near-encounter with earth. Or maybe the dates that entered the conversation lay untranslated in German.
Regarding Stuarts, as you put it “painstakingly assembled evidence”, he writes –
“Michael’s (Horn) response, as the Authorized North American Media Representative of Billy Meier, was: “It is still on its way. It has not yet been discovered. Well, “officially” Billy doesn’t know. 🙂 Regarding the end question: No, and the Earth will not explode.”
However that is not Michael Horn’s response. That is most likely Christian Frehner who presents monthly questions to Billy from the English speaking forum and translates Billy’s response back into English for their English forum participants.
If Stuart had actually done any painstaking work, he would have gone far beyond searching http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Main_Page for the words “red meteor” or “apophis”. I would hardly call that “painstakingly assembled” .. more likely “superficially looked into”. Yet despite his unscientific anything-but painstaking, superficial look, he concludes ” based on the evidence gathered, it turned out to be a retrodiction. ” .
Case closed. Not exactly. Because Stuart attempts to play objective scientist one more time by writing “It’s a retrodiction until other evidence refuting it is brought to light.” If Stuart was more interested than this shoddy piece of unpainstaking work he put out, he would dig a little deeper. He could get in touch with the source, Billy Meier, or even Christian Frehner to get to the bottom of it, like a Freshman journalist would.
The final analysis: Instead of putting out inconclusive conclusions in an unpainstakingly unscientific way, Stuart could actually do some painstaking work before concluding inconclusively.
Comment by Juice — August 28, 2012 @ 2:26 am |
Thanks for the insults. Classy, especially as you were complaining about tone. Why label it a retrodiction? Would you prefer “wrong”?
Comment by Yakaru — August 28, 2012 @ 12:22 pm |
Yakura,
Please address this:
One thing that has puzzled me is that Stuart claims that Meier retrodicted his information about the Red Meteor referring to the later discovered Apophis asteroid. Now, considering that Meier is firm that the object will hit the Earth, and that NASA is firm that it won’t. So why would Meier – with a stand alone, impeccable record of prophetic accuracy – “retrodict” something that essentially disagrees with his information? Why wouldn’t he continue to say that the Red Meteor still hasn’t been discovered, at least until scientists discovered some object that they did say posed a real danger to us?
Comment by Michael Horn — August 28, 2012 @ 12:44 pm
Not saying he did claim per say “Its a retrodiction, unless you prove otherwise” is what he said. However if he did say it, then the proper procedure is, “Because of the subject still needs more research, any conclusion what so ever would be hasty until further evidence in either direction is found.”
With that said, a lot more people would be looking into the Meier information, if more of it were in English. I don’t mean the prophesies, he already went over why he’s not making any more of those. I mean more of the spirit teachings into English. Of course, he wont need to lay off the bit about homosexuality being unnatural natural, which in itself is essentially contradictory. Its either natural or its not.
Yes, some of us can actually be nuetral. These days, it feels like a superpower.
Comment by Sarah — January 9, 2013 @ 10:33 am
Stuart.
I successfully achieved telepathic conversation with the entity known as Yog-Sothoth. I am authorized to divulge the most sensational secret of all time. Asteroid Apophis is Nibiru….
Comment by Tara Jordan — August 28, 2012 @ 6:10 am |
I don’t think that Dr. Robbins claims that 100% Meier retrodicted Apophis, but I do think he does claim that it is the most likely explanation.
Comment by Belgarath — August 28, 2012 @ 7:14 pm |
Well don’t you think his “claim” should be substantiated with facts? After all, such a claim is effectively calling Meier a liar, hoaxer, etc.
If someone said about…you, wouldn’t you demand that they actually substantiate the claim, or…APOLOGIZE for it.
And just why is the “most likely explanation” – when there are literally dozens, even hundreds of specific examples of Meier’s prophetically accurate scientific information?
Now, if you’re not aware of that, which is the case with most of the world, then you can remedy that unknowingness simply by examining the corroborated information that we have taken the time to compile for you.
Comment by Michael Horn — August 28, 2012 @ 7:30 pm |
Alright Michael, my one reply to you per blog post, and here it is. You can continue to gallop away to other claims, as you always do and as I continually point out, or you can show me where my analysis of this very specific claim you make about his prophecy is incorrect or where there is additional information that shows he knew specific information about Apophis before it was known to the rest of us in 2004. Something specific linking the “red meteor” with it. I will only entertain direct responses to that very specific query.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — August 28, 2012 @ 7:33 pm
“Yakaru: No one has been “labeled a retrodicter”. That would mean that Dr Robbins claims that Meier always retrodicts things. Instead, Stuart is talking about this one instance, limiting himself to the evidence that he has painstakingly assembled. He suggested a *hypothesis* (that retrodiction has occurred), and clearly stated that he does not know whether it was intentional or unintentional. That is not labeling a person.”
I agree with Yakaru’s position. Being said that, the way i see this whole issue is, that it centered around MH’s claim(i may be wrong) – ‘Plejaren predicted & specifically gave Meier the hints(Red & Meteor in ‘Red Meteor’) about APOPHIS’ possible collision with earth’. Since the investigation here apparently is not about Meier’s prophectic abilities(i may be wrong) but only about Meier’s claims on Red Meteor & Apophis, the need to evaluate or consider Meier’s other possible corrroborations is out of our research. And generally according to principles of logic, people expect such claims to stand on by only itself. Even if Meier successfully predicted alot of other things well before official scientific discovery, every claim IMO should be dissected individually. And when looked into MH’s claims, there are multiple possibilities as to why Billy could have used ‘Red’ & the interpretation that “ETs” naming it ‘Meteor’ because of its close similarity with LL Chondrites seems to be not strong. I would yet like to see FIGU/Meier’s response on using the name ‘Red Meteor’. Also the dates 2029 & 2036 were only published(atleast based on the english contact notes) after it was known publicly since 2004.
From my research & perspective on Meier case’ corroborative evidence, i would say in this instance that – when Meier spoke of Red Meteor(in 1976 & 1981), before 2004, he most probably talked about Apophis. But i would not promote this connection as a strong evidence of Meier’s prophectic ability because the demonstration of it violates some rules of logic. I would only suggest this connection could be most probably true based on Meier’s impressive prophectic track record & honesty. Since i only suggested the connection between Red Meteor & Apophis but not promoted it as strong evidence of his abilities, there needn’t be any counter arguments(in this investigation) & even if there are they wouldn’t be strong.
Note: Stuart, i am not sure if you have seen my 2 previous posts asking for your response on questions that were raised from reading your articles. If not, please do refer to them. If you have seen them and avoided intentionally, would you atleast let us know the reasons for your avoidance.
Comment by mahigitam — August 29, 2012 @ 12:43 am |
I’ve been incredibly busy trying to tie up this ridiculous lunar ziggurat stuff, get two papers out, and two abstracts in that are due Friday. Your other comments seemed like they needed me to spend more than a minute looking through them so I haven’t responded yet.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — August 29, 2012 @ 12:48 am |
@Michael Horn (12.44 above),
I’m not willing to speculate on Meier’s actual motives. My point was that Stuart’s analysis and language concerning the retrodictions hypothesis was more than fair. On the same evidence he could easily have speculated that Meier gave up a possible eventual “hit” in favor of a shorter term “second best”.
Comment by Yakaru — August 29, 2012 @ 2:43 am |
Meier claims he meet Saddam Hussein during one his travels to Baghdad when Saddam was about 22 yr old. (when Saddam was an upcoming thug, according to Michael Horn) The problem is, Saddam was not in Baghdad at the time. At the age of 22, Saddam Hussein (already a Ba’th Party member) had to flee Baghdad for Damascus & Cairo (from 1959 to 1963) after his involvement in an assassination attempt against Abd al-Karim Qasim.
On February 8, 1963, Abd al-Karim Qasim is ousted in a coup led by the Ba’th Party (Saddam Hussein returned to Baghdad).
1963 November 18,1963, The Ba’th government is overthrown by Arif and a group of military officers, then from From 1964 to 1966 Saddam Hussein was jailed as a member of the Ba’th Party.
There is no way Meier ever met with a 22 yr old Saddam Hussein in Baghdad because Saddam was not in Iraq.
Upon returning to Baghdad in 1963, Saddam was already a prominent Ba’th Party member. There is little chance for someone like Billy Meier to meet Saddam Hussein, especially considering the geopolitical situation at the time.
From 1964 to 1966 Saddam Hussein was in prison, maybe Meier had telepathic conversations with Saddam?…..
Comment by Tara Jordan — August 29, 2012 @ 5:23 am |
I’m glad that you were entrusted with Saddam H’s itinerary. Say, did it occur to you that the words “ABOUT22 years old” and the year 1959 are not inconsistent at all? Hussein had to LEAVE Iraq after a failed coup in that year. So it’s entirely possible that Meier met him in Iraq prior to that time and, let’s remember, he said he didn’t “know precisely” because it was a long time ago.
You may want to consider that in terms of conversations with his contact people, he documented virtually every conversation going back almost 60 years.
But go ahead and try to poke holes…rather than learn. You’re in good company with all of the rest of the self-described skeptics for whom transcending their religious beliefs presents an insurmountable problem.
Comment by Michael Horn — August 29, 2012 @ 7:37 pm |
You`re scaring the kids & pissing off the grownups. I have no spiritual or religious beliefs whatsoever…Learning from who?, an old man who traveled back in prehistoric times, who took pictures of Mars,Venus,Jupiter, pterodactyl & dinosaur, plant with an insect head?. Don’t insult my intelligence
Comment by Tara Jordan — August 30, 2012 @ 3:07 am
I’m afraid you can’t have it both ways, Michael. Either Meier “can’t recall” OR he documented it. Obviously, if he documented it, it will be a very simple thing to clear up.
Comment by Yakaru — August 30, 2012 @ 3:49 am
Well, Tara, I really hope that we’re not scaring you. BTW, the real grown-ups are more than interested. As for insulting your intelligence, As difficult to do as knocking over snowmen in the dessert.
Comment by Michael Horn — August 30, 2012 @ 12:15 pm |
I tend to pity such “grown ups”. They tend to think the most absurd things in their heads. So much so that they forget that they are actually fantasising too much sci-fi fan fiction and pretending it is real.
For all I know, much of the discussion here is of a bunch of day-dreaming kids stuck inside the bodies of mid-life crisis uncles. Then again, I don’t want to insult the real day dreaming kids out there. They will grow out of it and use it for their creativity, the folks here haven’t.
Welcome to the land of cognitive dissonance.
Comment by Ali Ahsan — August 30, 2012 @ 12:43 pm |
You have snowmen in your after dinner sweets in the USA … how cool is that? 🙂
Comment by Kurious — September 3, 2012 @ 3:24 pm |
Totally cool, it started with…Baked Alaska!
Comment by Michael Horn — September 3, 2012 @ 3:30 pm
Yakaru,
If you only knew how many pompous, self-impressed, non–thinking underachievers try such ploys. BTW, can you prove where you’ve been and with whom you’ve spoken over your entire lifetime? I guess if you can’t do so – precisely – well, you’re a liar and it never happened. Meier actually has the most documented life of anyone I’ve ever known or heard of.
But please, apply your “can’t have it both ways” standard to the voluminous, well documented, published, copyrighted scientific information of Meier’s that he verifiably published before “official discovery”. Of course the other option is to become Stuart, Jr., and refuse to look through the telescope…but continue to toss out shallow irrelevant comments.
Comment by Michael Horn — August 30, 2012 @ 12:19 pm |
You`re almost entertaining,you have no sense of ridicule…
Comment by Tara Jordan — August 30, 2012 @ 1:23 pm |
@Tara,
It is almost entertaining, isn’t it. Almost.
@Michael Horn,
As well as a bunch of insults, you wrote: ”BTW can you prove where you’ve been and with whom you’ve spoken over your entire lifetime?”
No I can’t. — And if you read my comment carefully, you will notice that I didn’t make any claims about who I’ve spoken to and when. You seem to have missed that for some reason. Funny how you have a blind spot for the idea of not claiming things you can’t back up, isn’t it.
And your reply had absolutely nothing to do with the argument. You claimed that Meier can’t recall when the discussion occurred, but that Meier should never-the-less be taken at his word because he’s documented lots of discussions during his life. Obviously, if he documented that one, then the matter can be cleared up easily. If not, then there’s no point in crowing about how many other things he’s documented, is there. It’s totally irrelevant.
So, I’ve explained it for you again. Go ahead and avoid it again.
Comment by Yakaru — August 30, 2012 @ 4:57 pm
“No sense of ridicule”? You want me to be more…rude?
Comment by Michael Horn — August 30, 2012 @ 5:00 pm |
@Yakaru
What I find hilarious is the fact that even the most gullible UFO buffs, consider Billy Meier to be phony
Comment by Tara Jordan — August 30, 2012 @ 11:47 pm |
Tara,
Since when would anyone care, let alone refer to, what idiot “UFO buffs” say?
Tara, there are effectively three groupings that are actually religious in nature, i.e. “believers”. Obviously, the religions and sects come first, those who describe themselves as skeptics and the ridiculous New Age/paranormal/conspiracy/Ufos & “aliens” groups are the others. (Okay, add those who are heavily involved in politics too.)
This isn’t about UFOs, it’s about us and our future survival. Especially difficult is the task of any far more advanced human beings in trying to penetrate the limited, closed minds of many human beings on our world, as they largely fall into the above categories.
No REAL scientists describes themselves as skeptics; it bespeaks beliefs and that is the antithesis of science.
You and others here are not actually interested in the content of the Meier case, as you can’t get through your filters, your firm beliefs…no matter how “intelligent” you may consider yourselves to be.
Take Yakaru, for example. He will try to hang everything on what is actually one of the least important (though certain to be factual) elements of the case and – I GUARANTEE YOU – studiously avoid the ironclad, documented, prophetically accurate scientific information that Meier has been publishing for some 60 years. This is exactly what Stuart has done and will also continue to do.
The egoism involved, naturally, overlooks the implications of such delusional self-importance and immaturity. The internet makes it easy for every half-baked, self-styled “expert” to give themselves airs and pretend to be far more than they are.
In a live, fact-based, debate with Stuart on the merits of the case, he would last about five minutes…provided he started first. You may wish to read the section of my site where I post the skeptical challenges and especially this little interaction with a very bright fellow who made the mistake of stepping into waters way over his head, which is what happens EVERY time a “skeptic” tries to parade out their brilliance vs. the Meier material:
http://www.theyfly.com/dialogue-skeptic
Now, we have an already successful, just released new film to attend to. Do know that I delight in addressing real, sincere inquiries and challenges as time allows. And I pop up here every now and then to help drive traffic to Stuart’s blog, since he knows that mentioning the Meier material is one of his most assured ways of getting readers, which he needs.
But my own reach and readership is far greater than his and answering emails from people in numerous countries who have just seen the new film is taking more and more time.
You can read some of the reviews linked from here:
http://theyfly.com/
I think it’s pretty obvious that the kinds of people who are hungry for this information aren’t “gullible UFO buffs”.
I hope that those people who describe themselves as skeptics will broaden their self-definition by learning how to truly…think, which isn’t the same as regurgitating information, as is the common standard for gaining an “education” and in many cases a degree.
Happy learning,
MH
P.S. When I have the time, I will post some interesting information pertaining to an email that I sent Stuart a while ago. In it I put information from a couple of astrologers who had gone on record with a number of specific things, and times they thought they would occur. It appears that they were…right. I notice that Stuart hadn’t put up a blog attacking these “silly” people, or whatever. Nor has he mentioned having checked them out and been confronted with their documented accuracy.
AS I said, when time permits I’ll do it. And of course I’m giving Stuart plenty of time to rationalize some argument or other, some “anyone could have said that” (but no one did) rebuttal. It’s not nearly as important as the Meier material but it’s still kind of fun every time some religious believer gets stuck in overconfidence. The Church of Skeptology is a quaint institution, wouldn’t you agree?
Comment by Michael Horn — August 31, 2012 @ 11:20 am |
Oh, you mean your e-mail where your astrologer said, let’s see … “July will be a very busy month for the world … which … will also launch a major volcanic eruption, one of the largest we have ever seen, as well as major quakes around the world.”
Or “I see lots of major issues in the way of electrical power blackouts in 2012. There will be so many issues with power world wide, with huge black outs that last months even years. More black outs and rolling black outs then ever. Some very odd and completely un-explained by scientists.”
Or maybe this was more accurate? — “As I’ve said, I see major issues with the severe heat in many places. Temps could reach 130, even 140, this will also have a major effect on the power plants. July and August will be some of the worst times for this. The blame will partially be on sun solar storms that produces record breaking heat.”
Hmm. Unless I’ve been on some other planet the last two months, your astrologer doesn’t appear to be “right,” as you put it.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — August 31, 2012 @ 7:57 pm
Michael, you made a claim, and I asked you to back it up. You haven’t, and instead you are now claiming that I am trying to “hang everything on what is actually one of the least important (though certain to be factual) elements of the case”. I am doing no such thing, and you are revealing that you have no idea how to deal with straight forward information. You would have been much better off simply saying “No, I can’t back that claim up. I retract it.”
Comment by Yakaru — September 1, 2012 @ 1:52 am
I’m sure the Church of Skeptology *would* be a quaint institution if such a thing existed.. but it seems something of an oxymoron really. Church has too much of a religious overtone to be readily applied to skepticism.
Comment by Kurious — September 3, 2012 @ 3:34 pm
Actually, Skepticism is equivalent to a religion. After all, once someone describes themselves as a skeptic – rather than as a scientist – you know that they have given up pure objectivity in favor of measuring things according to a biased standard, i.e. BELIEFS. Skeptics famously come to the proverbial table with their minds already made up. I guess we could call it Randi-ism but somehow that may be misinterpreted.
The difference between a true scientist and a skeptic, in regards to the Meier case, is exemplified by people like David Froning and, yes, Marcel Vogel, among others in comparison to our host here and the other self-described skeptics.
Certainly one has to give a nod to Michael Malin, who was honest enough to state the following:
“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.”
He analyzed Meier’s photographs in 1981. Credentials? Principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera on NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft at Malin Space Science Systems (MSSS), San Diego, CA.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 3, 2012 @ 3:45 pm
The problem with that argument though is that Skepticism is NOT equivalent to a religion, unless you use the broader definition of religious to mean “scrupulously and conscientiously faithful to an idea” But once you bring in the idea of a Church you effectively cast it in the light of “faithful devotion to a deity”. There is no deity of skepticism, there are no symbols, traditions or sacred histories, there are no prophets of revealed truth.
Skeptics “come to the table” with their minds made up only that they require proof before believing a thing. If the proof offered fails to be convincing or to stand up to scrutiny, that is hardly a failure of the skeptic, but of the proof.
Comment by Kurious — September 3, 2012 @ 4:40 pm
Yakaru,
You are unclear on what we represent and claim, i.e. the essence of the case. Meier’s recounting his travels and meetings, while both fascinating and true as far as we are concerned, is not the issue. Accept it or don’t.
What is the focus is his contacts with the Plejaren and his information. To make it easy for the religious adherents of the Church of Skeptology, and others, we back up our claims by providing irrefutable documentation of copyrighted, dated, published (primarily) scientific information that preceded “official discovery” anywhere from 3 months to over 50 years.
We took the time to compile this documentation – which is still being added to as Meier’s information is corroborated, unknowingly of course, by reputable scientists. We took all the work out of it for you, other than actually…reading the information and thinking through it, which for skeptics can be the real deal-breaker. That’s because, like other religiously-oriented types, they don’t like things that contradict or threaten their beliefs. Stuart is the poster boy for that, a rotating honor he shares with Phil Plait, Michael Shermer and the inimitable Stephen Novella, among others. I guess you could add James Randi but, well, he’s not only never backed up his claims against the Meier but actually retracted them.
So, there’s some 22 minutes of the aforementioned documentation in our new film. Watch and challenge it…if you can, or don’t. Many people in several countries are already remarking on the ironclad nature of the documentation…many, MANY more will add to it.
Perhaps we could do another film one day where Stuart and the skeptics give their now famous, “We are NOT looking through THAT telescope!” commentaries, strictly for entertainment value for years to come. Okay, you can submit your video to us through youtube, etc.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 3, 2012 @ 1:16 pm |
The devotion to an idea that has congealed into such a rigid belief system is effectively a religion. After all, you yourself are stating “that they require proof before believing a thing.” When proof stands up, it requires no belief because you then have…knowing. Beliefs are for religious, cultic mindsets, which include skepticism.
Scientists don’t primarily describe themselves as skeptics because the implied criteria includes the presence of evidence that stands up to objective evaluation, scrutiny, testing, etc. Skeptics however say absolutely silly things in order to avoid the scrutiny of that which they have ALREADY concluded “must be” fake, hoaxed, nonsense, etc.
But truth wins out in the end (which can take a heck of a long time). Skeptics such as Stuart, Phil, etc., appear to prioritize promoting themselves as some sort of “experts” and certainly don’t want anything as seemingly bizarre as a nice, little ol’ guy in Switzerland throwing obstacles in their way. Ultimately, this produces sad results for such people, unless of course they can “run out the clock”, i.e. gain their goals of fame, celebrity, etc. before the confirmation of Meier’s authenticity is acknowledged more broadly in well respected circles…which has already begun but proceeds slowly.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 3, 2012 @ 5:09 pm |
I think you are putting too much weight on the word belief. Believing something is not the same are religion, it means accepting that a given thing is true. Some people believe in a thing without evidence, or even in spite of evidence to the contrary – THAT is religion.
I really don’t quite understand what you are trying to say in your second paragraph. Can you give me an example of what you mean?
Comment by Kurious — September 3, 2012 @ 6:14 pm |
Well first of all, do you…believe in gravity or do you know that it’s factually true?
As far as the second paragraph is concerned, one example is that of, gosh darn it, Stuart Robbins who says something to the effect that he won’t look at any of Meier’s voluminous information because he, I guess the word is believes, that Meier retroacted his information on Apophis…for which, of course, Stuart provides zero evidence. And Meier’s track record is to the contrary in every case, plus it makes no sense for him to retrodict anything he disagrees with and, well, so much for Stuart’s “reasons”.
So, to be kind, his proudly professed skepticism shows that he’s unscientific and…silly.
If we didn’t already have over 130 specific, ironclad, verifiably preemptively published, prophetically accurate examples of Meier’s foreknowledge then he may be perfectly within reason to ignore it. But we do, so he isn’t.
We put over 50 of them in the new film and the day any self-professed skeptic actually goes through the 22-minute presentation and is honest enough to acknowledge the obvious truth is the day that they can drop the skeptical appellation and just refer to themselves as scientifically minded.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 3, 2012 @ 8:14 pm
Michael, I do of course accept that the general theory of relativity is correct. It has the weight of scientific consensus as well as close to 100 years of testing and proving behind it. I do not however Believe (capital B) in it. I have no particular investment in it being true and if someone came along with a better solution then assuming that scientific consensus swung in its favor then I would have no hesitation in updating my own view of the world. The evidence would have to be fairly spectacular though.
The problem here seems to be that you are trying to equate belief with Belief.
Now your paragraph two example is, I believe 😉 based on a slight misunderstanding. Stuart’s intent was (if I am reading him right) to say “I’m not looking at other evidence or entering into other conversations about things Billy Meier may have said or done unless it is about Apophis because that’s all this podcast/post is about” which is NOT the same thing as saying “I’m not looking at other evidence or entering into other conversations because I think Billy Meier is a scoundrel” All he’s doing in this context is trying to force the conversation to stay on topic.
That doesn’t necessarily make it impossible for him to be wrong, but you are unfairly ascribing devious motive where none is evident.
Comment by Kurious — September 9, 2012 @ 7:03 pm
P.S. For those who won’t review the film because it costs money, here are a number of free videos that document quite a bit of Meier’s prophetically accurate, corroborated scientific information:
http://futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Scientific_Facts_Corroborated
Comment by Michael Horn — September 5, 2012 @ 11:16 am |
So Yetis have been discovered, their DNA extracted and found to contain “mutations between human beings and ape beings”. Funny – coz I don’t recall reading about that in Nature. Let me guess – they’re part of the conspiracy too, right? That’s why they rejected the paper. This journal might be very interested in some of your articles though — http://www.theonion.com/articles/archaeological-dig-uncovers-ancient-race-of-skelet,1268/
Comment by Yakaru — September 6, 2012 @ 5:39 am |
HI Yakaru, i am responsible for those videos & so i have the obligation to respond. Suppose there was a corroboration scale(with levels 1, 2 & 3) prepared based on the content value & verifiability factor in the CRs. Say 1 on scale contains vauge information, 2 on scale contains some extra relevant information and 3 on scale contains very specific information(like date, topic, person, copyright books..). Now there happens to be somuch information that includes all scale values 1, 2 & 3. I will give the yeti article a level 1, since there were only reports of yeti’s traces & not any official confirmation. The yeti article in the video only suggests that stories regarding Yeti are not just imaginary but have some form of evidence(witnesses & “other”) & so it cannot be entirely striked out. May be someone will come forward and submit some form of credible evidence to these scientists to investigate organic remains that some have claimed belong to the ‘Yeti’ and other ‘lost’ hominid species with latest genetic techniques .
Project to examine ‘Yeti’ DNA
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-yeti-dna.html#jCp
Not every article that appears in those videos is of level 3, some also belong to levels 1 & 2. If you are that much interested, i can offer you several level 3 stuff. Are you ready ?
———————————————————-
To Stuart: Consider this message as a reminder of my earlier 2 questions. Sending just in case if you forget.
Comment by mahigitam — September 6, 2012 @ 8:58 am
Hi Mahigitam,
With the abundance of documentation you provide, in all classes, it’s typical of the religious skeptical believers to…ignore it and try to cherry pick something to attempt escape confronting the inescapable facts.
Let us have compassion though for Stuart, who probably has some big dream of “becoming somebody important someday” instead of just practicing…science. Notice that he takes on the proponents of the silly, pseudo-scientific equivalent of Rohrschach tests but retreats and stumbles in the face of truth, preferring to shoot fish in a barrel rather than sail the stormy seas of real discovery.
Time is on the side of truth and, the more entrenched in denial the skeptics are, the more they become the laughing stock of history.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 6, 2012 @ 10:15 am |
@mahigitam,
I think you need to pass on that information to Michael Horn first. He was under the impression that what is in those videos is “prophetically accurate, corroborated scientific information”. Thanks for clearing it up here that he has misunderstood it, but it would have been less embarrassing for him if you had have made that clear at your end.
I can understand you guys would like yet another shot at providing the “real” verified stuff, but I’m afraid you’ve blown it with me. I’m afraid you’re just playing a silly childish game, and making a complete hash even of that. If you want to be taken seriously, you’d be better off waiting until you have some decent evidence. You and Michael have failed dismally, and I’m afraid, laughably to produce that. You’ve got a hide turning up on a site dedicated to science and requesting an audience for that kind of content-free material.
Comment by Yakaru — September 6, 2012 @ 10:21 am |
I thought the next logical step from you would be to demand level 3 evidence, but it seems like every other person who are also treading the same escapist path. Cherry picking only those things that have weak evidence and avoid at all costs which is strong. It is like wanting to have a boxing match with an infant and avoiding a match with equals or higher. I am not getting any laughs but extremely disappointed to look at how people shy away when confronted with strong evidence.
Comment by mahigitam — September 6, 2012 @ 9:56 pm |
Again, you should have told Michael Horn that there is only “weak evidence” for having extracted and analyzed yeti DNA. I’m also curious as to what the weak evidence exactly is. Is it for its similarity to humans, or is it weak that it definitely having come from a yeti. I wonder what kind of lab equipment you used to isolate and read it. Which base pairs were similar to humans,, which were different? I’m certainly curious.
And you don’t seem to realize that there’s no problem with presenting ideas and speculations for which the evidence is weak, as long as it’s clearly labeled weak/speculative. Presenting it as “scientifically corroborated” will get you into trouble, or, as in this case, into an embarrassing back down.
In any case I find it interesting that you are fully aware that you deliberately make claims for which the evidence is, as you put it, is as weak as sending a baby into a boxing ring. Boy, that’s a telling admission. I trust you will alter your website accordingly.
I’m a bit surprised that you are admitting all this so openly. I wonder how Michael Horn feels about the way you’ve hung him out to dry here. Are you really sure you want to continue this conversation?
Comment by Yakaru — September 7, 2012 @ 1:52 am
I don.t think MH ever talked about the ‘yeti’ article. I guess he was broadly pointing out the web page , where there are videos and articles. The website is independently maintained by James, who stays in UK. That website has nothing to do with FIGU Or MH.Your right , the title of the page should be ‘ Scientific and other facts corroborated’ besides being only ‘scientific facts corroborated’. I will ask the admin of that page to make necessary corrections. Those videos were originally from YouTube and they don’t have the tag ‘scientific facts corroborated’ but just ‘corroborations’. So it must be the mistake of the website admin. Now coming to the boxing match, do want to box with a baby or an adult? If you have guts enough to box with an adult, let’s get on with it and let us stop picking out bits and pieces of info which is irrelevant to the main topic.
Comment by mahigitam — September 7, 2012 @ 3:27 am |
Total newbie to this topic, so apologies for the bloopers that will surely follow …
Michael Horn (MH) and mahigitam: you two come across (to me at least) as incredibly aggressive. Are you aware of that? Is it deliberate? I’ve a suggestion: if you’d like to have newbies (like me) devote time and effort to this topic, try to write evenly, more dispassionately.
MH: mahigitam directly addressed the one, very clear and specific, comment by Dr Robbins (“show me where my analysis of this very specific claim you make about his prophecy is incorrect or …”), but you did not. May I ask why (not)?
mahigitam: I don’t know how long the futureofmankind.co.uk website has been up, nor how long you’ve been involved with it (might be nice to know though), but I was quite astonished to read that only a few days ago did you (apparently) think it important to attempt to rate the corroborations (your levels 1, 2, and 3)! Of course, if you’ve been approaching this from a perspective other than that of science, it wouldn’t matter. But if so, you wouldn’t be posting here, would you? I mean, there’s a worldview underlying science, and trying to communicate here without at least attempting to re-phrase your own points within it is surely a recipe for miscommunication (or worse), isn’t it?
Tara Jordan: did I read somewhere – in comments on another of Dr Robbins’ blogs – that you’re an anthropologist? If so, I’d be curious to know if ‘selection bias’ and ‘confirmation bias’ are (potentially) serious issues in anthropology; are they? I’m not sure how serious they are in Dr Robbins’ field (planetary science), but in astronomy in general they are … think of the fact that the most common kind of main sequence star (M dwarfs) does not exist, if you select for stars by their visibility to the naked eye here on Earth.
Comment by Nereid — September 7, 2012 @ 9:32 am |
Hi Nereid,
Please pardon any impression of aggressiveness and you may want to research into the ongoing conversation. Sturat Robbins has effectively labeled Mr. Meier as a hoaxer and liar…without presenting a shred of evidence. I personally find that despicable, lacking in character and integrity.
Stuart has also maintained a position that if one thing doesn’t meet his approval then everything is not worthy of examination.
Please also understand that the documentation in this case is enormously rich and easily verifiably by anyone seriously interested in taking the time to review it.
With the help of Mahigitam, who along with me has been assembling corroborative information for Meier’s prophetically accurate scientifici information, we now have an IRONCLAD presentation, lasting about 22 minutes. It’s in the new film and it’s up to anyone who really wants to know to look at it. Hopefully, you aren’t of the “I don’t want to pay for it” syndrome that is a convenient excuse for skeptics and other religious believers.
Engaging on blogs like this mainly serves to document what will be – in retrospect – textbook examples of pseudo-scientific, skeptical nonsense. Time and again we’ve also referred people to the documentation showing the scientific experts who authenticated Meier’s physical evidence, all of whom were far more credential than Robbins. Bottom line, self-proclaimed skeptics deal with the mountains of Meier’s evidence as if they were the equivalent of no evidence. And folks like Stuart spend their time trying to get notches on their belt by vigorously confronting nonsensical New Age, paranormal and conspiratorial fantasies…mistakenly thinking that the Meier case just MUST be in the same, minor leagues.
Truly, if you’re interested in the subject, delve into the voluminous amount of FREE information and even watch the first documentary for free at http://www.theyfly.com. My own time is focused on the DVD release of our new film next week. So decide for yourself if you are interested but do so by actively engaging with the documentation, etc.
We’ve once again helped Stuart to show some significant readership on his blog, as occurs with the Meier topic every time. Bigger things await and that’s where I’ll be focusing my time. BUT if you have any sincere questions you can email me through my site.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 7, 2012 @ 12:57 pm
Thank you for the swift response, Michael.
Between the time I wrote my (first) post and now I’ve been doing just what you suggested (how’s that for telepathy! 😉 ). Of course, I’ve only just begun, but I must say that I find your generalisation rather too broad.
However, the heart of your comment is, to me, a great disappointment. You wrote “Please also understand that the documentation in this case is enormously rich and easily verifiably by anyone seriously interested in taking the time to review it. With the help of Mahigitam, who along with me has been assembling corroborative information for Meier’s prophetically accurate scientifici information, we now have an IRONCLAD presentation, lasting about 22 minutes. …”
Did you write this with a deliberate sense of irony? I mean, “enormously rich”, “prophetically accurate scientifici information”, “an IRONCLAD presentation”, yet it lasts “about 22 minutes”?!? I checked the futureofmankind.co.uk link you (or was it mahigitam?) provided, and quickly concluded that even the most straight-forward ‘corroboration’ would require of the order of 22 *hours* of presentation, just to scratch the surface (much less be worthy of being called “IRONCLAD”; I’ll expand on this later, if you’re interested).
But perhaps even more disappointing is the fact that you seem to think a film could constitute primary evidence, in regards to science (you did understand what I wrote, in my earlier comment, didn’t you? If not, I’d be more than happy to elaborate: “… there’s a worldview underlying science, and trying to communicate here without at least attempting to re-phrase your own points within it is surely a recipe for miscommunication (or worse), isn’t it?” Of course, I may have misunderstood you; if so, my apologies, and please clarify). Michael, did you google “Nereid”? Did you find the Cosmoquest forum (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/forum.php)? Did you discover the thousands of posts I’ve written in that forum (yes, I’m the same Nereid), specifically the great many in the section called “Against The Mainstream”? Of course I don’t know if you did (or not), but if you do I think you’ll find that I have – there and elsewhere – explained in great detail what sorts of things count as evidence (at least in regard to the science of astronomy).
Thanks for the offer to send you questions by email. With respect, I’ll decline the offer.
Instead, I’ll simply repeat one of the questions I asked you directly in my last comment: May I ask why you did not directly address the one, very clear and specific, comment by Dr Robbins (“show me where my analysis of this very specific claim you make about his prophecy is incorrect or …”), even though mahigitam did? I read your comment – several times, carefully – but did not see that you answered this question …
Comment by Nereid — September 7, 2012 @ 2:12 pm |
To be brief and to the point. If we present documentation with specific scientific information, in veriafiably published, dated, copyrighted books and texts, that is subsequently corroborated – often using the same precise terms, descriptions, etc. – showing that Meier indeed published the information anywhere from a few months to 50+ YEARS before “official discovery”, do you consider that evidence?
Comment by Michael Horn — September 7, 2012 @ 3:58 pm |
Thanks again Michael, for your prompt response.
To be equally brief and to the point, I cannot possibly answer that question, as phrased, in any meaningful way.
I’ve been reading the material on the website you (it seems it was, indeed, you, not mahigitam) provided (though mahigitam seems to agree with you that it’s pretty key), and have found only a few “corroborations” that are, even broadly, within the scope of the science of astronomy, which is the only part of science I feel even somewhat confident to comment on (with respect to “evidence”). So, I feel I have an insufficient basis to make any science-based assessments of any evidence concerning any corroborations beyond those (there’s a caveat: in a word, logical consistency).
Which is nice segue back to the question in my first comment (which you did not, once again, it seems, answer): May I ask why you did not directly address the one, very clear and specific, comment by Dr Robbins (“show me where my analysis of this very specific claim you make about his prophecy is incorrect or …”), even though mahigitam did?
As far as I can tell, this is one of those (few) corroborations which *is* within the scope of the science of astronomy.
By the way, did you know that the link, on that page you provided, called “Will Humanity Wake Up…In Time? – A collection of 130+ scientific & other facts corroborated later by Earth sciences” is dead (“There is currently no text in this page.”)?
Comment by Nereid — September 7, 2012 @ 6:25 pm
Regarding my question, I guess I’ll just provide the rhetorical answer. If I claim that a specific predicition was made at a certain time, and the specific predicted event/discvory occurred subsequent to the verifiably published information I referred to, and it’s a matter of a legal decision, i.e. proving the veracity of the claim, I prevail. However one wants to word it, it’s fairly obvious. Of course in Meier’s case we now have, I think at last count, over 130 of such occurrences. Mahigitam may be keeping a better count.
As far as the question that you ask, my answer is, “Billy Meier published information about an object called the Red Meteor, in 1981, and subsequent to the discovery of asteroid Apophis he said that this was the same object. Time will tell if it is and if his information is correct. While this is an event yet to occur, or not, it is not in the same category of those events that history has shown Meier to have accurately predicted. As I recall, Stuart Robbins said that Meier retrodicted his information, yet provided no actual evidence for his claim, effectively defaming Meier. Based on Meier’s proven track, and a number of other elements, I personally have no reason whatsoever to think that he retrodicted the information. I already pointed out how foolish one would be to retrodict information with which he had fundamental disagreements.”
Now of course I could go on and on but I do hope that you understand my position on that.
As far as corroborations that will meet the most stringent criteria, i.e. verifiably previously/preemptively published information, we have 22 minutes of it in the film. BTW, while I got the ball rolling with the corroborations, Mahigitam contributed hugely to it, for which I am quite grateful.
Now you certainly have no obligation to watch the presentation but if you’re a truthseeker you may wish to.
My website was probably redone since the original link was there, thanks for pointing it out. The info is now at:
http://theyfly.com/corroboration-evidence
BTW, please don’t get too stuck on the “how science works” thing…Meier’s physical evidence was reviewed by credentialed scientists like these (http://theyfly.com/scientific-experts-comments-meiers-evidence). Froning shared the stage with me at one of my presentations and made some of his comments there. Also, in – real not just theoretical life – there are a number of elements that come into play when evaluating things, including preponderance of evidence, logic, established credibility (or lack thereof) etc., as well as the all important…common sense.
I have my own personal evidence of the reality of the case, which I rarely discuss since it may be viewed as anecdotal. But my take on the matter, after more than 33 years of investigation, research, questioning, interviewing, etc., is that the case – and the man – are authentic.
I’d be more curious to know how you would conclude, if you have, that they are not…absent any real due diligence.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 7, 2012 @ 6:53 pm
Follow on, with an example.
From the website you linked to, Michael, there is this text (I cannot reproduce the formatting):
“29th Contact, July 7, 1975 and 31st Contact, July 17, 1975: Specific information about Venus, unknown at the time, including: composition of atmospheric gases, surface temperatures, depth of clouds, wind speeds, atmospheric pressure, coloration, variation in terrain, etc.
Corroborated: By probes from both US (August 1976) and USSR (October 1975)
Corroborated: February 1981, USGS was producing a topographical map of Venus which, it was discovered by the investigative team, further confirmed the details Meier had published…5 years earlier”
Now the words “29th Contact” and “31st Contact” are links (and there are no other links in this block of text). However, both links are dead (“(page does not exist)”).
Of course, I do not know what you consider to be “specific scientific information”, but I’d be pretty surprised to learn that you consider this text (and this text alone), to be just such (this is just one example): “Specific information about Venus, unknown at the time, including: composition of atmospheric gases, surface temperatures, depth of clouds, wind speeds, atmospheric pressure, coloration, variation in terrain, etc.”
For the next part (“in veriafiably published, dated, copyrighted books and texts”), if the links are dead, I’m sure you’d agree that they can’t possibly be “veriafiable” (did you mean to write “verifiable”?), wouldn’t you?
(not much point in continuing, is there?)
Comment by Nereid — September 7, 2012 @ 6:38 pm
Don’t mean to seem nit-picky here Michael, but your response was not rhetorical at all …
Sorry to be the English nerd amongst all the science-y types, but sometimes I just can’t help myself 🙂
Comment by Kurious — September 9, 2012 @ 9:43 pm
Hi,
I google Nereid but I’m not sure I found you. Are the horse Nereid on FB, or the sea nymph one, etc.? I’m not a member of the Cosmoquest forum and couldn’t check your info out there.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 8, 2012 @ 10:52 am |
Now that you know – from my last comment – what my interests are, you should have no difficulty finding material by Nereid, in PhysicsForums, and Starship Asterisk* (in addition to the CosmoQuest forum). You may also discover posts (and comments) by Nereid, on astronomy-related topics, elsewhere. While being a member of the CosmoQuest forum certainly helps, Google is more than capable of finding a great deal of material in that forum, written by Nereid (I know, I just checked).
Comment by Nereid — September 8, 2012 @ 1:24 pm
mahigitam, Thanks for acknowledging some of the errors you made.
So the yeti DNA story is just “corroborated”, not “scientific facts corroborated”, and falls into level 1. Fine. I’ll throw you a soft ball. We can just keep it at level 1 for now.
What’s been “corroborated”? How much of the yeti’s DNA have you read so far, and what made you prepared to speculate that it may have similarities to human and ape DNA?
Comment by Yakaru — September 7, 2012 @ 2:14 pm |
Are you referring to this page: http://theyfly.com/prophecies-predictions/contact-predictions-corroborated
Let me know. When I’m back later I’ll check and I can certainly even send you scans of the books for some of the info i refer to, including copyright pages, etc. Probably better to email them to you than to try attach them here, which I don’t think works.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 7, 2012 @ 6:59 pm |
There’s no point at all in sending me scans of books. You should send your yeti DNA to a proper laboratory. Better still, send a sample to several laboratories and ask them to determine what it is. If you get back three responses that say “dog”, or some such, then it’s clear what’s happened. If you get even one “unknown humanoid” response, then 99% of your PR work has been already been accomplished.
And by the way, this move will only be possible if you really have extracted DNA from some creature. And it won’t work if the sample has been “lost” or stolen by aliens, or “only seen briefly by Billy Meier, but he remembers it really clearly”.
Comment by Yakaru — September 8, 2012 @ 1:26 am |
Pardon, that post about the scans was directed at Nereid.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 8, 2012 @ 7:30 am
Belated response, sorry (I didn’t realise that you’d addressed this to me, Michael).
The best way to find the webpage I took the text from is to use Google Advanced Search, limiting the domain to futureofmankind.co.uk. I’m a little surprised that you don’t know of it; the page says, prominently at the top, “By Michael Horn”.
Comment by Nereid — September 8, 2012 @ 1:36 pm |
First, thanks for pointing out where I may have dead links, etc. I am in the midst of many things and will have to make time to deal with that. The site you refer to isn’t mine and I’ve recently updated my site.
Now, you indicate that you’re “surprised” but could surprise reflect some preconceptions, beliefs, etc.? Not to worry, I do think that you’re sincere in trying to investigate this. But it does fall into that “real life” category I alluded to before. So I think it’s safe to say that you’ll have some other surprises…unlikely as you may think that to be at this point.
I do want to also say that there have been some occasions where we thought that something that Meier published was a first publication…because WE couldn’t find anything predating it at the time we were doing our research. Of course my funny bone common sense tells me that Meier certainly would have had a far harder time since he didn’t have the internet, nor did he subscribe to scientific journals, etc. – as two separate, lenghty, on-site investigations revealed.
In the real world, things like that actually figure into the equation when one is trying to determine if there is some kind falsification, hoax or retrodicting, etc. It’s no small point at all. If a couple of guys in 2012 (or a few years earlier) don’t come across the info in an onine search, they may wonder both how and why a man – who never points to the material as evidence himself, nor seeks profit, fame, etc. from it – manages to have such an abundance of information. And yes, I’ll say such an abundance of prophetically accurate information, as well as some that may not have predated a discovery, access to which is, as we ourselves have seen, unlikely if not impossible when the circumstances are taken into account.
Over the years I’ve had the opportunity not to only to speak with scientists but also to investigators, lawyers, police, etc. These are the kinds of people that have to put the pieces together, as I’m sure you know, when they investigate something. The old thing about motive, time, opportunity, etc. holds true…in the real world.
If Mahigitam wants to comment on what is and isn’t included maybe he could do so while I am tending to some other things. BTW, as far as typos are concerned, wow, I’ll have to go over that stuff, thanks.
However, I do want to say that I appreciate your no-nonsense approach to science. And of course real life can be a bit messy at times…a statement that you needn’t take the time to respond to, true as it happens to be. Certainly when I say that Meier was informed about the coming WTC attack, in 1987, it would seem to be a preposterous statement. But a little logic and common sense, when applied to examining the document in which it appears, will reveal the likelihood that he certainly did. But you’re understandably more interested in astronomy.
I didn’t mean to confound you with the term “truth seeker”. It may be that you are in a rarified environment where certain phrases that float about, and are generally understood to be self-defining, don’t surface. In this case the “word” truthseeker (perhaps more accurately truth seeker) kinda means someone who…seeks the truth. Would that be a term that you would check the yes box on if it was a yes/no choice?
In your caring “not one jot…except, etc.” do I detect a bit of presumption that such things as I mention, including common sense, are routinely not part of the sciences?
Regarding the neutrinos issue, I would go back to simply saying that, for whatever reason, we didn]’t find the info you refer to, which I have no doubt exists since you know about it. But again, I would ponder why, if Meier somehow knew about, why he would plagiarize it – knowing certainly that scientists would obviously be aware of it. Of course Meier himself didn’t claim to have published it before anyone else. That would be our error…but considering the circumstances, an understandable one, for which we make no excuses of course.
Regarding the broken/missing linksissue and the Mars material, in the film we posted the actual articles that we are referring to that we found online. So it should be easier to grasp what we were considering corroborative information. As I recall, pertaining to Mars, Meier was told that there was (look out, here it comes) more water on Mars than assumed by earthly science – as opposed to, well, Venusian science, no? – and that the environment was hositle to life despite the fact that small faunic and floric life forms would be discovered. These three discoveries occurred within months of each other, as I recall, and were verifiably published by Meier in 1976. Why is a supposed Swiss farmer even writing about such things? Ah, a question that won’t concern you but it does concern me and other people who are investigation oriented, or tend to have a Columbo-like curiosity (remember him from the old TV days?).
Also, do you want me to send you scans on the Venus information…so you have a comprehensive understanding of how this information is presented? Oh yeah, have you heard of soething that would fit the description of “closed space bulges” as mentioned here:
http://www.theyfly.com/Space_Curvatures.htm
…or have we shared with you foreknowledge of something else that science will discover in the future? It does seem logical to me that an opposite phenomenon to black hooles would exist and maybe science calls them something else.
Are you the Nereid on FB with the horse picture, or some kind of a sea nymph moonlighting perhaps in the study of celestial objects? If you want to provide a link to where your info is it would be a bit easier to peruse it.
BTW, my name’s Michael Horn…what’s yours?
Comment by Michael Horn — September 8, 2012 @ 7:16 pm
The comment sequence (a.k.a. thread) will now be a bit disrupted; this comment is in response to “Comment by Michael Horn — September 7, 2012 @ 6:53 pm”.
MH wrote: “Of course in Meier’s case we now have, I think at last count, over 130 of such occurrences.”
As far as I can tell, this is consistent with what’s on the webpage “Will Humanity Wake Up…In Time?”. You can get to this page from the link in MH’s comment with the timestamp “September 5, 2012 @ 11:16 am”. It is also the page which I was referring to in my last (but one) comment; I do not understand why I got the “There is currently no text in this page.” message earlier.
So, Michael, do each and every of the >130 corroborations on that page correspond to “a specific predicition was made at a certain time, and the specific predicted event/discvory occurred subsequent to the verifiably published information”?
Number 6 in that list might serve as a test, to see if I have correctly understood you. The title is “Corroboration 6 – Discoveries on Mars”. I find it hard to understand the material here; for example, there seems to be not one “specific predicted event/discvory” (did you mean to write “discovery”, MH?), but at least two. However, the “corroboration” refers to just one “specific predicted event/discvory”.
And what is that? “the fact that Mars has much more water than earthly science had assumed until now”.
And what is the subsequent occurrence, the corroboration? Three items are given, a link entitled “UFO Skeptics Throw in the Towel – How Did Meier Beat NASA by 32 Years?”, another entitled “Evidence Found for Ancient Mars Lake”, and three sentences in quotes, under a date (JUNE 18, 2009).
The first link is not a primary source, though it may contain links to primary sources (I haven’t checked yet); the second link is broken (“Sorry, the page you requested either doesn’t exist or isn’t available right now!”), and the source of the third is not given.
But I think there’s a serious shortcoming with the prediction, in terms of the framework this website works within. What is that shortcoming? Neither the prediction nor the corroboration seems to be science-based (with the caveat that the first link may, in fact, contain links to primary sources).
Start with the prediction. It contains “than earthly science had assumed until now”. But what is “earthly science”? And where, in the “corroboration”, is there any primary source material on what earthly science “had assumed”, before 1976?
Then there’s this “Mars has much more water”. I infer – and it’s nothing more than that – from what MH wrote (in his last comment) that the only kind of subsequent event/discovery which would NOT count as “proving the veracity of the claim” would be a discovery that Mars has *less* water (“than earthly science had assumed” prior to 1976). Logically, there are only three definitive subsequent discoveries possible, “more water”, “the same amount of water”, and “less water”; in terms of the science of astronomy – which is quantitative – “much more water” and “more water” are the same (in the absence of anything else, e.g. from the context), and the middle possibility is meaningless.
There’s more, of course, but I’ll stop here. Michael, can you at least appreciate why the “corroboration” of this particular “specific predicted discovery” is not valid (at least in so far as the evidence presented – in the link you provided – is concerned, with one caveat), when examined within the worldview of the science of astronomy.
Thanks for your answer to my question (and to that of Dr Robbins). I’ll address the rest of your comment later.
Comment by Nereid — September 8, 2012 @ 8:47 am |
Continuing, as promised.
Re Apophis etc: I see that this is at least one of the “corroborations”, and that – as Dr Robbins says in the blog entry – there’s an older podcast on it. I shall review these and comment later.
Among the > 130 corroborations, there are, by my count, ~20 concerning solar system objects (other than the Earth) – 6, 18, 29, 30, 31, 46, 47, 48, 53, 55, 70, 83, 85, 86, 89, 90, and 92 – and another ~10 concerning objects or phenomena beyond the solar system (50, 66, 72, 76, 84, 101, 102, 103, 116, 123, and 134); the former include the “Discoveries on Mars” and Apophis etc. This is just from a quick skim, so I may have misclassified some, and missed others.
Which of these ~30 corroborations are covered in the 22 minute film?
Michael, it seems you have not really understood some of what I’ve written; I am not, here in the comments section of this blog entry, a “truthseeker” (whatever that is). But perhaps the fault for failure to communicate is mine, so let me try again.
The title of the blog is “Exposing PseudoAstronomy”, and the logo is the words “Bad Science” in a (clipped) red circle, with a red line through the centre. My approach is, consistent with the theme of this site, science-based. And my scope is astronomy, also consistent with the stated aims of the site. Where I differ from Dr Robbins is that he focuses on planetary geophysics, which is – today – almost entirely about a subset of solar system objects (i.e. the ones with solid surfaces), and my main interests in astronomy are stars, galaxies, AGNs, CDM, and cosmology.
Why does this matter? Because, to take just one example, I will not only get “stuck on the “how science works” thing”, it will be the central focus of my investigations. I care not one jot – here – for the “elements that come into play when evaluating things, including preponderance of evidence, logic, established credibility (or lack thereof) etc., as well as the all important…common sense”, *except* where they are part of the science of astronomy.
It is important – to me at least – that you and I (and mahigitam and Dr Robbins and …) are clear about this. What happens if we aren’t? The least worst consequence would likely be a waste of an awful lot of time, because we will be ‘talking past each other’.
To conclude this comment, corroboration 78 caught my eye, even though it isn’t, strictly speaking, about astronomy. Like the earlier one I looked at, this too is – to me – quite confusing. For example, there is more than one “specific predicted event/discvory”. The key text is as follows: “there are actually several types of neutrinos, whereby these can transform into one another. Their mass is, indeed, minutely small; nevertheless, they actually have a mass.” The corroboration is a link, to a Physics World article.
One of the things I find odd about this “specific predicted discovery” is that it post-dates the publication of many particle physics papers on neutrino oscillation (of various kinds), going back to 1957 (and possibly earlier). The existence of “several types of neutrinos” was likewise known well before 1988 (the date of “Contact Report 224”), and the subject of many published papers. In that sense, the veracity of at least one of the specific, predicted discoveries is null.
Another is this: the “corroboration” is not a primary source, nor does it contain a link to any such source. Since the publications of the Super-Kamiokande group are in the public domain – http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/sk/pub/index.html – why is a link to one of their 1998 papers not given?
Finally, even though this is not astronomy (and so I may have misunderstood things), it seems to me that the actual discovery (or discoveries, as there are many more than just those of the Super-Kamiokande group) is at least somewhat inconsistent with the “specific predicted discovery” (“Their [neutinos] mass is, indeed, minutely small; nevertheless, they actually have a mass”), in that not all neutrinos have mass (as far as is known, today).
Comment by Nereid — September 8, 2012 @ 1:15 pm |
Yikes,not only did my reply end up in a different time-space configuration but, sure enough, there are some typos, so you needn’t ask if I meant what I meant as opposed to what I…typed.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 8, 2012 @ 7:20 pm
A response to “Comment by Michael Horn — September 8, 2012 @ 7:16 pm”
You’re welcome, Michael.
You wrote: “I do want to also say that there have been some occasions where we thought that something that Meier published was a first publication…because WE couldn’t find anything predating it at the time we were doing our research.” And “I’ll say such an abundance of prophetically accurate information, as well as some that may not have predated a discovery, access to which is, as we ourselves have seen, unlikely if not impossible when the circumstances are taken into account.”
Thanks for the clarifications.
In an earlier comment (September 7, 2012 @ 6:53 pm) you presented your criteria for assessing evidence and reaching conclusions concerning veracity of prediction (“If I claim that a specific predicition was made at a certain time, and the specific predicted event/discvory occurred subsequent to the verifiably published information I referred to, and it’s a matter of a legal decision, i.e. proving the veracity of the claim, I prevail. However one wants to word it, it’s fairly obvious.”) In a different comment (September 6, 2012 @ 8:58 am), mahigitam referred to levels of evidence.
There are many ways someone like me can approach this (given that my scope is limited to astronomy; see my earlier comments for more details). One is to describe criteria I myself would use (and I will be going that, later). Another is to use the criteria you and mahigitam use.
For the latter, as I do not have access to your thoughts, I have to rely upon what you write.
So far, I’ve looked at just two of the >130 “occurances” that you claim meet your criteria (“Of course in Meier’s case we now have, I think at last count, over 130 of such occurrences”), and have (provisionally) determined that there are ~30 that fall within the scope of astronomy (“Corroboration 78”, the one on neutrinos, is in a grey area; while most of the material predating what’s stated as being in “Contact Report 224” is in particle physics journals, some is in astronomy and astrophysics ones; and the “corroboration” concerns observations of the Sun). What I found – provisionally – seems inconsistent with what you wrote; specifically, your claims are not true. Interestingly, the reasons why they are (or seem to be) not true vary. For example, both “predictions” contain not one “specific predicted event/discvory” but at least two; the “corroborations” presented aren’t; and none of the “predictions” seem to be “specific” (in terms of the science of astronomy).
For avoidance of doubt, “not true” and “false” are not synonyms (in logic there is a fallacy known as “false dichotomy”).
You asked “do I detect a bit of presumption that such things as I mention, including common sense, are routinely not part of the sciences?” Sorry that I failed to communicate effectively; let me try again: whether these things are, or are not, routinely part of the science of astronomy (as I have said, repeatedly, it’s astronomy only that I’m focussed on) is irrelevant to me. My point is that I will be approaching this topic from a perspective that is, in your words, “stuck on the “how science works” thing” (with the caveat that the branch of “science” I will focus on is astronomy).
I trust that that clarifies things for you; if not, please feel free to ask for more.
“Regarding the neutrinos issue, I would go back to simply saying that, for whatever reason, we didn]’t find the info you refer to, …” Thanks for that. Will you now be removing “Corroboration 78”?
That’ll do for now (more later), except for a question: which of the ~30 “corroborations” which concern astronomy are presented in the 22 minute film?
Why was I surprised? I thought I’d explained, but perhaps not clearly enough. So let me try again. On September 5, 2012 @ 11:16 am, you posted a link. I followed that link and quickly found a page, in that site, entitled “Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt”. Immediately under the title it says “by Michael Horn”. Yet, on September 7, 2012 @ 6:59 pm, you asked if I was referring to a quite different webpage (and website). It seemed, at the time, strange that you’d a) refer me to a website containing a page (supposedly) written by you, then b) seem to be unaware of that fact. Hence my surprise.
Nereid
Comment by Nereid — September 9, 2012 @ 5:50 am |
As promised, continuing …
Regarding “Corroboration 6 – Discoveries on Mars”. Michael, you wrote “in the film we posted the actual articles that we are referring to that we found online. ” First, I have no intention of watching that film, solely for the purpose of trying to determine what “actual articles” you have “posted”. Can you please state what these “actual articles” are, in sufficient detail so that I may be able to undertake an independent effort to find them?
I am particularly keen to do this, because – among other things – I have now finished reviewing the material in the sole live link (click on the link entitled “UFO Skeptics Throw in the Towel – How Did Meier Beat NASA by 32 Years?”). There is no primary source material there; in fact, the only material (concerning Mars) which is not part of your own website (theyfly.com) is a dead link.
Michael, you also wrote “As I recall, pertaining to Mars, Meier was told that there was (look out, here it comes) more water on Mars than assumed by earthly science – as opposed to, well, Venusian science, no?” No, your recollection is faulty. There is no reference to Venus, or “Venusian science”, in “Corroboration 6 – Discoveries on Mars”. And your summary is also inaccurate.
But why didn’t you go check? Re-read the material that you yourself (apparently) wrote?
Anyway, it seems that this particular test (“Number 6 in that list might serve as a test, to see if I have correctly understood you” – Nereid — September 8, 2012 @ 8:47 am) was quite illuminating. By your own stated criteria (“If I claim that a specific predicition was made at a certain time, and the specific predicted event/discvory occurred subsequent to the verifiably published information I referred to, and it’s a matter of a legal decision, i.e. proving the veracity of the claim”), this particular claim is not true.
That’s two out of two (with some caveats); ~30 to go.
Concerning “the Venus information”: that’s “Corroboration 47”, right? Or is it “Corroboration 102”? In either case, no, please don’t send me any such material; at least not yet. While both 47 and 102 are among the ~30, I had not planned to look at either yet.
Concerning ““closed space bulges”, “Space_Curvatures”, and “an opposite phenomenon to black hooles”: none of these terms appear in any of the >130 “Corroborations”, so I have no interest in any such material; at least not yet.
As I prepared this comment offline, yesterday, I did not know you had written several others in the meantime Michael. So it may be that some of what’s in this has been addressed, in one way or another, by those other comments you wrote.
Comment by Nereid — September 10, 2012 @ 7:46 am |
Hi Neried,
Thanks for your reply. First, it’s clear that I will have to go back over the documentation to fix links, etc. where they are not working. This will take a bit of time for me but eventually get straightened out. The reason for that is that I am actually inundated with work related to the film, its new release on DVD, promotion, moving my office, etc. At some point these activities will not demand as much of my time and I can attend to the dreaded task of figuring out my own website.
In no particular order, the comment about Venusian science was tongue in check.
I appreciate your interest and your due diligence but, like you, I have a lot on my plate. That isn’t to say that I don’t stand behind my work and claims, unless they are shown to be inaccurate, i.e. my errors. As I said, I will freely admit to making mistakes when I have done so, as for Meier’s accuracy, I stand behind that completely. So far you haven’t – in any way – discredited it, which is at the heart of the matter, certainly for the skeptics…and it certainly should be for all real scientists, most skeptics being pseudo-scientists.
BTW, I certainly don’t claim to be a scientist and what i love about the Meier case is that one doesn’t have to be in order to “figure it out”, to put the pieces together using logic, objectivity, testing, etc.
As far as your watching the film goes, I suggest it. My time’s at least as valuable as yours and, since we’ve made a clear presentation of all of the claims there, that work is done. It will take people far less time to watch and critique it than it took us to prepare it…or for me to go over it again here.
Before I forget, please, what’s your real name? I’m old school and I like that little touch of authenticity and, in today’s world…courage. You can email it to me privately of course and I will simply continue any online dialogue using your screen name.
BTW, I’m certainly not opposed to the “how science works” thing. After all, when the dust settles and the majority of our claims about Meier’s preemptive publication of previously unknown scientific information is shown to indeed be ironclad (absent any of OUR errors) the conversation will be a bit less focused on our errors and more on the actual essential claim, i.e. that Billy Meier has had contact with, and received “prophetically accurate” information from, extraterrestrial human beings.
Now I know how easy it is to have a field day with that statement – at this point. But let’s revisit it later, perhaps after you see the film.
As I’m certain you have ascertained by now, some very “real” scientists have already taken Meier’s evidence quite seriously, as well as authenticated it. So I’m considering our dialogue at this point, as I said, to be more about how well I’ve presented and/or clarified and corroborated the claims that I make. This is no small matter and I do view your critique of my efforts as a positive contribution, since doing an accurate, competent job is very important to me.
As far as limiting your focus to the astronomical information, it’s somewhat understandable but a bit…unscientific in my opinion. Since my essential claim, just stated above, (and what is attacked by the skeptics, as well as reasonably doubted by those with no familiarity with the evidence) is that Meier is an authentic contacteee – which would of course make this the most important story in human history – I do my best to substantiate that claim by presenting any and all material that corroborates it.
Just so we don’t get terminally lost in mental gymnastics and miss the awards ceremony, it doesn’t take many, otherwise inexplicable, ironclad examples of verifiably previously published, specific pieces of information to nail this one down. Of course I’m effectively predicting that all the (well deserved) nit-picking about my link issues, etc., will ultimately fade in importance (you will get credit for being the one to get me to clean them up though) and enough arrows will have been seen to have landed in the bulls-eye, moving the real focus where it belongs.
All of that (unscientific as it may be) having been said, and since you’re most interested in the astronomical information, I suggest that you take me up on providing you with the scans I offered…and perhaps others pertaining to astronomical information only corroborated long after Meier published it. Should that do the trick of “proving” the case, then our banter here may go in another direction, giveving me a bit more time to deal with the link issues.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 10, 2012 @ 9:25 am
Nereid,
I’m not a credentialed scientist, heck, I’m just a very creative, inquisitive person. So let’s take an inquisitive look at what we seem to have here, at this point.
You’ve said that Meier published some information that was already known – to a small number of a particular, specialized grouping of people, most of whom probably don’t live on farmland in remote rural regions – so you’re not contesting its accuracy, perhaps more our claims that he was the first person to do so.
So far his honesty* isn’t in question, perhaps mainly our research.
But of course, as I already pointed out, some things have been hard to find even in online searches. This raises the questions as to how – and why – Meier published it. (You may not be interested in the why of the matter but it’s one of those pesky elements that investigative thinkers ruminate about when they are trying to get to the heart of the matter.) We have zero evidence that Meier had access to certain theoretical and/or academic papers, in English of course, or that he had any reason to be looking for such, let alone to plagiarize the information and weave it into lengthy narratives and then to draw no attention to it, often for decades. We take into account the known circumstances and resources verifiably available to him at these times.
You mentioned both that you’re mainly interested in the astronomical information and you’ve spoken about how science works. You emphasized how you didn’t give a jot about certain things that I broadly stated that I took into account and valued in my research. And of course you pressed me on my response, or perceived lack of it, to Sturart. So perhaps I should expand my little lesson to/for you.
*Stuart effectively called Meier a hoaxer, liar, retrodicter, etc. without presenting any evidence at, just his own…conclusions based on what, “science”? I and others have claimed and presented evidence that Meier not only didn’t lie about anything but that he has a huge body of what we often call prophetically accurate information, a term that I use fully aware of what kind of a note it often strikes in the “scientific mind”. Of course it simply means that Meier published specific, accurate information before it was “officially discovered” and/or occurred.
Now having made that claim, I’m not limiting it to astronomy, physics, genetics, etc., I’m including all of the…sciences in which he has published information. As already acknowledged, and so far not been challenged by you if I understand it correctly, some of the information for which we have made these claims wasn’t first published by him. Of course you may discover, or be pointed to, clear evidence of astronomical information that has both been proven to be accurate and first published by Meier.
But since you have entered a discussion that really focused on the man’s honesty, character, etc., I’m afraid that I’ll have to put some things in evidence that you’ll have to accommodate, as well as examine and question, if you’re really consistent in your principles as a…scientist.
Now before I point to some things that may stretch your focus beyond your chosen field of interest, allow me to mention a couple of the items that we do include in the film’s documentation that pertain to astronomy, in one way or another. Again, let me state that we have done our best to seek out any previously published information showing that Meier DIDN’T publish it first. And if we missed something then the error is ours, not Meier’s.
Contact Report 59: In 1976, Semjase told Meier that a several kilometers in diameter planetoid exploded into two parts and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, penetrating the Earth’s crust at the bottom of the sea. Scientists offically discovered what they termed the Fried Egg and its companion crater in 2009, 33 years later.
Contact Report 29: In 1975, Semjase told Meier that Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation of Venus and that it began rotating in the opposite direction. In 2010, a French scientist calculated that Earth was indeed having such an effect…some 35 years after Meier verifiably published the information. (Of course we’re willing to publish this as it will only be a matter of time before it’s confirmed as factual…as Meier first published it. Unless of course WE made a mistake by not finding earlier information. So far all my online searches reveal no such prior publication by our scientists.)
And now a few non-astronomically related examples:
Contact Report 118: In 1978, Meier learned from Quetzal that a missing airplane from Ecuador had crashed into Mt. Chimborazo at around 6,000 meters, which was confirmed in 2003, 25 years later.
Contact Report 69: In 1976, Semjase explained to Meier that the red hats of the Easter Island statues were produced in a small volcano crater, from which they then were moved. Archeologists discovered that exact volcano crater in 2009, 33 years later.
Contact Report 172: In 1982, Quetzal told Meier that Italian banker Roberto Calvi didn’t commit suicide but that he was strangled and that Meier was to remain silent about it for 20 years…which is exactly when it was publicly announced.
Contact Report 222: In 1988, Meier’s spoke about fine dust particles, which he called aerosols,as being necessary for rain drops to form. In 2006, scientists confirmed both the process and the term aerosol, 18 years later.
And of course Meier was the first person that I could find who pointed out “unnatural climate change” and “climbing global warming”…as far back as 1951 and 1958.
Now I don’t want to spoil the fun for you when we put you through 22 minutes of such documentation, which I’m now certain that you will want to examine. After all, as previously mentioned, the claims coming from Stuart are that Meier is a dishonest person. Stuart obviously can’t say that his information about what we now know is Apophis is wrong, only that he…BELIEVES it to be wrong because he…BELIEVES NASA. Not the most…scientific of positions, wouldn’t you say?
And, since I’m certain that you now will now actually review the abundant information that easily confirms Meier as the most prolific source of specific, prophetically accurate scientific information in human history, you will – logically – conclude that Meier’s warning about Apohphis deserves the utmost consideration and immediate action by earth scientists. And current and future generations of human beings will thank you and all the others for doing so…even if you had to swallow your pride in order to get on with the business at hand.
(Please excuse and feel free to point out any typos; typing is a second language for me.)
Comment by Michael Horn — September 9, 2012 @ 8:02 am |
Michael, we seem to have a communication problem.
A pretty fundamental one.
Let me illustrate it, with something you wrote in your last comment (“Comment by Michael Horn — September 9, 2012 @ 8:02 am”): “You’ve said that Meier published some information that was already known …”.
The communication problem is this (in this case): I did not say that! (“that Meier published some information that was already known “).
In fact, I did not once use the word “Meier” (except where I was quoting something someone *else* wrote)! I actually spent ~ten minutes checking everything I’ve written here, just to be sure.
May I ask you how you came to that (quite erroneous) conclusion?
I feel it is quite important to resolve this.
Now.
Several times, in several different comments, on several different days, I have explained my approach so far.
It starts with the “over 130 of such occurrences” (your words, not mine), found on a webpage that you provided (though you have yet to unambiguously confirm the veracity of that webpage, even though your name appears on it at least four times; and mahigitam has not posted here since I started posting, I think).
My approach then involves, for each of the subset of ~30 (of the >130) that seem to be within my stated scope:
a) determining what – exactly – the “specific predicition” is
b) checking the source of the stated “specific predicition”
c) checking the nature of “the specific predicted event/discvory”
d) checking the nature of the “corroboration” (which may be plural) presented for this “specific predicted event/discvory”
e) reaching a provisional conclusion as to the veracity of your claim(s)
f) asking you for clarification, confirmation, or elaboration.
May I ask, what part – if any – of this approach do you (still) not understand?
Comment by Nereid — September 10, 2012 @ 8:31 am |
Horn has to be the funniest BS artist in all of Ufology, a very dubious title indeed. Someone once called him the Pat Robertson of UFO’s, I thought that was pretty funny and accurate. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see Billy for exactly what he is, a liar. Period. From his fake photos of alien ray guns, to his fake photos of the aliens themselves that were proven to be from a variety show that he said were tampered with by the men in black (rofl) only after they were proven to be frauds, to his pictures of dinosaurs that he took from a children’s book, on and on and on. The man is a total and utter BS artist. Michael talks about all of his so called predictions that have been proven to have been public knowledge at the time he made them, and his fake UFO pictures that have been proven to be little models. Here’s a good question he’ll dodge, what happened to all the original Meier negatives there Mikey? Why won’t he submit his original negatives for analysis instead of 5th gen reprints? How about Jeff Ritzman who made photos that were 10x better than Meiers using (big shock) small models? Horn will say he wouldn’t submit his photos for analysis but this is untrue, he said he’d submit his original negatives just as soon as Meier did the same, and he never has…. Weird. Meier and Horn are two pees in a pod, one claims he’s in contact with aliens the other claims he invented fingernail art. ROFLROFLROFLROFL!
Comment by Muadib — September 9, 2012 @ 11:30 am |
How can I possibly respond to such a feel thought out, heavily documented painstakingly researched challenge…by yet another incompetent monkey brain?
Ho hum.
Well, let him take up up with Jim:
S y n o p s i s
Disclaimer: The views presented are not those of Veritas Radio or Mel Fabregas.
This presentation was recorded on January 14, 2012 in Tucson Arizona. Jim Dilettoso was one of the original members of the team of American investigators who researched the “Billy” Eduard Albert Meier case. Jim shares his research with the audience and his conclusions regarding this case, as well as the 1997 Phoenix Lights case.
From Jim Dilettoso: Talk about mixed messages. I first heard of Billy Meier in 1977, when I was 28 years old. Lt. Col. Wendelle Stevens (USAF Ret.) and Jim Lorenzen, founder and director of APRO (Aerial Phenomena Research Organization), visited me to discuss testing UFO pictures taken by a Swiss man named Billy Meier. I had been in the music business both as a performer and producer, and my day job at that time was producing rock and roll tours for Alice Cooper and other big acts. Because of my job, I knew about the latest digital tools in both audio and digital image processing. I had an inclination of how to approach the project.
The UFO photos were the first I had ever seen. They amazed me. To this day, even, they’re some of the most amazing photos of UFOs I’ve ever seen. The whole story of Billy Meier was, to me, something really important, a matter that needed to be approached with utmost diligence and care. A woman from the constellation Pleiades actually had posed with her spacecraft so that Billy Meier could take pictures of her. If we just told the world about it, I thought, the world would become a totally different place. Looking back, I was totally naive.
Billy Meier lives in Switzerland, a politically neutral, democratic, panoramic, and beautiful country. This Swiss countryside was a great backdrop for the 500-plus photographs Billy Meier had taken. What a picturesque place it was for a date with a beautiful space woman, whose sports car could travel at the speed of light. Even better, she had taken Meier for a ride in one of the Pleiadians’ four types of spacecraft, traveled in time, and retrieved samples of their metals. At the time I couldn’t help but think, “Yeah! Switzerland is where it’s at!”
In the U.S., things were a little different. Trying to locate equipment and experts in image processing, to assist in testing UFO pictures, was a little frustrating. In 1978, computers were mainframes and workstations. State-of-the-art image-processing equipment had 64K of Ram and a 5MB hard drive — and the cost was $100,000. Desktop scanners cost $50,000 and up. Even worse, most of the equipment we needed resided in labs owned by or was contracted by the U.S. government and defense agencies. Wendelle Stevens and I made the rounds of trade shows (like the Society of Photo-optical Instrumentation Engineers), NASA labs, Americas finest companies (like IBM and Northrup), and organizations such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Navy. It was like “Mission Impossible.” Penetrating labs like Sandia and the Jet Propulion Laboratory required special credentials, and sometimes even a masquerade in order to get people to assist us.
Some said the case was a hoax, but lab results differed. We persevered, though, and eventually had found many professionals, who under secrecy and non-disclosure agreements tested these UFO pictures. The secrecy was critical. These labs were not generally authorized to perform personal projects, like testing UFO pictures. So when other UFO researchers, hell bent on getting into the case, made inquiries into some of the places we had been, they would, as agreed, deny any involvement on their part in testing the Billy Meier UFO photographs. Although not one lab found the pictures to be a hoax, UFO clubs like APRO and the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) were claiming that it was a hoax, and debunker Kal Korff the natural champion.
The curiosity for me was why people claiming the Billy Meier story was a hoax would display so much passion. We discovered lies and deception from debunkers — conspiracy and deception that would continue to the present day. And like all the major cases, there was a major effort to discredit everyone from Meier and his family to the investigators on the case — including me, the guy behind the investigation.
Even though we found no evidence of a hoax, I still can see how the whole story sounds a little fishy. After hearing telepathic whispering, Meier, a one-armed farmer, rides his moped out into the woods to rendezvous with Semjase, a 400-year-old Pleiadian sage. The Pleiades form the “seven sisters” constellation venerated by the Greeks, Mohammed, the ancient Egyptians (whose Temple of Hathor is oriented toward the constellation), and the Japanese (who call that constellation Subaru). The Dogon tribe of Africa, the Lakota-Sioux, and the Ojibiwa each have had contact with people from that constellation. But not a simple farmer.
Billy Meier claimed to have over 100 face-to-face contacts with Semjase. In time, these contacts would continue.
Soon, I would be testing metal samples, and would be purchasing my own image-processing computer. There was even talk of some Pleiades books and a documentary film. I had to juggle work on UFO research with a busy schedule of rock and roll tour promotion.
Getting down to business. We decided to go somewhere to perform testing—somewhere like NASA-JPL. I would do the research, get some names, call Wendelle Stevens, talk about it in our own code, and go.
From the front gate onward, we faced little obstruction. We had credentials and access materials that literally gave us the run of the place. Although every building was available to us, we always met our confederate in the cafeteria or the ERC (employee recreation center). We took the photos in their picture form, and showed them to our contact over a hot dog or chipped beef, then proceeded to the confines of a NORAD looking room, where the latest in image-processing equipment could be found. We just had at it — the image-processing experts sat with us in a secure facility at the Deep Space Network, looking at pictures of UFOs. Things seemed too convenient, indeed.
We actually thought we were getting away with something, as we were granted free access of this place, using expensive equipment, and getting opinions from leading folks in the space program. As time went on, though, I increasingly suspected that someone knew our every move and was opening doors, if not outright sanctioning the caper. Test results were always “positive” — no evidence of a hoax. But the situation was a lot deeper than that. These people were as amazed as we were at the quality of the pictures. This led to many ancillary discussions about the other evidence, the metal samples, the landing tracks and most importantly, the actual contacts. It seemed to us that we were actually giving briefings at a very high level.
And nobody could talk about it, let alone videotape it.
I had an idea. The Voyager Spacecraft fly-by of Jupiter was coming up. We were working on the world tour of legendary rock band The Moody Blues. We’d propose, I thought, to call the tour — and album — Voyager, get photos and video from JPL during the fly-by, and use them in the tour. NASA loved it, and so did the Moodies. At the same time, Junichi (Jim) Yaoi from Nippon TV hired us to acquire images from JPL and get them to Japan. Cameras were the key: We had a second reason to be on site. Soon, we’d be heading to every lab with a video camera. Not only were we given full-access press passes, we were given one off the press suites in Von Karman — the media-relations center at NASA. National Geographic and Ted Koppel had to walk through our suite to get to their desks.
Eventually, we got all of the video we needed. But we still couldn’t talk about our experiences.
When Stevens and Welch showed up with a box of rocks, things really started to get strange. First things first: Do an inventory. In an aircraft hangar at the Scottsdale, Arizona airport, we carefully placed each specimen on a black dropcloth that was the size of a basketball court; the rock specimens covered the entire dropcloth. The chart of potential scientists to conduct the tests was almost as large. In the end, we selected Marcel Vogel of IBM. Not only had he developed colored TV phosphors and magnetic emulsion for floppy disks, he had been working in paranormal research with astronaut Edgar Mitchell and his Institute of Noetic Sciences. This was the right guy: He was credible, open-minded, and best of all, he had an incredibly advanced lab with the latest in scanning electron microscopes.
Vogel was skeptical at first. But I had convinced him at least to take a look at what we had on our hands. He was as amazed about the findings as we could have ever imagined: Atomic elements 1 through 59 all were present in the same substance; organic materials were cold fused and micromachined. Vogel couldn t imagine how it could be made. Although he had agreed to absolute secrecy, we discovered he had shared the findings with Richard Haines of NASA-Ames and Dr. James Hurtak (Keys of Enoch). We had a box weighing more than 30 pounds filled with these. The metal samples are the single most compelling evidence in the case. It wouldn t be long, however, before some of the samples started to disappear.
Word spread quickly. Like the photolabs experience, nobody could talk about it. Nobody could talk about the fact that compelling evidence was available. Here is the stuff that these flying machines are made of in order to travel through time and space. What a breakthrough for physics and the whole of the aerospace community. Not only was here the atomic soup, but Billy Meier explaining how the materials are made, and how the ship flies. Unfortunately when it did leak out it was blasted as a scam. And no one listened.
Security was tight. Lee Elders and Tom Welch were ordained to keep the evidence intact, and keep the researchers quiet. My job was to find the labs, deliver the evidence, and take the debriefings. An invisible college was beginning to form. The scientists who we were visiting with the evidence were ravenous for more stuff. The UFO clubs were also ravenous that it was a hoax. Security was holding ground. No matter what the debunkers said, there would be no information released to them. This was far too important for amateurs.
All would be revealed they said. In a book. This made sense: Security was going to control the leak of information by publishing a book.
Lee Elders’s book UFO Contact From The Pleiades came out in 1979. All hell broke loose. Everyone from Shirley Maclaine to Alan Klein (the Beatles’ partner in ABKCO) wanted in on the scene. Pleiades was about to become a household word. We had meetings in the executive board room at Universal Studios with the all of the executive firepower that Universal had. There were Pleiadian books and music tapes galore. The Pleiadians were in. Barbara Marchiniak would now channel the Pleiadians. And MUFON was pissed, because we didn’t involve them in any of this.
But after all was said and done, the objective of the testing was getting lost in the shuffle. Was the goal to have evidence in hand to “prove the existence” of extraterrestrials? I thought that the purpose was to validate the case so that the face to face contact could be studied. Wasn’t the most important thing what the Pleiadians had to say? Where were they from? How did they think? What did they say?
Semjase had met Billy Meier face to face more than 135 times. She had brought other ETs with her—Ptaah, Asket, and Quetzel. They all looked human. They had been coming to Earth for a long time. They gave Billy Meier amazing information about everything from science to philosophy. They were concerned about us — humans — their little brothers. We were, and still are, destroying ourselves and our planet. Nuclear-weapons proliferation, famine, disease, and pointless religions that miss the goals of spiritual evolution were the key topics of their message.
The messages ring true for me. There is something invigorating about the words of a woman from outerspace. You feel that the words are for you — for you to do something about the human condition. The more robust the attacks from the debunkers became, the more relevant the Pleiadian message became. The books came out; a movie was made; the Pleiadians were upon the world.
B i o
Jim Dilettoso has over 100 projects and decades of experience in CAD engineering and communications installation. He was one of the early pioneers in Computer Aided Design systems with experience in systems design and application engineering. He was a founder of the Arizona State University Computer Institute and served as it’s CAD and AI Director from 1984 to 1989. While in that post he also served as the NASA Industrial Application Center Technology Director. Jim currently hosts news segments on Discovery Channel, Fox Network, MTV and A&E from his Village Labs, a 21st century lab that investigates all things new under the Sun.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 9, 2012 @ 3:45 pm |
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/jim_dilettoso.htm
Hmmm, endorsed fraudulent footage as real…. weird. Wonder what else he got wrong? Oh yeah, probably anything having to do with the authenticity of Billy Meier. Let’s see who else is on the site:
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/michael_horn.htm
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/billy_meier.htm
Interesting.
Comment by Muadib — September 9, 2012 @ 7:38 pm |
What’s “interesting” is that, with the apparent exception of Nereid, most of the critics know nothing, have done no real study, research or investigation and take the word of numb nuts as fact.
I won’t bother to substantiate that I am indeed the creator fingernail art, a fad that has now lasted some 45 years since I first made it, nor that I am also one of the first people to do online digital book publishing, in 1995, original company name…eBooks, subsequently NetBooks. Easy enough to verify but they are hardly the point.
Do some homework and know that a growing number of people are already way ahead of you in such verification, with many, many more to follow.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 9, 2012 @ 8:05 pm |
Let’s see, who am I going to believe when it comes down to it, the guy who has nothing to sell or gain, and simply wants to expose the frauds in a field full of frauds, or the guy who wants to sell me books, DvDs, and a lifetime membership to the cult of the one armed farmer where I can tithe 10% of my income to a fraudulent Swedish hillbilly former mental patient who claims to be Jesus Christ reincarnated? Wow, that’s a hard one.
As far as fingernail art goes, of course you aren’t going to substantiate it, because you can’t. You’re a fraud, through and through. Even in a field full of fringe lunatics, you’re not respected or regarded as anything more than the semi retarded attack dog of an old hoax artist. Pat Robertson of UFO’s indeed.
Comment by Muadib — September 10, 2012 @ 4:43 am
To Kurious,
On that there rhetorical thang, I may its corrected, or stand collected, etc.
As far as the point about Stuart “staying on topic”, what’s the real topic? In my opinion, often stated, when someone disparages and defames someone without a shred of actual evidence it’s certainly not staying on topic.
But far beyond that, I don’t regard the Meier material, or my 33 years of research into it, as simply fodder for online discourse and armchair experts to play mind games with. Obviously I spend the greater majority of my time directly involved in pursuing many avenues of dissemination of the information.
Because the “online/electronic generation” (and that doesn’t necessarily have any specific age limitations) often mistakenly equates their easy access to expressing their “opinions” with commensurate levels of significance there is a huge muddying of the pathways of communication. (Hey, it’s late here but perhaps you get my drift.)
Since I recognize that I’m not really able to fully express my thoughts about the heart of the matter as clearly as I would like, I all simply quote from Meier’s 1958 letter (http://theyfly.com/1958-warning-all-governments-europe-prophecies-and-predictions):
“127.) And in the Third Millennium the time comes when big parts of the continents disappear and the people will have to flee to the mountains, yet their sense of the catastrophes will only be of short duration, because they will forget everything again quickly and therefore make an effort to do much rebuilding, because they are already creating phantasmagoria, through movies and television, as well as later through a worldwide netting of computers and electronics, through which they deceive themselves and see things that do not exist, and are only visually determined for the eye, subsequently their sense for reality disappears and they can no longer distinguish between reality and fiction, whereby they lose themselves more and more in the labyrinth of life, while those who produce phantasms commercially as well as religious and sectarian phantasms, have an easy game with the people of faith, who they deceive in every possible manner and make them into humble beings, like cringing dogs.”
Unfortunately, people trivialize many things of great importance and lend too much credibility and importance to insignificant things, which often includes vastly overestimating both their own intelligence and importance.
Anyway, stay Kurious…
Comment by Michael Horn — September 9, 2012 @ 10:53 pm |
Wow, this self-correcting stuff sure plays havoc with a poor typist like me. Should be more like:
On that there rhetorical thang, I may sit corrected, or stand collected, etc.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 9, 2012 @ 10:54 pm |
ROFL, now you invented the Ebook and online publishing? In 1995? You’re joking right? You must be because while the original inventor of the ebook is not widely agreed upon, what is widely agreed upon is that they were invented long before 1995. Seriously I’ve never met someone so delusional. Many people widely credit this man with inventing the ebook in 1971! Guess what, he’s not you.
Michael Hart, the man credited with inventing the eBook, died last week in Urbana, Illinois at the age of 64. In 1971, Hart, an undergraduate at the University of Illinois, was given time on a mainframe computer. He used part of it to type in the Declaration of Independence, and posted a notice letting users (“all 100 of them”) of the new Internet know what he had done.
This was the beginning of Project Gutenberg, an effort to digitize literature in the public domain. It grew slowly at first, but today the volunteer-run project comprises 36,000 free ebooks, in 60 different languages and a range of formats. A friend remembers Hart as a man who “sacrificed personal luxury to fight for literacy, and for preservation of public domain rights and resources, towards the greater good.”
You can read more about the invention of the ebook on Wikipedia, where they don’t mention Michael Horn or Netbooks at all, because he had absolutely nothing to do with inventing the Ebook or online publishing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-book
Comment by Muadib — September 10, 2012 @ 5:04 am |
“Nereid:
Michael Horn (MH) and mahigitam: you two come across (to me at least) as incredibly aggressive. Are you aware of that? Is it deliberate? I’ve a suggestion: if you’d like to have newbies (like me) devote time and effort to this topic, try to write evenly, more dispassionately.”
I don’t think my previous posts were any agressive except the last post which was meant as a response to a member whose responses were interpreted by me mocking & making silly comments. I am more than happy, for any person to come forward and pick any errors, mistakes, typos..etc in my research or the work done on Meier case because it will improve the quality of the evidence leaving behind unsubstantiated claims, conjectures,..etc.
“Nereid:
mahigitam: I don’t know how long the futureofmankind.co.uk website has been up, nor how long you’ve been involved with it (might be nice to know though), but I was quite astonished to read that only a few days ago did you (apparently) think it important to attempt to rate the corroborations (your levels 1, 2, and 3)! Of course, if you’ve been approaching this from a perspective other than that of science, it wouldn’t matter. But if so, you wouldn’t be posting here, would you? I mean, there’s a worldview underlying science, and trying to communicate here without at least attempting to re-phrase your own points within it is surely a recipe for miscommunication (or worse), isn’t it?”
I dont know howlong that website has been up but my videos & work has been posted on that website very recently in the last few weeks. Regarding the corroboration scale, earlier there was no discussion on research on corroborating things in Meier CRs(contact reports) on any online forums and the only that were discussed, most of them were never promoted as any kind of corroborations. Only recently, when i brought up this corroboration articles, was it made necessary to use the scale to filter weak evidence from strong evidence. So that we can have a fruitful discussion. Otherwise there are several people who like to avoid, escape, distract, attack,..other people for asking difficult questions. I am first not here to discuss any of the issues regarding the meier case except the apophis. As the time went on, the discussion turned away from apophis to meier case in general. So i was only responding to some members post & was not here to present the case in a scientific manner which i would love to though on any online forum dedicated to the concerned topic.
Re: Corroboration 6 – Discoveries on Mars
The actual corroboration was about the definitive proof that came out in 2008 about the existence of water ice on mars. The amount of water present on Mars has been growing since 1970’s. Howmuch water did scientists predict on Mars in 1976 or before can be looked at through google<news<archives. The predicted amount was very less at that time & the amount has been growing ever since 1976. For example,
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zSURAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zukDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7067,2894812&dq=mars+more+water&hl=en
As for me personally, since the information is not specific with specific details, i would not put it on scale 3.
Re: Neutrinoes having mass
Instead of posting several links, i will post this one link which says that the earlier claims of neutrinoes having mass were based on shaky foundations and it was only in 1998 was it considered by most scientists to be convincing evidence that neutrinoes have mass.
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jgl/nuosc_story.html#The%20Claim
"Yakaru:..What’s been “corroborated”? How much of the yeti’s DNA have you read so far, and what made you prepared to speculate that it may have similarities to human and ape DNA?"
The corroboration that i had in my mind was to show that people still have sightings of "mythical" creature-Yeti which Meier says exists. That is all. It has nothing to do with the Yeti's DNA & its similarities with humans or apes. I don't think there ever was any genuine DNA found and examined that caused scientists to speculate that it may belong to Yeti or similar hominids yet.
Comment by mahigitam — September 10, 2012 @ 5:44 am |
Good to see you back, mahigitam, and thanks for responding .
On “the corroboration scale”: may I ask when you expect to have reviewed and scored each of the ~30 astronomy-related ones?
“The actual corroboration was about the definitive proof that came out in 2008 about the existence of water ice on mars.” Thanks for that. Why, if this is the case, are no primary sources cited?
” The amount of water present on Mars has been growing since 1970′s. ” I think you mis-spoke; would you care to re-phrase this (so I can be sure of what you actually mean)?
“The predicted amount was very less at that time & the amount has been growing ever since 1976.” That may, or may not, be so. However, it is surely irrelevant, isn’t it? I mean, the “specific prediction” is (according to Michael Horn) “the fact that Mars has much more water than *earthly science had assumed* until now” (you see the difference, don’t you? “assumed” is not the same as “predicted”).
A newspaper article is not a primary source. At least not in astronomy-as-a-science (there are some limited exceptions). The usual primary sources are papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals; some conference proceedings and some textbooks may also be primary sources.
In relation to this “specific prediction”, it seems – to me – that any “corroboration” must be a primary (scientific) source … after all, the specific prediction refers explicitly to “earthly science” (even if that term is, in context, quite ambiguous).
May I ask what criteria you are (or will be) using to score corroborations, as either “1”, “2”, or “3” (and are they “level”? or “scale”? you use both words)?
Thanks for your comments on “Corroborations 78”. You imply that the “specific prediction” is “Their mass is, indeed, minutely small; nevertheless, they actually have a mass.” rather than “there are actually several types of neutrinos”, or “these can transform into one another”, or anything else.
Have I understood you correctly?
I wonder if Michael Horn concurs.
In any case, once again, you did not cite a primary source (though in this case I’m not as certain, partly because this is not, strictly speaking, astronomy). But more important is the fact that you have cited no primary source that meets Michael’s explicit criterion. You see, the “specific prediction” seems pretty clear, *all* neutrinos have (non-zero) mass, yet you did not corroborate this with a source. In fact, the source you did cite leaves this question open (“Oscillations depend upon a least one neutrino having mass.”)
Comment by Nereid — September 10, 2012 @ 11:36 am |
An initial investigation of “Corroboration 66”
As with the two “corroborations” I’ve looked at so far, I am quite confused as to what the “specific predicition” is. From the bolding of certain words, it might be “there actually is such a “black wanderer” or “wandering black hole” in the realm of your galaxy.” If so, it is quite unclear – to me – what “a “black wanderer” or “wandering black hole”” might be, much less how one would go about determining if a particular black hole was one of this kind (the preceeding text is – to me – so vague and ambiguous as to be essentially meaningless; it’s certainly close to meaninless as astronomy).
The “CORROBORATED” section adds to my confusion.
The first item (of two) is a live link (“Massive Black Holes Dwell in Most Galaxies, According to Hubble Census”), and one could, at a stretch, follow that to a primary source (more later). What’s odd (well, one odd thing; there are many more) is that this pertains to a quite different (apparent) “specific predicition” (“There are, indeed, black holes in every galaxy”).
The second item is also a live link (“Rogue Black Holes May Roam the Milky Way”), and it contains a link to the primary source (“Star Clusters Around Recoiled Black Holes in the Milky Way Halo”, an arXiv preprint, http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4262). One odd thing about this (again, there are many more) is that the primary source does not report *observations* of the existence of any such “rogue black holes”, but the results of some simulations which suggest that such objects might exist (and some pointers to how they might be observed).
So, can you please clarify Michael?
In any case, the source of the prediction(s) is given as “Contact Report 223, Sunday, May 1, 1988” (and the text contains these words “30th of May, 1987”). By now I was pretty much expecting what I’d find when I did a literature search (though, in this case, I am much more familiar with the topic area than water on Mars or neutrino oscillations), and I wasn’t disappointed.
My quick search turned up > 2,000 hits, in astronomy (and related) journals, for just papers with “black hole” in their titles … predating 1987. A quick skim of a random selection shows that the idea that most (large, non-dwarf, not irregular) galaxies host a supermassive black hole in their nuclei was well established in the astronomy community at least a decade before 1987.
On “wandering black hole[s]”: perhaps this 1973 (!) paper may be of interest to readers: “Gravitational-Radiation Recoil and Runaway Black Holes” (by Jacob D. Bekenstein, Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 183, pp. 657-664 (1973)). According to ADS, it’s been cited 112 times, from 1974 right through to 2012. It has 15 references (so they all pre-date the 1973 publication), at least one of which seems to concern “wandering black holes”.
Of course, I may well have misunderstood what Michael means by the “specific prediction” here, likewise the “corroboration”; however, at this stage it looks like this too is not true.
Comment by Nereid — September 10, 2012 @ 9:16 am |
Hi Nereid,
Just a quick one since I’m running out for a few hours and since you do take the time to post your detailed comments.
In putting our information togetehr we used published reports that say things like “scientists discovered” “confirmed the existence of”, etc. So we are relying on what is published on reputable sites announcing “new” scientific discoveries. And, as I mentioned before, while you may have knowledge of/access to papers published within the scientific community some time ago, obviously these not only didn’t come up in our own research but, more importantly, they simply weren’t available to Meier.
Again, so far there doesn’t appear to be anything proving him wrong and we are going by published info from reputable sources. The bottom line still remains as I posted above.
Also, please, while I’m out, address the requests I made…and my offer to providde you with the scans.
Thanks.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 10, 2012 @ 9:55 am |
Michael, my last comment (which is below, the sequencing of comments here being what it is) addresses most of this last, short comment of yours.
I will not repeat myself.
Two things, however, do require a response.
“In putting our information togetehr [sic] we used published reports that say things like “scientists discovered” “confirmed the existence of”, etc. So we are relying on what is published on reputable sites announcing “new” scientific discoveries.”
Are you being tongue in cheek again Michael?
Given what you have written about what you feel is the potential importance of the “specific predictions”, you deliberately chose to use only secondary sources?!?
Knock me down with a feather.
“… while you may have knowledge of/access to papers published within the scientific community some time ago, obviously these not only didn’t come up in our own research …”
Did I read, somewhere in the material you advised me to check out, that you’ve been doing this for over 30 years Michael? And in all that time you didn’t actually *read* any primary sources (at least, not any that have to do with astronomy)?
One part I’m having an especially hard time accepting. It has to do with what I found when checking out Corroboration 66 (“Comment by Nereid — September 10, 2012 @ 9:16 am”). Here’s part of what I wrote: “The second item is also a live link (“Rogue Black Holes May Roam the Milky Way”), and it contains a link to the primary source (“Star Clusters Around Recoiled Black Holes in the Milky Way Halo”, an arXiv preprint, http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4262).”
So, not to put too fine a point on it Michael, obviously, papers published within the scientific community DID come up in your own research.
But maybe I am missing something important, or have misunderstood; can you clarify please?
Comment by Nereid — September 10, 2012 @ 1:05 pm
Response to “Michael Horn — September 10, 2012 @ 9:25 am”
Michael, please tell me what I have to do to communicate successfully with you?
In this last comment of yours you clearly have misunderstood several key things that I’ve been at pains to point out to you, many times now.
One last time: YOU are here, engaging in a discussion with me (Meier is not). YOU made statements about “specific predictions” and their “corroboration” (not Meier). YOU stated YOUR OWN criteria for determing the veracity of “specific predictions” (Meier did not). If YOU want to interpret the results of my investigations (as written) into YOUR claims, using YOUR criteria, as having any relevance to Meier (or anyone else, except perhaps mahigitam), that has nothing whatsoever to do with me.
Are we clear on this? If not, what part do you not understand? What part do you not accept?
Concerning this: “All of that (unscientific as it may be) having been said, and since you’re most interested in the astronomical information, I suggest that you take me up on providing you with the scans I offered…and perhaps others pertaining to astronomical information only corroborated long after Meier published it.” I also thought I’d made it clear that I have no interest in any such material, at least not yet. Perhaps one point is not yet as clear as it could be, so let me, please, elaborate.
The criteria you stated, for determining the veracity of claims, include the words “verifiably published information”. While the books whose scans you have offered to send me may be verifiably published information, it is not necessarily straight-forward for anyone to check that. And if you send it just to me, no one can check it, period.
By posting here, in the comments section of a blog entry, anything and everything can be checked, by anyone reading it. Specifically, no one need take my word for what I say is published under your name … they can simply repeat what I did, and verify it for themselves.
Independently.
Likewise, if I say – in a comment here – that your claim concerning a “specific prediction” and its “Corroboration” is not true, anyone reading my comment can repeat my work, and confirm it for themselves.
Independently.
Comment by Nereid — September 10, 2012 @ 12:51 pm |
Back for a second or too, so I’ll answer this:
“Michael, please tell me what I have to do to communicate successfully with you?”
Start by telling me who you are, your name…unless of course you’re embarrassed, afraid of an inevitable encounter with irrefutable proof, etc. After all, in those journals and documents you refer to, don’t the authors have to present the…truth about who they are, in its most basic form, i.e. their real name?
And please spare me the arguments about that. Y
ou gave me an idea here about how I can present what you refuse to look at.
A little time is all that’s required. Oh yeah, if you’re harboring any indigent thoughts, such as, “Don’t you know who I am?” I’d advise that you check your driver’s license or ask someone to help you out. Lastly, be sure to check if you’re engaging in a 10-round bout, or perhaps a slightly longer one.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 10, 2012 @ 4:18 pm |
Hi Nereid,
Hang in there my friend, it will all iron out. In other words, the essence of the matter, did Billy Meier meet with extraterrestrial human beings will be established sooner or later, one way or the other. If so, did they show/tell him certain specific things that turned out to be “prophetically accurate” and did they tell him certain specific things not WIDELY known or EASILY available at the time. Yes, I add this consideration since, as I think Mahigitam is pointing out, it isn’t Meier who’s claiming prophetic accuracy – of certain things – but we who’ve done the best we could at the time in our research.
Perhaps as a scientist, a presumption on my part that I’m willing to make for now, you “knew where to look” or had access, etc. Certainly Meier didn’t, which raises many more questions, most of which aren’t of interest to you…but which in a comprehensive, investigative sense can be critical to establishing the authenticity of the case, which, need I remind you again, is the core of the matter.
Now, as I mentioned before, I’m running in and out quite a bit. So do be a good chap/chapette/bunch of chaps and kindly provide me with the now repeatedly requested information about…you. In this game, the rule book is apparently a little different than you understand it to be. So, while I am thankful for bringing non-functioning links to my attention – which has caused me to realize the there are better ways to preserve and present the information and that the new film is now the best way to make sure that such is available to all who are interested – let’s move into a phase of the discussion wherein we determine the essential question, i.e. what irrefutable evidence is there that Billy Meier has been contacted by extraterrestrials, a not insignificant point as I mentioned before. And one that actually could be especially useful and Important to…you.
Should the case be authentic, and since you apparently aren’t saying that Meier published incorrect information, the vast body of translated and untranslated scientific information could prove to be a treasure trove for you. Now that may not be your focus at the moment but establishing the authenticity of the case is mine. And, since you have said that you want me to point out, provide certain pieces of information that are already contained in the film, let me suggest that had you published a lengthy research paper and entered into discussion with someone who wanted you to take the time to submit each item to you separately, well, since you too probably have other things to do, you’d point them in the direction of your paper…as I point you in the direction of our film.
And, since you don’t have any trouble remembering what’s important to you, let me again remind you that the items that are important to me are, to put it tenderly, past due.
Thanks.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 10, 2012 @ 1:30 pm |
Michael, my comment below was created offline, without knowledge of yours (above).
Here, then, is a quick response to the latter.
“If so, did they show/tell him certain specific things that turned out to be “prophetically accurate” and did they tell him certain specific things not WIDELY known or EASILY available at the time.”
Since, as far as I know, no one other than Meier has met, or even seen, any of “them”, what “they” may – or may not – have shown/told him is impossible to determine.
Independently.
Objectively.
As to the “not WIDELY known or EASILY available at the time”: can it be established what Meier (or you, or me, or Mahigitam or Dr Robbins, or …) knew, at *any* time?
Independently.
Objectively.
Can “certain specific things” be determined to have been “not WIDELY known or EASILY available” at *any* particular time?
Independently.
Objectively.
I don’t know the answers to any of these questions; do you?
Comment by Nereid — September 10, 2012 @ 3:16 pm |
Earlier I said “One is to describe criteria I myself would use (and I will be going that, later).”
Now is a good time to introduce some key elements of those criteria.
One is “independently verifiable”. No surprise about that, I’m sure, for any diligent reader. It means, simply, that a person – not the author (or, preferably, anyone with direct contact with the author) – can verify the claim/statement/derivation/conclusion/whatever, for themselves, by themselves, independently.
Another is “objective”. This can be quite tricky, in general, but in most of astronomy it is quite straight-forward. Why? Because, for one, astonomy is (almost entirely) quantitative.
But perhaps the most important criterion relates to the ability to *do* something, to go beyond the bald prediction/claim/whatever (and do to so objectively, and in an independently verifiable manner, of course). This is also, very often, the hardest criterion to appreciate in the abstract, so it’s best to apply this to concrete cases.
I’ll illustrate these criteria with regard to “Corroboration 134”, in a later comment. To ‘telegraph my punch’, so to speak, this too turns out to be (provisionally) ‘not true’. And it’s ‘not true’ using both MH’s stated criteria (so making the score ‘4 not true, 0 true’, so far) and my own (I’ll also say something about how the other three “corroborations” I’ve looked at fare, when examined by my criteria, if I have time).
Comment by Nereid — September 10, 2012 @ 2:21 pm |
As I mentioned before, I’m in the process of moving my office, so it will take me a little time However, I will prepare something for all to see so that the foundational claim of Meier meeting with extraterrestrials (who some people have also seen, in addition to the more than 100 witnesses to their ships – including me) and their providing him with prophetically accurate scientific information, as well as specific, accurate scientific information for which no reasonable could conclude that he head access to.
In the meantime, perhaps you will begin to honor my now frequent requests that you operate/communicate openly using your real identity, etc. It really is the grown up thing to do.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 11, 2012 @ 1:20 pm |
Good work Nereid. I have been trying to get in touch with someone who knows and digs deep in astronomy so that my research on meier case can be made qualitative. Please reach me at mahigitam@gmail.com for any further correspondence. I will also respond to your questions there. thank you.
To Stuart: May i know when you can respond to my 2 simple straight forward questions 13 days ago ?
Comment by mahigitam — September 11, 2012 @ 12:41 am |
Hi Maghitam
As Stuart has stated that he is so busy in Sept/Oct that he is having to reduce the number of podcasts he usually does by half and that he will be away at conference some of that time I wouldn’t expect him to be replying to much on this thread until about November.
Comment by Kurious — September 11, 2012 @ 2:54 pm |
Re “Corroboration 134”
While the three other “corroborations” I’ve looked at have been confusing – what is the “specific prediction”? is there just one? how does the stated corroboration actually corroborate the prediction? and so on – this one makes the others look like archetypes of clarity.
If you ask any keen amateur astronomer what the following is describing, you’ll likely get a very swift and confident reply: “the ring system of the Sun that it is a veil ring, or more precisely, a veil ring system, which consists of fine and very fine particles and also small and large chunks of various sizes, or even satellites”.
And what is that answer? The (main) asteroid belt, and the Zodiacal light!
So you certainly don’t need to cite a 2002 European Space Agency (ESA) Press Release (PR) as corroboration … people have been positing that the Zodiacal light is sunlight scattered off dust particles in the ecliptic plane (beyond the Earth’s orbit) for a long time, possibly centuries (but more below).
As I said in my last comment, this corroboration is – by MH’s criteria – not true. And by my own criteria? As all of the key terms are purely qualitative – and undefined to boot – it fails the “objective” test (obviously).
How about “independently verifiable”? Well, since the link is live, anyone can – independently – verify that there is a 2002 ESA PR, and that it does contain the words quoted. Similarly, anyone can – independently – verify that there is a great deal of literature on the nature of the Zodiacal light, and its connection with the (main) asteroid belt, and that much of that literature can be objectively (and independently) verified as having been published before 1987.
And how about my “the ability to *do* something, to go beyond the bald prediction/claim/whatever …” criterion? A very practical thing you can do with a *quantitative* description of the nature of “a veil ring system” around the Sun is estimate the chance that a space probe sent to Mars, or Vesta, or Jupiter will be hit by a micrometeorite on the way. Hit hard enough to damage or even destroy the probe. You can also estimate what sort of astronomical facility (telescope, filter, camera, etc) you’d need in order to detect “a veil ring system” around a star other than the Sun. Test hypotheses concerning the formation of such a veil ring system. Identify possible progenitor objects (i.e. the source(s) of the “fine and very fine particles and also small and large chunks of various sizes, or even satellites”). And so on.
Can you do any of these things if all you have is “the ring system of the Sun that it is a veil ring, or more precisely, a veil ring system, which consists of fine and very fine particles and also small and large chunks of various sizes, or even satellites”?
Now here’s something curious I found: a certain C. Leinert, of the Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie, published a paper, in Naturwissenschaften, in 1979, entitled “Zodiakallicht-Beobachtungen”. Turns out there are several papers on this topic, in German, published well before 1987.
Last: applying my criteria to the three other “corroborations”.
At a very basic level, none of the “specific predictions” (leave aside the fact that few, if any, are actually “specific”) can be independently verified, objectively. How’s that? #6 contains words attributed to a “Semjase”, #66 and #78 (and #134) a “Quetzal”.
None of the “predictions” are objective, though parts of #78 come close.
And there’s nothing you can *do* with any of the predictions. For example, #6 (“Mars has much more water than earthly science had assumed until now”): helpful for those planning manned missions to Mars perhaps? No … nothing on where the water is, or what form it’s in, or even how much of it there is. Further, since there’s no hint of how it got there, how it might be lost (or not), etc, even if you could – somehow – work out where the water is (and what form it’s in), the “prediction” says nothing about whether it’ll be there tomorrow.
Comment by Nereid — September 12, 2012 @ 8:29 am |
Originally I had planned to go through at least a random selection of the ~30 “corroborations” that seem to me to be directly related to astronomy.
However, as all three (plus one) of those I’ve looked at in detail so far do not contain any “specific predictions” – much less anything quantitative – I changed my mind, and decided to do a quick sort. My aim was to identify those which at least might contain at least one specific, quantitative prediction, and perhaps focus on a random selection of those.
I found ten that survive this cut: 31, 47, 55, 76, 82, 84, 85, 89, and 103. Two more seem closely related to “red meteor/apophis” (the topic of this blog entry).
So I’ll look into some of those, in later comments.
If anyone reading this is of the opinion that there are some “corroborations” – concerning astronomy – what are not among the ten, but which do contain at least one specific, quantitative prediction, please, don’t be shy about saying so.
Comment by Nereid — September 12, 2012 @ 8:32 am |
Eros, and “Corroboration 31”.
As with all the other “corroborations” I’ve looked at in detail so far, this one is also quite confusing. For starters, it seems to me that there are at least five distinct “predictions”, of which at least four could be said to be “specific predictions”. The “corroboration”, as stated, seems to refer to two of these; namely “[thousands of boulders] that are covered in many places by “blue dust or other blue material”” and “possibility that Eros could fall to the Earth in the foreseeable future is less than 3%.”
While colour perception in humans is a complex topic, the “specific prediction” here is, objectively, not true.
First, there is no “blue dust” on Eros, nor any “other blue material”. Second, the “bluish ponds” referred to in the (live) links make it clear that material with this bluish colour is not found covering the “thousands of boulders”.
The mistake MH seems to have made, in equating “blue” with “bluish”, may be quite common; the actual, quantitative, objective observations of Eros – by the equipment aboard the Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) Shoemaker spacecraft – have been written up (e.g. in the BBC article cited) in such a way as to be quite misleading. If you read the detailed, technical literature, it’s quite clear that, to human eyes, the “”ponds” of bluish dust” would seem grey, not blue. Something similar can be seen on the Moon: to the unaided eye, nothing on the Moon has any colour other than various shades of grey, or black (except if you get really up close and personal). However, as a great many amateur astronomers know, the greys have slight colour casts, or tinges; with appropriate image processing, an image of the Moon – taken with a suitable camera – reveals many subtle colour differences.
The second “specific prediction” is not objective. It certainly seems objective (“is less than 3%”), but as “in the foreseeable future” is undefined, the <3% value is meaningless.
However, there *are* two, very specific, predictions here (why did MH not highlight them?):
1) "largest crater, as Ptaah said, is about 7,500 meters wide". This is not true; the largest crater on Eros is Himeros, which has a diameter of ~11 km.
2) "Eros still has a size of about 35 kilometers". This is also not true; "Eros is a highly irregular object (Fig. 1), coarsely approximated by an ellipsoid of dimensions 33 × 11 × 11 km, and has a mean radius of 8.5 km" Source: The geology of 433 Eros Robinson et al. (2002) http://ser.sese.asu.edu/LO/robinson_eros_geo2002.pdf
By the way, I found that MH had stated criteria earlier than the "If I claim that a specific predicition … and the specific predicted event/discvory occurred subsequent to … we now have … over 130 of such occurrences." I have been using. He said: "If we present documentation with specific scientific information, in veriafiably published, dated, copyrighted books and texts, that is subsequently corroborated – often using the same precise terms, descriptions, etc. – showing that Meier indeed published the information anywhere from a few months to 50+ YEARS before “official discovery”, do you consider that evidence?" ("September 7, 2012 @ 3:58 pm")
In terms of *this* criterion:
a) there's almost no "specific scientific information" in anything presented
b) ditto, re "using the same precise terms, descriptions, etc."
c) nothing presented was published "anywhere from a few months to 50+ YEARS before “official discovery”"
At least, not in any of the five "corroborations" I've examined so far.
Next: "Corroboration 76"
Comment by Nereid — September 13, 2012 @ 4:37 am
Some catch up, and responses to MH and mahigitam.
MH: “Start by telling me who you are, your name”
WYSIWYG; my name is Nereid. To elaborate: what’s important to me is the content of what I write. And everything I write – substantive things, to do with astronomy, etc – should be independently verifiable. And objective. The IRL identity of the person, or persons, who wrote it is, IMHO, irrelevant.
mahigitam: “I have been trying to get in touch with someone who knows and digs deep in astronomy so that my research on meier case can be made qualitative.”
May I make a few recommendations? I’ve already mentioned the CosmoQuest forum, PhysicsForums, and Starship Asterisk*. There are many other internet discussion forums with regulars who are just as knowledgeable as I am, and many more with the active participation of keen amateur astronomers. I gather you (or is it MH?) are already familiar with JREF.
MH: “In putting our information togetehr we used published reports that say things like “scientists discovered” “confirmed the existence of”, etc. So we are relying on what is published on reputable sites announcing “new” scientific discoveries. And, as I mentioned before, while you may have knowledge of/access to papers published within the scientific community some time ago, obviously these not only didn’t come up in our own research but, more importantly, they simply weren’t available to Meier.”
Yes, it is true that you have introduced a new set of criteria. I will stick with your original ones, plus my own. One other thing: I do not know how you went about searching for corroboration, but you now know how I went about checking your stated facts. Logically, it is possible that there are plenty of sources of the kind that satisfy your (new) criteria and which would render your stated “corroborations” invalid.
mahigitam: “Please reach me at […] for any further correspondence. I will also respond to your questions there. thank you.”
Thanks for the kind offer. As you have probably concluded by now, I think it better to engage in a dialogue on these matters in the open.
MH: “I will prepare something for all to see so that the foundational claim of […] their providing him with prophetically accurate scientific information, …”
Now I am quite confused Michael.
Haven’t you already done that?
Doesn’t the content of the webpage you provided a link to begin with these words “You are about to read a compilation of corroborated documentation that establishes Billy Meier as the single most prolific source of prophetically accurate information in human history”? Did you not write that?
Here’s another sentence: “If you know any real scientists, please direct them to this information.” (the word “real” is in italics and bold)
Should I now *not* direct any “real scientists” I might happen to know to this webpage (whatever a “real” scientist is – Dr Robbins perhaps)?
“as well as specific, accurate scientific information for which no reasonable could conclude that he head access to.”
I think you mis-typed; would you care to try again?
Finally, something which has been pinging my brain a lot, as I read the material MH posted, confirmation bias. Is anyone interested in discussing that?
Comment by Nereid — September 12, 2012 @ 8:37 am |
Quick comments again. Re the issue of anonymity, since it seems that you’re not using your name, you’re using a SCREEN name. Fine, courage isn’t necessary for fact-checking per se. Short of being persecuted for religious, political reasons and such – just why does it require any courage, integrity or character to use one’s real name? And why deliberately use the same mechanism employed by the multitudes of cowardly individuals who use screen names simply to hide…and hide from the consequences of their actions, expressions, etc.?
Of course should the core claim that Billy Meier is meeting with, and getting information from, extraterrestrials emerge as true, there is then no real person publicly scratching his/her head saying, “Well, I’ll be darned (and everything else that can be imagined).” And why, if one is a real scientist, wouldn’t they be as willing to take their stand publicly as people like Froning, Malin, Vogel, Dilettoso, Stevens, etc. have? Our anonymous friend may not have taken a position regarding the authenticity of Meier’s contacts – which he/she may already accept as true, for all I know – only addressing the research done, etc.
Clearly though, pointing out errors is received with appreciation because it contributes to improvement in one’s work.
I think the majority of the non-academic world often relies on reports from the academic world that are featured in prominent science magazines, TV and online reports. So when something reads, “Scientists today DISCOVERED…” it’s a fair and honest thing to refer to just that.
For instance, when NASA says that the discovery that Io is the most volcanically active body in the solar system, on March 12, 1979, is one of the most important of the Voyager mission, not only do I accept that but I point to Meier’s prior publication of it in October 1978 as preempting the “offical discovery”.
Again, so far it doesn’t look like there’s any evidence that prior knowledge of facts only available in specialized, not widely published papers were ever available to Meier. When those are found to already exist – even if they only recently can be found through internet searches – then it’s only right to say that Meier didn’t publish the information first.
But for a person who…THINKS, the fact that this particular man published them at all is an integral part of an investigation into whether his claims of extraterrestrial contact are true. There are many people who can search (who may even know better ways/places to search) for information who are not really very profound thinkers. They may not be the ones who make the breakthroughs in any given field, though they may be good at doing research, checking the work…of others.
Again, hats off to those who help raise one’s level of accuracy, push them to improve and refine, etc. But we know nothing about the character of such people, which may be of no interest or even perceived relevance, unless and until they are confronted with things that render their contribution one of refinement in specific areas but ultimately secondary to the overriding truth of the original claim, should it be proved.
Since the anonymous person has refused the offer of certain evidence that supports the core claim that I have made and stand by, I will do my best to present that it for all who are interested, including real scientists with real names. Who knows, “Nereid” may be a real person/persons who actually possesses the intellectual honesty, character and intergrity to drop his/her mask and admit the truthfulness of the claim – which would be historically unprecedented in importance – should it be shown to be supported by the facts.
Be patient, please, it will take me a bit of time.
P.S. Kinda funny that “Nereid” puts the names in quotes, “Semjase”, “Quetzal”, etc. And why does he/she introduce other qualifiers regarding the Mars information? Be patient, y’all.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 12, 2012 @ 9:39 am |
As promised, a little information in support of my core claim that the Billy Meier UFO contacts are authentic. Yes, you may have to actually…THINK, rather than just nit-pick the secondary element pertaining to the existence of information that was not found by any of us in our research but that nonetheless has no bearing on Meier’s authenticity, only on our possible oversight…or the unavailability of the material at the time we conducted our research.
If it was not found by us during sincere efforts online…just how likely is it that it was available to Meier, especially in the pre-internet age?
Honestly, that’s NOT a tough question…unless one simply lacks the intellectual honesty, integrity or plain ol’ thinking abilities to answer it, deficiencies that seem to not be rare among the anonymous critics.
http://theyfly.com/A-Sampling-of-Evidence.html
Comment by Michael Horn — September 12, 2012 @ 4:48 pm |
Alright guys, that’s enough. Over 100 comments and nothing’s been had. Michael, you don’t understand or you choose not to acknowledge in writing that any case is built upon individual lines of evidence. You have on your website a page dedicating to proving the case through over 130 lines of “prophetic” evidence. Nereid has been picking through those and pointing out, much as I did, that your claim that these are specific predictions made before anyone had knowledge of them is actually wrong.
You either need to respond directly to his/her points, or leave. That’s it, no more is going through on this from you until you acknowledge that and either refute it or accept he is correct and update your material.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — September 12, 2012 @ 4:52 pm |
Oops, sorry Stuart; I prepared my previous comment offline, and did not see your injunction until after I’d posted it. If you delete that comment, because it is inappropriate (given what you wrote), I will understand.
If I may, though, be allowed to fulfil this promise I made: “Re Apophis etc: I see that this is at least one of the “corroborations”, and that – as Dr Robbins says in the blog entry – there’s an older podcast on it. I shall review these and comment later.” (“Comment by Nereid — September 8, 2012 @ 1:15 pm”)
While I have not completed my investigation (so it’s possible there’s something key I’ve missed), I found that what Yakaru wrote is excellent; specifically, quoting Dr Robbins, “the only EVIDENCE that we have is most consistent with the retrodiction hypothesis”. In short, I really do not understand why Juice and MH wrote what they did.
To MH: if you wish to continue this dialogue, may I suggest the CosmoQuest forum (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/forum.php)? Alternatively, if you would like to suggest one, please do so. Note, however, that unless it has a policy of being science-based, I will not join (I have no interest whatsoever in engaging in a discussion on any other basis).
Comment by Nereid — September 13, 2012 @ 4:42 am |
Stuart,
You’ve had ample warning that I would substantiate my core claims in the case. And, NOTHING that our anonymous friend has said in any way negates that claim, and it may only be a matter of some information not being accessible to us during our searches – which is hardly surprising since he’s referring mainly to somewhat obscure, rarified information hardly available to the mainstream, let alone our rural dwelling friend.
Perhaps you glanced at the page I linked to and saw that i have no respect for so-called “experts” who demonstrate zero thinking abilities, or respect for the real investigative process.
So, if you want to try to censor the answer and not allow thinking people to put two and two together and realize how actually evasive and in denial the “skeptics” are, go ahead. I’ll be glad to publicize it to my rather broad audience and, hey, that will at least get you some serious readership here.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 12, 2012 @ 5:06 pm |
Then your next post will be the answer that he asked for. Then you can continue by addressing his points. You don’t address his points, you’re done on this post and you two can go on some other forum.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — September 12, 2012 @ 5:08 pm |
Just checking in and, no surprise, the coward “Neried” took a quick leave of absence and the blustering SR, who chases down proponents of “ziggurats on the moon” – and other easy targets – loudly ignores what neither he nor any of the other phonies in the Church of Skeptology can find a way to argue or “one-up” , i.e. the copyrighted, dated, published PROOF of Meier’s authenticity. It won’t change. History will just show these characters to be contemptible, fame chasing poseurs who despised the truth when it trampled on their foolish beliefs. In time SR will pop up with another impotent “challenge” – to ANYTHING BUT the Meier case. I’ll bet he even envies the other cowards with their screen names who won’t take the shellacking that the truth will continue to administer to him. Meanwhile, the prophecies fulfill…
Comment by Michael Horn — September 15, 2012 @ 8:17 pm |
re “Corroboration 76”
As with all the other “corroborations” I’ve looked at so far, this one I found confusing too: there seems to be more than one “specific predictions” (MH’s words), although not all are quantitative; and only a subset of those could be called “specific”. Here are a few:
-> Centaurus A (Cen A) is “about 10 million light years away from the Earth”
-> Cen A is “the next active galaxy from the SOL system”
-> at “the center” of the Cen A galaxy is a super-massive black hole “which has a size or attractive force of 1.35 billion solar masses.”
As with “Corroboration 66”, the link (which is live) is not to a primary source, but the webpage (an ESO PR) contains a reference to a primary source. Why did you choose to not cite the (obvious) primary source Michael?
Cen A, or NGC 5128 (or a handful of other names), has been known to be active since at least 1954 (Baade and Minkowski, ApJ, vol. 119, p.206). As with “Corroboration 66”, the idea that the nucleus (not “center”) of active galaxies contains a supermassive black hole (SMBH) was postulated as early as 1969 (maybe earlier), as I wrote in response to mahigitam’s CosmoQuest forum question (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/138142-Astronomical-Information-in-the-Billy-Meier-Contact-Notes). In the > 100 papers published on NGC 5128 before June 1988, there are several with models of the nucleus, many of which include a SMBH component. Interestingly, the magazine Sky and Telescope published an article in its June, 1988 issue, on Cen A (I haven’t yet been able to obtain a copy of it)!
As the distance “prediction” is vague (“about 10 million light years”), and has no estimate of uncertainty (i.e. “error bars” or “confidence limits”), it cannot be called “specific”. In any case, distance estimates consistent with the vague statement can be found in the literature, predating 1988 by at least a decade.
The nucleus of the galaxy M81 is active, and its estimated, redshift-independent, distance is the same as that of Cen A, given the published uncertainties (3.692 +/- 0.513 Mpc and 3.656 +/- 0.438 Mpc, respectively, per NED http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/forms/byname.html). It’s true that the popular press calls Cen A the nearest active galaxy, but it’s not so clear that it actually is. “Not yet determined” is my assessment.
Which brings us to: “Quetzal: …The center of the GALAXY Centaurus A, as it will be designated in earthly astronomy, actually consists of a super-massive black hole, which has a size or attractive force of 1.35 billion solar masses.”
The ESO PR says this: “The new measurements show that the compact nucleus in the middle weighs more than 200 million solar masses!” And the abstract of the paper on which the PR is based says this (some re-formatting): “We interpret this mass concentration as a supermassive black hole. Its dynamical mass based on the line velocities and disk inclination (i > 15°) is M• = 2+3.0−1.4 ×10^8M[sols].” For readers not used to this way of writing numbers, the estimated mass is between 60 million and 500 million sols (a ‘sol’ is, in this case, a unit of mass, equal to the mass of the Sun).
In other words, this “specific prediction” is inconsistent with the Marconi et al. 2001 paper’s conclusion.
There is at least one independent estimate of the mass Cen A’s SMBH, published in Silge et al. (2005) (AJ Volume 130, Issue 2, pp. 406-417): “We find a BH mass of 2.4+0.3-0.2×10^8 Msolar for an edge-on model, 1.8+0.4-0.4×10^8 Msolar for a model with an inclination of 45°, and 1.5+0.3-0.2×10^8 Msolar for a model with an inclination of 20°.” This is consistent with the conclusion in the Marconi et al. 2001 paper, and inconsistent with the “specific prediction” from Meier.
That’s six for six cases of “corroborations” which are not true. And two *quantitative* “specific predictions” that are actually inconsistent with the “official discovery”, to use MH’s own words (the size of the “largest crater” on Eros, and the estimated mass of the Cen A’s SMBH).
Next: I’ll wrap up my posting here, with the questions I’m waiting for answers from MH, and a few provisional conclusions I’ve drawn, on this topic.
Comment by Nereid — September 17, 2012 @ 3:42 am |
I have asked MH many questions, in my comments here. The most important ones concern the specifics of the six “corroborations” I’ve examined in some detail; others concern the nature of the list and its authenticity.
First, though, thank you Michael, for the link to a webpage with material relating to some “specific predictions”. I have read it, but could find nothing on any of the six “corroborations” I’ve written about here.
Questions to MH, as yet unanswered (numbered, for convenience):
1) Are you, in fact, the author of the material on the webpage entitled “Will Humanity Wake Up…In Time?”, in the http://futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier website?
2) If so, which of the material on that page was added after “July 2009”?
3) Do you contest any of my findings, concerning the (provisional) “not true” conclusions I’ve drawn?
For avoidance of doubt, I have zero interest in any comments *other than* those concerning the criteria you yourself posted, here, before I reported the results of my investigations (other than, perhaps, those concerning “Corroboration 6 – Discoveries on Mars”).
Also, please *begin* with the two quantitative inconsistencies I found (the size of the “largest crater” on Eros, and the estimated mass of the Cen A’s SMBH); if you do not contest either of those, please say so explicitly, and only then move on to others.
4) Do you plan to amend the material on that webpage, in light of the material I’ve posted here? In light of what Dr Robbins has posted? If so, when?
5) In Episode 32 (follow the link in the blog entry, above), Dr Robbins wrote: “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?”
Using this terminology, at least two of the specific, quantitative predictions, concerning astronomy, among the “over 130 specific, ironclad, verifiably preemptively published, prophetically accurate examples of Meier’s foreknowledge” (your words) are wrong.
Why should I spend more time looking into others (directly related to astronomy)?
6) Why did you feel the need to “prepare something for all to see so that the foundational claim of […] their providing him with prophetically accurate scientific information, …”, given that you already stated that there are “over 130 specific, ironclad, verifiably preemptively published, prophetically accurate examples of Meier’s foreknowledge”, published in July 2009 (but see question 2, above)?
7) What is a “real scientist”?
8) Should I direct any “real scientists” I might happen to know to this webpage (see 1) above)? Specifically, should I direct any astronomers I might happen to know to any of the ~30 “corroborations” directly related to astronomy?
Comment by Nereid — September 17, 2012 @ 4:23 am |
On the road, will be more available after Sept. 28. First, is there any one here who wants to chime in with the anonymous griper and also choose to ignore the essential issue, i.e evidence that Meier is an authentic UFO contactee, as is clearly in evidence at the link provided? The poster has refused to identify itself, in accordance with my often repeated requests. And of course pointing to obscure information that the griper itself wasn’t knowledgeable about and had to spend time to research in order to put into evidence, which obviously therefore wasn’t available to Meier, and which doesn’t contradict Meier’s information, shows that the griper obviously doesn’t know how to…THINK. So, by the time that I am available to drop in again, I look forward to seeing if there are any other people (hopefully courageous enough to use their real names) who will say that such things as Meier’s obvious prior publication of Mercury’s metal core having an effect on the contraction of the planet, etc. is irrelevant to his/our core claims. As I have already twice pointed out, anonymity provides the kind of “no-risk” to avoid humiliation…which the griper is already faced with…all attempts to distract and obfuscate through nit-picking notwithstanding.
Comment by Michael Horn — September 20, 2012 @ 3:00 pm |
Yes, Michael, I would like to “chime in”.
First, who is this “anonymous griper”?
Second, so far as this blog entry is concerned, “the essential issue” is NOT “evidence that Meier is an authentic UFO contactee” (much as you might wish it otherwise).
Third, you have yet to respond – concretely, objectively, in an independently verifiable way – to my own comments concerning “evidence” which you yourself characterised as “over 130 specific, ironclad, verifiably preemptively published, prophetically accurate examples of Meier’s foreknowledge” (of which ~30 are within the scope of this blog, and of those I examined six in detail, and found them all to be not true). Why is that, may I have the temerity to ask?
Fourth, why have you changed the criteria you yourself stated – in an ” ironclad, verifiably preemptively published” form – for objectively evaluating the claims you have (so often) made?
Fifth, do you have any intention of answering my questions (see my comment, stardate September 17, 2012 @ 4:23 am)?
Sixth, do you – seriously, honestly – think you are being successful, in terms of what seem to be your goals (with respect to communicating on this blog)? Myself, I feel the advice “when you’re in a hole, stop digging” seems quite apt (in this case).
Nereid
Comment by Nereid — September 21, 2012 @ 10:37 am |
I was listening to Michael Horn “performance” on the Paracast show in 2006.During the show, Mr Horn claimed that Billy Meier “predicted” the 2005 “Muslim riots” in Paris France.Obviously neither Mr Horn nor Mr Meier have any understanding whatsoever of the social-ethnical & multicultural composition & the complexities of French society,
These urban violence & uprisings didn’t originated from within the “Muslim community”,as claimed by Mr Horn & Billy Meier.
Official reports from French Intelligence agencies DST (Défense Sécurité du Territoire) & the RG (Renseignements Généraux) denied the “Muslim” nature of the riots (allegations & extrapolations made by individuals with particular political agendas or lacking any understanding of the suburban social-economics in France).
Comment by Tara Jordan — October 6, 2012 @ 1:47 am |
Tara,
Meier’s information on the radical fundamentalist Islamic elements within France that will cause major riots, destruction, etc., originated long ago and actually should come as no surprise, especially when one understands the immutable laws of cause and effect. Think about French colonialism and exploitation (as well that associated with any of the other major powers historically) and one can see that the “wrecking ball” will return in its own way and timing. It’s already happening in various European countries as well as in the U.S.
Meier not only traveled through 42 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East, he studied all of the major religions and was further educated, from childhood by the extraterrestrials, in the truth about their origins, etc.
Since you don’t want to feel that anyone insults your intelligence, allow me to appeal to it. Familiarize yourself with the information pertaining to the current Russian troop movements into the Arctic Regions and how this was – absolutely verifiably – foretold by Meier in 1987 in the Henoch Prophecies. And know that in our new film, as the time fulfills, he went into further detail about the other countries that would be vying for the minerals, etc., in these regions…which has now turned out to be correct as well. (http://www.ereleases.com/pr/film-proves-ufo-prophet-knew-911-attack-14-years-earlier-87848)
Of course we recorded that information in our interview with for the film almost exactly…one year ago.
You may want to also look at the paucity of logic – to say nothing of integrity and courage – of an entity calling itself “Nereid”, that thought it had really nailed us on our claims about Meier’s record of prophetically accurate scientific information, etc. If you do take a look at it, see if you can spot the moment where poor “Nereid” makes an enormous blunder in intellectual honesty, to say nothing of accuracy, etc.
It’s quite telling that those who bother to describe themselves as skeptics really declare a distinction between themselves and scientists.
Comment by Michael Horn — October 9, 2012 @ 7:47 pm |
Mr Horn.
I have to give you credits for always been courteous & extremely articulate. Since we are not acquainted, I will not & cannot question your integrity & your motivations (I dont believe “you`re in for the money”,you seem like a true believer) but I have serious questions regarding your ability to separate your personal beliefs from reality.
Personally,I am merely concerned with facts & I always confined myself to issues for which I have certain expertise.I spent a considerable amount of time in Paris & I am fluent in French. I took additional courses in political science at Panthéon-Sorbonne University.With all due respect, I consider I have credibility & the proper credentials to discuss this very issue. (contrary to the usual activist debunker,I`m not technical,but I do have extensive academic training in political science,history & social anthropology).
The term “Muslim riots” mostly originated from US media. The French riots had no religious component whatsoever.In France,these “riots” were labeled as “révolte des banlieues” or “émeutes des banlieues”. Essentially these were the results & aftermaths of socio-economical issues,not religious. These uprisings emanated from within France`s suburbs, what we call ” Troisième génération de travailleurs émigrés”.The “banlieues” population is composed of French nationals with multicultural & ethnic backgrounds (Africa,North Africa etc….) but the vast majority of this multicultural population is not Muslim. As I mentioned before,French internal intelligence apparatus and governmental agencies released extensive reports & analyses of the riots. They categorically denied & rejected the religious nature of these riots.
Comment by Tara Jordan — October 11, 2012 @ 11:22 am
Hi Michael.
That’s it? The sum total of your response to my posts – not to mention the direct questions I had – is (and I’m quoting) “If you do take a look at it, see if you can spot the moment where poor “Nereid” makes an enormous blunder in intellectual honesty, to say nothing of accuracy, etc.”?
Paint me “unimpressed”.
Now if you’ll excuse me, there are terabytes of high-quality astronomical observations, available for free (though you do need a broadband internet connection), and more being made available every day; I think I’ll go see if I can discover something new and exciting about the universe, perhaps see if I can spot an exoplanetary transit no one has ever seen before, or find a curious topographic feature on Vesta, or …
Comment by Nereid — October 11, 2012 @ 1:51 pm
Tara,
I do appreciate your response and the only thing I would say about the first sentence is that I’m actually NOT a “true believer”. I openly state that there are things in the Meier case that I regard as…speculative, meaning that I can’t or haven’t been able to prove or disprove them because the information refers to things either in the far distant past, or as yet un-arrived future. I have personally tried to “trick” Meier, four separate times in three years, on something he said to me that seemed quite incredible at first. Each “test”, one year, one year, six months and six months apart, produced the same immediate, detailed answer from him.
Without going into it further, it seemed to be good evidence of his NOT lying…it’s said that when one tells the truth there’s nothing to remember, meaning liars have to keep good track of what they tell different people, etc. Sure, one could say that the man has a good imagination but that would fade as a credible answer in light of his voluminous, provenly accurate information, etc.
WIth all due respect of course, there are many people with personal experience in Paris, with history, etc. So, as far as this one topic is concerned, perhaps it’s best that we just observe what comes and see if it ultimately turns out to be accurate or not. Let’s also remember that what is specifically prophesied is the fall of France and, yes, that it will be precipitated from within greatly by fundamentalist Islamic radicals, etc. In my comments on the show, I was making my own observations that the riots of that time seemed to me to be consistent as early indicators. I could be wrong of course but, as I suggest, let’s see what develops.
Since you are open and honest as well, I only suggest that there is something quite worthy of intelligent research in Meier’s extensive information. We’ve put out a couple more press releases to direct people to the situation with Russia and other countries in the Arctic Regions that can indeed be found in the Henoch Prophecies, right down to the naming of the city to which Russia has now moved its troops. (Here’s the latest: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/10/prweb10002245.htm. You can see that we are being…creative in trying to draw attention to certain issues. Of course, or at least in my opinion, delusional “Christians” just can’t wait for Armageddon so their beloved savior can whisk them all safely away, etc., gag me, etc.)
Such claims as are made for Meier’s authenticity are understandably greeted with skepticism. But anyone who really wants to vet his information will find an unexpected challenge to their own prejudices and beliefs…if intellectual honesty prevails. I have linked above to a page where there is a sampling of documentation showing the copyrighted, dated, published books containing information that Meier – without a shadow of a doubt – published well before “official discovery”, such as pertains to Mercury’s core, etc. I try to suggest to the hardcore skeptics that before they machinate their way through nonsensical, concocted scenarios as to HOW a resourceless man living in the rugged rural highlands in Switzerland manages to preemptively publish such scientifically accurate information – let alone WHY he would do so – that they use objectivity, logic and intellectual honesty to discover the actual FACTS of the case, damaging to their egos as it may be.
Of course, when an anonymous entity who really wants to challenge the claims, etc., steadfastly refuses to engage openly with their true identity – as any real, credible scientist would if they chose to engage – then, considering how many chances and invitations to do so were blatantly ignored, that entity will likewise be ignored. They can continue to preserve their anonymity – their fragile ego – and feel the uneasy comfort that no one, as yet, will know who they are…as others reason their way to logical conclusions that refute their presumptions.
I will add that you are free to contact me directly if you wish to with challenges, etc., though if you prefer this forum I am fine with that. After all, whenever the Meier case is discussed it boosts Stuarts stats here and I don’t mind helping out when someone needs it.
Comment by Michael Horn — October 11, 2012 @ 2:20 pm
Frankly, Michael, I don’t understand why Dr Robbins allows these sorts of posts (yours, “October 11, 2012 @ 2:20 pm”) through.
From my POV, starting from an extremely explicit, avowedly science-based approach, the sorts of Gish Gallop material you write (here) would get short shrift indeed. Though I do agree that the way you ‘move the goalposts’ is so clear it’s almost worthy of being used in critical thinking classes, perhaps even included in a textbook.
Cen A and its super-massive black hole?
“Let me tell you about Venus!”
Eros and its largest crater?
“Easter Island statues! Do you admire the view?
(but while my clothes are brushed, and my shoes clean and neat, I do have feet).
Comment by Nereid — October 11, 2012 @ 2:56 pm |
Michael Horn says often:
“Of course my funny bone common sense tells me that Meier certainly would have had a far harder time since he didn’t have the internet, nor did he subscribe to scientific journals, etc. – as two separate, lenghty, on-site investigations revealed.”
I did a research, and in the reality, ‘Chronik der Weltgeschichte’ (‘Chronicle of World History’) ist enough to write such things and make ‘predictions’, und Billy Meier reads ‘Chronik der Weltgeschichte’, like he show it on page 38 in
‘Plejadisch-plejarische kontaktberichte, Block 4’, that is Contact Report 135, Thursday, October 9th 1980, on the Earthquake in Al-Asnam, in Algeria, in 1980: http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_135
Here Billy Meier ‘predicted’ “roughly half a hundred thousand people will die within just 30 seconds.” and proved he is right by making quote of ‘Chronik der Weltgeschichte’.
This is the sentences of ‘Chronik der Weltgeschichte’ that Billy Meier writes on page 38 in ‘Plejadisch-plejarische kontaktberichte, Block 4’, Contact Report 135, Thursday, October 9th 1980, to show his ‘prediction’ is correct:
“10. Oktober, Freitag
Bei einem schweren Erdbeben in der Region um die nordalgerische Stadt El Asnam werden mindestens 22.000 Menschen getötet und 44.000 verletzt.
380.000 sind obdachlos.”
‘Chronik der Weltgeschichte’ is good when you make ‘predictions’ after things happened, but with ‘Chronik der Weltgeschichte’ you make sometimes big mistakes like Billy Meier make big mistake here, because this number of victims is very wrong, because history later knows that from 2000 to 5000 people died in the reality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_El_Asnam_earthquake
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/world_deaths.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/10/newsid_3714000/3714612.stm
.
Since a lot of years you have ‘Chronik der Weltgeschichte’ in cassette tapes, on the paper, in books, in CD, online:
http://www.weltchronik.de/
See also ‘Die grosse Chronik-Weltgeschichte: Die neue Weltordnung’, by Johannes Ebert, Knut Görich, Detlef Wienecke-Jan.
Comment by Jennifer — October 17, 2012 @ 4:12 am |
Jennifer,
Long time no see/hear, etc.
Well there you have it, he got the numbers wrong – I say fire him as prophet!
Actually, I don’t think that the best evidence is a contact that happened a day before a predicted event.
Please visit the link (http://theyfly.com/A-Sampling-of-Evidence.html) I posted above for a tiny sampling of the 50+ examples of specific, verifiably previously published, prophetically accurate scientific information that we present in our new film. You can even download the film and review each of the specific events. Many of them were published in from 12 – 50+ years in advance of occurrence.
However, it’s good to see you doing your due diligence.
Have a good day,
MH
Comment by Michael Horn — October 17, 2012 @ 9:58 pm |
@Nereid
I cannot speak up for MH and being a part-contributor for that crbrtn page, here is my opinion on how i regard the 150+ corroborations. IMO, not all of them fall under “ironclad, verifiably preemptively published, independently verifiable, prophetically accurate..”. Does that mean there are no corroborations that are “ironclad, verifiably preemptively published, independently verifiable, prophetically accurate..” ? NO. Ofcourse there are such crbrnts. Now, which one is more important & is worthy of our attention – MH labeling all the 150+ crbrtns under one roof as being “ironclad,…..” or the crbrtns that are “ironclad,…”? I don’t mind the counter-arguments on ‘MH’s quoting’ of all the 150+ under one roof, because they are logical & legitimate but that shouldn’t stop us from looking & dissecting the supposed strong evidence. May be MH just used those “heavy or not-completely-true” words in representing the 150+ just to attract the attention of the readers to the more strong evidence or to the core of the case. I don’t know this is just my speculation & i could be wrong. The way this discussion is going here seems to me is that it is mostly concerned with ‘MHs interpretation’ of the 150+ & the loosely corroborated astronomical information instead of the strong evidence in 150+ which covers several fields of science- which should be the focus of our attention.
What i also observed is that, the context of the case is neglected when interpreting the information in the case. Only when the context is taken into account, could we be sure of labeling a crbrtn as either strong or loosely connected or ‘phenomenon not yet discovered’ or wrong. What if the alleged ET information does not match up with our science’s conclusions ? Does that mean the Meier case is a hoax and doesnot warrant us for further investigation? I say, NO.
It may mean that the
1 – “ET” info was not accurate
2 – “ET” info was accurate and may require several years for our earth sciences to recognise the true results
3 – Printing & other errors which are common while publishing a book
I already said something about this earlier but i have no issues in repeating again. Usually this or that theory/phenomenon is said to be accurate or not accurate is based on the observational/experimental evidence & peer reviewing. And all of this is limited by present technology, science & cognition. Lots of theories/facts which were considered once as promising or true were found to be not true anymore & viceversa. So this implicit truth that our scientific conclusions are limited by present technology, science & cognition should be kept in mind when dealing with cases which are told that the info came from higher intelligence sources-alleged ETs(Plejaren are said to be 3500 years ahead in technological & 8000 years ahead in spiritual development). Does that mean we cannot conclude any claim allegedly came from “ETs” as being either as true or false ? I say, NO. Jennifer just showed as that the prophecy or prediction on El Asnam earthquake made by “ET” Semjase or Meier is not accurate. And we may find some more similar examples when look closely into thousands of pages.
From one or few inaccurate results by “ETs”, shall we conclude that the entire case is not worthy of our attention ? I say, NO when there are several other results that are accurate or close & deserve our attention.
.
I will paraphrase a doctor who made this statement when talking about NDE research(Near Death experience).
“If 100 people climb the tallest tower(829.84 m tall Burj Khalifa) and jump from top to the ground without any safety devices and all 99 people of them died immediately except 1 who doesn’t have any scratch at all on his body & is as good as before jumping, should that deserve our attention & research or not ?”
I say, Absolutely yes! And what if the number of people who survived is not just 1 but several ? The way i see how people deal with controversial issues most of the times on internet is they are mostly interested in citing the 99 people who died & judging the case and avoiding/misrepresenting the 1 guy who survived.
Likewise, even if we find some info in meier case that doesn’t agree with our sciences conclusions or general known facts, it doesn’t itself mean that the entire case is a hoax. It may mean many things. Usually in all kinds of experiments or public polls, they would not take each and every value or do test as you all definitely know, they just follow a step called sampling in which the selected values/persons/factors/groups are considered which represent or nearly represent the entire data and they make sure that by selecting this sample, it would not effect the conclusions that would be drawn on the entire experiment/poll. Going back to the meier case, what kind of data should we select inorder to test the ET claims – Weak corroborations or failed corroborations or “wrong” corroborations or strong corroborations ? I say, strong corroborations(SC). We should verify these SC & make it sure that these did not occur just by chance or by retrodiction.
It is sad that my thread on CQ forum was closed without asking what was my intention & meaning about the statements i made that caused the mod to close the thread. Anyways i contacted the mod and he said that he would report it also to other mods & have their say about it. It has been 4 days, and still got no response. Is it too late or should i write back again to mods, Nereid ?
@Jennifer
It is funny, even the 2008 edition of ‘Die große Chronik Weltgeschichte – Band 19’ still has the wrong info in it. The CR 135, 1980 was first published in 1980’s, 1992 & again in 2004. Only in the 2004 version(3rd edition contact notes) do they have these newspaper/internet/magazines articles & books that are presented as a support to meier’s claims. It seems, the person who is responsible for all those corroboration articles didn’t care to re-verify that part. All i can say now about the failed prediction or prophecy on El Asnam earthquake is either
1 – “ETs” may have failed in calculating the prophecy or prediction accurately & thus gave wrong information to Meier
2 – Billy retrodicted the information from reading the ‘Chronik der Weltgeschichte’.
The 2nd option to me, might not be the case because, only after few (5 days later on oct 15, 1980) did the news was out saying that the death toll was less than 10,000 & would be between 5000-10,000..
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bENJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5IMMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2963,6297719&dq=al+asnam+earthquake&hl=en
Meier could have changed the then undocumented, unpublished CR 135 info to suit the more accurate info – which is the death toll being between 5000-10,000 or <5000 which came a few days later – in his books published in 1980's, 1992 & again in 2004. But he didn't.
Suppose he didn't change the CR 135 content. Even then Meier as a "cunning hoaxer", would have easily made sure he would not be caught up & that the article from 'Chronik der Weltgeschichte' would not be presented as corroboration in 2004(24 years later) book, he better would have not mentioned it at all since the death toll numbers didn't match up. Did Meier forgot himself or to tell his "over-enthusiastic" associates to check the corroboration articles twice before making them available in the 2004 book ? Perhaps. But the overall evidence does not tend to support this theory and the possibility of making such a gross error by "hoaxers" make itself very less likely.
Comment by mahigitam — October 18, 2012 @ 1:44 am |
@mahitigam: Michael Horn (MH) provided a link in his comment of “September 5, 2012 @ 11:16 am”. The intro to the webpage, in that link, entitled “Will Humanity Wake Up…In Time?” is signed by “Michael Horn” (as was the conclusion, which seems no longer to be there). MH has not yet confirmed, or otherwise, that he is, indeed, the author of that webpage; you seem to imply that he’s not (or at least not the sole author). MH posted criteria for how he thinks the material published there should be evaluated. I examined several of the “Corroborations” on that webpage, ones seemingly directly related to astronomy, and found that – judged by MH’s stated criteria – none are true. I reached the same conclusion using my own criteria.
In your comment of September 6, 2012 @ 8:58 am, you introduced the concept of “a corroboration scale” (“(with levels 1, 2 & 3) prepared based on the content value & verifiability factor in the CRs”). That’s over a month ago now. May I ask if you’ve developed such a scale? Published it? Defined clear, objective criteria for determining the “level” of any corroboration? Published those? If you have not done all four of these things, what is there to discuss?
In particular, since you introduced your three “It may mean that …” points, the question of “confirmation bias” seems pertinent (I asked about this, in my September 7, 2012 @ 9:32 am post; neither you nor MH responded). Specifically, unless and until you publish your corroboration criteria, it is impossible for anyone to determine – objectively – the extent to which confirmation bias is built into them (or not).
You seem to have a deep misunderstanding for the nature of science (or at least the nature of astronomy as science): you strongly imply that, contained within the source material (the CRs) is “theory”, and/or “science”, and/or “technology”. Yet, as far as I can tell – based on the detailed examination of the six (of ~30 astronomy-related) “corroborations” I’ve written about – none contain any theory, there’s no science involved, and nothing on technology either. If none of the material contains theories, or science, why bother posting it here? On the other hand, if there are some theories, or science, why not assess those components, as part of your “corroboration scale” perhaps?
Comment by Nereid — October 18, 2012 @ 7:00 am |
Your believe is very strong, Mister Mahigitam. Respekt.
Comment by Jennifer — October 18, 2012 @ 2:03 am |
Jennifer,
I would also say that Mahigitam’s thinking is clear, as is Meier’s evidence.
Also, thanks for having what amounts to some significant courage these days, in this online world, i.e. using your real name. I think that you are sincere in wanting to get at the truth and if you persist your reasoning abilities will reveal it to you.
Continued strength, Jennifer, in your pursuit of the truth.
Comment by Michael Horn — October 18, 2012 @ 1:11 pm |
On September 12, 2012 @ 5:08 pm, Dr Robbins wrote: “Then your [i.e. Michael Horn’s] next post will be the answer that he asked for. Then you can continue by addressing his points. You don’t address his points, you’re done on this post ..”
Leaving aside the fact that “Nereid” would be a “she” rather than a “he”, none of your posts – after September 12, 2012 @ 5:08 pm – contained any answers to question I asked you (directly). Yet Dr Robbins has allowed you to continue posting here (of course, that’s entirely his privilege; it’s his site).
I’m just wondering if you do, in fact, actually intend to answer any of my questions?
(for what it’s worth, I stopped holding my breath many days’ ago).
By the way, are you familiar with Lewis Carroll’s “Walrus and the Carpenter”?
Comment by Nereid — October 18, 2012 @ 2:24 pm
@Jennifer
“Your believe is very strong, Mister Mahigitam. Respekt.”
I appreciate that but i would prefer people recognise my beliefs are not born just out of thin air but from evidence.
@Nereid
“In your comment of September 6, 2012 @ 8:58 am, you introduced the concept of “a corroboration scale” (“(with levels 1, 2 & 3) prepared based on the content value & verifiability factor in the CRs”). That’s over a month ago now. May I ask if you’ve developed such a scale? Published it? Defined clear, objective criteria for determining the “level” of any corroboration? Published those?”
The idea of “corroboration scale” was just an idea that came up in my mind after looking at how the debates on meier case occurs in forums. Most debaters usually pick up the weak, easily debunkable, explainable part and avoid the strong parts. The “scale” was just meant to shift the conversation from discussing weak corroborations(which most would love to do) towards strong corroborations(which honest enquirers would like to do). I agree the crbr page on MHs site & on FOM site is so messed up, that all types of info are mixed up, which makes an enquirer considerable time to pick up strong crbrs. It would be nice if all the crbrs are arranged based on their strength of evidence. So the honest enquirers can directly go to the ‘strong crbrs’ page and do a critique. I will contact the admin of FOM site and see if he can do anything about it. Coming back – you don’t need only a “corroboration scale” made by someone to see which ones are stronger or weaker, there are alternate ways, one of them is by using our common sense & looking up ourselves, the other is as mentioned above, looking up at a webpage created by others dedicated to only ‘strong crbrs’ would be enough. But ‘strong cbrs’ according to whom is a big question. Others may think they may not be strong crbrs but only moderate or weak crbrs. So who decides which crbrs gets which number(1,2 & 3) on the scale & what should be the qualifications of these people ? What are the criteria for the crbrs to fit into any one of those scales ? Most of all, who is responsible for representing the 150+ crbrs according to any method they felt is adequate?
Being an outsider(just like you) to the case, i don’t have any qualification or obligation to officially represent FIGU or MH or Meier or the whole case using the scale or any other method & i don’t think i am competent enough to judge all the 150+ from various sciences to decide which one fits into which scale. I can only speak for myself. So in the light of several metioned & unmentioned limitations & for the time being i have to be content with using the words ‘strong’ & ‘weak’ corroborations. And this labeling of every crbr is not an easy process & perhaps since the crbrs cover various sciences, interested parties who are knowledgeable enough could come together and suggest on how to rate the crbrs to MH or FIGU(if the scale was at all decided to be used officially or unofficially). If you have any ideas or suggestions on this rating or if you are interested you can go through the whole 150+ or only through the astronomy related ones and give your ratings & let us know.
“If you have not done all four of these things, what is there to discuss?…Specifically, unless and until you publish your corroboration criteria, it is impossible for anyone to determine – objectively – the extent to which confirmation bias is built into them (or not).”
I don’t undersand why you are making this sound more complex than it really is. Having no “corroboration scale” doesn’t mean you cannot discuss anything nor does it mean there are no strong crbrs. There certainly* are strong corroborations(according to me) which i have been saying since the beginning which are as obviousas daylight. If you want ‘strong’ crbrs according to MH or according to FIGU, then you need to ask them. Also you could have just asked me(or others) to supply you what i think are the strong corroborations & i would have given you just like what i did on CQ forum. Didn’t i direct you to look into Shoemaker-Levy 9(Corroboration 136), 15 days back on CQ forum(04-October-2012, 09:34 AM) ? Didn’t i ask Yakaru(September 7, 2012 @ 2:14 pm) on this blog if he would be interested to discuss strong crbrs then, to which he declined and said that he would look into weak crbrs first for the time being. I am always ready to provide what i think are strong crbrs. As a side note, keep in mind that what i consider as strong crbrs may not be considered as strong crbrs by others or by more or less qualified people.
Suppose we find a strong crbr, What’s next ? There are still more stages(chemical testing, book purchase receipts,..) that are needed to be checked to prove for certainity that the so and so info was published in a certain book in a certain year.
“You seem to have a deep misunderstanding for the nature of science (or at least the nature of astronomy as science): you strongly imply that, contained within the source material (the CRs) is “theory”, and/or “science”, and/or “technology”.”
Are you trying to say that – i have told in my last post that there are scientific theories, facts, technologies,..etc discussed in CRs(atleast in the astronomy-related ones?), to which you found none in so far you have read ? If it so(i may be wrong) then you have misinterpreted my words. I didn’t mean that & never mentioned that. Can you provide the sentences which made you to think so ?
“Yet, as far as I can tell – based on the detailed examination of the six (of ~30 astronomy-related) “corroborations” I’ve written about – none contain any theory, there’s no science involved, and nothing on technology either. If none of the material contains theories, or science, why bother posting it here? On the other hand, if there are some theories, or science, why not assess those components, as part of your “corroboration scale” perhaps?”
Didn’t you say that you have just looked into only 6 of the ~30 astro-crbrs among the 160+ crbrts ? There are several scientific theories & technologies that are discussed in CRs of which some are present in the ~30 which you have picked up yourselves(assuming i understand you correctly). May i know what kind of information on these theories or technology are you expecting from Meier’s CRs ? Hope you have read my post on ‘Context & Content value’ on CQ forum.
And most of all, i was here in this blog initially to post & remind Stu about some errors in his Apophis articles posted since 2010 which are slipped by most or all of his readers. A nice example of confirmation bias, isnt it? I didn’t start the conversation by saying – ‘i am going to present only crbrs that contain only scientific theories & technology that satisfies anybodys criteria’. I was here just responding to the claims & comments of persons on the case. You may want to look carefully for the crbrs in FOM that talk about scientific phenomenon or observations and technology. And if you interested to talk about them, i would be glad to join. On other hand if you want to deal only with strong crbrs which are astronomy related(irrespective of whether it is a theory or observation), then please do so.
Comment by mahigitam — October 19, 2012 @ 4:00 am |
mahitigam, let’s see if we can get on the same page, so far as an agreed basis for discussion, shall we?
If you’ve read my comments here you’ll have noticed that I have no interest – zero, nil, nada – in discussing anything that is not astronomy (or closely related). After all, the title of this blog is Exposing PseudoAstronomy!
I’ve also said – more than once – that my approach to examining claims such as MH has presented here is science-based; more narrowly, astronomy-as-science.
It seems, from what you wrote in your last comment, that you misunderstand (or choose to ignore) this. But perhaps it’s also, at least in part, a confusion over what ‘based on astronomy-as-science’ means? If so, please read on.
I asked, in a previous comment, whether you have yet “Defined clear, objective criteria for determining the “level” of any corroboration? Published those? If you have not done […] these things, what is there to discuss?” Your response completely missed the main point! If the criteria for deciding whether a “corroboration” is “strong” or “weak” (or anything else) is entirely subjective (as you stated), any discussion of “corroborations” will very likely become chaotic. As it already has. MH – by his own words – insisted that all ~130 are “strong” (his word is “IRONCLAD”). Yet you disagreed. MH’s approach at least had the benefit of a published set of criteria (so anyone can judge for themselves whether any particular “corroboration” meets them or not); you approach has no such benefit.
Take a concrete example. Suppose I were to say that the Eros “corroboration” (“Corroboration 31″) is – potentially – a strong corroboration (SC). Suppose I were to say that the reason it’s a SC candidate is that it seems to be quantitative. Now my assessment could be judged – objectively, and in an independently verifiable way (assuming I’d said a bit more about what “quantitative” means) – and we could all proceed. But suppose you were to say that it is actually a weak corroboration (WC), and supposed that, if pressed, you’d say it is a WC because the largest ~circular topographic feature on Eros, Himeros, is ~11 km in diameter, which is in conflict with what’s in the CR. (I’m not saying that you have, or would, make such an assessment; this is a ‘what if’ exercise). In such a circumstance, how could we have a meaningful discussion?
And, so far, it’s actually much worse than my hypothetical: your proposed ‘collaboration criteria’ amount to little more than ‘just because’ (“Why do you say X is SC?” “It’s an SC (just) because I say it is!” “But Alex says it’s a WC, and so won’t discuss it.” “Well, Alex is wrong; it’s an SC!!”).
You wrote: “There certainly* are strong corroborations(according to me) which i have been saying since the beginning which are as obviousas daylight. […] I am always ready to provide what i think are strong crbrs.”
OK, in your opinion, which of these are “strong crbrs” (and why)? 31, 47, 55, 76, 82, 84, 85, 89, and 103. If 31 and 76 are not (in your opinion), would you care to say why they are not?
Concerning “Can you provide the sentences which made you to think so ?” Sure. It’s this part of your follow-on sentence “So this implicit truth that our scientific conclusions are limited by present technology, science & cognition should be kept in mind when dealing with cases which are told that the info came from higher intelligence sources-alleged ETs …” In context, it seems to me that “the info” refers (almost explicitly) to these expressions in the preceeding sentences: “theory/phenomenon”, “observational/experimental evidence & peer reviewing”, and “technology, science & cognition”.
Now this is somewhat disturbing: “Didn’t you say that you have just looked into only 6 of the ~30 astro-crbrs among the 160+ crbrts ?” No, mahitigam, I never said that!!! I have no idea where “160+” comes from. When I did my research, there were only ~130 (134, if I recall correctly). While we’re at it, in the very same comment you use both “150+” (three times) and “160+”; Huh?!?
“There are several scientific theories & technologies that are discussed in CRs of which some are present in the ~30 which you have picked up yourselves(assuming i understand you correctly). ”
There are? Examples please! Start with the six I’ve looked at so far (6, 31, 66, 76, 78, and 134).
Final note: as I have already mentioned, “selection effects” and “selection bias” are central to almost all of astronomy. Have you considered the extent to which selection effects and selection bias are present, in the work done to compile the list of 130+ (or 150+, or 160+, or … ) “IRONCLAD corroborations”? For example, you mentioned “thousands of pages” (presumably of CRs); I wonder how many SaCs (strong anti-corroborations) there are, in those thousands of pages, which no one is talking about? To what extent is there an objective, published proceedure in place to address such potential selection effects?
Comment by Nereid — October 19, 2012 @ 7:38 am |
“If you’ve read my comments here you’ll have noticed that I have no interest – zero, nil, nada – in discussing anything that is not astronomy (or closely related). After all, the title of this blog is Exposing PseudoAstronomy!
I’ve also said – more than once – that my approach to examining claims such as MH has presented here is science-based; more narrowly, astronomy-as-science.”
I think there are several reasons for this “confusion” & one of them is as you said the meaning of what you mean by ‘astronomy-as-science’ when analysing Meier’s CRs. Another reason may be your many-times usuage of double apostrophes for words(not quotations) which i find it confusing when wanted to go back, read & re-interpret your comments. I think it is better if you lay out explicitly what you mean by using ‘astronomy-as-science’ when analysing Meier’s CRs. Is it same as what Stuart Robbins(SR) did on this blog on Apophis or is it something different. Since we are discussing in SRs blog & since he already done a critique on Apophis, the common assumption for this whole discussion i thought was that the criteria which SR thought was enough to analyse Meiers Apophis info would also extend to any analysis done on any astro info in Meiers case. Now if you are thinking of anything more that goes beyong SRs criteria, then you need to let us know what kind of information you are expecting to analyse and what are the requirements for it.
You didn’t reply to my previous question – “May i know what kind of information on these theories or technology are you expecting from Meier’s CRs ? Hope you have read my post on ‘Context & Content value’ on CQ forum”. Without first knowing what kind of information is required for you to analyse, how can we have a proper discussion without confusion? For example, take this:
“Yet, as far as I can tell – based on the detailed examination of the six (of ~30 astronomy-related) “corroborations” I’ve written about – none contain any theory, there’s no science involved, and nothing on technology either. If none of the material contains theories, or science, why bother posting it here?”
This blog or discussion assumes the context of Meier’s contacts & the content value that would be going to be tested by SR & commented upon by others.
Is there a theory or science in Apophis information published by Meier ?
If there is, what is it ?
If there is “no theory or science”, then why would SR and IIG donate their time on non-science ?
If there is “no theory or science” in it & SR is ok with posting a critique on Apophis on his blog, then i dont see any reason why i should not?
And why do you think IIG(Independent Investigations Group) also posted a critique on not only Apophis but on several astronomical information on their site ?
http://www.iigwest.org/investigations/meier/ike42report.htm
Aren’t they doing it using astronomy-as-science ?
If yes, then what you are asking here seems to have no meaning & irrelevant in the context of ‘analysing the crbrs’ because the criteria which is required to analyse Meier’s text(containing alleged ET info) satisfied SRs & IIG’s standards.
And if you say no, then you need to explain to us what’s wrong with their methodology of ‘analysing the crbrs’ from yours, so that we can have a chance whether to consider your criteria at all ?
“Your response completely missed the main point! If the criteria for deciding whether a “corroboration” is “strong” or “weak” (or anything else) is entirely subjective (as you stated), any discussion of “corroborations” will very likely become chaotic. As it already has. MH – by his own words – insisted that all ~130 are “strong” (his word is “IRONCLAD”). Yet you disagreed. MH’s approach at least had the benefit of a published set of criteria (so anyone can judge for themselves whether any particular “corroboration” meets them or not); you approach has no such benefit.”
I didn’t mean it will have to be subjective but suggested that we need a group of people from different sciences to label any crbr. So here is one point that is enough to label any crbr as strong – any astronomical observation or information* that was not known before or not possible for our scientists or just considered it as hypothetical or considered impossible for a common man to know – which later proved to be close to Meiers info can be considered strong. Also the information should not be vague, be specific with names and dates.
* – context and content value
“31, 47, 55, 76, 82, 84, 85, 89, and 103. If 31 and 76 are not (in your opinion), would you care to say why they are not?”
To confidently say that some are strong crbrs, one need to dig into the astronomy journals. Since i am no expert in astronomy or no experience in searching astro journals, my set of strong astro crbrs are limited and subject to change. And that is the reason why i said in my comments that i would like to join with someone from astro community who could solve this issue. Afaik most of them do not fall under strong crbrs. One reason is that i am not fully sure whether the observations were theorized or observed or speculated & published before the meier’s publication date.
71 – CentaurusA containing a SMBH seems to be known before Meiers CR, and the 2001 study was a re-confirmation of previous studies
31 – I am not sure whether it was known before that Eros contains “blue dust or other blue material” & the size was around 35 kms. Since you are into astronomy, you know better than me.
“In context, it seems to me that “the info” refers (almost explicitly) to these expressions in the preceeding sentences: “theory/phenomenon”, “observational/experimental evidence & peer reviewing”, and “technology, science & cognition”.”
No, i was referring “the info” to the content in CRs.
“Now this is somewhat disturbing: “Didn’t you say that you have just looked into only 6 of the ~30 astro-crbrs among the 160+ crbrts ?”
Haha don’t be alarmed that was a mistake, it should be 130+.
Comment by mahigitam — October 21, 2012 @ 4:27 am
You are welcome, Mahigitam, but i see no evidence by you; a lot of beliefs and speculations, yes. I google you also and i see you are on many UFO websites to advertise Billy Meier.
Thank you, Michael Horn, but i don’t need that, because i do my research myself.
Now, i have free time and i looked more at the website ‘Future Of Mankind’, and I am very surprised to see Billy Meier say the symbols here are of him and the Plejaren Alphabet, here und here: http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/meier/gaiaguys/meier.symbole.htm, http://futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Plejaren_and_Hebrew_Alphabet_Comparison
Because this are parts of the old works of Herrn Rudolf Koch and hiere in Germany everybody know that!
See ‘Das Zeichenbuch’ of year 1923: http://moorstation.org/koch_memorial/meisterwerke/zeichenbuch.htm#top
Here are more, you can read, it is in English: http://catholic-resources.org/Art/Koch-ChristianSymbols.htm
Comment by Jennifer — October 19, 2012 @ 5:22 am |
“You are welcome, Mahigitam, but i see no evidence by you; a lot of beliefs and speculations, yes. I google you also and i see you are on many UFO websites to advertise Billy Meier.”
I didn’t present any evidence earlier because i didn’t find anyone here asking me to present & talk about strong evidence. The word ‘advertise’ has some ‘not-positive’ connotations attached to it & since english seems to be not your first language(to me it is third language), i will give you the benefit of doubt on the meaning you intended to express. I look myself as a person who is presenting the case(which i think is likely not a hoax) but not promoting or advertising or any sort of propaganda. However if you mean by that word, that i am promoting the case without any evidence for selfish reasons & arguing illogically, then i will have to object to that & would like you to present any instances of me doing the ‘advertising’. I will only speak from evidence, if you have any evidence for or against, then present it with appropriate logical conclusions. You will see below, what i mean.
“Now, i have free time and i looked more at the website ‘Future Of Mankind’, and I am very surprised to see Billy Meier say the symbols here are of him and the Plejaren Alphabet, here und here…”
Meier as far as i know(afaik) never said that the “spirit symbols” came first from him(if you mean that) and it is obvious from the title itself which says – ‘Symbols of the Spirit Teachings from the Storage Banks of Nokodemion and Henok’.
Also you will find this – ‘They were recorded in very ancient times by Nokodemion and Henok for the spirit teachings and some were laboriously retrieved and reproduced by Billy Meier from his storage banks…Some of these symbols, or their parts, will be familiar to us as they have seemingly been adopted and adapted by what we call The Powers That Be…and in some instances have even evidently been assigned opposite meanings to the ones evoked by the originals. Billy cites the Christian church as having produced falsifications..”.
He explicitly stated that they have already been known before him(christian teachings, Old testament prophets,..) and that he is just now presenting the unadulterated symbols along with new symbols. We can add this to our examples of ‘confirmation bias’ & other fallacies which i don’t want to go into now.
“I go from one surprise to another surprise! People of America do not researches? ‘Omfalon Murado’ of Billy Meier…is in the reality the old book ‘Das Buch Enoch’: In English ‘The Book Of Enoch’.
Maybe you now understand why Germans and people who read German Language don’t take Billy Meier serious.”
Not again! Please read the relevant & related text first before forming any conclusions. You just cited a link which has excerpts from the book OM. It has no information whatsoever on the introduction or the background of the book which is available in another link on the same website.
In this page you will find this: http://futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/OM_%E2%80%93_The_Book_of_Books_%E2%80%93_The_Book_of_Truth
“On either side of these thousands of proverbs of wisdom, are sections which contain the re-transmission of words written down by the prophet Henok, including grave prophecies concerning our present times, visions, the story of how thousands of years ago the “sons and daughters of Heaven”* (celestial sons and daughters) mixed with the Earth people, and many more proverbs of wisdom. Some of Henok’s writings, in twisted form, still exist in the form of the book know as the Book of Enoch. Billy Meier says the book of Enoch was the oldest and most important book in the Bible which was removed and condemned as being heretical by the Holy See in Rome.”
He explictly stated that his book OM contains text from the earlier biblical prophet Henok but only in an unadulterated form along with new text. I don’t know which country you are from but i can say this, any logical person in your country would not be proud of what you just displayed here. It seems to me that you are either severely biased to this case or any case that goes against your beliefs or ideas.
As a side note, here is how i process this information relating to OM: First i will go through all the material available on OM and if the required or complete text is not available, i will atleast request or take the help of persons who would give me enough picture or forward text on the claims from that book. It seems you have failed in your first step & started blaming people of America which is funny. Did you miss the ‘class 101’ in Logic ?
Secondly, such text which talks about “unadulterated old spiritual teachings” , does not prove anything in relation to the authenticity of the case nor can we prove whether this OM is an unadulterated old text or not. Anything relating to the validity of any text should be dealt by literary critics & others. So if my goal is to check the authenticity of the case, i would look for evidence that was tested & shown as a support to the case.
My advice: Better load your gun before going to “war”.
Comment by mahigitam — October 21, 2012 @ 12:32 am |
I looked more; here are more symbols and the histories of Mu and Atlantis of Professor James Churchward, Year 1933 ‘Sacred Symbols Of Mu’: http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ssm/index.htm
I go from one surprise to another surprise!
People of America do not researches?
‘Omfalon Murado’ of Billy Meier here http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/meier/gaiaguys/Om.htm is in the reality the old book ‘Das Buch Enoch’: http://www.kronosofia.dk/frames/side/biblioteket/enoch/frameset.html
In English ‘The Book Of Enoch’.
Maybe you now understand why Germans and people who read German Language don’t take Billy Meier serious.
Have a good weekend.
Comment by Jennifer — October 19, 2012 @ 12:19 pm |
@mahitigam (re post dated October 21, 2012 @ 4:27 am): You wrote “I think there are several reasons for this “confusion” & one of them is as you said the meaning of what you mean by ‘astronomy-as-science’ when analysing Meier’s CRs. Another reason may be your many-times usuage of double apostrophes for words(not quotations) which i find it confusing when wanted to go back, read & re-interpret your comments. I think it is better if you lay out explicitly what you mean by using ‘astronomy-as-science’ when analysing Meier’s CRs.”
Yes, I’ve noticed that the lack of an easy way to clearly indicate what’s quoted, and make that distinct from a conventional way of indicating a word or phrase with a special (or restricted) meaning (i.e. set it in single quotes), can be quite confusing.
As can the unintended failure to clearly format paragraphs properly.
I think I’ve found a way to make quoted material clear; not only use double quotes, but also use italics. As above. Another might be to use bold.
You wrote: “You didn’t reply to my previous question – “May i know what kind of information on these theories or technology are you expecting from Meier’s CRs ? […]”
Apologies.
I have no expectations, other than that what those making claims about “corroborations” are being straight. For example, if I am directed to a webpage which has the following in its first paragraph: “What follows is just a fraction of the scientific, […] information that Meier published […]”, I expect that the author is honest, and that the “corroborations” on that webpage contain scientific information.
Another example: “What if the alleged ET information does not match up with our science’s conclusions ? ” (bold added). In this case I expect that the author is honest, and has done at least some research into the nature of “our science’s conclusions“, and has attempted to relate these conclusions to the “information“, from a scientific basis. Of course, in this case, it’s just a question, not a claim; however, I expect the honest intention is to conduct at least a science-based investigation.
(more later)
Comment by Nereid — October 21, 2012 @ 3:05 pm |
Continuing …
@mahitigam: you wrote “I didn’t mean it will have to be subjective but suggested that we need a group of people from different sciences to label any crbr. So here is one point that is enough to label any crbr as strong – any astronomical observation or information* that was not known before or not possible for our scientists or just considered it as hypothetical or considered impossible for a common man to know – which later proved to be close to Meiers info can be considered strong. Also the information should not be vague, be specific with names and dates.
* – context and content value”
Thanks.
So you have suggested at least something, concerning criteria for assessing whether a “crbr” could be labelled “strong” (or not). There are four (at least), linked by “or“; numbering them:
1) it “was not known before”
2) it was “not possible for our scientists” (presumably “to have known before”; please confirm)
3) “just considered it as hypothetical” (presumably “by our scientists, before”; please confirm)
4) it was “considered impossible for a common man to know” (presumably “by our scientists, before”; please confirm)
Do you consider these to be exclusive OR? Inclusive OR? Something else?
For example, is a “crbr” strong if it was “just considered to be hypothetical” BUT the hypothetical was known before, by both “our scientists” and “a common man” (i.e. meets just one of the criteria)? Or must all four criteria be met?
The “it” is “any astronomical observation or information“. Can you say a bit more about this please (perhaps by providing examples)?
One reason why the first part of this (“astronomical observation“) is highly problematic is that an astronomical observation is an event (i.e. there is a time and place) and facility (e.g. telescope plus camera plus filter set). Applied to the ~30 (for ~130) “corroborations” (is a “crbr” the same as a “corroboration”?), it would seem that there are no astronomical observations (among the CRs).
Do you agree? If not, why not?
That leaves us with “any astronomical information (context and content value)”
Here there is, I think, a pretty clean divide between our solar system and beyond it. Within our solar system, much “astronomical information” is now similar to that of the geology of the Earth, or its weather; i.e. obtained by in situ observations. And much of that which is not – today – will become so in the next few decades or centuries. Beyond our solar system – certainly beyond the edge of the Oort cloud – the only advance over inferences obtained by analysis of detected photons (i.e. light) will (likely) be direct gravitational wave radiation and neutrino observations, for at least many centuries.
The latter (astronomical information concerning ‘beyond the solar system’) has a sweeping corollary: QED (quantum electrodynamics) and GR (general relativity) are deeply embedded, to the extent that if either is wrong, all such astronomical information becomes much more uncertain. Perhaps an example might help; consider “Corroboration 84”: the CR says, in part “Besides, our universe – as naturally also every other – consists not only of coarse-matter material, rather also of pure energies, of which one is black energy, as we call it, and is responsible for a certain form of anti-gravity in the material universe and, according to estimates, constitutes three fifths of all universal energies. Matter must also be visible in various forms, so dark matter, on one hand, directs the visible and tangible matter which, very meagre, is calculated at circa point five fifths of the galaxies, while, on the other hand, the dark matter yet amounts to one point five fifths.” and the “CORROBORATED” part provides links to a paper and a popular press article. What’s omitted is a gigantic caveat, namely, that – in simple terms – QED and GR rule, as we understand them today, throughout the observable universe!
A simple follow-on: if you find – anywhere, in any CR – even the slightest hint that either QED or GR is wrong (as we understand these today), then 84 cannot possibly be “CORROBORATED“. Why? Because any corroboration would have to include confirmation of the replacement (or replacements) for QED and/or GR, AND the complete re-working of all the astronomical observations that are contained (implicitly, if not explicitly) in papers such as the Riess et al. (1998) one.
One more, for now (more later): mahitigam, you wrote “31 – I am not sure whether it was known before that Eros contains “blue dust or other blue material” & the size was around 35 kms. ”
It was not “known before” that Eros contains “blue dust or other blue material“, and it is not known now either! If the dust in the ponds were to be brought to you, and placed on a sheet of white paper, you – and everyone else on this planet – would call the colour “grey”. As far as I know, “around 35 kms“, as the size of Eros, is a reasonable description, of what was known before NEAR’s visit.
So, there seems to be “strong” evidence that at least two CRs are wrong, in the sense that “astronomical information” we have today is inconsistent with what’s in them (namely, the mass of the super-massive black hole in Cen A, and the colour of the dust or other material on Eros). How – in your “crbr” labelling scheme – should these be labelled?
(more later)
Comment by Nereid — October 22, 2012 @ 12:11 pm |
(continued)
@mahitigam: you wrote (I removed the paragraph breaks) “This blog or discussion assumes the context of Meier’s contacts & the content value that would be going to be tested by SR & commented upon by others.
Is there a theory or science in Apophis information published by Meier ?
If there is, what is it ?
If there is “no theory or science”, then why would SR and IIG donate their time on non-science ?
If there is “no theory or science” in it & SR is ok with posting a critique on Apophis on his blog, then i dont see any reason why i should not?”
I am not Dr Robbins, so I can’t really answer any of these questions. However, the title of this blog is “Exposing PseudoAstronomy”. So presumably it is within scope to take something that looks like astronomy, and show that it isn’t. If you wish to do the same – i.e. expose something which purports to be astronomy, but isn’t – I would regard that as consistent with the objectives of this blog (of course, within the context of a specific blog entry, etc).
If you were to make claims that a particular CR contains theory or science (of the astronomy kind), or that a particular CR has been “corroborated”, scientifically, by referring to published material which is – or can be traced back to – published papers in astronomy (or related) peer-reviewed journals, that too would be within scope (as I see it; of course, I’m not saying that *have* made such claims, this is a hypothetical).
The flip side is also relevant (again, as I see it): if you make claims that certain CRs have been corroborated – whether weakly, strongly, or otherwise – it is within scope to ask you if you claim these corroborations are based on astronomy-as-science, and whether you claim the CRs also contain astronomy-as-science. And if (hypothetically, of course) you reply “no” to both questions, then I have no interest in any further discussion (with you, on those CRs/claims/corroborations). Of course, Dr Robbins may feel otherwise, as may any other reader.
You wrote: “And why do you think IIG(Independent Investigations Group) also posted a critique on not only Apophis but on several astronomical information on their site ?”
I have no idea. Nor do I care. At least, not here, in the comments section of this particular Exposing PseudoAstronomy blog entry.
(more later)
Comment by Nereid — October 22, 2012 @ 1:41 pm
@mahitigam: you wrote, on October 19, 2012 @ 4:00 am “Also you could have just asked me(or others) to supply you what i think are the strong corroborations & i would have given you […]”
For avoidance of doubt, would you please supply (me, us) with what you, mahitigam, think are “the strong corroborations” within the scope of astronomy (as you understand what astronomy to be)?
Thank you, in advance.
Comment by Nereid — October 22, 2012 @ 2:38 pm |
Continued and concluded.
@mahitigam, on October 19, 2012 @ 4:00 am, you wrote: “Didn’t you say that you have just looked into only 6 of the ~30 astro-crbrs among the 130+ crbrts ?” (I corrected the typo)
Not exactly. I have looked in some detail at six of the ~30 “corroborations” (among the 134) which seemed to me – at the time – to have direct relevance to this blog; i.e. those which concern solar system objects and those which concern objects or phenomena beyond the solar system. I also looked in some detail at those which seemed to me to be directly relevant to Apophis.
“There are several scientific theories & technologies that are discussed in CRs of which some are present in the ~30 which you have picked up yourselves(assuming i understand you correctly).”
There are? Which ones? And what “scientific theories & technologies” are discussed in those CRs?
Comment by Nereid — October 23, 2012 @ 5:39 am |
A follow-up:
@mahitigam: on October 21, 2012 @ 4:27 am, you wrote: “31 – I am not sure whether it was known before that Eros […] & the size was around 35 kms.”
In Publications of the American Astronomical Society, volume 9. Edited by John C. Duncan. Published by the AAS, 1939, p.23, there is a short paper by Fletcher Watson, Jr, entitled “The Physical Nature of Eros“. In it there is this sentence: “The length observed, 0″.18, leads to a greatest dimension of 35 km.” Source: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1939PAAS….9…23W
If I am not mistaken, that’s just ~two years after Meier was born.
However, the observations behind Watson’s paper were made in “in 1931“, by “Van den Bos and Finsen“. If you search, you can find the published record of those 1931 observations (the publication date is 1932).
Comment by Nereid — October 23, 2012 @ 7:48 am |
“It was not “known before” that Eros contains “blue dust or other blue material“, and it is not known now either! If the dust in the ponds were to be brought to you, and placed on a sheet of white paper, you – and everyone else on this planet – would call the colour “grey”.’
Did the meier CR meant that the dust would look blue when looked at close or does it say it looked only as blue relative to the surroundings ? It doesn’t comment on the nature of the true colors of the dust whether it is original or relative to the surroundings. Then i dont understand why did you feel the need to come up with that counter-argument which i think is weak.
So if your argument is taken as truth, NASA & all other reputable papers and experts were also “wrong” when they use the word blue or bluish, when referring to the dust on EROS because NASA websites didn’t mention that the bluish color as being relative or original either in their articles.
Revealing the Face of Eros
http://discoverynewfrontiers.msfc.nasa.gov/news/Discovery/2001/news_092701.html
“The asteroid also has many mysterious ‘ponds’ of bluish dust. What caused these is unclear, but solar energy may have made the particles electrically charged, causing them to levitate out of the asteroid and settle on its surface.”
Hitchhiker’s Guide to an Asteroid
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/05apr_hitchhiker/
“Moreover, Eros is peppered with smaller craters partially filled with flat ponds of fine bluish dust–dust that appears to settle in the craters as smoothly as if it were a fluid.”
The Past of Asteroid Eros
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011009.html
“Still unknown, however, includes why Eros has unusual ponds of blue dust.”
The geology of 433 Eros
Click to access robinson_eros_geo2002.pdf
“Ponded sedimentary deposits (“ponds”) on Eros exhibit distinct color properties relative to their surroundings; in this saturation stretch color ponds show up as smooth blue deposits occupying topographic lows.”
“As far as I know, “around 35 kms“, as the size of Eros, is a reasonable description, of what was known before NEAR’s visit.
Even though the size of Eros has been said to be slightly changed from 40.5×14.5×14.5 to 33x13x13, i consider both values as being in the range close to meier’s description of “..about 35 kilometers..”.
“So, there seems to be “strong” evidence that at least two CRs are wrong, in the sense that “astronomical information” we have today is inconsistent with what’s in them (namely, the mass of the super-massive black hole in Cen A, and the colour of the dust or other material on Eros). How – in your “crbr” labelling scheme – should these be labelled?”
I agree that the mass of the super-massive black hole in Cen A as known to our scientists is verymuch different to what meier said. But i don’t treat this just one instance as a strong counter-evidence to the case. There still is possibility that our values could be wrong(as explained earlier in my previous posts) or that it the numbers are a printing mistake or the “ET” info was wrong(there is no logic or rule that says, all the ET info should be right and match with our sciences and if not the entire info is wrong). May be our scientists will find the true mass of CenA smbh in the future with better equipment and methods.
Galactic Black Holes May Be More Massive Than Thought
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2009/06/09/galactic-black-holes-may-be-more-massive-than-thought
“Astronomers report that some of the biggest supermassive black holes in nearby galaxies are at least twice and possibly four times as heavy as previously estimated..The team’s study is the first to include the presence of dark matter in assessing the mass of a giant black hole. Dark matter, the invisible material believed to make up about 85 percent of the mass in the universe, envelops each galaxy in a vast halo.’
There may be still other factors that would play a role in determining the mass of smbh’. The CenA smbh crbr was there because of the re-confirmation of a smbh at the center and has no relation whatsoever to the mass of the smbh. I consider both CenA & Eros information as not strong. Why do i say these are not strong can only be understood only when you look at the strong crbrs. You haven’t yet provided why your criteria should we consider at all from the SRs & IIG ?
Comment by mahigitam — October 23, 2012 @ 8:10 am |
mahitigam, you wrote “So if your argument is taken as truth, NASA & all other reputable papers and experts were also “wrong” when they use the word blue or bluish, when referring to the dust on EROS because NASA websites didn’t mention that the bluish color as being relative or original either in their articles.”
This is a particularly good example of why we seem to be ‘talking past each other’.
Colour (or color, as they say in the US of A) is a very complex topic, and quantitative, objective, independently verifiable means* of describing it not easy to readily grasp. However, there are such means. If you are interested in taking the ~dozens, possibly hundreds, of hours needed (for most people) to fully come to grips with this, I’d be more than happy to suggest some resources for you.
You quoted from “The geology of 433 Eros”: “Ponded sedimentary deposits (“ponds”) on Eros exhibit distinct color properties relative to their surroundings; in this saturation stretch color ponds show up as smooth blue deposits occupying topographic lows.” (I added some bold)
“Corroboration 31” has this in part (bold in the original): “Billy: …asteroid Eros, which I was allowed to view during the great journey (1975)and which looks similar to a potato, with thousands of large boulders that are scattered about and that are covered in many places by “blue dust or other blue material“,”
Is “Billy” reporting something he saw with his own eyes? Unaided by a device (or other means) which produces a “saturation stretch color“? He doesn’t say. However, unless he used something like such a device, he would not have noticed any colour (other than various shades of grey).
Now the great thing about this is that you don’t have to take my word for it! You can – independently – get the relevant NEAR data (images of Eros), and perform your own analyses. If you do, you can – independently, in an objective, quantified manner* – verify that the dust in the ponds on Eros will look grey (not blue, or bluish), unless you process that data using some kind of colour stretch.
There’s more.
If you would like to learn how to obtain such data, and perform such analyses, there are many people who’d be only too pleased to help you.
* those are criteria – or components – I clearly stated before (“Comment by Nereid — September 10, 2012 @ 2:21 pm”); did you forget this?
Comment by Nereid — October 23, 2012 @ 10:08 am |
Perhaps a concrete illustration would help.
What colour is the Moon?
If you look at it through a common, amateur astronomer-type telescope, with you own eyes (though an eyepiece), I challenge you to say it has any colour other than grey (of various shades, including ‘white’ and ‘black’).
In particular, you would not say that (at least some of) the mare are ‘bluish’, much less ‘blue’.
Nor would you say that (at least some of) the highlands are ‘orange’, ‘pink’, or ‘purple’.
But if you take an image of the Moon, with a Canon EOS 20D camera, then process the image to stretch the colours, that’s exactly what you’ll find!
Check this out (just one example; there are hundreds out there on the internet):
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16822681
Comment by Nereid — October 23, 2012 @ 10:54 am
Mahigitam, you wrote: “Did the meier CR meant that the dust would look blue when looked at close or does it say it looked only as blue relative to the surroundings ? It doesn’t comment on the nature of the true colors of the dust whether it is original or relative to the surroundings. Then i dont understand why did you feel the need to come up with that counter-argument which i think is weak.
So if your argument is taken as truth, NASA & all other reputable papers and experts were also “wrong” when they use the word blue or bluish, when referring to the dust on EROS because NASA websites didn’t mention that the bluish color as being relative or original either in their articles.”
Are you familiar with the parable (story) of the Greek philosophers and the Arab? I don’t know where it comes from, originally, but this webpage has a discussion on its origin:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=713157
And here’s a version close to what I remember: “Three Greek philosophers and an Arab were all staying at the same inn. At dinner the philosphers were debating the number of teeth in the head of a horse. Each philospher mustered his arguments and debated the subject endlessly. The first philosopher insisted that horses have 32 teeth; the second was convinced that horses have 40 teeth; the third insisted on 48.
The philosophers called upon the Arab to act as judge of their debate. After listening to all of the arguments the Arab asked for permission to leave the room. After a brief hiatus the Arab returned and solemnly pronounced in favor of the second philosopher. All of the philosophers sprang to their feet and demanded to know which of his arguments had swayed him. The Arab responded “Arguments? I went back in to the stable and counted”.”
Why scour the web for material that might support your contention when you could download the data and analyse it for yourself?
Comment by Nereid — October 23, 2012 @ 2:21 pm
Here’s another example. This time, the galaxy known as NGC 660 (it also has several other names), which is a spectacular example of a ‘polar-ring galaxy’.
What are NGC 660’s colours?
Here are some images of NGC 660, easily found on the internet:
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/n660.html
http://www.gemini.edu/node/11896
http://www.galaxyzooforum.org/index.php?topic=35.0
So, what colour is the brightest part of this fascinating object, the body of the central part of the disk? Is is white? pale yellow? pinkish-white? bluish-white? intense yellow? orange? something else??
And if you were lucky enough to be aboard the International Space Station, equipped with a good telescope, and you looked through the eyepiece at NGC 660, what colour would it appear to you (assuming you have normal colour vision)? What about if you are one of those lucky women with two sets of functioning red cones?
The answer is rather surprising, perhaps even shocking: the galaxy is too faint for you tell, using just your eyes, what colour it is! And it doesn’t matter how big the telescope you use to observe it, “faint” in this case refers to surface brightness (a bigger telescope does not change surface brightness, one of those counter-intuitive things about galaxies, and human colour vision).
Here’s another interesting fact: the last three images were all created from the same data (SDSS)!!
The good news is that, for the standard SDSS images, there is a paper which describes how the image data is processed, to produce the colourful images over half a million ‘zooites’ viewed (in the immensely successful Citizen Science project, Galaxy Zoo): Lupton et al. (2004). You can read the details in this arXiv preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312483
Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2012 @ 6:46 am
Mahitgam, you wrote: “I agree that the mass of the super-massive black hole in Cen A as known to our scientists is verymuch different to what meier said. But i don’t treat this just one instance as a strong counter-evidence to the case. There still is possibility that our values could be wrong(as explained earlier in my previous posts) or that it the numbers are a printing mistake or the “ET” info was wrong(there is no logic or rule that says, all the ET info should be right and match with our sciences and if not the entire info is wrong). May be our scientists will find the true mass of CenA smbh in the future with better equipment and methods.”
Does it work in reverse too?
Is there still a possibility that “our values” could be right? That there is no “printing mistake“? The “the “ET” info” is wrong? That “May be our scientists will find the true mass of CenA smbh in the future with better equipment and methods“, and find it to be consistent with estimates already published in the relevant, peer-reviewed literature?
Suppose I say that “this just one instance” is, pace you, “strong counter-evidence to the case“.
If I were to say that, would we have two, conflicting, opinions?
If I were to say that, would there be any basis for us to continue to have a rational, meaningful discussion?
Comment by Nereid — October 23, 2012 @ 10:19 am |
One more on this, mahigitam: “So if your argument is taken as truth, NASA & all other reputable papers and experts were also “wrong” when they use the word blue or bluish, when referring to the dust on EROS because NASA websites didn’t mention that the bluish color as being relative or original either in their articles.”
Why do you use NASA as a reputable source?
Under the heading “Corroboration 14“, I read this text:
“UPDATE: July 19, 2009
In light of the recent dicsovery [sic] of”newly restored copies” of the so-called Moon Landing tapes, it seems like the perfect time to contemplate what Meier was told during the 357th Contact, Monday, April 26th, 2004:
“…In addition to that, I am able to recall that earlier, once the talk was that NASA, subsequently, under certain circumstances, after the alleged first conjured up Moon race landing on July 20th, 1969, carried out manned or unmanned Moon landings, whereby all objects and so forth were then set out on the Moon which were supposed to have been left behind by the alleged first landing on the Moon.
The reason for that was supposed to have been, as I remember it, that it could later be “proven” that the first Moon landing, and also further ones, was actually supposed to have come about on July 20th, 1969.
You have further explained that the Moon landing lie will also be vehemently contested in the new millennium and everything will be undertaken to create “proof” and indeed again in the form that new fraudulent pictures are to be manufactured, in which allegedly, the first Moon landing’s “left-behind” objects and so forth, will be able to be “sighted” on the Moon through a new telescope and will be broadcast worldwide through television as a new fraud.
The whole thing can eventually actually come about through a new type of telescope, always with the prerequisite that real materials were set out on the Moon, yet it could also be that then everything is only a studio set-up, as with the alleged first Moon landing…”
Of course, Meier is far from a Johnny-come-lately regarding this matter, as he first commencted [sic] on it in 1958 [link], then again in 1985 [link] and also in 1989 [link].”
If the “July 20th, 1969” “Moon landing” is a “lie“, then don’t you think it rather, um, inconsistent to use any material from NASA in your corroborations?
You may be wondering why I copied the whole text. Well, “Corroboration 6” used to be “Discoveries on Mars“, as I noted on September 10, 2012 @ 7:46 am. But now it’s “AIDS-like disease“!
Comment by Nereid — October 24, 2012 @ 12:07 am |
Oops! The italics didn’t quite work properly. The full text of “Corroboration 14“ should be:
“UPDATE: July 19, 2009
In light of the recent dicsovery [sic] of”newly restored copies” of the so-called Moon Landing tapes, it seems like the perfect time to contemplate what Meier was told during the 357th Contact, Monday, April 26th, 2004:
“…In addition to that, I am able to recall that earlier, once the talk was that NASA, subsequently, under certain circumstances, after the alleged first conjured up Moon race landing on July 20th, 1969, carried out manned or unmanned Moon landings, whereby all objects and so forth were then set out on the Moon which were supposed to have been left behind by the alleged first landing on the Moon.
The reason for that was supposed to have been, as I remember it, that it could later be “proven” that the first Moon landing, and also further ones, was actually supposed to have come about on July 20th, 1969.
You have further explained that the Moon landing lie will also be vehemently contested in the new millennium and everything will be undertaken to create “proof” and indeed again in the form that new fraudulent pictures are to be manufactured, in which allegedly, the first Moon landing’s “left-behind” objects and so forth, will be able to be “sighted” on the Moon through a new telescope and will be broadcast worldwide through television as a new fraud.
The whole thing can eventually actually come about through a new type of telescope, always with the prerequisite that real materials were set out on the Moon, yet it could also be that then everything is only a studio set-up, as with the alleged first Moon landing…”
Of course, Meier is far from a Johnny-come-lately regarding this matter, as he first commencted [sic] on it in 1958 [link], then again in 1985 [link] and also in 1989 [link].”
Comment by Nereid — October 24, 2012 @ 12:13 am
@mahigitam: you wrote: ““Astronomers report that some of the biggest supermassive black holes in nearby galaxies are at least twice and possibly four times as heavy as previously estimated.. […]” There may be still other factors that would play a role in determining the mass of smbh’.”
The primary source for this is Gebhardt & Thomas (2009), “The Black Hole Mass, Stellar Mass-to-Light Ratio, and Dark Halo in M87”. Here’s a link to the arXiv abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1492. And here’s that abstract:
“We model the dynamical structure of M87 (NGC4486) using high spatial resolution long-slit observations of stellar light in the central regions, two-dimensional stellar light kinematics out to half of the effective radius, and globular cluster velocities out to 8 effective radii. We simultaneously fit for four parameters, black hole mass, dark halo core radius, dark halo circular velocity, and stellar mass-to-light ratio. We find a black hole mass of 6.4(+-0.5)x10^9 Msun(the uncertainty is 68% confidence marginalized over the other parameters). The stellar M/L_V=6.3+-0.8. The best-fitted dark halo core radius is 14+-2 kpc, assuming a cored logarithmic potential. The best-fitted dark halo circular velocity is 715+-15 km/s. Our black hole mass is over a factor of 2 larger than previous stellar dynamical measures, and our derived stellar M/L ratio is 2 times lower than previous dynamical measures. When we do not include a dark halo, we measure a black hole mass and stellar M/L ratio that is consistent with previous measures, implying that the major difference is in the model assumptions. The stellar M/L ratio from our models is very similar to that derived from stellar population models of M87. The reason for the difference in the black hole mass is because we allow the M/L ratio to change with radius. The dark halo is degenerate with the stellar M/L ratio, which is subsequently degenerate with the black hole mass. We argue that dynamical models of galaxies that do not include the contribution from a dark halo may produce a biased result for the black hole mass. This bias is especially large for a galaxy with a shallow light profile such as M87, and may not be as severe in galaxies with steeper light profiles unless they have a large stellar population change with radius.”
This paper has been cited some 97 times (according to ADS). One such subsequent paper is Schulze & Gebhardt (2011), “Effect of a Dark Matter Halo on the Determination of Black Hole Masses”. Here’s a link to the arXiv abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5077. And here’s that abstract:
“Stellar dynamical modeling is a powerful method to determine the mass of black holes in quiescent galaxies. However, in previous work the presence of a dark matter halo has been ignored in the modeling. Gebhardt & Thomas (2009) showed that accounting for a dark matter halo increased the black hole mass of the massive galaxy M87 by a factor of two. We used a sample of 12 galaxies to investigate the effect of accounting for a dark matter halo in the dynamical modeling in more detail, and also updated the masses using improved modeling. The sample of galaxies possesses Hubble Space Telescope and ground based observations of stellar kinematics. Their black hole masses have been presented before, but without including a dark matter halo in the models. Without a dark halo, we find a mean increase in the estimated mass of 1.5 for the whole sample compared to previous results. We attribute this change to using a more complete orbit library. When we include a dark matter halo, along with the updated models, we find an additional increase in black hole mass by a factor of 1.2 in the mean, much less than for M87. We attribute the smaller discrepancy in black hole mass to using data that better resolves the black hole’s sphere of influence. We redetermined the M-sigma and M-L relationships using our updated black hole masses and found a slight increase in both normalization and intrinsic scatter.”
You are right, of course, that there may be other, as yet undiscovered, factors relevant to the determination of the masses of SMBHs (from analysis of detected photons/electromagnetic radiation). However, in this case, the “factors” Gebhardt & Thomas (2009) found seem to be quite modest (“a factor of 1.2 in the mean“), in terms of the changes in SMBH mass estimates based on the techniques they describe (“stellar dynamical measures“; there are other – independent – methods of estimating SMBH mass, they would be unaffected by this factor).
However, by far the biggest “factor” would likely result from the wide-scale re-analysis that would have to be done, if/when replacements (or extensions) to QED and/or GR become established.
Comment by Nereid — October 24, 2012 @ 7:55 am |
“Do you consider these to be exclusive OR? Inclusive OR? Something else?”
Since not all theories(before being recognised as most likely true) proposed by scientists are on the same level of popularity or considered as ‘good explanations’ for the phenomenon, so I am thinking that we are unnecessarily wasting our time trying to create a specific set of rules to follow while looking for strong crbrs(corroborations) when the other way around(used by SR & IIG) takes less time, fruitful & direct to the point. For some crbrs it may be include all the points and for some only some of them is enough. Also if there is group that have formed and are interested to look into many crbrs to identify for strong crbrs, then a set of rules may be useful. But the way i see it, there are only few strong astronomy related crbrs. If your plans here are to participate in a selected group to look and verify which are strong & weak, then formulating a set of rules may be fruitful. But you are just here to verify the claims made by a person(me in this case) according to whatever criteria you have. Then all you need to do is to ask for what are the strong crbrs and then in turn, you will get the chance to verify whether they are strong crbrs or not. Its that simple. Since there are no ‘crbr rules’ to follow on this blog & also there is no jury here, it is of no use preparing a set of rules. I, you or anyone can always move the goal post.
Besides when we have common sense(which both IIG and Stuart Robbins used appropriately) which can distinguish a strong crbr from a weak crbr, the way your proposing is in my opinion a total waste of time & not worth the effort. So i am not going to participate in what i think is ‘beating-around-the-bush’ but instead would love to follow the same criteria which IIG and SR used to assess the astro-info in Meier case.
==================================
“What’s omitted is a gigantic caveat, namely, that – in simple terms – QED and GR rule, as we understand them today, throughout the observable universe!..The latter (astronomical information concerning ‘beyond the solar system’) has a sweeping corollary: QED (quantum electrodynamics) and GR (general relativity) are deeply embedded, to the extent that if either is wrong, all such astronomical information becomes much more uncertain. ”
Don’t you think there is still some another alternative to your statement besides being QED & GR as either right or wrong! In Meier case, it is being said that there are corrections that needed to be made to the GR.
“Applied to the ~30 (for ~130) “corroborations” (is a “crbr” the same as a “corroboration”?), it would seem that there are no astronomical observations (among the CRs). One reason why the first part of this (“astronomical observation“) is highly problematic is that an astronomical observation is an event (i.e. there is a time and place) and facility (e.g. telescope plus camera plus filter set). Applied to the ~30 (for ~130) “corroborations” (is a “crbr” the same as a “corroboration”?), it would seem that there are no astronomical observations (among the CRs).”
If i understand you correctly(correct me if i am wrong), you haven’t yet taken the context of the case into consideration, did you ? You still seem to be using the narrow approach which is using the ‘astronomy-as-science’, whatever that is. You haven’t yet explained to us what you mean by ‘astronomy-as-science in a direct fashion nor did you explain why your criteria is relevant & a good approach to the case rather than the others. If you are not willing to do so but insist to interpret the same way, then i am sorry i am not interested to participate in what i see as completely wrong and irrelevant to the case.
If what i think about your approach is true(if not let me know), don’t you think it is important to know the context of the case before participating and joining in a discussion ? If you think it is not, then tell us why not ?
“I am not Dr Robbins, so I can’t really answer any of these questions. However, the title of this blog is “Exposing PseudoAstronomy”. So presumably it is within scope to take something that looks like astronomy, and show that it isn’t. If you wish to do the same – i.e. expose something which purports to be astronomy, but isn’t – I would regard that as consistent with the objectives of this blog (of course, within the context of a specific blog entry, etc)…it is within scope to ask you if you claim these corroborations are based on astronomy-as-science, and whether you claim the CRs also contain astronomy-as-science. And if (hypothetically, of course) you reply “no” to both questions, then I have no interest in any further discussion (with you, on those CRs/claims/corroborations).’
Until today no one has come forward saying that the meier case CR’s has the ‘astronomy-as-science’ information & so should be analysed based on such. Neither the SR nor the IIG & the hundreds of people debating online(& with whom i debated) until to this date of october 2012 have interpreted it in such way(afaik). You are the first person(afaik) who is interpreting the case in a completely different way. It seems you have wasted yours and our time by joining in the wrong discussion under the wrong podcast under the wrong assumptions using wrong methods. Your ‘astronomy-as-science’ is useless & irrelevant to the analysis & the discussion(avoiding the context) that is going on in this blog and we should better stop discussing using your “method” anymore & save our time and energy on other things.
Whenever SR posts anything related to the case, he clearly mentions and provides a background to the meier case. He didn’t jump into it without knowing or giving the background, context and content value that is going to be in Meier’s CRs. YOu should have told us what your ‘astronomy-as-science’ means in your first post itself so that we would have decided whether your ideas & analysis has any relevance to the case or not & hence to the discussion that would be ensued from then.
The analysis & conclusions of SR & IIG are totally different to yours & they are not ‘the Meier information contain no theories or science related to astronomy, so they are not crbrs’ but their analysis considered the context & the content value that they could read, understand and verify & gave the conclusions like ‘SR-Meier didn’t use the word Apophis earlier to its discovery & naming so he the info supports retrodiction hypothesis’ or ‘IIG-Meier may have published information only after the facts were discovered by science’.
“In it there is this sentence: “The length observed, 0″.18, leads to a greatest dimension of 35 km.” Source: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1939PAAS….9…23W”
The link must be corrected. And thanks for the information. The size of the asteroid Eros was never presented as a form of crbr anywhere.
Comment by mahigitam — October 23, 2012 @ 8:27 am |
@mahitigam: Some quick responses only
“Until today no one has come forward saying that the meier case CR’s has the ‘astronomy-as-science’ information & so should be analysed based on such.”
False. Michael Horn has. Many times. Would you like me to quote, from his comments, here? Or would you prefer to re-read what he wrote for yourself?
“If what i think about your approach is true(if not let me know)”
What you think about my approach is not true. I will expand on this later. My apologies for failing – so badly – to communicate what is actually an extremely simple thing.
“The size of the asteroid Eros was never presented as a form of crbr anywhere.”
First, you yourself enquired about it (“Comment by mahigitam — October 21, 2012 @ 4:27 am”: “31 – I am not sure whether it was known before that Eros contains “blue dust or other blue material” & the size was around 35 kms.“) I supplied information showing that “the size of Eros” was, in fact, “known before”.
Second, under the heading “b>Corroboration 31</b” and “Contact Report 214, Tuesday, February 3rd, 1987“, on the webpage MH provided a link to, one can read this (bold in the original): “Billy: …asteroid Eros, which I was allowed to view during the great journey (1975)and which […] The largest crater, as Ptaah said, is about 7,500 meters wide, if I remember correctly….. Eros still has a size of about 35 kilometers…“
Comment by Nereid — October 23, 2012 @ 9:41 am |
It’s now “later”.
I thought a bit more about this, mahitigam, and re-read your comments. On reflection, I think there’s a very simple way to move forward, you and I.
“@mahitigam: you wrote, on October 19, 2012 @ 4:00 am “Also you could have just asked me(or others) to supply you what i think are the strong corroborations & i would have given you […]”
For avoidance of doubt, would you please supply (me, us) with what you, mahitigam, think are “the strong corroborations” within the scope of astronomy (as you understand what astronomy to be)?
Thank you, in advance.” (source: “Comment by Nereid — October 22, 2012 @ 2:38 pm”; I put your original words in bold)
If you would be so kind as to answer those questions, I think we can proceed.
Comment by Nereid — October 23, 2012 @ 11:15 am
I wrote: “What’s omitted is a gigantic caveat, namely, that – in simple terms – QED and GR rule, as we understand them today, throughout the observable universe!..The latter (astronomical information concerning ‘beyond the solar system’) has a sweeping corollary: QED (quantum electrodynamics) and GR (general relativity) are deeply embedded, to the extent that if either is wrong, all such astronomical information becomes much more uncertain.”
mahigitam wrote: “Don’t you think there is still some another alternative to your statement besides being QED & GR as either right or wrong! In Meier case, it is being said that there are corrections that needed to be made to the GR.”
The short answer is: “No, there is no other alternative.”
A longer answer starts, perhaps, with “Corroboration 76” and “Corroboration 109”. Here are the key parts of the quoted CRs, first #76, then #109 (paragraph breaks deleted in each case; bolding in the original omitted):
“Contact Report 224, Thurday, July 7th, 1988
Billy: On my Great Journey, I was with Ptaah and Semjase in a galaxy about 10 million light years away from the Earth, which was named to me as Centaurus A”
“Contact Report 306, Thursday, July 19, 2001
Billy: Now, I would like to ask about what technology and energy source you actually use for your intergalactic and planetary communication.
As I know, your technology is aligned in such a way that there is no loss of time during communication, not even when this is carried out across millions and billions of light years. Can you explain something about this to me, or is it all a secret?
Ptaah: We use the technology of negative speed, by what means a signal is already manifested at the destination through corresponding communication devices before the actual transmission or sending of the signal has even begun.Thus, the signal already reaches the goal upon input of the signal.The sending distance is unlimited and, therefore, extends throughout the whole Universe.”
So, Billy was “in a galaxy about 10 million light years away from the Earth“, in 1975 (a “fact” we know from another of the “Corroborations” (#31), and a comment by mahigitam (October 25, 2012 @ 3:05 am)). And back on Earth very soon afterwards (as seen by some people somewhere in Switzerland, presumably). A journey of ~20 million light-years in an elapsed (local, here on Earth) time of, what, a day? a week?
And “instantaneous” communication is possible, across the entire universe, even beyond the observable universe.
Now it is already known that QED and GR are mutually incompatible, in the Planck regime (or ‘at Planck scales’), so either one is wrong, perhaps both. But we have no hope – in the lifetimes of anyone reading this comment today, in October 2012 – of doing experiments even within a dozen orders of magnitude of Planck scales, so it will not be possible to work out which is wrong any time soon (by lab-based experiments).
However, that mutual incompatibility is utterly trivial when compared with what follows if we accept “Billy” at his word!
But suppose we suspend disbelief, and suppose we suppose he did, in fact, travel to Cen A and back, in what appeared – here on Earth – to be an elapsed time of just a day (or so). That implies that either QED or GR (or both) is stonkingly, massively wrong! And the knock-on “wrongs” are mind blowing; for example, the Noether theorems are wrong, the Bell inequality is wrong, the ‘laws of physics’ are not universal, …
Coming back to “crbrs”: there’s a logical logjam, involving all ‘beyond the solar system’ “scientific facts & theories”. Since all these were painstakingly derived assuming both QED and GR are ‘not wrong’ within clearly defined limits, and if we accept “Billy” at his word, within these limits either (or, more likely, both) QED and GR are horrendously wrong, then all such conclusions are rendered totally uncertain!
As I find this a very interesting topic, I plan to write more about it. For now, I’ll conclude by saying that I expect neither MH nor mahigitam have any real idea of what I’m talking about, and certainly do not understand how the key Noether theorem (for example) has anything whatsoever to do with “Billy’s Great journey”.
Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2012 @ 2:44 pm |
First, a closer look at the “CORROBORATION” part of “Corroboration 109”.
It consists of just two lines of text, the first of which is largely the title of an article in seattlepi, a “major metro daily newspaper” that is available only online (since 2009); the link is live. The second line is a quote from that article (““If the experiment works, a signal could be received before it’s sent.”“)
The key content of the ‘newspaper’ article seems to be based on, or related to, a 2006 AIPC conference presentation, by John Cramer, “Reverse Causation and the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, available here:
http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/2/apcpcs/863/1/20_1?bypassSSO=1
As far as I can tell, there are no papers, or conference proceedings, reporting Cramer’s 2006 experiment success.
In any case, the experiment – and earlier papers by Cramer – concerns the possibility of testing an interpretation of quantum mechanics, and has to do with the highly counter-intuitive concept of entanglement. This is a ‘hot topic’ in contemporary physics (as I understand it); however, while popular accounts certainly do suggest that one might be able to construct a communication device, or system, in which information could travel faster than c (‘the speed of light’) – perhaps at infinite, or even negative, speed – no one has yet shown that such a device could be possible, even as a Gedankenexperiment (not even Cramer).
As I understand it, one reason why popular accounts are wrong – in this regard – is a confusion between communication and signalling, and this confusion is evident in the “Corroboration 109” CR itself. In communication, you want to have information travel from one place to another; with ‘signalling’ there may be no information travel (or exchange).
There’s a thread, in the CosmoQuest forum, on this topic, “Will it be possible to use quantum entanglement as a form of communication?”
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/137890-Will-it-be-possible-to-use-quantum-entanglement-as-a-form-of-communication
Of course, if – sometime in the future – we discover that Quantum Mechanics (QM) does not rule the universe, then faster-than-light communication may turn out to be possible. However, corroboration of that cannot be found within QM itself.
So, once again, by ignoring (or misunderstanding) the context and content, MH – the author of these “Corroborations” – has tripped himself up.
Comment by Nereid — October 27, 2012 @ 2:58 pm
Here’s the source URL (apologies for not checking it the first time):
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1939PAAS….9…23W
Click on “Scanned Article (GIF)” or “Full Printable Article (PDF/Postscript)”
Comment by Nereid — October 23, 2012 @ 9:18 am |
That didn’t work either! 😦 It seems that what look like dots (periods) in the URL are actually something different. Put “the physical nature of eros watson” into google and you should get the paper, either as the first or second hit (you could also use Google’s Advanced Search).
Comment by Nereid — October 23, 2012 @ 9:22 am |
Mahigitam,
You see, you fail to understand that…blue or bluish doesn’t really mean blue or bluish…no matter who says it. Those are just arbitrary, non-specific, randomly chosen words to loosely describe a phenomenon that actually involves the way light is received through the visual organs, i.e. the eyes, and processed and interpreted by the brain.
In the same way that Billy Meier actually doesn’t have one arm but two, even though he’s not currently in possession of it, intelligent, educated people, like myself of course, full well know and understand that things that we don’t think are possible simply AREN’T possible, therefore they are and always will be incorrect.
Comment by Michael Horn — October 23, 2012 @ 10:37 am |
@MH: In “Comment by Stuart Robbins — September 12, 2012 @ 5:08 pm” Dr Robbins wrote “Then your [i.e. Michael Horn’s] next post will be the answer that he asked for.”
As a courtesy to you, I prepared a short, succinct list of eight key questions; see “Comment by Nereid — September 17, 2012 @ 4:23 am” (there are more questions that I asked you, but answering these eight would be a very good start). Here they are again (you will need to refer to the actual comment to get the full context):
1) Are you, in fact, the author of the material on the webpage entitled “Will Humanity Wake Up…In Time?”, in the http://futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier website?
2) If so, which of the material on that page was added after “July 2009″?
3) Do you contest any of my findings, concerning the (provisional) “not true” conclusions I’ve drawn?
4) Do you plan to amend the material on that webpage, in light of the material I’ve posted here? In light of what Dr Robbins has posted? If so, when?
5) In Episode 32 (follow the link in the blog entry, above), Dr Robbins wrote: “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?”
Using this terminology, at least two of the specific, quantitative predictions, concerning astronomy, among the “over 130 specific, ironclad, verifiably preemptively published, prophetically accurate examples of Meier’s foreknowledge” (your words) are wrong.
Why should I spend more time looking into others (directly related to astronomy)?
6) Why did you feel the need to “prepare something for all to see so that the foundational claim of […] their providing him with prophetically accurate scientific information, …”, given that you already stated that there are “over 130 specific, ironclad, verifiably preemptively published, prophetically accurate examples of Meier’s foreknowledge”, published in July 2009 (but see question 2, above)?
7) What is a “real scientist”?
8) Should I direct any “real scientists” I might happen to know to this webpage (see 1) above)? Specifically, should I direct any astronomers I might happen to know to any of the ~30 “corroborations” directly related to astronomy?
When may I expect answers to these, from you?
Comment by Nereid — October 24, 2012 @ 7:28 am |
@MH: You wrote “You see, you fail to understand that…blue or bluish doesn’t really mean blue or bluish…no matter who says it.”
No, that’s not correct. The human colour perception system is actually quite complex, as any number of visual illusions involving colour can easily show. Even at the most basic level of the cones in humans’ eyes there’s variation that’s both subtle and obvious. The obvious is, for example, some of the different kinds of colour blindness, where one (or more) of the three kinds of cones doesn’t function properly. The subtle is, for example, evident in some women: the red cones in humans come in two different kinds, with somewhat different sensitivities to “red” light; women (but not men) can inherit both kinds, resulting in a particularly rich colour perception (not all women have both kinds of red cones, of course).
As I said earlier, this is now well enough understood that it’s possible to describe how you would perceive the colour of the ponds on Eros (for example), as illuminated by the Sun, in a quantitative, objective, independently verifiable way. And it’s also fairly easy to show – by colour stretches – that the Moon is, in fact, quite colourful.
“Those are just arbitrary, non-specific, randomly chosen words to loosely describe a phenomenon that actually involves the way light is received through the visual organs, i.e. the eyes, and processed and interpreted by the brain.”
Hmm, yes, that’s close. The “just arbitrary, non-specific, randomly chosen words” is a bit overdone though. For example, within a particular speech community, most of the words used to describe colour are fairly specific (though accurate translation can sometimes be quite challenging). And individuals certainly don’t choose colour words at random!
“In the same way that Billy Meier actually doesn’t have one arm but two, […]”
No, that’s not correct. While there certainly are differences in counting systems, between speech communities, “one” and “two” are quite specific, certainly not arbitrary, and have little to do with the way light is received through the visual organs!
As far as I know, there isn’t really anything analogous to colour perception in humans (as you describe it); the perception of odours perhaps?
Comment by Nereid — October 24, 2012 @ 12:39 am |
“Is “Billy” reporting something he saw with his own eyes? Unaided by a device (or other means) which produces a “saturation stretch color“? He doesn’t say. However, unless he used something like such a device, he would not have noticed any colour (other than various shades of grey)…”
Billy mentioned in the same CR that he watched EROS in 1975 during his ‘Great journey’ which he allegedly took in spaceship for 5 days throughout the universe. This is the reason why i said context is more important which you seem to avoid talking about & taking into consideration.
Billy: “I am still in outer space with my questions, and this time, with the asteroid Eros, which I was allowed to view on the Great Journey…”
His space journey details are covered in several pages in which he talks about astronomical phenomenon, bodies,.. that were being displayed on the screens of the spaceship that record information. So clearly he most likely may have seen it through devices presented on the spaceship which may have shown the prominent features of EROS in appropriate colors. The CR does not exclude this possibility at all & hence the eros info is still considered as a contender for being a crbr. Now what i am interested to know is why the scientists & the various articles including NASA’ talk of the color of the deposits on Eros being as blue & not just any other color.
Is it completely an artificial arbitrary color that is being dubbed-in by photo technicians just for visual purposes or does it has anything to do with the local chemistry ?
If it has nothing to do with the local chemistry and is purely an artists’ representation, then why would NASA & other articles use the color blue and not just any other color ?
If the color is an artist’s representation, then i accept that the Eros info has no status as being a crbr. If not, then there is no strong reason to remove it & i see no point in your seemingly context-less arguments.
“Does it work in reverse too?”
It absolutely does work and if you have read my posts carefully, i did include that possibility in my posts.
“Suppose I say that “this just one instance” is, pace you, “strong counter-evidence to the case“.
If I were to say that, would we have two, conflicting, opinions?
If I were to say that, would there be any basis for us to continue to have a rational, meaningful discussion?”
You seem like you are confusing yourselves with the phrases – Strong counter-evidence(SCE) to the case & Strong counter-evidence(SCE) to the crbr. Both are different and require different criteria.
“Why do you use NASA as a reputable source?…If the “July 20th, 1969” “Moon landing” is a “lie“, then don’t you think it rather, um, inconsistent to use any material from NASA in your corroborations?”
Haha, it really gave me laughs(with no disrespect). First i am not Meier nor do i agree with everything meier has said. If there is any reason why i agree with Meier’s information, it is only because it has been corroborated by science articles that including those published by NASA. You tell me why i should not use NASA as a source ?
This is what i call ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’. Speaking logically, for a fake moon landing(whether it is true or not) there is a rational motivation to go to such lengths to fake the landing but i don’t see any rational motivation for NASA or its scientists to coverup or release false information to public on space observations. And there are many other common sense reasons which most likely you too are aware of as to why NASA has no need to do it but since our discussion gets sidetracked, i will refrain from making any further comments on it.
*Meier mentioned that not all the NASA employees or officials were in the coverup, he said only very few ~37 at the top.
“Well, “Corroboration 6” used to be “Discoveries on Mars“, as I noted on September 10, 2012 @ 7:46 am. But now it’s “AIDS-like disease“!”
It has been joined with the other MARS info. Use search function.
“False. Michael Horn has. Many times. Would you like me to quote, from his comments, here? Or would you prefer to re-read what he wrote for yourself?”
I cannot speak for MH & you better ask MH what he meant by his words. All those people also read the same text by MH which you have read. And why do you think no one has assumed the way you did and raised the questions you did ? Did they take the context into account(which is & was generally assumed by everyone) which unlike you did not and seems like would not want to ?
“What you think about my approach is not true…”
You didn’t yet give us any reasonale idea of what your approach is & what your ‘astronomy-as-science’ meant & how it is a better method in analysing the crbrs. So i can’t precisely comment on what’s wrong with your approach as of now. I will wait for your “later” posts.
“First, you yourself enquired about it…I supplied information showing that “the size of Eros” was, in fact, “known before”.”
I enquired because the earlier ground-based radar observations have put the asteroid size at 40.5 kms & not 35 kms in length(as your 1930’s articles seems to suggest). I would like to know in which year was the size of Eros as being 40.5 kms(length), determined for the first time ?
And also i would like to know what was the estimated size of eros before the ‘40.5 kms finding’ ?
“Second, under the heading…on the webpage MH provided a link to, one can read this – “Billy: ..Eros still has a size of about 35 kilometers…””
The crbr information on that page is highlighted for readers using bold words and the accompanying corroborated article. Feel free to check the page.
Now, is the word – ‘about 35 kilometers’ in that page bold ?
Is there a corroborated article that corroborates the size of Eros as being near to 35 kms ?
For both the above questions the answer is a big NO. I still don’t understand how did you come to conclusion that the 35 kms size as a corroboration from that page.
“For avoidance of doubt, would you please supply (me, us) with what you, mahitigam, think are “the strong corroborations” within the scope of astronomy (as you understand what astronomy to be)?”
If your standards & criteria are anything other than what the IIG, SR & the rest of the world used, let us not waste any more time & the space on this blog. I have already mentioned many times before that you first have to demonstrate what your methods are & why your methods are apt when validating Meier’s information who allegedly is in contact with ET. If you are upto that, then i am glad to share.
Comment by mahigitam — October 25, 2012 @ 3:05 am |
First, thank you for your lengthy response, mahigitam, and for taking the trouble to respond to at least some of the questions I asked you.
I appreciate that.
Here are several things you wrote, here in the comments on this episode of PseudoAstronomy:
1: “If you are that much interested, i can offer you several level 3 stuff. Are you ready ?” (September 6, 2012 @ 8:58 am)
2: “I thought the next logical step from you would be to demand level 3 evidence, but it seems like every other person who are also treading the same escapist path. Cherry picking only those things that have weak evidence and avoid at all costs which is strong. It is like wanting to have a boxing match with an infant and avoiding a match with equals or higher. I am not getting any laughs but extremely disappointed to look at how people shy away when confronted with strong evidence.” (September 6, 2012 @ 9:56 pm)
3: “Your right , the title of the page should be ‘ Scientific and other facts corroborated’ besides being only ‘scientific facts corroborated’.” (September 7, 2012 @ 3:27 am) – the page referred to is the one on which the link entitled “Will Humanity Wake Up…In Time? – A collection of 150+ scientific and other facts & theories corroborated later by sciences & news articles in media” is displayed (I added the bold)
4: “Only recently, when i brought up this corroboration articles, was it made necessary to use the scale to filter weak evidence from strong evidence. So that we can have a fruitful discussion. […] So i was only responding to some members post & was not here to present the case in a scientific manner which i would love to though on any online forum dedicated to the concerned topic.” (September 10, 2012 @ 5:44 am) – I added some bold
5: “Also you could have just asked me(or others) to supply you what i think are the strong corroborations & i would have given you just like what i did on CQ forum.” (October 19, 2012 @ 4:00 am)
6: “But the way i see it, there are only few strong astronomy related crbrs. ” (October 23, 2012 @ 8:27 am)
7: “If your standards & criteria are anything other than what the IIG, SR & the rest of the world used, let us not waste any more time & the space on this blog. I have already mentioned many times before that you first have to demonstrate what your methods are & why your methods are apt when validating Meier’s information who allegedly is in contact with ET. If you are upto that, then i am glad to share.” (October 25, 2012 @ 3:05 am)
I trust that you will, as always, check the context and content, to confirm that I have not mis-quoted you, nor mis-represented you in any way.
Now, here are some things I have posted:
A: “Earlier I said “One is to describe criteria I myself would use (and I will be going that, later).” Now is a good time to introduce some key elements of those criteria. One is “independently verifiable”. No surprise about that, I’m sure, for any diligent reader. It means, simply, that a person – not the author (or, preferably, anyone with direct contact with the author) – can verify the claim/statement/derivation/conclusion/whatever, for themselves, by themselves, independently. Another is “objective”. This can be quite tricky, in general, but in most of astronomy it is quite straight-forward. Why? Because, for one, astonomy is (almost entirely) quantitative.” (September 10, 2012 @ 2:21 pm) – I removed the paragraph marks
B: “mahitigam, you wrote […] Colour (or color, as they say in the US of A) is a very complex topic, and quantitative, objective, independently verifiable means* of describing it not easy to readily grasp. […] If you do, you can – independently, in an objective, quantified manner* – […] * those are criteria – or components – I clearly stated before (“Comment by Nereid — September 10, 2012 @ 2:21 pm”); did you forget this?” (October 23, 2012 @ 10:08 am)
C: “@mahitigam: Some quick responses only […] “If what i think about your approach is true(if not let me know)”
What you think about my approach is not true. I will expand on this later. My apologies for failing – so badly – to communicate what is actually an extremely simple thing.” (October 23, 2012 @ 9:41 am) – your words are in bold
D: “It’s now “later”.
I thought a bit more about this, mahitigam, and re-read your comments. On reflection, I think there’s a very simple way to move forward, you and I. […] ” would you please supply (me, us) with what you, mahitigam, think are “the strong corroborations” within the scope of astronomy (as you understand what astronomy to be)? Thank you, in advance.”” (October 23, 2012 @ 11:15 am) – bold added, and some re-formatting (for brevity); the key content has been preserved
I trust that you will, as always, check the context and content, to confirm that I have not mis-quoted myself, nor mis-represented you in any way.
I trust that you will further check that I have explicitly used the “objective, quantitative, independently verifiable” method (to give it a punchy short-hand) several times, in one way or another; for example, in my comments time-stamped September 10, 2012 @ 7:46 am, September 10, 2012 @ 12:51 pm, September 10, 2012 @ 3:16 pm, September 12, 2012 @ 8:29 am, September 17, 2012 @ 3:42 am, September 21, 2012 @ 10:37 am, …
Let’s now turn to this phrase of yours: “If your standards & criteria are anything other than what the IIG, SR & the rest of the world used, ”
Let’s take my “standards and criteria” as the “objective, quantitative, independently verifiable” method, and let’s restrict it to astronomy (as I have consistently said would be the scope of my comments here).
Taking the last (“the rest of the world used“) first: surely it’s the other way round, isn’t it? Surely, in any branch of science, the gold standard is objectivity and independent veriability, isn’t it? And aren’t the ‘hard’ sciences – such as physics, chemistry, and astronomy – hard because they are, in addition, quantitative?
Next, “SR“: maybe Dr Robbins can jump in, and state – as explicitly as possible – whether my (explicitly stated) “standards and criteria” differ from his, and if so, how?
Time for the close: once again, mahigitam: would you please present “only few strong astronomy related crbrs“, in “ the way [you] see it“? Thank you in advance.
There are many (other) things in this last comment of yours that I would like to respond to; however, I will refrain from doing so, at least until you present what you see as the “only few strong astronomy related crbrs“.
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2012 @ 11:30 am |
“Let’s take my “standards and criteria” as the “objective, quantitative, independently verifiable” method, and let’s restrict it to astronomy (as I have consistently said would be the scope of my comments here). Taking the last (“the rest of the world used”) first: surely it’s the other way round, isn’t it? Surely, in any branch of science, the gold standard is objectivity and independent veriability, isn’t it? And aren’t the ‘hard’ sciences – such as physics, chemistry, and astronomy – hard because they are, in addition, quantitative?”
Again you have just avoided the context & didn’t present any arguments for why your method of validating the corroborations is the only method that is correct in this context.
Also i don’t understand, on what basis did you come up with your criteria ?
And on what logic did you think your criteria used for hard sciences can also be used for analysing Meier’s information ?
Knowing that different sciences have different criteria, why are you insisting on using the criteria that is used for ‘hard sciences’ ?
You have failed in providing answers to any of the above questions which i have pointed out to you much earlier in my posts. You provide no justification but want to use the criteria which is completely unscientific and illogical. Until you provide any logical arguments for the above questions, i am not going to respond to you on ‘giving strong crbrs’.
Comment by mahigitam — October 26, 2012 @ 1:29 am
Nereid has said what the criteria are: Independent, scientific papers relating to the claim. This is simple. He has shown, and the people on the CQ forum showed, that the Meier claims that Horn has posted that Nereid looked at we’re not corroborated as the author of that page claimed. Rather, the claims were wrong or known before Meier wrote them.
You’ve now claimed that there were stronger corroborations than what he looked at.
Put up or shut up. I will be blocking further posts by you until you acknowledge Nereid is right and those corroborations are not, provide objective evidence that he is wrong, or give your best claim to be looked into. It’s really that simple.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — October 26, 2012 @ 8:08 am
mahigitam wrote: “since english seems to be not your first language(to me it is third language)” (October 21, 2012 @ 12:32 am)
Perhaps this is partly the reason you, mahigitam, and I are having such a hard time communicating, meaningfully? Let me see if I can reduce this to something very simple, concrete, and straight-forward.
MH has made a concrete statement (a claim), that is independently verifiable, concerning “corroborations” (actually several; his comment on September 7, 2012 @ 6:53 pm is one such). I set out to check the veracity of his claim, in an objective, independently verifiable way. I described the approach in my comment of September 10, 2012 @ 8:31 am.
(I note, in passing, that MH has not yet answered my question, asked several times now – “Do you contest any of my findings, concerning the (provisional) “not true” conclusions I’ve drawn?“. By the flawed logic he has used – many times – I would be entitled to claim that his non-answer constitutes his assent; i.e. he actually agrees with my conclusions).
Turn now to you, mahigitam.
As is clear from the numbered quotes in my October 25, 2012 @ 11:30 am comment, you use at least five different terms to refer the thing which I’ve been asking you about: “evidence”, “case”, “scientific facts & theories”, “corroborations”, and “crbrs”. Apart from the last two^, you have not really explained how these are related.
In fact, it is only (as far as I can tell; please set the record straight if it’s otherwise) in your October 25, 2012 @ 3:05 am comment that you explicitly state that the “crbr information” “is highlighted for readers using bold words and the accompanying corroborated article.” (and even here you limit your scope to “on that page“!)
On the other hand, in several of your comments you insist that “the crbr information” must be considered in conjunction with the content and context (e.g. on October 21, 2012 @ 4:27 am “any astronomical observation or information* […] * context and content value“).
But you seem to have been quite inconsistent in this regard. As can be seen in the following example.
“If the color is an artist’s representation, then i accept that the Eros info has no status as being a crbr. If not, then there is no strong reason to remove it & i see no point in your seemingly context-less arguments.” – that’s what you wrote, on October 25, 2012 @ 3:05 am (the highlighted words in “Corroboration 31” are “blue dust or other blue material” and “less than 3%“).
Yet just a few lines earlier you wrote “So clearly he most likely may have seen it through devices presented on the spaceship which may have shown the prominent features of EROS in appropriate colors. The CR does not exclude this possibility at all & hence the eros info is still considered as a contender for being a crbr.” (I added the bold)
Knowing – as you surely do now, even if you were ignorant before – that establishing “colour” in an objective, independently verifiable way is difficult (but it is possible), you seem content to accept the “context and content value” of ~six words in a CR, and acknowledge that you cannot provide evidence concerning the central question of the veracity of these six words. Yet you accept the veracity of the words “blue” and “bluish”, as they appear in secondary sources, at face-value! Without, so it seems, making any attempt whatsoever to determine their veracity within their “context and content value“.
Oh, and at the same time, you introduce a new category, a “contender for being a crbr“!
^ it took until your comment of October 23, 2012 @ 8:27 am for you to confirm that the last two are the same (thank you for that)
Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2012 @ 8:34 am |
Michael Horn wrote: “You see, you fail to understand that…blue or bluish doesn’t really mean blue or bluish…no matter who says it.” (October 23, 2012 @ 10:37 am)
mahigitam wrote: “Is it completely an artificial arbitrary color that is being dubbed-in by photo technicians just for visual purposes or does it has anything to do with the local chemistry ?
If it has nothing to do with the local chemistry and is purely an artists’ representation, then why would NASA & other articles use the color blue and not just any other color ?” (October 25, 2012 @ 3:05 am)
Both these show – I think – a fundamental misconception over the nature of colour; namely, that the colour of a thing is intrinsic to that thing. In particular, mahigitam’s “to do with the local chemistry” in a binary choice with “purely an artists’ representation” seems – strongly – to assume that a thing can have only one true, intrinsic colour.
But what about the sky? It can appear as blue, yellow, and black (and many other colours besides). Yet it’s the same sky!
Of course, the sky is not a solid; but what about the surface of Mars then?
Those are two images, from the 34-millimeter Mast Camera on NASA’s Curiosity rover, produced from the same raw data. The text on the “08.27.2012 Focusing the 34-millimeter Mastcam” webpage (link below) says in part “Scientists enhanced the color in one version to show the Martian scene under the lighting conditions we have on Earth, which helps in analyzing the terrain. A raw version is also available.” (bold added)
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/images/?ImageID=4563
In the case of Eros, a primary source document (“The geology of 433 Eros”, Robinson et al. (2002), cited by mahigitam!) contains text which makes it clear that the “blue” in the documents mahigitam’s searches found is not at all the “blue” you would see if you could view the “blue ponds” with your own unaided vision. And that’s quite apart from the “saturation stretch” (“in this saturation stretch color ponds show up as smooth blue deposits occupying topographic lows.“)
And what is this text? “In all three panels colors formed as red 950 nm, green 760 nm, and blue 550 nm”
And why does this make the ponds not “blue”? Because “550 nm” is … green!
Oh, and “760 nm” is deep red, likely so red that it does not excite the red cones in most humans’ eyes (i.e. if you were to look at a bright, 760 nm, light, with unaided vision, you’d very likely see nothing); “950 nm” is in the infrared. Of course, these are merely the central, or effective, wavelengths; the NEAR filters are likely a hundred or so nm wide (I haven’t checked).
One more colour-related point: another of the “Corroborations” seems to make a similar mistake, with regard to colour; it does not (apparently) take into account the “context and content value” mahigitam has been so keen on (more later).
Comment by Nereid — October 27, 2012 @ 11:59 am
Michael Horn posts: Contact Report 29: In 1975, Semjase told Meier that Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation of Venus and that it began rotating in the opposite direction.
In 2010, a French scientist calculated that Earth was indeed having such an effect…some 35 years after Meier verifiably published the information.
(Of course we’re willing to publish this as it will only be a matter of time before it’s confirmed as factual…as Meier first published it. Unless of course WE made a mistake by not finding earlier information.
So far all my online searches reveal no such prior publication by our scientists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allow me to ‘help’ you with your ‘on-line research’ Horn.
The ‘French Scientist’ is Gérard Caudal
BUT
Caudal Never made such a ridiculous claim as Billy Meier’s Alien ‘Tea-Party-Pal Semjase’ does…
PLUS: That^^^ idea WAS “raised decades ago and disregarded when it turned out that Venus is spinning too fast to be in such a gravitational “resonance”.”
Here is ‘The Rest of the Story’… ~rore
Are Venus and Earth in a long-distance relationship?
16 March 2010 by Rachel Courtland
Journal reference: Journal of Geophysical Research
The heart of Venus may belong to Earth. Our planet could be tugging on the core of Venus, exerting control over its spin.
Whenever Venus and Earth arrive at the closest point in their orbits, Venus always presents the same face to us. This could mean that Earth’s gravity is tugging subtly on Venus, affecting its rotation rate.
That idea, raised decades ago, was disregarded when it turned out that Venus is spinning too fast to be in such a gravitational “resonance”.
But Earth could still be pulling on Venus by controlling its core, according to calculations by Gérard Caudal of the University of Versailles-Saint Quentin, France.
Caudal made large assumptions about Venus’s interior, which we know little about.
For his hypothesis to be correct, the planet would, like Earth, need a solid core surrounded by a liquid layer.
This could allow the solid core to rotate slower than the rest of the planet. The core would also have to be asymmetric or heterogeneous, so that Earth can exert a variable tug as Venus spins. “For the resonance to be possible, there should be something that the gravity of the Earth could grasp,” Caudal says.
This latter requirement could be problematic for the hypothesis, says Jean-Luc Margot of the University of California, Los Angeles. “In order to maintain a resonance, the inner core must be out of round by a significant amount,” he notes.
Yet persistent imperfections in planetary cores tend to smooth out because the core is hot and under great pressure, according to David Stevenson of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.
Still, the resonance theory is worth revisiting, he adds.
Watching for changes in Venus’s spin over time using radar observations may reveal more about what’s going on inside the planet, says Margot.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18660-are-venus-and-earth-in-a-longdistance-relationship.html
Comment by rore — October 25, 2012 @ 12:09 pm |
rore wrote: “[…] that Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation of Venus and that it began rotating in the opposite direction.
In 2010, a French scientist calculated that Earth was indeed having such an effect…some 35 years after Meier verifiably published the information.”
Nice to (virtually) meet you, rore.
I admit to being puzzled: neither the New Scientist article nor the Caudal paper in JGRE (“Hypothesis of a spin-orbit resonance between the Earth and Venus’s core”) seem to say – or even imply – “that Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation of Venus and that it began rotating in the opposite direction.”
May I ask you how you arrived at a conclusion to the contrary (“In 2010, a French scientist calculated that Earth was indeed having such an effect“)?
In any case, as is standard practice in science (in general), one should wait for independent verification of research such as Caudal’s. In this particular case, it would seem that wait may be a long time coming (Caudal’s hypothesis makes some pretty far-out assumptions … but at least several are, in principle, able to be checked).
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2012 @ 1:08 pm |
Hiya Nereid… I was quoting from Michael Horn’s post when I typed; Michael Horn posts: Contact Report 29: In 1975, Semjase told Meier “…that Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation of Venus and that it began rotating in the opposite direction…”
As you noted, and was my intention, Horn’s reliance ON Caudal’s Large Assumptions is hardly Solid Evidence in favor of supporting Meier’s Contacts with Superior Alien Intelligence.
Plus The Fact there are several differing pseudo-scientific theories for Venus’ Retrograde Rotation dating FAR Earlier than Billy Meier’s 1975 feeble attempt to impress The Rubes.
And
There ARE Several well-thought-out Scientific Theories which attempt to explain the origin of Venus ‘clockwise-spin’.
I am just pointing out to Horn that he did indeed “…made a mistake by not finding earlier information…” regarding this Decades OLD Theory presented BY people other than Billy Meier. ~rore
Comment by rore — October 25, 2012 @ 2:08 pm
@rore: thanks for clearing that up.
Indeed, that Earth’s gravity could influence Venus’ rotation was something that almost certainly occurred to scientists shortly after Newton’s work on gravity become widely known … many centuries before Meier was born! After all, his law of universal gravitation makes such an influence inevitable, so the only real question is, “by how much?”
A quick look at the papers Caudal’s cited turns up plenty which seem to suggest that the idea that the Earth is – somehow – an important causal factor in Venus’ current observed rotation rate predates 1975 by at least a decade. What’s unknown – today – seems to be fully fleshed out hypotheses of the mechanism by which such an influence would work (Caudal’s is just one, of several, such not-yet-fully-fleshed-out hypotheses).
In any case, none of that seems to have any relevance to the passage MH quoted (“…that Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation of Venus and that it began rotating in the opposite direction…“); that passage seems to contain a quite specific – and very different – prediction, to do with the history of Venus’ rotation rate …
But I don’t think we should be too harsh on MH; after all, he did say “I’m not a credentialed scientist“, so perhaps he may be forgiven for so grossly misunderstanding what he reads (not to mention apparently not understanding even the basics of colour perception in humans) …
Comment by Nereid — October 25, 2012 @ 2:42 pm |
This is going to be out of sequence; apologies. It is a response to “Comment by mahigitam — October 25, 2012 @ 3:05 am”, and “Comment by mahigitam — October 26, 2012 @ 1:29 am”.
mahigitam wrote “You seem like you are confusing yourselves with the phrases – Strong counter-evidence(SCE) to the case & Strong counter-evidence(SCE) to the crbr. Both are different and require different criteria”
Yes, you’re right. Thank you for pointing that out.
However, you did not say what the (required) different criteria are. What – in your opinion – are the required (different) criteria?
“You tell me why i should not use NASA as a source ?”
I’ll give you the same answer as I gave you, way back on September 10, 2012 @ 11:36 am: “NASA” is not a primary source. In particular, many NASA Press Releases (PRs) are – obviously – prepared by people with little or no actual understanding of their content. With regard to astronomy, the context and content (which you’re very concerned about) of NASA PRs is critical, if your objective is to establish “scientific […] facts & theories corroborated later by sciences” (which your words – in quote #3 – seem to strongly indicate). And the context and content value is what? Most often it’s a scientific paper, published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal; sometimes it’s a presentation given at a scientific conference (almost all these later become published papers).
“And why do you think no one has assumed the way you did and raised the questions you did ? ”
Hmm, did I say that no one has assumed the way I did?
No (but feel free to present evidence to the contrary).
Did I say no one has raised the questions I have raised?
No (but feel free to present evidence to the contrary).
If I did not say either of those things, how did you conclude that I thought them?
“Did they take the context into account(which is & was generally assumed by everyone) which unlike you did not and seems like would not want to ?”
I’ll answer this by quoting your own words (I substituted them/they/their for MH/him/his): “I cannot speak for them & you better ask them what they meant by their words.”
“Until you provide any logical arguments for the above questions, i am not going to respond to you on ‘giving strong crbrs’.”
Hmm, so if someone else were to ask you for what you consider to be the “strong crbrs”, within the scope of astronomy (as you understand astronomy), you would respond?
“ It is like wanting to have a boxing match with an infant and avoiding a match with equals or higher. I am not getting any laughs but extremely disappointed to look at how people shy away when confronted with strong evidence” (and questions).
“Also you could have just asked me(or others) to supply you what i think are the strong corroborations & i would have given you ”
“i would love to [present the case in a scientific manner] though on any online forum dedicated to the concerned topic”
I wonder who wrote those words? Was it, perhaps, you mahigitam?
Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2012 @ 8:45 am |
“Nereid has said what the criteria are: Independent, scientific papers relating to the claim. This is simple. He has shown, and the people on the CQ forum showed, that the Meier claims that Horn has posted that Nereid looked at we’re not corroborated as the author of that page claimed. Rather, the claims were wrong or known before Meier wrote them.”
As i many times before said, I will only speak for myself and don’t speak for claims made by others which is none of my business. If anybody has any problem with the claims & the meanings they intended by others, deal with them. MH can claim anything on his website and it is irrelevant to me. All i am interested is my own claims and interpretations. I made this clear in my earlier posts. Besides the same crbr list is on other websites & they might interpret the crbrs differently than what MH interprets. And i have my own list of crbrs that falls into different categories & i am speaking from them.
“You’ve now claimed that there were stronger corroborations than what he looked at.
Put up or shut up. I will be blocking further posts by you until you acknowledge Nereid is right and those corroborations are not, provide objective evidence that he is wrong, or give your best claim to be looked into. It’s really that simple.”
Either you must have missed by earlier posts or chose to ignore(i hope its the former). Aren’t you guys reading my posts ? I have already mentioned that i have presented a strong crbr 25 days back on CQ – mentioned 10 days back on this blog. Search – ‘Shoemaker-Levy 9’.
“Both these show – I think – a fundamental misconception over the nature of colour; namely, that the colour of a thing is intrinsic to that thing. In particular, mahigitam’s “to do with the local chemistry” in a binary choice with “purely an artists’ representation” seems – strongly – to assume that a thing can have only one true, intrinsic colour.”
It is not rocket science. Even kids at schools know that color of sky or sun or moon or not really what they appear to be. The fact that color of an object when viewed through our eyes may not be an intrinsic color of that object but depends upon its surroundings, time,.. is central to the ‘color optical illusions’ that are popular. I used the words – “local chemistry” – knowing the background on colors.
“And what is this text? “In all three panels colors formed as red 950 nm, green 760 nm, and blue 550 nm”
And why does this make the ponds not “blue”? Because “550 nm” is … green!
Oh, and “760 nm” is deep red, likely so red that it does not excite the red cones in most humans’ eyes (i.e. if you were to look at a bright, 760 nm, light, with unaided vision, you’d very likely see nothing); “950 nm” is in the infrared. Of course, these are merely the central, or effective, wavelengths; the NEAR filters are likely a hundred or so nm wide (I haven’t checked).”
Thanks for your explanations. Correct me if i am wrong, are you saying that the color blue is only relative(not visible to unaided eye) & not intrinsic ? Did you make any other point apart from that ? And if you did, can you please add more explanations so that i will be able to understand.
Also can you explain what is the meaning of this taken from the same pdf:
“Analysis of a sampling of high spatial resolution color observations revealed a class of smooth deposits (“ponded deposits” or “ponds”) that have color properties unambiguously distinct from the surrounding terrain.. The ponds are relatively blue (high 550/760 nm reflectance ratios) in the visible wavelength range..”.
And i would also like to know how does Meier’s Eros info exclude the possibility of the meaning presented in that pdf ?
“As is clear from the numbered quotes in my October 25, 2012 @ 11:30 am comment, you use at least five different terms to refer the thing which I’ve been asking you about: “evidence”, “case”, “scientific facts & theories”, “corroborations”, and “crbrs”. Apart from the last two^, you have not really explained how these are related.”
Are you asking me what i meant by the words & their relation – “evidence”, “case”, “scientific facts & theories”, “corroborations”, and “crbrs” ? And if so, then let me know.
“In fact, it is only (as far as I can tell; please set the record straight if it’s otherwise) in your October 25, 2012 @ 3:05 am comment that you explicitly state that the “crbr information” “is highlighted for readers using bold words and the accompanying corroborated article.” (and even here you limit your scope to “on that page“!)”
Would there be any other possible reason as to why would some words on the crbr page be bolded & presented with a related news article ? And does one need to explain that too ?
“Knowing – as you surely do now, even if you were ignorant before – that establishing “colour” in an objective, independently verifiable way is difficult (but it is possible), you seem content to accept the “context and content value” of ~six words in a CR, and acknowledge that you cannot provide evidence concerning the central question of the veracity of these six words. Yet you accept the veracity of the words “blue” and “bluish”, as they appear in secondary sources, at face-value! Without, so it seems, making any attempt whatsoever to determine their veracity within their “context and content value“.
Oh, and at the same time, you introduce a new category, a “contender for being a crbr“!’
You must have forgot on how i consider the crbr list on that FOM page & also the background behind that list which was mentioned before on this blog. Just for the sake of clarity, i am going to repeat again & expand further. The list on that page is made by several people who for the most part are not from scientific backgrounds. So there would be some info that cannot be considered as crbrs. Also there would be crbrs that vary from weak to strong. I already mentioned on this blog that i am interested to work with someone from scientific background or someone with enough knowledge in astronomy so as to improve or correct the mistakes that might be there on that page. So i consider all of them as possible or contending crbrs but i will only consider those as true crbrs when proved after enough research is done on them.
“However, you did not say what the (required) different criteria are. What – in your opinion – are the required (different) criteria?”
This is a step that comes after your ‘analysis of crbrs from astronomy-as-science’. So it can be dealt later since our present discussion on the strong crbrs has not yet finished, it can wait.
“.. “NASA” is not a primary source. In particular, many NASA Press Releases (PRs) are – obviously – prepared by people with little or no actual understanding of their content. With regard to astronomy, the context and content (which you’re very concerned about) of NASA PRs is critical, if your objective is to establish “scientific […] facts & theories corroborated later by sciences” (which your words – in quote #3 – seem to strongly indicate). And the context and content value is what? Most often it’s a scientific paper, published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal; sometimes it’s a presentation given at a scientific conference (almost all these later become published papers).”
The FOM page is made available for common readers who would understand the news articles but would get bored or not understand the peer-reviewed articles/papers. So providing a primary source is not a must-criteria for the crbrted articles on that page. But when there is any gross mismatch between the primary & the secondary sources, then the changes are must. Only when the CR content holds no possibility of the meaning conveyed by the popular or primary source articles, then that CR would not be considered a crbr. Depending upon this relationship, a possible crbr varies from weak to strong.
Context & content value(CCV) of the case is as important as the CCV of the CR & its corroborated article when evaluating crbrs. Neither of these should be compromised(keeping in mind the CCV of the case) especially when analysing crbrs that vary from weak to strong.
The possibilities i observe here is that either the NASA usuage of ‘blue dust’ is
a) completely wrong or
b) has some truth to it but should be understood under the context which is known only when the primary source is read.
If you say that NASA are completely wrong(which i don’t think you did) & if i were to choose between just your claims & NASA’, i would definitely go with NASA(due to various reasons). But then, I would prefer the option ‘b’ in this case which you also seem to be saying(correct me if i am wrong). And i don’t think option ‘b’ excludes the possibility of the EROS info as being a crbr.
““And why do you think no one has assumed the way you did and raised the questions you did ? ”
Hmm, did I say that no one has assumed the way I did?
No (but feel free to present evidence to the contrary).
Did I say no one has raised the questions I have raised?
No (but feel free to present evidence to the contrary).
If I did not say either of those things, how did you conclude that I thought them?”
Haha, again a misunderstanding & it just shows people need to give others the benefit of doubt & ask for clarification before they assume what others meant & judge. The same goes for all the words & their meanings when such are used in places other than the places which are used by science community.
I was asking your opinion on ‘why didn’t anyone assumed the way you did and raised the questions you did ?’ & didn’t mean otherwise.
“Hmm, so if someone else were to ask you for what you consider to be the “strong crbrs”, within the scope of astronomy (as you understand astronomy), you would respond?
Anyone with common sense understood the context of the case and analysed the CRs according to it. They also understood the meanings of the words used to represent the case. You seems to be an exception. Are you planning on avoiding these following questions forever & expect my responses ? Since you haven’t responded to any of these, from the same logic you used with MH, shall i also conclude that your incapable of assessing & analysing the CRs and are just hiding behind words & not moving forward.
“Again you have just avoided the context & didn’t present any arguments for why your method of validating the corroborations is the only method that is correct in this context.
Also i don’t understand, on what basis did you come up with your criteria ?
And on what logic did you think your criteria used for hard sciences can also be used for analysing Meier’s information ?
Knowing that different sciences have different criteria, why are you insisting on using the criteria that is used for ‘hard sciences’ ?
You have failed in providing answers to any of the above questions which i have pointed out to you much earlier in my posts. You provide no justification but want to use the criteria which is completely unscientific and illogical.”
“The short answer is: “No, there is no other alternative””
Are you equating ‘GR needs corrections’ = ‘GR is completely wrong’ ? And what does the word ‘wrong’ mean ? Does it follow necessarily that the entire theory of either GR or QED as “wrong” ? Or does it mean that there is a theory that better explains all the observed/unobserved phenomenon better than the GR ?
“Now it is already known that QED and GR are mutually incompatible, in the Planck regime (or ‘at Planck scales’), so either one is wrong, perhaps both…That implies that either QED or GR (or both) is stonkingly, massively wrong! And the knock-on “wrongs” are mind blowing; for example, the Noether theorems are wrong, the Bell inequality is wrong, the ‘laws of physics’ are not universal, ”
It was mentioned in the CRs that the laws of physics were not the same since the beginning of the universe & that the speed of light has been decreased since then.
“Coming back to “crbrs”: there’s a logical logjam, involving all ‘beyond the solar system’ “scientific facts & theories”. Since all these were painstakingly derived assuming both QED and GR are ‘not wrong’ within clearly defined limits, and if we accept “Billy” at his word, within these limits either (or, more likely, both) QED and GR are horrendously wrong, then all such conclusions are rendered totally uncertain!”
You have based your whole stunt here on ‘GR needs corrections’ = ‘GR is completely wrong’ which i think is total rubbish.
What are these ‘corrections’ ?
Corrections to what part of GR ?
Does ‘corrections’ mean that the GR needed to be expanded or changed to incorporate all the phenomenon(dark matter, dark energy, time travel, dimensions, universes,..) ?
Do these corrections deal with the already observed phenomena or concepts(current understanding of science) or the phenomenon which we have not yet observed or concepts not yet incorporated(time travel, dimensions, universes,..) ?
Does GR explain everything perfectly in the observable Universe ?
“For now, I’ll conclude by saying that I expect neither MH nor mahigitam have any real idea of what I’m talking about, and certainly do not understand how the key Noether theorem (for example) has anything whatsoever to do with “Billy’s Great journey”.”
Thanks for sparing us. I suggest you take this with the qualified people who have compared & analysed Meier’s theories with the current scientific theories. Look into these books for more understanding – ‘Ausseridische und die Friedenssehnsucht der Erdenmenschen'(Maarten Dillinger) & ‘In search of Truth & Freedom'(Dietmar Rothe).
Comment by mahigitam — October 28, 2012 @ 4:22 am |
This does say it all, “Anyone with common sense understood…”
BTW, “In search of Truth & Freedom” is an excellent book. I’m surprised that the skeptics haven’t already referred to it…
Thanks Mahigitam
Comment by Michael Horn — October 28, 2012 @ 11:56 am |
mahigitam wrote: “Definitely“, in reply to my question as to whether you, mahigitam, would present what you consider to be “strong corroborations” if someone other than me asked you to.
I wonder if anyone else is reading the comments here? If so, I wonder if anyone is interested in asking you to do that?
You also wrote, “Either you must have missed by earlier posts or chose to ignore(i hope its the former). Aren’t you guys reading my posts ? I have already mentioned that i have presented a strong crbr 25 days back on CQ – mentioned 10 days back on this blog. Search – ‘Shoemaker-Levy 9′.”
OK, thanks for that. Got one. It would seem to be “Corroboration 136”, which contains text under three headings, “Contact Report 123, Monday, June 4, 1979“, “Contact Report 150, Saturday, October 10, 1981“, and “Contact Report 248, Thursday, February 3, 1994“.
Is that what you are referring to?
Then there’s this: “Thanks for your explanations. Correct me if i am wrong, are you saying that the color blue is only relative(not visible to unaided eye) & not intrinsic ? Did you make any other point apart from that ? And if you did, can you please add more explanations so that i will be able to understand.“.
No, I am not saying that.
The reference to “blue”, in the Robinson et al. (2002), is to a synthetic RGB (red/green/blue) colour mapping. In particular, the 550 nm filter images are mapped to B, the 760 nm to G, and the 950 nm to R. This is a common practice in astronomy, to map images (data) taken through a set of three filters into RGB, a very common colour scheme (used in computer monitors, TV sets, etc). To know what the relationship between B and what the unaided eye would perceive as blue (with many caveats), you need to know what the filter set is, and what sort of stretches have been made.
In this case – the Robinson et al. (2002) paper – the 550 nm filter images of (at least some of) the ponds show greater reflectance than is seen in the 760 nm and 950 nm filters. This is very much relative, as can be clearly seen in Figure 23 (of that paper). And 550 nm filter images select what a human with normal vision would call “green” (with some caveats, of course), not blue.
But, as I mentioned earlier, understanding colour, in astronomy, is not something you can pick up in an hour or two. For example, there are common conventions which those in the astronomy community (broadly defined) use, but which can lead to misunderstandings by those outside the community. In the case of Eros’ “blue ponds”, even a usually reliable source, such as the BBC, can make what are – to those in the community – quite silly mistakes. This reinforces the point I’ve been making from Day One; namely, you need to go to primary sources, and understand what’s there. Relying on secondary sources will lead to the sort of nonsense evident in MH’s comment on October 23, 2012 @ 10:37 am, and, I’m sorry to say, in some of yours too mahigitam.
Concerning this: “I suggest you take this with the qualified people who have compared …“, I was not able to find any papers published by either author (well, there’s one by the latter, in 1991, but it seems to have nothing to do with astronomy). Do you have a list of such papers?
In any case, if you are no longer willing to discuss this (please correct me if I’m wrong), there’s no point in the two of us continuing to post on this topic, is there? For avoidance of doubt, “this topic” means whether any “corroboration” concerning objects/phenomena/etc beyond the solar system can be assessed to be “strong”, in light of the context and content of the two “corroborations” I referenced.
(more later)
Comment by Nereid — October 28, 2012 @ 4:08 pm |
mahigitam wrote: “As i many times before said, I will only speak for myself and don’t speak for claims made by others which is none of my business. If anybody has any problem with the claims & the meanings they intended by others, deal with them. MH can claim anything on his website and it is irrelevant to me. All i am interested is my own claims and interpretations. I made this clear in my earlier posts. Besides the same crbr list is on other websites & they might interpret the crbrs differently than what MH interprets. And i have my own list of crbrs that falls into different categories & i am speaking from them.”
Are you the same mahigitam who has – rather a lot of times here – tried to judge what I, Nereid, have written in terms of what others have written? Even when I didn’t refer to those others? I’d like to be sure you’re treating what I have written the same way you wish what you have written to be treated.
I’m particularly intrigued by the last sentence (“i have my own list of crbrs that falls into different categories & i am speaking from them.“) In your comment of September 7, 2012 @ 3:27 am, you seem to imply that the “website … independently maintained by James” (referring to the “FOM site“, if I am not mistaken) contains at least some “scientific facts corroborated“, even if they’re messed up (with many not being strong crbrs, and some being not “scientific facts”, presumably). I wonder how many “scientific facts corroborated” there are, in your view? Now I know you will not answer that question, but I’d like to be sure everyone reading this can see that at least I asked it.
This one is, sadly, an example of something that’s all too common: “And i would also like to know how does Meier’s Eros info exclude the possibility of the meaning presented in that pdf ?”
Dude, I did not say that, did I?
The issue is whether any of the material you found by scouring the internet can be said to be a “corroboration” (whether “strong” or otherwise) of a few words in the CR (“blue dust or other blue material“). What “Billy” reports he saw cannot be verified, objectively, and independently.
“Would there be any other possible reason as to why would some words on the crbr page be bolded & presented with a related news article ? And does one need to explain that too ?”
Um, yes. Big time.
You see, the link on the page leading to the one I’ve been using as a source of the “Corroborations” is entitled “Will Humanity Wake Up…In Time? – A collection of 150+ scientific and other facts & theories corroborated later by sciences & news articles in media“. And the lead to the corroborations themselves is apparently written by “Michael Horn”. And the conclusion section contains three parts, all apparently written by “Michael Horn”. And there are three separate dates for each, “April 16, 2010”, “July 2009”, and “July 9, 2010”. And …
Yet, there appear to be few, if any “scientific facts”; few, if any “scientific theories”; no corroboration “by sciences”; and “Michael Horn” did not actually write, or prepare, any of the material (corroborations). In fact, you yourself seem to have made it pretty clear that it’s a dog’s breakfast (in at least two of your comments, in September). And the text “This page was last modified on 26 October 2012, at 12:05” appears at the bottom of the page.
Indeed, you yourself wrote “The list on that page is made by several people who for the most part are not from scientific backgrounds. So there would be some info that cannot be considered as crbrs. ” Thank you. That fact – if fact it indeed be – is most definitely not stated anywhere, nor even implied. Words – possibly by MH – seem to suggest otherwise, and give you, mahigitam, credit for doing much (most?) of the background work (“With special thanks to Mahigitam for all of his incredible, diligent research that has resulted in finding so much of the corroboration for Meier’s information“). MH seems to credit others for their work elsewhere, not for preparing “the list on that page”.
So yes, with such chaotic material, so poorly organised and explained, there is every reason to explain what the bolding indicates … especially as the reader has been led to expect that there will be presented, on that webpage, scientific facts and theories corroborated “by sciences”.
“The FOM page is made available for common readers who would understand the news articles but would get bored or not understand the peer-reviewed articles/papers. So providing a primary source is not a must-criteria for the crbrted articles on that page.”
Well, then I suggest that you re-read what’s actually written there, in the introduction and title; for example, this: “If you know any real scientists, please direct them to this information.” (bold in the original). In fact, it seems to directly contradict what you yourself wrote (the bit about a boxing match, and about wanting to have a science-based discussion).
I don’t understand this, would you please explain what you mean? “Since you haven’t responded to any of these, from the same logic you used with MH, shall i also conclude that your incapable of assessing & analysing the CRs and are just hiding behind words & not moving forward.” Especially the bit in bold (which I added).
This I find intriguing: “It was mentioned in the CRs that the laws of physics were not the same since the beginning of the universe & that the speed of light has been decreased since then.”
Can you quote the original Swiss German of the text (CRs) where it says “the speed of light has been decreased since” the beginning of the universe?
Comment by Nereid — October 28, 2012 @ 10:42 pm |
Comment by Nereid — October 28, 2012: “Can you quote the original Swiss German of the text (CRs) where it says “the speed of light has been decreased since” the beginning of the universe?”
Hiya Nereid… I found what you are asking for
&
Well, see for yourself…{;>) ~rore
Contact Report 119
Saturday, February 3, 1979, 2:46 PM
Billy Meier: …if I have calculated that the Creation’s expansion rate, for the initial period, was 44,069,497.5 kilometers per second, with a steadily constant half-life rate of almost exactly 6,347,755,102,040 years,
…the expansion rate of the Creation at its universal beginning was 147 times the speed of today’s speed of light constant, but this speed decreased… and continues to decrease…
so
the starting point of today’s light constant lay at a speed of 344,292.9 kilometers per second,
but
through the already elapsed portion of half-time, it has already dropped by 44,500.4 kilometers per second, whereby the present and current light constant of 299,792.5 kilometers per second arises, according to which an original light year, from the starting point of the current light constant, of around 1.390 X 10^15 km
Billy Meier: Then is it also right that in the next material evolution universe, a creation hour amounts to 90 trillion and 720 billion years, a minute amounts to 1 trillion and 512 billion years, and a second is accordingly 60 times less?
Quetzal: You know that you don’t have to ask because the calculation is of correctness.
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_119
Comment by rore — October 29, 2012 @ 3:25 am
“Hmm, so if someone else were to ask you for what you consider to be the “strong crbrs”, within the scope of astronomy (as you understand astronomy), you would respond?”
Definitely.
Comment by mahigitam — October 28, 2012 @ 4:29 am |
mahigitam wrote (link omitted): “And why do you think IIG(Independent Investigations Group) also posted a critique on not only Apophis but on several astronomical information on their site ?”
He (she?) also referenced IIG several other times (more than a dozen, if my count is correct). So I clicked on the link, read, and then contacted them, to let them know a) about this thread, and b) that they had been mentioned several times.
Thought it would be a good idea for all readers to know that (are there any readers left, other than Dr Robbins and myself?).
Comment by Nereid — October 28, 2012 @ 11:30 am |
“OK, thanks for that. Got one. It would seem to be “Corroboration 136″, which contains text under three headings, “Contact Report 123, Monday, June 4, 1979“, “Contact Report 150, Saturday, October 10, 1981“, and “Contact Report 248, Thursday, February 3, 1994“.
Is that what you are referring to?”
Yes.
“Concerning this: “I suggest you take this with the qualified people who have compared …“, I was not able to find any papers published by either author (well, there’s one by the latter, in 1991, but it seems to have nothing to do with astronomy). Do you have a list of such papers?’
I don’t have any list of papers by these people. Their work has been made available in those books mentioned above.
“In any case, if you are no longer willing to discuss this (please correct me if I’m wrong), there’s no point in the two of us continuing to post on this topic, is there?”
I don’t have any problem with the criteria you have mentioned – ‘objective, quantitative, independently verifiable’ – when analysing the Meier’s crbrs keeping in mind the context of the case & CR’s being not compromised. So we can continue this discussion on CR 136 now.
“Are you the same mahigitam who has – rather a lot of times here – tried to judge what I, Nereid, have written in terms of what others have written? Even when I didn’t refer to those others? I’d like to be sure you’re treating what I have written the same way you wish what you have written to be treated.”
Apologies if my words were being rude to you Nereid but i didn’t mean it that way. Would you provide where i judged you in the wrong light, so that we can have a clear discussion ?
” I wonder how many “scientific facts corroborated” there are, in your view? Now I know you will not answer that question, but I’d like to be sure everyone reading this can see that at least I asked it.”
Haha, don’t you think that you are judging too prematurely ? There are scientific facts(assuming it didn’t mean only astronomy-related) that are being corroborated that belongs to various fields. How about the incubation period of BSE(Corroboration 112) ?
“This one is, sadly, an example of something that’s all too common: “And i would also like to know how does Meier’s Eros info exclude the possibility of the meaning presented in that pdf ?”
Dude, I did not say that, did I?”
Thanks for clarification. In your posts you have clearly raised objections to the ‘Eros crbr’ by explicitly & implicitly stating that most PR’s issued by people at NASA(Nature, BBC,..) are ‘..prepared by people with little or no actual understanding of their content’ which gave me that impression. It is common in discussions to assume things what others may have said or intended, & it is also too common for all the members in the discussion to explain their stance to others when they were being misrepresented or misquoted or misunderstood.
“The issue is whether any of the material you found by scouring the internet can be said to be a “corroboration” (whether “strong” or otherwise) of a few words in the CR (“blue dust or other blue material“). What “Billy” reports he saw cannot be verified, objectively, and independently.’
I agree with your conclusions taken your CRITERIA(big caveat).
“So yes, with such chaotic material, so poorly organised and explained, there is every reason to explain what the bolding indicates … especially as the reader has been led to expect that there will be presented, on that webpage, scientific facts and theories corroborated “by sciences”.’
Again you seem to be the only exception who says that you do not understand the obvious meaning of bolded letters which are most commonly used to emphasize or highlight the words that are important and/or relevant to the context. That page & even the MH’s page has been viewed easily by hundreds or thousands of people and no one has raised such a silly doubt asking what the bolded letters(may be someone with similar thinking might ask what the various punctuations) means. The FOM page or MH’s page are maintained by independent people who can post or claim anything. I am using that FOM page only to refer the crbrs(some of which i have provided) and not the representation of it by other people, which i made several times clear. As i said, you can always write to the admin of the website and make him aware of your “objections”.
“Well, then I suggest that you re-read what’s actually written there, in the introduction and title; for example, this: “If you know any real scientists, please direct them to this information.” (bold in the original). In fact, it seems to directly contradict what you yourself wrote (the bit about a boxing match, and about wanting to have a science-based discussion).”
We can have a debate on whether the information in that page is important or of interest to the scientists or not, but that is another topic and for now we can focus on Crbr 136.
Why are you bringing irrelevant matters to our discussion. we have started the discussion with myself making clear that what others interpret and represent is none of my business and i only talk about just the crbrs from that page. Please don’t repeat this same blunder again and again. If you are still unclear of my stance, then ask so, so that i can make it more clear.
“I don’t understand this, would you please explain what you mean? “Since you haven’t responded to any of these, from the same logic you used with MH, shall i also conclude that your incapable of assessing & analysing the CRs and are just hiding behind words & not moving forward.” Especially the bit in bold (which I added).”
Nereid: (I note, in passing, that MH has not yet answered my question, asked several times now – “Do you contest any of my findings, concerning the (provisional) “not true” conclusions I’ve drawn?“. By the flawed logic he has used – many times – I would be entitled to claim that his non-answer constitutes his assent; i.e. he actually agrees with my conclusions).
“Can you quote the original Swiss German of the text (CRs) where it says “the speed of light has been decreased since” the beginning of the universe?’
Sorry it takes some time. You can use the search function on FOM website or raise the questions on FIGu forum.
Comment by mahigitam — October 29, 2012 @ 1:06 am |
Thanks for clarifying this comment of yours mahigitam (my bold): “Since you haven’t responded to any of these, from the same logic you used with MH, shall i also conclude that your incapable of assessing & analysing the CRs and are just hiding behind words & not moving forward.”
My comment contains the word “would” (“By the flawed logic he [MH] has used – many times – I would be entitled to claim that his non-answer constitutes his assent; i.e. he actually agrees with my conclusions“, bold added).
Let me see if I can explain this, without the (possibly confusing) word ‘would’.
MH claims that a non-response constitutes assent.
That is flawed logic; a non-response does not constitute assent.
However, if MH is OK with using such flawed logic, then – in a discussion in which he is involved – he cannot complain if that same flawed logic is used against him.
I, Nereid, have not used that flawed logic … except as applied to MH himself. And even there, I used it conditionally (i.e. “would be entitled”). And I clearly stated that the logic is flawed.
So, to answer your question, mahigitam , no, concluding that I am “incapable of assessing & analysing the CRs and [am] just hiding behind words & not moving forward” is invalid.
Comment by Nereid — November 8, 2012 @ 10:07 am |
“Corroboration 136”, a “strong astro crbr” in mahigitam’s opinion.
We know, from what mahigitam wrote, that “the obvious meaning of bolded letters which are most commonly used to emphasize or highlight the words that are important and/or relevant to the context” (October 29, 2012 @ 1:06 am)
One such bolded word, in “Corroboration 136” is “comet”. This part does, at first glance, seem to meet a requirement to be a “strong astro crbr“.
Or does it?
The extracts from the CRs also contain the following: “an icy small moon“, “a small, ancient moon“, “accompanied by several smaller asteroids“, and “a small planetoid“.
On this point – and this point alone – the CRs are remarkably broad; they could easily accommodate many different things (just need “bolide” and “meteor” to complete the set?)
Another bolded part: “explode into about 20 pieces“. Oddly, the “CORROBORATED” section does not include the word “explode”. Perhaps that’s because not even the sloppiest of science journalists would have used that word? Perhaps because no explosion was seen, or even inferred? How can this be a “strong astro crbr” if the comet (or planetoid, or moon, or …) did not, in fact, explode?
Another: “called Shoemaker-Levy 9“, in a CR dated “Thursday, February 3, 1994“. It would seem that the sole purpose of this bolding is to tie “a comet“, “an icy small moon“, “a small, ancient moon“, “accompanied by several smaller asteroids“, and “a small planetoid” to the object (comet) that had been named Shoemaker-Levy 9 well before February 3, 1994.
“about 4 kilometers” is also bolded; the larger context is “a small, ancient moon with a diameter of about 4 kilometers“. The “CORROBORATED” section cites one secondary source, a Hubblesite PR, which contains these words: “The Hubble observations show that the nuclei are probably less than three miles (5 km) across“. From my brief search (so far) of primary sources, the estimated diameter of the parent body – the object which fragmented into >30 pieces, many of which were observed to penetrate the Jovian atmosphere – ranges from well below 2 km to well above 5 km (I’ll post some of these later). By picking just one (secondary) source as “corroboration”, the anonymous author(s) seem to display a clear example of confirmation bias (or ignorance, or both). Again, hard to see how this could be a “strong astro crbr“.
(to be continued)
Comment by Nereid — November 8, 2012 @ 3:41 pm |
(continued)
Here are just two of the primary sources I found, containing estimates of the size of the parent body of Shoemaker-Levy 9 (SL9):
“Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 Fragment Size Estimates: How Big was the Parent Body?”, by David Crawford (1995): “Assuming a prebreakup density of 0.5 g/cm^3, the parent body of Shoemaker-Levy 9 had a probable diameter of 1.4 km.”
“Estimate of the size of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 from a tidal breakup model”, by Scotti and Melosh (1993): “The length of the fragment chain is directly proportional to the size of the parent object, which we estimate to have been only about 2 km in diameter.”
From experience, I know I cannot accurately copy ADS URLs, so if you’re interested in checking these out, you’ll need to use google (it will certainly find both, easily).
SL9 had already fragmented by the time it was discovered, in 1993 (and no precovery images of an unfragmented object have been found, so far) so estimates of its size are model-dependent (i.e. you develop a model, with ‘size of parent’ as a free parameter, then fit the relevant observations, to derive the estimated size). Further, none of the fragments – not even the brightest – are resolved in the many Hubble Space Telescope images (‘resolved’ means ‘appears as bigger than a point’), so even the fragments’ sizes are model-dependent estimates.
By now regular readers of these comments should be able to accurately predict what comes next … the models used to estimate the size of the SL9 parent body all incorporate assumptions which are inconsistent with Meier’s claims! So, another aspect of this “Corroboration” cannot be said to be a “strong astro crbr“.
I think I should stress one thing, in light of mahigitam’s continuing (still, today?) difficulty: I have been looking at the “corroborations” from the perspective of the bold claim “scientific […] facts & theories corroborated later by sciences” (with “sciences” limited to astronomy, and closely related fields). One of the central aspects of science is consistency. This is obvious in one sense – for example, in calculations you always give pi a value of 3.14159…; and you always define a metre to be ‘the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second’ – but it’s not so obvious in others (e.g. how do you consistently – and objectively – describe colour?).
One particular attribute of modern astronomy is – as I have been saying for some time now – how deeply it depends on assumptions concerning the accuracy of (or the validity of, or the domain of applicability of, or …) QED and GR. It follows – logically – that it is sufficient to show that any claimed “corroboration”, based on primary sources, can never be “strong” in the absence of a detailed presentation showing that the modifications (or extensions or replacements or …) to QED and GR embedded in Meier’s (other) claims produce essentially the same results (as contained in the primary sources).
Of course, there are several alternatives; for example, remove all pretence concerning “scientific […] facts & theories corroborated later by sciences“; for example, show that the key models which the results presented in the primary sources depend upon do not assume that c is constant; for example, …
(next: the dates)
Comment by Nereid — November 9, 2012 @ 8:58 am
(continued; the sequencing puts this somewhat out of order)
Concerning the dates (timing), in “Corroboration 136”.
The first CR (“Contact Report 123, Monday, June 4, 1979“) quoted contains this: “and brought on a millennia-long course that will bring it back to Jupiter in the year 1994, between the 10th and 25th of July” (bold in original). The second (“Contact Report 150, Saturday, October 10, 1981“) this: “At first, this moon loses itself in a very distant orbital path, where it then reemerges after a long time and moved through the SOL System — time and time again — until one day, it will be recaptured by Jupiter and will crash down into it […] around the time of the turn of the twentieth to the twenty-first century A.D.”
It seems … odd … that the second (later) CR is quite vague about the timing, compared with the first.
But perhaps even … odder … is what “in the year 1994, between the 10th and 25th of July” refers to.
I can speculate that the fact that the ~20 observed collisions of SL9 fragments with Jupiter happened between 16 and 22 July, 1994 – which is, indeed, “in the year 1994, between the 10th and 25th of July” – are at least one of the aspects that make this a “strong astro crbr“, in mahigitam’s opinion (can you please confirm this, mahigitam?), but a more careful examination of the content and context (as mahigitam urges) seems to point to a rather … odd … inconsistency (several actually).
The July 1994 dates refer, in the first CR, to the return of a small moon “to Jupiter“; the timing of the collision is given as “around the time of the turn of the twentieth to the twenty-first century A.D.” (in the second CR) and as “within a number of hours” of the small moon’s return to Jupiter (in the first).
But what does “brought on a millennia-long course that will bring it back to Jupiter” actually mean, in context?
As with almost every other astronomy-related CR I’ve examined so far, the text is unclear, vague, ambiguous; here it is, in full (bold omitted):
“Billy: ..As Quetzal explained, in the year 13384 B.C., an icy small moon was torn out of Jupiter’s orbit by the Destroyer and hurled out into space. Actually, this small moon should have concerned a comet captured by Jupiter. This should now be whizzing through space and should ultimately find its way back to the planet Jupiter. Do you know anything about this?
Semjase: 176. Yes, sure. 177. The small moon mentioned by Quetzal and you actually was, at a very early time, a comet, which was forced by the planet Jupiter into an orbit around it and which was then actually torn away by the Destroyer and brought on a millennia-long course that will bring it back to Jupiter in the year 1994, between the 10th and 25th of July. 178. It will first appear as a comet, only to explode into about 20 pieces, when it approaches the planet Jupiter. 179. Then, within a number of hours, these fragments will all be attracted to the planet one after another and will crash down on it.”
So, in context, “bring it back to Jupiter” seems to refer more to “Jupiter’s orbit” and/or “captured by Jupiter” than to “crash down on it“. If so, then to be a “strong astro crbr“, astronomers need to conclude that SL9 was captured by – i.e. began orbiting – Jupiter “in the year 1994, between the 10th and 25th of July“.
Also, that SL9 “explode[d] into about 20 pieces” during those 15 or so days.
And “within a number of hours” of “explod[ing] into about 20 pieces“, SL9 “crash[ed] down on [Jupiter]”.
The facts are otherwise.
“We find that Shoemaker-Levy 9 orbited Jupiter for most of this century, and possibly longer, nominally the longest known temporary capture.”
(source: “On the Orbital Evolution and Origin of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9” by Brenner & McKinnon (1995); caveat: model-dependent, assumes “scientific facts & theories” inconsistent with Meier’s claims)
“computations by both Nakano and the undersigned were beginning to indicate that the presumed encounter with Jupiter (cf. IAUC 5726, 5744) occurred during the first half of July 1992” and “splitting presumably occurred near Jupiter (as with P/Brooks 2 in 1886)”
(sources: IAU Circulars, No. 5800 and No. 5726, respectively (both in 1993); caveat: model-dependent, assumes “scientific facts & theories” inconsistent with Meier’s claims)
~20 SL9 fragments collided with Jupiter between 16 and 22 July, 1994, not “within a number of hours” of a date in the first half of July, 1992.
One more on this “Corroboration” – on the “about 20 pieces” – and then I’ll be done (barring any significant response from mahigitam).
Comment by Nereid — November 9, 2012 @ 10:19 am
(continued and concluded … unless mahigitam – or someone else – responds)
“The small moon mentioned by Quetzal and you actually was, at a very early time, a comet, which was forced by the planet Jupiter into an orbit around it and which was then actually torn away by the Destroyer and brought on a millennia-long course that will bring it back to Jupiter in the year 1994, between the 10th and 25th of July. 178. It will first appear as a comet, only to explode into about 20 pieces, when it approaches the planet Jupiter. 179. Then, within a number of hours, these fragments will all be attracted to the planet one after another and will crash down on it.”
That’s from “Corroboration 136”, with bold in the original. It is the only part which mentions “pieces” or “fragments”. However, there are two other passages which seem relevant, one from the second CR (“Contact Report 150, Saturday, October 10, 1981“) and one from the third (“Contact Report 248, Thursday, February 3, 1994“). Here they are, in the same order (bold omitted):
“[…] pulls a small, ancient moon with a diameter of about 4 kilometers out of its orbit and hurls it with immense speed out into the space of the SOL System on an unknown path, accompanied by several smaller asteroids.”
“Billy:….earthly scientists have made the discovery that at present, a small planetoid, about 4 kilometers in diameter, is approaching Jupiter on a collision course, accompanied by several asteroids following it. According to scientific calculations, this small planetoid, which is called Shoemaker-Levy 9, is to crash down on Jupiter in the middle of the year 1994, ”
Given that Billy wrote the last passage well after SL9 was discovered, and its nature as a fragmented comet widely known, what does “accompanied by several asteroids following it” refer to? It seems unlikely that “a small planetoid, about 4 kilometers in diameter” refers to the parent body, before it fragmented, because there were no observations of the unfragmented parent body, either then or now. Nor can he have been referring to the largest fragment, as that was L (though G and K were almost comparable), and the numbering scheme has A as the leading fragment (this too was widely known at the time).
According to Don Yeomans and Paul Chodas (source: http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/impacts2.html I can’t provide the URL of the paper, but this webpage has the same data as far as I can tell), 23 major fragments were identified, of which 20 were observed to impact Jupiter.
In images of SL9, the fragments are accompanied by comae; detailed analyses – of images and using spectroscopy – are consistent with the comae being composed of dust, with little if any detectable gas (important caveat: these analyses include assumptions inconsistent with Meier’s claims). Analyses of the impacts are consistent with models in which the parent object – and the larger fragments – being a ‘rubble pile’ (source: “Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 Fragment Size and Mass Estimates from Light Flux Observations” by Crawford (1997); same caveat). This implies that there were, in fact, many more fragments … but that they were too small to have been detected (this is consistent with the fact that, of the 20 fragments observed to impact Jupiter, only 15 produced “discernible impact features“).
What does all this mean, in terms of mahigitam’s quest for “strong astro crbr“? And, in particular, whether “Corroboration 136” is such a crbr?
Well, for me it means that mahigitam – if he continues to maintain that this is a “strong astro crbr” (mahigitam, please confirm) – is unlikely to be interested in “scientific facts & theories“, and most unlikely to be interested in corroboration “by sciences” (I will, of course, read any response from him with great care, so this is nothing more than a provisional conclusion).
What do you, other readers, think?
Comment by Nereid — November 9, 2012 @ 1:20 pm
Hallo Nereid,
I read the posts because i begin to study Astronomy, and i like how you use the reason, knowledge, logic and science to make good demonstrations.
From Dr Robbins and from you i am learning a lot of important things about scientific Principles and methods in Astronomy. Thank you.
Comment by Jennifer — October 29, 2012 @ 2:45 am |
Hi Jennifer. Thanks for your comment (and yours too ~rore); I was beginning to think that no one was getting anything out of my comments.
I had planned to write – at some length – about some key aspects of astronomy, and explain why there can be no “strong crbrs” concerning events (or phenomena, or objects) beyond the solar system – at least, none which are “scientific facts“, or “scientific theories” (pace mahigitam and MH) – but had dropped it, as mahigitam seems to have no interest in discussing this, and as MH seems intent on doing anything but have a rational discussion. I’ll now proceed.
The key thing, about astronomy beyond the solar system, is that everything interesting depends upon an analysis, or interpretation, of light*. Light that is captured by cameras on telescopes, by spectrographs on telescopes; ‘light’ which is x-rays or gamma rays or infrared or radio or microwaves (in astronomy, ‘light’ is often used to refer to all electromagnetic radiation, no matter what its wavelength is) detected by special ‘telescopes’ and ‘cameras’ and ‘spectrographs’ in orbit above the Earth’s atmosphere, or in the form of arrays of ‘dishes’ or even things that don’t look like radio dishes at all.
The light is analysed using theories of physics.
The analyses are tightly interlocking meshes of self-consistent models; you can think of it – collectively – as a densely woven fabric, with threads that are locked in place by other threads, or a multi-dimensional chain, with links that are each connected to many immediate neighbours.
Every analysis can be traced to QED (quantum electrodynamics; this is the quantum mechanics version of Maxwell’s equations, which describes electromagnetism) and GR (the theory of general relativity); the links – from QED and GR to ‘here is a star-forming galaxy’, say – are strong, far stronger than the “strong” in mahigitam’s strongest “crbr”. (I’ll give an example later; I should also add that, sometimes, QCD – quantum chromodynamics – is also an important foundation).
What follows is this: if you say that your foundation is something other than QED and GR, you have the burden of showing that all the analyses in the long chains that end in a conclusion such as ‘there’s a super-massive black hole in the galaxy Can A, of mass x (plus or minus y) million times that of the Sun’ produce essentially the same result. And that’s a lot of work, a lot of work.
So far, it seems that whatever foundation the crbrs rest on, it is very obviously not QED and GR. It seems equally clear that no one has even claimed to have shown that the foundation is self-consistent, let alone that the chains of logic and analysis produce the same result (for avoidance of doubt, ‘shown’ means ‘via papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals).
One thing I find disappointing, or amusing, is just how enormous the gulf is, between MH’s bluster and marketing hype (e.g. “If you know any real scientists, please direct them to this information“) and his evident, profound ignorance of astronomy. Ditto, mahigitam’s (e.g. “ It is like wanting to have a boxing match with an infant and avoiding a match with equals or higher. I am not getting any laughs but extremely disappointed to look at how people shy away when confronted with strong evidence.“) For avoidance of doubt, I am referring to astronomy beyond the solar system here, nothing else.
* there’s a minor caveat or three: cosmic rays, a handful of neutrinos from a supernova, and a few tiny grains of interstellar dust. There’s also the non-detection of certain kinds of neutrinos, and of gravitational wave radiation. However, these don’t really affect the main point, except to reinforce it.
Comment by Nereid — October 29, 2012 @ 9:02 am |
It is very fascinating, and the knowledge and the conditions needed to get true scientific Answers is much more complex and difficult than i think.
I need to stay more in the reality and study Astronomy more harder!:-)
Comment by Jennifer — October 30, 2012 @ 2:53 am
Comment by Nereid — October 28, 2012: “Can you quote the original Swiss German of the text (CRs) where it says “the speed of light has been decreased since” the beginning of the universe?”
Hiya Nereid… I found what you are asking for
&
Well, see for yourself…{;>) ~rore
Contact Report 119
Saturday, February 3, 1979, 2:46 PM
Billy Meier: …if I have calculated that the Creation’s expansion rate, for the initial period, was 44,069,497.5 kilometers per second, with a steadily constant half-life rate of almost exactly 6,347,755,102,040 years,
…the expansion rate of the Creation at its universal beginning was 147 times the speed of today’s speed of light constant, but this speed decreased… and continues to decrease…
so
the starting point of today’s light constant lay at a speed of 344,292.9 kilometers per second,
but
through the already elapsed portion of half-time, it has already dropped by 44,500.4 kilometers per second, whereby the present and current light constant of 299,792.5 kilometers per second arises, according to which an original light year, from the starting point of the current light constant, of around 1.390 X 10^15 km
Billy Meier: Then is it also right that in the next material evolution universe, a creation hour amounts to 90 trillion and 720 billion years, a minute amounts to 1 trillion and 512 billion years, and a second is accordingly 60 times less?
Quetzal: You know that you don’t have to ask because the calculation is of correctness.
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_119
Comment by rore — October 29, 2012 @ 3:29 am |
Nereid, since you haven’t explained your so-called criteria in detail, i am going to base my comments on the interpretation of your comments. Your so-called methodology can’t be anymore illogical.
Its like operating on patient without knowing the problem/injury/disease he/she has. You also failed to provide explanations on why your criteria is the best criteria out of all the criterias which IIG & SR & several others used when analysing information of ET contactee. Howmany times do i have to repeat the question to you ? Don’t you think your way of continuosly ducking the questions – which are repeated & are vital to the enquiry – cast doubt on your integrity ?
One thing seems to be very clear, you are good at hiding behind “scientific” sounding words(not denying you are knowledgeable), ignore the context & avoid the hard questions; which tells anyone that you are no more different than the rest of the bunch.
I made it clear that i am fine with your “criteria” when analysing the meier text but keeping in mind the context. You also failed to provide any explanations on why the context is not important. Any logical person will say that your methodology cant be anymore stupid. Your arguments dont carry any logic at all.
Are you expecting the CRs(casual conversation between 2 persons directed at common reader) to contain peer-reviewed, scientific material laid out in detail ? If it is so, you truly are one exception which i am sure of that no meier case researcher has ever seen and will ever see. Wasn’t there one neuron in your brain which asked the question, how come meier talk on these things(shoemaker levy-9, 1950DA,..) when there is no related information on these observations/events/.. available to our scientists, experts,… ? Any true scientist will find it puzzling and there are such people who has far more better credentials than most of the people here who have the guts & brains enough to ask the hard questions & did ask them.
Comment by mahigitam — November 2, 2012 @ 3:02 am |
@mahigitam: you wrote: “Your so-called methodology can’t be anymore illogical … You also failed to provide explanations on why your criteria is the best criteria out of all the criterias which IIG & SR & several others used when analysing information of ET contactee”
My apologies mahigitam.
I do not think I can do any better, in terms of explaining the criteria I use, better than I have already done.
Explaining in a way that you will understand, and at least accept as the basis that I use.
Nonetheless, I will try, one more time.
The shorthand is “objective, independently verifiable”, with the rider that “where possible, ‘objective’ means ‘quantitative'”.
If there’s anything to do with science – at least the science of astronomy (and closely related field) – then the primary sources are papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, and widely used university-level (preferably post-graduate level) textbooks. Conference proceedings may also sometimes be acceptable primary sources, but they would usually be followed by a published paper or two.
I do not really know what criteria IIG, SR, or others use with respect to “analysing information of ET contactee“.
Nor do I care.
And I do not really care that you seem to be concerned about that.
You wrote: “Any logical person will say that your methodology cant be anymore stupid. Your arguments dont carry any logic at all.”
I freely admit that my analyses may contain errors, omissions, etc. But the methodology should not contain any such.
You see, one of the fantastic things about “quantitative, objective, independently verifiable” is that the author is completely unimportant! Anyone can, independently, verify the veracity of what I write!!
And if anything in my various analyses contains logical errors, omissions, etc, why, those can be pointed out, for all to read.
So far, it would seem, neither you nor MH has been able to point to any such logical error or omission. With the exception of baseless assertions that are nothing more than subjective judgments devoid of logic or facts.
You wrote: “Are you expecting the CRs(casual conversation between 2 persons directed at common reader) to contain peer-reviewed, scientific material laid out in detail ?”
No. I do not have any such expectation (and I am at a loss to understand how you could have formed such a ridiculous impression).
What I expected (past tense; I now know better): the “corroborations” would be consistent, at some level, with the claims made in the introduction section (and by MH, who introduced them, in this set of comments). Take a counter-factual: if the intro said nothing whatsoever about science, if there was nothing about “scientific … facts & theories corroborated later by sciences” (to take one example), then things would be different (I still need to reply to a comment by you, one that seems based on a misunderstanding of how “would” is used in English; I know this can sometimes be extremely difficult for non-native speakers to grasp).
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to get back to dealing with Sandy’s aftermath …
Comment by Nereid — November 7, 2012 @ 3:20 pm |
Nereid,
I googled the Mahigitam; he makes advertisement of Billy Meier everywhere on internet like a job, and when people don’t believe it he always makes insults and uses bad words and says the people and what people know and think are illogical because Billy Meier says that only people who believe him think logical.
I like your scientific method and i learn many good knowledge in Astronomy in your posts, but i ask myself if you must lose more time on this hoax.
Comment by Jennifer — November 3, 2012 @ 1:56 am |
Jennifer,
Based solely on what he (she?) has written here, in the comments on this Episode 49 of Exposing PseudoAstronomy, mahigitam’s responses seem to me to be bi-modal: there are many which are neutral in tone, full of details, focussed, and quite logical; on the other hand, there quite a few which contain apparently unprovoked invective, make seemingly wild and unfounded accusations or assumptions, and use rhetorical devices which are quite illogical (e.g. there are several examples of the well-known logical fallacies argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad populum, and argumentum ad ignorantiam) … and few in between.
For me, perhaps the most interesting thing he wrote is “And that is the reason why i said in my comments that i would like to join with someone from astro community who could solve this issue.” (Comment by mahigitam — October 21, 2012 @ 4:27 am; “this issue” is whether there are any “strong astro crbrs” or not); perhaps the most disappointing thing about his responses is that he has declined to say how anyone – not just you, me, mahigitam … anyone – could decide (judge, determine, …) if this (a candidate astro crbr) is a strong “astro crbr” (or not). In an objective, independently verifiable way. Worse, he hasn’t even said what a “crbr” is (other than, by implication, “if someone – anyone, even MH – says it’s a crbr, then it’s a crbr”*)!
OK, maybe not the most disappointing thing; that would more likely be his apparent extreme reluctance to engage in a discussion on the extent to which it is even valid to examine (assess, evaluate, …) any candidate “astro crbr” from the perspective of astronomy (as a branch of science). For example, he seems to regard the paramount need for consistency, within astronomy, as something quite minor, even trivial, or irrelevant (e.g. see Comment by mahigitam — October 28, 2012 @ 4:22 am).
* actually, that’s not quite accurate: apparently, mahigitam is the author (or an author, perhaps editor) of the ~ten videos on the website MH referred to, waaay back in the early days of these comments. However, it’s unknown (to me, or any reader of these comments here, other than mahigitam himself) whether any of the “astro crbrs” in those videos are in his “set of strong astro crbrs” (he’s been remarkably coy about this, so far).
Comment by Nereid — November 10, 2012 @ 4:31 pm |
I understand you, Nereid; thank you.
But you see that this “And that is the reason why i said in my comments that i would like to join with someone from astro community who could solve this issue.” is not true; in the Head of Mahigitam this Issue is already solved because he believes it, and he believes Billy Meier is the Prophet and he created him, you, me, Doctor Robbins, Rore, all people and everything.
Mahigitam (it is he: i googled) can not say “Nereid is right!”, because if he says so all his World will fall down.
He looks for no truth and true Knowledge; he posts this and other things of Billy Meier in many, many places on Internet to make advertisement of his belief and of Billy Meier so that People believe like he believes and go buy books, pictures of UFO, dvd of Billy Meier and Michael Horn, and become Members of the FIGU sect and cult of Billy Meier.
Comment by Jennifer — November 11, 2012 @ 3:51 am
The next two comments of mine are a bit out of sequence, but I can’t do much about that (sorry). They relate directly to several earlier ones, by several people; for example Comment by Nereid — October 22, 2012 @ 12:11 pm, Comment by mahigitam — October 23, 2012 @ 8:27 am, Comment by Nereid — October 24, 2012 @ 7:55 am, Comment by Nereid — October 26, 2012 @ 2:44 pm, Comment by mahigitam — October 28, 2012 @ 4:22 am, Comment by rore — October 29, 2012 @ 3:25 am, and Comment by Jennifer — October 30, 2012 @ 2:53 am.
“Billy: On my Great Journey, I was with Ptaah and Semjase in a galaxy about 10 million light years away from the Earth, which was named to me as Centaurus A”
That’s from “Corroboration 76”, minus the bold.
In an earlier comment I noted that NED gives the mean and standard deviation of 36 redshift-independent distance estimates for Cen A as 3.656 +/- 0.438 Mpc (September 17, 2012 @ 3:42 am; ‘Mpc’ stands for megaparsec, a unit of distance; 3.656 Mpc is 11.924 million light-years).
“Redshift-independent”, in this context, means that the distance to Cen A was estimated using a method – or methods – independent of observing that galaxy’s redshift and using the Hubble redshift-distance relationship. In fact, there are ~ten different methods, with names like “Cepheids”, “tip of the red giant branch”, and “planetary nebula luminosity function”. While there are a couple of methods of estimating distances to galaxies well beyond our own Local Group (dominated by our own Milky Way and M31, the Andromeda nebula/galaxy) that are (almost) direct, neither was used for Cen A.
Instead, each of the ~ten methods relies on what is known as the distance ladder.
The lowest rung on the distance ladder is the ‘astronomical unit’ (au), which can be thought of as some kind of average distance of the Earth from the Sun. This can be determined – by various means – to be ~150 million kilometres. Now the metre itself is (currently) defined as “the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second“, which – obviously – includes the assumption that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.
That assumption – the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum – is also an assumption in the various (historical) methods of estimating the number of metres in the au (very recently the definition of the au was changed; today it’s simply a fixed number of metres: “exactly 149 597 870 700 m”).
From the Earth-Sun distance, the apparent change in the position – on the sky – of some nearby stars (a method called “parallax”) as the Earth orbits the Sun gives an estimate of the distance to those stars. This is where the unit ‘parsec’ (‘parallax of one second’) comes from; an object one parsec away will have a parallax of one arcsecond. The astrometry satellite HIPPARCOS made parallax observations of ~a hundred thousand stars; to date these are the best estimated parallax distances (the GAIA mission aims to measure parallax distances for ~a billion stars, by ~2020).
Good distance estimates for a class of star known as Cepheids – from parallax – enables relative distances derived from the observed properties of many Cepheids to be tied to parsecs and to so aus and metres; Cepheids are one kind of ‘standard candle’. The idea behind a standard candle is easy to grasp: if every candle has exactly the same intrinsic brightness, then the observed (apparent) brightness of a candle can be used to estimate its distance.
Cepheids, in turn, can be used to calibrate brighter – but much rarer – standard candles, such as type Ia supernovae. And so on.
Given the importance of having good estimates of distance to the science of astronomy, it will come as no surprise to learn that astronomers have spent tens of thousands of person-years of effort on the distance ladder. Especially that part which extends to distant galaxies.
Back to the speed of light (in a vacuum), abbreviated as c.
Thanks to rore (October 29, 2012 @ 3:29 am), readers of these comments know that the ‘scientific facts’ contained in the CRs include an unequivocal c is not constant! (“Billy Meier: … so the starting point of today’s light constant lay at a speed of 344,292.9 kilometers per second, but through the already elapsed portion of half-time, it has already dropped by 44,500.4 kilometers per second, whereby the present and current light constant of 299,792.5 kilometers per second arises“)
What does this mean? In particular, how does this affect mahigitam’s effort to classify ‘astronomy’ crbs into ‘strong’ and ‘not strong’? (“Since i am no expert in astronomy or no experience in searching astro journals, my set of strong astro crbrs are limited and subject to change. And that is the reason why i said in my comments that i would like to join with someone from astro community who could solve this issue.” October 21, 2012 @ 4:27 am)
Well, for starters it means that everything in astronomy which has an important dependence on distance – and that’s just about everything – contains a fundamental flaw; it means that almost every model, fact, theory, conclusion, … even observation (!) needs to be re-examined, and changed, to incorporate the non-constancy of c (an alternative would be to abandon consistency, but if you do that, you no longer have any pretence at astronomy being science). And that means there cannot be any “strong astro crbrs“.
It gets worse, much worse, for mahigitam’s quest … but I’ll save that for a later comment.
Comment by Nereid — November 8, 2012 @ 2:21 pm |
In my last comment (Comment by Nereid — November 8, 2012 @ 2:21 pm) I showed (briefly sketched would be a better summary) that the constancy of the speed of light (in a vacuum) is a foundational assumption in every method used to estimate distances, in astronomy. And that as a consequence mahigitam’s quest for “strong astro crbrs” is doomed to fail (if we take Billy Meier at his word), or at least requires checking, and in many cases re-doing, all the work on the distance ladder.
I also said that it gets much worse than just this. Here’s why (well, just scratching the surface).
HIPPARCOS – a space-based astrometry mission – measured trigonometric parallaxes of ~100,000 stars (in the main catalogue; a secondary catalogue – produced from the HIPPARCOS data – contains lower precision parallax and proper motion estimates for ~2.5 million stars). To produce these estimates, it is necessary to model the position and attitude (‘where it is pointing’) with respect to an inertial reference frame; in particular to tie the satellite’s position and attitude to the ICRS (International Celestial Reference System). Many effects have to be incorporated into those models; leave one out – or estimate the effect incorrectly – and errors will be introduced into the distance and proper motion estimates.
One such effect is that due to General Relativity (GR); put simply, it is not good enough to assume Newtonian physics to model the HIPPARCOS satellite’s position and attitude, at least some of the more noticeable GR effects have to be modelled too (for the GAIA mission to succeed, correctly modelling GR effects is far more important; for example, the gravitational deflection of light, due to the Sun’s mass, will be huge, even in a direction opposite that of the Sun!)
Queue this, from “Corroboration 76”: “Billy: On my Great Journey, I was […] in a galaxy about 10 million light years away from the Earth,”
Taking Billy as his word, he travelled some twenty million light-years, in 1975, in what observers here on Earth counted as what, merely hours? weeks?
Queue an understatement: GR cannot accurately describe how the universe works, at least with respect to an object of mass ~100 kg, (local) times of ~1 million seconds, and distances of ~10^23 metres.
Now if GR is needed to establish the second-lowest rung of the distance ladder, and if GR is – obviously – hugely inconsistent with what Billy wrote, then we have another reason why there cannot be any “strong astro crbrs“. At least, not unless and until all the long chains of models, theories, facts, observations, etc, etc, etc are checked and – as necessary – re-done.
Billy also wrote this (in the same “Corroboration 76”): “The center of the GALAXY Centaurus A […] actually consists of a super-massive black hole“. But what is a “black hole”? It is something which is derived from GR; take away GR and “black hole” becomes undefined.
Billy took away GR – by travelling to Cen A and back, in a time of ~10^6 seconds (as measured here on Earth) – and in so doing also took away black holes, leaving a semantic hole.
I’ll close by quoting MH “To say anything more here is superfluous.“
Comment by Nereid — November 8, 2012 @ 2:25 pm |
In case any reader is interested in learning more about how to estimate distances, for extra-galactic objects (i.e. those outside our own, Milky Way, galaxies), there’s an excellent website called The Hubble Constant:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/hubble/
It was put together by the late John Huchra, and does a really good job (IMHO) of explaining why it’s been so difficult to get a good (i.e. +/- <5%) estimate of the Hubble constant. That – necessarily – involves getting a good handle on the distance ladder.
You may be wondering why so much effort has gone into nailing down a value of the Hubble constant (it was one of the Hubble Space Telescope's first Key Projects, for example). There are many reasons, but one is to test General Relativity (GR). That theory predicts the empirical distance-redshift relationship which bears Hubble's name (though he wasn't actually the first to write about it!), in a universe that is homogeneous and isotropic (at very large scales), and expanding. The actual value of the Hubble constant in turns highly constrains the mass-energy density of the universe, and its evolution.
Comment by Nereid — November 9, 2012 @ 7:29 am |
Thank you very much Nereid; i visited the Website https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/hubble/ with my classmates. It is very interessant and we will show it to our Teachers.
Maybe it is good to know that more than 40 classmates, Friends and boyfriends read the posts of Doktor Robbins and your contributions here; they tell me they learn a lot like me, they don’t post only because of the English language, but they are studying it.
\
A question: can you maybe tell us if planet Mars war like Earth in the past and if it is possible in the Future to make Mars like Earth?
And my answer to your question “Well, for me it means that mahigitam – if he continues to maintain that this is a “strong astro crbr” (mahigitam, please confirm) – is unlikely to be interested in “scientific facts & theories”, and most unlikely to be interested in corroboration “by sciences” (I will, of course, read any response from him with great care, so this is nothing more than a provisional conclusion). What do you, other readers, think?” is that when you demonstrate that Billy Meier is wrong and the Story is not true, Mahigitam always makes insults, uses bad words and says ‘illogical’, because he is a believer and he believes only they can be logical.
Comment by Jennifer — November 9, 2012 @ 4:23 pm
@Jennifer (reply to your comment of November 9, 2012 @ 4:23 pm).
Thanks for the feedback, and I’m glad to hear that you and your friends (etc) have found what I wrote interesting.
In addition to this, Exposing PseudoAstronomy, blog, I recommend the CosmoQuest forum, as a good place to go to get answers to any questions you may have on astronomy:
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/forum.php
The section called “Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers” in particular is worth reading every day. If you decide to post a question, don’t be shy; remember that there are no bad, or silly questions!
For the Moon, Vesta, Mars, etc the section in the CosmoQuest forum called “Geology & Planetary Surfaces” may be better than “Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers” (Dr Robbins often posts there, under the handle astrostu). And if you want to take part in a citizen science project, why not click the “Do Science” button at the top of the page, and select one!
You may already be familiar with Astronomy Picture of the Day, perhaps its German language version too. But did you know that there’s also a discussion forum associated with it? It’s called Starship Asterisk*, and often has some good discussions. Here are the links:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
http://www.starobserver.org/
http://asterisk.apod.com/index.php
“can you maybe tell us if planet Mars war like Earth in the past”
Dr Robbins would be a far better person to answer that question (my interests in astronomy are more to do with stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters; my favourite citizen science project is Galaxy Zoo). If I recall correctly, there is a great deal of evidence pointing to Mars being ‘warm and wet’, around 4 billion years ago, with rivers and lakes, rain and snow, and a much thicker atmosphere than today.
“and if it is possible in the Future to make Mars like Earth?”
With a dedicated ‘terraforming’ effort, lasting perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, it may be possible for us humans to make Mars more Earth-like, even to the point of having a breathable atmosphere, perhaps even rivers and lakes. But “possible” here means potentially within the scope of today’s technology; whether it would be possible economically … well, that’s a different question.
“is that when you demonstrate that Billy Meier is wrong and the Story is not true”
It is very important, I feel, to be clear about what I have demonstrated, and what I have not demonstrated.
For example, I have said nothing at all on matters other than astronomy (and related fields, like physics). Also, I have focussed on “Corroborations”, as presented by Michael Horn (MH) and mahigitam, and examined them from the perspective of astronomy (as science) only. In particular, I have been clear – I hope! – that if MH and mahigitam cease to make claims about “strong astro crbrs“, where the “strong” includes claims about “scientific facts & theories“, then I would have little or nothing further to say.
Comment by Nereid — November 12, 2012 @ 1:49 pm
That is very good to know; thank you very much for your Answers and for the links. I will learn there too.
What you do and demonstrate is very clear, Nereid, everybody sees it is all science and Astronomy and only science and astronomy.
Excuse please my bad composition of sentences; i said ‘you’ but i mean ‘in general’, because i saw Mahigitam do the same thing on many other websites.
So ‘you’ is not ‘you Nereid’, but ‘somebody’ or ‘anybody’. We use often the word ‘man’ to say that in the German Language.
So my sentence is in the reality like this: “when somebody demonstrate that Billy Meier is wrong and the Story is not true”
Comment by Jennifer — November 12, 2012 @ 3:31 pm
Comment by mahigitam — November 2, 2012 @ 3:02 am | “Its like operating on patient without knowing the problem/injury/disease he/she has.” ~~~
And how many times have I suggested that You, Horn, James, Frehner, Billy Meier & The Cult of Billy aka FIGU that you all stop operating without a license Mahi…!
I’ve already exposed 2 CR’s HERE to be Absolutely Wrong
&
NOW
A THIRD
~
Contact Report 119
Saturday, February 3, 1979, 2:46 PM
Billy Meier: “…if I have calculated that the Creation’s expansion rate, for the initial period, was 44,069,497.5 kilometers per second, with a steadily constant half-life rate of almost exactly 6,347,755,102,040 years,
“…the expansion rate of the Creation at its universal beginning was 147 times the speed of today’s speed of light constant,
but
this speed decreased… and continues to decrease…”
^^^AB~SO~LUTE~LY WRONG Mahti^^^
Cuuuzzzz
“…the expansion rate of the Creation” IS NOT Continuing to decrease
IN FACT
Scientists KNOW the expansion rate (Velocity) of Our Universe/Creation IS actually Increasing… ~rore
http://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
Comment by rore — November 9, 2012 @ 3:37 am |
The preprint of the ApJ paper that this Space.com article is based on is “Carnegie Hubble Program: A Mid-Infrared Calibration of the Hubble Constant”, by Freedman et al. (2012); link is to astro-ph abstract:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3281
This paper is not – necessarily – inconsistent with Meier’s claim, because the conclusions in the Freedman et al. paper are at the end of a very long chain of tightly inter-locked models, calculations, observations, etc. And the validity of QED and GR are assumed, at many different points, within those models, calculations, observations, etc.
As we all now know – thanks to you, rore – Meier also claims that the speed of light is not constant, and also that GR and/or QED is invalid (as a description of the behaviour of matter with mass ~100 kg, over distances of ~10^23 m, and times of ~10^6 seconds; actually, he doesn’t directly claim this, merely imply it).
But as there are no primary sources which show that conclusions of the kind in the Freedman et al. paper are consistent with Meier’s claims (at least, neither MH nor mahigitam have cited any such, yet) – when the thousands of directly relevant models, calculations, observations etc are checked and re-done using Meier’s claims – no one can say, logically, that the paper’s conclusions are inconsistent with Meier’s claims (in CR 119).
Comment by Nereid — November 10, 2012 @ 5:10 pm |
A look at “Corroboration 50”.
There’s only a single word in bold in that “Corroboration”, beige. The key parts of the CR (an extract from just one is quoted) are: “Billy: .. what original color did the material Universe […] exhibit […] Quetzal: ..[…] from which the material form of the present Universe developed, which exhibits a beige color…“. The “CORROBORATION” section contains just two sentences, and a live link. That link takes you to an article in Wired magazine, which gives AP (Associated Press) as its source.
Whoever compiled this corroboration seems to have glommed onto the word “beige”, and not bothered to investigate further.
Which is a pity, because not only is there a direct link, in the Wired article, to a quite good explanation by Karl Glazebrook and Ivan Baldry (who are quoted in the AP source; they are – or were; they’ve both since moved – astronomers at John Hopkins University), “The Cosmic Spectrum and the Color of the Universe”:
http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~kgb/cosspec/
Towards the end of this document is a heading, “Enough talk. So what color is the Universe?” And the very next line says “Really the answer is so close to white, it is difficult to say.”
However, there’s also a sting (or caveat, if you prefer) here, one that the author of this particular “Corroboration” seems completely unaware of. And it relates to – you guessed it – Meier’s ‘non-constancy of c’ claim (see my November 8, 2012 @ 2:21 pm comment).
You see, to produce an estimate of the ‘color of the universe’ (Glazebrook would write ‘colour’ today, as he’s now working Down Under!), you have to make assumptions about how the universe is expanding, and those assumptions – made by today’s astronomers, astrophysicists, and physicists – all include the assumption that c is constant (in case you can’t find these sorts of words, by googling the JHU webpage mahigitam and MH, here’s a clue: “We have de-redshifted all our light before combining“). To work out what color the universe would have, with Meier’s non-constant c, you have to check many hundred models, re-do many thousand calculations, and generally spend thousands of hours taxing your brain. And it’s rather harder work than plugging words into Google.
Oh, and another part of the CR, not put in bold, is “Then came the blue phase of the galaxies? development and stars? development, etc.” The JHU webpage contains words which appear to corroborate this; namely: “The universe started out young and blue, and grew gradually redder as the population of evolved ‘red’ giant stars built up.” Unfortunately – for mahigitam and MH – QED and GR are even more deeply embedded in this conclusion, so checking the models, re-doing the calculations, etc (to include the non-constancy of c, and whatever changes are necessary to GR) would likely be an even more arduous task.
Comment by Nereid — November 9, 2012 @ 8:05 am |
No response to “Comment by Nereid — November 9, 2012 @ 1:20 pm” (and the series of comments before that, on SL9). At least, not from mahigitam. The same mahigitam who wrote “Now coming to the boxing match, do want to box with a baby or an adult? If you have guts enough to box with an adult, let’s get on with it …”
Ah well.
Comment by Nereid — November 16, 2012 @ 3:05 pm |
Nereid… ‘They’ may be too busy with, what they call ‘A More Accurate Re-Translation’ of Meier’s Contact Reports from German to English.
^^^Short^^^
For The Addition or Deletion of Content within Billy’s Contact Reports;
especially
The Deletions of Content that are Proven To Be IN Error.
It IS A ‘Nasty Business’ they endeavor to Promote via The http://WWW...
ie
Billy Meier’s Swiss FIGU Organization IS FAR FROM a simple Harmless, Good-Natured, Fringe UFO group.
FIGU Promotes The Superior Alien Race TO BE – Aryan-Nordic
&
The Population of Earth NEEDS TO BE ‘downsized’ to around 500,000,000 Righteous Earth People.
^^^
Shades of Hitler et al
My hat’s off to You, The Doc & Others here who are ‘keeping it real’ with The Facts… ~rore
Comment by rore — November 17, 2012 @ 4:24 am |
Comment by Nereid — November 10, 2012 ~ The preprint of the ApJ paper that this Space.com article is based on is “Carnegie Hubble Program: A Mid-Infrared Calibration of the Hubble Constant”, by Freedman et al. (2012); link is to astro-ph abstract:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3281
This paper is not – necessarily – inconsistent with Meier’s claim
I think it may be in one critical aspect Nereid… In 1979, Meier claimed the Expansion Rate of the Universe is ‘slowing’, which was a ‘Concept – Theory’ many many scientists ‘believed in’ at the time
ie & simply put:
They assumed Gravity was certain to slow the expansion of the Universe as time went on.
Today, scientists pretty much agree, due to relatively new observations, that the Universe’s Expansion is not ‘continuing to slow down’, as Meier claims. ~rore
Comment by rore — November 22, 2012 @ 1:45 am |
It’s perhaps important at this time, several weeks later, to mention that Michael Horn has repeatedly tried to post comments here that I have blocked. Yet he makes no mention of them in the next comment he tries to post, so I’m not sure if he realizes they were blocked.
For those paying attention, The question to Michael is very simple and is all he needs to answer in order for a comment to go through: What is the evidence that the red meteor was linked to Apophis before its discovery? Or, directly answer ANY of Nereid’s posts showing that the material that you claim is positive confirmation of Meier’s predictions is actually not.
Fairly simple.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — December 12, 2012 @ 8:52 pm |
Thanks to all participants for a thought provoking discussion, ecspecially of course, to Michael Horn, Mahigitam, and Nimrod. My measly contribution:
1) I could not let ‘rore’ simply get away with his Nov. 17 comments above. FIGU is by no means a racist organization, indeed they have often spoken out against such. Also, their sage advice to reduce this grossly overpopulated earth to the reasonable number of some half a billion people, does not include selectively ‘offing’ anybody or the like, as rore seems to imply; in fact they have put forth a truely humane plan to accomplish this. Seemingly drastic, yes, but “desperate times…”
And,
2) On a lighter, fascinating note–relating to something that was addressed near the top of this thread:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/bigfoot-dna-proves-creature-exists-genetic_n_2199984.html
It seems, during the course of this very discussion, a new corraboration is coming to light…
Comment by Andy — December 14, 2012 @ 6:32 pm |
This must be a joke.
Comment by Jennifer — December 16, 2012 @ 2:17 am
Jennifer,
What, the big foot thing? Not at all. Indeed, of late there seems to be more and more evidence surfacing concerning this. Admittedly, much of this may represent questionable anecdotals; the link I posted above may or may not represent something more concrete. It’s wild, I realize, but since the conversation has been on prophecy and ET contact…I thought big foot was fair game at this point. Off topic, yes, but not a joke–and I think it was touched on above.
It was asked earlier what other readers thought of the dialogue here. I think I tend to agree with Mahigitham, and even Nereid and Mr. Robbins, that, singely, the Red Meteor-Apophis information may not represent a “level 3 corraboration.” But, surely, should there be shown to be any of these, then this would potentialy be the “most important story in all of human history” and should rightly garner the serious attention of any and all “real scientists.” I would urge Stuart to research another claim, hold a podcast on a different astronomy related claim of an accurate detailed alleged prophecy, one that perhaps Mahigitam or Michael will put forth as one of those among the level 3 type stuff.
Another thing–something thats keeps coming into my mind, as was mentioned above…why would this man be writing on these things??? Why and how can this “uneducated,” “simple Swiss famer” write so voluminously, so seemingly intelligently and insightfuly, on such varied scientific, technical, topics? Seeing how the man himself doesn’t even bother to tout his alleged prophetic ability, the motive doesn’t seem to be money or fame… And for that matter, that goes for Michael Horn as well, whom appears to make more foes than fans, and who I would be extremely suprised to find makes any sizeable amount of money for selling Meier books and video, etc.
I think the big foot thing is interesting because, as few who should like to be taken seriously are willing to claim that they think or know that big foot/yeti/sasquatch/what-have-you exists, then this may represent another greater or lesser corraboration should the creature be proven to exist.
But, by all means, let’s stick to “level 3” astronomy-related things–I, for one, think the suggestion made in this post above (do another Meier episode on a different corraboration) is a great idea. Besides, it will seemingly be good for traffict to this site, Stuart. Perhaps Mahigitam is willing to point to one of the others off the list that he thinks will – unquestionably – past muster.
Comment by Andy — December 16, 2012 @ 9:42 pm |
So, Andy, what is a “level 3 corraboration“?
If you don’t define what any such is, there’s no way anyone – least of all you – would even know they had one, would they? And, as you certainly know well, mahigitam never got around to actually saying what one of these things is!
On the other hand, mahigitam *did* say that “Corroboration 136” is “a strong crbr“, and as is clear for everyone to see, it’s about as far from “potentialy being the “most important story in all of human history” ” as you can imagine. So, that one at least doesn’t come remotely close to “rightly garnering the serious attention of any and all “real scientists.” ”
“perhaps Mahigitam or Michael will put forth […] one of those among the level 3 type stuff.” Myself, I’m not holding my breath.
I certainly asked both of them to do so, and the best I got was “Corroboration 136”, from mahigitam.
You asked “Why and how can this “uneducated,” “simple Swiss famer” write so voluminously, so seemingly intelligently and insightfuly, on such varied scientific, technical, topics? ”
In the comment just before yours, Jennifer wrote: “This must be a joke. ”
That would seem to be an appropriate response here too.
Andy, at least as far as the “Corroborations” pertaining to astronomy that I have written about here are concerned, the writing is not voluminous, and it does not seem (to me) to be intelligent or insightful. May I ask you: what critical investigations did you undertake that led you to your opinions, as regards astronomy?
“Perhaps Mahigitam is willing to point to one of the others off the list that he thinks will – unquestionably – past muster.”
Well, if you had read the comments here, you’d know that he has been asked to do exactly that.
More than once.
What does his silence tell you, Andy?
Comment by Nereid — December 17, 2012 @ 11:47 am
You are making a joke again, Michael Horn or someone from the FIGU sect; but Merry Christmas!
You wrote “I would urge Stuart to research another claim, hold a podcast on a different astronomy related claim of an accurate detailed alleged prophecy, one that perhaps Mahigitam or Michael will put forth as one of those among the level 3 type stuff.”
Maybe this Contact Report 476, 3rd February 2009?
“Regarding the Mayan calendar it must be said that the year 2012 will bring a whole series of quite special events, to which the central star of our system, our sun, will contribute its share, because on the sun’s surface violent outbursts will occur and sun storms are caused, which will be very intense and will influence Earth’s geomagnetic balance.
Through the very strong X-rays falling down on Earth, the magnetic field can suffer from very strong fluctuations. And through geomagnetic storms, power supplies and all electronic appliances can collapse, also those in the satellites, and the ISS may also suffer great damage or may even have a complete (power) failure. Such solar storms may lead to enormous natural catastrophes, and in a worst-case scenario, to a polarity reversal of the Earth’s magnetic field. What has to be said also is that such solar storms are forming up to a climax in an exact rhythm of eleven years, which is a normal occurrence, but in the year 2012 it may happen in an extraordinary magnitude. The Earth will fall victim to a very strong bombardment of hard radiation, which may have a very negative effect on the Earth’s ozone layer.
Due to the entire resulting process, nitric oxides and acid rain can be formed worldwide, which may have evil and devastating effects on the entire plant life. The enormous solar eruptions can lead to further very strong climate changes and, with it, to immense droughts, bad weather, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, crop failure and, therefore, to even
greater famines than have existed up to now. Besides all this, the year 2012 brings other unpleasant events, like e.g. an unknown, invisible, dark and huge space wanderer that is threatening from the fringe of our solar system and could wreak tremendous havoc regarding Earth.”
“Regarding the Mayan calendar, the 21st of December 2012 represents the culmination of a star constellation that occurs only every 26,000 years. The Mayan calculations are assuming that the Earth – on the 21st of December 2012 – shall lie on an imaginary line that fits together the star over the left side of the constellation Orion with the central sun, i.e. the centre of the Milky Way. The Sun meets the Milky Way at a location that is built by interstellar dust clouds, and is called
“dark cleft of the Milky Way” by the human beings of Earth. On the 21st of December 2012, at nightfall of winter solstice, the Sun is directly in that cleft, and it is in such a position that the Milky Way covers the horizon in all positions all around.
From this is resulting the optical impression that the Milky Way would touch Earth all around and that the galaxy would lie directly on the Earth. On the whole that’s the end product of the Mayan calendar recording.
This should suffice, my friend. To say more would be too much of a good thing, because it would foster the fear of the human beings of Earth, which should not be, however. So keep silent regarding the further explanations that we gave you.”
Comment by Jennifer — December 17, 2012 @ 1:28 am |
Jennifer,
Please, I ask again, what is a joke to you? I reread my comments and still am at a loss to find the humor…
And I can assure you I am in now way related to FIGU. Except for the fact that their, as Michael Horn aptly refers to it, “NON-RELIGIOUS, BELIEF-LESS” ‘spiritual’ or consciousness-related teaching has helped spurned much personal growth in me in recent years.
What do you find objectionable in the contact report above? It is well known that 2012-13 is a peak in solar storm activity cycle, indeed a peak cycle of a peak cycle, the way I understand it. The events described in the report are prefaced with things like ‘may’ or ‘can/could/might’–thank goodness we seemed to have dodged the worst possible scenarios. That said, we did have the hottest year and record, and did experience a ‘storm of the century’ in superstorm Sandy. And, we certainly did have droughts–prolonged, widespread, and dangerous ones.
Again, what do you object to in the contact report you cited, or anything I said for that matter??? Your criticism was substance-less. As far as the unique astronmical alignments and such on Dec. 21, 2012, this is all quite factual, no?
And,
Nereid,
Your comments are fair, I will respond when I have some time over the next couple days. But as far as the “level 3 crbrs” go, this is not so difficult and Mahigitam did give a reasonable outline of what this would be–some unambigious specific detail(s) that was published by Billy Meier at a date when no terrestial scientist knew this detail. It’s pretty simple. This would be ‘level 3’ in that it would represent conclusive evidence that Meier was either a) a “prophet,” or, b) in contact with ET’s, or perhaps both a and b. One of these should likely stand on its own, but of course if we were to find a couple or more of instances of these… well than any doubt that stubborn religious-type Skeptics may have held onto can surely alas be let go.
But, this doesnt fully answer you. I’ll get back to you.
Take care,
Andy
Comment by andy — December 17, 2012 @ 5:43 pm |
Looking forward to you getting back to me Andy.
In the meantime, there’s this: “It is well known that 2012-13 is a peak in solar storm activity cycle, indeed a peak cycle of a peak cycle, the way I understand it.”
You can appreciate the irony of you posting this just a day *after* Dr Robbins posted “Doom from the Sun on December 21, 2012”, right here, in this very “Exposing PseudoAstronomy” blog, can’t you?
Followed by: “As far as the unique astronmical alignments and such on Dec. 21, 2012, this is all quite factual, no?“, just a week *after* this, also here: “2012 Mayan Doomsday: One Post to (Almost) Rule Them All”!
While it may not pass muster as a mahigitam-style “level 3”, it is surely good evidence of Jennifer’s prophetic ability, is it not? So far, all the evidence seems to be consistent with the hypothesis that you, Andy, are indeed joking.
Comment by Nereid — December 18, 2012 @ 1:33 am |
It is now very ridiculous.
Merry Christmas to all.
Comment by Jennifer — December 18, 2012 @ 4:52 am |
I don’t understand. The contact in no way predicts disaster on the 21st. Billy has in fact said that all this is nonsense, the 21st will, of course, be a day like any other, save perhaps some unique astronomical alignments. I wasn’t aware of Stuarts recent post. But the fact that this year and into mid 2013 is a time where we are more vulnerable to solar storm activity is, I thought, common knowledge. I don’t understand the joke…
Comment by andy — December 18, 2012 @ 3:02 pm |
Regarding the solar activity, it was “common knowledge” about 5 years ago. Since about 2008, the state of the science changed based on the extended solar minimum. Since AT LEAST 2010, the forecast is for a relatively subdued solar minimum that peaks around 2013-2014. In other words, your information is out of date.
Regarding what Meier claims, Jennifer cited Contact Report (“CR”) 476, which sure seems to say that Meier thinks stuff WILL happen:
There are a lot of weasel words of “can,” “may,” etc. in the rest of that CR, but that much seems clear, at least in the English translation.
But the root point remains: Your information on the sun is about 3-5 years out of date. There are also no special astronomical alignments.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — December 18, 2012 @ 3:13 pm |
There’s one particular part that – assuming the translation is even half-way accurate – is even more unambiguous:
If I recall correctly, mahigitam (or was it MH?) linked “wanderer” to ~stellar-mass black holes, in various “corroborations”; and here the association would seem to be plausible (such an object would be unknown, invisible, dark and huge (in mass); if at “the fringe of our solar system“, it certainly *would* be threatening!
But I could be mistaken; can you set the record straight please Andy?
Twelve days (plus or minus one, depends on where you are) to go, and no sign of any such “wanderer” …
Comment by Nereid — December 19, 2012 @ 12:44 pm
@Andy: By now you understand what the ‘joke’ is, I hope.
To elaborate a bit: the parts of the “Contact Report” (CR) which Jennifer quoted contain much which readers of this Exposing PseudoAstronomy blog know to be wrong, nonsense, etc. As you can confirm for yourself, by reading – at a minimum – the two very recent entries I mentioned in my earlier comment.
So, at least parts of this CR contain explicit, concrete, specific material which some may have considered to be potentially prophetic in nature, when they were first published (some time in 2009?) … but which, in light of what is now known, seem ridiculous, certainly not what one would expect from a prophet!
Then you wrote stuff that looked – to me – like you were, in fact, joking; specifically, “It is well known that …“. On the one hand, you were at least three years out of date (that’s a charitable interpretation); on the other, stuff that’s “well known” hardly makes what’s in the CR “prophetic”, does it?
Moving on … may I ask you how you came to believe that “it is well known that 2012-13 is a peak in solar storm activity cycle, indeed a peak cycle of a peak cycle“? Likewise, what do (did?) you think are “the unique astronmical alignments and such on Dec. 21, 2012“? And how did you come to think that these were, in fact, unique astronomical alignments?
Andy, one of the things that makes the science of astronomy so successful is that it is objective, and independently verifiable. That means that you – and anyone, and everyone, else – can check everything within its scope, independently, objectively. And so verify its veracity.
Comment by Nereid — December 19, 2012 @ 7:08 am |
Stuart, 2012 has produced some very intense solar storms. And there has been some special events in 2012. And it is not unreasonable to say that these storms may have “contributed their share” to these events. Nothing in what you quoted from the contact is necessarily flat out wrong. And the rest of contact, as you noted, is prefaced with “may/could/might.” And also, accordingly, nor was this ever put forward as a “prediction”–as I think you noted on the show “prediction” is used by Billy when he says a future event will happen with certainty (opposed to “prophecies” which are based on probability calculations and not set in stone) , and, again, the only part that seems to be said in the ‘so it shall be’ manner was that solar storms will be intense in 2012–and they were.
The report doesn’t even necessarily name 2012 the solar peak. I said that, 2012-13. But the CR does seem to suggest that too. But this is all fine. Again the given info is based on probability calculations; when the contact took place they may have misjudged exactly when the peak was to hit for similar reasons we here also misjudged it. It apparently is a hard thing to pin down with certainty. This is to say, the fact that I or Billy/ET’s suggested the peak would be 2012-2013, when now we know it more accurately to be 2013-2014… I dont see this as being much of a “root point” of contention.
I have no idea what the dark wanderer is. If such a thing threatened us, we apparently didn’t notice it. But, again, nothing was said on this with certainty. And that’s why this contact is not a fruitful one in determining the mans prophetic ability or if he has indeed ever been privy to certain scientific information before all the scientists had that information. This contact would be interesting if it was flat out wrong in some places, this would be, of course, a big mark against him…which brings me to the supposed unique astronomical alignments…
I’m going to sleep and going to read a couple more things, but i think I have some thoughts on this alignment issue. I’ll try to write again soon. But ultimately I would like to find a truly conclusive and ironclad instance of one of these Meier-knowing-before-the-scientists corroborations. I’ll work on this too. I honestly don’t know if one of these exists purely astronomy related. But there is supposedly handfuls of these outside of strictly astronomy. Which is why this all demands continued attention and the kind of due diligence you guys are putting up. Really, good work. Thanks for continuing the discussion. But, for the above reasons, this 2012 contact isn’t gonna cut it; I will see if I can find a CR for us to dissect that should prove more fruitful.
Comment by andy — December 20, 2012 @ 2:17 am |
Your first paragraph is wrong on an absolute scale, unless you can point to evidence to the contrary. The top 5 in history were prior to 2007. I see one that happened this year that was classified as a “3” on a 5-point scale, and that’s something that typically happens typically once a month, averaged over 11 years, with no dangerous affect on power systems nor satellites. There were zero events that caused problems and so zero that most people would in any way consider a match for that prediction.
Perhaps at this point you can understand frustration on my part and Neried’s part? We are pointed to certain things by Meier proponents that are claimed to show Meier’s prophetic accuracy. We then spend our little bit of free time looking into them, and when we find evidence that no, they either didn’t happen or were already known, we’re told, “Oh, well, no … I didn’t mean that was a good example, let me go look for a different one that REALLY shows he knew stuff before it happened.”
I’m not applying this specifically to what you said about solar storms, because I don’t see you as having brought that particular CR up as a “strong” example. But it does illustrate the perils of looking at popular news stories or going off of non-primary sources for your information … it’s wrong. And don’t even get me started on the bigfoot stuff …
Comment by Stuart Robbins — December 20, 2012 @ 10:04 am |
Andy:
And earlier, also Andy:
Andy, as you know – because you’ve read the comments on this blog entry carefully – at least “big mark against him” has been clearly established, namely “Corroboration 76”.
Does that – the “Corroboration 76” “big mark against him” – “represent conclusive evidence that Meier was either a) NOT a “prophet,” or, b) NOT in contact with ET’s, or perhaps both a and b.“? If not, why not?
I think you can see what I’m getting at, can’t you? If not, I’ll be happy to explain further.
By the way, are you familiar with the term “confirmation bias”?
Comment by Nereid — December 20, 2012 @ 5:53 pm |
A quite off-topic comment, in that it is not “purely astronomy related“: Andy wrote:
Does anyone else find it, um, odd that Meier seems unable to publish any astronomy-related “level 3 crbrs” (at least as far as Andy, MH, and mahigitam are aware – and if they, between them, can find none, …), yet there are “supposedly handfuls of these outside of strictly astronomy“?
Comment by Nereid — December 20, 2012 @ 6:04 pm |
My first paragraph was absolutely not wrong. As is made clear by this:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2012/10/23/nasa-sun-flare/1651999/
And this,
http://news.yahoo.com/intense-solar-storm-bombarding-earth-now-112255496.html
A relevant line in the above: “The flare registered as an X1.4-class sun storm, one of the strongest flares the sun can unleash. It marked the sixth X-class solar flare of 2012.”
Comment by andy — December 20, 2012 @ 4:23 pm |
I said “absolute scale” not “absolutely wrong.” You’re looking at relative events. I also do not consider a brief partial radio blackout to be a significant geomagnetic event. Based on your second link, that flare may have sparked a G2-class geomagnetic storm, which is a relatively low level.
According to NOAA, there were 3 X1-class flares in 2012 up through July, and 1 X5. Yes, X-class flares are the most intense. But look at 2011 — there was 1 X1 but an X6, as well. In 2006, there was an X9, while 2005 saw an X17 — more intense in that one burst than all of 2011 and 2012 combined. Meanwhile, you got the record-setter X28 back in 2003.
And, in the year or two before the last solar max, say, in 2000, we had 2 X2 flares and an X5. 2012 does not seem out of the ordinary.
Ergo, I hardly count 2012 as “very intense solar storms” on an ABSOLUTE scale. RELATIVE to perhaps the past 3-5 years, yes, we saw more X-class flares, but we still saw the strongest in the last 5 years back in 2011, according to the NOAA data.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — December 20, 2012 @ 4:38 pm |
Ok, so only relatively, narrowly, can 2012 be considered intense in regards to solar storms. I think I could even concede this point if I must. But. rereading the text, this still isnt really inconsistent with what you quoted, which was:
“Regarding the Mayan calendar it must be said that the year 2012 will bring a whole series of quite special events, to which the central star of our system, our sun, will contribute its share, because on the sun’s surface violent outbursts will occur and sun storms are caused, which will be very intense and will influence Earth’s geomagnetic balance.”
What also can be said about this–even though I agreed with you that this seemed to be said in a “‘so it shall be’ manner'” it really isn’t presented in the same fashion as some of his official ‘prophecies’ and ‘predictions’ are; that is to say, the contact we are discussing is more an “off the cuff” type situation, and, of course, Billy, like ET’s, as people, are well liable to make mistakes. It may seem like a back track on my part…and it kinda is–this ‘coulda’/’shoulda’ been my response from the outset. I can understand if the casual unfamiliar-to-the-case reader finds that a weasel-y response, but I think that you, Stuart, are familiar enough with the Meier information to know that I am not just pulling this distinction out of my you-know-where, but rather that this is a legitimate and relevant nuance that can help account for what on the surface may appear as a mark against Meier’s authenticity. And so I echo what I said in the post above: the gauging of the solar peak is seemingly not an exact science, Billy should be excused of the fact that he did not peer into the future and confirm the leading theory of the day (and it appears he did not claim to). It sounds like, by your own account, at the time of the contact most scientists could have been caught saying something similar to what you quoted above (that is, the line that is also quoted in this post above). And the fact that he did not ‘out-know’ the scientists on one occasion does not of course mean that he hasn’t on others.
And Neried, please, which one was corroboration 76? I don’t recall and couldn’t find it above–and for that matter, where is the link with all these numbered corroborations anyway? I cannot find this page.
Also, I think I may have a ‘very strong corroboration’–astronomy-related no less–that I would love if you, Neried, and you Stuart if you’re willing, to take a critical eye with me towards.
And believe me, I should like to get to the bottom of this as much as anyone–If there can be accomplished a thorough debunking of the Meier case, I would very much like to see it. I just don’t think it has happened yet…
And one more thing I just noticed. Jennifer didn’t cut and paste this part of the contact:
“Regarding the question I will begin by saying that the entirely nonsensical claims by all fear- and panic-mongers, who are “prophesying” the world’s end or the end of the world, is absolute rubbish. Just as the end of the world, prophesied by astrologers, esoterics, know-it-alls and panic-mongers, did not happen on the turn of the century or millennium in the year 2000, the end of the world will also not happen on the date in question. Such panic-provoking erroneous claims are, just as all conspiracy theories, absolute nonsense…”
Or this:
“Besides, all kinds of unpleasant machinations regarding discord, worldwide heavy warlike actions, as well as increasing degeneracy and excessive human ways of behaviour are threatening for the year 2012, whereby all those things are especially evil.”
Though admittedly not terribly specific, the immediately proceeding, I would think, can certainly be said to ring true…
Happy Holidays
P.S- How do you guys get text italicized here? I like italics… I don’t seem to have the option…
Comment by andy — December 21, 2012 @ 4:06 am |
Above I wrote,
“Also, I think I may have a ‘very strong corroboration’–astronomy-related no less–that I would love if you, Neried, and you Stuart if you’re willing, to take a critical eye with me towards.”
I will post soon this ‘very strong crbr’ soon–should we not all bleap out of existence this evening! 😉
I heard the Aztecs predicted spring solstace 2018. Maybe I can get a book out in time 😉
Comment by Andy — December 21, 2012 @ 12:54 pm |
Lest we run into confusion again, those actually were jokes…
Comment by Andy — December 21, 2012 @ 12:55 pm |
Whoops, and bad jokes at that– I suppose it should be “spring equinox” or “summer solstice”– I betrayed my astronomy-related ignorance. But since you guys are the experts, please, how did Meier do this???:
http://theyfly.com/A-Sampling-of-Evidence.html
Specifically, the middle two corroborations from the 59th and 56th contacts concerning the planetoid that crashed into the Atlantic and the Mercury information.
Moreover, beyond this there is a wealth of info published way ahead of the scientists by Meier on climate change issues. Also the Russian troop movements, prophecized in the ‘Henoch Prophecies’, is a rather frightening example of the man’s foresight. But, I suppose, for it threating his beleif system, Nereid will not look at these corroborations…
Comment by Andy — December 21, 2012 @ 2:00 pm |
Before the typo-policeman gets me (I see he has been cracking down on this board), yes, the above should read “…for it *threatening* his *belief* system…”
Comment by Andy — December 21, 2012 @ 2:07 pm |
Um, Andy: do you know who, or what, ‘Nereid’ is, in the relevant mythology?
Yes, it’s a moon of Neptune, as are Triton, Proteus, Larissa, Despina, Thalassa, …
I’ve said this before, Andy, and don’t really see why I should repeat myself, but: the only *content* aspects of “corroborations” I am interested in are those (directly) related to astronomy (and closely related branches of science). So “the planetoid that crashed into the Atlantic” may not fall within that scope, but “the Mercury information” probably does.
However, without knowing what you consider “the middle two corroborations from the 59th and 56th contacts concerning the planetoid that crashed into the Atlantic and the Mercury information” to be, we can’t even discuss it/them, can we?
Would you care to be specific, please?
Whatever browser you’re using, Andy, I’m sure it has a “Find” or “Search” capability, as in ‘find on this page’. Using such, it is the work of but seconds to find that comment 46 begins with “re “Corroboration 76″”
Michael Horn himself introduced the “corroborations” here, in comment 19 (there’s a link); he had previously characterised these as “over 130 specific, ironclad, verifiably preemptively published, prophetically accurate examples of Meier’s foreknowledge“.
This site – like all WordPress ones – uses HTML tags, enclosed in angle brackets (), so italics can be produced by preceding the text with , and ending it with (sans the spaces).
Comment by Nereid — December 21, 2012 @ 3:19 pm |
Oops, the text interpreter reads right through spaces!
The last para should read:
With the minus character (-) replacing spaces.
Comment by nereidti — December 22, 2012 @ 1:15 am
Oops, the text interpreter reads right through spaces!
The last para should read:
Comment by nereidti — December 22, 2012 @ 1:20 am
No, I didn’t know what ‘Nereid’ meant. Why is this important? This is why you refuse to research things outside astronomy? Because your name won’t let you??? Fascinating…and I thought it was simply because you were some kind of wierd close-minded or self-sheltering nerdy coward (‘no, I won’t look into the “telescope”!’).
I thought I was specific. There is roughly four ‘corroborations’ in the link I posted. The two in the middle (2nd and 3rd) relate to the things I mentioned. If you click on the link, it’s not a huge page, you will quickly find what I refer to. You can skip the Venus stuff at the top as this was already previously addressed.
As for ‘crbr 76’, last I checked, 1.35 billion IS more than 200 million…
Ok, I get that the estimate is between 60 and 500 million, but, as this is an ESTIMATE, we then do not really know whether Quetzal’s number is incorrect or not.
And again, EVEN IF 1.35 billion were proven to be quite wrong (again, WHICH IT HAS NOT BEEN)…this would hardly discredit the case.
It is in fact entirely consistent with the fact that these are people…who can make mistakes. You spoke of confirmation bias–if you think your (far from definitive) “debunking” of ‘crbr 76’ should represent a disproving of the Meier case, then I would say that THAT represents a major ‘confirmation bias.’ If the body of information is littered with examples of Meier predicting things with great prophetic accuracy, or examples of Meier knowing specific scientific and technical details before any terrestial scientist here knew of them (WHICH IT IS–like the planetoid crashing into the Atlantic detail cited above), then it would be quite idiotic to dismiss this highly mysterious, highly impressive feat, (which could indeed represent the “greatest story in all of human history”) as somehow unimportant because there is simply found a mistake here or there within the enormous body of information. THAT would be a silly, sad and rediculous, common-sense-lacking, gross confirmation-biased conclusion.
Comment by Andy — December 21, 2012 @ 4:21 pm |
Andy, this blog is called :”Exposing PseudoAstronomy”, and the logo is the words ‘bad science’ in a red circle with a diagonal red line through it. For more, please re-read “Comment by Nereid — September 8, 2012 @ 1:15 pm”.
Earlier, I asked you what a “level 3 corraboration” or a “a strong crbr“ is, but you didn’t reply. In your last comment you wrote, “Nereid will not look at these corroborations…”
Yet I can find nothing on the webpage you provided a link to concerning “corroboration”, much less “level 3”, or “strong”, pertinent to “the Mercury information” (I’ll stick with just that, for now). In fact, unless I missed it (in which case, please point it out), the only reference to Mercury – other than in the images of pages – is this:
The phrase “as the time fulfills” is a link, but there’s nothing on Mercury in the webpage the link takes you to.
So, details please.
All the more reason to make sure we’re clear on what we’re talking about, eh?
Here are MH’s criteria (September 7, 2012 @ 6:53 pm): “If I claim that a specific predicition was made at a certain time, and the specific predicted event/discvory occurred subsequent to the verifiably published information I referred to, and it’s a matter of a legal decision, i.e. proving the veracity of the claim, I prevail. However one wants to word it, it’s fairly obvious.”
It would seem that you, Andy, have different criteria; may we know what they are, please?
Oh, and here’s what I actually wrote:
Notice the absence of the word “proven”; do you know why that is, Andy?
The last para of your comment contains the word “if”, more than once, in fact (e.g. “if you think your (far from definitive) “debunking” of ‘crbr 76′ should represent a disproving of the Meier case,“). Don’t you think we are more likely to have a meaningful dialogue if you refrain from jumping to (wild) conclusions?
Comment by nereidti — December 22, 2012 @ 2:23 am |
Now that it appears that the discussion of the Atlantic crater and Mercury is actually occurring on this blog, and since there was a call for specific information, let’s try this:
66th Contact, 10 November 1976
Meier – Thank you. Know, Mercury is still another problem for me. Just two days ago I remembered this again. When in last year we flew around this cluster, then you told me it would still more contract itself. Why does this happen?
Semjase – 206/The metal core of the planet has such a large specific mass, that the outer skin, that is, the outer stratum, contract constantly inwards, by which fact the outer spheres become extremely compact.
Source:
Message from the Pleiades, Volume 3, pages 216 & 217
Copyright 1993
(Please note that this information has been available in English since at least 1986, when I first read it in the first 1,800 pages of the Contact Notes (Reports), distributed in mimeographed form.)
Now, from February 2006 (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21feb_mercury/) “See the Incredible Shrinking Planet”:
“What would make a planet shrink? One possibility: Mercury’s oversized iron core has been cooling for billions of years, and its contraction may be the driving force behind the wrinkles. No one knows for sure.”
From July 2008 (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14255-mercury-the-incredible-shrinking-planet.html) titled “Mercury: The incredible shrinking planet”:
“In order for such shrinking to take place, Mercury must have had a molten, liquid core that has cooled and contracted over time.”
…………………………………………………..
Now, nitpickers may want to take issue with some words but let’s just note Meier’s “…metal core of the planet has such a large specific mass, that the outer skin, that is, the outer stratum, contract constantly inwards” and this from the the 2006 article “Mercury’s oversized iron core has been cooling for billions of years, and its contraction may be the driving force”.
An intellectually honest – and reasonably curious – person would wonder just WHY a so-called “simple Swiss farmer” is even discussing, let alone publishing, this information (along with volumes more) DECADES before “official discovery”.
Of course, should anyone wish to minimize or negate Meier’s unique foreknowledge (“prophetic accuracy”) they should be able to present evidence that they knew – and published – the information themselves, at least as early as Meier did.
Comment by Michael Horn — January 2, 2013 @ 7:14 pm
Global contraction of Mercury was known at least as far back as 1975, as was a very large core. Both of these were results of the Mariner 10 mission, the first flyby of Mercury being in March 1974, and would have been heavily publicized in normal, public news articles at the time.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 2, 2013 @ 7:48 pm
P.S. To Stuart,
Regarding “…and would have been heavily publicized at the time.” Would you please be so kind as to…substantiate that claim? What does “heavily publicized” actually mean, where and in what languages was this publicity available, what evidence do you have that Meier and said publicized information where ever in the same place at the same time, or that it was published in something like the Swiss Farmer’s Guide to Disappearing Land in the Solar System?
Now, on the off chance that you are imaginatively “retrodicting” this otherwise non-existent and unavailable information, should you ban yourself from posting here?
Just asking.
Comment by Michael Horn — January 2, 2013 @ 9:03 pm
You’re changing the rules again. Your claim was that this information by Meier came out “DECADES before ‘official discovery.'” I’ve shown otherwise. I can easily provide multiple news articles from 1974 and 1975 of people talking about both of these. That disproves your statement that Meier was the first to come out with this information. Now the question to you is, if I provide these links to several newspapers from those two years that unambiguously state that the leading hypotheses are that Mercury both shrunk and has a large core, are you going to remove them as confirmed examples of prophecy from your website? Because, clearly, if I can show that this was out there in the public, then Meier surely could have picked it up from that.
And I’ll state right away that I’m talking about English newspapers. I don’t speak German, I’m not searching German articles. My point is that the information was out there for Meier to pick up — for all I know, a German radio news show mentioned it, picking it up from an American newspaper article of the day. That’s speculation, but the newspaper articles would prove that Meier was not the first to come up with that information.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 2, 2013 @ 9:19 pm
Michael, you can try to respond again. Try doing so in under 10 words that answer my question: if I provide newspaper articles talking about this that predate Meier’s statement, which you claimed don’t exist, will you change your site? Yes or no. Your original claim was that this information did not exist before Meier. I don’t care how he may have gotten it or not, the question is whether he was the one to come up with it first or not.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 2, 2013 @ 9:53 pm
I hope everyone had a Merry Xmas, and is enjoying their ‘after the end of the world’ experience.
Andy, subsequent to my comment – the one in which I said “That’s six for six cases of “corroborations” which are not true” – I commented on three other “Corroborations” (numbers 50, 109, and 136), making nine for nine cases of “corroborations” which are not true. In addition there are two on Apophis, the subject of this blog entry, and one on Venus’ spin, which ~rore introduced (see comment 67).
That makes 12 for 12.
In addition, there’s the material in “Comment by rore — October 29, 2012 @ 3:25 am”: as I read it, it’s a quite unambiguous statement, from Billy Meier, that the speed of light is not constant; is that your understanding too, Andy?
Given that Meier claims that the speed of light is not constant – and even provides hints as to how it varies, quantitatively – I’m sure you’d agree that you have quite a lot of work to do when you set out to corroborate any of Meier’s other claims, in the fields of astronomy and physics, don’t you Andy?
Andy, as you now know, no doubt, neither MH nor mahigitam – and certainly not Juice – was even aware of how Meier’s claim about the speed of light would affect their efforts to “corroborate” each and every other Meier ‘astro’ (and physics) claim! What do you think their subsequent silence means?
But now that you, Andy, do know this, when may we expect to see you presenting a “corroboration” of Meier’s claims concerning Mercury?
A corroboration which first acknowledges Meier’s speed of light claim, and then proceeds to show what the effects of such a variable c are on the astronomical observations directly relevant to Meier’s claim about Mercury.
Comment by Nereid — December 28, 2012 @ 12:42 pm |
Nereid,
Sorry, just jumping in here. Since astronomy is your thing and if you haven’t already seen Contact Report 210 http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_210 from June 1986, perhaps if you have the time, you could determine and report back if there is any noteworthy information in there that wasn’t previously known to earth astronomers at that time.
Thanks,
Bruce
Comment by Bruce — December 29, 2012 @ 1:07 pm |
Hi Bruce,
The quick answer to your question is “no”; there is no “noteworthy information” in that “Contact Report”, at least as it relates to astronomy. Regardless of whether such “information” was “previously known to earth astronomers at that time” or not.
As you say, the CR is dated “Mittwoch, 11. Juni 1986“, but was not published until 2004 (as far as I can tell).
IMHO, almost everything astronomy-related in that CR is worded so vaguely as to be immune to any serious attempt to verify, or falsify, it.
For example, “… that Uranus also has a ring system, and to be sure, a rather remarkable one” – yes, Uranus does have a ring system, and yes, it is a rather remarkable one; however, Jupiter’s ring system is also “a rather remarkable one“, as is Saturn’s, and Neptune’s.
For another, “… in 1975 after my great journey, when I explained that I had seen a similar ring on Jupiter as the one on Saturn” – Jupiter’s ring system is nothing like Saturn’s, beyond the fact that they are both ring systems (to say nothing of the fact that neither planet could be said to have just one “ring”).
It’s a pity there is no “photo” of “the Ring Nebula” (“… claimed that I stole a photo from the Swiss Astronomical Society and that I maintain that it comes from me. One does not want to take from me that I made the picture in space, when one cruised about with me in that star area“), that would be interesting to examine.
The biggest caveat I’d enter is that I am unfamiliar with the history of discovery of volcanoes on Venus; while a quick search I did seems to suggest that hypotheses concerning Venusian volcanism – as explanations of observed surface features – were published as early as 1977, I do not know how widely accepted these were. Similarly, I am not very familiar with the history of discovery of ancient river beds (etc) on Mars.
Do you have any particular, astronomy-related, “noteworthy information” – in that CR – that you’d like to discuss in more detail?
Comment by Nereid — December 29, 2012 @ 2:24 pm |
thanks, so part of the problem is taking the actual date at face value? I’m sure Michael Horn would say there are verifiable dates on the originals somewhere but I don’t have knowledge in such matters so I can’t debate the legitimacy of dates or not.
How about the rivers of water on Mars that he talks about? If one assumes the CR date is legit, was that information available back then and with the recent Mars exploration, was such information revealed one way or the other recently?
Also, how about the phenomena of the opposite of black holes or what Quetzal has termed a ‘space bulge’; again, assuming 1986 is legit, was such information available then & has it been confirmed to be true today?
Also, fyi, if you have any interest, someone recently translated a very long CR 31 of Billy’s so-called ‘great journey’ through time and space and the universe, back in 1975 http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_210 … I’m only about 1/3 of the way through but probably there is some interesting tidbits in there for a guy like you .. at the very least, it reads like some decent sci-fi
Comment by Bruce — December 29, 2012 @ 3:31 pm |
Martian rivers had been imagined for well over a century, and the second and third successful missions to flyby, Mariner 6 and 7, showed valley network features. That was in 1969, 17 years before this.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — December 29, 2012 @ 4:25 pm |
Bruce, you asked “perhaps if you have the time, you could determine and report back if there is any noteworthy information in there that wasn’t previously known to earth astronomers at that time.” It wasn’t entirely clear whether by “at that time” you meant “June, 1986” or “when CR 210 was published”, so I covered both bases. In any case, as there seems to be no “noteworthy information” (as it relates to astronomy), it’s not relevant anyway.
Dr Robbins has already answered this; I will add that, to me, the text is just as vague as everything else (despite phrases such as “but which were truly enormous rivers that were dozens and even almost a hundred kilometers in diameter and that were thousands of kilometers in length“), and just as immune to any serious attempt to verify, or falsify, it (e.g. how to address the giant ancient rivers which were not “generally called “canals” on Earth“, and the “canals” which turned out to be not giant ancient rivers?).
A “black hole” is a theoretical construct, based on Einstein’s theory of General Relativity (GR). There are analyses of astronomical observations consistent with models containing black holes, of various masses, suggesting that GR, along with QED and QCD, can provide an accurate description of the observable universe.
What’s in CR 210 – concerning black holes and space bulges – is, to me, unintelligible, if I try to understand it in terms of GR.
Which brings me to the same point as covered in my comments of October 26, 2012 @ 2:44 pm and October 29, 2012 @ 9:02 am; namely, that “information” and what’s “true” (or not) in astronomy (as a branch of science) is “model dependent”. In short, the “facts” (or “information”) in astronomy assume consistency, and the validity of various theories of physics, mostly just GR and Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).
What does this mean, with regard to Meier’s writing, the parts which are directly related to astronomy?
Some people – such as MH, mahigitam, and Andy (and maybe Juice) – claim that much of what Meier has written (about astronomy) can be “corroborated”, as in “scientific […] facts & theories corroborated later by sciences“. Yet they seem ignorant of the model-dependent nature of astronomical observations (“facts”), and quite unconcerned about the need for consistency.
As for Billy’s ‘great journey’: is that where he claims to have travelled at least ~20 million light-years, in a period of time of the order of days or weeks (as measured by people living here on Earth, at that time)?
“it reads like some decent sci-fi” – as good as Asimov? Arthur C. Clarke? Maybe someone should publish it as sci-fi then!
Comment by Nereid — December 30, 2012 @ 6:15 am |
Nereid, thx 4 your response – regarding the giant rivers that Stuart says were already imagined a century earlier & then the valley network features that were observed in 1969; Stuart did not address the ‘enormous quantities of water’ that Quetzal mentioned. Wasn’t finding water on Mars a subject of much speculation among earth scientists and astronomers for decades? Has this matter been resolved one way or the other, either confirming or squashing what Quetzal termed ‘enormous quantities of water’? or has this matter of ‘enormous quantities of water’ on Mars not yet been determined?
On black holes, white holes, space bulges, etc: A black hole is still a ‘theoretical construct’ as far as earth science & astronomy are concerned as of today? Because Billy and the Plejaren are referring to them as fact and that at the center of every galaxy exists such a black hole. Are they putting the cart before the horse as far as already proven earth science is concerned? or is such theory generally accepted among earth scientists and astronomers? I suppose accordingly, if black holes are still ‘theoretical constructs, then the same would go for the opposite of black holes, that being what Quetzal termed a ‘space bulge’; is that correct?
The following description seems rather clear to me so please explain what is unintelligible about –
15. With what Ptaah explained to you and with what you have addressed, it is all correct.
16. It concerns a closed space bulge, which is similar to a sphere, and it develops tremendous repulsive forces in itself, which act outwardly from the bulge and which reject and repel everything that lies within its range by unimaginable force.
17. The repulsive force vibrations reach out very far into free space, often over billions of kilometers away; although, their strength becomes lower.
18. This means that the repulsive force of the space bulge becomes correspondingly stronger.
19. The ratio can be estimated with a black hole because the same laws apply to such, but only in reverse form.”
Regarding Einsteins theory of Relativity – I think I read somewhere that the Plejaren said it is incomplete and there are errors in his theory, which shouldn’t be too earth shattering a statement or even a conjecture. Has Einsteins theory of Relativity been updated within earth science or mathematics?
You seem to suggest that what Meier has written about in the contact reports cannot be scientifically corroborated as fact according to the current developmental level within earth astronomy because earth astronomy is still ‘model-dependent’ or at a stage or level where it is still dependent on theory, and because of this lack of development in earth science, it is therefore impossible to scientifically corroborate Meiers astronomically related writings. Therefore such statements of corroborations are false only because earth science is not up to the task of such corroborations. Which does not mean that what Meier has written is not true but somehow it makes them vague, as far as you’re concerned. Is that not what you are essentially saying?
Comment by Bruce — December 30, 2012 @ 2:03 pm |
I said “imagINED” for over a century, not “imagED.” The images returned from Mariner and then Viking – both before Meier – showed the valley networks. And when I say “valley networks,” I’m not talking about a stream in someone’s back yard. These were clearly visible at pixel scales of half a kilometer per pixel. The Mississippi River at its widest is about 1 mile across, and that would be one of the smallest of these hundreds of networks that were imaged and mapped back then, before Meier’s report.
How do you form these if not by massive amounts of water? While that was and is the predominant hypothesis, it’s the reliance on news reports that throw you off of, “Scientists discover water on Mars!” repeating every few months. We joke about it at work — “What? We discovered water for the first time on Mars — again?”
This is why Nereid and I get frustrated — press releases are second-hand sources AT BEST and the entire purpose of them is to be sensational. You MUST go to the primary sources for this information, and the PRIMARY sources have been talking about massive amounts of water forming valley networks on Mars for decades, well before Meier’s writing.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — December 30, 2012 @ 2:10 pm |
@Bruce: I’ll address more of your questions later; here are a couple of things for now.
Consider the stellar-mass black holes in HMXBs (“stellar-mass” means ‘has a mass ~the same as that of the Sun’; “HMXB” stands for ‘high-mass x-ray binary’): the astronomical observations are simply the detection of light (to astronomers, all forms of electromagnetic radiation – gamma rays, x-rays, UV, the-light-you-can-see-with, infrared, microwaves, radio, … – are ‘light’), of various wavelengths (you can think of that as ‘colours’), from a single source (point in the sky), over time (it’s actually more complicated than this, but it’ll do for now). A stellar-mass ‘black hole’ does not emit light, as you can verify for yourself; simply learn GR, write down the equations, and solve them.
So how do you get from the detection of light to ‘there’s a stellar-mass black hole in the Cyg X-1’?
By building models.
The way the detected light varies with time – the ‘light curve’ – is characteristic of a binary, composed of two objects which are in orbit around each other. The distribution of the energy of the detected light – in the ‘visual’ or ‘optical’ range – by wavelength (the ‘spectrum’) is similar to that of a particular type of ‘high-mass’ star, a ‘B main sequence’ star. From models of the object as a binary, with one component a B main sequence star, the other component has a mass of > 4 sols (a ‘sol’ is a mass the same as that of our Sun). The x-ray light curve can be modelled as emission from an ‘accretion disk’ around the ‘dark’ (because no light in the optical range is detected), more massive, object in the system; in particular, in these models, when matter falls onto the dark object, it emits no light. From these models, the estimated radius of the dark object is consistent with a stellar-mass black hole, as is the absence of emission when matter falls on it.
That’s a highly simplified summary; no doubt many astronomers would wince at how many key details have been left out!
Nonetheless, despite the very long, inter-locking chain of theory and observation that is a ‘model’, it is widely accepted that HMXBs like Cyg X-1 contain stellar-mass black holes.
Why?
One reason is that GR has been tested extensively, and has passed every test with flying colours; there are no experimental results, or astronomical observations, which are inconsistent with GR.
In GR, the speed of light (c) is constant. Meier, however, claims that it is not.
Can the models of Cyg X-1 (and HMXBs in general) be changed, to incorporate a non-constant c of the kind Meier claims? I suppose they can. Has Meier done such work? Not as far as I know. Has anyone else? Not as far as I know.
In fact, has Meier shown that there can be ‘black holes’ when you solve whatever modified form of GR (or replacement for GR) must rule the universe (a theory in which c is not constant)? Not that I know of. And if such work has not been done, how do you – Bruce – know that what Meier refers to as ‘black holes’ is the same as what’s in models of HMXBs?
One more example of models: Does the Sun go round the Earth? Or does the Earth go round the Sun? Or both?? Or neither???
By the kind of ‘science’ Michael Horn implies, in his comment of October 23, 2012 @ 10:37 am, the Earth is obviously not moving, so the Sun goes round it.
By analysing astronomical observations, Kepler showed that the apparent motion of the Sun and the (then known) planets could be accounted for with just three, simple ‘laws of planetary motion’, in which the Earth goes round the Sun. By applying a theory of physics (as we would call it today) – his ‘law of universal gravitation’ – Newton showed that Kepler’s laws are a simple consequence of his law (and the masses of the Sun and planets); in particular, that every solar system body ‘goes round’ the solar system barycentre.
But is this what *really* happens? Is it *true* that the Earth goes round the solar system barycentre? Or is it, perhaps, that what really happens, what’s really true, is ‘model dependent’?
In particular, now that we know that GR-based models better explain (or account for) observations of the positions and motions of objects in the solar system (better than models based on Newton’s law), shouldn’t we rather re-word our explanation, to make it consistent with GR? And if we do that, does the Earth still ‘go round’ the solar system barycentre?
What do you think Bruce?
Oh, and did you read what I wrote in my comments of October 26, 2012 @ 2:44 pm and October 29, 2012 @ 9:02 am? You may find more answers to your questions in them.
Comment by Nereid — December 31, 2012 @ 12:28 am |
Nereid, bottom line you are saying that even though black holes (and therefore their theoretical opposites – space bulges) cannot be currently proven as far as what’s currently available to us earthlings, that terrestrial astronomers operate under the assumption that black holes do exist? How about their opposite, that being the so-called ‘space bulges’? Where do you all stand on them and did their theory and/or acceptance, irregardless of their proveability, predate Meier’s and the Plejarens mention of them in 1986?
Regarding Meier’s claim that the speed of light is NOT constant, beginning at around line 34 of http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_119 can you please review the logic behind his assertion that the speed of light is NOT constant and therefore that he is wrong about anything based on such an assumption? Do earth astronomers operate under the assumption that the speed of light is constant or do they, in theory and in practice allow for changes in that speed, in the infiniteness of space and time? If his line of reasoning is beyond your scope and expertise, perhaps you could run it by one of your associates who specializes in this kind of thing.
Regarding your earth revolving around the sun or vice-verse; is this practical science or some type of endless-round-the-merry-go-round philosophical-science with its endless, circular neverending-unproveable logic?
Comment by Bruce — December 31, 2012 @ 6:18 am
Second response …
And what I wrote is “What’s in CR 210 – concerning black holes and space bulges – is, to me, unintelligible, if I try to understand it in terms of GR.” (emphasis added)
So a “closed space bulge” develops both a single force and more than one force, both of which are repulsive; the force (or forces) take the form of waves (“The repulsive force vibrations“), which act on the closed space bulge itself and “everything that lies within its range“; the force (or forces) – or is it only the “repulsive force vibrations“? – both increase and decrease in strength, with (radial?) distance from the bulge; the “laws” that describe the nature of any “closed space bulge” (or is it only the repulsive force, or forces? or the “repulsive force vibrations“?? or some combination???) number at least two (Meier writes “laws“, not “law”); and the range of the force (or forces? or just “repulsive force vibrations“??) is extremely limited (“… reach out very far into free space, often over billions of kilometers away“). And the magnitude of the force (or forces) is “unimaginable“.
Bruce, to me that’s a dog’s breakfast of confusing and self-contradictory prose, having only coincidental resemblance to anything to do with GR. And that’s without introducing Meier’s claim that c is variable, that information can travel at essentially infinite speed, that …
But perhaps you have a better understanding of GR than I do (I’m certainly no expert!); would you please say how you understand this text, in terms of GR?
Comment by Nereid — December 31, 2012 @ 12:41 pm |
Nereid, I am no scientist, not versed in what you refer to as GR and therefore it appears to me that your dissection of the translated phraseology comes off as grammar & semantics nitpicking & in the process losing the forest for the trees, so to speak. However since you are well versed in the particulars of your field and certainly know way more than I, I grant that you are entitled to this, so I leave it as is.
Thanks for taking a look at it.
Comment by Bruce — December 31, 2012 @ 1:17 pm
Nereid is basically saying that what Meier wrote in those lines is technobabble, similar to what you’d get on Star Trek. To people in the actual field, it’s an incomprehensible word salad that means nothing. To people outside the field, it can sound profound. It’s like the modern new-agers using “Quantum” all the time with no idea of what it means, but it makes them sound smart to their followers.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — December 31, 2012 @ 1:30 pm
Thanks for your frank response Bruce.
If Meier had written down formulae and equations – with clearly defined terms – and numbers, then there’d be no need for “dissection“. If Meier’s writing – despite its lack of formulae, equations, and numbers – used key terms consistently; if his writing showed no evidence of ideas grossly inconsistent with well-established theories of physics such as GR and QED; if … then any reader could take his words at face value.
However, such a characterisation is stonkingly obviously wrong: Meier’s writing is almost entirely devoid of formulae, equations, and numbers; he seems to use key terms in many different – often self-contradictory – ways; he does not write with precision and clarity, rather he is vague and ambiguous; etc.
Bruce, if you ever get a chance to read published papers or textbooks, on astrophysics, I wonder how often you’ll be struck by what seems to you as semantic nitpicking, splitting hairs, and general pedantry? Here’s a thought: perhaps one reason why science is so amazingly successful is that much of it is ‘simply’ systematic pedantry?
Comment by Nereid — January 2, 2013 @ 7:12 am
Nereid, you are speaking in hyperbole to make your point, which is not very precise and has nothing to do with ‘why science is so amazingly successful’.
I would just like to point out the obvious, that any success(es) in science or any part of life, is due to the fact that what is thought and subsequently done aligns with the truth, which unseparably contains within it logic, and therefore rationality, as only the truth is effective.
Comment by Bruce — January 3, 2013 @ 4:32 am
@Bruce,
Oh dear.
It may be that there is little point in continuing our discussion; it seems that our respective worldviews are so different that there is an insufficient basis – of mutually agreed fundamentals – on which to build, to have a meaningful discussion.
Or maybe not.
Let’s try, shall we? “the truth” – how do you know when you have found it (or part of it)? How can any two people – you and I, say – agree what “the truth” is?
Comment by Nereid — January 4, 2013 @ 2:56 pm
Third response (one more to go)
GR and quantum mechanics (think QED, QCD) are mutually incompatible, a fact that has been known for many decades, pretty much from the time the two theories became established. As I understand it, physicists (and astronomers) would love nothing better than to be able to conduct experiments (make observations) to probe physical regimes in which this mutual incompatibility should be detectable; sadly, no such experiments (or observations) seem possible in the foreseeable future. Especially since the LHC “Higgs” results, which contain no hints of any BSM (beyond the Standard Model) physics.
What “errors in his theory” has Meier published?
Oh, and there are two theories of relativity with Einstein’s name on them, Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR).
Comment by Nereid — December 31, 2012 @ 1:00 pm |
It is my understanding that Meier nor the Plejaren have not published, nor would they ever publish, aka divulge, what error(s) in such a powerful theory as SR or GR. As they also did not publish what error lay in the calculation for the value of Pi when they mentioned it in 1995, a number of years before it was revised. http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_251
Comment by Bruce — December 31, 2012 @ 1:31 pm
Bruce, please provide documentation for π being “revised.” Because it has not. It is a mathematical constant that has been known for over 2200 years. It’s been known to 3-4 decimal places for over 1500 years, and 100 digits since 1706. 620 digits since 1946. It’s a basic constant … how he heck are you claiming that it’s been “revised”?
Comment by Stuart Robbins — December 31, 2012 @ 1:35 pm
Bruce, did Meier state what kind of errors there are in GR (or is it SR)? For example, a subtle error of logic, or in application of the underlying mathematics?
If Meier didn’t say anything at all about the nature of the “errors“, how could his claim be corroborated, when an “error” in GR (say) is published (and accepted)?
Oh, and I too would be very interested to learn more about the “error [that]
lay in the calculation for the value of Pi when they mentioned it in 1995, a number of years before it was revised“! Taking what you wrote at face value, it seems very strange indeed that neither MH, nor mahigitam (nor even Andy) put it forward as a “corroboration” (as far as I know).
Comment by Nereid — December 31, 2012 @ 3:05 pm
Fourth, and last, response; @Bruce.
No, that is not what I wrote, nor what I suggested (nor intended to suggest). My apologies for failing to communicate effectively; let me try again.
My remarks in the rest of this comment are limited to parts of the universe beyond the Earth-Moon system which have not yet been studied “in situ“; I’ll use ‘astrophysics’ as a shorthand for the scientific study of this physical regime.
Can Meier’s claims – as published – be corroborated? As in Michael Horn’s, mahigitam’s (and Andy’s?) “scientific […] facts & theories corroborated later by [astrophysics]”?
One part seems easy; Meier’s writing contain no “scientific theories” (if you think otherwise, please, chapter and verse!).
That leaves “scientific facts”, in Meier’s writing, “corroborated later by” astrophysics.
Contemporary astrophysics is based on GR, QED, and – to a lesser extent – on QCD and the Standard Model (of particle physics). It is a coherent, self-consistent whole. The words (‘terms’) it uses have specific, narrow meanings; many of the key terms have meaning only within the framework of one or other theory of physics; e.g. ‘black hole’ (GR), ‘photon’ (QED). Some terms are hybrids, incorporating both physics theory and ‘pure’ astronomical observation; e.g. ‘neutron star’, ‘pulsar’.
And even ‘pure’ astronomical observations assume the validity of GR or QED (or both), often in surprising and subtle ways.
So, for example, if one reads the term ‘black hole’ in Meier’s writing, can any “scientific fact” concerning black holes (in what Meier has published) be “corroborated later by” astrophysics? That depends; if Meier has carefully defined what he means by ‘black hole’ – in the context of a particular “scientific fact” – it may be possible; if not, then very likely not.
Why?
Because Meier claims that c is variable, in a rather specific, and particularly large-scale way, one that is obviously incompatible with GR, in physical regimes that include stellar-mass black holes and super-massive black holes. It follows that the ‘black holes’ Meier refers to are not, and cannot be, the same as ‘black holes’ studied by astrophysicists (unless someone does the work – and publishes it – to show that they are the same, to within some acceptable level of approximation).
Of course, it is certainly possible that Meier’s claims are grossly incompatible, inconsistent, etc; but if so, then no “corroboration by astrophysics” is possible, ever.
Now the “still” (“because earth astronomy is still ‘model-dependent’ or at a stage or level where it is still dependent on theory“, emphasis added): it has always been so dependent! And so is much – everything? – Meier has written! If you think otherwise, please find an example, and write it up, carefully explaining why …
As the rest of your last paragraph depends on the validity of the first part of the first sentence – which I have discussed above – I don’t think there’s much point in me commenting further, except for this:
In one of my earliest comments here I used the term “not true”, and carefully explained that this is different from the term “false”.
This seems to me to be a massive failure of communication! I thought I had made it very clear that my approach was, and is, a science-based one; how did you come to equate “not true” with “vague”?!?!?
Comment by Nereid — December 31, 2012 @ 2:15 pm |
Nereid – again, perhaps it’s because I am not a scientist that it appears to me that you are splitting hairs by suggesting that what Meier refers to as black holes is somehow different than what astrophysicists are referring to because he says that the speed of light is not constant in the universe. His explanation is below. Please point out how such an explanation voids black holes that he refers to as somehow different from the ones astrophysicists refer to. And please point out how such an explanation is vague.
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_119
“:Then just not. But is it right, now, if I have calculated that the Creation’s expansion rate, for the initial period, was 44,069,497.5 kilometers per second, with a steadily constant half-life rate of almost exactly 6,347,755,102,040 years, from which the results arise that the expansion rate of the Creation at its universal beginning was 147 times the speed of today’s speed of light constant, but this speed decreased with a half-life of 6,347,755,102,040 years and continues to decrease, so the starting point of today’s light constant lay at a speed of 344,292.9 kilometers per second, but through the already elapsed portion of half-time, it has already dropped by 44,500.4 kilometers per second, whereby the present and current light constant of 299,792.5 kilometers per second arises, according to which an original light year, from the starting point of the current light constant, of around 1.390 X 10^15 km has amounted. This means, according to my calculations, that the constant of one second of the initial period of the expansion rate must have been 147 times faster than the constant of one second today, because at that time, around 46 trillion years ago, the speed of light was even 44,069,497.5 kilometers per second. From this, it also arose in my calculations that one second has, in each case, exactly that number of chronons that the light constant of one septillionth of a millimeter contains in itself because a chronon has a length of 105 septillionths of 140 mm and because exactly that number of chronons is able to pass a certain point, from the source to the fade-out of a beam of light, as the speed of light contains in itself – so in the present case, around 20.394 X 10^30 chronons per second. This was even easier to calculate since I knew that space and time are dependent on each other; therefore, both time holds space in itself as also space holds time. From these results, however, my acceptance has arisen that through the transformation and lowering of the speed of light by the half-life, also space and the chronons change themselves, according to which, then, normal space would have to change itself to hyperspace and the chronons would have to change themselves to tachyons, which continue to exist in hyperspace as the smallest units of time at their own, old speed, according to which the oldest tachyons would, therefore, have to have a speed of 44,069,497.5 kilometers per second in their own hyperspace. It also became clear to me that each dwindling away of a half-life creates its own hyperspace; thus, already seven different hyperspaces (7 half-lives = 7 X 6,347,755,102,040 = 44.434 X 10^12 years) would have to exist in our universe. Furthermore, it also became clear to me that time travels into the past or future can only be associated with this fact, because somehow, the traveling object must be manipulated in such a way that the flow of chronons is steered. So for example, if tachyons with a speed of light higher than ours and present in a hyperspace or normal space would be stored around a traveling object, then it would be hurled into the past, while a flow of chronons below our current speed of light must have a journey into the future as a consequence. This has become clear to me, but the HOW, that has remained a riddle to me. It is now also clear to me that the chronons can only stay and move in normal space, while the tachyons only move in a hyperspace. This, then, along with many other things that have become perceptible to me, about which I would still like to say nothing today, however, because I’m not yet sure of the results. Ah yes, what could still be said: According to my calculations, after the end of the next half-life, our light constant would have to be 172,146.45 kilometers per second. Now to these things, the big question: To what extent are my calculations and findings right?”
Comment by Bruce — December 31, 2012 @ 4:14 pm
Bruce, I’ve addressed several aspects of your questions, in other comments; here I’ll have a go at responding to those which seem – to me – to be as yet unanswered. If there’s any I do not cover, to your satisfaction, please say so.
Hmm, it’s rather more complicated than that; let me have a go at explaining.
I work from the sources you – and MH, etc – provide; in particular, I work from the English versions. I do not attempt to assess whether the original (Swiss) German is more precise, less vague, etc.
I also approach the material from the perspective of “corroboration”, “crbr”; of “scientific […] facts & theories corroborated later by sciences“. I also assume that the content of Meier’s writing is consistent.
So, concerning a “scientific fact corroborated later by sciences” relating to ‘black holes’: first, I assume Meier’s “black hole” is the same as in standard astrophysics (“sciences“, in this case). In textbook astrophysics, a “black hole” refers to an object, a phenomenon, a theoretical construct derived from GR.
Now if Meier’s writing contains nothing inconsistent with GR, then the matching of Meier’s “black hole” to the GR theoretical construct is – on its face – sound. However, there seems to be quite a lot of material in Meier’s writing that is – to me – grossly inconsistent with GR. One example is his claim that c is not constant; another is his “great journey”.
At this point I have a choice; either Meier’s writing is (frequently) inconsistent – in which case there’s no basis on which to evaluate it (in terms of it being “corroborated later by sciences“) – or that the terms he uses are not the same as those in textbook astrophysics.
It doesn’t (“void black holes that he refers to as somehow different from the ones astrophysicists refer to“); his explanation that is.
Try this: c is constant -> GR -> black holes
To be clear, that’s not entirely accurate! But it does contain the key logic: if c is not constant (an input to, or requirement of, GR), then GR is of indeterminate status; that in turn means nothing can be said about black holes … not logically, not consistently.
What do these words and phrases mean?
“the Creation’s expansion rate”
“the initial period”
“a steadily constant half-life rate”
“at its universal beginning”
“the constant of one second of the initial period of the expansion rate must have been 147 times faster than the constant of one second today”
“chronons”
“a chronon has a length of 105 septillionths of 140 mm” – consider this in conjunction with “one second has, in each case, exactly that number of chronons that the light constant of one septillionth of a millimeter contains in itself“: is “chronon” a unit of distance (has dimension ‘length’)? time? speed? inverse speed?
“the fade-out of a beam of light”
“space and time are dependent on each other; therefore, both time holds space in itself as also space holds time”
… and that’s just a small sample, down to about half-way through that wall of text …
Comment by Nereid — January 2, 2013 @ 8:55 am
Thanks Stuart. That is clear that press releases are a sort of culmination point of the news rather than a beginning. Can I glean from your words then, that it is well known & well accepted among scientists and astronomers that Mars once had quite the abundance of water and therefore an atmosphere with clouds that brought forth rain, snow, sleet, hail, etc.? Is it also theorized when & how Mars lost it’s atmosphere, it’s raging monstrous rivers, etc?
Also, where do you stand on the whole black hole, white hole, space bulge theory and is there also nothing new brought forth in that contact report regarding space bulges that wasn’t already circulating among the more cutting edge scientists and astronomers of the mid to late 1980’s?
Comment by Bruce — December 30, 2012 @ 7:42 pm |
I can’t comment on the black holes because they are not my field and I don’t have time to do research. I’m pretty sure Nereid posted about them earlier in these comments. I know he had a thread going over at the CosmoQuest forums about it, anyway.
To be as explicit as possible with respect to Mars water: The majority of planetary scientists who study Mars agree that vast amounts of water flowed on its surface at one point. To get that kind of flowing surface water, precipitation is the easiest method, though sapping valleys and burst aquifers almost definitely contributed. The majority also agree that Mars at one point did have a much thicker atmosphere, and that it lost the bulk of it some time around 3.5-4 billion years ago, relatively soon after it lost its magnetic core dynamo and most volcanoes died off. Though this has all been refined over the years and is still being refined today, the BASIC picture I related above has been established for decades and was openly discussed in the 1970s.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — December 30, 2012 @ 8:03 pm |
As far as I know, there are no published papers reporting (astronomical) observational tests of hypotheses derived from models incorporating “white holes” or “space bulges” … at least, no non-null results.
I doubt – but do not know for sure – that anyone has published papers on “the whole black hole, white hole, space bulge theory“, derived from GR-like and/or QED-like theories in which c varies as Meier claims.
Comment by Nereid — December 31, 2012 @ 10:27 am |
Nereid,
Firstly, you continually harp on the idea that this is an astronomy blog, and that you are only interested in discussing astronomy. Yet, do you not see that the original purpose of this episode was not to discuss an astronomy-related claim per se, but rather to examine the legitimacy of an alleged prophecy (or rather, an instance of Meier-knowing-before- the-scientists). That is, this was all only indirectly astronomy-related. Therefore, other corraborations to Meier being prophetic are not necessarily off-topic. But, since you refuse to “look through the telescope” concerning the most important story in all of human history, we can stay on astronomy. I now think that there is in fact air tight corrobarations to be offered in the astronomy field. And, considering Stuart’s not letting MH’s posts go through, me thinks Stuart knows this to be true as well.
But I am glad to read that you, like me, do not think the Meier case has been debunked as I falsely assumed that you had thought. Perhaps, in considering what I am now putting forth, you will see further that the Meier case can acutually be PROVEN (italics still arent working out for me). And then Stuart , alas, can issue an apology for insinuating Meier a hoaxer/backdater/etc, as Meier obviously has no need to hoax/backdate because he clearly IS at certain [many] times privvy to information no one else on earth has.
For one, the dual impact craters in the Atlantic (we can leave the Mercury bit to the side for now).
Between me, Michael, and Bruce, we have somewhat piled the homework on you Nereid–thanks for the due dilligence and please stay with it a little longer…
In 2008 scientists discovered this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8400264.stm — the “fried egg” impact crater in the Atlantic Ocean.
In ‘Message From the Pleaides Volume 3,’ a series of the alleged “contact notes” of Billy Meier and ET’s collected by Wendelle Stevens, was published this:
“Two great parts of the exploding planetoid crashed likes titanic fists into the Atlantic Ocean and hit through the hard earthcrust at the bottom of the sea.”
As seen here: http://theyfly.com/A-Sampling-of-Evidence.html
And as you can see, the contact is dated as July 1976, and Michael Horn writes “This [the impact discovery] is obviously some 33 years after Billy Meier verifiably first published the information.”
Yet, unless I am missing something, it does not seem MH is fair in saying this, for, as can also be seen at the link above, the copyright appears to say 1993. In any case, this is of course still some 15 years before 2008-09. And it is specific, and it is accurate. And it is, therefore, a striking corroboration of the Meier case. I would even call it a level 3 [I can explain/defend this further if there is still confusion, but I trust its clear/obvious at this point]?
And one of these “level 3’s”, when demonstrated in front of you, I would think should picque the interest of the real scientist–the one truely seeking knowledge and wisdom through reasearch, logic, and experience–and elicit further study of the material, the Billy Meier information. (Not to mention all the physical evidence and witness testimony).
If we find a few or a handful of these instances (much less the potential dozens that are claimed and that very well may exist) then clearly something highly mysterious is going on–that we are indeed reading things from a demonstrabley ‘higher intelligence’…and if we are not too terribly egotistical, we would then be gladly open ears and take heed when we are directed towards what is named the most important aspect of, the reason for, the case: the environmental, socio-political, and spiritual related information and admonitions.
Comment by Andy — December 30, 2012 @ 11:41 pm |
I am not hiding anything, nor am I afraid of Horn proving me wrong. I have clearly stated the VERY SIMPLE criteria for Horn’s comments to go through: Either directly respond to the original purpose of this post, the Apophis information, or directly respond to a question posed to him by Nereid. He’s done neither, instead trying to move to other points or continue to post links back to his broader website, so his comments are not being approved. The “A Sampling of the Evidence” has now been linked 4 times by people in the comments here, and Michael has tried to link it 4 more times as opposed to addressing the questions raised already and points rebutted. It’s as simple as that.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — December 30, 2012 @ 11:46 pm |
Hi Andy,
Glad to hear it.
The link does not work; would you care to try again Andy? And do you have a primary source (a BBC report – if that’s what it is – is not a primary source)?
No Andy, it is not clear (to me anyway); would you please “explain/defend this further”?
Also, in the spirit of having a meaningful discussion, may I ask when you plan to answer the questions I asked you, in my earlier comments?
Comment by Nereid — December 31, 2012 @ 12:46 am |
Andy, I recently found some unpublished material. The author – we shall call her “N” – wrote: “There is an as-yet undiscovered impact crater in the Pacific Ocean seabed.”
I do not know – yet – when N wrote this, but it is certainly well before August, 2012.
Comment by Nereid — December 31, 2012 @ 9:19 am |
This is my first response to “Comment by Bruce — December 31, 2012 @ 6:18 am”
Astronomers deal with what has been observed, and what can – in principle – be observed with methods and techniques implementable with today’s (and tomorrow’s likely) technology.
“Is the speed of light constant?” is a subset of “Are the ‘constants of nature’ constant?” There have been a great many attempts to answer that broader question, in many ways (some of the extremely ingenious).
Perhaps the most relevant to your question is the fine structure constant, alpha (Wikipedia’s entry on this is a good starting place to learn more). This is a dimensionless constant, unlike c, which has dimensions of length and time. It also incorporates c, so variation – by time or space – in alpha might imply a variation in c.
There are published papers reporting a very small change in alpha, over cosmological time, but I think it’s accurate to say that these results are not widely accepted, not least because there are lots of other papers reporting no change in alpha (also because the method used, in the ‘alpha is variable!’ papers, is *heavily* model-dependent, and it’s not yet fully clear that all the systematics have been fully taken account of).
Apart from that, I do not know of any papers reporting independently confirmed variation – by time or space – in any fundamental constant (of direct, or indirect, relevance to astronomy).
Comment by Nereid — December 31, 2012 @ 3:34 pm |
This is my second response to “Comment by Bruce — December 31, 2012 @ 6:18 am”
Just to make sure we’re on the same page here, the translated text begins with “Then just not. But is it right, now, if I have calculated that the Creation’s expansion rate, for the initial period, was 44,069,497.5 kilometers per second, with a steadily constant half-life rate of almost exactly 6,347,755,102,040 years,” – yes?
If so, then “the logic” begins with two assumptions:
Meier says that the first (and possibly the second) is a calculated result, but if so, he does not show his working.
Now 44,069,497.5 = 147 * 299,792.5 (an arithmetic calculation), consistent with “ from which the results arise that the expansion rate of the Creation at its universal beginning was 147 times the speed of today’s speed of light constant“, if we take Meier at his word (“whereby the present and current light constant of 299,792.5 kilometers per second arises“).
However, 299,792.5 km/s is not “the present and current light constant“, nor “the speed of today’s speed of light constant” (assuming these two are the same, and are the speed of light, c), though it is close: since 1983, the metre has been *defined* in terms of the speed of light, which is set at 299,792,458 m/s.
Time to ask you what you are after, Bruce; do we accept the validity of the two starting assumptions, and simply check Meier’s working? Or do we say the premises of his “logic” ‘have indeterminate truth values’, ‘seem untestable’, and declare the whole thing nothing more than sci-fi technobabble?
Comment by Nereid — January 1, 2013 @ 7:18 am |
What I am after, is what you should be after, as a scientist and human being; the truth. Are his starting assumptions logical? are they possibly correct or picked out of thin air iow sci-fi technobabble, or is there possibly & actually something to all this? Does his talk of chronons, tachyons, half-life- half-time, hyperspace, time & space, etc follow logically from beginning to end as far as you can tell and understand, even with a starting point that you cannot verify one way or the other, or if he is bullshitting aka sci-fi techno-babbling, and therefore his lengthy sentence should be riddled with illogic, irrationality, and errors?
Which is it?
Comment by Bruce — January 1, 2013 @ 3:28 pm
Bruce,
I meant, in terms of your original request to me; namely “can you please review the logic behind his assertion that the speed of light is NOT constant“.
Perhaps I’m being too literal, in reading your request; “logic” means – to me – premises (or assumptions, postulates, etc), followed by statements, which are linked – chained – in a clearly defined order. For example, here is an example of (very simple) “logic”, where the conclusion is valid, assuming the validity of the premises:
* All cats are black
* this animal is a cat
* therefore it is black.
And here is one which is not valid:
* All cats are black
* this animal is black
* therefore it is a cat
By definition, starting assumptions cannot be logical.
His starting assumptions – “the Creation’s expansion rate, for the initial period, was 44,069,497.5 kilometers per second” and “the Creation’s expansion rate” has a “steadily constant half-life rate of almost exactly 6,347,755,102,040 years” – contain undefined terms, so readers are left to make of them what they will; for me, “expansion rate“, “kilometers per second“, and “years” look as if they correspond to things I am familiar with; “the initial period” and “ half-life” may be meaningful, but “the Creation” and “steadily constant half-life rate of … years” are both essentially meaningless (to me) – “steadily constant” is redundant (at best); “half-life rate” is technobabble (at best).
Quick answer, no; there are too many undefined terms, too many words which resemble terms you’d find in a physics textbook (but which Meier seems to be using in a non-standard way), and so on. However, I didn’t go through the whole thing, and didn’t try hard to see if I could tease out islands of consistency in a sea of technobabble and gibberish.
False dichotomy? Some parts may be at least internally consistent; some of his arithmetic may be correct; etc.
And, no matter how you look at it, it seems clear (to me at least) that Meier is claiming that c is not constant (and that claim is not the least bit provisional or tentative; Meier’s words contain no hint of uncertainty or doubt).
Comment by Nereid — January 3, 2013 @ 3:37 pm
Sorry, my mistake in calling Meier’s starting point an assumption. Meier says from the Big Bang to THE END is 311,040,000,000,000 years by earthly time calculation. Therefore his starting point is no doubt not an assumption but a clear mathematical derivation of some sort. However, it is all beyond my knowledge in such matters so I threw it at you thinking you may be able to.follow his ‘drift’ but apparently it is not in the arena of your expertise either, so you lost interest.
Meier is most definitely saying that the speed of light is not constant. Are you saying that you are sure he is wrong and therefore the speed of light is constant throughout all-time and its space, at all and various points in the chronology of the Creation from the Big-Bangs initial expansion rate to the point of final expansion and then contraction until its ultimate end?
Comment by Juice — January 5, 2013 @ 8:02 pm
You’re committing a reductio ad absurdum fallacy, where you’re trying to get Nereid to say something he can’t possibly say, and then claim success based on that.
We have measured the speed of light very accurately for over 100 years. There is no evidence on Earth in that time that it has changed. The speed of light is also built into several fundamental constants, including the big “alpha” fine-structure constant. This is called a “constant” for a reason — it has never been observed to change. It plays a role in things like radioactive decay. We’ve looked in distant galaxies hundreds of millions of light-years away (and hence, hundreds of millions of years in the past) and the fine-structure constant is the same to within experimental accuracy.
Therefore, as far as everything that we can tell, the speed of light is constant. That’s all that science can say. We can NEVER say something is 100% TRUTH.
So the conclusion is that, based on everything that we have been able to measure and test, Meier is wrong about the speed of light being variable.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 5, 2013 @ 8:10 pm
P.S. I find it fascinating that we’ve now dropped the whole thing about Meier saying that the value of π is wrong.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 5, 2013 @ 8:11 pm
Sorry, Stuart, it is neither that Latin phrase you use, nor is it the latter that I am underhandedly trying to get Nereid “to say something she can’t possibly say and then claim success based on that.” Naturally you think this is some sort of intellectual game or exercise of one-upsmanship between those of us who say Billy Meier is not lying, is not fabricating contact conversations between himself and humans not from this earth; that his is not steathily reading or obtaining old or current scientific periodicals in foreign languages before there was the internet and pulling the information contained therein to hoodwink his fellow human beings into believing his stories for the zero profit he makes from all he does or for megalomaniacal purposes, and because he likes to attract so much attention to himself from the heads of governments, secret services and religious organizations that there have been 21 documented assassination attempts on his person.
This is not some intellectual game of tricks to cheaply win some discussion and thereby claim success based on intellectual gamesmanship. For what purpose would that achieve? This is a discussion between human beings interested in what is true or not and life as it is and furthering our knowledge, wisdom and subsequent evolution on & on, endlessly.
[“Therefore, as far as everything that we can tell, the speed of light is constant. That’s all that science can say. We can NEVER say something is 100% TRUTH.
So the conclusion is that, based on everything that we have been able to measure and test, Meier is wrong about the speed of light being variable.”]
Stuart, I believe you just committed a reductio ad absurdum fallacy: Are you saying that you have been able to measure in these last 100 years everything and that your scientific knowledge that exists up until now will not ever into the infiniteness of time be altered and that it will remain constant until the universes expansion that has been going on for 16 trillion year according to Meier or the 13 billion years that earth science pins the universes age at, finally ends and the contraction begins until THE END?
For instance, regarding the age of the universe: from 1991 http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_238
Comment by Bruce — January 6, 2013 @ 6:22 am
How you got that from what I wrote is ridiculous. I stated that we have measured the speed of light and it has been shown to be invariable to the best of our measurements, even when looking millions of light years away and back in time. That is all I said. And based on that, Meier’s claim of a variable speed for light is wrong.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 6, 2013 @ 11:37 am
“P.S. I find it fascinating that we’ve now dropped the whole thing about Meier saying that the value of π is wrong.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 5, 2013 @ 8:11 pm”
Stuart – What exactly is fascinating? Do you taste victory, like you have me & therefore Meier over a barrel and you can claim debunking success based on that? I’ve translated something that was in one prophecy or future possibility that I mistakenly thought was resolved. Apparently it is not as far as I can tell and I have nothing further I can constructively add to that topic in any way.
Comment by Bruce — January 6, 2013 @ 9:57 am
I find it fascinating because he’s completely wrong. He made a statement with regards to a mathematical constant that 6th graders can measure and I derived for fun in 10th grade. According to the translation on the Meier wiki site, he stated: “In the process they will discover that the base for pi was miscalculated. By eliminating the error in pi, and correcting future computations based on pi, scientists and their amazing, highly developed technology will have the capability to make unimaginable energies accessible to the people of Earth.”
You may quibble over the exact words used, but the context is clear: He’s saying that the value of π is wrong. It is not. And, because it’s math, this is a case where one can PROVE that he’s wrong and that the value of π is correct, where multiple different methods for deriving it all result in the same answer.
And, it gets no real argument once I’ve stated this. Instead, it’s the one case where you’ve stopped arguing but still haven’t admitted that Meier was wrong about something. I mean, sure, we could wait ’til after 2036 to see that Apophis won’t hit and therefore Meier’s wrong, but with this other stuff, you can always claim that we just don’t have the information yet to show he’s right. You can (and have) claimed that the words could be slightly different, or that the meaning is such that maybe we just don’t know enough yet and what we’ve said are Meier’s misstatements will be shown to be true at some point.
But not this. π is a constant, π is a ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, and it’s not miscalculated, but Meier said it has been. No further knowledge can show Meier is right in this case, he is WRONG.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 6, 2013 @ 12:00 pm
” And based on that, Meier’s claim of a variable speed for light is wrong.”
So, based on your & earth science’s knowledge up till now, Meier’s claim of the speed of light not being constant at various points in time & its space after the Big Bang, is wrong; how quaint and how ridiculously and absurdly know-it-allish of you to think that the current scientific knowledge-base will not be expanded upon from this point in time going forward. That such knowledge stops dead in its tracks right now, with you, and that’s that and that’s final and we know all there is to know about the expansion-rate of the universe from the Big Bang until it begins to contract and the possible effect that has on the speed of light.
btw, in that little paragraph, there were a few clues about considerations and necessary adjustments in time travel into the past and future. So you may wish to incorporate that into your time travel apparatus when you get around to it. And you may wish to bring it to the attention of your fellow NASA scientists who may think along such lines. Unless of course, based on what we know up until now, time travel is impossible and therefore Meier is wrong in that regard.
Comment by Bruce — January 6, 2013 @ 4:00 pm
Bruce, you clearly have zero knowledge of how science really works. If your attitude is that no matter what we investigate to look at Meier’s claims, any evidence that is found is subject to being wrong because our understanding of fundamental physics may be shown to be wrong at some point, then there’s no way to falsify his claims. Ergo, we have nothing left to talk about. So I’m going to stop wasting my time talking to this rubber wall.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 6, 2013 @ 4:04 pm
– “And, it gets no real argument once I’ve stated this. Instead, it’s the one case where you’ve stopped arguing but still haven’t admitted that Meier was wrong about something. I mean, sure, we could wait ’til after 2036 to see that Apophis won’t hit and therefore Meier’s wrong, but with this other stuff, you can always claim that we just don’t have the information yet to show he’s right. You can (and have) claimed that the words could be slightly different, or that the meaning is such that maybe we just don’t know enough yet and what we’ve said are Meier’s misstatements will be shown to be true at some point.”
You are rather quickly jumping on the assumption of getting no response from me because of x, y or z. As happens to you & anyone else, sometimes we cannot sit at the computer, that there are many other things going on that must be attended to. In this case, regarding Pi, I have no idea, I am not a mathematician. You claim this statement of his to be wrong and for all I know it may be wrong. I have no problem admitting if he or I are wrong if that is indeed the case. As I am unable to address this Pi question properly, I suggest you write to Meier himself for an explanation.
http://www.figu.org/ch/verein/kontakt
here is googles translate page http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.figu.org%2Fch
Let us know the outcome.
“But not this. π is a constant, π is a ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, and it’s not miscalculated, but Meier said it has been. No further knowledge can show Meier is right in this case, he is WRONG.”
Like I said, let us know how he addresses this issue.
Comment by Bruce — January 6, 2013 @ 4:09 pm
This is my third response to “Comment by Bruce — December 31, 2012 @ 6:18 am”
Bruce, I think you and I are going to have to set aside a lot of time, to reach a mutually-agreed basis for holding a meaningful discussion. Why? Because you seem to have such a wildly inaccurate picture of the nature of astronomy (as a science) that we will, frequently, be simply talking past each other.
Start with “proof”: as someone – Dr Robbins? – said, “proof” is reserved for mathematics and whiskey (or was it rum?). What to say instead? A good shorthand is “is consistent with”; a good metric is “explanatory power”. So, a great deal of “information” (your term), or a great many “facts” (a term used by many others), or a huge body of astronomical observations of many different kinds, is consistent with the existence of stellar-mass black holes (as in many HMXBs) and super-massive black holes (as in the nuclei of many ‘normal’ galaxies).
But what are these ‘black holes’? As I said earlier, they are theoretical constructs, derived from GR. But so are “atomic electron transitions”, “Compton scattering”, the “Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect”, and thousands of others (though these are derived, ultimately, from QED and, to some extent, QCD, not GR). However, these have great explanatory power. For example, “atomic electron transitions” can explain why a flame turns yellow when you sprinkle salt on it (and why the spectrum of a planetary nebula looks the way it does); “Compton scattering” can explain what happens when you are given radiation therapy (and why the x-ray telescope XMM-Newton works); etc.
Are you willing to take the time and trouble to learn more about astronomy, Bruce?
I answered this earlier (Comment by Nereid — December 31, 2012 @ 10:27 am): “As far as I know, there are no published papers reporting (astronomical) observational tests of hypotheses derived from models incorporating “white holes” or “space bulges” … at least, no non-null results.”
As Dr Robbins mentioned, there is a thread in the CosmoQuest forum on this topic, started by mahigitam, “Astronomical Information in the Billy Meier Contact Notes“; posts in it cover your question in considerable detail. The ‘bottom line’: Meier, in 1986, was many decades behind the times.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/138142-Astronomical-Information-in-the-Billy-Meier-Contact-Notes
Comment by Nereid — January 2, 2013 @ 1:50 am |
Regarding taking the time and trouble to learn about astronomy: I will pick up what I can from you and as far as that interest carries over elsewhere is what will be done as my life is busy from first conscious thought to last before shutting off the machinery for sleep. Rome was not built in one day and to learn something like astronomy would no doubt take years, if not a lifetime or more likely even many tens of thousands of years. You may pride yourself on your certain knowledge of astronomy, however what you have gleaned was and is dependent on countless lifetimes of previous astronomers, beginning with the first cave-person who stared at the heavens each clear night and slowly developed his or her knowledge of the heavens. From there such knowledge very slowly progressed through the eons of time in ancient Babylonia, all the worlds cultural powers and centers of the times, to Plato, to the Romans, Hindus, Arabs, Chinese, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, on & on & on up until the present day.
You are essentially saying, as far as you’re concerned and as far as terrestrial astronomers are concerned, that black holes have no basis in reality, that they are only theoretical constructs, therefore the same will be said of their (theoretical) opposite, the space bulge or whatever its called in astronomical circles.
Then you have stated that in 1986 Meier was many decades behind the times because he then said that black holes and space bulges actually do exist, even though as of today, decades later, you earth astronomers only consider them as theoretical.
I fail to see whether he is the one behind the times or you astronomers have yet to catch up with his acceptance of what in fact has a basis in reality.
Comment by Bruce — January 3, 2013 @ 4:22 am
@Bruce,
OK, fair enough.
But if you do not understand much about what astronomy is, as a science, how can you make informed decisions concerning whether any of Meier’s “astro” predictions (or prophecies) have been corroborated or not? As in “scientific facts corroborated later by sciences“?
No, I am not saying that, and I have not said that. If this is the conclusion you have drawn, I have failed in my attempts to communicate; please accept my apologies for that failure.
Perhaps the following might be closer to your worldview: “Many black holes have been discovered, both stellar-mass ones and super-massive ones; in the observable universe, the number of black holes is estimated to be in the billions. However, no white holes (a.k.a. space bulges) have been discovered.”
It is true that Meier uses the term “black hole” in some of his writing; it is unclear – to me – how his intended meaning relates to the term “black hole” as used in contemporary astronomy. You – and MH, and mahigitam, etc – seem to think Meier intends that they have the same meaning; on the other hand, I have made a cogent, logical case that this is far from certain.
If this were the only term – or one of only a few terms – which Meier uses which look like familiar terms, such as you might find in an astrophysics textbook (but which aren’t), it wouldn’t matter much.
However, as is clear from the work I did at your request (and to try to determine if, in fact, the claimed “astro corroborations” were corroborated), there are a great many such terms. For example, “chronon“: while uncommon, this term can be found in physics papers (it means ‘quantum of time’), and is a unit of time; Meier also uses this term, and while it is far from clear what he means by it, it is fairly certain he intends it to be a unit of distance (approximately 1.5×10^-24 m, if I have done my sums right) … so the two uses of “chronon” are different; they refer to (quite) different things.
Another example is “blue”, as Meier uses it in CR31.
Let’s talk about ‘reality’ a bit, shall we?
There’s a fairly faint star, in the constellation of Virgo, named 61 Virginis, ’61 Vir’ for short; if Virgo is high in the sky on a clear, moonless night, you can see it with your own eyes (assuming you have close to normal vision, that your eyes are dark adapted, and you are well away from city lights, etc). Everything astronomers know about 61 Vir comes from analysing the light we receive from it.
If you fire up google, you’ll find 61 Vir is quite similar to the Sun, in age, mass, composition, period of rotation, and so on. It even has two, maybe three, planets going round it, somewhat like our Sun does; the planets are named 61 Vir b, 61 Vir c, and 61 Vir d (this last one is “unconfirmed”).
Really?
The reality of the Sun-like nature of 61 Vir – not to mention the existence of planets going round it – comes from the application of theories of physics to the analysis of light detected by instruments whose operation, in turn, depends on the reality of those same theories of physics!
As far as I know, Meier has not claimed to have visited the 61 Vir system; assuming he hasn’t, do you consider 61 Vir b – the planet – to be real? If so, why?
Comment by Nereid — January 4, 2013 @ 2:53 pm
This is my fourth, and final, response to “Comment by Bruce — December 31, 2012 @ 6:18 am”
Consider this, quite possibly real, exam question:
Is light:
a) a wave?
b) a particle?
c) neither a wave nor a particle?
d) both a wave and a particle?
e) none of the above?
f) all of the above?
If you want to set up a company manufacturing lenses, for cameras, say, you can probably get by with a), in terms of the science (physics) you will need. If, instead, your company wants to go into the business of manufacturing radio-therapy machines, for use in hospitals, b) will suit your purposes better (though sometimes you may need to use a), or d)). And so on.
However, in all cases what you deal with, in practical terms, are formulae, equations, and numbers.
And all those formulae, equations, and numbers can be shown to derive from a single theory of physics, Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). Thus the quasi-real exam question is best answered something like this: light is however it is described – in formulae, numbers, and equations – in QED. At least, to the approximate limit of the tests of QED (which are nothing short of astonishing, experimental results match theory to > 14 decimal places, and there are – as of today – no experimental results or astronomical observations inconsistent with QED).
Here’s a possible corollary: as there are close to zero formulae, equations, or numbers in Meier’s writing (directly relevant to astrophysics), whatever science there is in such writing, his writing can be nothing more than “some type of endless-round-the-merry-go-round philosophical-science with its endless, circular neverending-unproveable logic” (other than the parts which do contain formulae, equations, and numbers).
What do you think, Bruce? How about you, Andy?
Comment by Nereid — January 2, 2013 @ 6:57 am |
“…. 1995 and the ensuing years bring incredible breakthroughs that will change civilization. One contributing factor to these breakthroughs in the near future will be, finally, the exposure and rectification of an error in the Pi-number calculation. ” http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_251
I suppose I confused adding many decimal places to the π calculation as some sort of revision to an error in its calculation. Apparently we have not yet found such an error, which would be my error. My apologies.
In any case, the point being that Meier or the Plejaren would not correct such things for us, as they feel that it should be through our own efforts, to make mistakes, correct them, and thereby learn from them, and in such a way to evolve on our own.
Comment by Bruce — December 31, 2012 @ 3:59 pm |
From your source:
Do you have any idea what this means, Bruce?
To me it’s not even technobabble; it’s gibberish.
Comment by Nereid — January 1, 2013 @ 7:23 am |
If this sentence sounds like gibberish, the fault may lie with the translation. That said, I went back to see how this was translated, since this was done long ago and I don’t know who did it, but I don’t really like their translation.
The original german is:
318. Also beginnen die Wissenschaftler Höchstleistungen zu erbringen – und finden dabei die Fehlberechnungen, die der Pi-Zahl zugrundeliegen.
Which they have translated as:
“Therefore, scientists will begin performing at feverish rates. In the process they will discover that the base for pi was miscalculated. ”
I have it translated as:
“Also the scientists begin to perform at their best – and thereby find the miscalculations which underlie (form the basis of) the Pi number.”
Does this clear up the ‘gibberish’ factor?
Comment by Bruce — January 1, 2013 @ 5:24 pm
Thanks Bruce. Yes, that does clear things up.
Somewhat … “miscalculations which underlie (i.e. form the basis of) the number pi” (I made some edits; hopefully I did not change the intended meaning) is, at best, vague. It’s still close to meaningless nonsense though (to me, at least).
But perhaps Meier’s “the Pi number” refers to something other than the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter? Or perhaps he has (had) no clue at all on how one goes about calculating the decimal expansion of pi?
Comment by Nereid — January 2, 2013 @ 7:25 am
2012 is over, everywhere; time to dust off Meier’s so-called predictions (or prophecies? I get confused)
So, Andy (and Bruce), did this “unknown, invisible, dark and huge space wanderer” arrive, but we didn’t notice? Or did it arrive, and depart, having failed to “threaten”? Or fail to arrive at all?
Or maybe we can make that 13 for 13?
Comment by Nereid — January 1, 2013 @ 8:19 am |
Nereid, your unscientist-like leaving out of a couple important factors relating to this sentence, not to mention that your bias has revealed itself through your glee of what you feel is another notch in your belt with what you have judge and jury deemed ’13 for 13′. However, what you have left out is that Meier is only mentioning possibilities, not certainties or what he refers to as ‘predictions’. And what else you have conveniently left out is the sentence that follows:
“And if this should really occur, the fact of its existence would be openly proven starting with 2010 or 2011, if at all, because the possibility of a “dark” and, therefore, non-observable passage of the colossus is also possible. Besides, all kinds of unpleasant machinations regarding discord, worldwide heavy warlike actions, as well as increasing degeneracy and excessive human ways of behaviour are threatening for the year 2012, whereby all those things are especially evil.”
If you hadn’t noticed, there are a couple key phrases in here, such as: “And if this should really occur ….. if at all” … “because the possibility ..”
Since you are the astronomer and have likely followed usual and unusual occurances in the heavens, I am sure you would be able to answer whether such a ‘huge space wanderer’ was ‘openly proven’ in 2010 or 2011, as he has clearly stated.
Comment by Bruce — January 1, 2013 @ 5:47 pm |
So, Bruce, we have an inconsistency, a conflict (at least, in the English version): “brings” and “is” are certain, definite; “if this should really occur” is uncertain, indefinite. Added to which it’s not clear – in the English version – what “this” refers to.
Then there’s “an unknown, invisible, dark and huge space wanderer” and “a “dark” and, therefore, non-observable passage of the colossus” (I added emphasis): are these the same? Is there just one, or many?
That’s pretty easy to answer; no “‘huge space wanderer’ was ‘openly proven’ in 2010 or 2011“.
But then, no “‘huge space wanderer’ was ‘openly proven’” in 2009, 2008, 2007, … either.
Or not; if you choose to interpret “‘openly proven’” “‘huge space wanderer’” as *any* previously undetected astronomical object with an estimated mass greater than ~10^13 kg, then these are discovered every year, by the thousand (maybe million).
Did you miss the question mark, Bruce? I wrote “Or maybe we can make that 13 for 13?” Which is, unambiguously, a question.
Comment by Nereid — January 2, 2013 @ 9:35 am
Nereid, on the one hand, you are correct to precisely examine the words used, because Meier is also precise in his use of language and its meaning and is insistent that German is the most precise language on the planet and that it is nearly impossible to translate German into English or any other terrestrial language; but on the other hand, in this case, you are going too far to suit your own debunking-biased purposes, rather than simply pursuing what is true, as it is obvious that ‘an unknown, invisible, dark and huge space wanderer’ and ‘a dark and therefore, non-observable passage of the colossus’ are one in the same thing. That goes beyond the value & purpose of communication via language-use into splitting hairs, nit-picking, etc.
However, I can agree that the word “brings”, can muddy the meaning enough that it sounds more like a certainty rather than a possibility.
No, I did not miss your question mark which, imo, does nothing to alter the tone and taste of yet another nearly certain victory.
Are you perchance a female? I ask because despite your competitiveness, your somewhat testosterone laden comments generally don’t go over the testosterone-top, iow they don’t display an excessive amount of the male hormone. Feel free to ignore this question if you wish to remain gender-anonymous. If you are a male, take it as a compliment.
Comment by Bruce — January 2, 2013 @ 12:45 pm
@Bruce
I’m glad to hear that it’s obvious to you, because it is not certainly not obvious to me.
Yes, on the one hand there are a lot of things which point to the possibility that they may be the same thing; however, on the other hand, consider these:
The text containing the second part (“a dark and therefore, non-observable passage of the colossus“) is in a different paragraph to that containing the first; the second para begins with “And if this should really occur“, where “this” could refer to the “huge space wanderer” … or it could refer to “a whole series of quite special events“, which seems to be introduce this section (and that’s just two of several possibilities).
You misquoted the second part; you omitted a comma, after “and” (“a dark and, therefore, non-observable passage of the colossus“); in the original (English) “dark” refers to “passage”, not “the colossus” … which leaves open the possibility that “the colossus” is not “invisible, dark”.
The first part (“e.g. an unknown, invisible, dark and huge space wanderer that is threatening from the fringe of our solar system“, emphasis added) can be read to mean that the “wanderer” is already there, and is not passing by (pace the second’s “passage”).
Thank you. Perhaps you might allow that at least some readers find Meier’s writing to be hard to understand? Especially when the previous paragraph contains this – seemingly unambiguous – claim, one that is, on its face, nonsense?
(In case you don’t already know, the period of the solar cycle is only approximately 11 years, per the historical record)
Bruce, I take the time and trouble to read what folk like you write here, and to research it; would you consider returning the favour? If you read the entirety of what I’ve written here, on this particular blog entry, might you conclude that there is the possibility that I was drawing attention to the fact that there are apples and oranges? that no one has claimed that this part of CR 476 is “corroborated”? that “corroboration” remains an ill-defined thing, one that is highly subjective?
Hmm, I write under the handle “Nereid”. Yes, that’s not as obvious as “David” or “Doris”, but it’s also not all that ambiguous, as “Alex” or “Sandy” might be (to say nothing of “Anu”, “Mela” or “Aixue”). But thanks for the compliment anyway.
Does my being female (or not; you are free to imagine me as anything you wish) make my comments less valid? my questions harder to answer?
Comment by Nereid — January 3, 2013 @ 11:26 pm
Nereid,
I don’t know why the link isn’t working. Try typing into google something like “bbc ‘fried egg’ impact crater.” I don’t know about a primary source. You seem to be good at finding things. The picture in the bbc article is pretty telling though.
Ok, the “corroboration scale”–what I thought was a somewhat useful tool introduced by Mahigitam apparently has become more of a trouble than its worth. But I’ll explain and use it one more time.
A “level 3” is one that:
a) The information given is sufficiently detailed and accurate. And,
b) It was verifiably published before the event occured/before the discovery was made/before the information was known by the relevant experts
If these two are met, then, as MH suggested, if the question was taken to court “Did Meier successfully, genuinely, prophesize?”–or, the almost equally amazing “Did Meier know detailed scientific information before the relevant experts did?” the verdict must give the affirmative. And it goes without saying…this is a big deal. Stuart in facts seems to have the opportunity to be among the heroes of history should he, with his small but perhaps growing sphere of influence, help bring awareness of the uber-important Meier material to the scientific and greater community…opposed to being something of the opposite, should his final word remain libelous and snickery…
I anticipated something along the lines of your Dec. 31 post concerning the impace crater. There are dozens of impact craters on earth. One could say, and I of course had the same thought, that this impact crater is not much of a crbr because it fails miserably concerning ‘a’ above. That this is then only perhaps a ‘level 1’ if anything.
But, there are two reasons why this is not the case:
1) The DUAL nature of the recently found impact crater, which fits so well with the story given in Message from the Pleaides. How many impact craters are there that feature another sizable one so close by, as is seen in the ‘fried egg’ impact crater in the above article? I really don’t know. A very small percentage I would guess. This I would think is enough to slide it up into a “level 2.”
And,
2) The the earth does now feature many impact craters…and impact is still a rare thing. Earth history is long. When I looked at a list of impact craters, like one found here — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_in_North_America — naturally, most are over 30, 50, or a hundred or more milllions of years old. The BBC article says that, though they cant pin it down any further, it certainly took place in the last 17 million years. Now this is relatively recently. Only a very small percentage of sizable craters have happened so recently. And, though I dont know the exact date Meier/ET’s give for this impact, as it was dealing with Atlantis, it was surely within the last million years, and therefore this of course fits within the >17 million years given by the scientists. So, between the unique ‘dual nature’ of the crater and it fitting into a relatively narrow timeframe, we now see that ‘a’ above is satisfied, that this crbr can and should be classified as a ‘level 3’. Or at least a 2.8.
Also, again, please consider the context… The contact notes, dont qoute me on this, are up over 20,000 pages now. And these less important than the messages contained in the some 47 books. He does not have time to simply spin-tales like this. And consider the fact that Meier himself does not even bother to point at things like this Atlantic crater info as proof of his foreknowledge. He has conversations and he writes them down. Thats all. This just becomes obvious over time when examining the material. So, if what was a ‘2.8’, when put into context, should readily be seen as a 3.0.
So there is one of them.
I already made mention about the dark wanderer. I have no idea what it is. If something like this indeed ‘threatened’ in 2012 we apparently did not notice.
And you also said something above about other questions I need to answer so as to foster meaningful dialogue, what other questions were these?
Happy New Year
Comment by Andy — January 1, 2013 @ 2:29 pm |
Do you actually have CR59’s text? There are several things in the page on Horn’s site that don’t make sense, not the least of which being the timing, description of the heat generated, “the whole Earth shook,” etc. Also, “great parts” of a “planetoid” sound like something big — to create a 6-km-diameter crater, you’re talking about a projectile maybe 250 m in diameter. That is hardly something “great” from a “planetoid.” Hence, I’m interested in more of the context.
Yes, the fact that he stated two “parts” hit the Atlantic Ocean is interesting, but as far as I can tell, it is only that very small part of the narrative that fits this unconfirmed discovery that shows up only in a BBC article — I can’t find any follow-up on this topic, nor by the authors, nor is it listed in any list of Earth impact structures.
I would say this hits (b) of your L3 criteria. Many of the details from what I can tell are not accurate — only the location of a potential (and unconfirmed) double crater, where one may be older than the other (again, I can find nothing on this other than the BBC report which is based on an AGU abstract).
As to how many craters there are on Earth, estimates are that millions have formed over the years, we just have few records due to a geologically active planet. Since Earth has a somewhat large gravitational field and a relatively thick atmosphere, chances of the projectile breaking up and creating multiple impacts are increased.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 1, 2013 @ 3:12 pm |
No, I do not have the Contact Report. But be specific; what do you mean about the timing? Is there something to that part of convo that makes the story necessarily nonsense? As far as the word “great”…you can’t be serious. This is “great”–again think of the timescale on which events of this magnitude happen. This is EXCEPTIONABLY rare in terms of humanity’s history on earth I understand. The laungage is surely fitting. As far as “planetoid”, I dont know. I don’t even know the proper defintion. But keep in mind that these are translations. And again… the language is waranted; this was obvioiusly a huge, “great” event for the peoples of the time.
You agree the “two parts” is a detail that speaks well toward the strength of the crbr, but bemoan the fact that there are not more details like this–but are there more of these that could be had? I dont know what you are asking for. It would be nice if the scientists could get the date down more exactly. And indeed if the two adjacent craters were shown to have happened at different times, this would largely discredit all of what I put forth; but the fact that what you are suggesting entails that BOTH impacts would have had to happen within this narrow >17 million window does not speak well to the idea that they were seperate events. Also it might have been nice if what was published by Meier gave a more specific locale than ‘the Atlantic.’ So for a combination of these two concerns, it is perhaps a 2.8.
And as to your last sentence. That may well be the case, that there are many such double ‘fried-egg’-looking impact craters. But the fact that Meier placed it in the right narrow timeframe window keeps it a 2.8. (At the risk of taking this number scale thing to silliness).
But I want to call it, virtually, a 3.0. Again, Meier was not writing these things so as to be held up in a court of law as actual prophecy/foreknowledge. What we are looking at is merely casual conversation. Albeit, about fascinating things. So we must in s sense give Meier a break here; yes, it would have been nice if in the course of the dialogue he would have asked for a more specific location–but I think we can excuse Meier that he did not have this blog in mind during the contact. It was ones like MH or Mahigitam, or now me, that were interested in taking upon a challenge that these things could be proven to be instances of geninue prophecy/what have you. Though the challenge was willing taken up, I think it is fair to point out the exceedingly, almost unfairly, high bar that is being placed considering the context. Thats why I say it’s ‘virtually’ a three. There may be other crbrs that we can even drop the ‘virtualy.’
It must be seen though that this one, the Atlantic crater crbr, represents a very high level corroboration of Meier’s ‘higher knowledge.’
Comment by Andy — January 1, 2013 @ 5:25 pm
I’ll preface this by mentioning two things. First, I study craters. That is my field of expertise. Second, you may want to familiarize yourself with how I “grade/judge” predictions. There is a good example regarding a prediction by Linda and Terri Jamison on this 2012 psychic predictions round-up post. In a sentence: I take what they say word-for-word and if just a few things match up but others do not, I do not consider it to be a valid prediction. That is my opinion, others may vary. Since we are talking about whether I consider this to be a “completely verified 100% accurate prediction” (my words), keep that in mind.
So, first, this is talking about Atlanteans and Mu-ians. There is zero evidence for either civilization. Everything that people talk about with regards to Atlantis is based off of Plato’s brief writings which pretty much all academics consider to be along the lines of Star Wars’, “Once upon a time in a galaxy far far away.” That’s a red flag.
Second, you have the “from nowhere there suddenly appeared a dark heavenly body …” Any meteor coming through Earth’s atmosphere will look bright. Any meteor that’s so big it’s a “planetoid” is going to be much brighter than the sun. That’s the second thing that looks fishy.
Returning to the people involved and the size, the third thing that’s fishy is that even IF we take what most “Atlantis scholars” (and I use the term VERY loosely) put as the time for Atlantis, around 9600 B.C., we’re talking about a time of significant paleolithic art. That there is zero record of something so large is not evidence of anything, but it raises a small eyebrow.
Fourth, and I recognize this is a translation, but this is the OFFICIAL translation: He repeats the word “planetoid” several times. A planetoid is giant – many kilometers if not 10s-100s km across. Such an object, if it struck as a single object, would be producing a crater >100 km in diameter. Even if broken up and the largest two fragments formed craters 6 km across, there would be hundreds if not thousands of craters produced at that time. Being produced in 9600 BC (give or take a few thousand years) and you would have very obvious craters still today, clearly observable. We don’t. This wouldn’t be an issue if he used the word “asteroid” or “meteor,” and I know he knows those words because they’re used in other CRs.
Fifth, you have the claim that people could hear this as it entered the “first layers of the atmosphere” but that it exploded, later, “at less than 172 kilometers height.” I interpret this as meaning “roughly” 172 km because, otherwise, why was he so exact with “172”? This is firmly in the thermosphere where we have aurora. Very few people consider this to be within much of the atmosphere, and meteors are generally glowing when they’re 50-85 km up. The atmosphere is so thin in the thermosphere that you’re not going to hear anything. Yes, you may say I’m playing semantics with this part, but he put it in writing so I’m addressing that specific number. You asked why I don’t think this is a valid prediction, this adds to why.
Sixth, “The Earth was badly shaken and many volcanoes broke out of her.” We have zero evidence for a spike of volcanism at any point within the last ~10,000 years. If you have a source that says otherwise, please post it.
Seventh, the only part that roughly fits, is that “two … parts … crashed … into the Atlantic Ocean.” That’s the only thing that fits. “Two great parts” of something 10s-100s km across would not be only 250 m in diameter (again, the size that would produce a crater ~6 km across).
Beyond that, as I said, there has been zero follow-up on this that has been published. That’s not to say these features are not craters, but that’s not to say they are. It also can’t be said they formed at the same time, as would be required to fit into this.
All of these reasons add up to why, in my opinion, this is not an undeniably confirmed prediction.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 1, 2013 @ 8:54 pm
To add another thought 16 hours later, you and other pro-Meier folks have commented that I (and others, such as Nereid) am playing word/semantics games. We argue we aren’t — we’re looking at what was written and taking it at face-value. In other words, we’re reading what’s there, not what we want to be there, not what we wish had been said, not what could have been said to make this a stronger prediction to match up with a new discovery.
I’m encountering this exact same thing in reviewing grants to a NASA funding program. This is the second panel I’m on and in both, our instructions were clear: Judge the grant on what the authors wrote, not what you wish had been written nor what they could have written. You judge it on its merits alone, not on what you want to be there.
So, when he says “planetoid,” I take that to mean a planetoid which has a certain definition. When he says “less than 172 kilometers height,” I have to wonder why he said that number specifically as opposed to a range or a round number, and because it’s something so specific, I take that to mean it’s at about that height, but not quite there.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 2, 2013 @ 12:59 pm
And when – not if – a previously undiscovered impact crater is discovered in the Pacific Ocean seabed, that will “represent a very high level corroboration of [N’s] ‘higher knowledge’“?
If not, why not?
Comment by Nereid — January 2, 2013 @ 8:21 am
Happy New Year to you too Andy
The link is working now, thanks. No primary source though.
Andy, did you know that Galileo “was taken to court“? And that the court ruled against him?
If you regard courts of law as the ultimate authority concerning science, I recommend that you stop posting here. As an alternative, I suggest that you consider something like publication in relevant, peer-reviewed journals.
Your criteria do not – as I understand them – including anything about being objective, nor about being independently verifiable; may I ask what role you think either of these should play?
Consider “the fried egg”: there is no primary source, no one (apparently) has independently verified these features’ existence (and I’m not sure anyone could, even in principle).
How do you, Andy, determine if the “information given is sufficiently detailed and accurate“?
In particular, in the absence of anything quantitative (and there’s little in any of Meier’s writing that is quantitative, as I’m sure you’ll agree), how do you go about matching the (frequently vague) words in Meier’s writing with the (nearly always precise, and narrowly technical) words in papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals?
A couple of other things, concerning “the fried egg”: there’s no evidence (at least, not in the BBC article, which is all you’ve presented so far) that the two topographic features are of the same age, no confirmation that either is an impact crater, no evidence of …
Just so that I’m clear: by your own criteria, as applied to one particular case, it will be “a big deal” for N when a previously undiscovered impact crater is discovered in the seabed of the Pacific Ocean?
Oh, and I came across another, previously unpublished, article by N. Again, I do not know when it was written (other than that it was well before August, 2012). It contains the following: “A new GRB will be detected in the constellation of Fornax.”
From “Comment by Nereid — December 17, 2012 @ 11:47 am” (I’ve added numbers, to make tracking easier):
A1: “what critical investigations did you undertake that led you to your opinions, as regards astronomy?” (you wrote: “Why and how can this “uneducated,” “simple Swiss famer” write so voluminously, so seemingly intelligently and insightfuly, on such varied scientific, technical, topics?” I replied “Andy, at least as far as the “Corroborations” pertaining to astronomy that I have written about here are concerned, the writing is not voluminous, and it does not seem (to me) to be intelligent or insightful.“)
A2: “What does his [mahigitam’s] silence tell you, Andy?”
From “December 19, 2012 @ 7:08 am” (I’ll skip the “Comment by Nereid —” from now on):
A3: “may I ask you how you came to believe that “it is well known that 2012-13 is a peak in solar storm activity cycle, indeed a peak cycle of a peak cycle“?”
A4: “what do (did?) you think are “the unique astronmical alignments and such on Dec. 21, 2012“? ”
A5: “how did you come to think that these were, in fact, unique astronomical alignments?”
From “December 20, 2012 @ 5:53 pm”:
A6: “are you familiar with the term “confirmation bias”?”
From “December 22, 2012 @ 2:23 am”:
A7: “So, details please.” (what is the “corroboration” pertinent to “the Mercury information”?)
A8: “Notice the absence of the word “proven”; do you know why that is, Andy?”
There are more, but that will do for now.
Comment by Nereid — January 2, 2013 @ 8:13 am |
I will respond to this from Stuart, “Either directly respond to the original purpose of this post, the Apophis information, or directly respond to a question posed to him by Nereid.”
To accept that Meier was truthful in affirming that Apophis is the object referred to as the Red Meteor only requires intellectual honesty, objectivity and REAL intelligence, applied to REAL WORLD information and experiences. It’s a problem that the major skeptical participants on this blog are seemingly NOT trained in real investigation, research, etc., and that, because of their prejudices, they openly assert, without evidence, that the man is lying.
We have no reason to believe that Meier lied about the Red Meteor, nor is there any reason to believe that he retrodicted anything. Neither Stuart – nor anyone else – has presented evidence of Meier’s dishonesty or that he retroacted anything. As I said on August 27, 2012, “One thing that has puzzled me is that Stuart claims that Meier retrodicted his information about the Red Meteor referring to the later discovered Apophis asteroid. Now, considering that Meier is firm that the object will hit the Earth, and that NASA is firm that it won’t. So why would Meier – with a stand alone, impeccable record of prophetic accuracy – ‘retrodict’ something that essentially disagrees with his information? Why wouldn’t he continue to say that the Red Meteor still hasn’t been discovered, at least until scientists discovered some object that they did say posed a real danger to us?”
Moderator’s Note: The vast majority of this comment was removed because it contained information that was not relevant to this discussion, was off-topic, introducing other information, or simple falsehoods or ad hominems. The above is the only information that Michael wrote that was (loosely) related to Apophis. None addressed the other questions.
Comment by Michael Horn — January 1, 2013 @ 8:16 pm |
As an example of just how difficult what we are being asked of:
Based on information gleaned through a feat of consciousness or technology, Meier has, in fact, “predicted” (as in, ‘this will happen with certianty’), that the next Pope after the current one will be the last Pope to reside in the Vatican; that, though the position may continue to exist in some form, for being pressured in various ways, the man will no longer hail from Rome. Conveniently, this will likely be verified or falsified within the lifetime of many of us. Because it is offered as a “prediction” of certainty, if Meier misses here then it would be understandable and I would not blame one if they gave up in mining the material. But, suppose with me that it actually does happen. Now naturally many would think that this would be a very strong crbr; should it come to pass, a rather straight-forward level 3–that I could look back at this conversation and justifiably think “Aha! I told ya so!” But, I fear, for the radical skepticism, it would yet be remarked that “well… religion did seem to be on the decline, and the Catholic Church really did have it comin’ to ’em… I mean, it was bound to happen sometime…really anybody could have said that and there would have been a decent chance they’d get lucky…” (Of course, no one else DID put themsevles on the line like this and publish these things).
There is a line to be drawn between healthy skepticism on the one hand, and dogmatic skepticism on the other; this, of course, being the same line as drawn between what is useful and what is counter-productive in this context, scientific/rational discourse.
Comment by Andy — January 1, 2013 @ 8:50 pm |
If that happened and what Meier actually said came true in this case, I’d mark that as confirmed. I’d also point out many things he’s said which are wrong (like the recently discussed value of π). as I pointed out in my 2012 predictions round-up, people seem to score by chance about 5% accuracy.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 1, 2013 @ 8:56 pm |
After I post a few dozen – or hundred, or thousand – previously unpublished “predictions” by N, all of them within the field of astronomy (somewhat broadly interpreted), and after they all “actually do happen”, will you – Andy – regard them as “very strong crbrs”? as “rather straight-forward level-3″s?
And, given that N’s “predictions” will – in general – be more precise, and quantitative than almost all of Meier’s, will you then regard N as having “a stand alone, impeccable record of prophetic accuracy“? One that is, in cold hard fact, better than Meier’s?
Comment by Nereid — January 2, 2013 @ 9:06 am |
Stuart, since you bring up the legend of Atlantis and Mu and Plato –
” Everything that people talk about with regards to Atlantis is based off of Plato’s brief writings which pretty much all academics consider to be along the lines of Star Wars’,.. ”
You may (or may not) wish to read the academic Otto Muck’s book on that very legend where he makes the case scientifically and academically for exactly what Plato was talking about 2500 years ago.
Muck was also no tin hat foiler that your blog is devoted to debunking.
translated page on Muck – http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://wiki.atlantisforschung.de/index.php/Otto_Muck_und_%25E2%2580%259EDie_Welt_vor_der_Sintflut%25E2%2580%259C&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dotto%2Bmuck%26hl%3Den%26tbo%3Dd%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D920&sa=X&ei=whrkUM-sEOrx0wHNnYHYAg&ved=0CHAQ7gEwCw
The online-translated version, which is rough reading book but the book can be purchased online
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbm=shop&sclient=psy-ab&q=the+secret+of+atlantis+otto+muck&oq=the+secret+of+atlantis+otto+muck&gs_l=serp.3…3148.3148.2.3505.1.1.0.0.0.0.51.51.1.1.0…0.0…1c.1.Ago1HgQBOxY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=abffa5f23ec997be&bpcl=40096503&biw=1680&bih=920
Comment by Bruce — January 2, 2013 @ 4:52 am |
Here is also a brief description of what’s in Otto Muck’s book http://www.dltolleson.com/research/secretofatlantis.php
Comment by Bruce — January 2, 2013 @ 5:08 am |
This comment relates to “Comment by Juice — January 5, 2013 @ 8:02 pm”
Can you check my sums for me please, Juice?
Expressed as a fraction, the difference between c today and c 2 billion years ago (i.e. 2×10^9 years ago) is ~2.2×10^-4. According to Meier, per his claims published in CR 119.
Similarly, the fractional difference is ~1×10^-12 between c today and c ten years ago; again, based on Meier’s claims, as published in CR 119.
Of course, any other reader is welcome to check my sums too.
Comment by Nereid — January 7, 2013 @ 1:40 am |
This comment relates to “Comment by Bruce — January 6, 2013 @ 4:09 pm”
I think this may illustrate why a meaningful discussion here, between at least you and I, may no longer be possible.
Why? Let me try to explain.
You may recall that I have banged on about “objective” and “independently verifiable” as key criteria; here is an example of why these are important.
Suppose Dr Robbins (or you, or I) were to write to Meier, as you suggest. Suppose Meier were to reply, and that reply were to be published, by the recipient (i.e. not by Meier). How could a third party – MH, say – verify that what’s in the published reply is, in fact, what Meier wrote?
Suppose no reply were forthcoming from Meier, for whatever reason. In that case, how could the veracity of his (published) claims be verified?
Now you claim that you are “not a mathematician“. Dr Robbins claimed that the mastery of mathematics required to see that Meier is wrong is about that of typical 6th graders (“He made a statement with regards to a mathematical constant that 6th graders can measure and I derived for fun in 10th grade.“)
Leaving aside – for now – the question of whether you mastered mathematics to about 6th grade level (or not), would it be a valid approach to ask a sample of university students (ones who have passed the relevant first year mathematics courses, as part of a BSc, say), or a sample of those with PhDs in mathematics about the validity of Meier’s claim, irrespective of whether someone writes to Meier or not? If not, why not?
Comment by Nereid — January 7, 2013 @ 1:43 am |
If Meier has made a mistake, he will own up to it and correct it. If you think there is a mistake with his statements, in this case with Pi & regarding the speed of light not being constant throughout all time & all space, then go to the source. He may very well have made a mistake. It’s easy to find out.
Comment by Bruce — January 7, 2013 @ 4:49 am |
Bruce,
If you read the comments here diligently, you’ll see that I have – rather too often – said that one response or another clearly shows my failure to communicate. Sometimes, though, I have to wonder if the other party to the exchange of comments bears at least some responsibility for the (usually obvious) communication failure (I should add that, for mahitigam – English is, I think, his third language – that burden is weaker).
My main aim, here, in the comments on this particular Exposing PseudoAstronomy blog entry, is to examine whether specific “corroborations” in fact are. In a bit more detail: to examine “astro crbrs” – preferably “strong” or “level 3” crbrs – and determine the extent to which they contain “scientific facts corroborated later by sciences“, or something essential the same.
Of course, that – logically – requires that the criteria for assessing “astro crbrs”, to see if they are “strong”, or “level 3” (etc), be clearly stated, and are such that an unambiguous determination (i.e. “this is level 3 astro crbr”, or not) can be made in an objective, independently verifiable manner.
Sadly, MH has shown zero interest in having such a discussion, and after an initial strong showing, mahitigam refused, point blank, to have any such discussion. Andy showed signs of being at least somewhat interested too, but has also gone dark. Juice – to the best of my knowledge – has never shown any interest.
Which brings me to you, Bruce.
Have you shown any interest in such a discussion? I don’t think so … but I’d be very happy to be shown to be wrong.
Instead you asked – politely – for my (and Dr Robbins’) opinions on the contents of a couple of CRs, specifically “if there is any noteworthy information in there that wasn’t previously known to earth astronomers at that time“. Since then you’ve asked about at least two other CRs, and responded to others’ comments on at least one other.
By New Year’s Day (in “Comment by Bruce — January 1, 2013 @ 3:28 pm”) it became clear – to me at least – that your worldview (very likely) is so radically different from any held by “earth astronomers” (or scientists, and now mathematicians) that meaningful dialogue may no longer be possible.
Bruce, I care not the least whether or not Meier “will own up to [a “mistake”] and correct it“!
Meier is not here, he is not a participant in any of the discussions in this thread. You are. Don’t you want to know why Meier is wrong, re his pi claim? Is it of zero importance to you to approach Meier’s claims critically? Does it not concern you that if Meier is wrong (not ‘made a mistake’; flat out wrong) about something that has been well-understood for centuries, in mathematics, that he could also be wrong about other things too?
If Meier’s fans – such as you, Juice, Andy, MH, and mahigitam, who are active participants in the discussion here (and several are, obviously, ardent fans to boot) – are incapable of having a meaningful discussion of Meier’s claims re c, what does that tell you?
I have said – several times – that contemporary astrophysics rests on well-established theories of physics, notably GR and QED. If I think there are “mistakes” in either, is it helpful for someone to suggest to me that I “go to the source”? That I go ask Einstein, Heisenberg, Planck, Dirac, Fermi, even Feyman, Tomonaga, or Schwinger?
Comment by Nereid — January 7, 2013 @ 8:26 am
Nereied, fyi – I am Juice as well as sometimes wordpress signs me in like that if I’m not paying attention.
Regarding whether I want to know whether Meier is wrong or not: I have read enough of his translated writings that I am satisfied that he is honest and if he makes a mistake, he admits it and corrects it. And he brings far far more information to light than anyone else out there by far, no comparison; and what I have read sits right with me, that if he errs now & then or if I don’t necessarily agree with something, I will not toss the other 80, 90 or 99% out the window.
Regarding you going to Einstein, Heisenberg, Planck, Dirac, Fermi, even Feyman, Tomonaga, or Schwinger for information, that is not a good analogy considering most or all of them are dead. Billy is not and he does answer sincere questions.
Comment by Bruce — January 7, 2013 @ 12:53 pm
Bruce/Juice, thanks for the clarification on the name; I kinda figured you two were one and the same …
Can you appreciate the fact that, for me, it’s rather different? That not a single one of Meier’s supposed “ironclad, documented, prophetically accurate scientific” predictions (or “corroborations”) is true! By comparison, contemporary astrophysics has amazing explanatory power; who’d have thought, barely 50 years ago, that GR would be tested so extensively, that it would be shown to be consistent with relevant astronomical observations and lab-based experimental results, to 0.01% (and even 1 part per million)?
They’re all dead, and Meier will be too, before too long (I think I read that the life expectancy of a man, in a developed economy such as Switzerland, in his early 70s, is less than a decade, and that approximately 2/3rds of 80+ year olds suffer from Alzheimer’s). After he’s gone, who will answer questions about his writing, you?
As I said, it seems our worldviews are so radically different that little further meaningful dialogue is possible.
Comment by Nereid — January 7, 2013 @ 2:18 pm
“Can you appreciate the fact that, for me, it’s rather different? That not a single one of Meier’s supposed “ironclad, documented, prophetically accurate scientific” predictions (or “corroborations”) is true! By comparison, contemporary astrophysics has amazing explanatory power; who’d have thought, barely 50 years ago, that GR would be tested so extensively, that it would be shown to be consistent with relevant astronomical observations and lab-based experimental results, to 0.01% (and even 1 part per million)?”
Of course I can appreciate the fact that you think and feel differently.
“They’re all dead, and Meier will be too, before too long (I think I read that the life expectancy of a man, in a developed economy such as Switzerland, in his early 70s, is less than a decade, and that approximately 2/3rds of 80+ year olds suffer from Alzheimer’s). After he’s gone, who will answer questions about his writing, you?”
There are deliberately delivered nasty undertones to your phrasing here. No matter. Whether today you think rightly or wrongly that this universe was created 13.7 billion years ago or 16 trillion years ago, we will all be dead shortly in such a scope of things. Regarding your insinuation that Meier has Alzheimers; feel free to go visit him and find out for yourself. But it’s far easier to anonymously be a spineless know-it-all, know-better-than smart ass isn’t it? Regarding the 3rd part of your pettiness: Meier’s writings will be there if anyone wishes to find out for themselves.
Comment by Bruce — January 7, 2013 @ 4:20 pm
Nereid – regarding Michael Horn being incapable of having a meaningful discussion …..
what that tells me is that his Michael Horns comments are not only NOT posted but that Stuart goes back and removes them selectively and edits them as well. Unlike anything that you or any of his other supporters may write. Stuart, the same guy who claims that Meier “retrodicts” his information, effectively does a similar thing on his own blog. But hey, it is his blog & he can do whatever he wishes.
Comment by Bruce — January 8, 2013 @ 2:49 am
Yes, I can do what I want, including NOT approving comments. And that’s what I do when Horn is off-topic or does not address the questions raised, as I’ve explained numerous times. It’s not that I’ve removed them, it’s that they never went live in the first place.
What is NOT the case, except in ONE instance where a comment was automatically approved instead of moderated, is the claim that I go back and remove comments that have already been approved.
Really, you and Michael are the only ones who tend to post so far off-topic or not answering the questions posed that I block your comments. I have 77 comments to this blog that are not approved for the last 3 years, and only 12% are from people other than Meier followers who haven’t followed the comments policy. AKA, fully 88% of comments that have not approved in the past 3 years are by you guys posting bunches of links, lengthy quotes, or just something that’s off-topic and doesn’t have to do with the post or the conversation in the comments. I post this with full knowledge that it will likely be taken and warped into some conspiracy theory or claim against me. Keep in mind that most people wouldn’t let you guys post AT ALL, but I still try to maintain something of a free forum here.
Regarding censuring various parts, the only cases of that are when you people are quoting giant tomes of Meier material. You want to do that, go somewhere else from now on, I’m tired of this page taking over a minute to load. Otherwise, I do occasionally remove foul language due to the nature of this blog and its intended audience.
And, there have been I think two times where I let Michael Horn’s comments go through but I removed the few extra pages he wrote that were completely unrelated to answering the question. That’s it, and I still have the originals. If Michael would like to post to his blog or website claiming that I have altered the meaning of his words, then we can cross-link and let readers be the judge.
Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 8, 2013 @ 3:05 am
Bruce, I do hope you’ve now had time to read the comments on this particular PseudoAstronomy podcast. If you do read them, you’ll see that I wrote a comment which begins “I have asked MH many questions, in my comments here. The most important ones concern the specifics of the six “corroborations” I’ve examined in some detail; others concern the nature of the list and its authenticity.” (It’s ‘Comment by Nereid — September 17, 2012 @ 4:23 am’) And it contains eight, numbered, direct questions, directly pertinent to key aspects of what MH has claimed, in his comments here.
In ‘Comment by Stuart Robbins — September 12, 2012 @ 5:08 pm’, Dr Robbins – who is this site’s owner/editor/etc – made it clear that MH should answer my questions, otherwise future comments he (MH) wrote would not be allowed through (my comment of the 17th was a courtesy to MH, to bring together in a concise, clear list the questions MH had not, until then, answered).
It’s now January, 2013, and still MH has not answered even a single one of my questions!
Comment by Nereid — January 10, 2013 @ 9:24 am
This is in response to “Comment by Bruce — January 6, 2013 @ 6:22 am”
Thanks Bruce.
While various of Meier’s claims, among those discussed here so far, are inconsistent with GR, this particular one is far more obvious, and the inconsistency too great to be buried in technicalities.
LCDM cosmological models put ‘the big bang’ at ~13.7 billion years ago. These models have tremendous explanatory power, involving a wide range of diverse sets of astronomical observations and lab-based experimental results. GR is at the heart of all such models.
Meier’s claim – per CR 238 – is wildly inconsistent with LCDM cosmological models. And unless and until someone – you, perhaps, Bruce? – has shown otherwise, Meier’s claim is likely also wildly inconsistent with many, perhaps most, of the sets of astronomical observations and lab-based experimental results (directly relevant to GR and to LCDM models).
Expressed in a form consistent with what I understand to be your worldview, Bruce, “this means that Meier has been proven wrong, about the age of the universe, and the age of the ordinary matter (“gasses, molecules, and atomic particles and quarks, and so forth“) of which it is comprised”.
Comment by Nereid — January 7, 2013 @ 8:55 am |
Nereid, your putting words in my mouth is interesting and it’s silly and its a nice try, but no cigar. As far as I’m concerned, a zero or two are meaningless. Earth science is how many years old? I’m thinking that any civilization out there that can fly through time and space and into other universes just may have more accurate information than earth scientists. Unless of course, you do not think its possible that there are civilizations in this universe other than here on planet earth. And if you think that is possible, then you may think that they may not necessarily be tens of thousands of years more advanced in their evolution than we are. Where do you stand on such matters?
Comment by Bruce — January 7, 2013 @ 1:04 pm |
Bruce, at least I make an effort to try to understand what you write, and how you view astrophysics. And as far as I can tell, you have essentially zero interest in understanding why every single one (not just one or two) of the supposed “strong astro crbrs” isn’t. Don’t you find it just a little odd that Meier’s writing apparently contains nothing that has been “corroborated” (at least, so far as astronomy as a science is concerned)?
An interesting question; depending on how you define it, approximately 500 years, from about the time of Galileo; and proto-science approximately several thousand years, at least from the time of the discovery of the Saros cycle.
I’m sure we could have a very interesting discussion on this topic, but I can’t see what it has to do with what Meier has written, given that every single one (not just one or two) of the supposed “strong astro crbrs” isn’t.
Comment by Nereid — January 7, 2013 @ 2:33 pm
No, I don’t find it odd at all that you & Stuart cannot corroborate any of Meier’s writings.
The possibility of extra-terrestrial civilizations that are far more advanced than ours has everything to do with what Meier has written.
Comment by Bruce — January 7, 2013 @ 4:31 pm
Bruce, I have noticed that Dr Robbins has expressed his, um, discomfort at your apparent inability to read, and understand, much of what he has written.
More than once.
You might like to re-read what I wrote, carefully. Especially the bits about “objective” and “independently verifiable”. If you really – genuinely, truly – continue to fail to understand this, please, by all means feel free to ask questions.
Comment by Nereid — January 8, 2013 @ 7:48 am
This is in response to “Comment by Bruce — January 7, 2013 @ 4:20 pm”
Bruce, Meier will die one day, and may well develop Alzheimer’s a year or so before he does. As he turns 76 this year (I think, please correct me if I’m wrong), that day is more likely – in a statistical sense – to be before 2023 than after it.
Feel free to re-read what I actually wrote.
Yes, they will.
Much earlier in this long sting of comments, responses to comments, responses to responses, etc, I talked briefly about one of the things which separates pseudoastronomy (of the Meier kind) from astronomy (as a science), see “Comment by Nereid — September 10, 2012 @ 2:21 pm”: “the ability to *do* something, to go beyond the bald prediction/claim/whatever”
Expressed in terms that, I think, are more atune to your worldview, pseudoastronomy (of the Meier kind) is sterile (of no practical use, does not spark ideas for new research, is a dead end, etc), whereas astronomy (as a science) is fertile, fecund even (of great practical use, sparks huge numbers of ideas for new research, etc).
You – Bruce, anyone – can do new astronomical research, based on the GR Einstein developed (and which has been further explored in the decades since its publication) and the QED Feyman, Tomonaga, and Schwinger developed (in turn based on theories of physics first published by Heisenberg, Fermi, Dirac, etc); it matters naught that Einstein et al. are long dead, because there’s no need to go ask any of them what their publications mean.
Can you do the same with Meier’s writings? I don’t know for sure, but your responses – and those of Andy, MH, and (to a lesser extent) mahigitam – strongly suggest that it is impossible to do independent research, that the one and only way to clarify anything in said writing is to ask the author.
Consider this example:
Can you – Bruce, anyone – *do* anything with this? There’s no mention of this “wanderer “‘s composition, size, or mass; no hint of its trajectory, velocity, or extent to which it is affected by non-gravitational forces. Even its present (now past) position is vague to the point of uselessness.
All anyone can do is ask Meier questions; when he’s gone, that option will be gone too.
Comment by Nereid — January 8, 2013 @ 8:35 am |
Here ya go Nereid, when you get over your self, there is plenty of astronomical info in here delivered by someone not of this earth, who can travel freely through time & space http://www.figu.org/ch/book/export/html/2849
just came out a few days ago .. see if there isn’t a thing or two in there you don’t already know, however unlikely that is
Comment by Bruce — January 8, 2013 @ 12:36 pm |
Thanks Bruce.
I ran it through Google Translate (GT), and unfortunately did not find much “astronomical info” (maybe partly due to less than ideal translation?). May I ask what particular “astronomical info” you found most interesting?
Well, it would seem that this “someone” is rather ignorant, or mistaken, or telling lies (or something similar)! For example:
Perhaps it’s just GT, but this seems – as unambiguously as anything in Meier’s writing – to refer to an ‘anti-Earth’, an object in much the same orbit as Earth, but 180° away, near L3 (the third Lagrangian point). No such planet exists.
Well, I did learn, once again, that Meier’s writing seems to rather faithfully reflect ideas which achieved a certain prominence in the ‘science’ sections of the mass media, and omits later developments, more often than not not covered in such media; almost as if Meier’s source of such information is popsci articles. Quite amazing, if true, wouldn’t you say?
Comment by Nereid — January 9, 2013 @ 6:45 am
well, I ran it through GT as well .. someone is undertaking an official & authorized translation, so I’ll have to wait to see what that reveals but yeah, I got the same thing about another sun or planet or something .. I’ll have to dig further …. nothing new in there regarding the Oort Cloud? Ptaah did say Apophis is from the Oort Cloud where Stuart says “Apophis is an Sq-Type asteroid that likely originated from the inner asteroid belt and was knocked out due to gravitational perturbation by another asteroid, Jupiter, or Mars; or through a collision within the inner belt.”
Roughly translated related excerpt:
Billy …. Additionally, then also the question with regard to the Red Meteor prophetically announced earlier: this also comes out of the Oort cloud?
Ptaah. That is in fact correct, and if something special does not come forth that its orbit will change through any unexpected-appearing factors or that it is modified by the earth humans, then it will come about that the prophecies fulfill themselves..
———
as far as Meier sounding more like a mass media science section, that may be considering he is not a scientist as you are and will not be speaking inside-lingo-eese specific to a particular field. For instance, when Carl Sagan went on late-night TeeVee via Johnny Carson or something, I assume he would communicate in a language most humans would understand and not just be speaking to those in his profession.
Comment by Bruce — January 9, 2013 @ 12:55 pm
It’s not a field I am all that familiar with – asteroids, that is – but I’d be surprised if Apophis turned out to be an Oort Cloud object (as in, originated there). In any case, unless I misread what they wrote here, both mahigitam and MH retracted the association “Red Meteor = Apophis”, if ‘retracted’ is the right word …
Yeah, there is that. However, that’s not what I meant.
I was referring to the topics; where Meier is (relatively) clear, the *content* pretty closely resembles what’s covered in popsci articles, as if he’s simply paraphrasing, or extrapolating in a rather narrow way; where he’s so vague as to be almost unintelligible (to me, at least) the content seems to be of his own creation. He doesn’t seem to write (relatively) clearly about a topic that’s not covered in mass media. This is odd, not least because the number of fascinating topics that do not make it into popsci articles is huge (and it’s quite easy to write about these in a straight-forward, clear manner).
Similarly, with respect to ‘discoveries’, he seems to write about only those which make it into mass media stories; the great many – often quite exciting – discoveries which are not so covered seem never to appear in his writing.
Comment by Nereid — January 9, 2013 @ 3:49 pm
I don’t know what Mahitigam or MH said about the Red Meteor but I certainly doubt they said that they aren’t one in the same space rock. Regarding Apophis http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci-tech/rogue-asteroid-a-fifth-bigger-than-first-thought-20130110-2chj8.html
So it turns out that modern science has revised it’s previous estimates that Apophis was 270 meters across. Now they say it’s 325 meters, bringing it much closer to the 350 meters that Ptaah said it was on November 26, 2008. futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_475#Contact_Report_475_Part_2
If Meier mentions popular media items, its because he brings current day topics into his conversations with his unearth-born friends and associates. Sometimes people ask him questions and he may pose them to his ET friends. Then there is the factor of what is translated into English which is not a lot. I don’t know the percentage but it may be in the order of less than 5% and often whomever is translating may pick a topic they’re interested in.
He covers many off the beaten track topics, such as the recent NASA study http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/index.cfm?id=3713 which shows that Space Travel is Harmful to the Brain, something Meier brought to light over 30 years ago.theyflyblog.com/another-confirmation-of-billy-meiers-prophetic-scientific-accuracy/01/02/2013
for example, I would have hardly called that a mainstream media topic 30 years ago.
Comment by Bruce — January 9, 2013 @ 7:04 pm
When you have time, Bruce, you may wish to re-read what they both wrote, here in the comments on this PseudoAstronomy podcast.
But none of those include astronomy, right? Especially beyond-the-solar-system astronomy. Curious, that.
Um, no, just no.
Since 210 < 325 < 330, the new estimated average diameter is within the previous estimate's (presumably 1-sigma) confidence limits. "Its size is about 350 metres.” Talk about covering all bases! In the hands of a spinmeister – like MH? – “size” could be diameter, radius, circumference, …
Comment by Nereid — January 10, 2013 @ 7:43 am
The info that comes through Meier covers not only this solar system but far far beyond this solar system and far beyond the beaten path topics. Unless of course, you consider the fact that he says this universe is one of countless universes and that the physical or material universe is just one belt out of 7 belts in the Creation. futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Creation#What_is_the_Universal_Material_Belt.3F But of course, you either knew that or with your extensive knowledge base you will somehow be able to dismiss that out of hand.
Nereid, talk about a spin-meister .. How you wriggle out of the fact that in 2008, Ptaah said Apophis was about 350 meters which earth astronomers revised and finally deduced just last week, is truly something to behold.
Comment by Bruce — January 10, 2013 @ 10:27 am
Did you actually read what I wrote, Bruce? Or did you read it, but completely miss the point?
Comment by Nereid — January 10, 2013 @ 2:35 pm
Bruce, can we stick with astronomy please? Or, if you prefer, astrophysics? As in, the branch of science.
Of these, I’ve looked at 50, 66, 76, 84, and 134. In the CosmoQuest thread mahigitam started, 72, 101, 102, and 103 were discussed. 123 seems to have moved (it now refers to something else), leaving only 116. In addition, I looked at 78 and 109.
Among these, there are no “strong crbrs”, or “level 3 crbrs” (though neither mahigitam nor Andy – nor you – has chosen to discuss what these terms mean), with the caveat that 116 has not yet been discussed.
You asked that I take a look at several CRs, even though you did not claim any “corroborations”, nor even any “scientific information” to be contained therein.
I reported back – honestly – that I could find no “scientific facts corroborated later by sciences“, nor even any original “scientific information”. And I explained why. And I asked you a whole lot of questions on what I found (many of which you have chosen to not answer; why, may I ask?)
At this point, I’m beginning to feel like a victim of the sales tactic known as ‘bait and switch’; the store’s advertisements make wonderful promises, but when I get there I find the advertised goods are not available, but the staff say that there are other goodies, if only I’d be willing to take a look … (this is also known as the Gish Gallop).
Bruce, I don’t think this is a productive use of my time, nor yours. Let’s agree that there are no “scientific facts corroborated later by sciences” – with regard to astronomy-beyond-the-solar-system – in Meier’s writing, and go our separate ways; OK with you?
Comment by Nereid — January 10, 2013 @ 2:38 pm
I’ve never retracted the Red Meteor-Apophis connection, since I also commissioned the illustrated version (in six languages):
theadventuresofbillymeier.com/ABM_1.html
But since this is yet another specific corroboration for Meier’s information, and certainly as “on topic” as one can get…it probably will also not be posted by Stuart.
Comment by Michael Horn — January 9, 2013 @ 9:44 pm |
– Meier, Contact Report 475
So, Meier says – quite unambiguously (unusual for him) – that the ‘Red Meteor’ *is* Apophis, but according to MH he didn’t. Then MH says he (MH) didn’t change his mind. Twice.
What’s two plus two Michael? (If you don’t get the reference, please take the time to read the George Orwell novel, “1984”).
One last quote (I’ll leave readers the joy of discovering who said this): “Now, nitpickers may want to take issue with some words …“
Comment by Nereid — January 10, 2013 @ 7:20 am |
Truly stunning nit-pickery on your part, Nereid. However today must be your lucky day, as CR 544 has already been translated theyflyblog.com/the-future-of-america-obama-and-asteroid-apophis/01/10/2013/comment-page-1#comment-9795
Despite the truly stunning amount of varied, precise, incredibly well-explained information contained therein, heretofore unavailable to earth humans of which you & your scientist colleagues belong, you will undoubtedly not at all be impressed, nor will you learn much if anything and you will dub the entire matter vague, popish-info, ambiguous, passe, etc etc etc. Let the hair-splitting nit-pickery commence.
Comment by Bruce — January 10, 2013 @ 1:07 pm
Sorry, Bruce, I don’t follow. Would you be so kind as to explain? I mean, in what way are MH’s statements fully consistent?
Good; I’ll take a look … or perhaps not.
Your bold claim is duly noted.
Also noted: the fact that – unlike MH – you made no claim concerning “scientific facts & theories corroborated later by sciences“, nor even “scientific information”. Further, again unlike MH, you did not say “If you know any real scientists, please direct them to this information.”
Given that you make no such claims, why should I spend (waste?) time reading that material? I’m genuinely interested.
Comment by Nereid — January 10, 2013 @ 1:56 pm
Nereid, I’m not gonna get into Michael Horn’s statements, he could do that for himself, if Stu lets him but his comments are highly edited if even posted at all.
You accuse Meier of not being precise, being vague, pop-science-ish, etc and then you excuse scientists for being over 25% off on their previous estimates for the size of Apophis. And now that they have revised their previous estimate to nearly match Ptaah’s estimate of 4 1/2 years ago, not only do you not acknowledge the significance of the info Billy passed along – info that earth scientists only revised years later, as has happened countless times; but hypocritically you even dismiss the whole thing – ” “size” could be diameter, radius, circumference, …”
Such a demonstration of pre-judgemnet bias is unscience and unscientific and snake-ish.
And the significance of the info BIlly passed along years ahead of earth scientists is that it points to the existence of not only other human beings living in this universe, but human beings far more evolved technologically and otherwise. And if this is true, then what else has been going on in all of human history here on this planet and elsewhere.
You ask why should you spend-waste your time reading such material as the latest CR futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_544 if I make no bold claims as MH or Mahitigan makes: First of all, the material speaks for itself. Secondly, just in this one Contact Report alone is information you cannot find anywhere else on this planet and as a human being and a so-called scientist, it may be highly interesting and open up limitless possibilities if true and even advance your own current life and existence, not to mention the rest of humanity on earth.
Just in this CR alone he passes on incredibly varied information that reveals astronomical information that has yet to be confirmed by earth scientists,as well as:
The 7 major forces of nature of which only 4 are known to Earth scientists.
The risk of breakdown of the global ocean conveyor belt.
That the Sol star has a dark twin 1 light year away hence we live in a binary star system.
The dark twin’s effects on the Oort Cloud.
What caused the Neanderthal humans to die out.
Actions of several presidents of the USA.
The behaviour of FIGU members.
The effects of consumed fats, oils and sugars on the human body.
The yeti/sasquatch/bigfoot.
Do you think Meier is spending his time doing research to spin stories for zero profit, for megalomaniacal purposes, to attract enough attention from this planets rich and powerful so that they have attempted to take his life 21 times? What exactly do you think is going on there?
And as an astronomer your comments on the info passed on from Ptaah about the Oort Cloud and that he says we live in a binary star system is welcome even though you will likely, somehow null the whole thing.
Comment by Bruce — January 14, 2013 @ 5:02 am |
Good; let’s focus on yours then.
Bruce, I’ve repeated myself, several times, re the basis on which I’m prepared to have a discussion with you; here’s one more (‘Comment by Nereid — September 13, 2012 @ 4:42 am’): “Note, however, that unless it has a policy of being science-based, I will not join (I have no interest whatsoever in engaging in a discussion on any other basis).”
It would seem that you either do not understand what I mean by this, or choose to ignore it. One last attempt then: if you are willing to put time and effort into understanding things like “error bars”, “uncertainties”, “confidence limits”, and “systematics”, I’m more than willing to help you. To be clear, all I am asking you is a willing to try to understand; what you are – or are not – prepared to accept (once you have understood) is irrelevant (to me).
You may wish to re-read what I actually wrote; you may also wish to re-consider your words, reflecting on the fact that you – apparently – have close to zero understanding of what “science” is, how it works, etc.
If I recall correctly, you made similar claims about other Meier material. More ‘bait and switch’?
So you say. So just about every crackpot says. Been there, done that (i.e. taken the bait, and found myself being switched); got the T-shirt. Next.
Ditto.
I note that did not use the word “scientific”, as in “astronomical information of a scientific kind”. However, you did imply it (“yet to be confirmed by earth scientists“). I will assume – at least for now – that you are making a claim concerning “astronomical information of a scientific kind”. Contents?
Hmm, strange definition of “astronomical information” (of the scientific kind), wouldn’t you say? Bruce, you come across more as a spamster, someone using Dr Robbin’s blog as a vehicle to promote your own pet beliefs, than someone genuinely interested in having a science-based discussion.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Meier does, most emphatically, NOT “pass on [t]he 7 major forces of nature“! More bait from you Bruce?
Expressed in terms which, I hope, are consistent with your worldview, the Sun is not one star in a binary star system; in fact (still in the same framework), earth scientists have PROVEN that no such twin star exists, whether 1 light year away or not. In other words, Meier has been PROVEN to be wrong.
If no such “dark twin” exists, its effects on the Oort Cloud also do not exist.
And that’s it; by your summary, “astronomical information that has yet to be confirmed by earth scientists” in that CR amounts to … precisely nothing.
Just did. If you think I’m wrong, please, feel free to find primary sources (i.e. papers published in relevent, peer-reviewed astronomy journals) which present data consistent with hypotheses concerning the existence of a star, the binary companion to the Sun, at a distance of 1 light year.
Out of curiosity, how did you come to conclude that I am an astronomer?
Comment by Nereid — January 14, 2013 @ 9:00 am
‘ It would seem that you either do not understand what I mean by this, or choose to ignore it. One last attempt then: if you are willing to put time and effort into understanding things like “error bars”, “uncertainties”, “confidence limits”, and “systematics”, I’m more than willing to help you. To be clear, all I am asking you is a willing to try to understand; what you are – or are not – prepared to accept (once you have understood) is irrelevant (to me). ‘
I understand margin of error and I also understand that earth scientists revise previous statements and calculations all the time, iow, they are still learning. Do you understand that just last week, earth scientists have revised their previous estimates of the size of Apophis to now conform with Ptaahs statement of 4.5 years ago of about 350 meters?
‘ You may wish to re-read what I actually wrote; you may also wish to re-consider your words, reflecting on the fact that you – apparently – have close to zero understanding of what “science” is, how it works, etc.’
There is no reason to re-read nor reconsider my words that you have demonstrated time and time again an unscientific pre-judgement bias that is snake-like.
Regarding your bait & switch accusations – No Ma’am. I move on if I have nothing further to add to a topic or if I cannot add to it.
‘ Hmm, strange definition of “astronomical information” (of the scientific kind), wouldn’t you say? Bruce, you come across more as a spamster, someone using Dr Robbin’s blog as a vehicle to promote your own pet beliefs, than someone genuinely interested in having a science-based discussion. ‘
There is plenty of astronomical info in that CR that could keep you busy for the rest of your life. Naturally, I was not referring to topics that referred to things or happenings on planet earth but of course, you, in your pedantic idiocy, try to score debating points on such irrelevancies.
“The 7 major forces of nature of which only 4 are known to Earth scientists.“ ‘ Correct me if I’m wrong, but Meier does, most emphatically, NOT “pass on [t]he 7 major forces of nature“! More bait from you Bruce?’
what bait? he already told you that there are 7 forces of nature, not the known 4 .. and he has explained why the last 3 cannot be divulged but you in your extreme lack of common sense could not figure that out for yourself. Do you wish for him to hand you the last 3 on a silver platter, so you in your megalomania can put an end to life on this planet?
“That the Sol star has a dark twin 1 light year away hence we live in a binary star system.“ ‘ Expressed in terms which, I hope, are consistent with your worldview, the Sun is not one star in a binary star system; in fact (still in the same framework), earth scientists have PROVEN that no such twin star exists, whether 1 light year away or not. In other words, Meier has been PROVEN to be wrong.’
So when earth scientists change their previous assertions as they do all the time, then I assume you will eat your hat and admit that Meier’s info was correct.
“The dark twin’s effects on the Oort Cloud.“
‘ If no such “dark twin” exists, its effects on the Oort Cloud also do not exist.’
And when earth scientists finally catch up to what is actually out there, and that such a dark twin does in fact exist, then its effects on the Oort Cloud will indeed exist and you may possibly learn something, even in your ridiculous state of pathological arrogance and know-it-allness.
‘ And that’s it; by your summary, “astronomical information that has yet to be confirmed by earth scientists” in that CR amounts to … precisely nothing.’
And this is what amounts to a discussion with a pathologically sick debater, who has zero interest in the truth, because she already knows everything and is only interested in appearances of being right, even when she is wrong.
“And as an astronomer your comments on the info passed on from Ptaah about the Oort Cloud and that he says we live in a binary star system is welcome even though you will likely, somehow null the whole thing.“ ‘ Just did. If you think I’m wrong, please, feel free to find primary sources (i.e. papers published in relevent, peer-reviewed astronomy journals) which present data consistent with hypotheses concerning the existence of a star, the binary companion to the Sun, at a distance of 1 light year.’
Ditto, regarding your pathologically sick penchant for debating. You ask for info that is not available to earthlings and then when it is presented, you invalidate it because there is no current proof of such. And if I gave you info that there was already proof that it existed, you’d say there is already proof of that, so there is nothing new there. Like I said, you are pathologically ill.
‘ Out of curiosity, how did you come to conclude that I am an astronomer?’
If you aren’t, then I am wrong.
Thank you for your time and efforts. You are indeed correct, there is no further point to this.
Cheers.
Comment by Bruce — January 14, 2013 @ 10:16 am
Glad to hear it.
No, I don’t. As I said, “Ptaahs statement” refers to “size”, not average diameter, and “size” could refer to radius or diameter (or even circumference). In fact, given the implicit “margin of error“, “Ptaahs statement” is consistent with an object whose average diameter ranges from to 95 to 800m! (though there are some gaps in this range) It would seem that Meier did a fine job of being sufficiently vague that he’d be “right” no matter what Apophis’ average diameter.
Fair enough. May I take it that your non-answers to the questions I ask you – questions directly pertinent to your claims, as you wrote them – signify a lack of critical thinking on your part?
Pity that you chose not to point them out.
So you (now) say; yet your intro sentence was vague, and your list a dog’s breakfast (i.e. included both astro and non-astro topics)
So, there could be zero unknown forces, or 123,456,789, or any other number. What Meier wrote is utterly useless, as scientific information.
Besides, did you not pause to consider the irony in what Meier wrote?
I mean, he lists “electromagnetism” as a single force, separate from the weak force. Yet “Earth scientists” already know that these are just two separate manifestations of a single force, the electro-weak. Just as, a century and half ago (more or less), “Earth scientists” discovered that electricity and magnetism are not separate forces, but two separate manifestations of a single force, electromagnetism.
Meier comes across as an ignoramus who likes to write technobabble; as you said earlier, maybe he should try his hand at sci-fi?
Yes, indeed … when a star is discovered – at a distance of 1 light-year from us – and it is confirmed that it and the Sun are in a mutual orbit (i.e. they form a binary), I will eat my hat.
Under what circumstances will you eat yours?
Yes, that’s true.
You may wish to re-read what I actually wrote. As Dr Robbins has said – more than once – you do seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
Which is, of course, a non-answer. At least you’re consistent.
You’re welcome. And I agree.
Comment by Nereid — January 15, 2013 @ 8:28 am |
At least for this blog page, how fortuitous the recent close fly-by of Apophis and subsequent new size estimate…which, of course, fits all the nicer with the earlier Ptaah information. Where I was actually not convinced the Apophis stuff on its own represented an ‘iron-clad’ confirmation of Meier’s status as a “prophet”/contactee, with this new size recalculation, perhaps this is indeed, or damn near, a ‘level 3,’ on par with the Atlantic dual crater bit. Though the body of evidence has long tipped in the direction of Meier being authentic, the evidence is now that much weightier…
Unless I missed something, I havent seen Stu offer comment on these recent developments–and I would think it is deserved. I am sure he can offer something better than Neireds painfully embarrassing dance around the obvious seen above; namely, alas, admit that his BELIEF, his assumption of retrodiction, is hardly any longer tenable.
Comment by Andy — January 15, 2013 @ 5:21 pm |
Nice to see you again, Andy.
Not so nice is to see that you – apparently – do not seem interested in having a rational, meaningful discussion.
If I may be so bold as to ask, do you intend to even acknowledge the fact that I asked you a bunch of pertinent questions? If so, do you intend to at least attempt to answer them? To refresh your memory, please check out ‘Comment by Nereid — January 2, 2013 @ 8:13 am’.
That’s a very low bar, your ‘level 3’ criteria. For sure, it’s likely better than MH’s, but much weaker than mahigitam’s.
On this, I think we may agree … but not in the way you perhaps intended.
Here’s what Meier actually wrote:
So, now we know that Apophis will NOT “endanger Earth on the 13th of April, 2029“, and that after that it will certainly “reappear” well before “the year 2036“.
Yep, the evidence is weightier indeed … that Meier is wrong.
Why?
You too eh Andy?
What is it with you guys? The level of reading comprehension that you’re showing would shame the hard work your primary school teachers put into trying to educate you!
Look, English is mahitigam’s third language, but he demonstrates a far better reading comprehension ability than either you or Bruce, far better, and you two are (presumably) native speakers!
Comment by Nereid — January 16, 2013 @ 2:31 am |
I think it’s worth looking at this in a little more detail.
Of course, a small asteroid cannot “endanger” a planet; it’s the lives of some humans, parts of the infrastructure they’ve built (e.g. cities, bridges), some local ecosystems which some humans depend on, (and so on) which would be endangered.
And the danger is that Apophis might collide with the Earth, causing some deaths, infrastructure destruction, ecological damage, and so on.
OK, so Meier’s prose is a bit dramatic, but he doesn’t pretend to be writing a scientific paper, for submission to a relevant peer-reviewed journal.
But he does claim to be passing on “scientific information“, based on science that is “thousands of years more advanced“, than what you can find in peer-reviewed journals today (or something like that).
However, as is now clear, astronomers in 2013 can say with great confidence that Apophis will not collide with the Earth in 2029, whether “on the 13th of April” or any other day that year. So there is no danger to some humans, parts of the infrastructure they’ve built, some local ecosystems which some humans depend on, and so on, from Apophis, in 2029.
And deployment of radars, space probes with imaging capabilities, and so on, based on the science and technology of 2013, back in 1980 (say) would have allowed astronomers of the day to arrive at the same conclusion.
And if a mere three decades of scientific and technological advance are enough, many thousands of years would be massive overkill (see, I can write dramatically too!). It gets better; working out – in 1980 – that astronomers could reach such a conclusion with only modest advances in science and technology would have been quite straight-forward, and pretty easy.
Meier didn’t write these words ~three decades’ ago, merely ~one!
Apophis will not hit the Earth in 2029, and had Meier possessed the data astronomers have today, he too would have known that … assuming Meier had the ability to analyse that data, using tools and techniques known to astronomers then (and many decades earlier to boot).
Why, then, did he write such easily-proven-wrong stuff?
To repeat myself, Meier comes across as an ignoramus who likes to write technobabble.
Comment by Nereid — January 17, 2013 @ 7:13 am |
Comment by Andy — December 14, 2012: 1) I could not let ‘rore’ simply get away with his Nov. 17 comments above.
“FIGU is by no means a racist organization, indeed they have often spoken out against such.”
Reply by rore: Hey Andy… ANY Person or Organization, such as Billy Meir, FIGU et al who Promotes an Evil upon the Nation of Israel
or
Promotes Violence against Male Homosexuals
ARE
Racist IN Nature.
~
The below quotes from that Stupid Billy-Bible called the TalMud of Jmmanuel truly ‘tell the tale’ of Billy Meier’s Misanthropic Dogma:
~
Chapt. 10 v26-27: “Truly, I say to you: May the nation of Israel be cursed until the end of the world and never find its peace.”
&
Chapter 12 v6-7: And if two men bed down with each other, then they shall be punished, for those fallible are undignified of life and its laws and behave heretically; thus they shall be emasculated [have their Bat & Balls Lopped OFF] expelled and banished before the people.
Figu Cult Members believing IN Superior Aryan/Nordic [The White Race] Aliens that ONLY Billy duh bubble-head Meier can See&Hear is just
well
A bit too a la Neo-Nazi-esque White Supremacist
&
A bit whack-a-doodle-do… ya think…
Andy, you will do well ‘sticking to’ the ‘theme’ of this thread SO we All may thoroughly understand the ‘scientific absurdities’ Billy Meier’s Cult FIGU base their ‘faith’ on… ~rore
Comment by rore — January 19, 2013 @ 5:12 pm |
Jesus H. Christ. ME stick to the theme??? Really?!?–The only couple posts I’ve seen from you are as off-topic as anything on this thread.
And of course, again, you are completely wrong on both accounts.
Firstly, the Talmud of Jmmanuel is not the inerrant word of truth, and it makes no claim to be. In fact what the TJ says on male homosexuality is, admittedly, quite misleading…and this is why Billy has written and addenda on this which clears up this instance of what appears to be a case of homophobia. Homosexuality is said to be an instance of “natural unnaturalness”, that is, “unnatural” in that it is a-typical, it goes against what is the normal sexuality, yet homosexuality is “natural” in that it is a trait given unto these ones at birth, from ‘nature’, and therefore there is nothing “sinful” or wrong about it, and it therefore necessitates no punishment.
As for the Israel bit, please see this short article, entitled WE CONDEMN ALL RACISM, before you get your panties all in a wad:
theyfly.com/newsflash4/frhnr01.htm
As for FIGU being a ‘cult’ with ‘faith’…again, surprise surprise, you couldn’t be further from the truth. FIGU expounds a deity-less, savior-less, BELIEF-LESS, philosophy of life. In fact, what could be said to be at the core of the teaching is to rid oneself of all faith, to not ‘believe’ in anything, not even in Meier himself, but rather to continually work out the Truth for oneself, via knowledge, logic, and experience–it is a fact of life that everyone is the great truth bringer unto themselves. FIGU in fact can rightly be seen as antithetical to all that makes a cult a cult…
Whereas at time I have been quite impressed with Neired and his ability and willingness to do homework, you, on the other hand, remind me of a feces-flinging monkey.
Comment by Andy — January 19, 2013 @ 7:18 pm |