There are those who read my blog who say that they really don’t want to hear any more about Billy Meier and his alleged contacts with alien beings. There are others who say that arguing with true believers is a waste of time because no matter what evidence is presented, it will never be enough to show them the errors in their true beliefs. But sometimes I just have to poke the stick into the Hornet’s Nest (capitalized as a small tribute to the 116th AHC) to see what flies out.
The latest evidence that Meier might not be the sage some say that he is, revolves around the Ray Santilli alien autopsy hoax. According to the information, “In the 253rd Contact from 1995 and in the 256th Contact from 1996, Pleiadians, Florena and Ptaah claimed that in regards to the famous Santilli alien film, it was not about the alien, but the figure of a 16 year-old girl having been abused to make the autopsy film. According to them the girl is supposed to suffer from the strange illness ‘proteria,’ and this illness has nothing to do with the illness more widely known as ‘progeria.’”
You can find this prediction on a number of websites. Two of them are:
Here’s the trouble with this. The alien autopsy is a hoax and those who were involved in it have confessed, repeatedly to that hoax, explaining how it was done. I
have reported on this in this blog and in the book, Alien Mysteries, Conspiracies and Cover-ups. It includes pictures
of the alleged alien as it is being constructed for filming showing that it was
not a human being.
|John Humphreys works on the alien. Photo copyright|
by Philip Mantle
More to the point, I can find nothing about the strange illness of proteria. There is Angina Pectoria, which simply is chest pains and something called protean which is about changing shapes. The example was of an amoeba. But it seems that the very existence of the disease, proteria, is controversial and isn’t found in medical books or any of the medical definitions and diseases cited on the Internet.
|Humphreys and the creature. Photo copyright by Mantle.|
The point, of course, is that his prediction is in error. It suggests that those making the alien autopsy film had subjected a minor girl to some form of abuse. But the creature in the film was created by those making the film, it wasn’t a real person. And Meier’s pals’ claim of the disease is in error as well.
At the same time, I was looking at this claim that Meier had 80 photographs of UFOs and this was documented in a 1964 English language newspaper in India. Actually, it said, “He has about 80 photographs of the space objects…”
About 80 is not the same as 80. That is, of course, splitting a fine hair, but it is something that the Meier crowd does on a regular basis. I will note the same article said that he had taken many more but that some 400 had been stolen. I’m not sure why anyone would steal 400 UFO photographs, but I do have an idea of what might have happened to them… they just weren’t very good.
Why do I say that?
Because I read a description of some of the 80 photographs that Meier managed to hang on to. The article said, “… a fourth is a big, bright cross and others bright zigzag lines.”
Those others are obviously of bright lights in which the camera is moved, creating those zigzag lines. It is not the motion of the light that caused them. Anyone who has examined UFO photographs have come across similar faked photos.
I have seen a few of these Meier pictures and most of them are not very good. As noted, one is of a big, bright cross and anyone who had ever developed his or her own black and white photographs knows how it was done. Once the photographic paper is set in the frame; a cross is set on top of it and the enlarger lamp is turned on. After the enlarger is turned off, the cross is removed and it is turned back on for a moment giving the impression that the clouds can be seen through the cross.
Another of these pictures is of eight bright, shapeless blobs seen in the sky. Clearly something had been put of the photographic paper to block the enlarger light, leaving white spots on the paper. This is why it is important to see the negatives. This sort of manipulation is obvious and if the negative is examined, it would be clear that the object in the print is not seen on the negative.
But it seems, based on this, that not all the photographs were of UFOs or alien spacecraft. A bright cross hovering over the landscape is in no way the same thing as a spacecraft. All it did was provide a clue about how some of the pictures were faked.
The final, hilarious, statement in the newspaper is one that we hear all the time from those reporting UFOs. They don’t want any publicity and yet they turn up in the newspaper. The article said, “He doesn’t want any publicity, he doesn’t care if anyone believes him or not.” But if not, how had the reporter learned that he had the UFO photographs? And if not, why tell the wild tale of hundreds of UFO photographs and visits to three planets. That is not the way to avoid publicity.