This
time I reached out to Michael Horn even though he had initiated a campaign
against me alleging cowardice, incompetence, a lack of investigative ability
(my translation of his words), poor research and other shortcomings. I thought
it would be interesting to ask some questions about the Meier claims of alien
contact and what I saw as a lack of evidence other than all those photographs
and testimony and a rather biased examination of alleged alien metal that has
since disappeared. Naturally Horn disagreed with my assessment.
You
can listen to the interview here:
And
you can read Horn’s take on much of this here:
We
started out talking about how Horn had become the “Authorized American Media
Representative” for Meier, and then ran from there. I had asked Horn a couple
of weeks ago about how one of the champions of the Meier claims had been
vetted
and instead received a link to a video with an interview of Jim Dilettoso by
Alejandro Rojos. Dilettoso has been cited as an expert in photo analysis, and I
wondered if Horn believed him to be a credible source… never got an answer to
the question.
 |
| Alejandro Rojos. |
However,
we did begin a discussion of the photographic evidence and the lack of
reputable examination of it. I have touched on the subject before, including a
posting that follows this one. Rather than go into that, I’ll let those who are
interested in following up on it, read that post.
Although
we really didn’t quite finish that discussion, I wanted to move onto the
predictions that Meier had made over the years. Horn brought up the ozone
depletion example and then, to prove that Meier had predicted it long before
any terrestrial scientist, mentioned a letter Meier had written in 1951. My
response to that argument, briefly, was that no copy of the letter had surfaced
until 2004 or 2005 so it wasn’t actually proof of accuracy. That argument is
made in a post following this one as well.
Horn
also brought up a newspaper article that had been written in 1964 that
mentioned Meier’s 80 UFO photographs. Of course, the reporter had taken down
what Meier had claimed, apparently saw some of the photographs but had done
nothing to verify the accuracy of the information. I mentioned that I knew how
some of those photographs had been created using an enlarger. Horn said that
Meier, walking around India didn’t carry an enlarger in his backpack, which, of
course is not what I said. I did mention that there must have been a
photographer enlarger somewhere on the subcontinent, but I think my words just
sailed right on by.
 |
| Thomas "Eddie" Bullard |
I
doubt seriously that any minds were changed during the conversation. Horn
laughed at explanations, called me names, and seemed to be annoyed by the questions.
Though I hate to admit it, I have some fun.
Next
week: Thomas Eddie Bullard
Topic:
UFO abductions and his book, The Myth and
Mysteries of UFOs.
PS:
This will be the last posting about Billy Meier, Michael Horn, and all of this
rather unpleasant episode.
I want to thank Kevin for conducting the interview. My calling him a coward was in relation to his having previously avoided it. So, now that we did engage, I want to unambiguously retract that accusation of cowardice. It clearly had nothing to do with his military conduct, etc., as that obviously is not the case.
ReplyDeleteI do want to make clear though, that I’ve NEVER asked Kevin, or anyone else, to “believe”…ANYTHING. People are free to decide how they feel about the Meier case, etc. It won’t take very long until making a decision about the authenticity of the Meier case, its photographic - and especially...prophetic - evidence will, unfortunately, become very easy for the majority of humankind, including the many who’ve never heard of Meier before.
Now, I’ve read the info that Kevin posted in the previous blog about Kal Korff, the 1964 evidence, etc. First, it’s long established that Korff is a proven liar, that he himself was complicit in falsifying some of Meier’s evidence (http://theyfly.com/Korff.html), etc.
All that’s really necessary for me to say is that…EVERY professionally established, actual investigative standard, which - by definition and necessity - requires accounting for means, motive and opportunity (MMO) has been met (and exceeded) by Meier’s evidence, according to real, independent, military, scientific, legal, photographic, special effects, digital effects, investigative, sound recording, research chemist, and other experts. This is no “appeal to authority”, it’s…the way credible, scientific, investigation proceeds, as I’ve been fortunate enough to learn - and participate in.
Unfortunately, since there is…zero evidence in any other so-called UFO case to examine, let alone compare, this is indisputable. And if Kevin has a disagreement with that, it would help if the best evidence he can show ISN’T a photo of a guy holding a…drawing of a UFO.
BTW, this dispute about Diletosso and the request for any enhancing of the display of light and color values, etc., is, as one my readers pointed out, not only understandable and acceptable for such purposes…but ANYONE can look at the HUNDREDS of clear, daytime UFO photos from Meier and see the various reflections of trees, sky, etc., for themselves.
One of the things I do regret is that Kevin refused to accept the invitation of the former TOP-level, US Air Force OSI investigator - a man who personally vetted presidents, government officials, those in high office, those who aspired to be, even possible spies and traitors, etc. For all that Kevin has written here, the simple reason he refused the opportunity - as well as never going to check out Meier and the evidence himself, as thousands of people have done - is because he would be unable to address, answer, or refute this man's VERY expert conclusions about the singular, ironclad, 100% authenticity of the Meier case, the evidence, the man himself.
And it must be stated that when he first approached me, he did so as a rather determined...skeptic.
Yes, people can decide for themselves and, as mentioned, will have plenty of opportunities to do so.
Kevin:
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of boring you, do you remember the days of George Adamski? I presume you do. You will recall that Adamski made several voyages into deep space with his 'visitors', in their craft. Unfortunately no-one else ever accompanied him on such trips. Adamski's excuse was that 'they' would not allow others, even his closest friends, to join him.
I do not know if Meier has made any trips to wherever his 'visitors' originate from (The Pleiadies or such) but I wonder if anyone, such as Michael Horn, has ever accompanied him or even requested to accompany him on one of these trips.
Because if Horn or anyone else was genuinely interested in an interplanetary or instellar voyage, or in meeting Meier's 'visitors', this would be a golden opportunity.
Has anyone ever joined Meier on a space voyage? If not, why not?
The interview was interesting to a point as Mr Horn answered few actual questions. Still, you were gracious enough to have him on to tell his points of view. Not many would have the patience to do so.
ReplyDeleteI'm also sad to see this interview show go off the air. I know it is time to move on as you have interviewed almost all those involved with this subject. I hope to hear a few special interviews in the future. Thank you for providing us with these interviews, Dr Randle.
Great job, Kevin. It is hard to pin down someone so delusional.
ReplyDeleteThe idiotic repeating of the dumb claim that Meier would have had to have carried a photo enlarger with him all over the subcontinent was hilarious. It's like whining that someone traveling by car would have to carry a gas station with them across the country. How does someone make such stupid claims with a straight face?
One of the most dishonest parts of Horn's shtick is how he claims that the photos, "prophecies", etc have never been refuted.
As you pointed out, they have all been refuted multiple times by experts.
One of the best is when David Biedny, an expert in Photoshop and in image compositing, took one of the silliest of the photos (and they are all quite silly) and showed clear and unmistakable evidence of clear and unmistakable hoaxing.
https://www.theparacast.com/podcast/july-11-2006-michael-horn/
Horn was out of his element (not being skilled apparently in anything technical) and just tried to use obfuscation and desperate straw man conjuration in the hopes of fooling someone.
I have never debated Horn but would be happy to take him apart any time. His type makes the world a worse place to live.
-Lance
Michael Horn -
ReplyDeleteYou had announced that we would debate without bothering to ask me in advance. I did not want to get dragged into a long involved discussion that would suck time from other things that I thought were important.
And I say, to those interested, take a look at the predictions and the photographic analysis. Be careful not to confuse the alleged dates of the predictions with the dates that can be verified. That paints a different picture.
Everyone knows that Kal Forff is not a reliable source unless the information is verified by independent third parties. If you take Korff out of the equation, you still have Ken Dinwiddie telling Tony Ortega (Phoenix New Times) of learning the same things from Dinwiddie, which is that Dilettoso and Stevens misrepresented what they were saying. It only seemed fair to mention Korff since he published the information first and Ortega followed up on it to be sure that it was accurate. I would have preferred not to mention Korff at all but the information was accurate.
We hear about all these high level experts who have concluded that Meier is telling the truth, but many of their actual conclusions aren't as persuasive as claimed. Many of them are believers in the Meier claims. Independent sources aren't not lined up, but the insistence on telling us all about their credentials is, in fact, an appeal to authority. That authority has been repeatedly and successfully challenged.
The problem is the manipulation of the photographs as described by Ortega and Dinwiddie is not the same as evaluating the photographs. We know that 230 of them, released by Meier as photographs he took, have been proven to be faked. Then we're told that they weren't taken by Meier but were planted on him.
And, as you know now, I have spoken with the top-level OSI agent. I had simply requested that we use email first, which I don't see as an unrealistic request. Horn knows that I didn't refuse, but that I did ask for an initial email... not quite the same thing as refusal.
(Cont.)
ReplyDeleteIn fact, regarding the lamentable errors by…Biedney, not surprisingly Lance is apparently unaware of a few actual facts. I don’t know if the transcript is still online but one of Biedney’s (PhotoShop savvy) listeners pointed out an error of Biedney's. Then a man I knew for 50 years (Ken), who was a filmmaker and special effects expert, worked for Disney and other companies and who’s a UFO skeptic, also corrected Biedney. Ken said that the photo in question was most likely an…IN CAMERA triple exposure. Now, since Lance has raised this point, here is the most recent analysis, using today’s state-of-the-art technology (you can reproduce the tests, with the protocols provided, in accordance with the scientific method):
http://www.theyfly.com/sites/default/files/ESinvestig3NovV2.pdf
KRandle: I'll only say a few things in this format. One is that sometimes it takes a creative tactic to get a discussion going. I appreciate the fact that we had that interaction, which I knew going in would be a game of “gotcha”. As I already addressed the prophetically accurate information, an ample amount of which is on my blog, I’ll only add this link, where 150 more corroborations can be found:
http://www.theyfly.com/corroboration-evidence
As far as the photographic analyses go, nowadays anyone can actually test one of Meier’s UFO photos themselves:
https://theyflyblog.com/2014/06/15/billy-meier-ufo-case-prove/
…which means that once they get that result from a 1981, 35mm film photo, they can go ahead and consider the implications, or just debunk…themselves for confirming Meier.
Two other recent, independent, expert photo analyses are on the Corroboration & Evidence page. We’re very big on people deciding the truth for themselves, which is why I’m a bit bemused by Kevin’s repeated attempt to debunk Diletosso’s work by some “authority” and then claiming that I’m “appealing to authority” in rebutting it!
There are still literally HUNDREDS of clear, daytime UFO photos taken by Billy Meier that show reflections of the earth, trees, sky, etc., so that one can, again, decide for themselves.
It’s also terribly disingenuous to refer to the 230 NON-UFO photos that Meier and the Plejaren clearly disavowed a dozen years ago and more…especially without mentioning that there were NO UFO photos involved and that no skeptics have been able to show that Meier ever hoaxed any photos, including the ones that were falsified.
People should understand that everyone in the Meier case is a…human being, not some imaginary god, space brother, savior, etc.
I will only add something I told Biedney and Steinberg when they were trying to pummel me about the Meier case, “There’s only one of me and I’ve got…you all surrounded.” So, let’s see if Lance (or Kevin, or anyone else) really wants to…DEBATE the actual evidence in the Meier case. We only need an impartial moderator, agreed upon rules, time, date, etc.
I am glad that we finally have the opportunity here to discuss, to disagree without being disagreeable. If this continues, we may all learn something.
P.S. I will be emailing Lance my acceptance of his offer/challenge. I will also, generously and graciously, include a good deal of information, evidence, photos, etc., so that he has a place to start, as this is clearly a very new and unknown field for him.
This is the first part, which didn't show up:
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I want to do is to accept Lance's invitation to a debate. As a matter of fact, now that he's offered/challenged, I expect that he will NOT withdraw. A debate is a VERY different thing from what Kevin and I engaged in, as he says.
For the benefit of Lance, and anyone else interested, a real debate revolves around the presentation of...facts, not opinions. Facts are established and withstand belief, opinion, etc. They are documented, verifiable, testable, etc.
Now, I'll respond to the other comments:
cda: As for accompanying Meier on a trip, no, no one has and that of course includes me. But if I had, no one here would accept it as true anyway, after all, you don’t accept it as true from Meier. Just as I'm now saying that I've been within 20' of a small Plejaren monitoring craft, in the mountains of Brazil, at 10:05, October 3, 2011. This was the 7th, and obviously closest, sighting I'd had. Of the other six, I'd say only two were most likely ET.
Blogger RedTornado2008: You may have noticed that the most crucial question was the one that Kevin...didn’t answer, pertaining to the 1964 evidence. In my opinion, if you're interviewing someone about something, you do start at the beginning. If the 1964 evidence/info is factually bogus, there's no point in going further. If it's authentic...well, stop the presses. Again...OPINIONS are quite subservient to facts, which is why an actual debate on the established facts would be great. I'd be delighted to do it with Lance, Kevin, etc.
Lance: I do hope that Lance preps a bit better, because if he can't credibly, factually substantiate the inauthenticity of the 1964 evidence, he too is done in the water. I am a bit surprised that Kevin, or anyone else, would talk about an "enlarger"...without - logically, credibly, scientifically - explaining just WHAT Meier would be enlarging, in 11964, in the middle of nowhere, in India. 80 UFO photos, about a dozen of which still exist, as described in a newspaper, etc. Again, when the best evidence you can show is a drawing of a UFO, well, maybe real, factual, credible, still existing evidence is a bit daunting.
As for Meier's prophecies, I'm afraid people are repeating things that they heard from someone else who did not research well either. Here's a for instance, I had the opportunity at a MUFON event in Las Vegas, in 2013, to run one of Meier's prophecies by a retired…judge, who was also a skeptic of the Meier case. While I’m glad to recount all the details, it boiled down to NASA’s claim that they were the first to “discover” that the surface of the planet Mercury was contracting because of its metal core. I showed the judge the text in one of the copyright, dated, books of Meier’s contact conversations, published by Wendelle Stevens, in which Meier specifically states this fact (not a theory). I asked the judge who would prevail in his courtroom, NASA or me (representing Meier). His answer was: “You would.”
We have over 200 specific examples of this kind of prophetic accuracy, some as recent as within a few weeks ago (https://theyflyblog.com/2017/11/07/dr-cornish-billy-meier-revealed-it-30-years-ago/). In fact, I have several more recently submitted to me by readers that I simply haven’t had time to post. We’re talking…verifiably copyrighted, dated, published before “official discovery”. Lance had better be doing some serious homework.
(Cont.)
P.S. Regarding the difference between an interview and a debate, for Lance’s benefit too, you may be interested in the listener’s poll, taken right after my debate with Stanton Friedman - about the authenticity of the Billy Meier UFO contacts - on the XZONE show:
ReplyDeletehttps://theyflyblog.com/2015/11/13/the-sad-cynical-legacy-of-stanton-friedman/
You may have to enlarge the page to see that the numbers resulted in a 2% vote for Friedman and 98% for me. Friedman, as I think that Kevin and many others may agree, is not only a nuclear scientist but is considered one of the top UFO experts.
Such results are one of the reasons why all the so-called "UFO experts” prefer to call me names, rather than debate me.
LOL...
ReplyDeleteI'm not not familiar with the type of debate in which one side dictates ALL of the parameters for the debate. Perhaps that is how they do it offworld?
I am willing to debate Horn but we will have to have a pre-agreed upon protocol for such an event (just like a any debate on this planet normally is handled).
As we heard on Kevin's show, Horn flails about in 20 different directions performing what is called the Gish-gallop (named for a particularly dishonest creationist). Debate protocols would need to eliminate that and focus the topic on a more well-defined and narrow proposition.
I am open to ideas for that topic.
Let's take it slow and see what happens.
Please don't send me any more material Michael, unless it is something I specifically request.
Thanks,
Lance
@Lance
ReplyDeleteEven though Horn occasionally spouts sciency-stuff, he never understands the basics, which even a high-school student gets so easily. To have any debate, there should be some common ground or a commonly agreed set of scientific principles/concepts at the least, which Horn woefully lacks.
Any debate with him will end like this:
He will ask you to PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT that Meier hoaxed his beamship photos, plagiarized and backdated his prophecies/predictions,...etc. Since this needs a secret video footage of Meier doing all the hoaxing with UFO models and fabrication of contact notes, and himself admitting to it, it is impossible for any of us to satisy Horn's ridiculous unscientific criteria. I Wonder even if the above footage surfaces, Horn can in theory claim that MIB or CIA or some evil Aliens have threatened Meier, his family and friends to furnish a false testimony. Since you can never satisfy his "criteria", he will simply say that you didn't disprove any of Meier's claims and that you don't know "how to think" correctly (which only the Meier's disciples are capable of). He will even accuse the judge of your debate as not knowing "how to think" and "how to process logic and evidence". So in the end, my advice for you is to get prepared for mud slinging, name calling..not to mention all the fallacies in the book.
Having said that, I have countless times debunked hundreds of Horn's claims of Meier's so-called corroborated prophecies and predictions and even challenged him to prove otherwise. Irrespective of this, he evades responding to my research and runs around like a weasel asking me to meet his above criteria of proving beyond a shadow of doubt which is unrealistic. No matter how many times we debunk Meier's evidence, he will still bring the same again and again and again....
Now to debunking some of Horn's claims.
MH: "Now, since Lance has raised this point, here is the most recent analysis, using today’s state-of-the-art technology (you can reproduce the tests, with the protocols provided, in accordance with the scientific method):
http://www.theyfly.com/sites/default/files/ESinvestig3NovV2.pdf"
Debunked.
Part 1: http://www.billymeieruforesearch.com/photos-and-videos/energy-ship-ufo-photos-part-1/
Part 2: http://www.billymeieruforesearch.com/photos-and-videos/energy-ship-ufo-photos-part-23/
Part 3: http://www.billymeieruforesearch.com/photos-and-videos/energy-ship-ufo-photos-part-33/
MH: "As I already addressed the prophetically accurate information, an ample amount of which is on my blog, I’ll only add this link, where 150 more corroborations can be found:
http://www.theyfly.com/corroboration-evidence"
Debunked all of them.
http://www.billymeieruforesearch.com/prophecies-predictions-probability-calculations/#Analysis
MH: "As for Meier's prophecies, I'm afraid people are repeating things that they heard from someone else who did not research well either. Here's a for instance, I had the opportunity at a MUFON event in Las Vegas, in 2013, to run one of Meier's prophecies by a retired…judge, who was also a skeptic of the Meier case. While I’m glad to recount all the details, it boiled down to NASA’s claim that they were the first to “discover” that the surface of the planet Mercury was contracting because of its metal core. I showed the judge the text in one of the copyright, dated, books of Meier’s contact conversations, published by Wendelle Stevens, in which Meier specifically states this fact (not a theory). I asked the judge who would prevail in his courtroom, NASA or me (representing Meier). His answer was: “You would.”"
Debunked.
http://www.billymeieruforesearch.com/prophecies-predictions-probability-calculations/analysis-of-contact-reports-1-100/#Planet_Mercury_is_Shrinking
KMC:
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, can anyone PROVE, BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT, that Santa Claus does not exist? If not, then there is always a chance, however small, that Santa Claus does exist. Michael Horn can, and does, use the same logic in support of Meier.
Let's reverse things and say to Horn: "YOU PROVE, to the satisfaction of the scientific establishment, that Meier's photos are of genuine ET craft and that he did indeed make the interstellar journeys he claims".
This is considerably less than what Horn demands. He wants 100% disproof. We only want proof to the satisfaction of the scientific community.
[Marvellous to see an ardent ETHer (Stan Friedman) violently oppose Horn on the Meier affair!].
I am always glad to hear from Mahesh, aka The Gift Who Keeps on Giving.
ReplyDeleteYou’ve got to hand it to a guy in India who lives with his parents and doesn’t understand the basics of actual research, the evidence, or even the assessment of real experts. Since Kevin says he’s in touch with the OSI investigator, perhaps he’ll ask - and relate - his assessment of Mahesh, derived from the conversation they had. And as far as my understanding scientific protocol, let Mahesh take it up with Robert Joyner.
To show how, well, stupid, Mahesh is, he not only presents zero evidence that Meier hoaxed ANYTHING, he has NEVER even tried to claim that photos such as these were hoaxed, let alone try to duplicate them:
https://shop.figu.org/sites/default/files/leseproben/photoinventarium_lesemuster.pdf
Having once mentioned our fiend the OSI investigator - who says the 1964 evidence is 100% ironclad, authentic - he also points out that the films that Meier took as an equally higher standard of proof. He says that the skeptical attacks claiming that Meier used “models”, etc. - long retracted even by failed skeptic Derek Bartholomaus (http://www.theyfly.com/Top_Skeptic_Fixed.htm) yes, the same skeptic caught lying (http://theyfly.com/Skeptics_Caught.htm) - are completely bogus.
The fact that Stanley Kubrick’s director of special effects, Wally Gentleman (http://theyfly.com/Scientific_Experts.html), authenticated Meier’s film, before the Academy Award-winning experts from Uncharted Territory (http://www.theyfly.com/ufo-circling-tree-footage) and long before the most recent, independent expert analysis of the film (http://www.rhalzahi.com/docs/pendulum-EN.pdf) means nothing to someone whose goal ISN’T to find the truth but rather to try in vain tear down a man of infinitely great truthfulness, knowledge and integrity, etc., etc., than himself.
As for Mercury, poor Mahesh still tries to conflate “theories” with specific, unambiguous facts. But in case there really is any doubt in anyone’s mind about Meier’s prophetic accuracy - well, it’s got to be him, right, because otherwise it’s extraterrestrials - please grasp the significance of the clear, unambiguously specific, correct and preemptively published, historically significant, scientific information that Meier VERIFIABLY (copyrighted proof) published up to 30 years and more before our scientists made their “new discoveries”:
https://theyflyblog.com/2017/11/07/dr-cornish-billy-meier-revealed-it-30-years-ago/
Please note that it’s likely that Meier published his information before some of the scientists were even born…and possibly Mahesh too.
And please also grasp the not only the clarity of Meier’s saying "gravitational force is incorporated into the same speed limit as light” but that this is now considered such a major scientific discovery. Mahesh has apparently stopped short of explaining that Meier must have done it with models, miniature trees and peanut butter and then "plagiarized and backdated” it - despite the English translation being online for 10 years.
So, while Mahesh attacks Meier’s specific, prophetically accurate scientific information, he makes his own groundless predictions about how a debate with me - such as the one he strenuously avoided because he couldn’t completely control the questions, etc. - would end.
Perhaps his efforts, when he’s allowed out of the house, would better be directed to finding that elusive…enlarger, lurking somewhere in India.
How odd that cda wants "the satisfaction of the scientific establishment”, the…unnamed scientific establishment.
ReplyDeleteNot only doesn’t he trust himself to go through the evidence and decide the truth for himself, he ignores all the scientists who’ve already given enough independent, expert analyses and conclusions that…he himself could refer to, copper, analyze, etc.
But again, people who are not competent in either logical thinking, or self-responsibility, seek outside authorizes…truth be told though, mainly ones who will disagree with the evidence and conclusions supporting it in matters just outside the comfort of mainstream science.
I suggest that, since you revere these unarmed scientific parties, take your OWN suggestion and…reverse things, i.e. notice that Meier scooped our scientists by up to over 30 years :
https://theyflyblog.com/2017/11/07/dr-cornish-billy-meier-revealed-it-30-years-ago/
…and that it indeed is the fact that Meier’s information meets "the satisfaction of the scientific establishment”.
Now, it’s up to…you, to demonstrate that you understand the way things in life really work, not just the confused, ignorant junk imaginings that pass for “thinking” on the internet.
P.S. What's so "marvelous" about an "unschooled" scientist kicking the stuffing out a nuclear physicist in a debate?
ReplyDeleteKarumudi Mahesh Chowdary,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your post.
I see that Horn simply repeats the same claims, ignoring previous careful (and devastating) dismantling of those claims. Equally bad, he misquotes folks over and over again.
Such a dishonest approach.
But so easy to destroy in a properly moderated debate.
Lance
All -
ReplyDeleteWe have reached the point of pointlessness. Same arguments and ridiculous claims. If Billy Meier had no access to an enlarger, then who printed the pictures in the first place? He was in contact with someone somewhere who had an enlarger. He must have had them developed by someone, so we can just ignore this nonsense about carrying an enlarger in his backpack because the pictures prove that he had access at some point...
But let's just forget all that and let's not continue with the same arguments over and over again. It is tiresome.
Well, just sharpen up all the tools in your shed and get ready to mumble.
ReplyDeleteYou can practice on this: https://www.theothersideofmidnight.com/11192017-michael-horn/
And please take the discussion of the debate to another venue...
ReplyDeleteKevin et al,
ReplyDeleteI think you know how photo developing works, most probably even in India, 1964. Heck, our resident genius, Mahesh, lives there, get him to do some...real research and find an enlarger! Well, he could start by locating camera stores where they develop film.
Am I missing something, or are you effectively saying that everyone who every brought film to a camera store for developing, etc., in pre-digital days, actually themselves had access to an enlarger? Again, just...WHAT were the objects in the photos being developed? How and where did he obtain PHOTOGRAPHS of UFOs? Not guesses, theories, etc., just the facts.
I really and truly think that the fact that we've got a dialogue going on here is a fantastic step in the right direction. But...things have to make sense, right? If Kevin, and/or anyone else here is operating with scientific objectivity and neutrality, all that's necessary is to answer the question.
We're not dealing with anecdotal tales, drawings, etc. We're talking about still existing...photographs.
Please guys, logic, reason, objectivity.
Sorry, no. It doesn't work that way. The way to investigate this is have an independent, disinterested third party review the original negative. That would certainly go a long way to establishing the authenticity of the picture. What's that? The original negative is not irretrievably lost? What a surprise. End of discussion.
ReplyDeleteP.S. The shameful thing - and you may not want your contributors to see this though it’s the stone cold truth - is that you’re accusing a man of dishonesty, of lying, of fraud…and you have zero evidence of it. You can’t even answer just what it was that he photographed in India, what was in 80 photographs, taken in the middle of nowhere.
ReplyDeleteSo, while you continue to push that rather despicable narrative, what’s on display here is your own lack of honesty and integrity as you bear FALSE WITNESS against a man, for whom hundreds of true and honest witnesses have spoken. You do this without EVER taking the opportunity to do what so many (who aren’t any kind of “UFO researcher”) have done: GO and investigate this..STILL ONGOING case yourself.
Obviously, not only do you NOT LIKE the facts, they must be so profoundly upsetting to whatever belief system you subscribe to that you will BEAR FALSE WITNESS against this man. I think there’s a commandment about that but of course, if you DON’T LIKE someone, it goes out the window.
So, we must ask, who indeed is the honest man, who indeed is telling the truth and who is most likely consumed with anger, jealousy and envy SO much that he BEARS FALSE WITNESS against him?
Horn said:
ReplyDelete"Am I missing something, or are you effectively saying that everyone who every brought film to a camera store for developing, etc., in pre-digital days, actually themselves had access to an enlarger?"
This is an absurd question. Using transparent straw men is such a pedestrian way to argue but I'll try to answer on the off-chance that you are somehow impaired:
No, but many many folks were amateur photographers and had their own darkrooms. There were also photography clubs. For instance, the Photography Society of India started in 1937 and is only one of the clubs in India.
As a kid in the 1970's I had access to an enlarger at the high school and knew two or three friends who had home darkrooms. I made photos exactly like some of the early ones attributed to Meier (e.g.the cross one). They only require the most crude and easy of darkroom technique (some appear to show other techniques, slightly less crude).
It doesn't beggar my own imagination to suggest that Meier could have found a friend or acquaintance shutter-bug who lent him his darkroom. Is there any way anyone honestly couldn't understand this?
Horn said, "How and where did he obtain PHOTOGRAPHS of UFOs?"
The proposition that Kevin and I (and most anyone else) are making is that these are NOT photos of UFO's. They suggest they are just snapshots of places with a bit of sky showing that have later been crudely printed to appear to have a cross (or what have you) in the sky.
Is it seriously possible that anyone couldn't understand this?
Of course, this hoax proposition could be easily falsified by providing the original negative.
The burden is on the one making the claim. These photos are indistinguishable from crude fakes. Therefore, without additional support, they are worthless as evidence for anything other than Meier's poor skills at photography.
I guess that mostly takes care of the early evidence. Next!
Lance
Here is an example of a photogram composite made using the process I suspect for some of the Meier photos. As far as I am aware, no bargain basement religion has sprung up around this image.
ReplyDeleteYet.
https://byetiinakirik.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/3-tiinakirik_cagedbird.jpg
Mr. Horn:
ReplyDeleteI have had a very strong interest in UFOs for over 50 years. I am convinced there is intelligent life outside our planet and that they have visited here on several occasions.
Ordinarily, when I hear claims similar to Mr. Meier's, I greatly hope they can be substantially proven because, like Fox Mulder of the X-Files, "I Want To Believe" and want everyone else to believe also (especially skeptics like our fine fellow-blogger Mr. Lance)
I have not yet finished thoroughly researching Mr. Meier's claims. But after listening to you and more importantly, reading your postings on this blog, I no longer care about Mr. Meier's claims solely because of YOUR repulsive character.
Your severe unprofessionalism, name-calling and just plain lack of intelligence leads me to inexorably conclude that Mr. Meier MUST be a total fraud to allow you to be his "authorized" representative all these years.
I'm sorry, Kevin, for my tone and I doubt you will post this but I had to get this off my chest.
Michael Horn writes:
ReplyDelete"Please guys, logic, reason, objectivity."
Now compare this with what he had to say about Karumudi Mahesh Chowdary a bit earlier:
"You’ve got to hand it to a guy in India who lives with his parents and doesn’t understand the basics of actual research, the evidence or even the assessment of real experts".
As if either living in India or living with one's parents has ANY relevance to the matter under debate. In fact it is almost a personal attack on a young man and his position in life. Michael Horn, presumably, lives in the USA and not with his parents.
As it happens I live in the UK, and not with my long deceased parents. SO WHAT?
But it is "logic, reason and objectivity" that we want, isn't it Mr Horn?
Yes Kevin, things have strayed a bit!
All -
ReplyDeleteThis comment was somehow missed and not posted. Although I don't care for the tone, in fairness, I believe it should have been posted. It appears unaltered.
Michael Horn has left a new comment on your post "X-Zone Broadcast Network - Michael Horn":
The "original negative" from 1964, right. Of course you and everyone else have all of their original negatives from decades ago.
More importantly, we DON"T have the "original negatives" from lots of historic photos, so they're all fake...right? Further, we don't have...ANY photos, let alone negatives, from 99% of history!!! It never happened, right?
I'm sorry to have to correct you, so email Mr. OSI about this, talk to cops, lawyers, etc., because the way it...REALLY works is that evidence is gathered, examined and weighed. All factors are taken into consideration. In this case we have:
Still existing, original photos
The report in a reputable paper, from a respected reporter
Two of the original eyewitnesses, one a woman trusted to represent her...COUNTRY at the UN
And yes, I've also been a witness in court, spent two years researching the matter at hand, etc.
You can't actually show a precedent where such evidence as above is DISREGARDED...because that would be beyond unprofessional and, well, it doesn't happen.
If you'd given 100th the scrutiny to things like Roswell and the other so-called - and completely EVIDENCE-LESS "UFO cases", then your clear bias against finding what you CLAIM to be looking for wouldn't be such a glaring issue. Hey, where's the negative for the...DRAWING of the UFO that you actually feature?
I guess when ANY of the "UFO experts" are deemed credible enough to present their "evidence" in universities - as I have internationally - and when they get credible, independent expert after expert to support the evidence they present - and their presentation of it - we'll be discussing things on the same level. Right now, all I'm hearing are unsubstantiated theories.
What we have here, and in the Meier case as a whole, is a preponderance of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt...as the attorney said.
The real issue simply is that you (the majority of people here)...DON'T LIKE that the very thing you claim to be looking for is staring you right in the face. There it is, you DON'T like it, you've found (made up) reasons to dislike Meier, a man you've never met, who's asked nothing of you and done NOTHING to you...except have the audacity to FREELY give you what you claim you're looking for and, in the process, show the UFO community with all its trimmings to be a terrible sham and disservice to humankind.
But...there's always Roswell and every other dead-end, run-in-circles, unprovable bit of nothing more than...entertainment. BTW, where're are those photos of the Roswell crash, etc.? Right.
In response to the comment, "As if either living in India or living with one's parents has ANY relevance to the matter under debate.” It has EVERYTHING to do with the matter under discussion!
ReplyDeleteMahesh is one of the most vocal opponents of the Meier case and he lives in...India. The desperate denial of people who carry on about Meier having access to an “enlarger” - in India - is a situation that Mahesh, of all people, IS in the position to investigate. After all, he carries on from there about all these matters and this one pertains to his own country. Get it…NOW? In other words, you are all effectively accusing HIM of dishonesty, when you should be looking in the mirror.
As for Mr. Snowflake, aka Louis, his precious sensibilities were…offended. Hmmmm, Meier's been the target of numerous…ASSASSINATION attempts, kidnapping attempts on his children and I’ve been the target of years of attacks for and about the Meier case. 90%+ plus of my unloading on the collection of nasty and foolish people, who can’t think their way out of a paper bag open at both ends, are in…response to such.
If ANY of you here were even remotely self-honest, logical, objective and competent none of the ridiculous, unprofessional, absurd, inadmissible comments about the ironclad 1964 evidence would’ve been made. NONE of them.
Instead, if you truly were HONEST people, you’d at least say…I DON'T KNOW.
I was setting in motion the debate with Lance but he couldn’t provide anything that a VERY credible moderator thought warranted hosting it. Among the things he couldn’t provide was a substantiated argument against the 1964 evidence, of course. And of course Kevin knows very well that the US Air Force OSI investigator basically stakes HIS reputation on the 100% ironclad authenticity of the Meier case, starting with the 1964 evidence AND the independently authenticated films.
Yes, I hope Kevin continues to post those things that he’s uncomfortable with so long as they are honest, like this.
Conclusion: You DON’T LIKE that Meier is and has exactly what you‘ve been claiming to want to find. You are so dishonest with yourselves that you offer embarrassingly inaccurate, amateurish, concocted “reasons” (excuses). Attack the truth all you want…it doesn’t change the truth.
CDA makes a good point about the despicable and bigoted comments Horn made about Mahesh. That Horn adds bigotry to his oeuvre isn't the least bit surprising.
ReplyDeleteHorn isn't playing the same game that folks like Mahesh, Derek and Phil Langdon are. He isn't interested in honest discourse.
It seems that Horn is simply trolling in search of the very few folks stupid enough to buy his silly religion. He has no interest in any honest discussion and simply repeats the same false claims over and over again despite clear and reasonable objections for his "evidence". He just wants to appear in as many places as possible, chumming for easy marks.
I wanted to mention that one of the most startling examples of careful inquiry into Horn's claims was the surprise discovery by the amazing Phil Langdon that the unusual sounds Meier recorded were not from a synthesizer or movie soundtrack (as I might have surmised) but a natural byproduct of mounting small hollow models on fishing line suspended between two trees.
This startling coalescence of evidence against Meier must surely rank as one of the best examples of the benefits of careful research in the history of UFOs. It is truly amazing (and devastating to the Meier nonsense).
http://www.billymeierufocase.com/index-1.html
Oh, by the way, Horn has already chickened out of any debate. Anyone surprised?
Lance
The previous comments by Lance are deserving of even less space than I’ll give them.
ReplyDeleteThere’s nothing “despicable” about suggesting that a person in India might be in a better position to find something - in India - than someone in the US. Kinda like saying that people in, and who’ve gone to, Switzerland to research the Meier case may be in a better position than all the armchair experts over here.
Lance’s complete lack of competence, though already established, is further highlighted by his, of course, incorrect comments about the sounds and the attempts to duplicate them. Some years ago, someone actually took the recordings of Meier’s sounds and those from Langdon and…scoped them. Wanna guess the results? They corresponded with what’s in the Stevens reports and what four separate, professional sound studios concluded. They were (and probably still are) irreproducible. Lance should stick to seeing UFOs in clouds…or perhaps go fishing with Langdon.
The real problem here is that Kevin is firmly behind a rather outrageously dishonest, nasty and despicable vendetta against Meier. As I’ve said, he is DELIBERATELY bearing false witness against him. Calling a man a hoaxer means you’re also calling him a liar, deceiver, etc., etc. Kevin and the rest of the defamers here simply throw up (an appropriate term) their completely IRRATIONAL hatred for a man who’s asked nothing of them, done nothing to them except freely give them the best evidence they will EVER have of what they claim to looking for. For unknown reasons they just...DON'T LIKE it. Words like envy, jealousy, fear, etc., do come to mind.
I wonder how many of these defamers are religious…when it suits them. Whether religious or not, to bear FALSE witness against your fellow man is quite a…violation of decency and ethics. The lack of self-honesty and integrity in defiantly continuing to do, and support, such vile, dishonest behavior is what should concern you most. Not UFOs and extraterrestrials, about which not a one of you here has ANY real knowledge. As you continue to demonstrate with every nasty word you express.
Lance, CDA, Michael Horn and others...
ReplyDeleteFor the 427th time - this is not a debate, it is an investigation...
Logic, reasoning and objectivity are an important part of investigative work.
Nitram Ang is correct. It would behoove those who want to investigate the case and its contents to ask questions, as well as to submit...credible, substantiated information/evidence to the contrary.
ReplyDeleteThis also means that it isn't sufficient to present theories, suspicions, etc., such as has been the case in claiming that Meier used an "enlarger", which itself is unsubstantiated and, even more importantly, avoids dealing with the underlying issue of the objects (UFOs) in the factual, still existing photographs.
Also, there is actually a...427th Contact, a partial excerpt of which is here: http://futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_427.
You know, I thought it was quite clear that I was calling Meier a liar when I said that his claims of contact were a hoax. Didn't know that I would have to spell it out.
ReplyDeleteAnd, I'm still not clear why a newspaper article is considered "iron clad" proof when it is a newspaper article in which the reporter wrote what he had been told by the subject without any real investigation.
There is no hatred of Meier, just a sadness that so many seem to accept what he says despite the evidence that much of it is false.
I will say here and now that I don't plan to publish any more attacks on people that can't be verified. To suggest I have a vendetta against Meier is false. All, tone down the rhetoric because at this point I feel no obligation to print these attacks.
Nitram -
Actually, in this case it is a debate because it is clear that much of what has been said in defense of Meier is not true.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteLogic, reasoning and objectivity are NOT ALWAYS an important part of debating as you know...
My comment was more directed at the debunkers who heavily overuse the word "debate".
Michael Horn
I am going to take this slightly of course - and ask for a bit of patience from the blog moderator in this respect...
I don't know a lot about the Billy Meier case and I am not saying anything about what I may or may not believe happened... but let's just suppose that you are correct about BM and most other people are wrong...
Can you give another example of an "extraterrestrial visitation"? Your earlier comments seem to indicate that you don't believe in Roswell, so do you "support" any other supposedly ET events and if the answer is yes, then which ones?
If the answer is no - do you think the only example of ET in our history is the Billy Meier case?
Best wishes
Nitram
This is not an attack, but it does need clarification.
ReplyDeleteMichael Horn does say, with some emphasis, that Meier has been the target of numerous assassination attempts and that his children have been targeted for kidnapping. I am curious as to why anyone would want to 'assassinate' Meier (who is hardly a celebrity or a prominent politician) or kidnap his children.
Are either of these claims true, and if so, did Meier inform the Swiss police or other authorities of it? Was anyone ever prosecuted for these actions, real or attempted, or was it entirely imaginary?
Perhaps Horn means 'character assassination' which is a very different matter.
Answer please, Mr Horn.
(Answer cont.)
ReplyDeleteYes, the assassination attempts claims are true. You asked for the reason, which I'll give before giving further details. Obviously, if what Meier is saying (in 26,000 pages of information) and presenting as evidence as over 1,200 still irreproducible UFO photos, films, video, metal samples, sound recordings, etc., prophecies - of which so far over 200 specific examples of prophetically accurate scientific and world event information exist with no errors detected so far - then a world in which even so-called "UFO experts" can't handle the truth, just might contain some very angry people who want to eliminate the source of this content. Failing these attempts, it's mainly character assassination, such as what Kevin demonstrates for us, that continues.
However, I have interviewed eyewitnesses to 14 attempts on his life, including of course Wendelle Stevens, who was sitting with Meier when one occurred. There's even a photo showing where the bullet just missed his head. The last attempt I am aware of was just two years ago, when Meier and Daniel Lutz stepped out of the computer room at night and a rifle bullet missed their heads and hit a tree.
Years ago, Meier himself shot...the hat off one of the assailants, we show it in this film (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoZO6CAXxsI&t=01s) along with an agenda book and metal that stopped the bullet (also shown) from another attempt. Real life is very different than what the online armchair "experts" would like us to believe.
And now for Kevin's substantiated evidence...
All of the criticisms Randle has levied, or has repeated from the UFO groups, are not central to the core of the evidence in this case. Meaning that the bulk of the material whether that be the pictures, videos, sound recordings, metal samples, secondary eyewitnesses, expert witnesses, scientists, special effects experts, photo analysis experts and proven prophecies & predictions, several hundred of which have actually come to fruition, all he can really do is point to minuscule amounts of problems he has with things that don't detract from the actual bulk of the case.
ReplyDeleteTo add even more validity to this case, there are people in Switzerland who also have seen these craft (100+) who don't know Meier personally. The sound recordings that were analyzed by the original investigative team are on an oscillating frequency that still can't be reproduced, the videos of The Craft that Meier took still have no explanation and no way to actually reproduce them, the metal samples what Randle claims had disappeared, Meier still has in his possession have been thoroughly analyzed by scientists and an actual metallurgist who say that the material in the samples could not have been made with current technology, much less technology from the 1970s. The majority of the scientific, environmental and historical prophecies and predictions that Meier has made have actually fulfilled themselves.
Anyone who didn't actually know this case but was shown the evidence & analysis of that evidence would come to the same a logical conclusion; it's real. Which is the conclusion that I reache even before knowing who Michael Horn. Now, whether or not Kevin believes this case is fake or not is his right. However as an actual investigator you don't get to play the "I believe or not believe" card you come to a conclusion based on evidence logic and reason.
If Kevin actually looked at the evidence from an objective point of view, as an investigator should, it's clear this case is genuine. What he lacks in his claims is not only evidence but also a logical progression of how the hoax was perpetrated through means motive and opportunity.
All of Kevin's criticisms of the Meier case don't detract from the bulk of the evidence, which has been thoroughly and analyzed by seasoned and professional investigators in the 1970s.
ReplyDeleteAll Randle can say is that he has problems with a date on one of the prophetic prophecies/predictions, claimed that the photos Meier already said we're not his, or the other photos that Meier says were not his he claims were hoaxed and that is grounds to deem this case a hoax.
The reality of the Meier case is through thousands of photos, half-dozen videos metal samples sound recordings secondary eyewitnesses scientists verifying the prophetic information that has been fulfilled along with photos and videos that have yet to be reproduced by anyone even coming close to what Meier photographed or videotaped.
The fact is people like Kevin have everything to lose if this case is accepted as genuine. One of Myers photos is featured in the Show called the x-files, I want to believe poster. Kevin, like many UFO investigators is stuck in an age of belief where actual evidence and verifiable proof have no meaning. The UFO Community wants peopleto chase their tails as opposed to actually find something genuine. Because the second they do, the reason for their existence becomes irrelevant.
I actually listened to the whole interview that Kevin Randle had with Michael Horn but as soon as Randle Stern talking about the Dean Martin variety show and the pterodactyl photos I knew he didn't do his own research. Because if you're stuck in an age of belief and you already have the predisposed thought that something is not true, you're not going to spend the time to actually do your research.
The fact is Kevin, like many other UFO investigators, have never actually done the research and any investigating on this case, they've done cursory " research" of this case.
All those reading this comment right now can choose to believe whatever you want. However I choose to base my decisions in life on evidence, research, logic and reason. I hope one day,when Randle isn't involved in the UFO Community, he actually does the right thing and finds out about this case on his own.
William -
ReplyDeleteHow many faked photographs does it take to prove the case? How many predictions must be shown to have been in error, or plagiarized does it take to prove the case? How many recantations from the witnesses to prove the case? At what level of independent evidence do you take an objective look at the case? How many alleged investigators who have endorsed Meier and have been discredited does it take before you look more closely at the evidence?
On this blog, I have provided many instances where the information was manipulated by the Meier supporters, where the predictions were not unique to Meier, and that the photographs that were originally claimed as having been taken by Meier were shown to be hoaxes.
I have talked to supporters, detractors, and others about the case. I have read the witness testimony (my favorite is the witness who claimed that Meier was typing much faster than a one-armed man could but didn't actually see Meier typing). So, at what point to you begin to see the light?
Just wondering.
Kevin -
ReplyDeleteWhat faked photographs do you speak? The ones that Meier said ge never took, or the ones from the book and television program that he said he never took? So you're saying of the 1200 photos that Meier took and released that 230 are actually faked? By whom?
The photographs that are real can be easily proven to be genuine if you put them into a photo editing software program that can detect an energy field coming from Within These craft. Fake photos don't produce that kind of effect. When you say faked it implies that Meier himself faked photographs but you have no evidence to actually prove that. A few people have actually tried to recreate Meier's photos and failed...miserably.
How many actual predictions have you been able to prove that are plagiarized and or in error? The only one in error that I heard you mention was the one when he was a child that the copyright date couldn't be proven. As far as I understand it all of the others have a verifiable copyright date. People having the same thought around the same time doesn't constitute plagiarism. To prove plagiarism occurred you have to not only have a copyright date that is after the copy material but also ensure that the person doing the plagiarizing has copied the other person or original publisher exactly. I have yet to see any evidence of that with Meier.
What we can recantations do you speak of? The one from his ex-wife? Do you suppose maybe she has an axe to grind and her recantation maybe suspect? Of the 100 or more eyewitnesses and 14 professional photographers, how many actually recanted that you can prove?...
...The level of independent evidence I take seriously are ones from seasoned professional investigators who look at the case objectively. As in the ones that originally investigated the case in the 1970s. I take Marcel Vogel very seriously when he says the metal samples could not have been formed with technology we have on Earth and finds the presence of Rare Minerals that can't be found on Earth. Meier couldn't have made on this metal sample even if he wanted to.
ReplyDeleteI take very seriously when people at industrial Light & Magic say Meier would have had to have purchased hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment to make these photographs from Models in the 1970s.To which Meier never had that kind of money and still doesn't. In fact there are many photos that Meier took and which there are multiple craft present. Do you really believe that he faked those? If so, how? There are also photos in which the craft reflect the ground and have easily observable definition and size. Do you believe Meier faked those photos as well?
Aside from your claim that Jim Delitoso allegedly said he had a PhD when apparently he didn't and Wendell Stevens mistakes with women, how does that actually detract from their work and analysis on the Meier case? You claiming these investigators have been discredited is nonsense.
The professional and objective analysis they've conducted shouldn't be in question. What you're engaging in is called character assassination which Shady lawyers do in courts of law but in reality, there have been so many investigations and analyses of all this evidence that these things you mentioned, which are secondary to the actual analysis itself, doesn't actually matter.
What you're engaging in is yet another distraction from what actually is important to this case because you can't comment on the actual evidence itself as you have no proof that any of it was faked. The photos you claim are faked I've already been dismissed by Meier as one's he never took. You claiming those photos as faked is not logical.
Yes Kevin, I'm sure you have many instances where you believe you've proven the Meier case to be a hoax. However, unlike you I am a logical, reasonable and objective person. I have not studied your blog nor was I even aware of it all. In the interest of fair play, I will take the time or this holiday to actually look through it. However, you haven't presented any evidence in our email or in this blog thread that I've seen that...
...I've seen that proves your claims to be accurate.
ReplyDeleteI have a logical and reasonable proposition for you; because I'm willing to actually look at your blog and humor you, I only ask that you do the same for the bulk of the evidence in Meier case. I know you claim to know this case and have spoken to "supporter and detractors" ( I'll have to assume mostly detractors), what I think yoy fail to see is the breadth of the evidence in this case and what it actually entails.
You can criticize the investigators, you can criticize Meier for having photographs that he says aren't his, you can criticize him for having a photograph of the Dean Martin variety show or of a pterodactyl from a book ( he says he never had) and that he says he never took either, you can criticize Meier for having plagiarized predictions and prophecies but what you're not actually criticizing is the bulk of the evidence.
Even with what you claim to be eyewitnesses who have retracted their stories of which I believe there aren't very many of those, how can you claim this case is a hoax when there are over 100 actual eyewitnesses, and 14 professional photographers who haven't recanted?
How can you claim a hoax when there are over a thousand pictures that have yet to be reproduced or proven to be a hoax? How can you claim a hoax when there are half a dozen videos which have yet to be explained or reproduced or proven to be a hoax? How can you claim a hoax when there are sound recordings that have been analyzed to be an oscillating frequency that have yet even to this day to be reproduced but the technology we currently have?
How can you prove a hoax when an actual scientists have analyzed metal samples Meier provided and have said we could not have created this year with materials we have and also the minerals that aren't available on this planet? How can you prove a hoax when Meier has hundreds of prophecies and predictions that have been fulfilled and are entirely accurate with verifiable copyright dates? How can you prove a hoax from an Indian newspaper in 1964 that has 80 photographs that Meier took, which again have yet to be proven a hoax or reproduced?
How can you prove a hoax and it's been proven that Meier has been shot at over 2 dozen times, one time was actually caught by the investigators in the 70s? How can you say Meiers a hoax when people are trying to kill him? To me that adds the most of validity to his case. If you were truly a hoax no one we trying to silence him. Just as no one is trying to silence anyone in the UFO community.
The fact is Kevin you along with your ilk stand to lose everything if this case is accepted as genuine. If this case is what I know it to be, and you'll notice that I said "know" instead of believe because I can prove what I know but you can't prove what you believe, that's why you all "want to believe",then the reason for your existence becomes meaningless. The fact that you're still chasing Roswell is a clear indication that there's nothing new Under the Sun for the UFO community and then either knowingly or unknowingly you are being led astray.
And lastly how can you prove a hoax when you have no ability to determine means motive opportunity?
So when will you see the light?...
Just wondering ;-)
It would be true to say that UFO skeptics take the same attitude to Kevin Randle's high endorsement of the Roswell case (although he has apparently cooled off a bit now) as Kevin and other UFO believers take to the Meier case. Stan Friedman, a VERY devout ETHer, cares not a jot about Meier's interstellar travels or his UFO photos.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Ter Burgh and Michael Horn would do us a great service by giving the names of some of these "expert witnesses, scientists, special effects experts, photo analysis experts" and so on. Then we might be able to make some progress (assuming anyone still wants to). Also, if "several hundred" of Meier's prophesies really have "come to fruition", can WTB please name, say, twenty of them and, more importantly, whether they are specific ones or just very generalised ones.
An example is that I read once that Meier had predicted the existence of particles that travel faster than light. Then tachyons were discovered. Aha! The trouble is that in fact tachyons were known BEFORE Meier predicted them. Then the question arose of how a simple Swiss rural dweller could have known such a thing.
But isn't the whole Meier affair a grand example of how ufology is divided up into various grades of believers, partial believers, skeptics, partial skeptics and middle-of-the-roaders? How many Adamski believers also follow Meier, I wonder? How many abduction believers follow Meier?
Someone should write a PhD thesis on this. Perhaps someone has!
Hi Nitram,
ReplyDeleteRegarding your questions, here’s some info on Roswell..and other extraterrestrials on earth, etc.:
http://www.theyfly.com/Israeli_Intrigues.html (starts at no. 74.)
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_257
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/FIGU_Bulletin_059
There’s (a lot) more but since Kevin is apparently now censoring comments of mine in which I’m pointing out his…errors, let’s see you receive this.
If I have told you oncet, I have told you thrice, that only hostile and nasty comments will not see the light of day on this blog... and I will not have it turned into a propaganda tool for Meier... Censorship has nothing to do with it. It is all about editorial content.
ReplyDeletePerhaps someone could mention the type of film Meier used in the reference:
ReplyDeletehttp: //www. theyfly. com/sites/default/files/ESinvestig3NovV2.pdf
I was unable to find it in the pdf.
. .. . .. --- ....
William -
ReplyDeleteMeier had claimed he took the photograph of the dinosaur. Wendelle Stevens, who lectured in support of Meier used that photograph, which he attributed to Meier. Only after the original source was found did Meier begin to deny he had taken it. Only later was it attributed to the Men in Black. There are an additional 229 photographs that were originally attributed to Meier that have been shown to be faked.
cda,
ReplyDeleteSome of the experts…as REQUESTED, as well as info on camera, film, prophecies, etc.:
http://theyfly.com/Scientific_Experts.html
http://theyfly.com/PDF/Documentation%20from%20IBM%20on.pdf
http://theyfly.com/PDF/PhotoAnalysis.pdf
http://theyfly.com/PDF/UFOSoundRecordings.pdf
http://www.rhalzahi.com/docs/WCUFO-EN-v2.pdf
http://www.rhalzahi.com/docs/pendulum-EN.pdf
http://www.theyfly.com/sites/default/files/ESinvestig3NovV2.pdf
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/05/prweb11867883.htm
"But, to reflect on the statement that's in the film, I also remember seeing a shot on the Super8 reel that showed a UFO circling around a fairly tall tree. According to that shot, we said that we can't conclusively say whether it's real or not, but it seemed impossible to stage that kind of a shot with a miniature (it would have to be hanging on a very tall crane, with wires - but even then the movements would be hard to achieve.) So, yes, in regards to that shot, we mentioned that we could definitely do it today with CG, but at the time these were supposedly shot - it would have been very hard, probably even impossible, to fake this kind of shot.”
Volker Engel, Marc Weigert - Uncharted Territory Academy Award-winners, Special Effects for "Independence Day”
https://theyflyblog.com/2017/09/25/its-1964-all-over-again/
https://theyflyblog.com/2017/08/18/billy-meier-beyond-reasonable-doubt/
So, why doesn’t Randle cite such things as evidence that Meier consistently scoops our scientists by over 30 years:
https://theyflyblog.com/2017/11/05/scientists-confirm-billy-meiers-space-travel-information/
https://theyflyblog.com/2017/11/07/dr-cornish-billy-meier-revealed-it-30-years-ago/
A good number of people have seen Meier typing at speeds tied up to 100words/per/min. This is a brief excerpt of a several minute video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5VZWH0tdgA&t=2s (:30)
As for some of the other corroborated prophetic information:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/09/prweb1365754.htm
http://theyfly.com/newsflash94/UFO_Skeptics_Throw_in_the_Towel.htm
Tons more but see everything on the lower part of this page first:
http://www.theyfly.com/corroboration-evidence
We should ask, since Randle claims that the case is a "hoax", Meier is a “liar”, etc., where’s his real…evidence contradicting that your questions will now lead people to discover for themselves? Meier must really be a genius to "hoax" all the scientific info...without the help of the Plejaren.
One more time about these disingenuous attempts by Randle to disinform people. Meier said that he took A photograph of A dinosaur. They disavowed ALL of the 230 space photos when the manipulations were discovered.
ReplyDeleteBut this ISN'T the Billy Meier Dinosaur case, it's the Billy Meier UFO contact case. So, unless Kevin finds this "too hostile":
Where are ANY supposedly "hoaxed" UFO photos by Meier?
Where ARE ANY UFO photos from the so-called "UFO cases" that Kevin has "researched”? ANY PHOTOS?
Why did Kevin's FREIND, Nick Refern, express disappointment in Kevin's book - which of course is a rehash of a rehash and nothing remotely resembling a real investigation - being "seriously distracting” with fully…25% of the book having nothing to do with the supposed subject?
See: http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/10/encounter-in-the-desert-reviewed/
What many don't seem to know is that after so much debunkings surrounding the Meier's space photos, the alleged Plejaren ET Ptaah has decided to weed out the other fake photos (which suggested Meier as a fraud trying to weasel out whining MIB, CIA,..and what not) ONCE AND FOR ALL with their superior technology (30 million years ahead of us) around 2001 and gave Meier a set of 42 genuine photos to be published in his latest edition of contact notes (named Plejadisch-plejarische Kontaktberichte) that were published since 2002.
ReplyDeleteOut of these 42, 31 were published in Plejadisch-plejarische Kontaktberichte Block 1 (2002) & Block 2 (2003). These 31 photos that were supposedly taken by Meier during his space journey through out the Universe were still, TO THIS DAY, available in these books and were sold as GENUINE. Those photos as they appear in the above mentioned contact notes can be seen in the middle of my blog article:
http://ufoprophet.blogspot.in/2015/11/facts-for-stanton-friedman-exposing.html
Additionally another supposedly 9 genuine photos have also been published in And Still They Fly book written by one of Meier's ardent disciple Guido Moosbrugger, since 1991.
If Meier is true about his MIB, CIA,..and what not replacing or manipulating his "genuine" space photos, then these latest ones vetted by the ETs can't be debunked like the earlier ones. But as it turns out, most of them are even more easily debunked proving Meier a shameless fraud.
When pointed out, MH with his pitiful evading tactics, never gave a straight answer. And also when raised on Meier's FIGU forum, they just deleted my question and blocked any further discussions on this topic. So much for truth, honesty, research,..blah blah...MH so often repeats like a broken tape recorder.
Reference:
http://www.billymeieruforesearch.com/photos-and-videos
Kevin -
ReplyDeleteAs I said previously, which can be verified through the contact notes, Meier dismissed those photos as deliberate forgeries that he had no part of. The fact that Meiet didn't know Wendell Stevens was promoting this as genuine Meier material doesn't constitute a fake on Meier's Part.
You're making a lot of assumptions that cannot be proven. You're assuming because Wendelle Stevens promoted these photos as genuine, that automatically makes Meier a perpetrator of a hoax. In a court of law this would be called circumstantial evidence. You have yet to produce any proof beyond a reasonable Doubt that Meier actually faked any of his photos.
If you can present any evidence from the contact notes or any of Meier's writings or Publications that specifically has him state, "I took the photos of the Dean Martin variety show and of the pterodactyl", then this claim that Meier faked 229 of his photographs falls short. The reason you haven't presented this evidence is because it doesn't exist.
The Narrative you're promoting has been dismissed refutef and torn apart long before you started parroting it.
My advice to you is to actually research the Meier case in full on your own as an actual investigator should do. instead of plagiarizing other so-called investigators that can't refute this case in full but work around it so that it appears they're doing actual research.
The reason I say this again is that the arguments you're making are not only flawed but also very easily refuted. Of course they're easily repeated because I actually know the Meier case and you don't. If you found the Meier case or read the contact notes or actually looked at the physical evidence you would have more information to go on to actually criticize it but you don't.
Again for the sake of your title as an investigator your Consciousness Evolution and spiritual education you really need to look into this case. Because if I can refute what you say and I've only been researching this case for the last 2 years then imagine how much fun Michael having with your arguments ;-) FYI attempting to censor Michael will not stop him attempting to distract and redirect people to illogical claims and faulty criticisms are not going to stop the truth of this case no matter how hard you want it to go away it will always be there.
Be thankful for everything you have and enjoy your family.
Sincerely,
William Frederick Ter Burgh
As should be apparent to everyone by now, you can't win, or even have a rational argument with somebody who refuses to argue rationally. And Michael Horn and his acolytes (if he has any - other sites similar to this one have repeatedly caught him using sock-puppets to make it seem as though people agree with him, so I'm not even taking it on trust that "William Ter Burgh" exists, let alone all that other bollocks) do not, as you can see here and in a great many other places, flatly refuse to argue rationally.
ReplyDeleteBilly Meier has been proven to have told outrageously blatant lies hundreds of times? No he hasn't, everybody else is lying because secretly they're convinced by his absurd fantasies but they can't face the truth, therefore they've formed a vast international conspiracy to make one mendacious old unidexter look as though he's telling fibs when he claims that woefully unimaginative Space Brothers ripped off from George Adamski regularly traverse the 440 light-years between the Pleiades and Switzerland just to tell him to tell us that they told him to tell us to worship him and give him our money because he's the bestest specialest little one-armed wonder in the whole wide world!
Arguing with people who actually believe this lunacy (or pretend to in order to exploit dimwits who really do) is so obviously a waste of time that I'm puzzled why anyone who isn't a member of Billy's funny little saucer cult still finds this drivel worth talking about. Meier has been shown to have lied so many times, starting right at the outset of his messianic activities over 40 years ago, that he's got zero credibility with anyone who isn't a misguided fanatic or just plain stupid. And judging by the kind of things he's been saying on this thread and in many other places over the course of many years, Michael Horn is a horrible person who reacts like a very small and grotesquely spoilt child to anyone who doesn't do exactly what he wants right now, with such venom and persistence - look at the way he's ranting and raving on this thread because a few strangers on the internet don't believe him! - that I'm wondering if he's at least borderline insane as well as being a vile excuse for a human being. Anyone who joins Meier's mad UFO religion because The Horn won them over with his unassailable logic and irresistible charisma deserves everything they get.
By the way, if you're wondering why those retro Adamski "Plejarans" who look like an Abba tribute band but are real space aliens, honest, think a digitally challenged Swiss gnome is such a big deal compared with everybody else on this planet, Meier's own teachings tell us that: "..."Billy" Eduard Albert Meier is the seventh and final prophet of the Nokodemjon line. To this line belong the prophets Henok, Elja (Elijah), Jeremja (Jeremiah), Jesaja (Isaiah), Jmmanuel and Mohammed (Muhammad Abdullah), and, in the present time, the prophet and proclaimer of the new time, "Billy" Eduard Albert Meier (BEAM)." Jmmanuel (sic) is of course Billy-boy's new name for the artist formerly known as Jesus Christ. Though personally I suspect him of having far more in common with a guru who isn't on that list, but whom he uncannily resembles:
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/77/1318568-mr_natural.jpg
With the exception of his statement "[t]he fact is Kevin you along with your ilk stand to lose everything" comment, William Ter Bur makes a much more proper argument in support of Meier than Mr. Horn. Perhaps HE should be Mr. Meier's authorized representative and not Horn...
ReplyDeleteDid Meier actually submit 1200 photos of what clearly appeared to be actual spaceships? If so, have all 1200 been analyzed independently? Out of the 1200 photos, have only 230 been discredited to any degree? What about the video? Have they been independently analyzed?
Have any of the "over 100 eyewitnesses" been interviewed and vetted? If so, how many? What did they say? Have any of them been discredited?
Did Mr. Meier actually produce a piece of metal which he claims came from the aliens? If so, was it independently analyzed? How many times? What were the results? Does it still exist and available for analysis today? Same questions apply to the sound recordings.
It appears that there may be diverse opinions on at least some of these questions. But so what? The fact that a substantial number of people including experts from different disciplines think the Meier story is fake does not mean it actually is. A substantial number of like persons believe Roswell had nothing to do with aliens, and like the Meier case, one can find many opinions on both sides of the fence. That does not mean Roswell did not involve aliens.
In the little bit that I know about this case, there appears to be three possibilities, none of which has been definitively shown: 1) that Meier's claims are completely true, 2) the claims are completely false, or 3) that Meier falsified some of his evidence and claims to enhance his case or whatever but that the rest of his evidence and claims are true. if this last possibility is indeed the case, lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
It would be great if a group of respected investigators could team up and take a completely UNBIASED AND OBJECTIVE view of ALL the available evidence, such as Kevin recently did in looking at the Roswell case and see where it takes us.
Just my two cents.
Censoring Michael? Not liking what we have to say eh Kevin? I hope you realize that you're only delaying the inevitable. The reasonable and logical person will see through these illogical and false claims you make against the Meier case and realize its importance. You can only repeat the same baseless claims for a short period of time before people realize they have no meaning. You presented no evidence to back up your claims and also you have been able to prove the bulk of the events in this case is actually a hoax perpetrated by Meier. So innocent Essence all you have are claims and no actual proof. If you did have any proof you would have resented it by now. Again good luck in your Crusade, good luck and getting others to believe in your lost cause :-)
ReplyDeleteGood Lord, don't you people have anything better to do on Thanksgiving?
ReplyDeleteWilliam -
Take a look in the freaking mirror... does the term projection mean anything to you?
It is not censorship. I have warned Horn, as I have others, to keep the ton civil, something that he simply can't do. There is no requirement that I publish everything submitted to this blog and I thought long and hard about posting the questions asked by Nitram and CDA because I knew that there would be long, useless replies... but I posted them anyway.
Give up the talking points, look at all sides of the question, open your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong, and then maybe we can find common ground. BTW, have I "censored" any of your comments here? At least you can attempt to make your points without resorting to name calling.
Kevin's rather...sensitive about "name calling". After all, he reserves the right to defame, slander, liable and bear false witness against a man he's never met, who's done nothing to him, asked nothing of him,against whom he has no actual evidence except twisted internet garbage. And so, even when my earlier comments are full of answers requested by people here, he censors the content, lest people actually learn the truth.
ReplyDeleteI suggest Kevin post the responses, such as to cda and all the other info that shows that Kevin doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about. Oh wait, that's on par with calling an innocent man a liar, hoaxer, cheat, fraud, etc.
I guess I'll just have to see to it that an even larger audience sees the info that he's suppressing.
All -
ReplyDeleteForgot to mention... by all means, read Nick's review. While he thought that some of the chapters were "padding," I thought them important to understand the whole context of the case. I wanted to show that the Socorro landing was not a "stand alone" case, but one of many that suggested there was alien visitation and that the Air Force, in their investigation, believed that psychological problems were responsible for many of these reports. But then, Nick did say to read the book. We just have a difference of opinion on the structure of the book, which I'm not sure is a big deal.
For those interested, take a look at the other reviews at Amazon found here:
https://www.amazon.com/Encounter-Desert-Alien-Contact-Socorro/dp/1632651130/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1508096455&sr=8-1&keywords=encounter+in+the+desert
And look at what Rich Reynolds have to say as well...
Louis -
ReplyDeleteAn UNBIASED and OBJECTIVE investigation into the Meier material was already done in the 1970s;https://youtu.be/iReUrIvwy6U
You will find many of the answers you seek through this documentary investigation. This documentary is where I started in my education about the Meier case. Getting any of your knowledge about this case from anyone in the UFO Community would be a mistake as they are anything but unbiased and objective.
Also, Michael Horn posted up to this blog thread some actual links to experts, scientists and investigators who support the Meier case's evidence.
Just my two cents ;-)
Seems to me that I did publish the answers offered to Nitram and CDA...
ReplyDeleteThe naysayers who've come here to try to argue and make accusations about something they know absolutely...NOTHING about, may wish to get a small glimpse of the reference for the body of transcribed material by this one-armed man that covered an enormously wide range of information...in addition, of course, to all the physical evidence, the eyewitnesses, etc.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this is only somewhat complete up to 2007...10 years ago. The contacts now number around 700 and the document below is only an...overview, not the actual thousands of pages of information.
The problem is, again, that this field attracts a lot of people who aren't even competent to discuss the evidence, for whom UFOs are just a subject for entertainment purposes, about which they can give pretty much worthless opinions...while they feel important doing so.
Put Roswell, Rendlesham, Soccorro, etc., up against a REAL, singularly authentic case and maybe there'll be less accusations and more study:
http://www.theyfly.com/ContactNotes.html
Kevin -
ReplyDeleteYes, "Good Lord", again proving you are still in a mindset of belief instead knowing based on actual evidence, logic and reason.
I highly doubt Michael's "decorum" was the real problem Kevin. There is a clear patter from people like you in the UFO community that have a vested interest in keeping the Meier case discredited and suppressed, but the evidence is not hard to find and come to your own logical conclusions, negating the unsubstantiated and ilogical claims made by "investigators" like you.
The only thing saving you Kevin is that the average person believes what they're told and are too complacent to look into this case on their own and bypassing any nonsensical claims made by the UFO community.
However, things are changing. As you can clearly see, even in this blog, people have legitimate questions about the case and want to know more of the actual evidence in this case and don't take what they read on the internet (from people like you) seriously anymore as they are realizing you are not an expert of this case and have no evidence to back up what you are claiming. People are growing beyond the age of belief and your days are numbered in that respect. So can you see the light now? lol
P.S. - There is absolutely no narrative needed to promote to the Meier case because it's based on logic,reason and evidence...something the UFO community is lacking in its attacks on the Meier case and lacks to uphold cases they promote to distract the "believers" and keep them ignorant and controlled.
If "William" is not Horn (or another silly follower using a pretend name), I'll eat my hat. Jesus, how pathetic!
ReplyDeleteLouis, all you ask has been done. Every aspect of the pitiful sham has been exposed for what it is: cut rate theology mixed with mind-numbing stupidity and total imposture. Take a look at Derek's and Mahesh's excellent sites (to start with. There you can see how an organized mind systematically refutes the free form broken-link tripe that Horn feebly peddles.
There is a a reason Horn chickened out of debating Mahesh and me and who knows who else. He can't face any organized discussion-- that's why he thrives on the lowest common denominator shows like Coast to Coast.
Lance
Does anybody here have a link to a show that Lance, or Mahesh, has been on? I'm interested in seeing how they did.
ReplyDeleteAnd to think how generous I've been with my time here...
Another note that folks should realize: If Horn says that so and so supports this or that aspect of the case, there is a VIRTUAL CERTAINTY that that the person has specifically refuted Horn's claim.
ReplyDeleteFor instance you may have heard Horn blather on about Stevens and Elders and putting film into the camera for Meier to avoid any trickery and them handling the development of that film. I think he even croaked out this claim again during Kevin's interview. Observe the lie exposed for what it is (stolen from Mahesh's excellent site):
Mahesh:
...Can you cite the source for your following claim made in the article?
"However, Wendelle Stevens and the investigators once loaded Meier’s camera with their own film right before he went out on a photo shoot of the craft. They also had it developed and the results were…a full roll of UFO photos."
MH:
My source was…Wendelle Stevens himself. Since I was personally in contact with him for over 20 years, as is the case with Lee and Brit Elders, snce I have personal experience with them - which of course you don't - I happen to have learned things directly from them, which of course you didn't.
Mahesh continues:
MH's claims are strange and at the same time very suspicious because his statement implies that in all these decades since the 1970's both Wendelle Stevens and Lee Elders and even the rest of their research team for some reason decided not to share or publish the most astonishing and conclusive part of their investigation into the Meier case but one of them (Wendelle Stevens) apparently shared it only with Michael Horn who happens to reveal it only after Wendelle's death and as a defence against my skeptical argument (that Meier never invited journalists or scientists and took photos using their camera or film at a prescribed location within a given time) made in my interview.
Even though I never met any of the original investigators in person, I have had some mail contact with Lee Elders (regarding the CIA claims Wendelle Stevens made in his presentations and others), whom I asked to corroborate this incident. As it turns out my suspicions were right.
Dear Lee,
Hope you and Brit are doing fine.
Michael Horn, the media representative of Billy Meier, has recently claimed the following in one of his articles:
http://theyfly.com/skeptic-refuses-debate-michael-horn-billy-meier-ufo-case
"However, Wendelle Stevens and the investigators once loaded Meier’s camera with their own film right before he went out on a photo shoot of the craft. They also had it developed and the results were…a full roll of UFO photos."
I have read all of the books and watched all the documentaries you and your team published on the Meier case. But I haven't come across this incident as stated by Michael Horn nor have I seen any such beamship photos supposedly taken by Meier.
Did this event, as mentioned by Michael Horn, ever took place?
Lee Elders:
"Hi, we're doing great and have our hands full with other projects of interest.
What Michael Horn has eluded to is simply not true. We never loaded Meier's camera with our own film nor did we ever have any of his film developed. "
====
There you can see Horn for what he is. It would be sort of sad if he wasn't so reprehensible.
Lance
Read more: http://ufoprophet.blogspot.com/2015/08/mahesh-responds-to-michael-horns.html#ixzz4zJpt5sDr
Lance -
ReplyDeleteIt seems what I posted to this blog hit a nerve. Of course, I expect nothing less from a follower of Mahesh; circular logic, pseudo academic research on the Meier case and overall no actual evidence Meier perpetrated a hoax.
If you knew anything about the Meier case, being a Mahesh Minion, you don't, you would know that Michael was warned not to engage with Mahesh by Meier and Plejaren, (which is published out there in Black and white should you choose to do your research) so Michael didn't engage with him. "Chickening out" is not a characteristic Michael posses as he often readily debates with people in the UFO community, or anyone else. Shying away from a fight or being afraid of anyone like Mahesh is not only unsubstantiated, it's ludicrous. As you can see, just in this blog thread, Michael hasn't backed down and never has, so you may need to refocus your perspective back into reality.
Lastly, you will have to eat your own hat as I am in no way shape or form Mr. Michael Horn; I have met Michael in Flagstaff when my wife, son and myself were in AZ to see the Grand Canyon as my graduation present after completing my Masters in Social Work. I am a 6'3" American of Dutch heritage with great hair (my wife says). Michael Horn does not meet that discription, nor has he ever argued with himself as you claim. Do you see what an illogical, unproven accusation that is? Mahesh really has you brainwashed.
Also, just from a logic prespective, why would Michael make up a name like William Frederick Ter Burgh? He'd have to be very, very crazy to go through that kind of trouble. My last name is so rare (only 60 in the U.S.) that other Dutch people from Grand Ralids MI (place of my birth), don't even know that it's Dutch.
So to your claim, without Merit or evidence, which is indicative of a Mahesh Minion, means your hat will be your Thanksgiving desert! lol Enjoy it as I am sure you have indulged in many hats based on your critical thinking skills.
Happy Thanksgiving and open your eyes to the actual evidence in this case. If you aren't willing or able, I fear for your consciousness...
Kevin:
ReplyDeleteThhanksgiving? I can't think of anything better to do on Thanksgiving Day than to congratulate and celebrate the great and unparalleled achievements of a simple man resident in Switzerland who has shown the world how interplanetary and interstellar travel is so easy and accessible to us all. Scientists, please take note.
If only the rest of us were as gifted and as resourceful as Billy Meier we would indeed inhabit a far better world.
I rest my case.
P.S. There isn't going to be a debate with Lance because, as a potential moderator pointed out, "This guy's a dummy, has no credentials, can't answer a straight question and would kill MY credibility to have him on."
ReplyDeleteSo far we've seen nothing to refute that.
Let him talk to himself here, like so many angry, envious, incompetent, clueless wannabes frequently do, all over the internet.
Of course I hope he has a nice day.
Alright William--I offer my apologies and admit that I should eat my hat!
ReplyDeleteHappy Thanksgiving!
If you wish to discuss a single limited issue about Meier, I am willing. For instance above, the Lee Elder reputation of one of Horn's dubious chestnuts. Does that not, at least give you a moment of pause?
Lance
Maybe some of you find this interesting but personally I read up on the "early contactees" such as George Adamski and Howard Menger. Bizarre to say the least, then I ran into the Meier case. I presumed this would be a continuation of the 'contactees' of the 1950s and 60s. Surprisingly it was nothing of the sort!
ReplyDeleteBilly Meier has his own website and a forum and there I had the 'pleasure' of corresponding with Michael Horn many years ago. I discussed the contactee phenomenon on Meier's website in general and pointed out that before Meier many persons made claims, some backed by photographs, film and eyewitnesses. (Some of the 'experts' that backed up the Meier case also backed up other cases.) And what do you know? Michael Horn doesn't acknowledge any other high profile 'contactee' case, basically because Billy Meier claims others are frauds!
The ultimate irony is that Billy Meier and Michael Horn are debunkers themselves. If you read Meier's contact reports there's zero tolerance for basically anyone who makes claims in ufology. Meier and Horn seek authority. That's what you have to keep in mind.
Lance -
ReplyDeleteGood. I hope this gives you a "moment of pause" enough to realize the futility of making unsubstantiated claims.
Also, the claims made against Elders, Dilettoso, Stevens, Horn or even Billy himself pale in comparison to the breadth of the physical evidence, which has yet to be recreated, reproduced or refuted.
So, unless you (or anyone else) can PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt with actual first hand evidence, which would have to entail not only reproducing every photo, video, sound recording, metal sample, but also refuting every eyewitness, original investigators, every one of the 200 predictions/prophecies and las but not least, the 24 times people have tried to kill him.
So do you see the problem Lance? It's the same problem Mahesh faced when I asked him the very same question; "Do you have any evidence to prove Meier perpetrated a hoax?" To which he responded by claiming this was an "untenable" question. To which it's not; it's a logical question any outside observer would need answered to make the hoax claim valid.
In closing, the Randles, Maheshs or "Lances" of this world need to provide actual evidence of a hoax before this can be entertained as a possibility. The fact is, no one in the UFO community or otherwise has ever made a legitimate hoax claim with any substantiating evidence against The Meier Case.
I hope this gives you a "moment of pause" to ponder the difference between a legitimate claim and those that are unsubstantiated, much like the one you made against me personally and continue to parrot claims made against the Meier Case from the Maheshs or Randles of this world who are angrily railing against the undeniable truth of the Meier Case and their own inevitable irrelevance. Their crusade against evidence, logic and reason will be short lived and long forgotten.
P.S. I am sure this will be censored for "civility" as my and Michael's post have been previously.
William,
ReplyDeleteMy goodness there are so many fallacies in your post that it is hard to know where to start. And I suppose that is the idea, huh?
Needless to say, you essentially lie (or are woefully impaired) when you say that none of the Meier's stuff has be replicated. Virtually all of it has. And non-insane people can easily see that. That's why you don't want to dwell on a single example of clear artifice--the stupidity is too stark.
But your standards for how an idea gains legitimacy are hilariously alien to how things actually work in the real world (meaning Earth).
Just proving one hoax is enough to call into question Meir's whole con game.
And we have MANY MANY examples of clear imposture.
It is unfortunate that folks think the way you do. It makes the world a worse place to live.
Lance
WTB:
ReplyDelete"...and last but not least, the 24 times people have tried to kill him."
I said I rested my case, but I now resurrect it, in part.
The above quote is from you. Have you or Meier reported any of these 24 murder attempts to the Swiss law enforcement authorities?
If so, what was the result? If not, why not? Is attempted murder legal in Switzerland?
The only person I have heard of who had so many attempts on his life was Fidel Castro, late dictator of Cuba. But he was in a rather different ballpark to Billy Meier.
Cda -
ReplyDeleteConsidering I was born in 1982 and perhaps some of these assassination attempts occurred previous to my birth I can't tell you about these attempts however what I can tell you is that during the filming of the investigation into this case thumb by wendelle Stevens and his team Meier was shot at and his children were almost taken from him so you can equivale you want with the details and our proof of these attempts but the fact remains we have at least one on record and I'm sure others that have been witnessed by either family friends or even Neighbors and to me you asking me to inform the Swiss police or tell you about all the attempts that I wasn't either born for or therefore doesn't make any logical sense.
WT
Cda -
ReplyDeleteTo your last point the only thing Fidel Castro and Billy Meier have in common is that they're both high value targets but in different categories. The other thing they have in common is that both have been pursued by the CIA and that can actually be proven as well through the documentary are you were Lee Elders had actually seen government agents following them into with a billion Meier household
So you see CDA just from this one documentary that I'm sure you haven't watched gives you evidence to back up the assassination attempt to claims that you seem to want question and for some reason want me to prove which I have no ability to do all I can do is take my word for it because he showed himself to be trustworthy and honest the complete opposite of which has could be said for any one of the so-called investigators in the UFO community.
WT
I've interviewed eyewitnesses to 14 attempts on Meier's life, the most recent of which was two years ago, when Meier and Daniel Lutz werecominig out of the computer room on the property.
ReplyDeleteThe real point is that people like cd, having zero understanding of many of life's realities, wants to trivialize the VERY real life difficulties that this one many has had, simply because he is telling the truth about the most important true story in human history.
Absolutely true to form, people who CLAIM to want to find the real truth about UFOs and extraterrestrials, etc., are no more equipped to handle it than they are to hold molten metal in their hands. Why do you think these singularly authentic contacts have not only been ongoing for over 75 years...but also MUST be conducted in this manner?
Clearly, it's because the majority of Earth's population - and ESPECIALLY the UFO community - can't...handle...the...truth.
MH: "Clearly, it's because the...UFO community - can't...handle...the...truth."
ReplyDeleteExactly my point! You (and people like you) can't handle the truth that you have been deluding yourself in your ignorance and wasted a major portion of your life in "researching" and defending a con man whose life long work never made any iota of (real and direct) contribution to the world; of course other than serving as an example for a crafty, dedicated and yet a foolish trickster.
Re. so-called 20+ assassination attempts, the fact that Meier never registered even one police report says it all. Why? A simple police report would allow the police to enter into Meier's premises and collect all evidence especially the ballistic evidence which upon careful investigation would immediately identity the type of the gun from which the bullet was fired and may well reveal the identity of its owner - which most probably will be either Meier or his associates. Of course, Meier doesn't want this to happen, so he simply cooks up the assassination stories, which is uncritically swallowed and repeated by his disciples.
And re. the assassination attempt story where Wendelle was present, even Meier in his contact reports stated that Wendelle was very gullible and this has been proven many times through out Wendelle's career. So, Wendelle's testimony for such an event is highly questionable and unreliable, given he has a vested interest in the case both financially and emotionally.
Lance -
ReplyDeleteGet ready to eat your hat again...lol
The only thing I need to say to your claim that "virtually all" of the Meier material has been reproduced is, PROVE IT! Where are these reproductions, who did this and how? Also, kindly provide this proof for"VIRTUALLY ALL" of the Meier material, because if what you say is true, the evidence that he "hoaxed it all" is our there right?
WT
Michael... I... Talked...to...a...retired...Astronaut/Supreme court justice/AFOSI agent/photo expert/Ascended Master...and...he...said, "[Billy]...[Meier]...(faked)...all his...evidence...and..I...would...totally...win...in...a...game...of...trivial pursuit...(or court of law)." Now...try...and...refute...that!
ReplyDeleteWhat did I tell you? Debating Michael Horn is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how well you play the pigeon is going to sh*t all over the board and than parade around like it has won.
ReplyDeleteBombastic Bill - prove it.
ReplyDelete&
Ed V. - if the "pigeon" crapped all over the board with evidence, logic and reason, then your feeble analogy would be accurate.
However, the only reason it seems this way is that the "UFO investigators" like Randle, Mahesh and others who not only don't know this case, but deny the evidence on front of them because if they confirm this case as genuine, then their work and lives become irrelevant.
So here's another accurate analogy for you; "Arguing with Michael Horn is like arguing with arguing with him in front of a wall; whenever anyone denies the existence or validity of the wall, Michael throws pieces of it at us and makes us look foolish and uninformed."
The Meier Case has so much evidence that anyone denying it's validity needs to open their eyes and clear the pieces of wall out of them...
WT
William -
ReplyDeleteYou realize, of course, that your continued claims about the overwhelming evidence in the Meier case doesn't make it so. You realize that suggestions that the Men in Black have stolen and replaced hundreds of Meier photographs to discredit him doesn't make it so. You realize that the gaps in the logic for support of the Meier case are vast and that suggests that many of those claims are invalid.
If you would take a dispassionate look at all the evidence, pro and con (something you accuse me of not doing), you might find your beliefs challenged...
Kevin -
ReplyDeleteYes it does actually; because you have not proven it to be invalid even though you believe you have and keep repeating those same claims without any actual evidence. So Randle, where is your proof that Meier "hoaxed" all of his evidence?
Despite what you may believe I have looked at all of the evidence pro and con and found there is no validity to the claims of a hoax or unreliability of any of the investigators in this case.
If you would actually take an objective look at the evidence as any worthwhile investigator would do for him to have your beliefs challenged...
WT
William -
ReplyDeleteSame to you, now, I think I won't take my full turn because it is clear that you don't listen.
Kevin -
ReplyDeleteMy hearing is just fine. I think what you lack is vision. Being blinded by your MUFON overlords I can see why you have trouble seeing the reality right in front of you. Do you ever actually think for yourself or are you just following orders?
The difference between you and I is that I came to the conclusion Meier is valid on my own. Therefore I am not beholden to Michael Horn, Billy Meier or anyone else affiliated with his case as they have no power over me.
I can't say the same thing for you...
WT
William -
ReplyDeleteI wasn't going to play any more, but I thought I'd mention that I am not a member of MUFON, have never been a member of MUFON and probably won't join in the future, though that point is irrelevant to this discussion.
BTW, just for fun, I will note that the correct grammar is between you and me, not you and I.
Kevin -
ReplyDeleteIt is relevant for discussion because you're not actually doing any of your own investigating what you're doing is copying other people's work so to speak. The reason I say that is because you have nothing new to offer as far as claims against this case that haven't already been refuted. So Randle I say again where is the proof of your claims being valid against in the Meier case? You have yet to present any clear unequivocal evidence of a hoax.
No answer the grammar error claim; I still say you and I because over the last decade that has changed to you and me which doesn't roll off my tongue with any kind of ease and or fluidity. This is again the case of you not doing your research because technically both are correct the you-and-me preference has only going by what in the last 20 years and honestly I don't like it. Improve that my grammar is correct and you are wrong is right here; http://www.betterwritingskills.com/tip-w026.html
So again Randle I would take a step back and do some actual investigating before you jump on anyone else's bandwagon and think you have a valid claim for anything in the future.
Just a thought to save you from future embarrassment.
WT
William –
ReplyDeleteWell, you would have been right had you bothered to read the article you posted and realized that I was not talking about situations in which “you and I” would be correct, but about the specific phrase, “between you and me.” Here are several sources that will let you understand your mistake… but it does make me wonder about your research capabilities and not looking beyond the first place which confirms what you wish to believe.
http://www.dictionary.com/e/youandme/
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/between-you-and-me
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/between-you-and-me
http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/between_you_and_I_or_me.htm
Randle -
ReplyDeleteAgain regarding grammar reference that you pointed it out; I have read through the website I posted and it clearly states "between you and I" is acceptable, even preferred for those that know good writing;
http://www.betterwritingskills.com/tip-026.html
However, the fact that you point out that and not actually provide any proof of your claims clearly shows you don't have any actual proof to back up your claims against the Meier case.
Why haven't you attacked Bartholomaus, who lied, stole, defamed,misrepresented and IS a PROVEN liar?
So what's next for you Randle; are you going to censor this post also or are you going to actually provide evidence to support your claims and attack a man who has been proven to be wrong, just like you?
I'll await your response with bated breath. This is the difference between "you and I"; I can actually provide evidence to support what I believe. I don't think you can.
WT
Randle -
ReplyDeleteAs I said before, what you conveniently censored, I know what the grammar rules states but I don't like it. I prefer the old way because this form was acceptable not even 20 years ago. Which is just "between you and I Randle." ;-)
Plus, I don't need a grammar lesson from someone who can't prove their own claims against the Meier case. Are these even your Clans because it seems like you didn't do any actual investigating regarding this case.
I would advise you stop the distractions and answer the questions where is your proof Meier host is physical evidence? Because I won't stop I'll keep hounding you until you answer my question I will never blog or worthless website you choose to present your unsubstantiated material.
WT
Kevin and William:
ReplyDeleteIs this supposed to be a learned debate about the Meier case or is it supposed to be an English lesson?
To adopt Nitram Ang's frequent comments, is this a debate, an investigation or a lesson in English grammar?
Bombastic Bill & Ed V. -
ReplyDeleteIt's clear you two aren't aware of the full extent of the Meier case and all of its evidence and Analysis.
It's all so clear to me that like Kevin Randle, Mahesh and other so-called investigators, are very clueless as to the actual extent of the evidence in the Meier case and have yet to present any substantiation of their hoax claims.
Now, just based on logic, if anyone in the UFO community, Kevin Randle and Mahesh included, would have actually presented any substantial evidence that Meier hoaxed any of his material then I would actually take it seriously but it's clear no one has done this.
All of these so-called investigators can nitpick small issues in the Meier case that have nothing to do with the physical evidence all they want but that doesn't detract from the actual validity of the mountain of physical evidence in this case.
A different perspective = not reality-based programming. You're fooling your audience and yourselves.
WT
William –
ReplyDeleteFor the last time, I believe that your reading comprehension is badly flawed. I told you that the phrase, “Between you and I,” was grammatically incorrect. You responded with a website describing the uses of the phrase, “You and I.” It provided several examples in which the use of you and I were correct. However, it said nothing about the specific phrase, between you and I.
I provided four separate websites that dealt specifically with the phrase, “between you and me,” showing that in this, specific case, you and me was not only acceptable, but was proper while between you and I was not.
The difference here, which you have failed to grasp, is that there are many cases in which it is proper to say you and I, but when preceded by “between,” then the proper grammar is you and me. Get it? I was speaking of one specific case. But you don’t seem to have bothered to look at the websites I provided which would have made this clear and we could have completed the conversation long ago.
Now, why is it that you haven’t condemned Wendelle Stevens? He spent six years in prison for child molestation. Isn’t that a somewhat disqualifying condition? Or, do you subscribe to the nonsense that the CIA set him up to discredit him? Doesn’t his prison time suggest he might not be the best of sources?
Jim Dilettoso inflated his educational resume, which he admitted. Several of his analyses of photographs and videos have been shown to be in error, and in the case of Oliver’s Castle, which he had endorsed as authentic, is an admitted hoax. He also said that the captions produced for one of Stevens’ books about the Meier case were misleading. Doesn’t that give you pause? And we have seen that he and Stevens, using De Anza Systems to “analyze” some of the photographs, was not analysis at all but manipulation of the photographs as a way showing what the computer system could do. Tony Ortega reporting in the Phoenix New Times proved that. Why ignore it?
I sent you a private email that outlined many of the problems I found with the Meier case that included interviewing (well, talking with) some of the people involved with Meier. I looked at the dozens of witness statements, some of which were to things that proved no extraterrestrial contact (such as him typing really, really fast), and I looked at statements by those who were once in the Meier camp who have now repudiated their statements… but there is always some lame excuse for dismissing these people.
I also provided you with a list of postings here that took much of this to task, which, apparently you either didn’t read or rejected out of hand. I have shown predictions that were wrong, such as the number of moons of Jupiter. When I pointed out Meier had predicted 17 but there were more than 60, I was told the Pleiadeans had a different definition of moon… and we’re supposed to buy that. Now, if I don’t provide additional examples, are you going to say, you only found one? Or are you capable of understanding that this is simply one example.
I now bow out because this is a colossal waste of time. Your misunderstanding of the term between you and me is an example of your inability to process information. You just can’t wrap your head around the idea that you and I is acceptable in some circumstances but between you and I is not one of them.
CDA -
ReplyDeleteI will moderate the blog... don't need any help. Besides the grammar discussion helps understand the thought processes of some other individuals. So, yes, there is an English lesson here... take heed, I know the difference between bring and take; hanged and hung; and affect and effect. Just thought I would mention it.
It is tiresome, isn't it Kevin?
ReplyDeleteIn a real debate these nitwits are easy to dispatch. That's why Horn chickened out of one with me.
He had the sheer nerve to write me saying that I could call into his Youtube program to debate him--a program he controls with no moderation. Sounds fair, no?
It's hard to say if Horn is just a pure little troll just having fun or if he is really that deluded.
Regardless, people like him (and William, I would guess) make the world a stupider, more cowardly and worse place to live.
William,
ReplyDeleteThat 'you haven't done enough research' routine doesn't fly with me. Back in the 1990s I already ordered booklets from FIGU. With the onset of the internet I practically read every contact report and bulletin Meier published. I even argued with Michael Horn on Meier's discussion board back in 2002. (He hasn't changed a bit.)
At first I was fascinated by the Meier case but gradually I reached a negative conclusion. The reasons for that was Meier's dismissal of other UFO cases, I mentioned this in the comment section before that Meier is a debunker himself. Secondly, Meier's alleged WCUFO has the base of a Harcostar drum lid. A crystal clear sign of fraud. Thirdly, all the excuses that come up whenever something goes wrong which isn't satisfying proof at all.
Finally, there's the religious aspect of the Meier case. He claims to be some ancient spirit form that created people in other parts of the universe and that he's the reincarnation of Jmmanuel (a.k.a. Jesus Christ), Mohammed and other Biblical figures... All the hallmarks of a cult.
And since I discovered Billy Meier also was in prison for a number of years, escaped once from prison, joined the French Army and subsequently deserted from it, beat and cheated on his wife and molested his child, I realized what Billy Meier is. A criminal megalomaniac!
It is just funny looking at both sides of this argument especially Michael Ho.. I mean William Tel, that you have to be inflammatory and always be on the offensive if you are a Meier supporter because the other side can expend very little effort in making very valid points. So men in black planted fake photos? The Pliedians dematerialized a radioactive tree that appears in a number of questionable photos? Billy Meier admitted to making small models of beam ships for his kids? You don't necessarily need a PhD (though I am glad Kevin has one!) to throw a monkey wrench into those arguments now do you?
ReplyDelete