New "Confirmation" and "Corroboration" of the Meier HOAX, page 2

For the most part I will leave the skeptics to be skeptical but I'll add a few comments. On the two photos of models offered here, should they be subjected to the same tests Meier's were, the difference would show Meier's photos were of large (21') craft and not small models. And yes, the investigators had models built for photo-comparison purposes but the critic quick to claim that models were discovered, etc. didn't trouble himself to find that out. Of course not. He grabbed at a little detail in a rush to "debunk" the case...not knowing the entire story, naturally. Truth isn't what's important, or he would have really asked the question o, better yet, done some homework.

However, I also hear a deafening silence regarding Deardorff's analysis of the photos, I notice a similar lack of interest in commenting on, and/or obtaining, the video and for the most part I also see a remarkable demonstration of "thinking" that I somehow conceive has never been applied by said posters in considering such things as political candiadtes, or specific issues on which they have voted. Pure speculation, I admit but I wonder if the same erzatz scrutiny had been applied by Americans in deciding on their leaders, at all levels, if their leaders had applied the same scrutiny in taking the country into an illegitimate war, etc. Somehow...I doubt it.

But back to the points at hand. We get references to Bruce Macabee, who I guess we should BELIEVE because he supports our fear and doubt based skepticism, but why no mention of:

From page 9 of the accompanying Photographic Analysis document, regarding the film clips seen above, "In the 18 March sequence Meier filmed the spacecraft circling a large tree in front of a farmhouse. The sky was overcast with a low ceiling, and occasionally light snowflakes fell. The motion of the spacecraft looks suspiciously like it is tethered from above as it appears to circle the tree and then to swing back and forth over the tree, except that on three occasions the spacecraft changes its motion abruptly with no change in the tilt of the vertical axis of the ship. If it was in fact tethered, one would expect the vertical axis to tilt as the tether point above was moved. In another measurement it was found that the tilt angle of the vertical axis in one oscillation sequence was sufficient that the axis crossed within the frame and would have put the tether point within the picture. No tether point source was revealed, in one of the final oscillation sequences the object appeared to pass directly over the top of the tree, and it is clearly seen that the tree was swept over in the direction of the spacecraft, or appeared to follow the spacecraft as it passed. Clearly no model could have produced this effect. When we revisited the scene we found that the tree had died and was cut down."

Perhaps the most important thing anyone here could do is to ask themselves the simple question, "What if I'm wrong?" And then follow up with things like, "What would it mean to me personally if the case is real and true? What would I have to lose, what would I have to gain?"

The truth of the matter is that the abundance of evidence of every category in the case leads a reasoning, logical person with common sense to rule out a hoax. Scientific experts who viewed the case already have. The Swiss military is picking the objects up on radar, etc., etc. ad nauseum. Trust me, NONE of this will matter for those whose miinds really are made up against the case, for whatever their "reasons". And, sorry to say it but Americans have a uniquely difficult time putting two and two together, especially in controversial matters, witness the acquittal of celebrity murderers and serial child molesters, let alone political matters. Do the skeptics here really think that they're any different?

And someone who keeps repeating nonsense as fact, i.e. "channeling spirits" has to be simply disregarded as making a serious contribution to the discussion. When one cites make believe but dismisses scientific evidence there's no point in debating. As far as serious challenges from Underground Video, please don't quote unsubstantiated charges referring to non-existing, unsubstantiated evidence. Don't you think that if there was anything to it THEY WOULD HAVE SUED?

There is a theme that runs throughout much of the material from both the Plejaren and Meier, too distinctly different authorships, more when you consider the individual Plejaren who've interacted with him. It is quite simply that humanity, unfortunately, must be approached from the most oblique angle and patiently, painstakingly given the bits and pieces to chew on because our collective level of arrogant ignorance is so monumental as to make direct contact virtually impossible. No offense meant but view the repititious demands for more/better "proof", etc. here in the light of the case being true, do it for just one moment as an exercise in objectivity and plain absurdity, as the armchair experts of the world firmly conclude something isn't so, and the real, living participants simply have to stand by and watch as our illogic and lack of common sense guides us right down into the toilet that they've been trying, for decades, to help us avert...if only we weren't such know-it-alls.

Photos, films, metals, sounds are analyzed by competent, objective experts and...it's not good enough because...I wasn't there and I,I,I,I, have a theory and I,I,I,I, have time on my hands and I,I,I,I, can sit on my butt and "prove" it's just a hoax. Really? Go walk your butts around the hillsides, roads and mountains that a one-armed man traversed, often in the dead of winter, on a Moped, driving with one hand, given a camera loaded with film BY THE INVESTIGATORS, a man who returned a couple of hours later with a full roll of shots...of MULTIPLE UFOs IN SEQUENCE moving across the sky.

And I'm supposed to keep a straight face when someone here says "photo montage" and "models"? And likewise when they say that they "could" duplicate the sounds but, for some unknown reason haven't and that they don't seem to understand that some 15 witnesses were present OUTDOORS for the FOUR different occasions when the sounds were recorded, this is to be taken seriously? Sure, because I,I,I,I, have a theory and I,I,I,I, have time on my hands and I,I,I,I, have spent at least a couple of hours looking at the years of work, research, etc. by numerous qualified, serious investigators.

Of all the things that boggle the mind it's the lack of reasoning and responsiveness to the specifics of the investigation and research, again, such as Deardorff's on photos and films, even to the degree of having two forestry experts identify as a full grown, mature tree the one in the SEQUENCE shots that Meier took.

Why no mention of the seven-fingered hand/fingerprints still etched into the surface of the car hood? Are people too lazy, too uninterested, to book themselves a ticket to Switzerland to go check it out? Is it too inconvenient for the armchair experts?

There's such a thing as intellectual honesty. When you research and question and delve into a complex, hugely supported case like this, you can't come at it assuming everything's true or not true. And if your "thinking" doesn't jibe with qualified expert examination (are you ready yet to attack Malin, Post, Vogel, Froning, Rognerud, Ambrose, USGS, Nippon TV to demonstrate your "expertise"?) maybe, just maybe you don't have it right, hard to accept as that may be.

Lurking underneath a lot of this are the beliefs that I,I,I,I, am the one who should have had the contacts, that I,I,I,I, am the one who should have been chosen to do the research (on what grounds?) that unless it happened to me and I,I,I,I, was there and, etc. etc. well then, like THE REST OF THE ENTIRETY OF HUMAN HISTORY AND SCIENTIFIC FACT IT SIMPLY DIDN'T HAPPEN AND ISN'T TRUE BECAUSE I,I,I,I, AM NOT AT THE CENTER OF IT.

And isn't it all the more frustrating that a "simple one-armed farmer" is indeed at the center of all of this instead of you? Is that why such varied and stellar abilities in diverse sciences and skills are attributed to him, is that why he's effectively credited with fooling scientific experts - and radar equipment for chrissakes! - and conducting an impenetrable 63-year long hoax, is that why he's shot at, accussed of being a liar by fools who've never as much as said hello to the man, etc.?

As I said, intellectual honesty is in short supply...along with logic reasoning and common sense.