Billy Meier called the New Nostradamus!?!?

Allright - that is very important information..

I know little of the Billy Meier case so have no opinion of his authenticity. But I have seen numerous pictures attributed to him and they were good. Damn good actually. I think I even saw once where his pictures were placed side-by-side with photo manips attempting to duplicate them and there was obvious visible superiority in Meier's photos. Could someone provide me a link to these "obviously fake" pics people keep talking about? There were certainly no strings in any of the pics I saw.

I don't have a link for the fakes but you might be able to find them through a search. There is an article on my site under my documents titled "Analysis of Meier's UFO Photographs" that is an excerpt of the work done on Meier's photos. You can read about the testing parameters...and why NONE of the model makers will submit their photos for the same testing.

Also, the sounds of the UFO can be downloaded for free for anyone who wants to test and/or attempt to duplicate them. You may also want to look at the photos of new evidence, i.e.the seven-fingered handprints.

But if you want to get to the heart of the matter, look into the prophetic info and do note that Meier did publish (among many other things) accurate info re the Paris riots as far back as 1981 and 1987 (in the same document that forewarned of the WTC). And this info is already on my DVD, released in February 2004. When you take this, and the totality of the body of prophetically accurate info into consideration, you may see that my claim that this is the most important story in all of human history is not exaggerated in the least.

8Michael12... I've been following Billy's odessy since the early 80's when I was introduced to it through a close friend intimate with the goings-on at thath time. I've had a couple of phone coversations with Desiree S. about the whole thing and the disinfo campaign that swung into high gear at about the same time. Do you have any details available about the 'Bush II coming catastrophe' Billy's talked about?

And it's the Washington News... Sun Myung Moon's very own newspaper! Not surprising that we find an article promoting a charlatan on this news site!

Sun Myung Moon: bio of a big time cult charlatan

Is he now starting somekind of end times prophecies propaganda with all this Billy Meïer crap?

Anyways, I see one more post on Meïer linking to Washington News or United Press International and I file a complaint against the poster to ATS moderators. I SWEAR.

I don't have any more info regarding the specifics of the "disaster". But there has been much said by Meier of how Bush could lead the world irrevocably into a third world war of staggering dimensions and that unless people do wake up and get these people (here and in other countries) out of power we biring upon ourselves enormous destruction.

Of course, it doesn't take an ET or a Swiss farmer to agree or disagree with these perceptions but it is amazing that Meier published his warnigns as long ago as he did - and that his track record is simply unparalelled for accuracy.

Michael,

It would be helpful, when you're referring to Meier's writings/public predictions, if you would provide a link to where information that confirms your statements can be found. There is simply too much information in his writings to sort through them in a reasonable period of time and evaluate your assertions. For example,



Where is Meier's "prediction" that Bush II might lead us into WW3? What date was it posted? Has this date been verified?

You'll have to understand, Meier's work has been out there for a long period of time and has been met with anywhere near the level of acceptance or verifiable accuracy that you assert. Since you're obviously much, much more familiar with his writings than any of us, please educate us on these predictions and make the necessary correlation with world events that show's their accuracy. As well, please provide something which proves that Meier published his predictions prior to the event he claims to predict.

I will admit that there's something intriguing about Meier's stories, but everything I've read or read about his has resulted in findings that his evidence is of dubious value, at best.

I don't believe there's ample evidence to prove or disprove Mr. Meier's theories, but how do you respond to this analysis of Billy Meier's facts? It's quite well-written and seems to cast a heavy shadow of doubt on the veracity of Mr. Meier's claims.

well i dont really believe in 'sooth sayers' and what not so i still cannot say I believe in this guy and his stuff, this is my opinion and as I see it, I respect all of your opinions and have read them completely and I still do not believe what this guy has to say. You know the ancient Greeks had things called oracles who got high on wine and drugs and could 'tell the future' I dont agree with all that Bush has said, of course who can? And I dont think Bush will create a 3rd world war, i mean yeah he's all for going to Iraq and wherever else and getting the world cleaned of terrorists and what not, but he's not gonna go bombing like France or any other random country without cause. Oh and I dont believe in Nostrodaumus either.

[edit on 12/9/2005 by PennKen2009]

Centrist,

There's a document on my site that I wrote a couple of years ago titled "Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" that lists a few dozen of the items that I corroborated at that time, more have since been corroborated.

The information published by Meier appeared in books published as far back as 1980 (in English) and documents known as the Contact Reports that were first circulated in English in 1978 or 1979. These were first published in German (starting in 1975, not including the 1951 and 1958 documents) in unalterable form, i.e. every sentence allegedly spoken by an ET and transcribed by Meier was numbered sequentially so that, years later, there would be no question that he had gone back and inserted/deleted info to make himself look good. This means that all of the disseminated documents, such as the ones that I first acquired in 1986, in English, German, etc. had the SAME info in the SAME numbered sentence location.

The original books by Wendelle Stevens, Message from the Pleiades Vols. 1-4, containing much of this early info, are hard to find but thousands were sold and are owned by people, such as myself, all over the world.

Meier sent a letter to 25 European governments in August of 1958 with the Bush info, etc. as can be found in my November Newsletter. I don't have the original but it's in Switzerland.

The existence of the specific prophetic info in published books and unalterable documents is easily established, for those who will trouble themselves to do some homework. Let's face it, either this is the biggest, longest runnning, most impentrable hoax (with six categories of still irreproducible physical evidence and an abundance of prophetically accurate info) or it's the most important story in all of human history. What are the odds that a resourceless, non-technological, one-armed man living in rural Switzerland could pull this off...and how and why since fame and fortune are not in the equation, despite what some morons carelessly assume?

And if there hasn't been "acceptance" of Meier's work it's largely due to ignorance and laziness, of which there is no shortage.

As far as everything you've read or read about, etc. it speaks more about the crappy quality of work by those who wrote the junk and perhaps you're own laziness in not finding out for yourself, which has been quite common.

As far as Ike42's document, I give him points for at least trying but he failed miserbably on a couple of very basic and hugely important points. First, he tries to make the case that key info "must have been" available to Meier yet absolutely fails to provide one item of proof. No proof that the info was available to Meier in German, of course, no named publication that Meier had access to, no menmtion of Meier's remote existence sans library, university and of course no computers or internet...let alone a reason why, with all his stunning physical evidence, he would attmept a very difficult hoax re the information. Ike goes on to insinuate that Meier and Stevens must have, therefore, conspired to hoax the info, with no substantiation to back it up, simply slander. Further, the key info re Io being the most volcanically active body in the solar system wasn't published by NASA until March 12, 1979, three days AFTER the info had already been in the possession of Stevens and soon witnessed by two other men, and FIVE MONTHS AFTER Meier first published it! Gimme a break!

Please pay atteniton to your own tag here:

"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on."
--Winston Churchill

As far as any response to the next post, none is necessary. I don't care what uninformed, lazy people "believe". I care about finding out what's true.

And one more thing, the info re the Paris riots, etc., culled from Meier's 1981 and 1987 info, is already on my DVD, released in 2004, otherwise known as proof positive...or have I already mentioned that a few dozen times? Please get that - IT'S ALREADY ON THE DVD BEFORE THE EVENTS OCCURRED!!!!!!!!

And, while I'm glad to help, I actually have other things to do than spoon feed everybody every little item that they should be finding (most for free on my site) and thinking through themselves.

Tough nuggets, chief. I'm responding anyway. Of course, I will not permit your complete inability to conduct a meaningful discussion of this subject without resorting to insults and obfuscation to prejudice my analysis of Mr. Meier's claims.

I will, however, suggest that you should stop assuming that people haven't read the material on your website. I have. In fact, I've studied Mr. Meier's claims quite rigorously. That's how I ended up coming across Ike42's article. Also, as for the DVD's you mention -- given that I did not find enough evidence in yours or Meier's writings to verify his claims, I'm not going to line anyone's pockets by buying propoganda of dubious veracity.

Now, since you brought up the subject of people being lazy and not doing enough reading, lets turn the focus to you for a moment. You completely fail to address any of the valid points raised in Ike42's analysis. Let me summarize them --

-- some of Mr. Meier's claims have been proven to be factually incorrect, despite being consistent with scientific beliefs at the time they were made.

-- some of Mr. Meier's "facts" have been found to already have been within the scope of human knowledge at the time Mr. Meier claims knowledge of these facts was given to him by extraterrestrial beings.

I asked for your evaluation of this and got nothing but insulted and circumstantial nonsense about Billy Meier's secluded life in a far-away place without libraries, etc. He obviously had a camera and film, so I'm not going to believe he was totally incommunicado during the period of time in which his writings were created. Thus, your response is non-responsive to the question.

Your arguments are based on nothing more than fallacious reasoning:



JRR Tolkien sold a lot more books than Wendell Stevens. Does that make the Trilogy of the Rings a true story? There have been many books written on Roswell that have sold quite well. Does that make any of them true? What about the volumes that have been written on the JFK conspiracy? Quite good money makers. But still no proof.



First, be careful when you're using the word moron. Many of the people analyzing Meier's grand claims are not quite a stupid as you might think. And the odds of pulling of this "hoax" are not at issue. To date, I don't think Meier has "pulled off" anything. Rather, I think he's made some extraordinary claims and has utterly failed to produce the level of extraordinary proof necessary to substantiate them. What? The photographs? Easily hoaxed at the time they were made. The sound? Guess what, it took Honda 20 years to replicate the sound made by the Harley Davidson engine/exhaust system -- and they were throwing serious money at the problem. A few people trying to replicate a sound? Hmm.. how's this -- the tape recording itself reproduced the sound, doesn't it? Therefore, you cannot say that the sound cannot be reproduced, can you? Supposedly, no one knows the means by which it was originally produced. That's a very, very different thing than being unable to reproduce it. It's equally possible, however, the Mr. Meier placed a kazoo in his rectum and waited for certain gastrointestinal processes to take place, thereby creating the sound. Imagine my surprise if that were true and the reason that the source of the sound went unknown for so many years was that it was created in an extremely odd manner?



Yes, being lazy and ignorant seem to be the words of the day. Trust me, they've crossed my mind in this discourse. But how about this -- the lack of acceptance is due to the evidence, not the analysis of the claims or the effort people have put forth in trying to authenticate the claims. I'll refer back to the Ike42 paper. Why can't you address each of the well-reasoned assertions in this person's paper? Also, what was lazy and ignorant about Ike42 and his analysis of the claims? Seems like a lot of work to go through to be called lazy and ignorant, doesn't it? Dismissing the paper without addressing the issues it raise... well... do the words lazy and ignorant come to mind? Hmm. You wrote...



Well, here's where you have it wrong. It's not up to the researcher to provide proof that Billy Meier couldn't have known this information -- the research proved that this information WAS already known. So again, why come many light years to tell Billy Meiers wrong facts or facts that people already knew? Hmmm...



Don't blame us. You decided to be the PR guy for Billy Meier. You can call us all stupid and morons and lazy, or whatever, but it's not furthering this great moment in history, is it? 50 years and Billy's still in doubt... he needs new PR guys, I think

After all...



If so, I imagine that a better spokeman would have been chosen than a one-armed hermit from the middle of nowhere, wouldn't you think?

Anyway, if this event were so important, then the Pleadians would have come down and introduced themselves to human-kind as a whole. I firmly believe that this world has been visited by beings from other planets. Billy Meier's story, having been the subject of debate for so many years, is truly meaningless unless there actually some impact on civilization. Have the Pleadians come pay us a visit. Until then, you're going to need to do a better job of PR'ing this story if you want to sell those DVD's.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by Centrist]

[edit on 9-12-2005 by Centrist]

I see, a lot of stuff thrown together but missing the point, of course. May I suggest that you shouldn't have offered the nonsense about the photos and sounds being easily reproduced since it's simply not true...unless you would like to join the long list of blowhards who couldn't belly up to the bar and reproduce, duplicate or debunk them. It jsut shows that you truly know NOTHING about hte case and the extensive research but you'll use Ike as your reference point!

As for the veracity of the case, take it up with the Swiss Military Air Safety Monitoring Unit that reported 236 UFO radar sightings above Meier's land in two years.

Re the DVD, rather touchy aren't you? So, if I get your dirft, you'd rather not "line someone's pockets" ($29, shipping included) than risk having a legal standard of proof for the claims made. Is there really a comment needed for that other than go to the back of the line? Okay, here's one, as someone who's spent thousands of my own dollars (and still has a day job so don't bother with the "vested interest" b.s.) I found it well worth finding out for myself...at any cost. As I said, lazy.

But we'll stick to the point for one more moment, you were offered the proof but you'd rather be blustering and raging than checking it out. The case is either true or it isn't. The FACTS support the truthfulness, as do the scientific analyses of the physical evidence, again, still irreproducible. You want me to nitpick my way through Ike but he's already WRONG on just enough key material to make it unnecessary and you're trying to assert that the info was available to Meier that simply wasn't - at least not according to Lt. Col. Stevens and two private investigators who conducted a six-year long investigation at their own expense. And of course you don't mention all the info that WASN'T avaialble to him then since it's only been validated within the last few years...though he published it decades ago. Ignorant and arrogant, a winning combination.

And just what is the logic here:

"I asked for your evaluation of this and got nothing but insulted and circumstantial nonsense about Billy Meier's secluded life in a far-away place without libraries, etc. He obviously had a camera and film, so I'm not going to believe he was totally incommunicado during the period of time in which his writings were created. Thus, your response is non-responsive to the question."

I see, a camera and film equal access to information not available to him and technology not yet invented. Stunning.

AAnd this is pure genius:

"JRR Tolkien sold a lot more books than Wendell Stevens. Does that make the Trilogy of the Rings a true story? There have been many books written on Roswell that have sold quite well. Does that make any of them true? What about the volumes that have been written on the JFK conspiracy? Quite good money makes. But still no proof."

If you understood plain English, and simple logic, since Stevens published the books with Meier's transcripts containing the (factual) prophetic info BEFORE the events occurred that constitutes proof. So what makes them true is that the info was TRUE and ACCURATE,not fiction or fantasy. Kind of get that now, do you? I mean, can you see the differnece, did I make it clear enough, can you figure it out.

By the way, though my use of lazy and moron weren't even directed towards you, they apparently hit a nerve.

Now, which of the people analyzing "Meier's grand claims are not quite a stupid as you might think" are you referring to?

Once again, specifically, "And the odds of pulling of this "hoax" are not at issue. To date, I don't think Meier has "pulled off" anything. Rather, I think he's made some extraordinary claims and has utterly failed to produce the level of extraordinary proof necessary to substantiate them. What? The photographs? Easily hoaxed at the time they were made."

Absolute unsubstantiated rubbish. Get acquainted with the testing parameters on the photos and sounds and then duplicate them yourself or show that they were duplicable then...or now. Take your time.

I'm sure that you know that when someone is accussed of a "crime" that there are certain factors that figure into the prosecution, such as opportunity, time, motive, witnesses, evidence, etc. For those dim bulbs that claim that Meier had access to rather rarified and obscure info (the tachyon propulsion info comes to mind as well as the Jupiter info, etc.) the burden of proof would b eon them, not Meier. And just so that you can get a runnning start on that, you might talk to a physicist named David Froning who was amazed that Meier had info on tachyons and hyper-space propulsion that was really the domain of physicists like himself.

And yes, I'm the PR guy for Meier and at this time most of the people in the world who want to check out the case do so via the info at my site (and linked sites). Some are really high rollers and get the DVD. Of course, some people kinda already know that the info, let's say the specific Paris info, is actually on that DVD or I wouldn't put myself out thre and say it wasn't. You might check with the reporter at WTOP (among others) who actually got the DVD and confirmed it.

The ball game's over for the skeptics and debunkers. You don't like my bedside manner, sorry, but just how much nonsense does one have to put up with once the case has been proved?

Here's the problem. Your insanely confrontational and accusatory style of discussing these issues is entirely counterproductive. I, and many of us here, are after the truth. People like you make it harder to believe, because it's human nature to judge the messenger, despite the message. All we're asking for the is proof. You don't seem to realize that you've only shown evidence. None of that evidence is conclusive. In fact, you have the very premise of the argument wrong.



No. I'm guessing you're not a lawyer. Good thing I have one handy. Here, the burden is NOT on the skeptic to prove Meier "wrong". The skeptics simply point out that Meier has not offered credible evidence of necessary to carry the burden of proving his claim! Does a man get convicted based solely on a fuzzy photographs that doesn't clearly show him committing a crime? Or the testimony of a witness that's been proven unreliable? NO. A man gets convicted of a crime (in this country) when it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he's committed the crime. That doesn't mean beyond ANY doubt and it doesn't mean that the evidence simply weighs in favor of guilt. It means that there still can be some doubt, but not a reasonable doubt.

The photographs Billy Meier took are evidence, but they're only evidence. The sound is evidence, but only evidence. The papers are evidence, but only evidence. Proof is based on the evidence as a whole, with each piece being weighed by a factfinder. If you have conflicting pieces of evidence, it weighs against the level of proof that's been established.

Further, Meier is not on trial here, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the skeptics. Far from it. Meier is the one alleging that the story is true, because he's the one who is "bringing" the story. It's Meier's burden to prove his story. We're just judge and jury. Speaking in his place, that makes you the prosecutor, not the judge nor a member of the jury.

Now, on to the evidence. You are telling the jury to find the photographs and sound records are infallible, thus they must be accepted as true?

Ok, lets assume we do. What does that "evidence" prove? Just that Billy Meier took pictures of what he alleges to be alien spacecraft and recorded a sound that he alleges was generated by non-terrestrial means.

Ok. Fine. That doesn't prove the story. There is no evidence of alien beings, that the ship is, actually, of extraterrestrial origin, and the sound is simply a sound. It's Billy Meier's credibility that determines how much weight the sound is given. At this point, we must look at other factors to determine his credibility.



And also,



Oh? They're not?



Um. So you're asserting that it's lazy not to spend $29, shipping included, to get a "legal standard proof" for "the most important story in all of human history." I'm curious. How do you set a price for "the most important story in all of human history"? If it was the greatest story of all time and the proof unquestionably rose to a "legal standard", is there a price tag on such a thing? If the story sold itself, would you even need to get it out via a DVD? Wouldn't the news media be the appropriate avenue? Are they lazy and ignorant, too, for not making this the subject of the nightly news? Quite simply, if the proof was that good then the story would have a little more "legs".

Part of the problem with the Meier story, quite clearly and unfortunately, appears to be the messenger. But a bigger problem is that the only proof that ties the photographs to the assertion of extra terrestrial beings is Mr. Meier's writings. Yes, it has merit in some instances. But the writings also have their problems. There is factually incorrect information in the books. That information is consistent with what was believed to be true by scientists of the era in which Meier's writings were made. It bears against Meier's credibility to assert that aliens gave him incorrect information.

Also, there is no proof that Billy Meier wrote certain papers when he said he did. He claims to have written the 115th paper on October 19, 1978 and given it to Wendell Stevens on March 9, 1979. Stevens book was not published until 1982. Thus, we know that the paper was written in 1982, but do not know that it was written in 1978, unless we take Meier's word for it, or 1979 if we take Stevens word for it. We don't. Their word is not proof. The 1982 date has been proven. Thus we take the 1982 date as fact, although if other evidence comes up, the earlier dates may become fact at that time.

Much of what Meier said the aliens told him was published in early 1979. Some of what he published was published by scientific journals with incorrect facts. Evidence of similar errors is evidence of copying (call a copyright lawyer and ask him). Since Meier's work contains errors that match errors of published works of the relevant era, there is evidence that Meier copied these facts and/or extrapolated based on known facts.

Based on this evidence, Meier's case still has controversial evidence, some of which tend to suggest that Meier's story is true (the photos), some of which is indeterminate in probative value (the sound -- it's just a sound with an unidentified origina), and some of which goes against Meier's credibility (factually incorrect writing that cannot be conclusively proven as to the date of which it was written).

Ok.. there you have a juries perspective. I know there are the "predictions", but I think there's equal evidence on both sides of the coin there too.

So... at best, you must see why some do not believe that Meier's claim has been "proven". In such an instance, proof would have to be based on unquestionable evidence of immense clarity. We do not have that here. It's not that there's no evidence. Just that there's not enough.



You're the one selling DVD's, not me. I would imagine the correct answer to your question is, therefore, "all of it". Quite frankly, you are just the messenger. If you want to champion the greatest story in the history of human kind, you would be better served by being respectful to those who show an interest in it and debate their concerns. You're the one who chooses to berate and insult the people who have shown the interest to take up your message. If you have a problem with them, then what's your purpose? Isn't it to get people talking about this great story? Or do you prefer they believe blindly and without questioning it?

Centrist,

Actually I agree with dropping the whole confrontational/accusatory thing. And let me say that I occasionally do let what I call lazy and irresponsibele comments get to me, especially when I'm REALLY tied up with other stuff and want to put some info forward ona forum like this but still get some comments from previous posters that just dragges the issue down. Okay, if I let that get to me, my fault and let's see if we can move it on. I'm going to respond to a couple of key things here so I'll insert my comments.


Um. So you're asserting that it's lazy not to spend $29, shipping included, to get a "legal standard proof" for "the most important story in all of human history." I'm curious. How do you set a price for "the most important story in all of human history"? If it was the greatest story of all time and the proof unquestionably rose to a "legal standard", is there a price tag on such a thing?

MH: The info was/is posted for free on my site. The document from 1987 with mention of the Paris situation has been on my site since early 2003. The 1981 document is in a book that I first read in 1986, that I have an electronic copy of (no, I wouldn't submit that as proof for obvious reasons) and that other people still own.

If the story sold itself, would you even need to get it out via a DVD? Wouldn't the news media be the appropriate avenue? Are they lazy and ignorant, too, for not making this the subject of the nightly news? Quite simply, if the proof was that good then the story would have a little more "legs".

MH: Wild, unsubstantiated nad absolutely incorrect assumptions. I've lectured on the case for about 18 and approached almost every media outlet possible. Only recently are they beginning to pay attention and yes, they're lazy and they let the question itself ("If this is true, why haven't I heard about it before?") stop them. Trust me, this is my experience. There is one radio host, Dennis Prager, who won't allow the subject to be discussed and I've sent him info for 9 years. If you think I'm incorrect, try doing what I'm doing and see how well received you'll be. And, I think that a story that spans 63 years, first covered in the press in India in 1964, that has 120+ witnesses, including a formeer UN diplomat and 15 witnesses who took and passed lie detector tests, with 55 years of prophetically accurate info and 1,200 clear daytime photos...a story wih "legs".

Part of the problem with the Meier story, quite clearly and unfortunately, appears to be the messenger.

MH: No, it's more like the 21 people who'v etried to kill him...and the countless numbers wh drawincomplete conclusions.

But a bigger problem is that the only proof that ties the photographs to the assertion of extra terrestrial beings is Mr. Meier's writings.

MH: No, Marcel Vogel's analysis of the metal samples and the sound analysis by Naval Undersea Labs, both of which refer to unknown technologies (these are scientific analyses by EXPERTS) contradict your conclusion...as do the details of the photographic analysis. And this is where you make more assertions that are simply incorrect.

Yes, it has merit in some instances. But the writings also have their problems. There is factually incorrect information in the books. That information is consistent with what was believed to be true by scientists of the era in which Meier's writings were made. It bears against Meier's credibility to assert that aliens gave him incorrect information.

MH: If ONE of Meier's photos, video and film are of objects of unknonw, non-terrestrial origina and technology then we have something, don't we. The tests showed many were, not just one. And the tests of Meier's evidence showed no hoaxing. So, if some very rarified and previously unavailable info is shown to be unique to Meier - and we have LOTS of it - and let's say you find a couple that are incorrect, does that invalidate the accurate info, such as the Jupiter/Io, Venus, Saturn, planets beyond Pluto, earthquake/oil, genetic engineering, wars in Iraq, WTC, etc., etc., etc.? Or might it be possible that the info called incorrect may not be and that access to the same info, when it may have been known to some other people in certain circles, was absolutely not avaialble to Meier except in the manner he said that he obtained it. Those are reasonable queestions...when one understands the scope of the case.

Also, there is no proof that Billy Meier wrote certain papers when he said he did. He claims to have written the 115th paper on October 19, 1978 and given it to Wendell Stevens on March 9, 1979. Stevens book was not published until 1982. Thus, we know that the paper was written in 1982, but do not know that it was written in 1978, unless we take Meier's word for it, or 1979 if we take Stevens word for it. We don't. Their word is not proof. The 1982 date has been proven. Thus we take the 1982 date as fact, although if other evidence comes up, the earlier dates may become fact at that time.

MH: All documents written by Meier were/are signed off on by other people. Okay, you don't want to take anyone's word, don't but sufficient evidence exists for information published prior to occurrence...again the Paris info (and lots of other info) is irrefutably in evidence prior to occurrence - as you now KNOW, without having to buy anything.

Much of what Meier said the aliens told him was published in early 1979. Some of what he published was published by scientific journals with incorrect facts. Evidence of similar errors is evidence of copying (call a copyright lawyer and ask him).

MH: No, it's not, it's only evidence of incorrect facts..if they're indeed incorrect. As far as the info that Ike claims is incorrect, as I recall there's some possible disagreement on that. Some of it may not yet be proven one way or the other.

Since Meier's work contains errors that match errors of published works of the relevant era, there is evidence that Meier copied these facts and/or extrapolated based on known facts.

MH: Taking your argument, then we'd have to conclude that Meier's accurate info, such as all that I already mentioned, would confirm his and its authenticity, wouldn't it?

Based on this evidence, Meier's case still has controversial evidence, some of which tend to suggest that Meier's story is true (the photos), some of which is indeterminate in probative value (the sound -- it's just a sound with an unidentified origina),

MH: Not at all, three sound studios and 4 or 5 experts were involved in the analysis, you should put hteir finding s to the test. you can see some of it on the movie "contact".

and some of which goes against Meier's credibility (factually incorrect writing that cannot be conclusively proven as to the date of which it was written).

MH: The amount of info of debatable accuracy is miniscule compared to that which is clearly accurate and published prior to events.

Ok.. there you have a juries perspective. I know there are the "predictions", but I think there's equal evidence on both sides of the coin there too.

So... at best, you must see why some do not believe that Meier's claim has been "proven". In such an instance, proof would have to be based on unquestionable evidence of immense clarity. We do not have that here. It's not that there's no evidence. Just that there's not enough.

MH: Preponderance of proof is, in this case, overwhelming. To not be aware of that is to not truly know the case. And your heavy reliance on ike is a giveaway that it's your main ammunition. As I've pointed out to other folks, you either have to credit Meier with being an above genius level master of varous areas of expertise such as : anthropology, archeology and archeological dating, astrophysics, atmospheric physics, biology, botany, chemistry, clairvoyance, cosmogony, cosmology, cryptobiology, digital effects, electronics, electrodynamics, epistemology, etymology, exobiology, filmmaking, genetics and genetic engineering, geology, geopolitics, history, linguistics, medicine, mass hypnosis, metallurgy, meteorology, model making, oceanography, paleontology, particle physics, photography, planetary physics, psychology, religion, seismology, sound recording and engineering, special effects, taxonomy, tectonics, videography, vulcanology and zoology, etc.

...or a genuine contactee. I suggest that you read my article in my July Newsletter "A Puzzle Where All of the Pieces Have to Fit". And I also ask you to contemplate this not so remote possibility, if all of the research and investigation by experts and others before me,a nd all of my own work as well, is shown to be true, what will all of your (and the other people's arguments) have amounted to? You will, in my opinion, have to answer that...probably just as soon as you put the pieces together.

And, as for the question that may be on your mind as to what would I do if I found out the case was a hoax and Meier a fraud, as I say in another one of my articles...I'd be first in line to want to know HOW he did it. I'm sure the Swiss military and scientists from IBM, USGS, NASA, NUL, McDonnell-Douglas and others who authenticated Meier's evidence, would too.

And regarding my being the one selling the DVD, I'd suggest that you'd benefit from seeing it instead of just having an allergic reaction to the very idea.

Back at ya...!

Mr. Horn- I have done as you suggested and been reading up on some of the available info regards this case. I like Centrist would prefer to discuss without histrionics and name calling. After all I dont think I used any derogatory terms in refering to you.
Question: have you heard of the class action lawsuit being filed in california to recover the costs of people who previously supported Billy who now wish to retrieve the monies they spent buying his goods?
It seems they have come to the conclusion that they were led on and from what I saw the evidence seems to support them. They even have a video from inside the cult detailing the fraud.
They use the company Underground Video Inc. as a front.
Now before you go flying off the handle let me add that I applaude your support for what you believe but I think you should check them out.
Not saying I buy into them either just think its worth a look. I'm still looking into this so I dont have any definite conclusions.
Another question: if these guys arent telling the truth could you not sue them? you know for libel or some such thing?
thx


[edit on 9/12/05 by longhaircowboy]

okay... If it's true..
I like that story.. Where he was seen in the early days... Where he was seen walking across a courtyard with a woman beside him. That part of the story are really cream. As he was seen by someone else. It turned out - to be one of the space girls. yum yum!

And an old pictures where he had a monkey by he's side are really..cute...


I wonder if he liked that monkey... they seems pretty freinds alike...in the photo..
Maybe he had some days where he use to live in India or something i don't know the story.. Bali ect. Or just a place with lots of monkey's...

I just think somewhere along... He lost contact with the space-people...Instead of calling them Aliens..
And i really think he miss them. You know, when you miss someone...especially if they are from outher space...And not in the nearby area.. Then you can't help think about them - and if it really get's tuff.. You could even start imagine what they are all about...Is there a plan?

And that could for some reason - start some sort of telepatic communication...About the plan...If such exist.
Like a mother missing her child...Trying to figure out what the child are doing...Or the loss of a wife.. The loss of something we loved...

Maybe it's just a good old love-story. And how it is connected..Who can tell other than Mr.Meier?

Maybe it's just a result of lost past... Or something else he might have lost during he's life.
Pretty heavy..................................
But as you can see on the picture... this guy are a fantast..A dreamer - an explore.. Just like columbus and Thor Heyerdal.. Back in those days.

Okay Columbus might be a bit older that that.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by Ram]

It seems early on there was speculation that the monkey helped him with his hoaxing since he didnt have the use of but one arm. I'm still reading though so thats all I'll say.

[edit on 9/12/05 by longhaircowboy]

I'll stipulate to its publication in 1981, if you tell me why there's no news of rebellion/revolution/massacre in Italy. I don't assume the the prediction necessarily says that both France and Italy will be plagued at once, but there's not much reason to believe Italy will experience problems soon. Perhaps if they do, then this prediction will be more persuasive.

As well, Paris has not yet burned to the ground. Until that happens, I think there's a logical gap between prediction and current events.



I have a hard time with this statement. Various people have published concerns over the type of lie detector test chosen. At least some of the photos and video show indicia that they may not be genuine. The missing tree issue is still hard to take at face value without further proof, as well. Don't take this as an attack on the entirety of Mr. Meier's stories, they are just issues where reasonable minds may have a hard time accepting the evidence with 100% confidence.



Hang on -- those metal samples went mysteriously missing. Scientists require something call peer review in order to validate the findings of another research. That didn't happen here, did it? First, there are the specious credentials of the researcher used; second, the fact that he was the only scientist for which there is any physical proof that he analyzed the samples; and, third, his story is reported to be inconsistent with the story told by those advocating Mr. Meier's claims. Lets also remember, the physical evidence went missing, thereby precluding further analysis.

Again, reasonable minds find it hard to accept the evidence with a high degree of confidence, given the circumstances. More importantly, why didn't the aliens provide Mr. Meiers with new samples to permit multiple, independent scientists to perform the analysis?




Ok, then pick the one that shows something of extraterrestrial origin and provide incontrovertable proof that it shows what Meier asserts it shows. You see, photographs are just depictions of scenes. Authentication poses a huge challenge. Like many people say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Logically then, absence of evidence of the manner in which Mr. Meier may have hoaxed his photographs is not evidence of the absence of such a hoax.



And yet he stumbles into the trap. Even if there is no evidence of hoaxing, where's the evidence that the photograph is of something alien to this world? Where is the one object, fact, or image that is so undeniably foreign to this world, it's inhabitants, or their imagination that those pictures are not of something made by the hands of man?

You and I both know that the standard set in my last statement is impossibly high to reach. I know you'll assert the physical samples and sound as corroborating evidence. Please understand that those of us who only witness the exchange of information can only judge based on what we see and read. If debunkers have tained Mr. Meier's evidence, then that's unfortunate for the truth. But if Mr. Meier's experience has been truthful to the story he tells, he should be able to counter them with irrefutable proof, not just a mountain of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence.




Many people see alternate interpretations and readings of Meier's predictions. As I remarked with regard to the paris prediction (a city that has been subject to revolution before... and the thought of the French being occupied by foreign invaders? Oh, that's original. It would only be the third time in recent history.)




Then provide names of the people and evidence that this is factually accurate. Such evidence is missing from your website. Names, dates, etc.



I disagree that the prediction with regard to Paris is "irrefutable". Paris hasn't burnt to the ground yet, right?




No, in a Federal Court of the United States, it's well-established law that repeated errors can be used as evidence of copying. The fact that the errors were repeated is the evidence of copying.



No, it simply means that part of the information he learned from other sources was correct. Here's an example. In Rural Telephone V. Feist, the Supreme Court of the United States held that copying existed when one phone company copied phone numbers out of another company's phone book. The fact that the first company included approximately 200 fictitious phone numbers placed in company 2's phone book (out of about 20,000) was evidence of copying. The roughly 19,800 correct entries were not evidence of originality. Here, the fact that Mr. Meier got most of the data correct is a testament to his sources. Unfortunately for Mr. Meier's claims, most of the information was known to modern science prior to the date upon which he can prove the information was published.



200 out of 20,000 is pretty miniscule, too.




Don't be so sure There's a lot of evidence here, I agree. The weight and credibility of the evidence, however, have left Mr. Meier's claims the subject of dispute for many, many years, thereby leaving the court of public opinion at odds with your position. The vanishing physical evidence is unfortunate and doesn't add to the credibility of the story.

One question -- that Story on this page of your site that has a by-line of Los Angeles, CA on November 7, 2005. Is that a press release created by you, or was it run in an independent publication? If so, I'd like to confirm it and some of the facts in it, such as the Swiss Military UFO radar report. Also, is there any official confirmation of this from the Swiss Military? In other words, something more than the assertion that this was made by a third-party -- an actual, verifiable statement issued by the Swiss Military?

thanks.

Also, I hope you appreciate that these remarks, although appearing skeptical, are areas where a number of people who have presented their concerns about the story have differed in interpretation. Mr. Meier's claims are exceptionally grand. You'll understand that, for that reason, his proof is subject to a very high standard of review -- it must be beyond reproach to be accepted as fact. I do understand that such a level of proof is very difficult to achieve, when many people will refuse to believe the truth if it's put on a plate in front of them. I assure you, I have no problem accepting that someone of this world has been in contact with people of another world. I wholeheartedly believe it to be true. Whether or not I believe Mr. Meier is still undecided, since there are a great many issues which remain unclear.

Time permits only a brief reply but don't worry, I'll show you how you can ascertain the truth for yourselves. First, the "lawsuit" was indeed a bogus one fronted by one Kal Korff, twice publicly self-admitted liar. No "experts", no "evidence" and no lawsuit were ever filed. Now why would someone, many people in fact, go to such trouble over a...hoaxer?

Just another piece of info to drop in regarding Jupiter. As you know, the books published by Stevens started in about 1980 and had been in process since 1978, when he received the first transcripts for translation from Meier. And while people want to debate about the availability of specific scientific information that no other farmers that I know of where interested in and incorporating into published material - as none of you were either, though you'd have more reason and opportunity to do so - here's something to ponder. In 1998, the scientists at Cornell University who were involved with the Voyager mission published a NEW discovery, they said that the matter coming out of the volcanoes on Io was composed of dust particles and sulfur ions. Wow, imagine being able to detect that. And, wow, imagine being able to open up one Wendelle's little ol' books and, right there in the heart of the Jupiter info, Meier states that the ejecta from Io's volcanoes was composed of - do I really need to say it? - okay, dust particles and sulfur ions.

Now don't let me be a spoil sport while someone here wants to do the predictable "anybody coulda" routine even though but nobody did before Meier. THINK about it before succumbing to the temptation to simply try to jam a finger in the dyke...there are more places to fill than you have digits for.

But let me jump to my hopefully not too offending premise, addressed as it is to not only the good folks here but to a whole band of skeptics and debunkers who have had quite an investment (and I don't say it's true for you here) in making the Meier case wrong and untrue: You're all bluffing. Now let me explain what I mean by that. Unless soemone wants to correct me, there's isn't anyone here who's troubled themselves to go and check out this story in person. No one here who, instead of off-handedly impugning people's character, truthfulness and integrity has gone and met the people, walked the land (as the original investigators did, as I did to a lesser degree).

No one here has sat and heard what they have to say about their own direct experiences over the past 25-30 years, no one here who's even gone and spoken with the investigators based in this country. Also, no one here has actually examined any of the physical evidence themselves, yet aspersions are cast about Marcel Vogel, a multi-patent holding genius who was attempying to synthesize the chemicals that create bioluminesence in fireflies...which he accomplished when he was 12.

No one here has spoken with David Froning, as I have, a bonafide space scientist with decades of experience in the defense industry. No one here went and showed Meier's photos and films to an Academy Award-winning special effects house that stated outright that IF they could duplicate them they'd need CGI, as no models or special effects are used.

So I say that you're bluffing because you haven't yet stirred and really done the work, like so many other people you float theories as to how something COULD have been done (but already proven that it wasn't) that the prophecy wasn't completely fulfilled (prophecies are warnings of things that will occur if people don't make course corrections, it remains to be seen what will happen in Italy and if the French have not yet seen all of the troubles).

And you're bluffing because you're not showing that you're thinking, just attempting to offer plausible piecemeal reasons of how something COULD be other than it is. You won't know this, most of you, until you go there and check it out for yourself.

In truth I find that in a live presentation the skepticism quotient goes down to almost zero because the preponderance of evidence somehow weighs more heavily on people when they get it in a 1 1/2 shot. That's not to say that they can't or don't check it out further. It's just that common sense, reason and logic take over and the mental, shall we say gymnastics, quiet down. And, frankly, there's no way that I can put that across here, partly because people are too well defended (and call it needing more proof, or whatever).

So there will always be the questions but the real questions should be asked of yourselves. The texts exist, the books exist, the information exists. The evidence exists. The witnesses exist. The other photographers exist. What doesn't exist are collaborators, finances, technology, motive, opportunity, time to hoax. Why not ask yourselves why you haven't thought this through and why you would apply standards of ever higher bar raising when not one of you, with two hands and everything now at your disposal, could even come remotely close to producing what's in this case...nor would any of you be able to bear the cost personally, the 21 attempts on your life - just so that people sitting comfortably at their computers could exercise their own IMAGINATIONS and fail to grasp the enormity of what is, and has been, in front of them for a long, long time.

my question still stands stop your obfuctions and falfshoods
what about the lawsuit?
btw what i saw had nothin to do with
kal gottya
[edit on 9/12/05 by longhaircowboy]

[edit on 9/12/05 by longhaircowboy]

[edit on 9/12/05 by longhaircowboy]

oh I'm bluffing? then lets see you prove it. put yer cards on the table. I took your advice and geuss what? it leaves me wanting.wanting to know what really floats yer boat.
whats yer cut?