Billy Meier called the New Nostradamus!?!?, page 2

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.

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.

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.

it's the most important story in all of human history.

And also,

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?

Oh? They're not?

you'd rather not "line someone's pockets" ($29, shipping included) than risk having a legal standard of proof for the claims made. . . . As I said, lazy.

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.

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?

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...!