Originally posted by johnlear
As you can see, however, the total ignorance displayed by most of the posters on this thread is because the sum of their information is derived from the internet and not from personal investigation.

Ah, I see. So Most of the people who posted in this thread are "Ignorant"?
Why is that John, because we disagree?
I have studied the Meier case for years. Since I was probably 12 years old. Granted, I'm not as old as you, (I'm 34)However I have studied ufology among other things for a looong time. The Wedding cake ufo: examine the movie and photos carefully. The "ufo" is not even as close to the tree as it is Made to appear. If you examine it carefully you can clearly see Meier films and photographs it from quite a distance. Now when he zooms in you can clearly see the object is neither as large as he wishes people to believe, nor is it as close to the tree as he wishes people to believe. The "raygun" is fake. How anyone can believe it to be real is beyond me. The tip is clearly red plastic, and before you say "How do you know?" it is no different from these so called "experts" Mr. Horn says looked at photos and wildy claim numerous unverifyable "factoids"...
When I was young I even had the book "How to make lasers, phasers, and ion ray guns". I also study Tesla coils and various other sciences. Sure, I cannot say I have held an alien raygun. What I can do is offer my opinion that based upon a LOT of research in ufology and the Meier case, that there are SOME aspects of this that are pure unadulterated bull-pockey.
I really had quite a bit of respect for you JL...until I read what you said in this
thread. In my eyes it totally discredits you. Oh well, you won't care anyway.

Now, Here is the thing:
I actually DO believe in extraterrestrials, ufos, etc. But this case has so much
in it that appears to be utter nonsense. Not his story, not the aliens he says he met...but the pictures and some of the video. It is so obvious.
Sorry you can't believe that.

[edit on 17-4-2007 by WhiteWash]

Originally posted by WhiteWash

I have studied the Meier case for years. Since I was probably 12 years old. time. The Wedding cake ufo: examine the movie and photos carefully. The "ufo" is not even as close to the tree as it is Made to appear. If you examine it carefully you can clearly see Meier films and photographs it from quite a distance. Now when he zooms in you can clearly see the object is neither as large as he wishes people to believe, nor is it as close to the tree as he wishes people to believe. The "raygun" is fake. How anyone can believe it to be real is beyond me. The tip is clearly red plastic, and before you say "How do you know?" it is no different from these so called "experts" Mr. Horn says looked at photos and wildy claim numerous unverifyable "factoids"...
Now, Here is the thing:

I actually DO believe in extraterrestrials, ufos, etc. But this case has so much in it that appears to be utter nonsense. Not his story, not the aliens he says he met...but the pictures and some of the video. It is so obvious.

Yes WhiteWash, I can see how thoroughly you researched the Meier case from your arm chair and video screen. I can see you are not ignorant. As I say, you might be more informed had you ever personally interviewed Billy Meier.

Hey but thanks for the post anyway. Sorry for calling you ignorant.

Originally posted by johnlear
Yes WhiteWash, I can see how thoroughly you researched the Meier case from your arm chair and video screen. I can see you are not ignorant. As I say, you might be more informed had you ever personally interviewed Billy Meier.

Hey but thanks for the post anyway. Sorry for calling you ignorant.

Indeed? You know that all the research I've done was from my arm chair and video screen? My word. What evidence do you have to support this "Learoid"?
Are you privy to some surveillance upon my person? Actually, I originally researched long ago with books, and even microfilm, and public library resources. Some of us haven't the money to fly all over the earth interviewing people. But prey enlighten us John if you have interviewed Meier.

Hey but thanks for Your post anyway. They are always mildy amusing.

Originally posted by WhiteWash
Actually, I originally researched long ago with books, and even microfilm, and public library resources. Some of us haven't the money to fly all over the earth interviewing people

Holy smokes! Microfilm? Public Library? Wow! I guess you have me beat all to heck! I only talked to a few people who went over and met Meier. But microfilm! Whoaaaaaaa!!! I can only imagine what you found on microfilm! And the public library? Sheeeeeesh! Please accept my most humble apologies WhiteWash.

John,
Why do you persist on making little sarcastic comments with no substance to them? I am not trying to be your enemy. I simply fail to understand why you treat myself and others with sarcasm simply because they have a differing opinion. Is this manner of reply "all you got"? What exactly is your problem anyway? I would expect a man of your considerable age to act more mature.

Originally posted by johnlear
I only talked to a few people who went over and met Meier.

Mystery solved! That pretty much wraps up the story. Who could possibly dispute this rock-solid chain of evidence?

You're better at smarmy sarcasm than you are at making sense.

You have voted WhiteWash for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by johnlear
I only talked to a few people who went over and met Meier.

Mystery solved! That pretty much wraps up the story. Who could possibly dispute this rock-solid chain of evidence?

Thanks Mr. Penny, I didn't think you were going to buy the Meier story but just shows how wrong I can be. I know that you are, like me, waiting anxiously to find out what kind of evidence about Billy Meier resides in the public library. It certainly has to be better than actually meeting the guy, don't you think?

I don't understand how meeting a charlatan would be better evidence of his story being true. You have his photos taken from a catalogue, his "evidence" lifted from dinosaur photos or movies (can't remember which), you have the pie/ufo and a myriad other photo debunking pieces of evidence and you think the man who goes to all that trouble to make this stuff up is a better piece of evidence?

Thank god you aren't a lawyer.

I can see it now.

"your honor, I know my client was seen entering and leaving the victim's home an hour before and an hour after the attack, I know his fingerprints are all over the home, including the murder weapon, I know that he left bloody footprints all over the place, including tracks leading to his car, in his car, from his car into his home and then out to the garbage where we found his bloody clothes but that's all just evidence. You should hear him tell the story. That's far better evidence than all this other stuff the prosecution is claiming."


The man is a charlatan. There's tons of evidence against him and his word is all he can fall back on and you take his word.

Oh, wait, it's John Lear. We should all just take your word for it because you have a pilot's license. Nevermind, let me toss all the facts out the window and prep my soul for that big butterfly net on the moon.

You have voted WhiteWash for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

So, out of curiosity, has anyone actually gone to the alleged underground pyramid that Meier was said to have had on his land?
Y'know, the ones that the aliens built for him so he could practice his higher frequency vibrational meditation.

Are there any pics of that?

Has anyone here actually met Meier?

Sometimes his stuff sounds like the ramblings of a nut.
Sometimes he seems like a cunning con man.
And other times, bits and pieces are almost believable.



Oh John Lear, I have to ask (of course, if you don't mind that is) :

How is it, that you've made such deep contacts in the intelligence community?
I've read chunks of your bio (only the parts that my limited schedule will allow) and you have quite a few impressive accomplishments on your record.
But how was it that you've managed to infiltrate the high level projects that you seem so knowledgeable about?
I'm truly curious.
Thanx for your time.

Okay folks, continue.

Are giving "way above" awards and not contributing anything to the thread really necessary?

Quit jumping on the pile and say something people.

Peace

Originally posted by Crakeur


The man is a charlatan. There's tons of evidence against him and his word is all he can fall back on and you take his word.

Its possible that you have collected this 'tons of evidence' off of the internet. I don't know. But if you have it is suspect of disinformation.

On one of my first tv shows with George Knapp (On The Record, Channel 8, Las Vegas) in 1987 I made the statement that Billy Meier was a fraud.

I got a call the next week from a guy who suggested that I do some independent research on the Meier case which I did. I ordered the video tapes and I already had the large picture volumes that had come out in the erly 80's.

I then talked to Brit and Lee Elders, Wendelle Stevens and several others.

It is my opinion that the Meier case is true. I respect those whose opinions differ from mine. What I don't respect is the way they trash Billy Meier. I do not respect people who call Billy Meier a 'charlaton' as there is no evidence for this.

If you don't want to believe the Billy Meier cased is true, thats your choice. But then to engage in character assassination and cite faulty if not outright fraudulent facts which float around the internet like so much flotsam as 'tons of evidence' is not in keeping with true investigation.

Most of those who are so violently opposed to the Bill Meier story have never met, Meier, have never been to his village in Switzerland and have never sat down with anyone who has and had a one-on-one.

My opinion comes from reading the books, watching the videos and talking to people who have met Meier. And my opinion is that the story is true.

However I also believe the moon has a breathable atmosphere, has gravity at least 64% that of earths and that there are cities both on the near side and the farside.

One of the things that instantly discredits a "critic" is when unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks (words like charlatan), along with vague, also unsubstantiated terms like "tons of evidence", are freely used to attack someone about whom the critic knows nothing.

The lack of responsiveness to an already significant amount of reference material (such as can be found through the links I've already provided), much of which is the result of years of excellent, professional research and investigation, the selective focus on already logically explained "flaws" in the case, simply indicate that a mind has been made up - despite, and with no regard for, the facts.

And that is the way it will, and perhaps must, be because there really shouldn't be a forcing to "believe" something, or even to accept it through rational process. This is true no matter what the field or topic is and with topics like these it is to be expected especially.

While defenders of the case (myself included), in the past, used to feel compelled to fight to open people's eyes or whatever, the time has come to simply present the information and let people make up their own minds. Perhaps it should have always been that way but a certain amount of heated controversy also serves to spread the word.

Now, millions more people are finding the case because of the internet and, honestly, selective subject forums like this are not the biggest contributor to that though they do attract a certain number of people who are interested in the subject. Personally, I have yet to see any UFO-related topic. case, etc. that contains even a small fraction of comparable evidence of the quality of the Meier case, let alone that continues in an ongoing manner to provide such...for more than 55 years.

As far as the problematic photos that draw the attention of skeptics, one has to state that not only is there nothing in life that is "perfect" but the clear intentions of those who only focus on a handful of photos (when Meier took over 1,200 of them) and don't openly acknowledge the presence of so much stellar evidence, simply belies their partiality and non-objectivity.

MH
www.theyfly.com

so you think that the image taken from a catalogue and the dinosaur images and the pie tin, the burnt image posted in this thread, the strange similarities between the ufo's and commonplace bins, the ball bearings etc are what? coincidence?

Originally posted by Michael12
As far as the problematic photos that draw the attention of skeptics, one has to state that not only is there nothing in life that is "perfect" but the clear intentions of those who only focus on a handful of photos (when Meier took over 1,200 of them) and don't openly acknowledge the presence of so much stellar evidence, simply belies their partiality and non-objectivity.

translation:

never let the truth get in the way of a good story

Originally posted by Dr Love
Are giving "way above" awards and not contributing anything to the thread really necessary?

Quit jumping on the pile and say something people.

Peace

Is commenting on them?

Okay my addition would be that research has to stand or fall on the publicly available evidence which is available for verification or falsification by recognised methods. Something along the lines of 'I've talked to people who met the guy and he seems like a bloody nice bloke, actually', is interesting anecdotally but is worthless in comparison to reliable analysis of the images presented as 'evidence'. It's research by name-drop.

I just noticed that John had posted a reply making some similar points before my reply was posted. And in answer to "has anyone met Meier?", yes, I have spent time with him and the group in Switzerland over the past seven years. I've even tried, four times in three years, to trip him up with a "trick" question. It's said that when you're honest you don't have to remember anything (meaning whatever lies a dishonest person previously told to explain something). Well, Meier's answers are given without hesitation and are never self-contradictory, in my experience. In other words, my experience of him is that he's an honest (and enormously patient) man.

One has to wonder just what it is that evokes such anger and venom in people towards a man who has demanded nothing of them, had his life attacked nearly two-dozen times BECAUSE of his courageous and unyielding stand for truth and who has demonstrated the strength of character to continue despite an abundance of thankless, hostile people twisting and misrepresenting him and his work. And the funny thing is, as has been pointed out before, that NONE of them have either met the man (against whom they hurl nasty personal attacks) or have either studied the huge body of material that he has brought forth, or the significant research into it.

When "challenges" are hurled, such as the burnt photograph, that were addressed earlier by me - along with specific reference to their answers in the original investigation some 25 years ago - then it's clear that the challenger doesn't really want to know the answers, especially the ones that easily resolve the issue.

And, as I just stated above, that's fine. It makes it clear from where the challenger is coming and it eliminates the need to answer every "point" they raise, since it can be seen that they have not done, and will likely not do, the necessary homework, whch is also fine.

For those who are curious to find out what the truth is, there are clear directions to where (FREE) access to sufficient amounts of information can be found so as to come to an informed opinion.

MH
www.theyfly.com