Oh, dear.
Indigo, I originally had a begrudging respect for you. I didn't agree with your conclusions, but you seemed to want to analyze my analysis
semi-objectively. And then you decided to start quoting the lies that Michael Horn posts on his website.
Let me make it very clear to all of the new people reading this thread who have probably not read all of the other ATS Meier threads. The IIG, and
myself in particular, has NEVER retracted ANYTHING we have ever stated on the topic of Billy Meier. Michael Horn likes to make stuff up on a regular
basis. One of his favorite things to do is write to various skeptics and say that he is going to send out a press release saying that the skeptics
said something that they never did and then when the person refuses to acknowledge the email Horn then sends out a press release saying that the
skeptic said something that they never did.
For example, on July 10, 2008 Michael Horn wrote the following email to me:
"Please acknowledge that your findings and conclusions were again (as in the model tree argument) incorrect."
Here's another example from July 12, 2008:
"From: Michael Horn
Date: July 12, 2008 8:45:43 AM PDT
To: Derek Bartholomaus
Subject: Capitulation
Derek,
I am planning on posting an article regarding your and CFI-West/IIG's capitulation in the matter of the UFO on the hillside film clip taken by
Meier.
I will be stating that you have failed to support your premise, with any evidence, that the object is a model and that it was somehow manipulated by
Meier.
I will further be stating that it is virtually impossible, for a number of reasons, for the object to have been a model and that neither you nor
anyone else in your organization have succeeded in even coming close to duplicating it.
And I will also state that, since you have clearly claimed that the object was a model and not a real, unknown flying object, not under the control of
Meier or anyone else on earth, that it clearly fulfills your challenge regarding paranormal phenomena.
If there's anything incorrect in the above please notify me asap.
MH"
Because I refused to respond to such an asinine and childish email he then puts out a press release saying that I retracted my statements. The level
of intellectual dishonesty in such behavior is astounding.
Now, if you want specific examples of how Michael Horn routinely misquotes people please take a look at this section of the IIG report:
www.iigwest.org...
Here are some examples:
Horn's statement: "Six professors of forestry looked at Meier's photos and looked at the trees and each one determined that the trees are full size
mature trees and not models."
Prof. Hansen's response: "I have not "authenticated real trees", or made any other definitive statements about these photos. My observations are
being misrepresented, and my name and affiliation are being used without my permission."
Prof. Jensen's response: "An estimate of tree height (actually only the top portion of a single particular tree) that I made several years ago in
good faith has been taken out of context and misused to purport things that I did not intend. Further, my observations have been misappropriated and
misapplied to photographs that I have never seen and situations that I have never reviewed. I want to assure you that I have never purported to
authenticate any photos of alleged UFOs for Mr. Deardorff, Mr. Meier, Mr. Horn, or anyone else. Nor have I ever purported to determine the
authenticity of any trees in any photos of alleged UFOs for anyone."
Jeff Ritzmann has also tracked down people Horn has quoted. Here is one example from Dr. Malin:
Horn's selective misquote of Dr. Malin: "I find the photographs themselves credible, they're good photographs. They appear to represent a real
phenomenon. If the photographs are hoaxes then I am intrigued by the quality of the hoax. How did he do it?"
Dr. Malin's statement: "It really doesn't matter whether they're real or not. If they are real, the occupants don't want to have any substantive
contact with us, and certainly they're not offering me a lift to Mars 8^). So screw them! If they're not real, who cares if some nut in Switzerland
can make good fakes?"
Also, at the 2008 X-Conference Jeff Ritzmann, David Biedny, and Jeremy Vaeni met Jim Dilletoso and asked him about his analysis of the Meier
photographs and he said that he only ever analyzed one photograph and not multiples like Michael Horn implies. Next he was asked what he thought
about the Wedding Cake UFO and he said "Oh, that's clearly a fake." You can listen to it on The Paracast:
www.theparacast.com... and The Culture Of Contact:
media.podcastingmanager.com...
Now, as far as the raygun goes, well all of the components have already been identified in this ATS thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
As far as my IIG report goes, nothing presented here so far has caused me to rethink any of my analyses. If you look at the pteranodon photos and
think that they are different from the pteranodon illustration then there is nothing I can do to change your mind. The same goes for the pictures of
Asket and Nera. When you have the person in the photograph tell you that she is the person in the photograph and you don't believe her then there is
nothing I can do to change your mind. We haven't even discussed all of the "predictions" that Meier claims to have made, but which have been shown
to have been post-diction or just completely wrong. Or the audio recordings which were interpreted completely wrong.
I am perfectly willing to adjust my findings when sufficient evidence is brought to my attention. That is the way that the scientific process works.
And I have provided updates to the reports to clarify statements that were made. If anyone ever provides sufficient evidence to overturn any of my
findings I will post it, but so far no one has.
BTW, I am still not actually done with the report. I still need to get the film analysis, the raygun analysis, and the timeline of Meier events
completed. I cannot believe how long it has taken me to finish this report, but that is what happens when you only deal with this on a very part time
basis.
-Derek
