It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


IIG's investigation of the Billy Meier HOAX

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:47 AM
reply to post by Indigo_Child

They are creating space blankets today, but were they creating them 30-40 years ago and were they readily available in Switzerland? You need to show this as well.

30-40 years ago ?

check the date on this picture...1988

First developed by NASA in 1964

so it seems it was over twenty years later that this supposed picture of the Alien was taken. that's more than ample time for this product to be marketed and distributed to many countries. even if the date on the picture is wrong...there was still plenty of time for him to have gotton one.

and it doesn't matter if there was one in Switzerland or not...there is a thing called UPS and the mail system. so any argument about availability is null and void.

In any case as I said earlier even the space-grade gold-foil does not have the same consistency as the gold-suit Alena is wearing. Note in the second pic where we can see the suit more clearly, it appears metallic. It does not appear like a blanket wrapped around Alena, but an actual suit of gold-metallic like consistency.

it looks like the same exact consistency to me...the problem is your not thinking about the variations in lighting. if the guy with the space blanket on was standing more directly in the sun like the Alien...i would bet that the colors would be very similar if not exactly the same.

i think the reason Meier didn't show more of the Alien in those pictures is because there was not a full outfit to begin with and he couldn't show any more because the faking wouldn't work then.

why is it claimed that the Pleaidians didn't want their face shown or wouldn't let Meier show their face but yet there is a picture of one showing the face ?

no foil suit here ...and who took the picture ?

This is a photograph of Billy with a Plejaren person.

Billy is on the left and the Plejaren on the right. If you see carefully you can see the face of the Plejaren.


can't claim the M.I.B. planted any of this evidence either...there is no proof that they exist,,,,none, natta , proof whatsoever.

so wich is it ? did Meier slip this one thru without them noticing ? this story is so ridiculous nobody in there right mind should defend any of it .

here is the other Alien picture that was supposedly taken in his basement

[edit on 17-4-2009 by easynow]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:49 AM
reply to post by derekcbart

Oh boy yourself...

Hey Derek,
why haven't you replied to my argument about the wedding cake ship, which does provide an explantion for the particular piece of evidence you were talking about and also while we are on the subject about misrepresenting evidence, you didn't reply either to the fact that you made a statement about Marcel Vogel which you know to be unture, Vogel didn't find Thulium with the electron microscope, it shows him pointing it out on a spectral analysis print out on film. Which I remind you again was pointed out to you by your very best friend Michael Horn in Jan 2008. So why are you misleading people?

I don't know if this stuff is 100% true but we'll get nowhere by either side making stuff up.
And by the way who told you that they were the person in the space suit?

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Frankinmouse]

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Frankinmouse]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:17 AM
No reply from Derek / IIG to any valid arguements or accusations of misleading the puplic? No? What a surprise.

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:21 AM
These Billie Meier threads are like a drug.
You keep reading them, but you know you shouldn't!

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
You wanted to know about the scientific tests done in Meiers material. I advise all readers of this post to read this report of just how vigorous the scientific tests done on Meiers photographs and videos were and how the top experts from all around the world were consulted for this investigation:

Scientific Analysis of Meiers Photographs and Videos

Please don't insult us by linking to evidence provided by Meier's snake-oil salesman.

Independent sources please. Any logical person will refuse evidence hosted and/or promoted by the promoter of a hoax.

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:25 AM
reply to post by mystiq

It's Enlil, not Enki who wanted tyrannical control. I think Enlil was the inspiration behind the Jehovah character. The Sumerian tales talk of Enki being behind the science to fashion us and Enlil wanting us all destroyed.

I'm in agreement with you on the 500 millions issue. It's far too much of a "coincidence" for the georgia guidestones and Talmud Jmmanuel to be advocating this limit on population. Furthermore, any ET race with an ounce of capacity for true leadership and concern for their creation would not have abandoned us to our own devices then shown up in vague fashion over the years to "guide" us through a selection of chosen individuals. It's the worst case of parenting and leadership I've ever heard of. I don't trust any of them who plan to come here to "help" us. They are totally negligent and directly responsible for the fu^&*k up we have made of things down here - with alot of their help. To conquer first you have to divide and that's just what they've done.

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:11 AM
I think there is a difference between providing evidence and presenting evidence, the links on Michael Horns sites pertain to research conducted by Wendelle S|tevens , lee Elders and others over the years. Michael Horn is not providing any evidence of his own, except for interviews he may have conducted with witnesess for the purpose of making his documentary.

And can we please leave Enkil, Blinky, Benjy and whoever else out of this , it's hard enough to have a rational discussion about this without that thrown in on top of it.

Still waiting for a reply from Derek well.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Frankinmouse]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Frankinmouse,
I think there is a difference between providing evidence and presenting evidence,


However, we also need to realize that the PDF linked is primarily repackaged "evidence" in which Horn has "editorialized" the writings of others to suit his agenda -- or, has picked semi-favorable snippets, out of context, in an effort to support his lies.

This event is a hoax, plain and simple. The evidence is overwhelming. Anyone engaged in actively promoting this hoax is perpetuating the lies.

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:48 AM
reply to post by

I respect your beliefs but, this is neither plain nor simple, nor is it a single event. No one will argue that there are dubious elements to this story. But by blanketing everything with a big duvet with hoax written on it you are assuming that every one of the thousand odd photographs, the nearly dozen or so movies , the metal samples, many witnesses and investigations by respected people in their field over many years have absolutly no merit.
You are well within your rights to call some of this suspect but many people who were actually there at the time investigating this thought otherwise. I think they were in a better position to make a judgement than any of us looking back on it now.
So yes you believe it's a hoax but NO you don't know it's all a hoax.


posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:59 AM

Originally posted by ls1cameric
Sorry for the dumb question but....

What is IIG?

Hi... Since no one answered my question.... I decided to look it up for myself incase anyone else was wondering...

"Independant Investigation Group"

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:18 AM

Originally posted by

Originally posted by Frankinmouse,
I think there is a difference between providing evidence and presenting evidence,


However, we also need to realize that the PDF linked is primarily repackaged "evidence" in which Horn has "editorialized" the writings of others to suit his agenda -- or, has picked semi-favorable snippets, out of context, in an effort to support his lies.

This event is a hoax, plain and simple. The evidence is overwhelming. Anyone engaged in actively promoting this hoax is perpetuating the lies.

And another thing, you have problems with Michael Horns "editorial" versions but right here on this thread Derek / IIG ( the current most vociferous debunkers) posted a deliberately misleading statement regarding Marcel Vogels evidence. Thats twice they were caught doing that. Now is that IIG perpetuating their own lies? This is not Michael Horns story it's Billy Meiers. All the original information is out there in the public domain at this stage, let people make their own minds up instead of declaring omnipitantly that you know it's all 100% faked.


posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:23 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:46 AM
reply to post by

And another "another" thing ,your request:
"Independent sources please. Any logical person will refuse evidence hosted and/or promoted by the promoter of a hoax."
Is practically impossible as anyone who sticks their . up to defend the Meier case is almost immediately branded a Meirite cultist or else Michael Horn, at this stage Billy must have a Michael Horn clone factory going on on his farm.
By your reasoning anyone interested in discussing anything in favour of the case can't be trusted. The only people who can be trusted are people who think its a hoax? That's nuts.

I've spent enough time responding on this thread, enjoy the search my friends, debunkers and believers alike.
Thanks for debunking yourself and IIG on the thread Derek, much appreciated.
This is never going to go away.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Frankinmouse]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:00 AM
Hello Frankinmouse.

I'm sorry that I did not respond to you directly. I thought my previous answer(s) answered your questions.

RE: the WCUFO. After declaring that an object on the WCUFO was definitely the same thing as the shelf pin I definitively demonstrated that it wasn't. End of discussion regarding this item. You are now engaging in what is referred to as the "moving the goalpost" logical fallacy. You were completely wrong in your original statement that they were the same thing. They are not. Now you are trying to say that I am evading the question because I won't state what I think your object is. I previously said that I don't know what that object is, but it doesn't matter because that was not relevant to your original declaration that it was the same object as the shelf pin.

RE: Marcel Vogel. I have not misrepresented his claim. In four different sources (three books and one movie) it is stated that he used a scanning electron microscope to identify thulium in the Billy Meier metal sample. Just because a later film says something differently is not relevant. The original sources all said the same thing. Consider this, perhaps the later film falsely claimed that he used spectrometry because they later realized it was scientifically impossible to determine the composition of an object using magnification.

This reminds me of one of Michael Horn's more dishonest actions related to the Bugey Nuclear Power Station near Lyon, France. You can read the full thing here:

For years, beginning in 2005, Michael Horn said that this "prophecy" of Billy Meier's had come true: "The danger of accidents in nuclear reactors will increase throughout the world. Regarding this subject, France in particular must be extraordinarily careful in every way, for one prophecy warns of a strong probability for an accident near Lyon." In 2005 Horn wrote: "Meier specifically warned of the possibility of an accident, one that he said could be avoided, however, at the nuclear power plant near Lyon, France. The emergency scenario, and the timely shut down of that exact plant, occurred on August 12, 2003." From 2005 until 2008 Horn said that this was the best example of Meier's predictive abilities. He said that this was irrefutable proof in emails and on radio programs. The problem is that it didn't happen. There was never an accident at the nuclear power station near Lyon and the station was never shut down.

When I was interviewed for The Silent Revolution Of Truth I pointed this out. Then when the DVD was released he never acknowledged that everything that he had ever said on the subject was wrong. He instead said that it wasn't the 2003 incident that was the event in the prophecy, but that it was an event in 2001 that was the subject of the prophecy. Of course, he got that event wrong too. There was never any accident in 2001 either.

Has Michael Horn ever issued an apology or a retraction for his errors and misstatements concerning this prophecy on his website? No, he hasn't.

Another example is that for many years the audio recording was claimed to have recorded inaudible frequencies and that it was this that made the audio recording demonstrate extraterrestrial properties. Of course, I also proved this to be wrong as well when I was interviewed and then instead of acknowledging his error he then said "The eight inaudible sounds were determined through the calculations in a formula based on the existing sounds." This is a lie. Here is the original statement: "Jim Dilettoso, our research consultant, took samples of this noise to Peter Gimer and Rick Coupland of Micor in San Francisco. There they performed tests in the audible range, from 20 Hz to 2000 HZ. They found twenty-four characteristic frequencies within the audible range and eight outside of it. They found all thirty-two frequencies concurrently at different amplitudes and volumes. All thirty-two tones are somehow produced simultaneously." You can read all about this here:

So, please do not say that I am making intentionally false statements. I never have. Whenever someone has pointed out an error I have updated the report on the IIG website. Michael Horn, and other Meier supporters, never have.


posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:56 AM
This whole Meier/Horn fiasco keeps reminding me of that old saying..

"Who's the more foolish? the fool, or the fool who follows him?"

Which only leaves me with grave worries for those who subsequently follow Horn. It takes the saying to a whole new level.

Further more; the claims that the hokey evidence shouldn't effect ones judgment for the greater body of evidence also reminds me of another old saying about a chain only being as strong as it's weakest link.

Hypothetically Speaking:

If I had such a monumental experience where I contacted people from another planet and had real photo's and physical evidence to back it up, I certainly wouldn't falsify further evidence and risk my own integrity and that of the story. Something so monumental just wouldn't be worth the risk. Especially if it contained an important message/warning that was relevant to the survival of my own species and the planet.

If the contacts ceased, I'd let the irrefutable evidence stand on it's own. Even if there wasn't that much. You don't need to be an Einstein to understand that this would be the most logical path to take... that is of course unless none of my evidence was genuine and my only agenda is to perpetuate a hoax.

Also, I wouldn't hire a band of brainwashed lackies to control the information flow. Everything would be open and in the hands of independent scientists and researchers from that point onward. There is only one reason to control the information flow... and that is to control the 'truth'... or the lack thereof.


[edit on 17/4/09 by InfaRedMan]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

This actually brings up the subject of UFO Investigation credibility. UFO Investigation and Research is a fringe topic, at best. As long as publishers, radio shows, conventions, and conferences keep giving a platform to cases which have long been demonstrated to be less than accurate the whole field of UFO Investigation and Research will never be taken seriously.

For the record, I am not a UFO Investigator. The only UFO case that I have investigated is the Billy Meier Case. I only have a mild interest in the subject of UFOs. There may be UFO cases that can withstand scientific scrutiny, but if people like Horn keep being presented as one of the main faces of the UFO community then it will turn people off from ever looking at any cases that might have merit.


posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:01 PM
reply to post by derekcbart

Hi derek,
thanks for eventually replying, my apologies for my impatience.
Firstly I did not say that anything was definately part of anything, you did point out a discrepencie in my post which I had noticed anyway and explained in the next post and then I gave an explanation as to how the object could be part of the ship as it appears in the same place underneath the gap in the spheres on the opposite side. Thats not moving goal posts, it's only pointing out the obvious. I only stated that in my opinion because of what I pointed out that it was likely to be a part of the ship. Please do not put words in my mouth thank you.

Secondly there is no new footage in the "Silent revolution of truth" about Vogel, it's original footage that was not part of the 1980's documentary. And it clearly shows Vogel talking about and pointing out the spike of Thulium on a spectral analysis print out.
You can mince words saying that it was said that Vogel discovered Thulium with the electron microscope but Vogel never said that himself.
Someone obviously picked it up wrong.

And saying that someone may have gone to the trouble of faking a scene from a 1980's documentary complete with faking Marcel Vogels voice to explain why you keep repeating something thats not true is stretching it a bit.
As for the rest, I don't know , I'm not arguing about that ,only what I brought to the table.

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:23 PM
reply to post by easynow

Hi, sorry my bad I was trying to work out what age Billy was in his photograph and overlooked the date.

I still would to see evidence of space blankets around the time the Alena pictures were taken. If this is going to be what you stick with, then you need to demonstrate it was available during time. I did a search myself and could not find anything, perhaps you will be more succesfull?

In any case it is quite clear from the photo that Alena is not wrapped in a space-saver blanket, she is wearing a suit of what appears to be gold-metallic like. You think this is just a light effect. Perhaps, as I have no way of proving this really is gold-metallic and you have no way of proving this is a space blanket, the gold-foil suit becomes a moot issue.

However, what is interesting that it happens that a gold-suit would turn out to be an ideal protection against radiation and heat onboard a spacecraft. Thus the previous reactions of incredulity, "haha, she's wearing foil" were never valid.

As for the other pictures. I think all pics of the aliens and trips are suspect to be honest. As I have no way of verying whether they are valid because of kinds off issues like bad exposure, low resolution. So I am just going to throw them into the unfalsifiable or possibly hoax category.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:01 PM
I think for some this is more about a grudge against Michael Horn than Billy Meier. I understand Michael Horn has been on this site and there was a conflict with him with ATS members and and hence why he seems to have become a hate-figure for ATS.

I think what we need to understand here is that I am not Michael Horn and Meier is not Michael Horn. I have read some of Michael Horns articles on his web site and I have not been too impressed with his presentations. This is not really his fault, it’s his background in media. He does indeed sensationalize, he does indeed take things out of context to support his claims, and he does exaggerate claims.

However, the same happens on the opposite side with IIG-West, Karl Koff and James Randi and co. So this is certainly not specific to Michael Horn. I think they are both as bad as each other. I really think a lot of the mud-slinging that goes in between them is unnecessary and they need to stop lying to further their case. I have already exposed many lies IIG told in this thread if you review it. As far as I am concerned both IIG and Michael Horn have suspect credibility.

It is important to get past this kind stuff and look at the evidence. One good thing about Michael Horn is he makes available all of the evidence for Billy Meier on this web site, which the Figu site actually charges for. I do not understand Figu and why it charges such exorbitant fees for membership, their spiritual program material and for purchasing Meier’s material. It seems obvious to me that they are capitalizing on Meier’s case to make money out of it. I think this is unfortunate. I also suspect that have have taken over his case(as indicated by Randolph Winters) and speak on his behalf now. So I treat all recent “contacts” and “Billy says” statements with a pinch of salt.

Again there is more to this case than meets the eye. Yes, there do seem to be some fakes(such as the photos of aliens, time travel trips etc) but there is also very highly scrutinized scientific evidence which cannot be reproduced supporting his case. He also some 200 witnesses who have seen his beamship, one that is a UN diplomat. He is also verified by the Disclosure project and ex-CIA whistle blower George Green.

So there is still too much evidence here that is strongly supporting his validity and which cannot just be dismissed. In fact I am more than convinced Meier did have contacts. It is clear from his photographs and videos the beamships are real and this is corroborated by the scientific evidence.

I think what has happened with this case is that it has ran out of control because everybody got too excited . I think for the Pleidians this contact they had with Billy Meier was experimental to see how humans would react to having contact with ET and I guess the experiment shows the world is not ready for ET contact because they are too immature to deal with this knowledge. I also suspect that Meier really is "the chosen" as they tell him or have they just told to him to see how his ego reacts.

As you can clearly see I have no loyalties to anyone else. Not to Michael Horn and not to Billy Meier and not even to the Pleaidians. I am only interested in the truth and I can clearly see there exists a mass of evidence in this case that is not present in any other UFO case. Thus this really is the mother of all UFO cases and it is also amongst the most complex of them.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Sam60
These Billie Meier threads are like a drug.
You keep reading them, but you know you shouldn't!

Tell me about it. I try to stay away from them, because as I said, they never end up changing the minds of anyone, and they usually degenerate into a lot of pointless name calling. It's all just pointless.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in