Others like Billy Meier?

goosegash, thanks, I am just now going back to this thread and just now reading your reply. Yesterday I was browsing at the local bookstore, and I was looking through the UFO books, and I saw this one called Messages, by Stan Romanek, it looked interesting, so I bought it. I started reading it yesterday, and then looked it up here, and found this 10 vid set of him doing a lecture, which I am on the end of Pt3 as I type this. But this case seems to be what I was asking for in my original post. Thanks.

My only problem with anyone who claims contact with pleaidians is that the system is to young for life to have evolved and within a few 100 millions years it will have disipated before ever really getting started.
We've had many people claiming to be in contact with pleaidians on ATS and most if not all claim that the aliens are real solid life forms that evolved on a planet in this system, which is complete nonsence. When this is pointed out, you then get told that they are corporeal beings or moved there from somewhere else or the best one is the star system they come from is a different pleadies than the one we see.
It's easy to get some basic astronomical data about the system on the web but gullable people would rather believe in fantasy stories and cooking utensils/space ships.

This Romanek case is very interesting. I was not aware of it before. I do recall seeing something on TV a while back with the "peeping tom" alien. But that's all I knew. I haven't read his book yet, but I did watch all 10 parts of his lecture vid, and found it very interesting. Comparing his case with the Meier case, while the Meier case is very interesting, it does seem very fakey, and in many of not most instances have been proven to be fake, though I still like his Beamship photos, I think Meier's case has outlandish circus appeal, and yes, I "enjoy" it myself, though I do doubt it's truthfullness. But, this Romanek case seems like we might have something real here, and with as much "evidence" if not more than what the Meier case claims. Now, I did see some threads about Romanek being a hoaxer, but verbal claims of that do not make it so, we all know how Meier's "evidence" was debunked item by item, has this been done with the Romanek case as well? I haven't seen it, and it seems like it might be the real deal here.