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.


Do you think Billy Meier is a contactee?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 09:20 AM

Originally posted by lampsalot
I actually do think he is. But, I think he faked pictures to make people believe, like Erich Von Daniken has before, because they feel it's justified since they haven't got hard evidence yet firmly believe (or possibly even know) aliens exist.

I also strongly dislike the fact Meier is making a religion out of his experiences. I think the beings he's encountering are likely pretty upset with him.

Daniken faked images?
Did just enough to say bring back the old dead horse -The Chronicles of Billy Meier.
I am not sure about Billy's money making abilities either. Did the contact stopped happening or is it happening now? I bet those beings chose the wrong man who went on to fake images to sustain his fame and glory.
edit on 10-1-2012 by radkrish because: smiley

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Gazrok

Like Meier, I am about to make a prediction, one that will come true: this thread will be placed in the HOAX bin.

Congratulations! Your ability as a prophet far surpasses Mr. Meier!

You are too kind.

Now I predict that a p*ssing contest will ensue between two camps: Meier apologists who cannot bear to let go of something that is so dear to their hearts, and people who can accept the fact that sometimes people lie really, really well.

Disclaimer: No aliens were involved with the creation of this prediction.

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 09:25 AM
reply to post by Human_Alien

You are entitled to your opinion as am I, I know man has been on this earth for a lot longer than we are being told, the ancient ruins attest to that, and who knows what lies off of the worlds coasts, perhaps aliens have visited before, still looking for proof is all I'm saying.

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 12:57 PM

Originally posted by DaarkSyde2012
Not sure about Meir, haven't really dug into his material very much yet, the whole UFO thing, for me anyway, is bunk until positive proof is revealed. As far as Van Daniken, this is the first I have heard of him faking anything, do you have any links or pics to back this up?

Von Daniken has a history of admitting that work in his original books has been incorrect, poorly researched, or exageratted but then refusing to errata the reprints of those books to correct the errors. I don't believe he is as bad as Billy Meier, but I do believe it's mostly about the money for him these days.

It's the MO of the ancient aliens crowd (George and Daniken) to glibbly report on a pile of different cases all at once without going into any of the minor details which would prove them dead wrong. Daniken doesn't so much blatantly fake as 'Michael Moore' his work extensively. The very of Michael Moore meaning to take an event and twist it to portray that it was George Bush's fault, or caused by aliens.

There are books and papers on the issue, one of the oldest being 'Crash go the Chariots'. Daniken often defends himself by saying that yes, this part may not be anything, but all the other evidence is overwhelming. I can provide some other examples if wants to U2U me.

It's something that personally erks me about ancient aliens theorists ... all they need is one big win, but they always seem to run around like a kool aid child in a sparkly things store.

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by lampsalot
Well I think the fact some of his stuff is fake doesn't necessarily mean he's never seen any aliens ever. I think he faked the stuff so people would believe him, because his real contacts happened mostly early in his life and they didn't leave any evidence or let him take pictures of anything.

That certainly had the opposite effect, then, didn't it? He might have been better off just telling people his story. If he wanted to start a church or something around the aliens' message then he could do it the old fashioned way by just relying on being sincere and telling what he considered to be the truth. It's crazy, but sometimes people respond to honesty and truth.

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:17 PM

Originally posted by mahigitam
There is no evidence that he has faked pictures with models & other techniques.

No, I suppose not.

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:35 PM
Umm...there is *lots* of evidence that calls into question the authenticity of Meier's claims.

The Audio:
The Metal:
The Movies:
The Photos:
The Prophecies:

If you review all of the material located on these pages and still think that Billy Meier is an authentic extra-terrestrial contactee, then you might want to consider seeking professional psychological therapy.

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:42 AM
reply to post by derekcbart

In 2008, after it was conclusively shown that there was no way for an audio cassette tape recorder to record any inaudible sounds, Michael Horn said in an on-camera interview, "twenty-four were indeed in the audible range. The eight inaudible sounds were determined through the calculations in a formula based on the existing sounds."

So, he said on camera that there never were any inaudible frequencies recorded in the beamship recording. As stated earlier, Michael Horn’s own website has a document called UFOSoundRecordings.pdf that states the following:

"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."

This certainly doesn't sound like the eight inaudible frequencies were "determined through the calculations in a formula based on the existing sounds." It clearly states that the eight "inaudible" frequencies were part of the original recording.

UFO...Contact From The Pleiades - A Preliminary Investigative Report - 1978-1982, page 431(22 pages on Sound Analysis)

"They proceeded to make some tests on the sounds in the audible range, from 20 Hz, deep base, to 20,000 Hz, high limits of human audio hearing. They found a harmonic formula in there. In that recording all the frequencies are present at the same time. By extending the formula they could conjecture the frequencies that are out of the human hearing range, above and below, by just plotting a graph. They found that there are 32 frequencies present simultaneously, 24 in the audible range & 8 out..."

The "UFOSoundRecordings.pdf" is just a set of selected excerpts taken out from UFO...Contact From The Pleiades - A Supplementary Investigative Report-1983-1989(6 pages on Sound Analysis). I do not know what you call this kind of research where using data as sources which are in themselves just some selected excerpts taken from original sources. On top of it all, IIG seems to intentionally ignore responding to questions when being pointed out such big blunders. Is this how IIG works ? This kind of research brings shame to all skeptics, rationalists,..IIG also repeated the same mistake with "OLD METAL ANALYSIS DECONSTRUCTION". As usual "Do not correct mistakes" seems to be their mantra. Metal analysis blunders by IIG will be posted in my next post.

edit on 11-1-2012 by mahigitam because: too attacking

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:49 AM
the chance that he has been abducted is about the same as me winning the lottery jackpot this weekend.... and i dont do the lottery!

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:06 AM
reply to post by derekcbart


Derek Bartholomaus(DB) has mistakenly(or deliberately ?) joined some selected text/quotations/excerpts as sources which in themselves are just different passages describing the analysis using different techniques on different sections of the metal sample by Marcel Vogel.

Original Metal Analysis Information may only be found at the following places but somehow Derek Bartholomaus avoided using these as his resources instead he used as sources that are just quoting some excerpts from the analysis.

Possible Original Sources:
Beamship - The Metal Analysis(1985)
UFO...Contact From The Pleiades - A Preliminary Investigative Report(1978-1983)

IIG's Sources:
UFO…Contact From The Pleiades Volume II, 1983
Light Years,1987
And Yet..They Fly,2001

1) DB has joined 2 different descriptions made by Vogel using 2 different techniques, which are X-ray diffraction & Scanning Electron Microscope into one deceptively looking description of the analysis which to the uninformed/biased reader gives the impression that Vogel analysed the elemental compositions using Scanning Electron Microscope; which is completely false.

Ex: Joining different irrelevant paragraphs

UFO…Contact From The Pleiades Volume II,1983
On page 57, it reads:
The next challenge was to find an expert in optical and electron microscope study techniques (microscrophy) [sic] who was familiar with various levels of scientific knowledge in crystal and metal technology. The search had its frustrations. But eventually a man of eminent qualifications was found, Marcel Vogel, a senior scientist with a major industrial research center. In the fall of 1979 after months of work on the specimens Vogel agreed to summarize his findings for the American/Japanese investiative [sic] team by releasing his laboratory video taped reports. The following is a few of the profound and documented statements.

‘We are now at 600 diameters of magnification and now a whole new world appears in the specimen under polarized light, cross field. There are structures within structures that one sees, very, very unusual…at lower magnification and without oil, one just sees a metallic surface. Now one sees a structure which is composed of various types of interlacing areas…here they are, being brought out, these are structures within structures. This is very exciting, very interesting, and bears looking into! We are at crossed-field…we are using the 250 Watt Zenon and Sisium iodide source…we go to a higher magnification yet…and higher yet…we are now at over 2500 (diameters) and one can see these biorefringeant (reflective crystalline) structures…very exciting! This is very unusual for a metal to have these biorefringent areas. A metal normally will not exhibit this…’

‘The major element which is shown here was the rare earth metal thulium, it was totally unexpected…that was only purified during World War II, and only in minute quantities…these are bi-products of the need that we have for certain rare earths in atomic energy work.’

The 2nd & 3rd paragraph has no relationship whatsoever. And as i said earlier, 2nd paragraph describes about the analysis done using Scanning Electron Microscope & the 3rd paragraph describes about the analysis done using X-ray diffraction. It clearly mentioned at the end of the 1st paragraph that the following statements are just few of the profound and documented statements. I don't know how could he put different irrelevant excerpts together into one & post them as SOURCES for his "research". Vogel used X-ray diffraction for elemental analysis and then detected Thulium which is crystal clearly mentioned on page 424 of UFO...Contact From The Pleiades - A Preliminary Investigative Report(1983).

2) Quoting quotes

DB mistakenly(or deliberately ?) quotes passages from books(Light Years,1987 & And Yet..They Fly,2001) which in themselves are just quoting passages from the Video Tape of Metal Analysis recorded live by Marcel Vogel - Beamship - The Metal Analysis(1985) & from UFO...Contact From The Pleiades - A Preliminary Investigative Report(1983).

The recent update is by far the best from IIG. It is technical and informative, thanks to the Ivan Alvarado-Rodriguez & IIG staff who have felt that the old deconstruction was poor, mistaken & misleading. Ivan later added a note to the 'Old metal analysis deconsctruction' here:

NOTE: A Scanning Electron Microscope with Energy Dispersive Spectrometry (SEM-EDS or SEM-EDX) can be used to determine the composition of an object, but none of the Billy Meier metal analysis documents I have seen have mentioned using this enhanced form of Scanning Electron Microscopy.

Which is also wrong as it has been clearly suggested here on what analysis should be performed on the given metal samples in UFO...Contact From The Pleiades - A Preliminary Investigative Report(1983), page 419:

We could see at this point that there are atleast 3 more things we must do with these specimens. We should have an X-ray diffraction analysis and Scanning Electron Microscope Photographs to determine the structure of the alloy--how it is put together. We should also perform an Energy Dispersive X-ray examination, and try to get a good quantitative analysis, which will be difficult with the small specimens available.

Regarding the new analysis, as i am not an expert in metallurgy, somebody who has the expertise can make a comment.

edit on 11-1-2012 by mahigitam because: add

edit on 11-1-2012 by mahigitam because: del

edit on 11-1-2012 by mahigitam because: add

edit on 11-1-2012 by mahigitam because: add

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:00 PM
reply to post by mahigitam

And if you read the updated Metal Analysis done by Ivan, who *is* an actual metallurgist by the way, you will discover that Vogel's statements about the Meier metal samples are even more wrong than initially believed. Ivan has clearly demonstrated that Marcel Vogel was a complete failure who had no idea how to accurately analyze the results he was getting because he was not properly trained in metallurgical analysis.

Unlike Meier/Horn/etc., skeptics will update their information when new data comes along. Which is what I did when Ivan made his analysis. I didn't even take down the now incorrect analysis because it is important for people to have access to the complete record of events. All Meier and Horn do is lie and say that they never said the incorrect statement in the first place, even though the lie was previously published for all to see.

Actually, Mahigitman, we can thank you for bringing the initial error to our attention, which led Ivan to do some further research which ultimately demonstrated in great detail exactly how incompetent Marcel Vogel was in his analysis of the Billy Meier metal samples.

Thank you for being skeptical. It is only by looking at situations skeptically/scientifically that we can learn the truth. I'm sure that Billy Meier and Michael Horn will be contacting you with their appreciation as to how your emails led to the complete dissembling of Marcel Vogel's analysis of Billy Meier's alleged extra-terrestrial metal samples.

Have a nice day.


posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:22 AM
reply to post by derekcbart

...skeptics will update their information when new data comes along. Which is what I did when Ivan made his analysis. I didn't even take down the now incorrect analysis because it is important for people to have access to the complete record of events.

Skeptics update their information when new data comes along & delete the old ones but will not post side-by-side along with new information without any clear indication on the validity of the information. Well Derek, your intention seems good but without mentioning that your old analysis as incorrect or incomplete or mistaken & making it available along with the new scientific verification done by Ivan appears to tell a different story. I do not understand why the incorrect or mistaken research be available to public, whom most are gullible & biased to any one side. It is confusing and people will get a wrong impression on the research conducted by IIG.

Although it is important to know everything that was written about this metal, we will concentrate on these three claims:
1. The 1983 book UFO…Contact From The Pleiades Volume II [1], the 1987 book Light Years: An Investigation Into The Extraterrestrial Experiences Of Eduard Meier [2], and the 2001 book And Yet…They Fly! [3] all state that research chemist Marcel Vogel used a scanning electron microscope to analyze the metal sample.
2. All three books also state that Marcel Vogel detected the rare-Earth element Thulium using the scanning electron microscope.

You & IIG knew the above information was false, almost a year back. But didn't mention it on the webpage. And now even after admitting that its false, why not remove it completely or either put a 'note' that says - "On Wendell Stevens' book UFO Contact from the Pleiades: A Preliminary Investigation Report(1982), page 424: Looking at the piece by X-ray diffraction, for elemental analysis, he found a single element deposit of Thulium..". I think, it would be fair & appropriate to remove the old "deconstruction" in place of new.

I feel the below two notes are unfair & misleading as they dont tell the full picture. Being'not completely accurate' or 'Out Of Date' is entirely different from drawing conclusions on research which is based on faulty information.

DECEMBER 2011 UPDATE: Some Of The Information Presented On This Page Is Out Of Date. Click HERE For The Update.

This is the original investigation done by the IIG one the Billy Meier Metal Samples Analysis done by Marcel Vogel. We found that the arguments presented originally were not completely accurate. The IIG completed a thorough analysis of this section which includes more of the evidence presented by Vogel: click on Updated Metal Samples Analysis Deconstruction

Coming to the new analysis, it seems that the 1985 metal video and Stevens Preliminary books included only excerpts from the original investigation. I think the new research is also based on sources which are excerpts from the original investigation; that is why I am not fully convinced with the new "deconstruction". But thanks to Ivan & Co for their dedicated efforts. I informed Ivan about the possible location of original Metal samples reports, which most probably be with the "Open Minds Productions". It seems he either didn't contact them or the Openminds don't have them.

What about the AUDIO DECONSTRUCTION ? You & IIG also knew that those 8 frequencies were based on formulae. May i know why the incorrect research is still available for all to see without any mention of its mistaken premise ?

All Meier and Horn do is lie and say that they never said the incorrect statement in the first place, even though the lie was previously published for all to see.

I would like to know in what instances did Meier & Horn made incorrect statements. I am not interested in personal mails but that which pertains to the case.
edit on 13-1-2012 by mahigitam because: add

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:44 AM

Originally posted by mahigitam
I would like to know in what instances did Meier & Horn made incorrect statements. I am not interested in personal mails but that which pertains to the case.
In 2008, after it was conclusively shown that there was no accident at the nuclear power station near Lyon in 2003, Michael Horn then switched his claim and said that it was not the 2003 incident that was the subject of the prophecy, but it was actually a 2001 event at the Bugey power station that was the subject of the prophecy. Claiming that two separate events are the result of the same prophecy is nonsense. It cannot be a legitimate prophecy if multiple events can be claimed to be the event described in the prophecy. But, to make it even more ridiculous, the 2001 event cannot be described as an accident either.

There are five reactors at the Bugey nuclear power station. There was a decree on August 30, 1996 to decommission the Bugey 1 reactor. In 2001 the scheduled shutdown and dismantling of the reactor began. That’s it. There was no accident in 2001 at the Bugey nuclear power station. It was just the scheduled shutdown of the reactor. And the shutdown was publicly announced in 1996. So, both events provided by Billy Meier, and Michael Horn, as being the singular event described in the prophecy are incorrect.
CLAIM: Michael Horn Claims That Several Prominent Individuals Support The Various Claims Of Billy Meier
FINDINGS: All Individuals Reached So Far For Comment Say That They Were Misquoted

Throughout his years of promoting the claims of Billy Meier, Michael Horn has quoted several individuals as being supporters of the claims of Billy Meier. However, when asked about the quotations the person being quoted routinely says that the quote was taken out of context or never took place at all.

[Go to the page and read the whole thing. There are so many misquotes that it would not be practical to repost them all here.]

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:06 AM

"..a strong probability for an accident near Lyon, which can be prevented as long as the responsible individuals undertake the right steps --- a prophecy can be changed."

I cannot speak for MH as to why he pointed out the 2003 article first and then changed to 2000-2001. Anyway, it is not the central issue here. The main issue here is, whether what Meier said has happened or not. It is also stated that, the probability of an accident can be prevented. Since it is a prophecy and not a prediction(the event may happen or not happen) & no given specific time, i think it is open to multiple possibilities & cannot be verified independently.

Even if we obtain articles discussing critical repairs done to the reactor in time, problem is that every year and for all the coming years, there will be flaws or errors that would be detected & repaired, thus impossible to identify the prophecy being fulfilled. "Lyon prophecy" is not verifiable and open to multiple events. So, any corroborating & debunking efforts are useless.


"First of all, France has the most nuclear power generating plants, 59 in all, of all developed countries. If you were a betting man, you would not need psychic or extra-terrestrial powers to guess that France might be the country to be most likely to have a nuclear accident. This is like saying that China will have the most coal mine deaths, and it has a yearly average of 3,000 deaths already."

Operational nuclear power reactors by numbers:

Nuclear power plants - Countries energy share(2003):

Nuclear power plants - Energy Output:
USA(796.9 TWh)
France(391.7 TWh)
Japan(263.1 TWh)

Most nuclear accidents & incidents(Upto 2004-incomplete):
USA - 40
France - 8
Japan - 8

Benjamin K. Sovacool has reported that worldwide there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants from 1952 to 2009 (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage, the amount the US federal government uses to define major energy accidents that must be reported), totaling US$20.5 billion in property damages. 57 accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and almost two-thirds (56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA.

In whatever way we look, in the number of nuclear reactors & number of previous accidents(percent of energy ouput & percent of nuclear energy); france is not at the top of the list. Besides, if one wants to bet on a country that would have a nuclear accident in the future, anyone would bet it on USA as 2/3rds of total 99 accidents occured there.

So clearly your remark - '..If you were a betting man, you would not need psychic or extra-terrestrial powers to guess that France might be the country to be most likely to have a nuclear accident...' is without merit.



"But, to make it even more ridiculous, the 2001 event cannot be described as an accident either. There are 5 reactors at the Bugey nuclear power station. There was a decree on August 30, 1996 to decommission the Bugey 1 reactor. In 2001 the scheduled shutdown and dismantling of the reactor began. That’s it."

Meier mentioned that the event can be prevented if those in responsible act in time. In SROT doc, Michael Horn shows an article with title- 'EDF to Make Repairs at Nuclear Plant After Design Error Found'. That article and other similar articles listed below as 'sources' talks about design flaw(INES level-1) that has been detected in Bugey-2 ASG & PTR tanks and has nothing to do with Bugey-1 reactor. So, your premise that MH talked about decomissioned Bugey-1 reactor is false.

They detected a design flaw in Bugey and after this they checked out other reactors for the same flaw. They found the similar design flaw in 5 other reactors(different locations) & fixed them subsequently. As the Bugey reactor near to Lyon, if hit by a strong earthquake, could cause severe damage if design flaw is not resolved. Was Meier referring to this ? No one knows & it cannot be independently verified.

p.s: Re quotes of experts, look for next post.
edit on 26-1-2012 by mahigitam because: small

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:35 AM

I do agree that there is a difference between what Marc said and what MH said on film. MH should have been more precise in his quoting of experts.

"...According to that shot, we said that we can't conclusively say whether it's real or not, but it seemed impossible to stage that kind of a shot with a miniature (it would have to be hanging on a very tall crane, with wires - but even then the movements would be hard to achieve.) So, yes, in regards to that shot, we mentioned that we could definitely do it today with CG, but at the time these were supposedly shot - it would have been very hard, probably even impossible, to fake this kind of shot."

Marc is clear in his reply to you that he feels it is 'very hard, probably even impossible, to fake this kind of shot'. Still to be proven is the claim that the UFO & tree are models. Then as Marc said, 'you would NOT need CGI to do this shot'. But with models using forced perspective. I think there are 2 ways to identify whether they are models or not.
1 - If all the photos have the same tree(which doesn't mean similar but same) and
2 - Taking the help of tree experts who can identify trees to see if the trees in the photos are model/potted trees or not

The following is a statement you made in SROT documentary.

"So all the evidence suggests that this same model tree was used in the different photographs & films because the trees all share the same physical characterstics, the tree has the same size and shape even after 6 years. The photos and films were each taken in different cities, there is no evidence that a real live tree ever existed in any of these locations...."

So what i see is that you based your whole argument for a model UFO & tree on the premise that the 'same tree' was used in 1975 Photo/film & in 1981 photo/film. Do you still believe it was the same tree even though there are considerable differences on the left side & other parts of the tree ? There are other photos(link below) taken at the same site in 1975 & in 1981 that shows different angles of the tree. It wont take much time to recognise that the trees in 1975 & 1981 are different.

If you still think that it is the same tree, then in my next post, i will address it using the below reference image.
edit on 27-1-2012 by mahigitam because: change

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:38 AM
reply to post by derekcbart

"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."

The best any tree or forestry expert from photos could do is to able to identify the species, size, age & other features of the tree in question & determine whether it could be either a large mature tree, a potted tree or a model tree. What should be noted down here is that none of them have rightaway spotted it as either a potted tree or a model tree. Moreover they even identified the species & maturity of the tree. This is as far as any expert can go and no one can make any definitive statements without examining the tree directly & the above experts comments who were asked by James deardorff back in 1985, 2001 & 2006, should be understood in this light. The only way for full authentication is to go to the locations where photos were taken and study the trees which unfortunately don't exist now.

The following is a correspondence between MH & Fletcher, Charles/Jensen, Edward C.

-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 4:09 PM
To: Jensen, Edward C.
Cc: Fletcher, Charles; Jensen, Edward C.
Subject: RE: Comment on UFO

Dr. Jensen,

Thanks for writing. Regarding your first sentence below, I would have to say that no deliberate misrepresentation of your remarks was made by me or anyone connected to the study of the Meier UFO case. Nowhere have we said that you authenticated any photos of UFOs, etc. for anyone. Whoever may have led you to believe that such representations were made is misleading you.

So, to be specific and accurate, your statements below that directly relate to our concerns are:

"An estimate of tree height (actually only the top portion of a single particular tree) that I made several years ago in good faith ..."

"The photo was of poor quality, but I assumed that the tree in the photo was real and gave an estimate of the height of the portion of the tree above the alleged UFO based on that assumption."

Being an expert regarding trees, I can appreciate that your assumption about the reality of the tree was based, even considering the quality of the photo, on significant experience and expertise. I can certainly appreciate that you not only don't want to be misquoted but that you wouldn't want to interject yourself into a discussion on UFOs.

However, Since the party in question who has contacted you, presumably Mr. Derek Bartholomaus, has in our opinion misrepresented many facts in the whole matter under discussion, should there indeed be an issue needing resolution I would suggest that very good quality photographs of the trees and the unknown object can be made available to you for definitive commentary, a commentary that need only pertain to the authenticity, or lack of same, of the trees.

Since Mr. Bartholomaus has gone on record as stating that the trees in the photographs I refer to are - absolutely, without a doubt - model trees but has been unable to produce any evidence to support that claim, he is understandably under pressure to divert the attention elsewhere. Again, none of this may be of the slightest interest or concern to you and should you wish to not comment further I would certainly respect that decision.

Also, should you wish a copy of the film in question, that contains the controversial information, I would be glad to have one sent to you for review by you and the GC of OSU. I would be equally pleased to make a presentation to the students and instructors at the university, as it may pique their interest, for many reasons.

Michael Horn
The Silent Revolution of Truth

edit on 27-1-2012 by mahigitam because: add

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:39 AM
reply to post by derekcbart

From: "Fletcher, Charles"
Date: February 25, 2008 4:33:13 PM PST
Cc: "Jensen, Edward C."
Subject: RE: Comment on UFO

Mr. Horn:

Thank you for your prompt response to Dr. Jensen's email. We would like to take you up on your generous offer to go forward without further assistance from us. Good luck in your work.

Charles E. Fletcher
Associate General Counsel
Oregon State University
638 Kerr Administration Bldg.
Corvallis, OR 97331-2128
(541) 737-8332 (direct)
(541) 737-0712 (fax)

And why do you think Mr. Jansen/Fletcher is reluctant to look into the nature of trees in question ? Again no expert or University professors wants to be involved or be in the center of topics on UFOs or Ghosts or Angels. Trying to contact & make them involve in such topics/discussions is counterproductive to our investigation. Did you ever consult any forestry or tree expert and asked them about the nature of the tree in photos from 1975 & 1981 ? I think it is easy for you(Skeptic Organisation) to contact related experts on trees. Also, is it possible for you to post the mail which you have sent to Jensen, Edward C. about MHs statements in SROT doc?

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in