I’ve been an outspoken, harsh critic of many of the skeptics and pseudo-scientists who attack the Billy Meier case, especially Stuart Robbins.  I hoped that Robbins would realize that censoring things that he can’t explain, which by their very existence destroy his arguments, is disappointingly adolescent, pseudo-scientific posturing.

I was, therefore, excited to see that he had in fact apparently done a good deal of research in preparation for his latest blog, specifically focused on Meier’s information about Jupiter, its rings, Io, etc. – and my claims pertaining to it. I thought that he made some good points and I am glad to give him positive acknowledgement for his efforts.

Unfortunately though, once again, Robbins is a victim of his own ambitions and prejudicial beliefs and so his credibility has virtually hung itself. Rather than face being called to account for not the addressing the assumptions, defamatory accusations, sloppy science, etc. that he enthusiastically churned out, he again censored a couple of posts of mine, and at least one other person. He cited their non-relevance to the topic at hand rather than credit his readers with the intelligence and discernment to determine their validity for themselves. I’ve included them below*.

It needs to be recognized that in 1978 – in a world of approximately 4,500,000,000 people – one most unlikely man with no formal scientific training, published very specific information that was later proven to be accurate.  Rather than this being an isolated, lucky guess, this same man has a record of well over 130 such specific examples of his foreknowledge of what would later be called “new scientific discoveries”.

That Stuart Robbins also goes out of his way with sophistry and disingenuousness to not allow the presence of additionally amazing physical evidence supporting Meier’s claims is both sad and cynical. When you visit Robbins’ blog, please pay especial attention to the comments and challenges posed by Mahigitam. And note the dismissive comment regarding “minutia” by Robbins that so contradicts what a real scientist would indeed be hungry to address and evaluate in Mahigitam’s comments.

Until Robbins can rise to the occasion and resuscitate his credibility, acquaint himself with the real world, real science and real common sense, we are left with a comic book, make believe, self-congratulatory example of utterly fear-driven pseudo-science.

And, considering that Robbins accurately predicted that I would blog about his cowardice…why is he so loathe to accept the voluminous evidence that Billy Meier’s been publishing prophetically accurate information, on far more important matters, for over 60 years?


*The censored posts:

I think that Andy is correct and I also second his appreciation of Stuart’s discussing this topic. There is an elephant in the room and it seems that Stuart has noticed it himself but also taken great care to warn others to… ignore it.


There’s apparently only ONE man – among billions on Earth – who has published significant amounts of specific, accurate scientific information either before anyone else knew or published it, or before it was publicly known, or which was only known to a tiny number of specialists.

Stuart has – ethically speaking – absolutely opened the door for the UFO evidence to be admitted to the discussion. How? By his own admitted speculation – which he then also says isn’t his job or goal – that the actual source of the information was probably a newspaper article, the radio, an astronomer, a friend, someone who provided Meier’s (magical) access to information that previous internet searches by a number of people never revealed and indeed Stuart’s expressed claim that Meier must have falsified and/or backdated information.

In what ethical, investigational procedure is the accused NOT allowed to defend himself, let alone explain HOW he came to possess the item, or information, under question? It’s often vital to judging one’s guilt or innocence. Shouldn’t those who are going to be the judges in this matter be allowed access to ALL the evidence…and not have it suppressed by someone who is in effect “prosecuting” his case?

If we think about the situation and the context we may also notice something else quite interesting. Stuart has introduced these speculative “accomplices” which also implies a…conspiracy. Then he states that he’s not interested in discussing his accusations, identifying the person or persons who would be complicit in this conspiratorial hoax, or even being challenged about his claim that the evidence is “most consistent with him having gotten it from terrestrial sources”.

Stuart may not be interested…but there are many, many people around the world who are.

Is it at all ethical, under the guise of an objective, scientific evaluation of the matter, to deliberately exclude and prevent evidence – which, I should add, has indeed been tested and authenticated by experts in their respective fields, including just within the past few months! – just because the accuser doesn’t like it, so much so that he resorts to floating conspiracy theories?

I’m also glad that Andy dwelled a bit more on the subject of motive, which, in the real world, is obviously enormously important. In fact, Stuart’s conspiratorial theories for HOW Meier may have accomplished getting his information would fall under the category of means, in the consideration of the three aspects of a “crime”. While Meier isn’t accused of a particular crime (or is he?), he is effectively accused of dishonesty, calling into question his character and reputation. And by Stuart’s stating that he could have obtained the information via a newspaper or radio report, he implies that Meier had the third element, the opportunity. Of course Stuart hasn’t so much as told us what newspaper, or which radio station, provably carried this information, in German, and whether Meier actually could be shown to have had access to it. Nor of course who, among all of Meier’s known friends (who would most likely be the willing conspirators, rather than a stranger) he’s implicating.

As I said, a man’s reputation and character are casually called into serious question. And the man doesn’t get to FULLY defend himself, nor is his accuser REQUIRED to substantiate his published accusations? Would Stuart be so cavlier in his defamatory assertions and inuendoes about one of his peers, or a scientist who is as well known as Meier now actually is worldwide?

Instead, we have a bit of the magician’s trick going on here, i.e. look over here, at all these obscure papers (none of which have apparently disproven Meier’s accuracy)…but don’t look at the elephant in the room.

Comment by michael812 — October 23, 2013 @ 1:17 pm

Stuart, why don’t you show a little more trust in your readers and their intelligence, as well as a tad more courage, and let them decide if what I submitted was “off-topic”…or if maybe it’s a matter of your not being able to handle the heat in the kitchen. As someone who of course has a successful blog myself, I can tell you that I do trust my readers and have only stepped in when things were out of hand (some profanity and bad behavior).

When you post an article implying that Meier’s a dishonest person, trying to say that my rebuttal ‘s “broader material” is, again, something you allow your readers to determine . In fact, it could be said that your censoring that post of mine in particular is the equivalent of your waving the white flag.

Rather than my posting a blog that is made up of the material that you refuse to allow, which just doesn’t make you look that good, why not bite the bullet and, if your readers take exception to it and say why, etc., then, well, we deal with that?

Comment by michael812 — October 23, 2013 @ 8:57 pm


So then Stuart, we are awaiting your response to Mahitigam’s seemingly logical refutations which points to conscious or unconscious unprofessional/unscientific missing-the-forest-for-the trees interpretations and leaving out relevant sentences that would invalidate shortsighted erroneous conclusion-making.

Rather, it appears in light of Mahitigam’s work, that you are the one pointing out minutia, rather selectively and out of context, and therefore promoting incorrect understanding of what has been conveyed in the referenced contact reports. This has nothing to do with falsely convincing anyone of anything on either side of the issue. This has to do with getting at the truth.

Comment by Bruce — October 24, 2013 @ 2:27 am

26 comments on “Credibility Commits Stuicide

  • Hi again everybody,

    This comment to Michael’s blog constitutes my modest effort to address the broader issues to do with Stuart’s – now “Neried’s” – web content over at Stuart’s blog.


    In my previous (protracted) comments here I tried, among other things, to deal with the logic-free-zone of debating the subtle variations in the interpretations of the English word, “similar”, when Billy never even used that word, while ignoring the debate about the subtle variations in the interpretation of the German word he used – ähnlichen”. It mirrors a much bigger pervasive confounding confusion of hierarchies which infects the whole debate like the pox.

    But before I get stuck into my main theme here – being this problem with Stuart & Co.’s overall approach – I just wanted to make a remark about another language-barrier issue which the more recent verbiage about Io’s volcanic ejecta has now slung out into the public arena.

    (Please note: Benjamin is NOT an astrophysicist, nor is Michael, nor am I. “Nereid”, according to my Encyclopaedia Britannica, is one of the 50-100 daughters of the [extraterrestrial] (my note) Ancient Greek sea-god, Nereus and his significant other, Doris, and has magnanimously descended from Mt. Olympus to grace us mere mortals with Her smug irksome self-righteous holy sacred worshipful divine omniscience.)

    Here’s the pertinent paragraph from contact 115, followed by Benjamin Stevens’ otherwise reasonably good translation.

    “Es nimmt mich nun nur noch wunder, ob ich mich hinsichtlich des Vulkanismus auf dem Mond Io noch richtig entsinne. Wenn es mir richtig ist, dann erklärtest du, dass dort die Vulkanausbrüche mit elementarer Gewalt vor sich gingen und ungeheuren Explosionen glichen, die ihr Ausschleudermaterial atombombenpilzmässig hinausschleudern, wobei teilweise Höhen erreicht würden bis zu 180 Kilometern. Im Hauptsächlichen soll es sich dabei um Staubpartikel, Gase, Asche und wenig Magma handeln, die aber Schleudergeschwindigkeiten bis zu 2300 Stundenkilometer und mehr erreichten, weil durch die Atmosphärelosigkeit des Mondes nur eine geringe Gegenkraft vorhanden sei.”

    (I now just wonder whether I still remember correctly about the volcanism on the moon Io. If I am right, you explained that the volcanic eruptions there occurred by elemental power and resembled enormous explosions that hurl out their ejection material like atomic bomb mushrooms, whereby some would reach heights of up to 180 kilometers. Primarily, these should concern dust particles, gases, ash and a little magma, which reach centrifuge speeds of up to 2,300 kilometers per hour or higher, because through the missing atmosphere of the moon, only a slight opposing force is present.)


    Something is very very obviously very very wrong with the word “centrifuge”, which we all know indicates a rotational force. And the fact that this error evidently wasn’t even noticed (except by me once I went back to check on the progressive decay of the near-sighted arguments from “Nereid”) exemplifies one of the many weaknesses in his/her/its hyper-reductionistic pseudoscientific “thinking”, now adding more mud to the (intentionally?) stagnantly noisome and turbid waters being simmered over there.

    The word “Schleudergeschwindigkeiten”, machine-translated as “centrifuge speeds”, refers merely to “sling”, as in “slingshot” (U.S.), or “catapult” (U.K.). So I’d probably translate “die aber Schleudergeschwindigkeiten bis zu 2300 Stundenkilometer und mehr erreichten” more like “which are slung out at speeds of up to 2,300 kilometres per hour or higher”.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing that any serious misunderstandings were caused by this particular error in translation which was prompted by the fact that the normally more precise German language term for the common lab instrument, the “centrifuge”, is a “Schleuder”, used here by Billy in his characteristic slightly facetious manner. But the mindless, dogmatic acceptance of “centrifuge” supports my following broader points about the pervasive religious influence in terrestrial science – the aggressive rejection of which is precisely the putative reason behind Stuart’s website in the first place!

    Because the perpetrators are (evidently) German-illiterate, and too damn lazy to make the required additional effort to even look in a DICTIONARY to genuinely investigate the context and underpinnings of the ACTUAL facts under discussion, they mindlessly accept the (false and crap science) notion that they have to just accept every real or imagined factor in their stupid differential equation which they self-righteously purport to actually want to solve. And when their wrongly constructed equation doesn’t work for them, they (dogmatically) believe that the problems they’ve generated proves their concreted-in hypothesis, ie. “Meier’s a crook”.

    For instance, if you posit that Meier is a mendacious and conspiratorial fraudster, (a bit of “projection” maybe going on there, people?) then you don’t have to try to make the mental effort to think about the much more confronting (true) premise, being: Meier is the real deal. BUT the rabbit hole – dug by Billy and his inconceivably intellectually advanced and loving ET human contacts – which we find our selves falling ever deeper down into when “thinking” like a stupid Earthling, CAN lead us – like a Zen koan – into a new and productive head-space where we are FORCED to re-think a lot of our pig-ignorant hubris which goes: being alone in the universe, we obviously are the best human psychologists that exist. (The Copernican revolution’s final battle is now well underway, and the underdogs are still winning.)

    More about Billy and the Plejaren alien methodology can be found here:

    “The overall body of Plejaren/Meier advice is so intelligent and refreshingly reasonable, whether regarding spiritual knowledge, Earth Human behaviour, politics, prophecies, environmental concerns, geological phenomena, scientific data and so forth that, in these chaotic and troubled times, the inclination is to turn to this source for the answer to everything – without thinking it through. But, try as you might, it simply doesn’t let you.” – Vivienne Legg


    So the fact – that Billy (or even FIGU!) never exercised extensive bragging rights about the prescient knowledge of the remote (invisible from Earth) volcanoes on a moon of Jupiter (and so on and so forth ad infinitum) – remains unexamined by the ignorant pseudo-scientists, exactly as intended by Billy & Co. But if the required context of this dim-witted debate had been approached SCIENTIFICALLY, instead of RELIGIOUSLY, the ignorant eye-rollers would have noticed that Billy’s behaviour is 100% consistent with the fact, being: he’s not selling hamburgers to all and sundry, because he’s the real deal, and that fact is gently hidden from those who don’t have what it takes to work that out for themselves. Their arrogance blinds them. It’s like the loving parents who gently hide, from their innocent little children, the fact that Santa Clause isn’t a flesh and blood guy who comes down the chimney.

    More about our collective genetically-engineered hereditary birth defect:


    Of course it’s very early days yet and the VAST majority of Billy’s published scientific facts, as yet undiscovered by our primitive pseudo-scientists here on Planet Upsidedown, remain firmly on the other side of their self-imposed language barrier. Marco K’s recognition that it’s “pearls before swine” is addressed by Billy here:

    “ … würde ihnen alles Wissen einfach wie Futter hingeschmissen und von ihnen gedankenlos und ohne Verarbeitung gefuttert, dann würde es keinen eigentlichen Erfolg bringen, sondern nur ein gewisses Schulwissen, während der Rest unverdaut als Exkremente wieder ausgeschieden würde.”

    (… if all knowledge was simply tossed out to them like feed and they fed on it thoughtlessly and without processing, then it would bring no proper success, but rather only a certain school-knowledge, while the undigested remainder would be secreted again as excrement.)


    But when we encounter a lack of thoughtful processing in favour of pseudoscientific religious dogma unwittingly (?) presented as (good) “science” (more Latin! “knowledge”) then it’s time to leave them to walk their path of misery and time for us to spend OUR valuable time helping those who CAN be helped, which is all I’m obliged to do here. And after my previous post here about Stuart’s obfuscation through foreign-language scientific insider jargon, I had to laugh when I read his final word on the attempted refutation of his damned Meier calumny: “What he [mahigitam] points out are minutia and AGAIN INCORRECT UNDERSTANDINGS OF TERMINOLOGY and what’s going on as opposed to THE CONTEXT and science OF THE ISSUE.” [my caps for emphasis]

    The very fact that Stuart and his anonymous cowards sit over there still banging their little drum evinces that he’s utterly clueless about the actual context of the Meier issue. And to separate the Meier issue from the issue of his Io evidence is – I need another polite euphemism here – imprudent.

    Naturally, Albert Einstein, a Plejaren (“unconscious-thought-impulse”) contactee, (that explains his 1905 annus miribellus, eh?), put it a lot more succinctly than I ever could:

    “Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”

    The reason I previously wrote “PLEASE” read Sheldrake’s iconoclastic book, “The Science Delusion”, here on Michael’s blog is because we Earth humanoids have all been genetically engineered by our ancient Sirius-based creator-gods to be RELIGIOUS in our approach to trying to get a grip on reality – not that many people even bother. So instead of logic, we habitually use a schizophrenic (nothing to do with split-personalities – the Greek “schizo” refers to a separation from reality) Orwellian “doublethink” approach which is dogmatically foisted off as “science”. And since this foolish behaviour is so across-the-board that it’s pretty unlikely that the arguers would have bothered reading George Orwell’s timely, 1948, anti-fascist novel, “1984”, I’ll insert the following and ask that at least this much be read:

    (pp. 44 & 45) “Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.”

    One more time, with feeling …

    How to find the truth:

    OM,Kanon 20:38 „Denn es ist dem Menschen entschwunden die Gesinnung der Bemühung, dass die Wahrheit soll erarbeitet werden durch eigene Kraft des Denkens und Forschens und Erkennens“

    (The Earth human’s sense of effort towards seeking the truth has disappeared.)


    The problem with trying to force proof on others:

    “Bei Menschen Beweise führen zu wollen, ist seit alters her der falsche Weg, darum soll niemals erklärt werden, dass jetzt einmal dieses und jenes bewiesen werden soll.”

    (Since time immemorial, wanting to prove something to someone has been the wrong way, therefore it should never be declared that now something or other will be proven.)


    Our collective inescapable human requirement for (non-acrimonious) disputation:

    “Tatsächlich ist das Gros der Menschen in ein Stadium verfallen, in dem sich das kommunizierende Sichauseinandersetzen mit dem Nächsten sowie das Diskutieren ebenso kaum oder nicht mehr finden lässt wie auch nicht das Sichauseinandersetzen mit den globalen Geschehen, denn diese Notwendigkeiten sind bereits vielen verlorengegangen.”

    (Actually, the majority of humans has fallen into a state in which disputes participated in with neighbours, as well as discussions, are just as rarely or no longer to be found, as neither are quarrels with global events, because these necessities have already been mostly lost.)


    Finally (whew!) a word about “authority” and why its become such a derogatory word:

    Arahat Athersata, p.29

    93. „Statt der Zusammenarbeit und der naturgeforderten Führung im schöpferischen Gesetz ist leider eine andere Tatsache zu verzeichnen, nämlich dass sich im Verlaufe der letzten Jahrhunderte die Kluft zwischen den Führern eurer Menschheit und zwischen Mensch und Mensch in zunehmendem Masse dauernd vergrösserte und immer unüberbrückbarer wurde.“

    (Instead of the co-operation and leadership demanded by nature working according to creational laws, another fact to note is, namely, that in the course of the last hundred years the cleft between the leaders of your humanity and between human and human continually grows in increasing measure and becomes ever more insurmountable.)



    • A great reply and, in addition to that, one that is causing me to change some text that I was in the process of assembling towards a new blog:

      “I have accomplished, by my presence on that blog, leaving a “virtual footprint” for those who want more information on the Meier case and its evidence. But, rather than play someone else’s game, be baited by practitioners of the Orwellian art of doublespeak, in an online kangaroo court like atmosphere, I suggest taking the issue to the people in a real open, public debate, in front of a live audience, as well as an online one.”

      Dyson preemptively referred to “Orwellian doublespeak” and all that I can say is that I’m glad to have been on the same beam of perception/recognition/definition as he. I was writing about a “real open, public debate” because my invitation for one at that blog had at first been accepting by “Nereid” who found my attempts to clarify a few terms sufficiently off-putting to his/her/its agenda as to slither away from it and offer further obfuscation.

      Robbins also blocked more of my comments and, in truth, it’s both tiresome and pointless to participate in a climate of such palpable fear and denial. Thanks again Dyson. Too bad that it’s unlikely that either Robbins or his sidekick will read, or acknowledge that they’ve read your comments. But in truth, they really aren’t the ones who are ready to benefit from them.

      • Not at all. Thanks for the flowers. An thanks, also, Michael for your patient efforts over there working among the blind sophists. And special thanks for providing a much less intellectually diffident venue here for the truth, which incorporates an elemental might, but is, ironically and all too obviously, powerless against stupidity.


    • P.S. In case my above un-diplomatic words have offended anyone:

      505 & 506. “Ganz besonders beim Erdenmenschen herrscht die irrige und gefährliche Ansicht vor, dass ein guter Wahrheitskünder, ein guter Prediger oder ein guter Lehrer der Wahrheitslehre usw. und also auch ein guter Prophet voller demütiger Haltung sein müsse, nur liebe und feine, gewählte und diplomatische Worte sprechen und allzeit nur freundlich sein müsse. Gerade so müsse es sein, denken die Erdenmenschen, wie z.B. der Papst sich benehme und also viele Pfarrherren und Sektenführer, die wahrheitlich jedoch nichts anderes tun, als ihr wahres Gesicht zu verstecken und freundlich-nächstenliebend zu erscheinen, um dadurch ihre Gläubigen über ihr tatsächliches Wesen irrezuführen und sie ausbeuten zu können.”

      (With Earth humans, predominates quite especially, the erroneous and dangerous view that a good announcer of truth, a good preacher or a good teacher of the true teachings, and so forth, and therefore also a good prophet, must be full of humble bearing, only speak pleasing and elegant, chosen and diplomatic words, and must always only be friendly. The Earth humans think it must be just the same as, for example, the Pope comports himself, and therefore many gentleman ministers and sect leaders, who truthfully, however, do nothing other than hide their true faces and appear friendly and neighbour-loving, to thereby mislead their believers about their actual nature, and to be able to exploit them.)


    • “But the mindless, dogmatic acceptance of “centrifuge” supports my following broader points about the pervasive religious influence in terrestrial science – the aggressive rejection of which is precisely the putative reason behind Stuart’s website in the first place!”

      Not only that, Stu is also heavily supportive of a scientific consensus that would largely rely on a body of ‘experts’ finding common aggreements to determine what is non-scientific to the public. Essentially, a hat swapping fiesta if anyone has a remote understanding of history where this is exactly leading to especially with the legal-ese demonstrated in the wording of the blog. I’m not seeing a massive difference in the conduct compared to Galileo.

  • Maybe the title for this post should be something more like “Credibility shoots itself in the foot, again..”

    In the endlessly fascinating and informative “Macht der Gedandken” (Might of the Thoughts…), Billy explains that there would be no progress for the human without making errors and subsequently correcting them. And it is possible for one error to contain, for example, 1000 sub-errors or variations, which differ by one iota from its previous variation, all 1000 of which must be gone through, one by one, recognized and corrected before that one error can be done with, once and for all.

    Giving Stuart and his attack dog Nereid the benefit of the doubt, they may be on sub-error no. 9 or 10 of the 1000 they must create and resolve before any progress can be seen. Therefore, perhaps we should be more understanding regarding their incompetence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *