Over this past weekend I managed to take the time to stir up some hornets’ nests, three of them to be precise. I sent a message to a number of skeptics, scientists and so-called “UFO researchers”
The purpose of the message was to inform them that, considering the abundant, easily verifiable evidence, new authentication of same and the endorsement of a NASA aerospace engineer (linked from here), I was adding their names to the list of those who endorsed the authenticity of the Billy Meier UFO case, unless I was informed to the contrary. As you may imagine, I received a number of very quick responses to not be included, from each of the groups.
I then informed them that it was required that they provide a credible, substantiated rebuttal to the evidence, or I was keeping them on the list. Today I’m going to explore the responses from one person, Dr. Steven Novella, a professional skeptic and long time critic and detractor of the case. As I indicated in my email to Dr. Novella this morning that I would post this public response, I also want to reaffirm what I said to him and the 13 other people on that particular list:
“Because you’ve taken the time to respond and to raise these additional points I thank you, no sarcasm intended whatsoever.
I am going to address these points, and the ones that I think you avoided in my earlier responses, hopefully today in a public post on my forum. I think it’s important to clarify this situation once and for all.
I have long stated that either the Billy Meier UFO case is the biggest, most impenetrable hoax spanning over 72 years, or it’s the most important true story in all of science…and human history.
The people on this list – and on two separate lists to which I’ve written – are all effectively opponents of the case. None have ever made a credible case against the evidence.
I think that getting a definitive conclusion is not only possible but necessary for the sake of the truth. If I “believe” anything, it would have to be that any and all scientifically minded people want to know the truth, whether they like it or are comfortable with it or not. I count myself among those people and I hope that all of you do too.”
I am going to address all the skeptics, referring to Dr. Novella’s specific points and criticisms from the emails he sent me, quoting only his essential points. So let’s start with his first criticism:
1. The “Pendulum UFO”: Dr. Novella states, “You claimed that the saucer on a string video (which a 5 year old can tell is a fake) indicates that the string support would have to be in frame. I conclusively demonstrated to you that the support would be above the frame, therefore not in the shot, and therefore compatible with a model dangling from a string.”
This is as good a point as any to begin to understand the problem with the skeptical “arguments” to the Meier case as a whole. The fact is that the skeptics have, from the very beginning, assumed that the case was a hoax and proceeded from that assumption. They are now again reminded to read the technical analysis on the 8mm “Pendulum UFO” film, by Prof. Rhal Zahi. Prof. Zahi also posted a video pertaining to the analysis here. Since Dr. Novella likes to admonish me for not being “scientific”, I’m sure that he and the other critics of the case will enjoy being spoken to by someone who understands and speaks their language, and who explains just what he did and how he did it so that others may conduct the same kinds of analysis.
I think that the comparison between the kind of “science” that Dr. Novella employed and that which Prof. Zahi uses is quite clear and, hopefully, Dr. Novella will upgrade his methodologies appropriately.
2. The WCUFO: Of course none of the skeptics bothered to do as I suggested, i.e. examine the information about the WCUFO photos, analysis, etc. The article I sent included these links:
…which led to this video and to the information here. Again, Prof. Zahi presented not only enormously detailed analysis but specified and demonstrated what tools he used in the process, etc. Perhaps you’re now getting just a glimmer of why I noticed also that not a one of you mentioned that you took the online image of Meier’s 35mm film nighttime photo of the WCUFO and run it through PhotoShop. Of course not, you already “know” the whole thing’s a hoax, right Dr. Novella?
3. The Asket and Nera Photographs: This is a favorite of many critics of the case and, in some ways, deservedly so. But not for the reasons Dr. Novella believes. There’s a very good article that explains the matter, with important points such as the verifiable documentation that Meier was told about the doubles in Contact #39 in 1975, from1975, year before the photo issue was raised (many of us have the copyrighted, dated, published book). I can provide scans of the pages for those who are interested. Further, the faces in the photos are…different, as anyone can plainly see. Then there are facts such as that the photos weren’t taken off a TV screen or monitor and that there were two witnesses who saw Asket, one of whom is a now retired UN ambassador, who served her country, Cambodia, for 12 years there. Her honesty was also attested to in independent analysis by a consultant to the Special Forces, an expert in reading – and teaching – body language to people who use that skill in life and death situations. Lastly, the article on Asket and Nera was posted in…2010. But Dr. Novella and his fellow skeptics didn’t need to look at any of this evidence because they already “knew” it was all a hoax, right?
4. The Hasenböl film footage: With two lights flashing in broad daylight, this film, from 1976, was alsolinked to in the email I sent the skeptics, scientists and “UFO researchers”. It’s pretty simple, even for skeptics and real scientists, to examine and analyze. Of course it’s also rather threatening, so much so in fact that when I submitted a link to it on one of Stuart Robbins’ blogs (in which he posited that videos of UFOs are really just capturing footage of quadcopters) he banned it, censored it, wouldn’t allow it to be posted! Now of course all of you can examine it and comment. Please, just for the sake of your own credibility, avoid the embarrassingly inept and amateurish type of comment offered by Dr. Novella in regards to the “Pendulum UFO”, i.e. “…saucer on a string video (which a 5 year old can tell is a fake)”. I also included a link to the (already authenticated) “Sunlight UFO” photo, where you’ll also find a video of Meier and the Nippon TV director as they walk right up to the tree where Meier took that photo.
5. The “Cross in the Sky” and other 1964 UFO photos: I also linked to one of Meier’s most astounding photos, the cross in the sky, from 1964. Taken with a 1940s Kodak bellows type camera, just like his UFO photos from the same time, this photo is absolutely, positively no hoax, nor a product of – completely non-existent – special effects, etc.
A few words of advice to the skeptics, scientists and, pardon me “UFO experts (none of whom are) you all now have the opportunity to examine, analyze and attempt to rebut the work done by Prof. Zahi. You have the same opportunity to try to “debunk” the “Pendulum UFO”, the WCUFO, the Asket and Nera information, the Hasenböl film, the “Sunlight UFO” photo, the “Cross in the Sky”, etc. I suggest that you don’t make a mockery of Dr. Novella’s repeated, deserved, emphasis on science, etc.
Here you are with the opportunity to try to credibly, with substantiation, explain away how this (yes, one-armed) one man produced all of this still irreproducible physical evidence (along with the sound recordings and metal samples) while living in a remote part of Switzerland, in pre-computer, pre-internet days, with no financial or technical resources, accomplices, etc., even while under the watchful eye of a retired US Air Force investigator and two professional private investigators (who were also initially skeptics themselves). And of course it will be delightful to hear your explanations of just how Meier foresaw, anticipated and configured for use in PhotoShop, a 35 mm film photo that would only reveal its full contents…over 32 years later. We all can’t wait for that to be explained away. And please don’t resort to “magical “ explanations that are simply…unscientific.
If you suddenly are “too busy”, “won’t waste your time”, or proffer any other evasive ploys and excuses, just remember that you were given not only the chance to confront the evidence (and your previous certainties about it) but also that there’s evidence that’s now so easy for anyone to authenticate themselves…and there’s more of that coming. It will become evermore difficult to play the expert “card” in the midst of this rapidly increasing democratization of information and technology.
For those scientists to whom I also sent my emails, such Profs. Paul Davies, Bernard, Haisch and Lawrence Krauss, etc., this of course goes for you as well. You are the ones who looked down your noses at the case and who’ve also had the gall to consider yourselves qualified to talk about the topic of UFOs and extraterrestrials, to publish books, give commentaries, etc.
As for the “UFO experts”, I can’t think of any group that is so unscientific, lacking in scientific standards, logic, credibility, research skills, objectivity, etc., etc. It is this group that has done even more damage to the truth than I think that either the skeptics or “all-knowing” scientists have. They have effectively acted as pawns of disinformation, so much so as to marginalize the entire topic.
For many years now, all of the skeptics (and most of the “UFO experts”) have, without so much as a doubt or consideration, slandered and defamed Billy Meier, calling him a fraud, faker, hoaxer, etc. Because they have dug themselves so deeply into their wretchedly pseudoscientific hole, it will take great personal courage, self-honesty and personal integrity for them to admit that they were…wrong. In other words, it will require real and true character for any and all of these parties to accept, acknowledge and express such realizations. I hold out hope that such qualities and the expression of them are well within the reach, are even already present in those who are answered and addressed today.
P.S. In case I didn’t make it clear to the skeptics…no excuses. You asked for it, now you’ve got it, do your work. Lastly, I’ve made it clear that I consider Meier’s prophetically accurate, scientific information to be the even “higher standard of proof”, meaning that it meets not only scientific but legal standards of proof and exceeds therefore even the impeccably solid and authentic physical evidence. I didn’t discuss it here because, right now, it’s far too outside the realm of what skeptics can or will consider and deal with, although they – and everyone else on the planet –will indeed have to deal with the consequences of the unheeded warnings for a very long time to come.