…or: Stirring the Hornet’s Nest Part 2

In the real world, and occasionally in the online virtual world, people have to substantiate what they say about others, especially if they make claims that attack another person’s honesty, character, etc. There can be consequences for not doing so and for unjustly characterizing or accusing them.

For quite some time it’s been acceptable in the wild and wonderful world of UFOs, to accuse Billy Meier, the man with the most abundant, amazing, credible, authenticated UFO evidence, of somehow hoaxing and faking it all. People who have absolutely no expertise themselves, absent any qualifications, having conducted no credible testing and analysis, branded a man as a fraud, cheater, profiteer, etc., without so much as a second thought as to the rightness of their actions.

Completely neglected by these parties is the question, “What is the criteria that reasonable people use to determine the truth?”

Among the unreasonable ones are scientists, members of the UFO community/industry (UFOCI) and skeptics. Skeptics, in case you may be unclear about it, are people for whom applying the respected standards of science and the scientific method to assess the validity of all claims simply isn’t enough. Apparently threatened by claims of the so-called but non-existent “paranormal”, they resort to pseudoscientific behaviors to try to make sure that something so evidence rich, monumentally important (and threatening to their religious belief systems) as the Meier case is discredited and ridiculed. They are perhaps unintentionally given support in their marginalization of the UFO topic by the behavior of the UFOCI, which has the lowest possible standards, is painfully unscientific, relies on mainly anecdotal reports for evidence, welcomes all sorts of charlatans, liars and poseurs and provides a home for the fringe element…as well as a very effective environment from which to spread disinformation by the intelligence communities. Apart from that, the UFOCI has become a very lucrative field for speakers, TV shows, etc., which skirt the real truth about the cover-up, i.e. that it’s actually all about the Meier case, and contribute to the entertainment/distraction agenda.

Most (but not all) of the parties listed below have previously gone on record as stating that the Billy Meier UFO contact case is a hoax and that Billy Meier is everything from a fraud, hoaxer, profiteer, to a cult leader, etc. They are now listed as admitting they were…wrong.

The Process

Since each of these parties had previously accused Meier of hoaxing, I invited them to view and test Meier’s newest evidence, the independent, professional analyses, conducted using state-of-the-art technology of Meier’s controversial 35mm WCUFO photos and video and the 8mm “Pendulum UFO” film. They were informed that failure to substantiate their original opinions, as well as failure to rebut the new analyses with credible documentation, would be an admission that their previous assessments were wrong. Therefore, such failures would result in their effectively endorsing the case and evidence they once condemned. Things are real, genuine, authentic and true, or they’re not. And since none of the parties were ambiguous or undecided on the matter they would either substantiate their position or effectively change it. Should anyone notify me that they are now undecided it will be noted but also require explanation on their part.

One of Meier’s defamers, astronomer Stuart Robbins, responded to my challenge not by substantiating his defamatory statements about Meier but by…threatening to take legal action against me. So Robbins of course remains high up on the list unless and until he can substantiate his claims and rebut the new photographic analyses.

Susan Swiatek, a MUFON* spokesperson (and apparent giant lizard slayer) also warned me that she’d “invoke and thrust” if I included her among those who wrongly assessed the evidence in the Meier case and now effectively endorse it. So Sue may want to sue me for slander or, in her case…salamander.

It’s a plain fact of life that, from time to time, all of us are wrong and all of us make mistakes and misjudgments about various things. There’s really no shame in making mistakes unless we stubbornly refuse to admit, correct and not repeat those mistakes. Should I have mistakenly listed anyone who has in fact not erroneously labeled the case and/or Meier as fraudulent, I’ll certainly apologize and remove them from this list. However, I may ask them to state their position now that sufficient evidence has been made available that allows them to test some of it themselves. Now before we meet those who, in my opinion, have effectively endorsed the Meier case by failing to rebut the evidence, think how different this discussion would have been if all those listed below had simply said those three wise little words, “I don’t know.”

The List

Dr. Steven Novella is a professional skeptic who previously made a rapid, negative assessment of Meier’s evidence and hastily concluded it was a hoax, defaming him in the process. Ironically, in our correspondence he tried to sound like a thoughtful man of science who required that “real science” should be used to substantiate evidence and represented himself as someone who conducted himself in the same manner. His lack of response to the evidence I presented to him, other than to avoid and complain about being required to address it and be accountable for his inept and defamatory comments revealed that his position was a pretentious façade intended to conceal his complete lack of knowledge, qualifications and expertise. What it didn’t conceal was his lack of personal integrity and character and his willingness to hastily misjudge and defame someone based on his own preconceptions, prejudices and beliefs.

James Randi is the poster boy for professional skepticism. He felt no need to honor his own bogus “$100,000 award for proof of the paranormal, etc.”, since he retracted his claim that the Meier case was a hoax. Again, if it’s not a hoax it’s…real. He pulled the ultimate magic act and…disappeared.

Stuart Robbins is the aforementioned astronomer, in reality another pseudoscientist who seems to be more focused on celebrity seeking and building his reputation as a skeptical gunslinger by taking on the easy, looney targets in the paranormal and UFO fields. Another one fast on the draw and quick to shoot, Robbins also tried his hand at dismissing the evidence in the Meier case, resorting to censoring it as well as misrepresenting it on his blog. He likes to bake cookies.

Philip Plait is right up there with (actually a good bit higher up the food chain than) Stuart Robbins. Another one of the celebrity-seeking, “I wanna be Mr. Science” types, he was alsocharacteristically dismissive in true know-it-all fashion of the Meier case and simply headed for the hills when confronted and challenged with Meier’s evidence, although he seemed to take to echoing some it a bit later, when perhaps because he’d forgotten about Meier he’d also assumed that everyone else had.

Prof. Paul Davies is a scientist and professor at ASU who’s actually written five books on extraterrestrial life, etc. Strangely enough, when I sent him our film “as the time fulfills” and other information about Billy Meier, the only response I was finally able to coax out of his assistant, after numerous calls and emails to his office, was that, “His interests and expertise do not extend into this area.” Hey, who said you have to know anything about the topics you write books about? Of course I did inform him that it was my area of interest and expertise but perhaps he was busy writing another book about extraterrestrials and didn’t have the time (interest or expertise) to answer.

Prof. Lawrence Krauss is also a scientist at ASU who makes TV appearances to discuss various topics. He’s the author of “The Physics of Star Trek” and seemed a likely enough candidate to send the Meier information to. Despite three emails from me and one from NASA aerospace engineer Matthew Wieczkiewicz there was no response..until I notified him of my intention to give him some free publicity here. Then he didn’t want me to mention his name.

Prof. Michio Kaku is an outspoken scientist who seems to be a champion of many right causes, lending his expertise and credibility to espousing them. However, like too many other celebrity-scientists, his tarsals and metatarsals assume sub-zero temperatures when it comes to publicly commenting on the Meier case, the existence and authenticity of which he is well aware, since I’ve not only sent him “And Did They Listen?” but also quite a few emails, including about Meier’s information on Fukushima. He has a Facebook page where people can also contact him and let him know the world’s a friendly place and that it’s actually safe to take a stand on something this important.

Alejandro Rojas and John Rao of (get a load of this) OpenMinds represent a unique blend of cynicism, disinformation and naked profiteering. This is the organization that purchased a large part of Wendelle Stevens research collection, including his work on the Meier investigation, Meier’s photos, etc., and that then attacks the case as a “hoax”…while selling Meier’s photos! I consider that to be the behavior of the epitome of two-faced, parasitical, bottom feeders…and willing disinformation agents in the UFOCI.

John Greenwald is a young UFO enthusiast, whatever that means, who’s kinda dedicated to UFO related matters, chasing lights in the sky and various government conspiracies, etc. John had a complete meltdown when we got into it about the Billy Meier case. Like most everyone in this category, he did his version of “Hi, I’m whatshisname, and I’m a Billy Meier denier.” When pressed even mildly he was unable to say anything of significance or credibility to support his confused position on the Meier case. So since he couldn’t refute the clear and credible evidence, he simply got mad at me, took his marbles and went home. Presumably he’ll work even harder on uncovering the UFO cover-up, while continuing to avoid recognizing that it’s solely about the Billy Meier case at this point.

Derek Bartholomaus deserves a special place on this list and in our hearts. Bartholomaus, like James Randi, is also a professional skeptic, bungler and bumbler. He too retracted his claim that the Meier case was a hoax using models and miniature trees, etc. But he couldn’t resist trying to attract people to his debunking website by being deliberately misleading in naming it. He aligned himself with:

Phil Langdon, the British skeptic who made some excellent models of the WCUFO and whose photos are the best efforts of duplicating the effect of Meier’s. Of course the devil’s in the details and details such as those seen here were never attempted by Langdon, whose inner awareness of Meier’s authenticity must be getting the better of him. Early on he was quite vocal in claiming that his efforts proved that Meier had hoaxed all his evidence using the same methods that Langdon employed. While I had actually encouraged his efforts to take his best shots (no pun intended) beginning in 2009, Langdon’s earlier, over reaching confidence virtually evaporated in the face of Prof. Zahi’s expert analyses. Langdon uttered a few incoherent words and, like a few others, basically disappeared.

Stephen Bassett has been hounding the UFO scene for some time, with his daffy “Exopolitics” organization, dog and pony show “UFO hearings” and time wasting “fax Washington to force UFO disclosure” deliberate disinformation and distraction agenda. I say that it’s deliberate because no sincere, sane and honest individual would run around claiming that there’s an “extraterrestrial presence” with “millions of contactees” and all those darn crying, bug-eating, “alien-human hybrid babies”. A few years ago, Bassett not only admitted to me in person that he knows the Meier case is authentic but he explained that – in his words – “It wasn’t time for it yet.” He added that it was more important for people to get behind his insane program to send faxes to Washington, to try to force the government to disclose things it doesn’t know about evidence that it no longer possesses. You don’t get more points as a hack disinformation operative than that. Of course when you actually finance poseurs and profiteers like this, you earn a complimentary placement on this list, such as…

Tom Clearwater is a Canadian philanthropist from what I can learn about him from limited information online. Apparently he was the sole, or main, financial supporter for Bassett’s latest congressional caper, coughing up $600,000 for the fiasco, which included paying six US Congressmen, our elected officials, $20,000 each to bark along with Bassett about all this UFO stuff. That money could have been used to publicly inform the citizens of planet Earth that a race of extraterrestrial human beings have been in contact with a Swiss man for over 72 years and they and he are trying very hard to assist us to not commit planetary suicide. Of course the Plejaren didn’t reckon with the power of the almighty dollar and the irrepressible, egomaniacal ambitions of third-rate exopolitical hacks and their deluded (or is it willing?) supporters. $600,000…it’s staggering to think about the awareness that investment could have brought to the world through providing translations of Meier’s 26,000+ pages of information into different languages, etc. Perhaps though Clearwater explained the underlying reason for the disparity in our priorities when in response to my asking him, “Why focus on imaginary entities, baby aliens and disinformation instead of the only authentic UFO contacts of Billy Meier?” Clearwater said, “I suppose because we live in different universes. Mine is seemingly much more populated than yours.” There you have it, much more populated with imaginary things which, when you think about this already overly entertained world, is what people like to waste their money on anyway. I guess Clearwater is a – proud – example of just what Billy Meier was warning about in number 127 here.

Susan Swiatek is a MUFON representative of some sort to whom I had sent information on the Meier case. Her professional, genteel response is now a matter of record, as is her role as Susie the Serpent Slayer. Some eccentric people with too much time on their hands dress up in little costumes and entertain tourists on Hollywood Boulevard, others get involved in being “UFO researchers”.

Stanton Friedman has made a career out of yacking about…Roswell. A frequent presence on the rubber chicken circuit, Friedman is the Uncle Stan of UFO experts, rehashing whatever information about the 67 year old event he can possibly dredge up. It wasn’t always like that. At one point in the early stages of the investigation into the Billy Meier UFO case, Friedman approached lead investigator, Lt. Colonel Wendelle Stevens, begging to be involved in the investigation and especially the analysis of Meier’s photographic evidence. Stevens declined the request, noting (wisely) that he didn’t want the investigation contaminated by any members of the UFOCI, but only wanted reputable, high level analysts and facilities involved in the process. Apparently Friedman took umbrage at being treated dismissively and thereafter called the case a hoax, etc. However, he has assured his place in UFOlogical history as having remarkable digestive abilities (even for a public speaker) and the capacity to suppress his boredom, as well as his frustration about being excluded from the Meier case investigation.

Stephen Greer of the Disclosure Project probably started out on that famous road paved with very good intentions, forgetting that it unfailingly led to some particular hell or another. In Greer’s case, it’s led him to morph into a money-seeking huckster, who sells expensive, totally inane “Ambassador to the Universe” trainings and “Shine Your Flashlight in the Desert Sky for Aliens-on-Demand” performances. As I did with Bassett, I personally and publicly offered the Meier case to Greer as not only the world’s best evidence but as a means to relieve us form the parade of people who’ve courageously come forward to tell us they’ve seen stuff in the sky…though they really don’t know what it was. Like Bassett, Greer continues to milk the cow of promises never delivered and of course has no shortage of customers who are willing to pay for such consciousness clogging, stuff.

Prof. Bernard Haisch is a scientist who’s avoided saying too much about the Meier case although I’ve sent him tons of information about it. He also has been in contact with Prof. James Deardorff, who’s made a truly huge contribution to the research in the Meier case. So while Haisch appears to be content to not raise his head and take a firm stand, because he is a scientist and well aware of the Meier case I’m saying that he effectively endorses the authenticity of the case. Should he disagree, he has all the opportunity he needs to clearly, credibly – and courageously – come forward and refute the evidence.

James Underdown, of CFI-West/IIG is an associate of Derek Bartholomaus’ whose agreement to look into the evidence in the Meier case some time ago apparently fell by the wayside, as he tilts at the paranormal windmills that constitute the weighty challenges facing CRI-West/IIG in its never-ending battle to rid the world of phony psychics, seers and other menaces to society, which also serves to keep their $50,000 award safely untouched and probably non-existent. The fact that they should hand over the award to Meier may also account for his keeping a very low profile. Despite his personally telling me that he’d delve into the Meier information and evidence that easily rebuts all claims of any hoax, nothing ever came of it. Perhaps he actually read what happened when the skeptics tried to debunk Meier’s Jupiter related information…and ended up corroborating it instead.

James Fox may be the James Randi of UFOlogy. He claims that he knows what he saw…but then offers a bogus $100,000 award for proof of an actual extraterrestrial UFO. Naturally, when presented with ample evidence of the authenticity of Meier’s claims he goes into airplane mode, disconnecting entirely from the conversation, probably not even vibrating…He could have contacted:

D.J. Grothe and Michael Shermer are both professional skepticsone really has to laugh at that notion and the endless obligations it must bestow upon these people to view everything that is outside of their religiously tinged belief systems and world view as suspicious and in need of “debunking”. Suffice it to say that they too accused Meier of a hoax but never substantiated their claims, busy as they must be tilting at windmills.

Lee Speigel is a columnist for the Huffington Post who, as you can read, let me know that the price for his bringing the Meier case to public attention was nothing less than him meeting with…the Plejaren. He wasn’t happy that I shared his egocentric demands publicly. Speigel’s claim to UFameO is rests on some work he did on the topic back in the 1970s. I guess he figured that the Plejaren must have been too busy messing around with that “Swiss farmer” back then to have noticed him and, while he might forgive the oversight, he’s still willing to give them an audience…but not mention it to his audience unless the Plejaren cater to his demands.

Bill Birnes has been happy to do a hatchet job on the Meier case because, after all, Birnes is a “UFO researcher” who got his big break to do a TV show, wear sunglasses, get his 15 minutes and…dutifully spread disinformation. One of his compatriots in disinformation is:

George Wingfield,who repeats and supports the defamatory, unsubstantiated and now proven completely wrong attacks on the Meier, the WCUFO etc.

Seth Shostak of SETI has also stubbornly, deliberately and perhaps in obedience to any higher ups – but most certainly in fear of losing his paycheck for essentially doing nothing of significance – chosen to ignore both my in person and online conveyance to him of the Meier information. He waits by his radio in hopes of receiving “contact” form folks who are laughing at the ludicrousness of it, off world and on.

Robert Shaeffer’s another UFO debunker who simply doesn’t care to get up to speed, despite my providing him with all of the Meier related evidence and information any serious researcher could want. Of course many people who think of themselves as “UFO researchers” are merely hobbyists, conspiracy theorists and dabblers with too much time on their hands and have fond the UFO topic to be sufficiently superficially exciting so as to help alleviate some of their boredom.

Skeptic.com is an online hub for various skeptics like Shermer, etc., that has been approached numerous times to look into and challenge the Meier material. I’ve included another UFO skeptic only because he too couldn’t deal with the Meier’s evidence:

Tim Printy said to feel free to contact him “with any information or feedback you desire via email” pertaining to his website that basically regards most UFOs as not plausible, figments of people’s imaginations, misperceptions, etc. But wouldn’t ya know it, he too can’t handle the evidence in the Meier case.

UPDATE: Thanks to the work of Kevin Thompson, I was directed to this information on the Meier case  so, other than to direct people to the information, I am removing http://www.ufoevidence.org from the list of critics, debunkers, etc., and it is indeed a nice looking website.

There are a few people I’m including in this list who aren’t really openly involved in the UFO topic or debate but who despite their professed cutting edge, forward thinking attitudes were far from open-minded – or courageous – enough to even look through the proverbial telescope and say anything about it:

Prof. Peter Boghossian, a professional atheist who blusters a good bit about “converting” religious believers to atheism, a kinda…religious approach if one thinks about it. He makes good points about religious delusions and I approached him to be interviewed on some forthcoming should he was going to host. I briefly met him in person and, when I contacted him to follow up afterwards about the interview, used a silly excuse to cancel it. Atheists often have their own very religious beliefs of which they’re unaware. Boghossian, turned out to be a paper tiger when it came to responding to information about the Meier case, maybe because it makes his atheist viewpoint seem like kindergarten in comparison with things like Meier’s information on God-delusion, etc. Nice intelligent guys like this have also mapped out and defined reality and don’t want inconvenient little things like the most important true story in all of science and human history messing with their beliefs, comfort zone or…popularity.

Beatriz Kravetz and TJ Slezak get honorable mentions as outsiders to the UFOCI who contributed to the debate if only by letting their religious beliefs, political correctness, etc., get in the way of true free speech, independence of thinking and healthy debate on campus. I include them as endorsing the case since they know about it and couldn’t, wouldn’t, certainly didn’t act with any courage or intellectual honesty in dealing with it. Unfortunately, colleges and universities have so lost direction and tend to think it’s more important to focus on politically correct, “daring” issues, such as what consenting adults do with their genitals. I really wouldn’t expect them to pay much attention to most of the UFO information, etc., but the Meier case isn’t to be equated at all to that tabloid worthy nonsense…as both Ms. Kravetz and Mr. Slezak are certainly intelligent enough to realize.

UPDATED Entries:

Paola Harris is long overdue being included here. While she states that she knows the Meier case is real, she blocks the presentation of the information at any conferences at which she has any influence, authority, etc.

RIchard Dolan really is deserving of being added to the list. While certainly not one of the active defamers of the Meier case, Dolan has dug himself into a nice, comfortable, Mr. Milquetoast position, where he drones on, endlessly, about essentially…nothing. However, being a reasonably astute, intelligent, dedicated UFO researcher who, for the life of him, just couldn’t manage to notice the zillion pound elephant in the room, maybe he too needs to be reminded that the truth is far more important than pushing books about speculative UFO nonsense when the Meier case is here, present and starring in your sleepy face. Wake the heck up, RIchard Dolan! I’ve now appointed and anointed you as an enthusiastic endorser of the truth about the singular authenticity of the Billy Meier UFO contacts so hurry up and credibly object, dispute or, well…write another book about how you finally came to discover it, etc.

Above Top Secret (ATS) is one of the main disinformation sites, which focuses on conspiracies, etc., and has been especially involved in attacking anything to do with the Meier case. I accidentally outted one of their attorneys some years ago. The info seems to have been sanitized off of their site but most of it may still be here. Apparently, another disinformation hack was also associated with ATS is none other than:

Ryan Dube whose individual efforts to attack the Meier case failed miserably as well.

James Gilliland has relentlessly attacked the Meier case for years, ever since his request for Meier to view his video of “UFOs” was honored by both Meier and Ptaah. Gilliland’s foaming at th mouth attacks continue to this day because Ptaah informed Meier that the objects appearing at Gilliland’s property were actually secret military craft developed at Area 51. Apparently that and other information about GIlliland’s delusions didn’t sit well with him. Instead of being “in contact with extraterrestrials” it turns out he’s kind of an experiment in mind-control, etc., which, in Gilliland’s case, doesn’t seem to require too much effort to control.

Baxter, another opponent of the Meier case, is an associate of pseudoscientist Stuart Robbins who occasionally inserts actual, regular English language words into his profanity laced rants against people he can’t otherwise debate…before he hangs up on them.


One may wonder why I bothered to list these people. If this were just about “UFOs” it would be a huge waste of time. However, I view the Meier case as the key to our future survival and my personal mission is to help prove the prophecies…wrong. So pointing out just some of the parties who’ve contributed up until now to withholding and suppressing the truth from the public is necessary. Certainly they’re not all mean-spirited, deliberate disinformers. But they are, each of them, people who could have and should have dug a little deeper into the evidence rich Meier case with its staggering implications for humanity before they dismissed, ridiculed and condemned it.

Let’s consider what Quetzal said to Billy Meier, in 1987, regarding Meier’s indefatigable but possibly futile efforts to help the human beings of Earth:

“You apparently never give up hope. Your optimism is honourable and deserves to be heard by human beings, but the way things have developed throughout this century there is not too much hope that human beings of Earth will come to their senses and heed your words. This will then be the case only when the prophecies prove to be true or, even worse, have already come to pass. Probably only then will the time come when the defamations against you will end in regard to your contacts with us, although they will long continue to be vehemently disputed by your enemies as well as by pathological know-it-alls and critics who dismiss them as swindle, lies and fraud. The full truth about our contacts with you will be proven in the distant future, and then mankind will accept our help we offer through you—even when they erroneously assume we come from the seven-star system known to human beings of Earth as the Pleiades.”


*Normally, MUFON would have been at the top of this list. However, since I am in communication with its executive director, Jan Harzan, I plan on making an announcement this week on the progress concerning their opening up the discussion about the Billy Meier UFO case to the public and to their membership.










Scientists again Echo Meier Regarding Danger of NW Quake


Copyright 2011 - All Rights Reserved. Please do not copy or reproduce the content on this blog for re-publication without the author/s written permission. Thank you.

42 comments on “Skeptics: “We were wrong, the Billy Meier UFO case is authentic”

  • Obviously, the above mentioned individuals are knowing, or unknowing, agents of the disinformation strategy of the various intelligence agencies. Who has the most to lose, if the Meier material becomes common truth? The governments and the religions. Their lies, evil machinations, fantasy, and stupidity, would all be exposed. They would lose their positions of wealth and power, most of them would be charged and found guilty of felonies, and crimes against Humanity, and imprisoned.

    So, the beat goes on.

    As I have said, I’m looking forward to Billy’s predictions of mega natural catastrophes taking place, then and only then, do I think people will start to wake up. People are too distracted by the worse kinds of “entertainment”, and too involved in their worldly and financial affairs, to investigate truth, even if it is life and death truth.

  • I’m sure a few of them will peek their heads out for a look if they see a lucrative book deal in it for them. And the “academics” only care about getting tenure, so you can probably rule out any serious attention from the “ivory tower” types, they are simply too afraid.

  • On Richard Dolan’s website I found an article, October 1, 2010, “Critical Thinking About UFOs in the Social Media Age: Facts Still Matter (More Than Ever).” It will be interesting to see what Richard Dolan has to say about the scientific facts of the Meier case.

  • In the coming days the others may need to step it up a bit as it were. The current capabilites of our species may be be exceeded by their utter stupidity and ignorance. The ones who DO know will never talk, they know what’s coming. It’s probably not so much religion as it is share holders that may be the determining factor in many things, although the dress wearing, funny hat donning pyschopaths are nearly running for their lives at this point. The hierarchies within the Vatican know full well what is going to occurr. I would not want to be close to these individuals when the truth comes home. They have much guilt to bear for the years of unfathomable atrocities and the people will want answers they will not be able to provide. They would be wise to begin to acquiesce. The more the cults resist the truth, the more demanding it will be for them in the end. It is a dangerous game they play.

    • Right. The dress-wearing, fantasy-filled, child-molesting, weirdoes of the RCC, and other cult religions, have a very high price to pay. I think the Muslims and Chinese will take care of them, very well indeed. And yes, I’m sure many of them know they are living on borrowed time.

  • I’m a little late to this party but hey, better late than never. I’ve decided to take Derek Bartholomaus, the sole author of http://www.billymeierufocase.com/ to task. Due to its high ranking on Google under a “Billy Meier” search, I believe it serves as a major roadblock on the inroads to the full truth.

    Since his website has absolutely no commenting ability, I have started an email exchange with him in an attempt to hold him accountable for his lack of transparency regarding this case. Although his side of the discussion is fairly scant, you may find his silence to be most telling.

    This of course will be of no surprise to most of you; however, a focused effort to lift this particular roadblock may benefit the message and its proliferation. If you find other false statements or inconsistencies on his website and have the inclination, send an email demanding that he make corrections and open up his work to general scrutiny. Maybe he’ll get sick of the emails and remove his address, reducing his credibility by as much. The following is the email exchange:

    from: Taro Istok
    to: “info@billymeierufocase.com”
    date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 01:02:28 -0500
    subject: Question For Derek Bartholomaus


    Is this email address for a webmaster or the content author, Derek Bartholomaus? I have a question about this website.

    Taro Istok

    — — —

    from: Billy Meier UFO Case
    to: Taro Istok
    date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:02:26 -0800
    subject: Re: Question For Derek Bartholomaus

    [Note: In fairness, I have chosen not to publish Mr. Bartholomaus’ initial response as he had not received warning of its potential to be published. Essentially he confirms his identity and direct receipt of all messages to the email address listed on his website. -Taro]

    — — —

    from: Taro Istok
    to: Billy Meier UFO Case
    date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:45:31 -0500
    subject: Re: Question For Derek Bartholomaus

    Mr. Bartholomaus,

    Please forgive my inaccuracy. I actually have several questions:

    1. May I ask WHY you have not opened up your website(www.billymeierufocase.com) to comments and discussion?

    On this very website you have described it as one of the most CONTROVERSIAL cases in modern UFOlogy. Controversy, by definition involves debate, argument and the expression of opposing views. There is no such exchange of viewpoints here.

    2. Do you believe that it is FAIR to label a case as controversial and then proceed to disregard this very label you have chosen by presenting only your biased and filtered view of both sides?

    3a. Do you plan to open up these pages to comments and discussion soon?

    3b. If not, may I also ask: WHY NOT?

    4. Your header specifically states, “Learn the truth…” As we both know however, truth is not a simple and straightforward concept to define. There are many people following the Billy Meier case who I am sure would be curious to know EXACTLY how YOU define “truth”. Could you please define this term as it applies to the statement on your website?(www.billymeierufocase.com)

    Please note: Your responses may be published under “fair use”.

    Thank you for your time.

    Taro Istok

    — — —

    from: Billy Meier UFO Case
    to: Taro Istok
    date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:09:30 -0800
    subject: Re: Question For Derek Bartholomaus


    Here is one answer that covers all of your questions:

    The Billy Meier UFO Case is not a blog. It is a website. That is why there is no commenting ability.

    Thank you.


    — — —

    from: Taro Istok
    to: Billy Meier UFO Case
    date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:09:06 -0500
    subject: Re: Question For Derek Bartholomaus

    (1 & 3) So you deliberately chose a format that lacked the ability to properly discuss such a CONTROVERSIAL subject? Or did you fail to research and familiarize yourself with all of your options when you chose it? Maybe you missed it. Maybe you DO have the ability to add comments, posts, a forum or some other form of rational discussion but choose not to utilize it ensuring only YOUR views are presented on such a CONTROVERSIAL matter. Which is it?

    (2) Whether you have commenting ability on your website or not, do you consider it fair, balanced and transparent to present a CONTROVERSIAL case while limiting counter-arguments to material YOU alone choose to present? Yes or no(please feel free to elaborate).

    (4) Also, your response in no way answers my question: How do YOU define “truth” as it applies to your own statement,

    “Learn the truth…”

    Do you not believe this is a critical question to respond to when it’s a statement displayed on almost every page of your site?

    Please note: Your responses may be published under “fair use”.

    Thank you for your time.

    Taro Istok

    — — —

    from: Taro Istok
    to: Billy Meier UFO Case
    date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:23:08 -0500
    subject: Re: Question For Derek Bartholomaus

    Mr. Bartholomaus,

    It’s been 7-days since I restated my questions about your website with zero response from you. You were much more prompt while attempting to blame your lack of transparency on website functionality. I believe it safe to assume it’s not due to time constraints but because you prefer to avoid my questions. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    Do you find my directness unsettling? You do realize this comes with the territory, committing to, “…one of the most famous, and most controversial, UFO contactee cases in modern UFOlogy”, don’t you?
    (reference: http://www.billymeierufocase.com/)

    Surely you don’t find these questions too challenging:

    (4)How do you define truth?
    (1-3)How have you ensured fairness, transparency and balance?

    The only reason to avoid responding to these simple questions is because

    a) You are unfamiliar with these terms.
    b) You lack the integrity to appreciate their value.
    c) You only have answers that would expose your commitment against them.
    d) Your dog chewed through the cable and you have no internet.

    Some of these? All of these? It’s multiple-choice, Mr. Bartholomaus. How much easier do you need me to make this for you?

    Why would someone with sound, solid research be so nervous of a little scrutiny? Billy and Michael both answer questions openly. They have nothing to hide. Do you find my questions not worthy of response? Do you not believe these are fair questions to ask of a person who presents only a small fraction of the evidence available for what you, yourself have labelled a CONTROVERSIAL case? Or do you have something to hide?

    Since you are reluctant to define your use of the term, “truth”, consider this:

    truth = in agreement with fact or reality
    fact = a thing proven to be true
    reality = state of being actual or true
    proof = evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true
    establish = to show to be valid or true; prove

    We can both see from this circular maze that defining this term, “truth” is much more complex than simply quoting the dictionary definition. If you do a simple search for “truth”, Wikipedia has a long entry describing numerous theories which attempt to remove bias, prejudice and preconception from the process of arriving at the truth. My questions essentially attempt to establish YOUR specific process for arriving at your truth and what you have done to remove bias, prejudice and preconception from the process of arriving at this truth.

    By the way, who does this establishing? You alone? With a CONTROVERSIAL topic? Not even the most arrogant men of science would claim authority to establish the facts on their own for a controversy, let alone more generally accepted matters. Correct scientific method is always open to scrutiny. Controversial subject matter often, if not always guarantees attention in the form of eyeballs and internet traffic. It also comes with an implied responsibility to present all opposing sides in a fair, balanced and objective manner.

    Let’s review some statements from your website in an attempt to determine its overall level of TRUTHFULNESS:


    “During these travels he claims to have engaged in the grave robbing of a site he claims to have been the tomb of Jesus Christ in 1963.”
    (reference: http://www.billymeierufocase.com/index-6.html)


    Billy has claimed no such thing. Billy and Isa Rashid discovered a cave containing the Talmud Jmmanuel scrolls which he only later learned was the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.
    (reference: http://www.theyfly.com/Jmmauel's_Crucifixion.html)


    “On August 27, 2008 he admitted to intentionally posting false and misleading articles on his website in order to deceive the public about the claims of Billy Meier.”
    (reference: http://www.billymeierufocase.com/michaelhornemailsummary.html)


    “Horn informed Bartholomaus that not only had he made a typo in that article but that he had posted a corrected version – and left both versions on his website so that critics would have the chance to see them.”
    (reference: http://theyfly.com/Skeptics_Caught.htm)
    (reference: http://www.billymeierufocase.com/images/michaelhorn/emails/2008-08-27%20Email%202.pdf)


    “CLAIM: Billy Meier Recorded Sounds Of A Space Ship That Contained Inaudible Frequencies”
    (reference: http://www.billymeierufocase.com/beamshipaudiodeconstruction.html)


    “…on pp. 430-431 Wendelle Stevens writes in his Preliminary Investigation Report that there were never recorded on tape frequencies outside the human hearing range by Meier. However, these frequencies were only conjectured by Dilettoso using calculations using certain formula.”
    (reference: http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Analysis_of_IIG's_Meier_Case_explanations)


    “2. All three books also state that Marcel Vogel detected the rare-Earth element Thulium using the scanning electron microscope.”
    (reference: http://www.billymeierufocase.com/metaldeconstruction.html)


    “Vogel reportedly used mass spectrometry and the x-ray deffraction technique to determine the elemental composition of the sample. Again anybody doing some basic research about the case will soon find out this truth. See p. 424 of Stevens’ 1982 book.”
    (reference: http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Analysis_of_IIG's_Meier_Case_explanations)
    (reference: http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/The_Metal_Alloy)


    “Because the quality of the film is so poor there is no way that Meier and his supporters can say that the object goes behind the hill. Only a professional transfer of the film would be able to determine that…The film is too poor in quality to make any determination at all.”
    (reference: http://www.billymeierufocase.com/whymoviescannotbetested.html)


    “However, by subjecting the frame to enhanced contrast and brightness, the dark greenish earth in the foreground can seemingly be distinguished from the dark underside of the craft beyond.”
    (reference: http://www.tjresearch.info/bachtel.htm)

    “This double image was most likely caused by stopping the camera and then changing the object’s position.”
    (reference: http://www.billymeierufocase.com/whymoviescannotbetested.html)


    “…the changes in cloud outlines one can perceive are imperceptible over this 0.10 or 0.13 sec interval. This of course is not surprising if the time interval was indeed very short.”
    “…the sequence of cloud pictures around the time of the jump does not permit much time for cessation of the filming, repositioning of one or more model UFOs, and resumption of filming.”
    (reference: http://www.tjresearch.info/bachtel.htm)


    “FINDINGS: The ‘Space Ship’ Is Probably A Small Scale Model Made Out Of Found Objects”
    (reference: http://www.billymeierufocase.com/wcufodeconstruction.html)


    “…analysis of the reflections can give us a good idea of the WCUFO size.”
    “In this document there are several analysis made with a computer tool called ‘Blender’, which is widely used to create 3D models and animations.”
    “And finally, we do some tests using a scale model of Billy’s property, including a scale model of the northeast wall of the Carriage House, with reflecting spheres that we photograph to see and compare the reflections.”
    “After making these analysis we will conclude:”
    “This WCUFO is not a small-scale model as some debunkers claim. It is not a model made from a trash-can lid of 55 cm diameter, nor even a bigger model of 1 meter. We did several tests and modeled several possibilities locating this UFO in different places within the courtyard area, and we conclude it is not possible to take such pictures using a small model. This WCUFO is an object greater than 3 meters in diameter, and probably it is a 3,5 meter object as Billy was informed.”
    (reference: http://www.tjresearch.info/Zahi_WCUFO%20Investigation.pdf)

    55 cm = 21.65 inches
    3.5 meters = 11′ 5″


    “CLAIM: Billy Meier Predicted That The Asteroid Apophis Would Hit The Earth Years Before The Asteroid Was Discovered
    FINDINGS: An Early Generic Prophecy About A “Red Meteor” Was Retrofitted To Be About Apophis After Apophis Was Discovered”
    (reference: http://www.billymeierufocase.com/apophisdeconstruction.html)


    Details of the Red Meteor were first published in German in 1981 and in English in 2001, 3 years before its discovery.
    “…will threaten to split the crust of the Earth from the present-day North Sea down to the Black Sea…”
    “…the meteor travels on a path, which leads it to the SOL-system for the first time.”
    These details would preclude it from being a generic prophesy, regardless of its name.
    (reference: http://www.theyfly.com/Red_Meteor.html)

    Well, Mr. Bartholomaus, it would appear that your personal definition of TRUTH provides for AT LEAST one false statement in every single section of your website. Now, I REALLY want to see this Bizarro world dictionary you’ve referenced where up is down, left is right, black is white…you get the idea. Judging from your “work” and responses, I doubt you have the substance to respond to my findings however, I am an open-minded person. Please feel free to account for your false statements presented above. And remember, Mr. Bartholomaus,

    “Truth fears no questions.” ~Anonymous

    Please note: Your responses may be published under “fair use”.

    Thank you for your time.

    Taro Istok

  • Phil Phlubs Volume 1 – I’m starting a little debunking-the-debunkers series by questioning and correctiing Phil Langdon’s “UFO BUST” video series. You’ll find it in his comments section. I’ve decided to publish the first one here for reference, and in case they begin to disappear due to Phil’s clicky fingers or Google/YouTube’s suspiciously suppressive “anti-spam” measures. If you’re a Tuber, please feel free to give it a thumbs up or add your thoughts. I don’t expect he’ll reply but maybe we’ll get lucky.

    UFO BUST! Episode 1 Debunking Billy Meier’s First Contact:


    Phil Phlubs Volume 1

    Hey Phil. Hope you don’t mind a little constructive criticism on such a controversial topic:

    2:40 “…photo analysis shows, not surprisingly, that these are small objects not very far from the camera apparently hung from a fishing pole line.”

    That’s a fairly substantial claim. So, who is this guy? You never make his identity clear. Whose “photo analysis” is he referring to? What methods were used?

    3:06 “We know and can prove that he makes UFO models. He admits that.”

    Misleading information: Mr. Korff states that Meier “admits” to making models but fails to explain that the models he has admitted to making were only for the purposes of the investigation; to help researchers attempt to debunk him.

    3:12 “Having been to his property, you can see that he grows small trees. And lo and behold, when you look at his films you see the same tree, in fact, in several of his films taken at different locations. That’s impossible.”

    It’s also not true. Has an arborist ever been consulted with this theory? Why not display these trees side-by-side so we can all see exactly how different they REALLY are?

    3:25 Mr. Korff is described as an “investigative journalist”, however he makes many speculations about the Meier case. Is this typical for ANY form of journalism? By the way, where is Mr. Korff these days? He appears to have fallen off the map, so to speak.

    3:33 “Meier uses small trees and models in a technique known as forced or false perspective…”

    This is in direct contradiction to Wendelle Stevens’ conclusion from his original 5-year investigation:

    “The results of our testing of the evidence, though not conclusively in the affirmative, have not been conclusively negative either. We have found no evidence of deliberate deception or fraud on the part of Meier or any of those friends and associates around him there in Switzerland.”

    In other words, they can’t verify these were spaceships. But they can verify that models and tricks were never used.

    5:33 Mr. Korff and others refuse to meet with Meier himself but take an ex-wife’s word without verifying ANY of her claims. How have they ruled out slander? Is that not a common aspect of many divorce cases? This segment of your video is about as factually reliable as an episode of Jerry Springer.

    BTW, has anyone ever verified that these lids were even available to Meier when he took the WCUFO footage and pics? Or were they manufactured at a later date to help support this hoax theory? Look up Rhal Zahi. He’s proven that this object is at least 10-feet in diameter. About the size of the trash bin these theories belong in.

    6:59 “This is a man who claims to be the Messiah.”

    Show me a reference. Billy Meier has said no such thing. In fact, his core message is about self-responsibility, not looking up to any form of saviour.

    8:36 “…the only evidence which can be measured and proven in a scientific laboratory, and we’re one of many people who have done it, conclusively proves that the Meier case is a hoax.”

    This is quite a grand claim, yet Mr. Korff provides no specific reference to these measurements nor names any scientific laboratory where any of this was done. If there are “many people” who have done it, it should be very easy to offer this reference. How about now? I would like to review these findings myself.

    10:01 First, some misleading footage. You show Billy Meier describing his first contact with Semjase, not Asket. The contacts with Asket ended over ten years prior.

    It has been confirmed by Stevens that over 30% of Meier’s film rolls went missing in the mail system. It is a known fact that world leaders have engaged in photo manipulation to support their agenda. Why is it impossible that an agency hijacked this photo, manipulated it, then slipped it back into Meier’s possession? If this photo was taken from the TV, why is the cathode ray tube colour grid not visible? Where are the horizontal black lines from screen refresh? How was Billy able to take a photo from his first TV bought a year AFTER taking the photo of Asket? How have you addressed these contradictions to the Golddiggers theory?

    15:38 “I repeat, they are a fraud. They have been analysed scientifically. These are the original prints given by Billy Meier himself.”

    There’s that word again. Scientific. So, Mr. Korff’s scientific analysis of PRINTS invalidate the conclusion of Wendelle Stevens’ scientific analysis of ORIGINAL FILM? Where was this analysis done? Who exactly performed this analysis? What are their credentials? What methods did they use? What equipment did they use? Once again, do you have a reference I can review?

    16:25 “Look at the background trees & compare the focus with the foreground UFO”
    16:32 “The trees are OUT of focus while the UFO is IN”
    16:38 “This simple FACT proves this photo is a MODEL close to the camera with the focus at 4-5 feet.”

    FALSE: You are comparing a naked-eye observation with the extensive photogrammetry performed on Meier’s originals, which included,

    “…isolating, with a computer, the different planes of focus, or planes of blurring within the focus…”

    “We will make a laser holographic plate for each of these designated planes by isolating, with a video-laser technique, things that have a particular amount of blur.”

    “Now, we are not just making a transfer of a photograph into the computer – we are making a 3-dimensional transfer on each depth of field into the computer. We are then able to analyze just where any object is within the actual depth of field…”

    Did Mr. Korff do anything similar to this? Or did he just spring for an expensive magnifying glass with the most comfortable grip-handle?

    16:45 “Meier’s excuse for this obvious flaw is that the ships radiation affected the film making the photo look like that!”

    What flaw are you referring to? That objects at varying distances from the camera will have varying degrees of focus? That is normal.

    Photographic film from the 1970’s used chemicals. It is perfectly plausible that an interstellar space vehicle will emit radiation. It is perfectly plausible that radiation can affect chemically treated film.

    16:58 “This is the MODEL Meier used!”

    Used for what exactly? It is a fact that Billy assisted researchers with constructing models for the purpose of making direct comparisons with his contact photos. The more accurate the photo(matching ship design, same exact shoot locations), the more accurate the research.

    17:09 “In this photo, edge-detection analysis revealed the UFO has sharper focus than the truck in the lower right”
    17:26 “Once again proving the use of close up focus with a model”

    Whose “edge-detection analysis”? Wendelle Stevens’? If so, please show an exact reference. What was his exact quote regarding this analysis? If not Stevens, please state WHO did this analysis. According to Meier(from Message from the Pleiades, vol. 1, by Wendelle Stevens):

    “The lower side of the disc seemed to vibrate as though it were alive. It looked like little waves running continuously in and through the underside of the ship, by which the skin appeared damaged and old, nearly like a washing board. These waves seemed to be irregular and kind of inconsistent, but very peculiar and of energetic character. Solid matter seemed to dissolve in the radiation of these waves. The truck looked like it was suddenly enveloped in heat-waves. I could not see it clearly, and besides this it seemed much farther away than the UFO which hovered only 50 meters behind it in the air. Still it seemed like the object was in the foreground and the truck much more behind it, which in fact was not the case.”

    Did you take this into account? The contrast and brightness of the first photo in this video(17:09) hides these waves but it is clearly seen in Figure(B) (17:18) of the following edge analysis image as well as the original photo as published in Stevens’ book.

    17:34 “And EASY to reproduce!”

    Phil, how many of your images have had edge analysis or any of the scrutinous measures taken with Billy’s? If none, how can you be sure you have actually reproduced ANY of his images?

    17:42 “But what about that ray gun?”
    17:51 “Look at the HAND!”
    17:56 “SAME hand position”
    18:00 “Meier’s space friend here is a DUMMY”

    Are you suggesting that a human will never hold an object in the exact same manner more than once? If you take a close look at both, however, you’ll see that the fingers are not in the exact same position nor is her arm. Again, why did you not present these photos side-by-side?

    18:16 “Meier is ‘using’ the ‘Ray-gun’ here”

    The weapon was never photographed nor filmed while in operation. Billy was only aiming it here.

    18:26 – 18:36 “Nothing that can’t be done with a long drill bit and a blow torch!”

    How do you create an OVAL hole with a drill bit? In Stevens’ estimation, that tree was 10-12 inches in diameter. How small of a drill rig do you believe can accomplish this?

  • So, Phil Phlubs Volume 1 may be the first and last. I’m beginning to experience serious suppression on Phil’s YouTube channel. Unable to add comments even to discussions I was in the middle of. I barely managed to post one final general comment which includes this most eloquent quote by Noam Chomsky that I’m finding painfully real:

    “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum…”

    Nothing new with respect to the Billy Meier case.

Leave a Reply

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