Donate Button
Thursday, March 28, 2024

The Billy Meier UFO contacts singularly authentic ongoing for 80 years the key to our future survival

Billy Meier: More Constant than the Speed of Light

Pseudo-scientist, Stuart Robbins, proved wrong  – yet again – as scientists corroborate more of Billy Meier’s prophetically accurate information

Scientists announced that the speed of light isn’t always constant, confirming once again what UFO contactee Billy Meier said waaaaaay back in 1979:

Quetzal: 

27. Now, I am actually interested in your questions and calculations.

28. Present them to us.

Billy: 

Happy to do so, my son. Thus, my first question: Is the speed of light constant of presently 299,792.5 kilometers per second, which is calculated by our earthly scientists, correct?

Quetzal: 

29. This figure is of correctness.

30. But I notice with your question that you speak of a present constant; what do you want to express with that?

Billy: I have calculated that the light constant steadily decreases within the framework of a certain half-life.

NOTE:

The above information is ironclad, i.e. verifiably published long prior to the “new official discovery”. This prior, copyrighted, online publication alone constitutes a legal standard of proof. Meier’s original publication preempts our scientists by a mere…36 years.

Wendelle Stevens referred to Meier knowing this information even earlier:

“First of all, the ETs do not measure distance in terms of light-years because that is our unique creation. They say the speed of light is neither constant nor does it travel in a straight line (except over very small distances) — being speeded up and slowed down, and bent every which way by magnetic fields of force, which are everywhere.”

About this time, one particular pseudo-scientist might just be feeling kinda pStupid. That’s right, skeptic Stuart Robbins*, the know-it-all and shill for the party line who unambiguously declared Billy Meier to be a hoaxer, fraud, etc., when earlier provided with Meier’s information about the speed of light. He dismissed it as wrong because it hadn’t yet been proved by terrestrial scientists.

Robbins of course will probably now resort to attacking the article itself but I doubt that he’ll attack the Cornell University Library for posting the research report. Then again…maybe he will.

Traitors to the Truth

Now, in light of yet another corroboration of Billy Meier’s specific, voluminous, prophetically accurate scientific information, does my including Robbins on my “traitors to the truth” category really so sound so harsh? Think what’s at stake here as these poseurs and sold out know-it-alls suppress and attack the Meier case. Meier, the same man who has tried for decades** to warn us away from the dead-end path of self-destruction that we, in our moth-to-the-flame, suicidal, religiously deluded, overly entertained, ignorance and arrogance passionately pursue in our own hell-bent, lovable little ways.

Contact 251

According to Mariann Uehlinger, another prediction that has fulfilled as well is sentence 197 of contact 251, from February 3, 1995. The movement of complete Gewaltlosigkeit (non-violence) is http://www.nonviolence.com, the “Gruppierung” (another group) is the EU and the woman who will reach a powerful Weltmachtstellung (world might position) is Angela Merkel from Germany.

(These references are to this information in our unnumbered English version: “Initial efforts are being made by a new movement to promote total non-violence; while a woman gains a high and influential position among world powers through another group’s formation.”)

 

*For more about Stuart Robbins’ Greatest Hits, er, Misses, start with my unfortunately overly-optimistic, first blog about him:

Stars in His Eyes

Then use the TheyFlyBlog Search for about 10 pages of more information about just how wrong Robbins and the rest of the skeptics can be…at humanity’s expense.

**For a reality check, please see:

UPDATE on the New IS Planned Holocaust

The Only Way to Stop the IS

URGENT: Another Prophecy Fulfilling

Billy Meier’s Update on ISIS

 

Thanks to Philip Brandel, Bruce Lulla and Mariann Uehlinger for the information.

 

Previous article
Next article
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

242 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
WM

Minus one “for some time”.

WM

Minus one “for some time” from the first sentence.

WM

A non-professionally inhibited amateur is freer to use common sense and reason to hop on board an obviously true piece of information before a professional will be willing to do so and thus stake their reputation on it.

In this way amateur/non-institutional, yet fully adept researchers and thinkers have a much greater agility than the former.

In this case the raw data from 1928-1945 was absolutely clear. The speed of light fluctuates. It was only the dogmatic approach of Metrology and the belief system of physical law eternality growing from attempts to apprehend the Universe by purely material means that caused the data and realization to be discarded and ignored for a time (several decades).

The point here being, this particular piece of information and realization has existed on and originated from Earth for some time. It simply wasn’t championed by any/many “professionals”.

Andy

Ohh, right. I actually recall Sheldrake speaking about this now. Yes, its been clear since…1928!

It seems it is complete unnecessary to invoke my speculative alternative to the ET hypothesis (that Meier could be in contact with terrestrial people that possess a lot more knowledge than the mainstream) to show that this “corroboration” is not compelling at all… Thanks for pointing this out WM.

Andy

And you keep lobbin up those “corroborations”…

I may be done for real though now. As it was said somewhere online, I paraphrase, debating with Michael Horn proceeds ‘straw man, insult, insult, insult, straw man, insult, straw man, straw man, insult, straw man…’.

And you think YOU have been patient… jeez la weez. In any case, my patience is certainly taxed. Now I know why skeptics will not really engage you in a debate — you are incapable of rational civil discourse, or simply don’t know what it is. buh-bye.

By the way, as for this “I suggest that you don’t try so hard to disprove something, rather than find out the truth.” What you prescribe me not to do, virtually is the scientific method, and the way to find the truth.

Andy

“Noooooooo, the scientific method is really about finding the truth. Not setting out to prove something is or isn’t authentic…which is what pseudo-scientific skeptics do.”

Ok. You seriously haven’t a clue. You discover the truth of a scientific claim exactly by trying to disprove it, by ruling out every other possibility.

Have you ever read any science literature? Scientific studies or reports? Philosophy? Ever? And have you EVER seen anyone refer to the one holding the other position in those contexts as an idiot/moron/malevolent/doesn’t know how to think/etc.? No, because it’s in extremely poor taste, and because arguments stand for themselves. Issuing insults in fact make you look weak–why would you resort to that unless your position is shaky? I actually think that you think your position is solid, but that you just result to insults because you’re clueless and a complete fanatical jerk.

Calling you a liar is not an insult per se, but a truth claim. One that I demonstrated the validity of on page two of the comments here.

(Calling you a clueless fanatical jerk obviously is an insult, but I’m happy to stand by that one. I am not completely above insults, they just are no replacement for argument and completely out of place in the context of a debate…but they clearly function as your go-to debate “strategy”).

My ultimate sign off,

Grow up. Read a book. Take a science class. Learn some manners. You disgust me.

Andy

whoops.. the comment didnt seem to appear the first time. Anyways. take care

Sheila

It was a scientific theory and all data was hidden by the scientists themselves. Good job in proving that science did nothing to forward this theory. On the other hand Billy’s information is stated as fact. The scientists decide they want a piece of the pie and release the previous information that was hidden to make themselves look better and more knowledgeable than their previous ilk. Am I close?

David Scott

Wow Andy , you really are a bag of crap . I find nothing in your commentary intelligent . Maybe you should work on finding out who it was exactly that took your toy in kidercare . I find it absolutely ridiculous that you even spend time reading this blog , let alone posting here . Why ? You have nothing to offer except the example of what each and every one of us hope we never become . Find Dr. Drews web site or Dr. Phil and heckle them . At least their is a shot you might get some help . Poking you in the eye doesn’t seem to work .

WM

I don’t and won’t regularly follow the comments sections of this or any other site, but in glancing back over this particular string of conversation to see if my post was successful, I must say the level of conversation here is pretty low.

Andy makes a perfectly feasible argument and lays out some basic principles which any non-biased person should be able to entertain and really loving and evolutionarily minded individuals would take up as a teaching and learning opportunity. Yet all I see him being met with is illogicality and ad hominem attacks.

Ad hominem attacks are among the most primitive and/or cold-blooded and calculating diversionary debate tactics that exist. Such a tactic is always aimed at the lowest common denominator, both within the mental complex of any particular individual as well as amongst the population at large. The appeal to emotion, ingrained bias, and irrationality is designed to take one away from the matter/object of debate at hand and indeed usually points to an inherent weakness in the one employing such.

If we are actually interested in truth then I suggest focusing on the specific argument taken up, utterly rejecting all diversionary or assumptive attempts or temptations. One either has an idea or piece of evidence of applicable merit, or one doesn’t. Recognizing and abiding by this basic courtesy serves both oneself and the community at large. Silence is golden where one has nothing of substantive value to add.

How does one judge such? A primary, constantly valid and necessary means of doing so is indeed by going through all the possible causal permutations and holding these in their varying degrees of likelihood without coming to any conclusions until such a time as evidence reveals the victor. Developing the psychic and consciousness maturity to suspend judgement until such a time that ones objective (insofar as this is possible for any particular individual) observations and analysis leads us to a fact/truth is the prerequisite for the success of such an endeavor. The appeal to emotion and belief based biases sends one in the diametrically opposite direction of such a noble development.

Matthew Reed

I agree that name calling is absurd in a debate. What it all comes down to is whether the entire body of evidence is enough to make a conclusion that Meier is indeed truthful in his claims. I, personally, think he is truthful. The discrepancies found by Mahesh, Andy & Simon aren’t enough to dissuade me from this. In some of the earlier contact reports the Plejaren clearly state they won’t provide dates prior to the event happening AND that most of the Great Journey space pictures were ‘doctored” by the so-called Men-in-Black. That explanantion by the Plejaren is sufficient, to me personally, to account for these discrepancies in the Meier case – and it’s sufficient because of the entire body of evidence. Maybe the Plejaren explanation for the discrepancies isn’t enough for Mahesh, Andy & Simon…perhaps a debate on why they think it isn’t enough is in order?

Sheila

Exactly Michael, never hold others to a higher standard than you can hold yourself to.

Matt lee

Yeah Sheila the hypocricy is just sickening

Matt lee

Gee I am glad we had this futile conversation be it a mental constipation by some who just needed to crap on but now its as clear as day we have ferreted out another pretender.
Is there a costume party going on nearby because there are masks galore or am I still half way through watching ‘eyes wide shut’

Matt lee

Andy are you back
Just sounded like you
Just asking WM
Just consider that casting aspersions against Billy that he backdated his information and lied without irrefutable evidence repeatedly is by right ad hominem attack on his integrity and character.
Look before you leap the broken glass might fall on you from stone throwing especially in a glasshouse

Philip Brandel

So easy to hurl their opinion, while hiding online. More anonymous discussion with people cowardly enough not to be who they are? Or is sophistry also only apparent as a shadow, does is represent the entire picture? Want to be taken seriously, without actually being ‘someone’. Though perfect for Michael’s newest blog. Digital age convenience; enslave yourself. More like, digital age convenience, hide your true self behind the technology.
We are doomed:)

Matt lee

Doppelganger it appeared to me.

Andy

Matthew Reed,

The question was never whether any Plejaren explanation was sufficient. The conversation was about the supposed “ironclad” nature of the informational evidence. A debate that MH now seems admits to admit to having lost, now that he apparently agrees with your statement above. MH wants to talk about the forest now, but when I examined some of the trees he had formerly enjoyed pointing to, some of the supposedly strongest trees, they turned out to be…a mirage. As such, it makes one wonder about the other trees. That’s all.

Matt Lee,

You have been following this thread, yes? If you have, you should have noticed that I have taken great pains to make it clear that I never called Meier a hoaxer, despite MH continually trying to put those words in my mouth. But — there is irrefutable evidence backdating ocurred. Have you STILL not read Mahesh’s part one analysis? The MUFON “corroboration” analysis? Backdating DID happen. This was virtually the only point I was trying to get across the last few weeks here. Apparently this singular point was drowned out under Michael’s continual insults as to my motives and intelligence.

Matt lee

Well Andy then you could do much better than that for crying out loud.
The whole premise of your position relies solely on Mehesh’s analysis which I find quite baffling coming from someone who supposedly knows a thing or two about the Billy Meier case.
Yes I do agree on a very superficial level that what Mehesh has presented would ‘seem to’ indicate what he claims Meier as having ‘backdated’ his information but C’mon all of us who are supposedly in the know wasn’t born yesterday to the Billy Meier’s contact case.
It was from the strength of the totality and the congruity not to mention the substance of the information that Billy has presented that can only lead one to the inevitable conclusion that he has told the truth.
Now had he lied once, twice or three times over then you must appreciate that the case crumbles like a stack of dominoes knowing that we earthling penchant for the odd witch hunt not to mention our hyper vigilant suspicion that would cast an ominous cloud over this case had Billy done so for which the most important foundation and the only guarantee of success of the mission rested solely with Billy not telling even one lie.
The Plejaren are human beings just as Billy is also so don’t you think that as the years have rolled on with the ever changing flow of time and circumstances that out of over 600 contacts not to mention written books, articles and other written material spanning over 25,000 odd pages that there will be instances of mistakes made not to mention the translation errors and errors made by the human factor outside of Billy’s hands which would also have a bearing.
Can’t you also see that the only thing Mehesh has succeeded in doing thus far is to discover additional number of the element of semi plausible deniabilty factor intergrated into the case for which you should given Meier an additional credit for knowing how hard it must have been not being able to just go out on the limb and tell it all.
Now weigh that with Billy having suffered 22 assassination attempts not to mention brain damage incurred as a result of his fall in addition to physical breakdowns and the harsh realities of living on top of the energy taxing spirit and primary telepathy to type these conversations verbatim and anyone with a half a brain can appreciate just how difficult it must have been not to mention the possibilities of the grounds for some mistakes in between.
Know that there is no half way in regards to the truth because its either the truth or it is a lie therefore your fence sitting posture really disturbs me knowing that I would’ve expected you to be a bit more wiser than how you have carried on thus far ad of recently.

Andy

Matt Lee,

It has nothing to do with being thick skinned — obviously I stuck around despite being insulted in every comment by MH. It’s that its just so frustrating when someone does not address your comment, but just calls you stupid instead; and especially frustrating because I have heard Michael say numerous times he is up for debate/challenge.

And I don’t know why my “fence sitting” is so strange to you — the informational evidence has been held out as the “higher standard of evidence” for years — and, as I have now discovered, it is incredibly weak.

Nor do I understand why it is so difficult to understand this either: Michael says “Since you are being trained in double-speak (you are studying to become a lawyer, right?) you’ve “never called Meier a hoaxer…But — there is irrefutable evidence backdating occurred.” Does that mean that Meier backdated something or not?”

Yes — for the thousandth time, there is backdating in the CR’s. Mahesh PROVED this with “ironclad” copy right evidence. The arrow bit, and the MUFON name being the two striking examples that we have discussed here.

BUT that does not mean the entire case is false, because these mistakes could be some kind of human error like has been suggested. But, frankly, they don’t really seem that way — the nature of the errors do not appear as translation errors or typos, etc., but reek of purposeful backdating designed to deceive. BUT, I am not positive that that is the case, and again, the case could still be real notwithstanding the curious backdating examples, and the fake pictures.

And as for the semi-plausible deniability. This was Deardorff’s theory, but didn’t Meier himself say that the P’s don’t operate like this?

Matt lee

Well I agree Michael but in addition to developing a thick skin I think it’s more of a case of lack of integrity and honesty which makes them weak.
Obviously I am not perfect either but where it truly matters in life where people hold steadfast in courage despite fear, to hack it and hold their ground on principle which our techno youths are severely lacking because they weren’t schooled in this direction.
What I will take from this recent conversation is that not only is education for knowledge of the truth important but teaching our next generation the values of being open minded to new ideas without prejudice but also the importance of logical deductive thinking process.
How people do really get stuck I have no idea how and material intelligence and IQ have nothing to do with it

Sheila

WM says “Developing the psychic and consciousness maturity to suspend judgement until such a time that ones objective (insofar as this is possible for any particular individual) observations and analysis leads us to a fact/truth is the prerequisite for the success of such an endeavor.”
Hello WM what makes you think those of us here haven’t done that already? Just because you haven’t, doesn’t mean others are not capable.
Hey Andy I talked to a lawyer 2 weeks ago (and puked in my mouth a little) and he told me exactly how things were going to go down. Well guess what? He was wrong. Knowing that lawyers are wrong and are only out for themselves and to make a name for themselves, what exactly are you doing here that is different? Inquiring minds need to know.

Andy

Well despite your childish and insulting appeal to sterotypes… I’ll let you know I would much rather prefer not discover the Meier case is wholly fabricated. In fact, I stand a lot to lose — I have been heavily invested in this case for some 8 years. It would be rather disappointing to find out I had been thoroughly duped — but it would be a lot more disappointing to discover this 10 years from now.

There are probably many scum bag lawyers — but here is a sterotype that rings pretty true: people who claim they or someone else is in contact with ET’s, always turn out to be delusional or a liar. Admittedly the Meier case has lots of evidence to back it up — but what has been held out as the strongest evidence has been found severely wanting. What I am doing here, is trying to discover if Meier is truly the one exception to the stereotype.

Sheila

Holy crap Andy you’ve been studying this for 8 years and the only thing you are worried about is yourself. That says a lot (and backs up what I said about lawyers). It’s all about you isn’t it Andy? How much YOU’VE invested. Oh poor baby go cry to mama. Yes most all lawyers are scumbags and there is nothing stereotypical about it because it comes from observation. But if you think observation is childish you really are limiting yourself.

Andy

Yes, my being here is all about me, in a sense. Like everyone else, everything I do is firstly for myself; the human beings first responsibility is always to himself, even Meier says this. Yes, my stake in this thing is I want to find out the truth of the matter — yes, for myself. I don’t understand how this is objectionable. I already decided I didn’t really want to address MH anymore, but now I’m starting to think trying to talk to anyone here is futile.

(But, on the other hand, its not all about me. Indeed, my original “sinister” motive at the outset the last few weeks here was simply to draw MH’s attention to the fact that his Ice Man page is absurd in light of Mahesh’s findings. I was trying to help).

I am usually not too worried about political correctness and things like that, but this is funny “Yes most all lawyers are scumbags and there is nothing stereotypical about it because it comes from observation.” Next time you start a sentence with “I’m not racist, BUT….” then just end the conversation with “but it comes from observation, so it’s okay.” See how that flies. Hilarious. You realize what you just described is the definition of stereotyping? How many lawyers do you know? — and from this “most all lawyers are scumbags?”

I digress. Don’t bother responding. I’m sure I’m already a cry baby for pointing this out.

It’s so sad really. The better part of my work day is spent arguing about ideas, facts, evidence, etc., and then I often do it for fun after my work day… and NEVER anywhere else does it devolve so quickly into such cattiness. Granted, I’ve sunk to that level now too, but it seems the only kind of comments that hold any water around here. And this from the people who continually talk about logic! Quite ironic.

Speaking of logic, or lackthereof, MH is continuing to go on about something I never even brought up, saying somehow I engaged in shoddy research for simply pointing out Meier didn’t prior publish on the Ice Man. This was the foundation of Mahesh’s Ice Man research — but MH continues to obfuscate this with his lame diversionary tactics.

And everyone else does the same. People here say “what about this, look at this, how about that…” then when I begin to look at some of those things, and I report back that they were not found to be as claimed…I get called an idiot.

I AM trying to look at the whole body of evidence, and that is why I won’t give a thumbs down yet on the case, despite finding the evidence thus far looked at to be very weak. But one can only do so much at a time; I don’t look at the case in a vacuum, but one can only really critically examine one piece at a time.

“As odd as it sounds, one of the most intelligent things one might say about the Billy Meier case is, “I don’t know.”” — Thanks for saying that Taro, I agree completely. Perhaps if anyone else here was willing to say “I don’t know” — if even only for the sake of argument — then we would be able to have a fruitful conversation, instead of a pathetic feces flinging contest.

Taro

Just to clarify, with respect to my previously plagiarized statements, I am not one of these people. I was convinced of the Meier case’s authenticity solely by the material evidence(photos, film, sound, metal). I believe I have seen every argument against them and they are all very lacking when you put THEM up to scrutiny. Minor backdating instances do not bother me because they still fall under the policy of plausible deniability, itself very plausible considering a race thousands of years advanced in many ways. There is reason to believe they would take measures to ensure there is enough controversy left until the majority are ready for their reality to be turned upside down.

Sheila

Hi Andy, of course one is supposed to think for themselves but the way you said it, how you have “invested 8 years” could you please clarify what you mean when you say you invested? Almost all lawyers are scumbags compared to I’m not a racist makes me think you have some pretty fuzzy thinking.
I don’t care if you don’t want me to reply but I will explain my logic. All the lawyers I’ve met have been scumbags from my first divorce lawyer who just couldn’t understand why I wanted no alimony. To the one who ripped my sisters and I off claiming he saw my dad drive up in his vehicle to sign papers, not realizing my dad was legally blind and had no driver’s license. I told him that he’s lucky he retired because he should have been disbarred. The one holding our building loan who decided he was keeping our money for our best interest just in case our carpenter never paid his bill, lol. That was the funniest one, my hubby asked him how long he was keeping our money and by the way aren’t we paying you and are you not working for us? Little weasel. So from my life experience I’m saying that lawyers are a legitimate concern because if you actually look around and see who makes up the vast majority of politicians you will see why I and everyone else should have reason for alarm.

WM

The content of this thread has captured me…

In the search for truth I find it very useful to stay away from personalities and personal factors as they only muddy the waters. I therefore steer away from making comments concerning any specific person(s). Rather I am primarily and publicly interested in the general principles, logicality or illogicality of the ideas, and consistency of the thinking people employ and arguments/notions provoked in any particular endeavor, by groups and individuals. I find these to be the real causally impactive ground, and that’s where I’m interested in working.

In this way then Sheila, I make absolutely no comment on the quality of your or anyone else’s personal processes, as I only have imperfect knowledge of them.

Further, I indeed do stringently attempt to adhere to my previously advocated guidelines concerning thinking and judging which you refer to, in all my engagements, and have also done so in, with sporadic intensity, looking at Billy Meier’s Case.

On a baseline level of logic and reason I see a lot of belief-oriented and personality-based conflation in all those who powerfully hold to Mr. Meier’s case being precisely what is presented and claimed. It is this that leads such ones to accept and attach the various claimed narratives to the physical, intellectual, and predictive evidences, however strong or weak such evidences may actually be.

I observe that when pressed on especially the sketchy evidence, the ultimate reason for the *belief* in the case is the moral integrity, wisdom, and benevolence of Mr. Meier himself, the quality of his character (which I make no comment on). Taking up such a posture causes the flow of logical assessment to be interrupted and leads to the misapprehension of basic facts.

Matt lee

WM did you just walk off the set of Star Treks.
Save us the borg talk.
No we haven’t been assimilated although we have been aquainted, well with the truth that is.
It may be an unfamiliar territory for you but once you cross over to this side of the fence where the grass is greener you will surely understand from thereon what real logic and common sense really means.
So please do stringently adhere to your principles and guideline at your expense but if I had some advice for you Stop digging your own grave and start reading the volumnous and free information generously available from this website and the links provided that way you can start to let in some much needed fresh air and you’ll be thankful for it.

Andy

Matt Lee,

You say to WM “So please do stringently adhere to your principles and guideline at your expense…”

How could it possibly be to WM’s disadvantage to evaluate evidence and argument according to the best of his logic?

WM,

Beware MH’s claims about Meier’s “voluminous, prophetically accurate scientific information” … all is not as it seems. As continues to be exposed on this website, http://www.billymeieruforesearch.com/, there is nothing “prophetic” about Meier’s scientific information, and moreover, there has been found at least a couple demonstrable instances of backdating, which — in the least — hint at purposeful deception.

And FYI, it is of little use to attempt to engage in debate around here. Should you simply try to discuss the Meier case in light of certain facts about the evidence, such the facts noted in the previous paragraph, you will invariably be met with unsubstantiated lies/insults such as you are “badly wanting in accuracy, diligent research, understanding of how real life works, etc.”

Please do explore the Meier case, I’ll be curious to hear what a fellow rationalist concludes about the matter — but don’t expect to enjoy an honest debate around here. Indeed, simply attempting to critically analyze the proffered evidence is “essentially a huge distraction and misdirection of time, energy.” Though MH says he is open for challenge and debate, from what I can tell, he absolutely does not mean it.

If you’ve ever tried to discuss the problems of religion with the fervently religious… that should give you a good idea of what you are in for around here (e.g., Matt Lee’s 12:23 am comment…). You will do as you wish of course, but my advice: try not to sink too much time into this vile, intellectual vacuum.

Matt lee

What a waste of 8 years just to arrive at your conclusion Andy time not well spent maybe you forgot to include the spiritual teachings in your studies

Matt lee

Gee you sure do bandy around the words logic like lollipops when you yourself have failed miserably to apply it here on numerous occasions where Michael tried to point you ad nauseously in the right direction at finding out exactly what this word means and how it is intelligently applied with his very patient and generous proffered responses.
Why not just do us a favour and join the other lame Pseudo Robbins camp that way we won’t confuse you for a cameleon

Sheila

On a baseline level of logic and reason I see a lot of belief-oriented and personality-based conflation in all those who powerfully hold onto pseudo-scientific information. In this way then WM, I will make a comment on the quality of your or anyone else’s personal processes.

Sheila

WM says “Taking up such a posture causes the flow of logical assessment to be interrupted and leads to the misapprehension of basic facts.” Which basic facts do you feel are being misapprehended here?

Andy

Sheila, perhaps he was referring to this: MH continues to promote the Ice Man as a “corroboration” when it has now been PROVEN that not only did Meier NOT disseminate info about the Ice Man before it was known, but that there is blatant backdating in this CR.

Doesn’t mean the entire case is a hoax — but it does mean MH’s makes claims that are extremely misleading.

Andy

MH,

Yes! I re-address because we may be getting somewhere now. You say: “It’s a huge difference. It’s the difference between someone walking into court with a person’s diary, with a specific, dated entry…and claiming that it’s invalid, a lie, hoax BECA– — — USE it wasn’t disseminated to other people.”

Yes, yes. Very good. This is exactly what I am saying, and exactly why I have NOT called Meier a hoaxer. (We’ll leave aside for now the fact that the arrow part and the MUFON name were blatantly backdated for whatever reason; I’ll assume it was for legitimate reason, or honest error.). But you are right of course, just because Meier did not prior disseminate does not mean he didn’t actually have the conversation on the date at the top of the contact. BUT you also must realize this then does not count as strong evidence in favor of the case — prior disseminating is what makes the informational evidence strong, without it, it is not strong evidence of the extraordinary claim that Meier is in contact with ET’s.

But, now that we are both in agreement that Ice Man did not fit the bill, you mention other instances that you are suggesting do fit the bill? Which ones? Something about A-bombs and ozone? I very much would like to discover a true example of Meier prior publishing scientific info, please point me in the exact right direction and I will report back.

By the way folks, no, I do not know who WM is. Though I am apparantly equally despised, I am not pulling an Astro-tony.

Andy

Oh, wow, ok I see. So as for the “voluminous, prophetically accurate scientific information”… we are simply supposed to take his word that he wrote it when he did.

I suppose it is still evidence of a sort — why would he write all this? I get it.
But, I guess we will agree to disagree that the informational evidence is “ironclad” if you can offer no verifiable instances of prior publishing.

But you are still not playing quite fair when you say “…with no evidence presented of falsification, hoaxing, dishonesty…”.

As you know, I HAVE presented evidence of falsification — the arrow part in the Ice Man contact, the Mufon name, and the outer space photos all represent evidence of hoaxing. You continually suggest we have zero reason to be suspicious/skeptical, zero reason that we should not take Meier at his word… but that simply isn’t true any longer. I realize that these troubling facts are making you uncomfortable… but unfortunately the fact is that when Mahesh has tried to get answers about these indications of deception from Core Group members, he has only received evasive responses. They have simply tried to sweep these things under the rug, as you are doing now. These indications of deceit have not been explained. Thus, Meier no longer gets a free pass as to his alleged impeccable character.

(By the way, “arrow”, “MUFON”, and outer space photos, represent only 3 of the peices of evidence that indicate deception — I can bring forward a couple more if you continue to suggest these three mean nothing and should just be glossed over).

You’ve asked why do I make a big deal of this, why I am not “prosecuting” others or myself where they or I have been deceitful, inconsistent, etc?– because these people are not attempting to convince me of the extraordinary claim that someone is in contact with ET’s.

Sheila

Oh I understand, you obviously know WM and sent him/her here to help you in your legal case against Billy Meier, Michael Horn and the Plejaran. What don’t you get about the fact that contact reports are sometimes not released before they happen? It’s like when a bunch of lawyers get together before court and decide between them what the sentence will be and the last one to know is the person who was charged. Now pretend you are the person charged. You have access to the lawyer’s notes that states what the sentence will be but through FOIA you access all the information and find the notes were much more elaborate. Do you claim the lawyer notes have been backdated with the extra information?

Matt lee

Gee these slippery lawyer wannabes they are starting to p**s me off big time.
Self obsessed creatures that they are and nothing not even a whiff of spirituality can be detected.

Sheila

Eau de lawyer what a stank.

WM

I formulated a detailed answer to your question Sheila, and to the larger question in play which the continual and childish insult stream ever more attempts to obscure, but the blog page will not allow me to post it. I post this in part to see if my ability to do so still exists.

WM

Dear Shiela, et al.,

I apologize if this post appears multiple times. Both last nite as well as this morning I’ve made the attempt via the normal avenues but receive absolutely no feedback, neither “your post is being moderated” nor “duplicate content detected” (different IPs, browsers, etc… have been tried).

As I said earlier, I refer to illogical conflation.

For instance, if we set aside any concerns over the validity of Mr. Meier’s photographs, videos, and sounds recordings of unconventional flying craft (in part or whole), and for the sake of argument simply accept them all as actual representations of such flying devices, then we have just that piece of evidence. That is to say, we have footage of an unconventional flying device. We do not though have any absolutely verifiable and utterly intellectually honest means of connecting the various narratives Mr. Meier has published with this evidence of unconventional flying craft.

To provide another, if there are indeed genuine instances of Mr. Meier publishing information about various planetary bodies prior to such information ostensibly being gathered by a NASA spacecraft expedition and so on, then this would simply mean he is in some way in touch with an organization or group able to gather technical data on planetary bodies within our solar system (a minute little corner in the overwhelming vastness of the Universe) which would seem outside the scope of above board Earth technological capabilities of that time. This though doesn’t necessary mean said organization or group is from a distant star system etc…, just as it neither speaks against this. It simply doesn’t directly address the matter in such a way. So we have to look to other sets of more confirmable data to determine if it is more or less likely that the source of information is from a distant star system or more Earthbound.

In this case of course there’s also the possibility that Mr. Meier may have gained said information from some technical prospectus existing prior to said expeditions, or the consensus of a body of specialists theorizing about coming results based on telescope observations etc… and simply committed himself to an informational gambit of sorts. People engaged in various future-oriented fields do this all the time.

To cover another area of evidence, whilst Mr. Meier may have either been told by non-terrestrial people, or by use of his own spiritual force divined that Russia would again come into competition for Arctic Circle resources and to this end bolster its military presence specifically in Arkhangelsk. It is also possible, however unlikely, that as a person who watches the world with adept intelligence, he came to understand, from economic and geopolitical writings, that as the Earth’s population continues to exponentially grow these Arctic resources will again become a hot commodity and the major powers bordering it will come into competition and eventual conflict over them. Further, he could have looked at or already been familiar with some of the landscape of that area and again, in a logical and rather sure gambit, predict that Arkhangelsk, which for hundreds of years and now again is a major port city and prime Arctic port for Russia, would be involved in such operations.

A possibility, not a surety. Certainly in this impressive instance, a seemingly slimmer one.

I rather think it is a mistake to underestimate the possibilities of the Human’s mental complex, as the readers of this material should be familiar with. Genius is capable of feats which to especially those who have never tasted it, may seem rather impossible for an Earthling. The fact is though that the highly exceptional among us can be possessed of a distant reach indeed!

In Mr. Meier’s case, it is his person and word, the quality of his wisdom-teachings, power of his thinking, and depth of his insights which constantly and subtly asks that these evidences be connected with the overarching story and claims. But the fact is that the two may not be linked, a possibility which the extremely incredulous bits and pieces in the case bolster. This connection is a leap of faith – a belief.

Further first-hand, more individual experiences could represent a genuine and intellectually honest tipping point. But if the overarching assertions are true in this case (“the mission”), it may point to another ingrained incongruity that such would be the avenue of absolute confirmation.

Such aside, and to restate, there are several other technical possibilities, even where other people’s reported sightings and such similar experiences may be involved, for many of the phenomena and evidences which represent Mr. Meier’s case.

Look for the confirmable kernal, and whilst certainly we must make room for feelings and intuitions, forcing oneself to match these up with real, unvarnished facts is a personal safeguard and exercise in self-honesty and consciousness development.

Lately I’ve seen Mr. Meier’s materials more and more presented/represented, and the community of people interested in them whipped up and encouraged the behave in belief-based, religious manners. This represents a devolution into old and extremely negative patterns, and even at the cost of short-term gains in publicity, dissemination of information and material, etc… should not be resorted to.

Matt lee

So what are you on about or rather what are you on WM?

WM

Dear Shiela, et al.,

I apologize if this post appears multiple times. Both last nite as well as this morning I’ve made the attempt via the normal avenues but receive absolutely no feedback, neither “your post is being moderated” nor “duplicate content detected”. So I’ll try altered my posting name and email in this attempt (different IPs, browsers, etc… have been tried).

As I said earlier, I refer to illogical conflation.

For instance, if we set aside any concerns over the validity of Mr. Meier’s photographs, videos, and sounds recordings of unconventional flying craft (in part or whole), and for the sake of argument simply accept them all as actual representations of such flying devices, then we have just that piece of evidence. That is to say, we have footage of an unconventional flying device. We do not though have any absolutely verifiable and utterly intellectually honest means of connecting the various narratives Mr. Meier has published with this evidence of unconventional flying craft.

Matt lee

Right I think this is the same old mistakes critics of Meier are always guilty of in that they don’t even know what the words due diligence mean or how to go about doing it and so no wonder stupid question bordering on the moronic infest so many forums out there including this one.

Sheila

Different IP address there WM? What kind of people do that? Creepy crawlers?

Matt lee

Yeah he’s probably learned a few tricks from his tech literate son who told daddy to use a free proxy server

WM

To provide another, if there are indeed genuine instances of Mr. Meier publishing information about various planetary bodies prior to such information ostensibly being gathered by a NASA spacecraft expedition and so on, then this would simply mean he is in some way in touch with an organization or group able to gather technical data on planetary bodies within our solar system (a minute little corner in the overwhelming vastness of the Universe) which would seem outside the scope of above board Earth technological capabilities of that time. This though doesn’t necessary mean said organization or group is from a distant star system etc…, just as it neither speaks against this. It simply doesn’t directly address the matter in such a way. So we have to look to other sets of more confirmable data to determine if it is more or less likely that the source of information is from a distant star system or more Earthbound.

WM

Michael,

I’m familiar with this information concerning Dr. Veverka. I neither dismiss it nor do I end allow my legitimate critical thinking processes to end there. For other possible “means” exists.

Andy

If WM’s reasonable comments are trying your patience, you should probably get another job. Or, at least quit saying you are open for debate.

So this Dr. Veverka is on the record then vouching for the authenticity of the Meier case?

Andy

No. As I stressed continually a few weeks ago, the burden of proof is on you, per YOUR repeated claims that you can prove the case. Nevertheless, as for this: “Not coulda, woulda, shoulda, actual verifiable evidence sufficient to PROVE your attacks on Meier’s evidence,” I actually did mention proof in regards to backdating/false pictures in nearly every message I’ve posted here the last few weeks.

On and on with your thinking skills “argument.” Since this is the heart of your “argument”, what have YOU done to demonstrate your thinking skills, besides look through the thesaurus for synonyms for “stupid” so you can have more names to call people?

You mentioned on the other page there is no room for doubt for anyone who has researched the large body of material. I in fact have researched the large body of material…and I find plenty of room for doubt. PLENTY OF ROOM, especially given the handful of instances of backdating and fake pictures, and your evasive, non-response to these evidences of deception.

You sound like an old, whiny, bitter fart of an old man. How pathetic are you, how weak is your case, that you must insult every time you make one of your off topic “points”?

Oh, and you whine about my insults, about my “character assassination”… such a “cry baby” you are!

How delusional must MH be in his old age that he expects us to take his word at face value that Meier predicted events before they happened…without offering any proof, except the date in his diary? How idiotic, naive, moronic and without thinking skills must MH be to proffer such “evidence”?

LET ME GUESS, MH…YOU DON’T LIKE HOW I AM SPEAKING ABOUT YOU RIGHT NOW??? Oh, come on, you just need to “toughen up” … and… and… wait for it… “LEARN HOW TO THINK” !!!!! Bam! Gotcha! Game, set, match!

Keep spreading that peace and harmony buddy.

Matt Lee, Sheila, et al.,

Before you call me a bunch of names, I hope you picked up the sense of satire in my post here (perhaps my tone in this message sounded similar to that of another frequent poster here…).

Sayonara.

Taro

As a casual follower of this, one of the more intense discussions, I’ll just add that the case is so vast in unique and specific evidence. As odd as it sounds, one of the most intelligent things one might say about the Billy Meier case is, “I don’t know.”

Taro

I feel like I’m repeating someone. Probably Michael.

Matt lee

Andy you said “Before you call me a bunch of names, I hope you picked up the sense of satire in my post here (perhaps my tone in this message sounded similar to that of another frequent poster here…).”

“Sayonara.”

See this is a good example of you actually not getting it do you understand?

Rob

Unknowningness is a matter of being,
but ignorance is a matter choice.

Reflection is needed for clear-thinking,
Reaction oft requires no thinking.

What then of the teachings?
Unheeded when egos reign.

— 11

Philip Brandel

Oh to the stupidest cop out of them all, the religious cult excuse. So much for such sophistry there WM. And as I know and hope this rant can and shouldn’t go on. It shows the level of logic when some fall to this level. As it seems more than not, all that most can ever see, as they are within themselves apart of it. Never seeing anything but that which they only know. Never seeing beyond needing these things to begin with.
I within myself, am the proof of this world being befouled by such degenerative nonsense such as religion and its beliefs. No one but myself to come to that conclusion! The ultimate thinking stupidity perpetuated by mere humans. Billy’s ‘case’ is the epiphany to me, to the realization of the insanity of such logic within our world. Anyone whom has actually looked into this ‘case’ should at least see that! Beyond overpopulation only stands the mental disease of beliefs within ‘religion’, and all they encompass.

Andy

Oh I’m up for it — the question is will you acknowledge alas this proof I have tried presenting a dozen times?

First, no, I “changed the subject” because it has proven impossibly difficult to get you to acknowledge the couple instances of backdating already under discussion — “arrow” and MUFON, both veritably backdated. (And have you read Mahesh’s ozone info about bromine and CFC’s? It WAS backdated…proved by copyright dates! Some words are in the original copy, different words are in the later publication of the same CR).

And again you try to make it about the death of the Ice Man — and STILL will not acknowledge THE PROOF THAT MEIER BACKDATED, found here: http://ufoprophet.blogspot.in/2014/09/should-billy-meier-be-awarded-1000000.html#axzz3QZd4OYGI.

“If it exists, if you have it, I’ll post it.” There’s your freakin proof. And there’s more where that came from.

How many instances of verifiable backdating will it take before you quit telling us there is no evidence of backdating? Because I can keep em coming…

Matthew Reed

Andy,
What’s your take on the spiritual teaching? Does it seem reasonable to you? Just curious.

Matt lee

Don’t bother asking Matthew.
He probably hasn’t read it.
If he has he hasn’t thought about it.
If he has he doesn’t understand it.
If he has he doesn’t apply it.
If he has I certainly can’t find any evidence.

Philip Brandel

Believe what ever you want Andy.
Though I have long ago dealt with people who have come out with better examples and evidence of slander in this case, than you or Mahesh. Some that have gone to Switzerland when this ‘case’ was in its prime. People easily accessible to all! And a few less known that didn’t go there and one would most definitely have to follow quite closely to learn from, as they fall away in their beliefs, one after another, never finding anything to what is the truth. The only legitimate contact case!
I could all of a sudden come and turn everything around here too and say, it was all backdated, religious cult with no evidence but words I can also easily find and type on MY computer. Maybe you have been talking to your brother the pastor for to long lately? Good chat over the holidays. Who knows. It might be time to step away from the computer, dumb-phone, I pad, whatever and find the facts and information for yourself. Deal with all of this within yourself, it has taken me many years of DAILY thought to come to my own.
This is far from being about some dates and pleasing poor old Andy and everything he has ‘invested’! This ain’t got nothing to do with religion, and no one here is going to send you flowers or hold your hand, when you seem to need and want something that can be traced back to where it came from, Switzerland, in ‘German’. Or have you invested to much already?
Is Billy Meier in contact with highly evolve extraterrestrials from the depths of the cosmos? Guess have to go back to the beginning? Are we alone in the universe? Or does Mahesh have to answer this for you too?

Matt lee

Thanks Michael for delivering us from evil or hell amen

Melissa B

LOL!

WM

Michael,

Attached to this post is an email account at which I can be reached. Will you allow the challenge of my critical analysis to enter your blog-world again, which is supposedly an open forum for discussion of the Billy Meier Case, or will you continue to censor and evade fundamental logic and reason out of fear?

WM

WM

Michael,

So you are forbidding the use of high thought-forms as pivot points for thinking and discussion on your site – ie. pure, abstract logic; the fundaments for rational thought stretching all the way back to Heraclitus, Plato, the Buddha… and beyond.

It is in these that lay the basic faculty which lifts Human minds out of the mud and into higher dimensions of relation and revelation.

I find it ironic that for many here it is just such high level thought-form articulation by Mr. Meier that make it so difficult for them to question some of the basic facts in the case, yet you are asking that such not be used in the discussion of same.

WM

Matt lee

C’mon Michael what’s going on here. Have you laxed your usual standards by not demanding his real name as well.
I mean gee if you can’t even put your own real name to your convictions, beliefs or thoughts what are you doing here in the first place.
Cowardice is a hallmark of spinelessness and being spineless means self betrayal is that much easier and if you can betray yourself easily its even easier to betray other people.
So Will Maverick please include your real name.