Hi Michael,
Just thought you would be interested in this article pertaining to the non- existence of the fictional person called Jesus. Can you say… “Johnny come lately”… Welcome to the party boys!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2776194/Jesus-never-existed-Writer-finds-no-mention-Christ-126-historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html

Francisco

Hi Michael,

We are on the same page when it comes to our approach on how to assess the Meier case. I first became familiar with the case when I was 13 years old in 1996; actually, I accessed the contact notes via the internet. I can certainly remember reading the Henoch Prophecies at the time, but I was probably too young to understand much of the other contact note content relating to technology, material sciences, politics, etc. As we know, the information is quite substantial when taken together, and at least at 13, I probably didn’t quite have the critical thinking skills required to assess the whole picture including all the UFO pictures, the technical information, and the spiritual teaching. However, I have followed the case on and off ever since, though increasingly more after reading the Goblet of Truth (albeit, imperfectly in English).

Your explanation about the individual who helped you corroborate many of the predictions, explanations, etc. in the contact notes, only to later arrive at the conclusion that Meier must have backdated everything, though perhaps not in a fair and rational manner, is interesting and perhaps telling. I have read people’s comments on your website: On one end of the spectrum, there are some not very intelligent people who say crazy things because they mostly like to feel excited about UFOs and prophecies, and on the other end, there are people who are carefully considering what they’re reading and are probably quite intelligent, but their arrogance may get the best of them in a way that they want to disprove everything for an ego trip, but not because they really want to discern what is actually true.

I’ve walked myself through the following exercise in logic: I cannot prove, with the current information available to me, that Billy Meier has spoken with extraterrestrial humans, that he is a reincarnation of Jmmanuel (alias Jesus), Mohammed, etc, or that he possesses special psychic capabilities like predicting and/or prophesying with clairvoyance. However, his motivations are intentions are rather clear: He wants to bring about a world where people live peacefully, where they are loving and kind to one another, and importantly, where they are able to discern the demonstrable truth from poor assumptions and/or religious beliefs, such that they anchor their lives in something enduring and will never be swindled again by others who want power over them and to cause harm. Clearly, if we all just behaved in accord with his spiritual teaching, against which I can find no rational argument, the world would be a better place instantly. So, if tomorrow, you were able to show me the 1958 German original letter with terms like “AIDS” and “Crystal (meth)” – terms that simply did not exist in that year, that would go a very long way toward convincing me that he really does have an extraterrestrial source and/or is somehow capable of transcending space/time, but it would not change my affinity toward his spiritual teaching or my agreement with the kind of actions he suggests I should take as an individual to make the world a better place (meditation, truth-seeking, etc.)

His spiritual teaching is obviously of primary importance, but again, regarding the physical evidence, I’ve watched a video of you listing dozens of items from the contact notes, and perhaps from the 1958 letter, that you pronounce as “corroborated,” though it’s not clear to me that the information was actually written/typed in a verifiable manner before it occurred. I do recognize that some of this information is quite sensitive and would never have been widely published due to potential undesirable effects, for Meier or for all of humanity (e.g. specific information about the destruction of the world trade center), but surely there is some information that was verifiably written before it occurred. How did you go about verifying it was written in advance? We’re dealing with original German handwriting or typewriting that was later typed out on a computer, I imagine?

I understand if you are reticent about sharing certain details, but hopefully you have a somewhat better understanding now of who I am and where I”m coming from. I am scientist in biotech research so I apologize for my ceaseless inquiring mind. Thanks for your consideration. Cheers!

Sean

Someone mentioned a new coast to coast.

Hello again, Michael!

On my continuing quest to evaluate the veracity of Meier’s claims, I must say that I am, as a biologist who has worked in both academic neuroscience research and corporate biotech for a decade, especially impressed with the information contained in the contact reports that pertain to the biological sciences. The explanations given are shockingly articulate, contain highly specific, relevant information, demonstrate advanced critical thinking, and cover a surprisingly vast array of topics (e.g. pineal gland regenerative functions, memory retention and the process of forgetting, milk as a not-good source for calcium, immune function, human/Neanderthal phylogeny, palaeontology, to name a few.) There is no doubt in my mind that the Contact Report information that pertains to biology is both written and compiled by an expert, due to its eloquence, accuracy, and insight. I should note, however, that experts with Ph.Ds in biological sciences (or any field, actually) focus and expound on only specific topics; they would not attempt to write in depth on the full breadth of topics I’ve listed above.
To date, with respect to all of the biological science explanations contained in the Contact Reports that I have read and researched, I assess them as either provable and accurate, or for those assertions currently unprovable or in dispute by current scientists, Meier’s claims are rational and not in violation of provable, known facts. I have not yet seen a falsifiable statement, only corrective insights which would serve as a rational hypothesis. On the contrary, for example, if I read a book like Dianetics, by the Scientology cult originator L. Ron Hubbard, there are many examples of “scientific” information that are readily disprovable even by those with a novice understanding of certain fields. I find no such simple errors in Meier’s biological science claims. Also, the explanation that Meier or FIGU is plagiarising this information from expert publications in Nature, Science, etc., doesn’t fit well. First of all, I have not found an example of direct verbatim plagiary, and to do this regularly would be very stupid and easy to catch. And actually, only experts in biology would know how to select the kind of information that Meier writes about in order to plagiarise it, because a novice would not really know which content was meaningful or provided some key to a problem, which Meier’s insights do. Yet even an expert biologist who was selecting and plagiarising texts for Meier would make a mistake at some point and publish a specific assertion from one piece of research that was later disproven unequivocally by more current research. And it is not just the use of specific facts; Meier’s claims demonstrate advanced critical thinking skills, and challenges conventional understanding, indeed even in my own trade, in the field of immunology.
Here is an example of an explanation in the Contact Reports that demonstrates expert level reasoning in the field of immunology which cannot be invented, nor selected and then plagiarized, by an amateur. In Contact Report 221, lines 34-44, the speaker (allegedly the ET Quetzal) is giving a comprehensive explanation about the general way the immune system functions. And while it is a textbook quality explanation, it refutes something about the conventional textbook terminology of immunology, regarding “non-specific” (innate) vs. “specific” (adaptive) immunity, in a manner I personally have not seen before.
“Contrary to the erroneous opinion of the earthly medical sciences, the defense mechanisms of the immune system that is innate to the human being are aligned specifically, as this is also true of the acquired and natural immune system.
“The entire immune system of an innate, acquired, and natural form, which is owned by all vertebrate life forms, is specifically designed in every respect, so therefore, for every kind of pathogen and other health-hazardous element, etc., specific defense factors are given.
“Nevertheless, it is also given that some defensive elements are responsible for multiple pathogens or other health-hazardous factors and substances, etc.” (allegedly Quetzal in allegedly 1987)

First of all, no expert in 1987 could ever make such a statement because the requisite discoveries to inform this explanation did not occur until a decade later. And interestingly, to date in 2015, we still use the term “non-specific” to refer to innate immunity, in all of our textbooks, in scientific literature, in common parlance, and on Wikipedia entries, etc. The reason we use the term “non-specific” to refer to innate immunity is that before the mid 1990s, immunologists observed that cells of the “non-specific” innate system were able to detect a wide variety of bacteria and virus, but they didn’t know how, and hence we called it “non-specific” defence. Starting around 1995, we began to discover what we now call “Pattern Recognition Receptors” which are an array of receptors on the surface of “non-specific” innate cells, but each receptor targets a specific component of bacteria or virus, albeit these specific components are found on and within multiple kinds of bacterial and viral pathogens. These discoveries validate Quetzal’s statement. In fact, the innate cells are “specifically aligned,” and bind to specific, unique targets, when we get down to the molecular level of receptors. An amateur cannot invent critical thinking skills to produce a corrective insight such as this about the conventional terminology we use in immunology. An amateur would not know to plagiarize this line of reasoning when he read it because he wouldn’t understand what it meant or its significance. I tried to find a current explanation in textbooks and in online literature that asserts that the term “non-specific” is a misnomer for the reasons specified in Quetzal’s explanation; I cannot find this explanation anywhere else in English. Further, I cannot begin to imagine what kind of expert in my field would decide to plagiarize this statement from some source, then team up with Meier, backdate it to 1987, so that he could pretend along with Meier that the real source of the insight is from ETs. Experts with advanced knowledge in my field would not be motivated to behave in this manner, unless they are unscrupulous and being paid very handsomely, but clearly Meier does not have the kinds of funds to bribe such extensive services.

I wrote to both Benjamin Stevens and Vivienne Leg, the translators of Contact Report 221, to find the original writing and publication date. Their responses were congenial and somewhat helpful. Vivienne has access to the Contact Report 221 published as early as 2004 (with the ISBN number of the publication), though she mentioned that it the original German publication was in The Semjase Blocks which she does not have access to. I wrote to Christian Frehner at FIGU in regards to the writing and publication date of the Contact 221 info in The Semjase Blocks, but received no answer. Perhaps he is busy. I wonder if you, Michael, can obtain access to The Semjase Blocks that contain Contact Report 221, or can give a publication date?

To rehash, even though I cannot yet prove that Meier is providing explanations before expert biologists know it, they are expert explanations nonetheless, and I find them both unassailable and insightful. I look forward to more of them pursuant to translation from German to English. I’ll let you know if I see something that was plagiarised or is obviously false. I’d like to hear from other biologists regarding their thoughts on these explanations as well. And I would genuinely like to see what Derek Bartholomaus or other skeptics think about my analysis regarding Meier/FIGU’s expert level reasoning in biology.

Cheers

(Full Disclaimer: I have a B.S. in Neuroscience, 2 years of research in neuroscience, and 8 years of research in immunology. I do not have a P.h.D. I welcome anyone with a more advanced degree, or more specific knowledge than myself, to evaluate my conclusions, or directly evaluate the veracity of Meier’s claims)