The noted pseudo-scientific skeptic, neurosurgeon Dr. Stephen Novella, recently tried his shaky hand at a snickering, sophomoric and defamatory attack on the Billy Meier case. His focus, if one can call anything about it focused, was primarily on the Wedding Cake UFO (WCUFO) and the Asket and Nera photo controversies.
In fact, Supercilious Steve failed to present any substantiation for his claims that: the Meier case is a “many-decade UFO hoax”, of “terrible quality”, “absurd on its face”, reveals a model supported by a tree and that “Meier has used this technique before.” He simply repeated the already discredited critiques of others – and relied on his own, non-expert visual perception – further diminishing his own credibility, as if that was even possible.
Not content with displaying such ineptitude, he repeats the unsubstantiated arguments and stories about “garbage can lids” and “Christmas tree ornaments”, using the term “striking resemblance” to imply exact sameness. I wonder, would he similarly diagnose and treat a patient based on their bearing a “striking resemblance” to someone else…instead of taking a bit more of a “case history”?
His sarcastic observation, “Below is another ‘beam ship’ with an odd affection for foliage,” merely reveals his complete failure to have reviewed the scientific testing done on such photographs. Obviously, he wants us to know that he doesn’t even take the matter seriously enough to research it, so far above it is he.
Novella – again – indicts himself as a mere, lazy re-teller of someone else’s conjecture about a “piece of the model having fallen off” – failing to even say “alleged/allegedly” as one would expect a more cautious, intelligent person would; only the pseudo-scientist jumps to conclusions about things he never personally investigated himself. Does he also base his medical knowledge on hearsay from unreliable parties?
Having failed to cite even one source, Novella is self-rebutting in all of the above.
However, note the following (which he obviously didn’t):
- Regarding the premise that the WCUFO is really a small model with a miniature tree, involving false or forced perspective, small objects only a few feet away from the camera would not only be CLEARER in the opening of the video than they are, after the full five-second zoom in (:18 to :23) the camera would be so close up on them that they’d appear much larger and every detail would be stunningly clear.
- In fact, only a little more detail can be seen on the WCUFO, the branches and trunk. And they are still not crystal clear, indicating large objects far from the camera. This would be IMPOSSIBLE in the case of small models. Then when Meier zooms back out from :45 to the end of the video, both the tree and the WCUFO are even blurrier than in the opening of the video, further indicating a great distance between them and the camera, probably hundreds of feet.
Didn’t the good doctor bother to check this out for himself? Well, no, he relied on the thoroughy discredited, Derek Barholomaus who had himself already retracted the claim that Meier used model UFOs and miniature trees. Kinda makes you wonder if Novella keeps himself this well up to date on things in what’s supposedly his main area of expertise, doesn’t it?
The Asket & Nera Controversy
The next case of sloppy imprecision – exactly the kind of thing you don’t want in a surgeon – is Novella’s use of some other skeptic’s inaccurate critique of the Asket and Nera photos. Referring to photographs of two obviously different people – he claims that they’re the same one. Again, is this the guy you’d want operating on you, “Well you look close enough to the woman whose gallbladder I removed, so I decided yours should be removed too.”?
- How much trouble would it have been for the him to have actually read the freely available explanation of the entire matter…including the easily verified information that Meier was told about the two doubles in America – some 15 years before the controversy ever arose? Many people have a hard copy and/or ebook version of the copyrighted, dated published Contact Notes that contain that information. And, regarding the photos of the two different women, may we also recommend that he gets his eyes checked?
Novella then closes out his article with one of those, “…my 8 year old daughter tells more convincing ‘fibs’” clinchers, apparently letting us in on whose medical advice he relies on for second opinions as well. Then of course there are the predictable “yuck, yuck” comments from his minions; defamers used to be a dime a dozen but now you get a gross, and I do mean gross, for free.
Speaking of Case Histories
Why didn’t Novella read the Scientific Experts’ Comments and the Photo Analysis documents, along with all of the other scientific corroboration of the evidence and information in the Meier case? Why didn’t he comment on, and/or attempt to credibly refute, all of the work – by experts in fields in which he has no expertise – that has already authenticated Meier’s evidence?
The self-satisfied superficiality that such pseudo-scientific intellectual lightweights as Novella indulges in, is as shamelessly juvenile as his lack of embarrassment about his own ineptitude.
If you’re a potential patient of Dr. N’s, are you perhaps thinking now of getting…a second opinion?
NOTE: I stand corrected, one of the (anonymous) skeptics has pointed out that Steve isn’t a neurosurgeon, he’s a neurologist. And while that doesn’t seem to have any direct bearing on his abilities to do honest research, perhaps there are some who are breathing a sigh of relief nonetheless.