In regards to the challenges I’ve posed and posted to Stuart Robbins and his refusal to address the blatant evidence of Billy Meier’s prophetically accurate information, his sole criterion for refusing to do so, other than his prejudicial belief system, has been that I wouldn’t prove that Meier didn’t retrodict his Red Meteor/Apophis information.
So, while presumption of innocence until proven guilty may seem like just a quaint notion to Robbins, I’ll actually present my answer…again. Indeed, in the afore-linked-to article I introduce the idea of plausible deniability as it applies to the Meier case. Now this is not a concept that Professor Emeritus James Deardorff, or I, invented. plausible deniability is, however, a legally accepted term for a particular kind of tactic.
That it may be the answer to Robbins’ demand for proof that Meier actually was told the dates when the incoming object could hit the earth, is something that the still wet behind the ears Robbins may not like.
As a matter of fact, I don’t like it either but I don’t doubt that it may be true. I don’t like it because I know how narrow the focus and thinking capacity of most of the pseudo-scientific skeptics are. As for why it may be true, here’s why.
Anyone who’s actually familiar with the hundreds of Contact Notes (or Contact Reports) that have been published by Meier since January 1975, has frequently encountered Meier being told that, well, that he can’t be told any more about a certain matter because, “That would lead too far.” Or that he can only be told privately, i.e. off the record.
It’s sometimes further explained that the withheld information must, and probably will, be garnered by our own scientists and interested parties in due time. Despite the kind of sophomoric thinking that demands that everything be spoon fed to us – and then still rejects and quibbles over it when it is – the burden of responsibility for our lives still is upon us, as it shall ever remain.
Now, sometimes the withheld information is later released and/or confirmed, such as indeed in the case of the Red Meteor/Apophis. And, in addition to there being numerous examples of this, going back to Meier’s earliest contacts that are documented in the earliest books and transcripts containing them, there’s another glaring example, one that I also presented to Robbins, who obviously wasn’t paying attention.
The Preliminary Investigation Report
I’m referring to the information contained in the Preliminary Investigation Report, specifically to this telltale sentence (emphasis added), “We have promised to observe the ban on release of any information on future events until they happen.” Now this should be understood in the light of the kind of information that was not to be released in advance, i.e. certain world events that were “set in stone”, and the public foreknowledge of which could create even worse consequences than the unpreventable events themselves. (It must also be stated that Meier accidentally gave the entire document containing the predictions to Stevens, instead of only the requested Jupiter information. Hence, Stevens was sequestering it out of respect for the protocols that he knew Meier observed.)
While this too is certain to raise the hackles, eyebrows and blood pressure of the skeptics, i.e. pseudo-scientists, they need to be reminded that real scientists make predictions all the time, based on known information. (They also need to be reminded of the fact that we’re referring here to copyrighted, dated published books and documents supporting Meier’s claims.)
While it’s inconceivable for the pseudo-scientists that anyone could be beyond them in intelligence, scientific and technological knowledge and knowing how Earth human beings think far better than they know themselves, it hardly matters…as the ample evidence indicates.
And considering the voluminous body of already corroborated, prophetically accurate information from Meier – and the virtual absence of misses, such as would be expected if someone merely made a few “lucky guesses” – at the very least, the offered evidence should be investigated and examined in a way consistent with the review of any other claimed evidence in a scientific matter.
So I again suggest that Robbins should approach this not like an argument, or a threat to his belief system but as a scientific investigation. The skeptics need to forego trying to prove that, somehow, Billy Meier, Wendelle Stevens and all others involved actually set up an elaborate, intricately complex hoax to try to deceive them, and instead participate in an honest, objective search for the truth of the matter, wherever it may lead.
NOTE: Coincidentally, after posting my blog rebutting the shallow, pseudo-scientific sophistry of Stephen Novella, and while writing this piece regarding providing the answer to Stuart Robbins, I received a copy of an email that James Deardorff had just sent to Novella, reprinted below with Deardorff’s permission. (It should be noted that Deardorff, who is many times Robbins’ senior in scientific experience and credentials, had written to Robbins at one time also encouraging him to approach the Meier case scientifically. Of course numerous other scientific experts, all of whom are also quite senior in experience to Robbins, authenticated and supported the authenticity of Meier’s evidence.)
Hello Dr. Novella,
In your blog you tried to dismiss the reasonable response of Jamesm that Billy Meier’s ETs have been providing Meier with evidence which, now and then, contains seemingly ambiguous elements so that negative skeptics can latch onto that and accept their own negative interpretation while ignoring other aspects that indicate reality — i.e., they supply some “plausible deniability” so that negative skeptics aren’t forced to believe that which they simply find to be unacceptable.
You called it post-hoc reasoning. But really, do you think anyone could arrive at Jamesm’s conclusion _before_ there was sufficient evidence for them to examine? (“Post” means after.)
The evidence you’ve ignored includes the first-hand eye-witness accounts of over 60 persons who were visiting Meier in Switzerland on and off over a period of 35 years when a particular event occurred, or were temporarily living at his converted-barn residence or who lived nearby. You should read their accounts and meet some of them before claiming they were deluded or mistaken or in on a hoax. E.g., see www.tjresearch.info/witness-list.htm .
Or, read how and why the Meier-case debunking started, back around 1978, in www.tjresearch.info/Review_Clark.htm . Or review the ignored evidence regarding many of his beamship photos that indicate they could not have been any hoax— www.tjresearch.info/ufology.htm along with refutations of the attempted debunkings. Or see www.tjresearch.info/BillyYes.htm where, if a model had been used along with a model tree or miniature tree, the tree & model would have had to be some 40 or 50 ft away from the camera, with a pole (to hold a support string for a dangling model) of comparable length.
You really do owe Mr. Meier a huge apology for portraying him as being a giant hoaxer, while all those who have known him closely regard him as being honest and sincere.
Research Professor emeritus
Oregon State University