‘Dear Jennifer (Part 2)

Dear Jennifer,

Now that I’ve returned I’ll address the points you raised more thoroughly.

Well the point about the prediction regarding the planetoids is that it’s in that book. Of course should it not be, then there would be  a point to deal with.

Now, regarding your being a skeptic. Well, you made skeptical comments, on a skeptical website, regarding Billy Meier and his information. So I would say that it’s a fair assessment and, unless you are very different than Stuart, you would be comfortable with that label, no? Of course if you prefer to say that you differ with Stuart because you would firmly declare yourself to be, or are aspiring to be, a scientist, then please say so and I will refer to you that way. Naturally, I would then request that you retract your skeptical comments and, as you shall hopefully understand, your unfair defamatory ones about me.

As for your being so offended as to require a second message to emphasize it, well, you’re anonymous, remember?

You say you’re only 17 years old, and I am willing to take you at your word, although I have no way of knowing this to be true. In fact, for all  I know, you’re an overweight, middle-aged man who works for German intelligence and is tasked with attacking the Meier case. You have no verifiable public record here, no volumes of information and evidence to confirm your identity to me so you could be…lying, right? And, as you shall also hopefully see, if you want me to take you at your word, perhaps you will extend the same consideration when I come to that point.

Of course I hope you are a 17 year-old girl who, at least for a moment felt the outrage of not being believed when she knew herself to be honest, trustworthy, etc. But why don’t you post your full, verifiable identity? Is it because you feel that it would possibly expose you to people who lurk around – often as anonymous people on internet forums – and who may try to harm you? That would certainly be understandable. Even well before the internet days anonymous people tried, almost two-dozen times, to kill Billy Meier.

Which leads me to ask, does it at all bother your sense of values and fairness that any anonymous coward online can hurl despicable lies about someone and not fear being held accountable for them? Do you and your fellow students use screen names in class, are everyone’s passports in they real name, etc.? (You can take a wild guess on those answers, I’m sure.)

I’m just asking of course, since you know who Meier is and who I am but, pardon me, Jennifer, while I’m courteous enough to accept what you’ve said about yourself…is there any reason, considering all of the substantiation and preponderance of evidence (which continues to mount) that you wouldn’t extend that same consideration to the person who has presented it over the past 60 years?

When people defame Meier, me, or anyone else, when they call me a Schwindler, etc., they should at least have the courage to identify themselves fully. Criticism is one thing, anonymously attacking and defaming is another.

Of course if you’re a 17 year-old girl that concept may be quite foreign to you, as all you’ve ever known has been the online, virtual, pseudo-world, fittingly overpopulated by pseudo-scientists, defamers and armchair experts who consider themselves authorities on everything.

Now, regarding your age, since you have chosen to participate here and to challenge, let alone attack me, pardon me if I don’t take into consideration any particular meaning about your age. You seem to have had no trouble finding your way around Meier’s information, which sets you apart from the anonymous entities here who simply attack and then attack the answers to their attacks, etc. all without any actual knowledge or understanding of the matter.

As I mentioned in my first brief response to you, of course I’m aware of the issues about the book’s copyright date. Although it’s not particularly important to the indisputable facts, which I see you too would like to  marginalize (for some reason). So why would I make the statement I did, knowing full well that if there indeed was just one person who actually would do some research that the issue would be raised?

The answer is very simple and clear: I have NEVER known Billy Meier to lie or be dishonest, to “backdate” information, etc. Well isn’t that a very unscientific, vulnerable position to take? No, it’s called weighing and judging based on the preponderance of evidence. Since most people who participate on this site don’t demonstrate a real world understanding about real things, I’ll not worry about small dogs nipping at my heels. I’ll simply try to make this as understandable to you as I can and frame my answer in a personal way to you.

At your age, you’ve known your father for about five years more than I’ve personally known Billy. (Of course there are people who’ve known him more than twice as long as you’ve been alive, some of whom I’ve known for over 20 years.) Let’s say that your father was accused of lying, cheating, falsifying things, etc. How would you, Jennifer, go about proving his innocence? In fact, all of your faith, love and trust in him would be irrelevant, wouldn’t it? Would it help establish his innocence? Probably not, unless it helped to motivate and sustain whatever effort you could provide.

Certainly, if as many people who’ve attacked Billy Meier over the past four decades were attacking him, he would have quite a task.

So it would be helpful if he happened to have a good, documented record of his interactions and conversations over those many decades, wouldn’t it? And as good a record as he would have hopefully kept, since he’s just a human being like everyone else, it’s possible that here and there he may not have every single thing in order, or maybe just easily accessible. That is possible in the real world, isn’t Jennifer?

Would it be helpful if there were almost 100 people who would come forward to attest to his honesty, truthfulness and good character? Would it be helpful if some of those people just happened to have photographs and/or other physical evidence to support his truthfulness in the matter under dispute? What about if one of those people not only had photographs to support his truthfulness but…had been one of your father’s critics and defamers previously?

Heck, what about if your father and more than a dozen of these people took and passed lie detector tests…and then a subsequent evaluation by an expert consultant for the U.S. Army Special Forces, an expert in ascertaining a person’s honesty, congruity, possible danger to others, etc., also went on the record in support of your father?

How do you think the preponderance of evidence – should your father be so fortunate as to have it – would weigh with a fair-minded jury of his peers?

As a matter of fact, if…Billy Meier was your father – or even a very, very good friend – and all of these charges were being hurled against him, do you think that you for one would be glad that there are so many verifiable instances of his prophetic accuracy, i.e. truthfulness, to point to, to rely on, to have fair-minded people weigh?

So, while it seems that you have raised a valid point, you have also chosen to selectively overlook valid ones. For instance, it is stated, as you note, that, “The information from 1978 was present among the various periodicals of ‘Stimme der Wassermannzeit’.”

And yes, the presentation of those periodicals would settle the fine point here. But so far no Schwindler here; do you still see one? Further, we happen to have an abundance of ironclad, prophetically accurate scientific information. I posted quite a listing of it above (on the pseudo blog). Did you read and research all of it? Did you read and research all of the information at Will Humanity Wake Up…in Time? I hope you did. Mahigitam also helps in compiling it. Did you look carefully at the copyright page, and the page mentioning the two planets beyond Pluto? I’m sure that you wouldn’t be as predictably foolish as the anonymous skeptics who would still try to question it.

Of course not, as this paragraph excerpt from your second posting today shows, “…i would have said, yes, on page 97 of the book ‘Existentes Leben im Universum’, Billy Meier wrote about the possible future discovery of small planets beyond Pluto, close to the turn of the millennium or maybe only a short time after the turn of the millennium…”

So it looks to me like your outrage is a bit premature and that my headline, “SKEPTIC Admits Reading Billy Meier Predictions…Foretold BEFORE Events Occurred!” is accurate after all. Well, let’s see what you do with the choice between skeptic and scientist to be sure; I’ll be glad to change that to SCIENTIST instead.

As for why it’s important to me, unfortunately you slyly tie it into a misleading suggestion that Meier would have had access to a discovery that was not made until more than 40 years after he first wrote about it and a couple of decades after it was published by Stevens. And of course you’ve found it in the book you have, source number three.

By the way, I don’t know how you got the impression that I own the book or am fluent enough to read and understand it all in German. However, I will not feign outrage over your very human assumptions, erroneous as they may be, and I forgive you for jumping to those conclusions. Now you and I have even more in common than before, nice isn’t it?

Regarding your answer about the metal samples, I find it not only shallow and evasive but indicative of the skeptical mind that actually isn’t prepared to deal with facts that are either too unfamiliar or threatening to it.

Real extraterrestrial metal samples and all you can think of is launching another attack on people?

So maybe you’d like to take another try at answering what it would mean to you. I’ll even lead the answer a little bit here by asking, “Wouldn’t you want to feverishly investigate every available bit of information, especially scientific in nature, among other things? And wouldn’t you do it…scientifically, instead of with the pseudo-scientific prejudices such as are in evidence in this blog?”

Speaking of fair-mindedness, since you were so offended at what you perceived to be wrong behavior, etc. on my part – are you equally offended at the name calling, unsubstantiated, defamatory words hurled at Meier and me? Or is your young outrage only limited to perceived (or is it misperceived) slights against you?

As for why I am the media representative if I find the media so odious. The simple answer is because I love the truth and I will battle to get it out, whether the oppressors of the truth are shallow, self-seeking, popularity craving, pseudo-scientific skeptics, or the powerful mass media (which the same skeptics crave to be recognized by and have celebrity status in and from). I won’t presume that you’re too young to understand someone being willing to fight for the truth against tremendous odds…and ample amounts of ignorance.

We who involve ourselves with the Meier material are very open about what we do and who we are. We make mistakes because we’re human beings. But there can be no reasonable doubt about the preponderance of evidence in the case, and to avoid, distort and deny it won’t make the truth go away. Maybe that’s why I’m here too, to answer your other question.





One Reply to “‘Dear Jennifer (Part 2)”

  1. “Man, do not fear the truth,
    so that your mind is fearless, because only
    Fearlessness of the truth makes you
    free from the fear of man.”

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.