Before I tell you more about the question itself…let me answer it.
Jennifer is either someone working for an intelligence agency against the Billy Meier case…or a future hope for the generations to come. Obviously, in the online world of anonymity, screen names and false identities, it can be difficult to verify someone’s real identity. And in the case of someone who is possibly a minor, discretion is advised on the part of all parties.
Ironclad, Still
Whoever she is, Jennifer’s challenges to the Billy Meier case online just resulted in further confirmation of Meier’s truthfulness and accuracy. They also resulted in a surgical dissembling of the sophistry laden, phony “research” published by IIG that supposedly “proved” that Meier had retrodicted and/or published incorrect information about Jupiter, its rings and its moon, Io.
Instead Meier’s information is now shown to be one of the most stunning and ironclad pieces of evidence of his prophetic accuracy. To clarify that term here, by prophetic accuracy I mean the preemptive publication of specific, accurate information well before “official discovery”.
The Real Fraud
Now the real fraud here, in my opinion, is the unethical pseudo-scientist, Stuart Robbins, someone I had hoped would be able to handle the bright and often harsh light of truth. But he couldn’t, he wouldn’t…he didn’t.
Whoever Jennifer is, she has inadvertently further revealed Meier to be authentic and Robbins to be an insipid fraud. If Jennifer is indeed a German teenager, I would highly recommend that she spread her information about the Meier case as widely – and quickly – as possible, the latter for her own safety.
Caution
Lest you think that the very idea of any interest in Meier, and those who support him, by intelligence agencies is some paranoid flight of fancy, please read the two articles by Ray Young, who I hadn’t heard of before reading them.
And Jennifer, did you know that Robbins removed my posts, the ones answering your questions about the American moon-landing hoax? I saved them for you – and all other interested parties – right here so that you’ll see just what kind of manipulative, fearful and cowardly people populate the internet, posing as “scientists”.
They are not the friends of the truth.
Your Apology is Anticipated
So, from here on Jennifer is invited to ask, question or challenge me on anything about the Meier case…on my blog. She is also encouraged to follow through on her idea of contacting FIGU in Switzerland and communicating with them in German. I of course suggest that FIGU absolutely confirm her identity and, if she’s indeed a young woman, keep it confidential.
However, whoever Jennifer is, she owes Meier and me a huge apology for her insolent accusations.
P.S. And Stuart, go ahead and remove anything else you want, I can always post the captured images for all to see.
P.P.S. For those who would like to be overwhelmed with even more evidence, see the UFO photos of a number of other witnesses – including a Swiss skeptic – plus more, in-depth evidence rarely publicly examined before, please go here.
I can attest to Stuart’s spineless removal of differing opinions to his own, from the comment section on his blog. He allows mindless bashing of Meier supporters (who state their case/present their evidence/links) – from insipid, obnoxious jeuvenile-like fellow pseudo-scientists/wannabe debunkers, namely a “Chew Bird” and a “John”. When one attempts to defend ones position, he bans them, removes their links and allows his lackeys free reign to scale their cynical, arrogant, know-better-than, obnoxious, inciteful heights, with nary a reprimand.
Stuart is in short, a pathetic excuse for a scientist, not to mention human being. His back-bone has no bone.
Michael has him pegged quite accurately.
Regarding Jennifer; I thought Michael previously took her blog comments too far, made too much out of them, before such evidence was fully in; well the evidence is mounting, and I hope she is as she says she is, a 17 year old girl, open to and searching for the truth. She is, however, demonstrating a propensity for knee-jerk conclusion-making. Iow, not calmly and objectively thinking things through before stating the conclusion of her findings.
Jennifer, sleep on things a bit more. When the hair on your back (expression) stands up, instead of rebelling and yelling fire, examine the origins of your presumptions and assumptions before crying foul.
If you are gonna hurl accusations at Michael or Billy, it’s only fair to have a look at the behavior of a Stuart Robbins and his blog commenting brain trust.
I looked over what Robbins wrote and what you tried to submit to his site in the comments. It appears as though your information about Meier violated his comments policy which I see states, “Your comments must have something to do with the post to which you are commenting” and “Comments that violate this policy will be edited or removed at my discretion with or without warning. Repeat offenders may be banned with or without warning.”
I can see how your comments would be clearly seen as off-topic to the point of that post Dr. Robbins made. It looks like he even posted a comment on that post: “I would like to remind people of my comments policy yet again. If you post off-topic posts, ranting about UFOs on a post clearly talking about two specific Apollo Moon hoax claims on my podcast, you are likely to not have your comments approved. Very simple, very straight-forward.”
You may not like it, but it seems to me that Dr. Robbins was both well within his rights and within his stated policy to either remove or not approve your comments on his blog.
Zach,
Pseudo-astronomer PStuart, was very quick on the trigger to enforce his comments rule on me. There were many times my comments and links were not allowed, when they demonstrated the fallibility of his supporters comments.
His lackeys, otoh, don’t even get so much as a warning regarding derisive, mocking, critical to be critical, obnoxious comments, with no value added to the discussion.
IOW, Stuart has a double-standard for supporters and the rest of humanity.
Zach,
Robbins seems to enforce his own policies very selectively. He continues to allow unsubstantiated, untrue, defamatory comments from anonymous thugs but he banned Bruce from the forum. In fact, a post there now advises Jennifer that I violate my own standard not allowing anyone to post without full information…which is a LIE. I only require it of exactly that type of person, i.e. one who LIES, defames, etc.
And if you actually read all of the linked articles there’s very little mention of UFOs per se. It’s just that the information gores his sacred ox and does so very convincingly.
In fact, considering the easily verified evidence and proof that Meier has a voluminous amount of spot on, preemptively published SCIENTIFIC information – with a noticeable absence of errors as may be expected from lucky guesses, etc. – it’s enormously unscientific of Robbins to sneakily ban information that simply conflicts and demolishes his prejudicial views. And it’s quite cowardly, as I noted.
But since you are at least posing your challenge in a reasonable manner, I would suggest that you apply
some rational, logical thought to evidence that I have presented. You could take my article at:
http://www.theyfly.com/Confirming-Meier.htm
…and go through it carefully. While I imagine that there could be some way under the sun to deny it, it’s perfectly clear that Meier’s information was correct, published “official discovery” and unobtainable any conventional way. If that’s indeed so…well, you go ahead and finish the conclusion.
I look forward to your accepting my invitation and discussing the issue further.
Hi Alive,
Regarding your recently submitted comment, I want to keep a real clear rule going regarding defamation, etc., so I’m erring on the super cautious side.
Could you express your comment in a way that more reflects that it’s your own opinion or suspicion, etc.? My critics could otherwise accuse me of allowing defamatory comments anonymously, even though this is not really harsh.
I’ll be back in a while and if you’ve submitted one that’s more acknowledging your own opinion, reasons, etc. it will get posted.
I’m very curious myself if we’ll find out what’s what with…Jennifer.
MH
Zach,
Further comments. Let’s also note that Stuart was certainly among those who would confidently espouse the previous BELIEFS about an asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs. Now he goes to the trouble to say that it doesn’t mean that an asteroid didn’t do it and it doesn’t mean that it was a comet, etc. Pardon my paying attention but where was…it doesn’t mean that an asteroid DID do it and it doesn’t mean that a comet DIDN’T?
This person has a whole lot of maturing and self-honesty to pay attention to and develop if he wants to have credibility. It’s certainly not the first time such issues have been raised. He had accused Meier of retrodicting, absent any proof that he did. And it was only because Stuart himself had differing, non-scientific BELIEFS that he failed to respond to my answer, one that he had repeatedly demanded.
As I said, a whole lot of self-honesty, integrity and character development called for…apparently those weren’t requirements of the PhD program.
@Bruce: Okay, so it seems as though we agree that the comments Michael was trying to post seemed to have violated Robbins’ posting policy. There do seem to be others that do, too, but they got through. So I don’t see how this amounts to him being a “coward and a liar.” Perhaps unfair, yes, but given that it’s his blog, he should be allowed to be unfair. You, Michael, even I may not like it but it’s his prerogative. Doesn’t amount to him being a coward and especially not a liar.
@Michael: On the dinosaurs. An asteroid being the cause of the dinosaurs’ demise is pretty much the consensus from all available evidence. The K/T boundary is marked by an iridium layer pretty much all over the planet that indicates an asteroid. Not a comet. In his latest blog posts, Dr. Robbins seemed to be talking about the latest press release and clarifying what it was saying as opposed to the media hype. He even contacted the original study’s author to get his input and take on it as well as clarification. Inserting Meier’s writings certainly doesn’t seem relevant given what he was talking about. Unless you’re of the position that any time anyone talks about something that Meier has ever written about they should also address Meier’s writings?
Zach,
I’ll give you my answer again. Robbins represents himself as a scientist, although he seems to prefer being called a skeptic. They actually are two INCOMPATIBLE terms. A scientist openly and objectively examines and analyzes evidence. A skeptic approaches things form the perspective that they already KNOW the answer and, if the information lies outside of their belief system.
A scientist who calls for more evidence examines it. A skeptic usually doesn’t. If anything he’s already made up his mind and will fit his SKEPTICISM into the equation. A scientist can be skeptical but he doesn’t pronounce that things can’t be so because of his beliefs.
Let’s remember those three little words, “I don’t know.”
When someone demands proof of innocence, effectively having decided that someone is guilty of something, as Robbins claimed Meier retrodicted the Red Meteor information to fit Apophis, and then fails to respond to the answer given, it’s not scientific, it’s cowardly. When information that contradicts the party line on the first moon landing is excised without comment – and Robbins had emailed me a couple of times in the past to tell me why he was either about to ban me or not allow me to post something, etc. – then it’s…cowardly.
It’s a lie to represent oneself as a scientist, no matter what initials you carry, if your behavior is so contradictory. It’s an effective lie to ban someone from posting on the site because of a diluted version of the behavior that you continue to allow but claim you won’t tolerate.
As for the comet vs. asteroid thing, I will put my money on SCIENTISTS eventually being able to trace the object to exactly what and where Meier was told about it. I’ll leave the name of it out of the equation right now. Again, if a farmer (with a huge track record) has volumes of scientific information that is relevant to current subjects it should be a matter of interest…especially considering how frequently Meier warrants such mention.
All that being said, did you find any errors in my dismantling of the IIG attempt to debunk Meier’s Jupiter-Io information? And, for good measure, how and why do you think a so-called “farmer”, with a sixth grade education is able to come up with page upon page of this time of information?
Hi Michael,
I agree with most of what you write here, but I want to clarify a little something, if I may. Eduard had eight years of school education, not six, as was falsely claimed by Lee and Brit Elders. It was a little misunderstanding between them and Billy at the time, I guess and has since stuck. You had to do eight years of school in Switzerland as a minimum back in the 50s. Of course Eduard’s education outside of school was more important, but some people use this “six-year-argument” to make him look stupid. Also, officially, he is not a farmer but a “Sandblaster”. This was the first “real” job he learned. He is also good at farming and hundreds of other things as well, of course.
Yes, of course. The whole notion of trying to negatively categorize Meier with school education or his being a “farmer” is just a very short-sighted effort. In fact, Meier’s expertise in so many areas and sciences so exceeds that of the small minded people who prefer to criticize rather than learn form him. While being a farmer is a noble enough occupation, any time I refer to that term when speaking about how Meier is defined it’s with tongue firmly planted in cheek.
Michael, a few points.
1. Where does Dr. Robbins seem “to prefer being called a skeptic”? I don’t see that anywhere.
2. In calling Dr. Robbins a “coward,” you state, he “fails to respond to the answer given” to back up the Apophis claim as a prediction rather than a retrodiciton. But if we go back half a month to https://theyflyblog.com/the-answer/09/14/2011 , where I asked you to clarify what actual additional information you could provide to answer Dr. Robbins’ challenge that this was an unambiguous prediction, you did not. If I may be so blunt, you seem to keep hastily jumping to emotive language saying that I or Robbins is “accusing Meier of lying” when I’m simply asking for additional information to indepedently validate the claim that this is a prediction. Claims have to be taken on their merits, regardless of who makes them. Take James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, by every account a fantastic scientist with a very distinguished career. In 2007, he basically said that Africans were less intelligent because of their DNA: “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.”” The vast majority disagree with this. The claim has to be evaluated separately from the personality. So again getting back to this point, yes, you responded Robbins, but you failed to give a response that answered his question for actual additional evidence.
3. You state, “Robbins had emailed me a couple of times in the past to tell me why he was either about to ban me or not allow me to post something, etc. – then it’s…cowardly.” My understanding from reading the comments on the blog – obviously I don’t know about your personal correspondence – indicates he’s warned you about staying on topic or being banned. His comment policy also clearly states, “Comments that violate this policy will be edited or removed at my discretion with or without warning” (emphasis mine). It seems to me that he was actually very fair in warning you a few times before actually just apparently giving up and stopping your comments that he thought were off-topic. Again, while I think you may disagree with his implementation of his policy, I don’t think that’s cowardly for not talking with you directly every time.
4. You state, “It’s an effective lie to ban someone from posting on the site because of a diluted version of the behavior that you continue to allow but claim you won’t tolerate.” You and I must define the word “lie” differently. My dictionary states, “an intentionally false statement,” as the definition. Not letting someone post doesn’t seem to fit this in any sense.
Hi Zach,
Let me try to answer your points as best as I can. I certainly don’t wish to be hyperbolic or defamatory, especially since I know how much of the criticism directed at Meier and me is exactly that.
1. A scientist responds to the evidence, especially to the evidence he requested. A skeptic has their mind made up and either dismisses the evidence out of hand – or ignores it, as Robbins does. From my post 101.:
“Now, I have issued a sincere, credible offer to you to choose to undertake a scientific approach to the examination of the evidence that you now have, in fact that I personally sent to you before posting it here.”
Certainly since Robbins last posted, it’s been made abundantly clear that there are vast amounts of evidence that should at least be examined. I’ll again mention the IRONCLAD Jupiter-Io information, as well as your own failure so far to respond to it, or to my invitation that you do so.
A scientist would respond – certainly on his own blog and because of the challenges they issued on it. A skeptic “doesn’t take it seriously” because they of course already “know”. It seems obvious that Robbins behaves like a skeptic, not a scientist.
And who would you think said the following, a scientist or a…skeptic?
38:37 Stuart Robbins: “In this case it’s Billy Meier’s ramblings and it’s of course in a different language and so when we can take liberties when adapting it to English which Michael Horn, er, speaks English and so you have these vague writings that are translated and then you can pretty much pull out from them what you want to fit the latest ideas.”
2. Well he did fail to respond to the answer given. Let’s remember that he said, “I then made a second post on the subject where I combed through the Meier material on the prediction and showed that it was pure retrodiction — the claimed evidence was not there to support Michael’s claim.”
“I’ll also state, yet again, that Michael has refused to actually provide the evidence to refute my analysis of and the conclusion that the ‘prediction’ of Apophis was a retrodiction. If he can supply further evidence for that claim that was not contained in my detailed analysis of it then I will of course look at it.”
My response was:
“Just for the record here. Stuart claimed that Meier retrodicted his information on the Red Meteor to make it fit with the Apophis asteroid information. He asked for proof that Meier didn’t, i.e. presumed him guilty rather than innocent.
The Answer was given here:
https://theyflyblog.com/the-answer/09/14/2011
There was no comment – or apology – from Stuart.”
So let’s be clear, Stuart DIDN’T say, “I THINK Meier may have retrodicted the information, this looks like retrodiction to me, etc.” No, he’s unambiguously accusing Meier and convicting Meier of retrodiction…without EVIDENCE that he did so. Presumption of innocence went out the window. And when I provided my answer there was…no response form Robbins. Considering that we have a record of Meier’s prophetic and predictive information that stretches back 60 years (!) and considering that there’s NO evidence that he’s EVER retrodicted anything – which anyone who actually RESEARCHED the information would learn/know – it’s cavalier and irresponsible and cowardly for Robbins to make such accusations, call for a statement from me and then to ignore my response – which was based in the actual knowledge of the case AND Meier’s accuracy and honesty.
Note that the same claim of retrodiction, etc. was leveled by Ike42 in his tragically self-destructing attack on Meier’s Jupiter-Io information. And, when I made the time, I used my little scalpel to remove the infectious lies and misinformation, which again revealed that Meier was truthful and prophetically accurate.
That seems to confirm the extraterrestrial source of his information, doesn’t it?
3. Well I think my responses have been earnest and on topic, unlike the gratuitous attacks he allows his supporters to make. And it comes off as hiding in a cowardly way, in my opinion, to go about removing things that he holds opposing BELIEFS to, certainly without giving a science-based reason for doing so. I should add that I had written him when someone wrote me saying that they didn’t see my posts that I had referred them to. I saw them on my browser so it was confusing. I emailed Robbins twice on September 23 (I can forward the originals to you). Here’s what they said:
Hi Stuart,
Maybe there’s something wrong with my…computer but it could be that my posts from today were…accidentally removed?
Maybe there was a technical error so I’m including them below: (removed for sake of space here)
………………………………………….
It could be my browser cause now they appear…then they don’t then they do.
So excuse the assumption if it was incorrect!
MH
………………………………………….
I received NO answer, online or privately. I call that…cowardly.
4. Regarding the lie charge here, I think you may have a point. I see it as a lie of omission. But strictly speaking I should probably just call it cowardly and indicative of a double standard. I’ll go back to the issue of Robbins claiming that Meier retrodicted information. Since he made it unambiguous and he failed to respond to my answer, I say he’s lying. The burden of proof for his presumption of guilt is on him, not Meier or me. That isn’t to say that our argument is anything less than true. All Robbins has to do is to say that it’s his opinion that Meier retodicted…but he’d still have to show evidence for that claim and Meier’s record completely contradicts that kind of behavior.
On another related note, I will say that when we look at the numbering process(es) used by FIGU it doesn’t make it easy for the defenders of the case to explain it to the cynical minds who, like Robbins, presume guilt for everyone else…perhaps because of their own behavior and ethics. But the nice, precise, painstaking process that FIGU goes through to indeed carefully document and properly publish Meier’s material, speaks more to concern with integrity, accuracy, etc., than any kind of convoluted “hoax”. Such an attempt would long ago tripped itself up in the process of trying to maintain it.
Now, your take on the Jupiter-Io documentation?
I’m not qualified to look at the Jupiter-Io information, though I did hear in an episode of AstronomyCast that it was known in the 1800s that Saturn’s rings were composed of individual particles: “In 1859, James Clerk Maxwell demonstrated that the rings could not be solid or they would become unstable and break apart. He proposed that the rings must be composed of numerous small particles, all independently orbiting Saturn.[9] Maxwell’s theory was proven correct in 1895 through spectroscopic studies of the rings carried out by James Keeler of Allegheny Observatory.” (from Wikipedia)
So claiming that we didn’t know that Jupiter’s rings were made of individual particles until 1979 is pretty silly as it seems like this has been basic ring theory for well over a century.
Zach,
You seem like a decent, honest guy so please…don’t cop out here.
Why aren’t you “qualified to look at the Jupiter-Io information”? Do your eyes have some sort of automatic shut-off when confronted by solid scientific information that absolutely destroys the skeptical talking points? Does the Church of Skeptology and its high priests have some sort of voodoo hold on your own ability to think independently?
And here’s a long overdue question: Just what the hell do the skeptics have to lose by recognizing that Meier’s authentic, accurate, etc.? Yes, what except their insufferable egos and prejudices that are so unscientific it’s nauseating?
There were some seven points raised by the skeptics and I demolished them, simply based on Meier’s preemptively published evidence. Meier specifically identified the KIND of particles and of course that Io was the most volcanically active body in the solar system – which was deemed the MOST IMPORTANT discovery of the Voyager mission, when they finally got around to it, five months AFTER Meier first published it.
Certainly you can form the necessary thoughts and words here, i.e. “Meier was right.” Or, failing that, you could still fall back on, “I don’t know.” Although in this case, doing so would make you look either very disingenuous or completely incapable of even basic logical thought.
I expect better of you.
Michael, the problem is not that I’m coping out nor have an “automatic shut-off,” the issue is that I’m not familiar enough with the subject matter to actually know which one of you is right. For example, right at the very top of http://www.theyfly.com/PDF/Horn_RingsofJupiter.pdf , you sate, “years before astronomers first suggested, on August 2, 1995, that Jupiter’s rings were composed of dust particles.” In this one example, you are unequivocally wrong. You say as much in your response above, effectively, “well, it’s not that they didn’t know they were particles, it’s that they didn’t know what the particles were made of.” Well, that’s different. I think the honest thing to do would be to correct your document on the rings of Jupiter at least with that clarification.
But, I only happen to know that because I listened to an AstronomyCast episode and then found a little more material on Wikipedia as I posted above.
Going through every bit of the Meier material – even just with Jupiter stuff, would take more background than I have. The issue is not knowing what I don’t know. Let’s just pretend, for example, that one of your rebuttal points is mistaken. Let’s just say in this thought experiment that models had predicted that Io was volcanically active and it might be a (not THE) source of ring material around Jupiter. But that is buried in a few obscure research journals from (obviously) pre-1979. How am I, someone with no background in astronomy, supposed to know how or where to find that paper or papers? Or let’s even just say that it’s not even a big announcement, like a paper titled “NEW MODEL PREDICTS JUPITER MAY HAVE RING FORMED BY IO DUE TO VOLCANISM” but that it was already the assumed state of science by then, so no one actually wrote about it? Models are different from discoveries. So while I’ll take your word for it that THE most important discovery of Voyager was volcanism on Io, that was confirmation of some models that were already out there, so Billy could have just picked that up to include in his contact notes.
This is just like the particle-composition of the rings – again, if I hadn’t listened to that episode, I wouldn’t’ve known and who knows if I’d’ve even thought to look at the history of ring physics to look more into it.
I hope that you’re not going to go accusing ME of being a coward at this point because I’m not going to look further into your refutation of “Ike42’s” refutation … again, I’m not doing it because, as I said, originally, I’m not qualified to do so. I don’t have the background.
Zach,
I think of course that you’re avoiding the answer and the work. Let’s say I call you lazy instead of cowardly because you are at least engaging in the discussion though not exactly in a way that is exactly forthright, as I’ll address later.
A couple of quick points…that should be obvious. People can theorize on all sorts of things but you should really ask…why did they send the Voyager probe if they already thought they pretty much knew the answers?
You should ask how and why a man living a simple life in the rugged rural Zurich highlands, who was single-handedly (literally) caring for a family with three children, renovating a run down farm house, working odd jobs, having the contacts, transcribing them, etc. -why was this man writing information that preempted “official” scientific discovery and, even now, is the subject of debate?
And of course please allow me to point out that YOU have just thoroughly destroyed the skeptical challenge, while you contradict yourself in the process:
“How am I, someone with no background in astronomy, supposed to know how or where to find that paper or papers?”
So how indeed was Billy to just “have picked that up to include in his contact notes.”?
And of course let’s ice the cake by again pointing out that not only is it obviously not that you need to be ” familiar enough with the subject matter to actually know which one of you is right,” you just need to use the internet to do the factual research, which obviously was never available to Meier. That means that you don’t have to take my “word for it that THE most important discovery of Voyager was volcanism on Io,” nor SHOULD you go on to unscientifically, illogically and foolishly suggest that “Billy could have just picked that up to include in his contact notes.”
This is why and how skepticism is an absolute POISON to scientific research and the search for truth. You invested more time, thought and energy to basically AVOID actually thinking objectively, researching the the information and coming to conclusions about the facts, as well as the erroneous conclusions by the skeptic.
I have to ask WHY? And of course I’ve already answered it. You’ve come to be in this conversation with me somehow because of the skeptical blog on which you found this discussion, or so I assume, please correct me if I’m wrong. However, wherever you found it, you are clearly approaching this with the wild, unsubstantiated, suspicious mindset of the skeptic.
So, you are free to stop making excuses, as if this not particularly difficult task required all sorts of amazing abilities, education, background, etc. to address. It doesn’t. It just requires the basics in terms of searching online and one other, admittedly MASSIVE requirement…self-honesty.
Do you “have the background” in that department?