In an August 19, 2011, podcast, Stuart Robbins refers to loveable little old me as a… “jackass”, among other things. He refers to this podcast on a blog of his where he also effectively calls Billy Meier a liar and a cheater, by claiming that Meier retrodicted information about the Red Meteor to fit the information about the Apophis asteroid, newly discovered in 2004.

Robbins neither apologizes for calling me names, nor does he qualify his statements with anything as non-accusatory as “In my opinion, Michael Horn is…” or “Meier may have, etc.” nor does he substantiate his accusations. Having stated that, and the fact that Robbins liberally allows his own supporters to also violate his own stated rule regarding not allowing any defamatory remarks, it came as a surprise to find that the pseudo-scientific skeptic is now playing crybaby and painting himself as the offended party.

How? By complaining to my web hosting company that my article calling him out as a coward and fraud was defamatory.

What’s that quote about the heat in the kitchen and getting out if you can’t take it?

Well, as you’ll now note, I put in a qualifying comment in that article that it was an opinion piece. In fact, all of my commentaries are obviously opinion pieces. But should there be any need for further clarity, I’ve included that notification on the home page of my site and I’ve put it up on this blog too.

Robbins demanded answers and didn’t like them when he got them, so he neither acknowledged nor responded to them. He was offered amazing, ironclad evidence and refused to examine and/or comment on it. And, while he was acting like a wimp (that’s my opinion) he was also continuing to do exactly what I had called him out for, i.e. censoring comments not because they were “off topic”, etc. but because he really never expected that people who had more knowledge, and more balls, than him would take him to task, as well as apart, for his shallow, snide and incorrect remarks. Apparently he thinks that his opinions, as flimsy as they are, are not fair game. And fair isn’t the way Robbins wants to play the game.

To support these assertions of mine, I reproduce below a comment that was quite on topic that Robbins didn’t not allow to be posted. In the past, when his underhanded, devious little ploys were pointed out, he tried to fix things up by suddenly allowing the “disappeared” post to magically reappear.

So here is the post that wasn’t allowed from a person named Bruce. Will it too magically reappear now that Robbins has been outted – again?


Stuart, your little chastisement doesn’t explain your lack of effort and thinking in your apophis/red meteor complaint. Labeling Meier’s use of dates for the rocks rendezvous with earth, a ‘retrodiction’, is an erroneous assumption (not scientific examination of facts). Considering Meier has had monthly contacts with his ET contacts/friends for nearly 70 years, the mention of the red meteors date with earth, could have been revealed much much earlier than in one of the english translations. Since you don’t read German or have the ability to search the German contact reports, you cannot conclude that the date appeared out of thin air and was retrodicted. That is a non-scientific assumption. With the incomplete evidence you looked at, one could only consider the case open or inconclusive, unless one had a bias against the case to begin with.

What if your giant leap of an assumption is incorrect? Then maybe just maybe, Meier is in contact with humans whose civilization is perhaps hundreds of thousands of years more advanced than ours and has the technologies to travel through time and space among other things we couldn’t begin to imagine.

Do you think we humans of earth are alone in this universe or other universes? Do you think we will eventually be able to conquer the great expanses of space? and to do that we’d have to solve the riddle of time. Pay attention to the news. All this talk of particles traveling faster than the speed of light is the beginning of eliminating the time factor. Meier spoke years ago of Einsteins theory of relativity undergoing revisions; did any of the brain trust here think of this without the benefit of hindsight?

From the news today. “Giant Asteroid Vesta Has Mountain Taller Than Anything on Earth” Where do you scientists stand on the origination of the asteroid belt?

Billy’s friends say it was originally a planet named Malona or rather Phaeton, destroyed in war. perhaps that would help explain why Vesta has such mountains.

Where do all the know-it-alls around here stand on the formation/origination of the asteroid belt?

Comment by Bruce — October 4, 2011 @ 3:36 am | Reply


In the rough and tumble online world, as I mentioned in my article, there’s no shortage of hostility, defamation, attacks, etc., usually from anonymous parties. I’m not shy about speaking my mind, giving evidence for my opinions and I’m anything but anonymous.

While there are at least 200 pages online attacking me that I know of, I’ve never threatened legal action against anyone. Only in the case of Kal Korff’s death threats and defamation did I point it out to the web hosting companies involved, who saw fit to remove the clearly harassing and threatening material.

So, if one is going to put themselves up as some kind of an authority and attack the honesty and integrity of others – without a single word of qualification that they are merely expressing their own opinion, and then go and complain about others calling them out for their cowardly and fraudulent behavior, for being spineless wimps, poseurs and crybabies – it’s not only hypocritical, it’s pathetic. (And notice that I didn’t even call him a…jackass.)

Other than that, go ahead and offer your own…opinions.

8 comments on “Were the Words “Coward and Liar” too Strong to Describe Stuart Robbins’ Behavior?

  • Stuart puts out a blog (for the unwashed masses) and rarely bothers to come down to their level to discuss his topic du jour with them. He is more interested in their hits to his blog rather than mixing with such miscreants.

    He’d rather watch, from above (like the gods of the bible who would smite heathens from this world), and allow, disallow comments or ban commenters based on how they make him look, rather like his alter-giant-ego Phil Plait.

    His rules of engagement do not apply to his commenting lackeys who do his dirty work for him.

  • They are a group of individuals with the same common goal. They subscribe to group think and cannot make any progress, stuck in their egos and belief systems. I wonder how many on that blog have been bought and paid for by corporations? Sounds like quite a few. I’ve proven Bruce, that you can say whatever stupid statement you want on there and they will only ban you when you start making fun of THEM. They feel it’s okay to make fun of you Michael, just not them. The most backward blog I’ve ever come across and to think they espouse free speech, what a joke. I got banned today, LOL (and not a moment too soon). When confronted with common sense, they don’t know how to handle it. None of them live in reality. They’re too busy writing books that no one wants to read.
    Stuart Robbins acts like a crybaby because he is one. There is always hope though, maybe he can join up with Steven Novella and go Dancing With The Stars. With so much dancing talent how can they fit anything else into those pretty little heads of theirs?

  • I have received the following from Zach, which I have indeed edited to remove profanities:

    I e-mailed Stuart about this, “Justsayno,” and he said that no one had actually commented today that he didn’t let through except Bruce when he posted several Meier links on his latest post. Then Dr. Robbins checked the automatic spam filter. He said that someone tried to post the following:

    “You and your blog are ******* hypocrites. I’ve sworn at and made fun of so many people on your blog. How come it’s only a problem when I’m making fun of you? Yeah **** for brains, what do you have to say about that?”

    “What a steaming pile of *********.”
    and “I just want to know how many of you pseudo scientists are bought and paid for by corporations? All of you?”

    Hmm. If Michael lets this actually go through (if he does, I wouldn’t be surprised if he bleeps out the swear words), then gee, “Justsayno,” I wonder why Dr. Robbins wouldn’t take those out of the spam box and put them up. I mean, seriously, do you not have anything better to do? Oh well, at least my psych paper is going well.

    • Well Michael you can tell Zach that I was just testing them and I’m also doing my own psych paper on why skeptics are so close minded. I’ve come to the conclusion that many are bought and paid for by corporations to stop the truth about our environment and health from seeing the light of day. There was a headline on the news today about a scientist with different views (which ended up being correct) who was ostracized from his clique. So in essence the group think is alive and well and you simply are not allowed to rock their little world. I mean they already know everything there is to know, right? Contrary to their rules, they did allow many of my posts with swear words in them. I do this on purpose to see whether they will post it or not. They allowed me to swear on there only when they thought I was one of them. So in fact there are different rules based on whether you are a skeptic or not. So tell Zach that he got psyched.

  • Zach’s post above, that I copied and transferred with the editing that he correctly foresaw I would require, deserves a response. While drafting one, I realized that it would best be in the form of a blog of its own, which should appear within a reasonable time.

  • So I browsed around the whole Stuart site and not much really I can say other than another person looking to promote themselves leading the ‘scientic consensus’ charge.

    As these things turnout, these “consensus” arguements always involve someone flying higher in the ‘value added chain’ to leave everyone else with less, not more, responsibilites and critical thinking. Science should not obviously need a consensus. It is another packaged cop-out for people to swallow and caters to the lazy-minded low attention span folks.

    Ironically, bashing religion in the process about ‘authority’ versus ‘consensus’ has no realistic argument involved. It is like arguing an oligarchy is better than a dictatorship while saying one is more authoritative than the other is not. They both are! Of course, had he realized, or even read the Meier stuff if he was interested, the very same religion he was bashing came to a ‘religious consensus’. Thus an ‘authority’ is born via consensus. Real simple.

    But that’s ok folks, anyone can produce the same information as Billy! :

Leave a Reply

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