I’ve certainly had numerous encounters with skeptics over the past dozen years. In a sense I’m always surprised that people bother to identify themselves as skeptics, when simply considering oneself to be….scientifically minded should be sufficient. After all, science and scientific principles are sufficient when applied in examining all claims, new discoveries, etc.

Skepticism implies that there is a belief system in need of special protection; that some subjects, and associated claims, must be subject to special attention because, should they be true, they would destroy the beliefs, views, paradigms, etc., of the self-proclaimed skeptics. Something is either true or it isn’t.

So I’m pleased to report on a truly delightful encounter with two skeptics in the UK, Michael Marshall and Hayley Stevens. They interviewed me on their radio show recently and, while I haven’t yet had the time to listen to it, my recollection was that their approach was friendly and open minded. Their whole tone and demeanor were quite…civilized and they certainly gave me ample time to respond. They asked good questions and I felt that they created an opportunity for something positive to develop in terms of dialogue between parties who come from very different viewpoints.

I think we all can learn much more when we also engage with others who are not part of the “choir”, so to speak, and find commonality on what is ultimately the same road leading us all to the…truth.


16 comments on “A Delightful Encounter with Two…Skeptics

  • Scepticism versus obnoxious, Scepticism can be good if you are willing to weigh the evidence and be honest about your conclusions. A lot of people claim to be sceptics but the truth is that there minds are made up regardless of the evidence, I find that to be obnoxious.

  • To me, skepticism is a very dangerous psychological disorder. I have always disagreed with the phrase “healthy skepticism”.

    A skeptic is one who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or conclusions. It’s a person who habitually questions the validity, authenticity, or truth of something that very well could be factual, in most cases without doing a personal investigation into the matter.

    A person who maintains a doubting attitude will miss out on much truth.

    For example, I have never met a person who has done a serious study/investigation of astrology and has not come away from it convinced of it validity and correct value. But a “skeptic” will believe all of the nonsense that’s taught in religions and “scientific circles” concerning astrology and doubt its validity. This is unfortunate and a huge mistake.

    When it comes to the Meier material, I have met more skeptics (probably 20 to 1) than people who would look into it.

    This is a serious issue I have been thinking about for many years. Recently, there has been some scientific research that proves that skeptics are deficient in dopamine – a monoamine neurotransmitter formed in the brain by the decarboxylation of dopa and essential to the normal functioning of the central nervous system. A reduction in its concentration within the brain is associated with Parkinson’s disease.

    Skeptics do not see patterns that actually exist. In a way, the world is like a digitized computer program, there are no variables unless programmed in by the computer. Actual evidence to the contrary does not deter these skeptics from their brainwashed, mind-controlled, vanilla, bland, world view. In my opinion, skepticism should be classified as a mental illness or personality disorder.

  • Good job, Michael.

    I hope they take your info to heart and start studying the case.

    Since we are on the topic of interviews, may I make a suggestion? The next time you are on Mark Snider’s show, Ohio Exopolitics (which should be soon, right?), could you please correct him on the consciousness block? He talks a lot about the Meier case and many times he mentions the consciousness block as a kind of blockade, that blocks past life memories and stuff. That is not correct.

    Here is a rough translation I made from a text about the consciousness block, from the FIGU site. I only translated the first part:

    The consciousness block in the material realm contains the material consciousness; the mental block, consisting of thoughts, feelings, psyche; the consciously-controlling individuality block, consisting of Ego/I, personality, character, memory; the material subconsciousness block, consisting of the subconsciousness incl. memory; the respective unconsciousness forms.

    Der Bewusstseinsblock im Materiell-Bereich beinhaltet das materielle Bewusstsein; den Mentalblock aus Gedanken, Gefühlen, Psyche; den bewusst-steuernden Individualitätsblock aus Ego/Ich, Persönlichkeit, Charakter, Gedächtnis; den materiellen Unterbewusstseinsblock aus Unterbewusstsein inkl. Gedächtnis; die jeweiligen Unbewusstenformen.

    Der Geist-Bereich beinhaltet das schöpferische Bewusstsein; den Geist-Wesenheit-Block aus Empfindungen, Gemüt (= Entsprechung zur Psyche im Geist-Bereich); den bewusst aufnehmenden Individualitäts block aus den in den Speicherbänken gelagerten Impulsen des Ego/Ich-Bewusstseins, der Persönlichkeit, des Charakters; den schöpferischen Unterbewusstseinsblock aus Unterbewusstsein inkl. Speicherbänke; die jeweiligen Unbewusstenformen.


    • Piyush,

      You could just as well ask: Why wasn’t Billy Meier born a female, or Mohammed, or Jmmanuel, or Jeremiah, or Elijah, or Isaiah, etc.? Only a man stood a chance in those days of going around on his/her own much of the time, proclaiming dangerous truths to large audiences and surviving long enough to become known as a prophet.

    • Hi Piyush,

      Both Asket and Semjase gave predictions and taught great truth, so you could classify them as prophets.

      • And this is a good point, because really these days it really doesn’t matter if your male or female.

        Oh I’m sure some would like to believe women are still oppressed. But compared to 1,000 years or more years ago when Jmmanuel was around? Not a chance. Billy in 2013 could easily have been female. The only determining factor being the year he was born.

        I don’t think gender at all matters when speaking the truth, which of course *emphasis Billy does.

    • The prophets were always men, because a woman would have been raped, killed, not taken seriously in many countries and there were taska that had to be done, that a woman couldn’t have managed. Just an example: Meier’s backpack during his travels was weighing over 100 kg (200 pounds) at times and he walked for many miles with this weight on his shoulders. So besides the fact that women were treated like servants or objects, it had to do with the physical and anatomical differences which do exist, no matter how much radical feminists and other psychologically ill people try to deny it.

      • If you are regarding slave work from a defeated group of people, normally women were second choice for work in the mines that was reserved for their fathers, husbands, and brothers. Spartacus’ revolt, while more famous of the servile rebellion wars in Ancient Rome, is just an example of the fate that were left to defeated men:

        More pointedly I suspect the possibility of all 7 male prophets is primarily due to the intervention of ETs taking Earth women as their brides so to speak (not literally) which caused a fair bit of disruption as it set men unequal, largely through their own virtue, towards one another. For a long time men of better virtue would acquire more might over those with little. After all, the Meier material on Jmmanuel clearly demonstrate how easy an Earth man would feel dejected if Earth women were to be impregnated by an Extraterrestrial male:

        TJ: 1:82 82When Joseph heard of Maria’s secret impregnation by a descendant of the celestial sons from the lineage of Rasiel, behold, he was filled with wrath and thought of leaving Maria before he would be married to her before the people.

        TJ 1:83-84 83While Joseph was thinking in this manner, behold, a guardian angel, sent by Gabriel, the celestial son who had impregnated Maria, appeared and said: 84″Joseph, Maria is betrothed to you and you are to become her spouse; do not leave her, because the fruit of her womb is chosen for a great purpose. Marry her in all openness, so that you may be husband and wife before the people.”

        TJ 1:86-87 86″Behold, a virgin will be impregnated by a celestial son before she is married to a man before the people. 87They will name the fruit of her womb Jmmanuel, which translated means ‘the one with godly knowledge,’ as a symbol and honor to god (El). Through god’s power and providential care the Earth was made to bear intelligent life when the celestial sons, the travelers from the far reaches of the universe, mated with the women of Earth.”

        TJ 1:96 96When Joseph heard this, however, he was mindful of his devoutness to El’s laws, so he brought Maria home and married her before the people.

  • it annoys that skeptics are quick to determine Meier or lets say bigfoot a fraud when there is scientific evidence. But ask those same skeptics where scientific evidence to back up religious history, and they can refer to the bible.

  • The moment I here about Meier skeptics, I got to roll my eyes a little bit. As with any subject you got to look at its core idea, before dismissing something outright.

    Karl Korf, and the others can’t seem to see the nose beyond the face when it comes to finding the main idea.

Leave a Reply

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