I’ve been an outspoken, harsh critic of many of the skeptics and pseudo-scientists who attack the Billy Meier case, especially Stuart Robbins. I hoped that Robbins would realize that censoring things that he can’t explain, which by their very existence destroy his arguments, is disappointingly adolescent, pseudo-scientific posturing.
I was, therefore, excited to see that he had in fact apparently done a good deal of research in preparation for his latest blog, specifically focused on Meier’s information about Jupiter, its rings, Io, etc. – and my claims pertaining to it. I thought that he made some good points and I am glad to give him positive acknowledgement for his efforts.
Unfortunately though, once again, Robbins is a victim of his own ambitions and prejudicial beliefs and so his credibility has virtually hung itself. Rather than face being called to account for not the addressing the assumptions, defamatory accusations, sloppy science, etc. that he enthusiastically churned out, he again censored a couple of posts of mine, and at least one other person. He cited their non-relevance to the topic at hand rather than credit his readers with the intelligence and discernment to determine their validity for themselves. I’ve included them below*.
It needs to be recognized that in 1978 – in a world of approximately 4,500,000,000 people – one most unlikely man with no formal scientific training, published very specific information that was later proven to be accurate. Rather than this being an isolated, lucky guess, this same man has a record of well over 130 such specific examples of his foreknowledge of what would later be called “new scientific discoveries”.
That Stuart Robbins also goes out of his way with sophistry and disingenuousness to not allow the presence of additionally amazing physical evidence supporting Meier’s claims is both sad and cynical. When you visit Robbins’ blog, please pay especial attention to the comments and challenges posed by Mahigitam. And note the dismissive comment regarding “minutia” by Robbins that so contradicts what a real scientist would indeed be hungry to address and evaluate in Mahigitam’s comments.
Until Robbins can rise to the occasion and resuscitate his credibility, acquaint himself with the real world, real science and real common sense, we are left with a comic book, make believe, self-congratulatory example of utterly fear-driven pseudo-science.
And, considering that Robbins accurately predicted that I would blog about his cowardice…why is he so loathe to accept the voluminous evidence that Billy Meier’s been publishing prophetically accurate information, on far more important matters, for over 60 years?
*The censored posts:
I think that Andy is correct and I also second his appreciation of Stuart’s discussing this topic. There is an elephant in the room and it seems that Stuart has noticed it himself but also taken great care to warn others to… ignore it.
There’s apparently only ONE man – among billions on Earth – who has published significant amounts of specific, accurate scientific information either before anyone else knew or published it, or before it was publicly known, or which was only known to a tiny number of specialists.
Stuart has – ethically speaking – absolutely opened the door for the UFO evidence to be admitted to the discussion. How? By his own admitted speculation – which he then also says isn’t his job or goal – that the actual source of the information was probably a newspaper article, the radio, an astronomer, a friend, someone who provided Meier’s (magical) access to information that previous internet searches by a number of people never revealed and indeed Stuart’s expressed claim that Meier must have falsified and/or backdated information.
In what ethical, investigational procedure is the accused NOT allowed to defend himself, let alone explain HOW he came to possess the item, or information, under question? It’s often vital to judging one’s guilt or innocence. Shouldn’t those who are going to be the judges in this matter be allowed access to ALL the evidence…and not have it suppressed by someone who is in effect “prosecuting” his case?
If we think about the situation and the context we may also notice something else quite interesting. Stuart has introduced these speculative “accomplices” which also implies a…conspiracy. Then he states that he’s not interested in discussing his accusations, identifying the person or persons who would be complicit in this conspiratorial hoax, or even being challenged about his claim that the evidence is “most consistent with him having gotten it from terrestrial sources”.
Stuart may not be interested…but there are many, many people around the world who are.
Is it at all ethical, under the guise of an objective, scientific evaluation of the matter, to deliberately exclude and prevent evidence – which, I should add, has indeed been tested and authenticated by experts in their respective fields, including just within the past few months! – just because the accuser doesn’t like it, so much so that he resorts to floating conspiracy theories?
I’m also glad that Andy dwelled a bit more on the subject of motive, which, in the real world, is obviously enormously important. In fact, Stuart’s conspiratorial theories for HOW Meier may have accomplished getting his information would fall under the category of means, in the consideration of the three aspects of a “crime”. While Meier isn’t accused of a particular crime (or is he?), he is effectively accused of dishonesty, calling into question his character and reputation. And by Stuart’s stating that he could have obtained the information via a newspaper or radio report, he implies that Meier had the third element, the opportunity. Of course Stuart hasn’t so much as told us what newspaper, or which radio station, provably carried this information, in German, and whether Meier actually could be shown to have had access to it. Nor of course who, among all of Meier’s known friends (who would most likely be the willing conspirators, rather than a stranger) he’s implicating.
As I said, a man’s reputation and character are casually called into serious question. And the man doesn’t get to FULLY defend himself, nor is his accuser REQUIRED to substantiate his published accusations? Would Stuart be so cavlier in his defamatory assertions and inuendoes about one of his peers, or a scientist who is as well known as Meier now actually is worldwide?
Instead, we have a bit of the magician’s trick going on here, i.e. look over here, at all these obscure papers (none of which have apparently disproven Meier’s accuracy)…but don’t look at the elephant in the room.
Comment by michael812 — October 23, 2013 @ 1:17 pm
Stuart, why don’t you show a little more trust in your readers and their intelligence, as well as a tad more courage, and let them decide if what I submitted was “off-topic”…or if maybe it’s a matter of your not being able to handle the heat in the kitchen. As someone who of course has a successful blog myself, I can tell you that I do trust my readers and have only stepped in when things were out of hand (some profanity and bad behavior).
When you post an article implying that Meier’s a dishonest person, trying to say that my rebuttal ‘s “broader material” is, again, something you allow your readers to determine . In fact, it could be said that your censoring that post of mine in particular is the equivalent of your waving the white flag.
Rather than my posting a blog that is made up of the material that you refuse to allow, which just doesn’t make you look that good, why not bite the bullet and, if your readers take exception to it and say why, etc., then, well, we deal with that?
Comment by michael812 — October 23, 2013 @ 8:57 pm
So then Stuart, we are awaiting your response to Mahitigam’s seemingly logical refutations which points to conscious or unconscious unprofessional/unscientific missing-the-forest-for-the trees interpretations and leaving out relevant sentences that would invalidate shortsighted erroneous conclusion-making.
Rather, it appears in light of Mahitigam’s work, that you are the one pointing out minutia, rather selectively and out of context, and therefore promoting incorrect understanding of what has been conveyed in the referenced contact reports. This has nothing to do with falsely convincing anyone of anything on either side of the issue. This has to do with getting at the truth.