Dear IIG,

I would like to bring to your attention that the information here is demonstrably incorrect.

Information on, and linked from, this page clearly refutes the so-called deconstruction as factually inaccurate.

Further, the new hi-resolution photographs here reveal further details that in themselves render both the theories and the attempt to duplicate the WCUFO using models inadequate and incorrect.

Additionally, the enhanced image here reveals that what was presumed to simply be a manipulated black background is in fact an outdoor environment, photographed at night…from above the craft.

Both Mr. Bartholomaus and Mr. Langdon have been advised of the above but have not provided any substantiated refutation of the new analysis and evidence. Since the claims presented on your site effectively accuse Mr. Meier of having hoaxed the photos with models ostensibly made by him, and since such accusations and conclusions are now clearly refuted as false, unsubstantiated and defamatory, I request that you immediately remove not only your page referred to above but also any and all other insinuations that Mr. Meier has falsified, hoaxed, etc., any of his evidence.

To be clear, IIG has presented anything but an objective examination of Mr. Meier’s evidence. For example, this comment:

“This is an example of Billy Meier apparently not expecting people to know how the images in his photographs could be created and published them as “evidence” of being contact from extra-terrestrials.”

…from here is also unsubstantiated, prejudicial and defamatory.

Therefore, now that un-refuted expert analysis using state-of-the-art technology has shown the WCUFO to not be a model of any kind, not only is a complete removal – and public retraction – of any such claims, innuendos and assertions requested, in fact demanded.

Consequently, it also appears that Mr. Meier is entitled to your financial award, as well as to any offered by James Randi’s organization, to which this is also being copied. Certainly – after more than a dozen years – your   own relentless challenge of the authenticity of Mr. Meier’s evidence is sufficient to qualify…especially since your conclusions have now been clearly shown to be wrong and Mr. Meier’s evidence proved to be authentic.

Please inform us as to how soon you will be awarding Mr. Meier’s non-profit group, FIGU, the $100,000.

Equally prompt compliance with our requests for the removal and public retraction of the defamatory information is appreciated.


Michael Horn

Authorized American Media Representative

The Billy Meier Contacts


The following comment is from Professor Zahi, followed by a comment of my own:

More on the “WCUFO Halo picture”…

Professor Deardorff has highlighted something very important: The pole below the UFO is in perfect focus, as is the WCUFO, so both are at about the same distance from the camera.

In the pictures at night, the camera diaphragm is wide open so it reduces the deep of field of the camera. That means objects that are not at the same distance are not in the same focus. This effect can be seen in other pictures of the WCUFO at night, where the UFO image is crisp but a car or a tree is out of focus since they are not at the same distance from the camera.

Now, the fence poles are around 1 meter high, so we can estimate the size of this WCUFO in the “Halo picture” as being close to 7 meters wide. We can investigate further, finding the place where this picture was taken and measuring the pole height if it is still there. Definitely it is not a model close to the camera using the false perspective trick.

So we have a UFO:

–     That extends it’s central core upwards a distance equivalent to one-quarter of the sphere’s diameter (as was demonstrated).

–     Without visible supporting mechanism, like wires.

–     With a mysterious halo around it.

–     With an estimated size of 7 meters.

I think this is very interesting.




Excellent observations.

In order for the skeptics to distinguish themselves from being regarded as believers in some kind of inflexible, religious cult, they have to come forward – quickly – and either credibly rebut all of the new evidence, or simply concede that they were…mistaken.

Of course that means that they acknowledge that Meier and his evidence are authentic, which naturally would be of inestimable value to humanity. But is the value to humanity important enough for them to subordinate their own egos, beliefs systems and vested interests?

Wouldn’t real scientists and thinkers, wouldn’t real honest people welcome solid, irrefutable evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial human beings?

The countdown with the skeptics at IIG began in 2001.

It’s time to put up or shut and…pay up.


85 comments on “Regarding IIG’s Retraction of Defamatory Claims against Billy Meier

    • Hi Sheila,

      I can do AuSzuholen. With a S.

      Break it down.

      You want to get rid of the “zu” and then the “Aus”, then maybe also the “n”.

      Aus = out

      Zu = to

      Hole(n) = get, fetch, pick up summon.

      Auszuholen = maybe something like “pick up something out of”, or get something out of”, or “even retrieve something out of”?

      SG? Help? I’m up to my neck in Art zu Leben now, but have got 5k words coming your way Michael, Tony, Duke & SG.


      • Thank you Dyson for the translation, as I could not find it in the dictionary. Am relieved to know that Ptaah didn’t think I was an a$$hole as I first perceived it to be. Silly me, see how my Englishness has made me think it meant something else? And Ptaah was right, I was trying to figure out a few more things and was able to. See Contact Report 563.

  • So, what do we search engines for!

    Two suitable pieces:
    a) from

    Zweiteiligkeit (Zweifel)
    English Translation:
    two-partedness (doubt)

    b) from,3

    “Und es muss dabei das Wissen gegeben sein, dass Angst, Furcht und Zweifel die grössten Feinde des Wissens, der Wirklichkeit und deren Wahrheit sowie des Verstandes und der Vernunft sind.”

    Perhaps Dyson can translate this. It clearly shows (like the rest of the text) that “Zweifel” is never a good idea.
    Though it is occasionally being used in a variety of FIGU texts in a somewhat colloquial fashion.

      • Hi again Tony.

        Speaking in your capacity here as “a man of a very high intelligence and a scholar of many serious and important spiritual and practical subjects”, you clearly and unambiguously contend here that, “Zweifel is NEVER a good idea. … You can say otherwise for a thousand years, it will not change my mind. You would simply be incorrect.”

        VERY briefly, would you please be so kind as to tell us all here, DO YOU QUESTION THIS CLAIM AS TO THE PRIMARY DEFINITION OF “ZWEIFEL”, which you also quoted (and with which I also agree) from SG here, a native German-language speaker? A simple yes or no will suffice, thanks.

        “Zweifel” consists, as far as I could find out, of two things:

        2) “inneres Schwanken” (taken from, roughly translated
        as “inner unsteadiness”, perhaps even as “inner fluctuation”
        Here’s my little translation for you of the COMPLETE meaning of “Zweifel” which SG got from

        “Bedenken, schwankende Ungewissheit, ob jemandem, jemandes Äußerung zu glauben ist, ob ein Vorgehen, eine Handlung richtig und gut ist, ob etwas gelingen kann, o. Ä.”

        (to have scruples*, fluctuations in uncertainty, whether someone or someone’s statement is to be believed, whether an action or behaviour is right and good, whether something can succeed, or similar.)

        * “Bedenken” (or) to consider sth.; to take sth. into consideration, to deliberate, to have concerns about, to have reservations, to preconceive, to have qualms about

        • Hi Dyson,

          Because I respect you very much, and appreciate immensely the great work that you do related to the Meier case, I will reply to your question, but I will not reiterate the obvious logic of my previous posts regarding this topic.

          Yes, that is the definition of the word “zweifel”, but if you still contend that skepticism/doubt is a good/necessary thing in the learning process, then you remain incorrect. We, including Billy(according to his writings we read)say that zweifel is evil, or at least unnecessary and harmful. I also say that it is a great hindrance to learning, because it can cause confusion and block an investigation into a matter/truth, as evidenced with the skeptics and the Meier case.

          Obviously, you can think whatever you would like to think considering what I just said, but I think if you really THINK about what I just said with an open, logical mind, you will agree with us.

          I hope you don’t think that because you translate Meier material, that you automatically understand it better than we do. THAT would be a mistake.

          Enough is enough, and that is my last comment regarding this topic. I cannot make it anymore plain or clear to you than that. I’ll let SG and others continue this discussion with you if they so desire.

          Thank you.

          • Thank you, Tony, for your gracious answer and kind words.

            Just to make it crystal clear for our readers: you unambiguously assert that, because you know Billy’s teachings better than I do, you know that he ACTUALLY teaches that QUESTIONING A CLAIM IS EVIL. The common sense corollary to that of course is that Billy Meier’s writings teach that unquestioning belief is a virtue.

            Without doubt, this is where I have to finally give up on you, Tony, having made my point, because you obviously unquestioningly believe the above and you have stated repeatedly that you unquestioningly know you’re right and I’m unquestionably wrong. Because you unquestionably know the body of Billy’s texts better than I do, you won’t question your articles of faith and you will never ever change your mind “for a thousand years”.

            I won’t live that long, and tend not to argue with that sort of mind-set once I’m aware it’s so firmly concreted into place, so I’ll leave you to it and hope that nobody unhesitatingly and unquestioningly believes you when, in the future, you tell people here what you know Billy really teaches.

            By the way, I trust that you’ll unquestioningly accept as true everything I wrote to and about you here:


            which wasn’t allowed to post here due to its unavoidable length.

            I go now in peace, Tony – older and wiser for having met you.


    • Like I said before, The genesis of such a post is not all that difficult to ascertain.

      I’m happy someone else took the time to look it up! I thought my post turned into background noise chirping like a little grille at this point.

    • No, I never said that I wrote that, just that I agreed with it and use it. I apologize that I didn’t make that clear. Sometimes I get in a hurry and forget to mention things.

      I didn’t respond to Duke concerning it because I thought it was irrelevant, plus I don’t much care to converse with Duke, in my opinion he is very confused and at this point a waste of my time.

      • I suggest that we conclude this aspect of the conversation and get back on the present topic. I also suggest that any further discussion between those who are basically in a disagreement with each other be conducted privately.

        Should something more pertinent to the topic result from that please submit reasonably concise posts.

        • Hi Michael,

          Yes, I agree, let’s discuss the topic at hand.

          Above you said, “In order for the skeptics to distinguish themselves from being regarded as believers in some kind of inflexible, religious cult, they have to come forward – quickly – and either credibly rebut all of the new evidence, or simply concede that they were…mistaken.

          Of course that means that they acknowledge that Meier and his evidence are authentic, which naturally would be of inestimable value to humanity. But is the value to humanity important enough for them to subordinate their own egos, beliefs systems and vested interests?

          Wouldn’t real scientists and thinkers, wouldn’t real honest people welcome solid, irrefutable evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial human beings?”

          In my opinion, there are many reasons why those that you mentioned above act they way they do. But as I analyze the situation over and over again, I always come to the same conclusion that it is mainly a combination of religious, governmental, and “scientific” mental confinement, due to conspiracies to that effect, that cause the vast majority of people of all walks of life to reject the truth concerning UFOs and ETs, and therefore, also the Meier case.

          Individuals need to do their own personal investigation into the facts of the Billy Meier case by reading and studying the print that is available, and by examining the evidence related to the Meier photos. This will entail that they divorce themselves from those culprits mentioned above, and to start thinking for themselves. Not an easy task since they have been mind-controlled since childhood, but never-the-less the only road to truth that I know of.

    • Speaking of “gods”, we are after all on a Mike’s blog that deals with Billy Meier’s material, how many people here went about saying something like, oh let me pick, ‘the gods of old were human’ ever get a sense the other party was “Zweifel” about their thinking on the subject? I can say this much, there would be a lot of Ängste (among other things) being directed at you for something the other party did not come to their own recognition or own thinking that they had firmly in place before if folks went about in a very Conan the Barbarian Machtful way to people.

  • Leave Dyson alone! .. and let him work in peace on ‘Art zu Leben’, so we can all profit from his generous & important efforts! 😀

    • Second that!!! Super lookin forward to it. And what’s the story on the seven this and seven that stuff out of the spirit lessons (mentioned somewhere above)? When can we get a hold of that baby?

  • Tony wrote above, “…I always tell my students to remove all doubt regarding what they are trying to learn from me as soon as possible because otherwise those doubts can be a hindrance that create confusion and hurt their chances of learning what they have set out to learn. THEY MUST TRUST WHAT THAT WHAT I’M TEACHING IS CORRECT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.” (emphasis mine)

    I think this argument is supposed to be over…but couldn’t help but add one more thing.

    I thought Dyson would have a field day with Tony’s words I just quoted, but he presumably thought it would be too low a blow, too purely ad hominem. I apparently do not have such restraint and simply gotta say… Tony, you must realize your words here are completely antithetical to the Meier message????!??!?! You encourage unquestioning BELIEF??

    • Hi Andy,

      Let me make this very clear.

      No, that’s incorrect, I do not encourage unquestioning belief. If that’s what you think, then you are misunderstanding. You should read all of my posts carefully to understand what I am saying.

      Have a good day.

Leave a Reply

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