Regarding IIG’s Retraction of Defamatory Claims against Billy Meier

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.

Sincerely,

Michael Horn

Authorized American Media Representative

The Billy Meier Contacts

www.theyfly.com

 UPDATE

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.

Rhal

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Rhal,

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.

MH

85 Replies to “Regarding IIG’s Retraction of Defamatory Claims against Billy Meier”

  1. My dear Tony, (CAPS for required emphasis – not shouting)

    Not at all! I can do better! 🙂

    I detect that your patience is wearing thin with my dogged disagreeableness towards many of your various opposing contentions about the true nature of the Meier material.

    You assert, “You translated it [“Zweifel”] “doubt”, and it doesn’t only mean self-doubt in that context.

    So you say.

    And I had hoped that the simple logic – related to the great exposure to it that I’ve had, compared to the relatively tiny exposure to it that you’ve had – would have swayed you from trying to insinuate to everybody that; not only do you actually have a more accurate understanding of the body of Billy’s work than I do, you’re also a better translator. That is to say, you are also better positioned (as a German-illiterate) than I am (as a “Official FIGU translator” personally appointed as such by the Prophet himself) to rightly, accurately and justly be the judge of the intended meaning of the paragraph in question from our translation of Billy’s book, Macht der Gedanken.

    But, as I said, if it were just you who’s bound up in this increasingly silly “debate” – in which you ostentatiously ignore my simple valid and logical questions to you while recklessly ramping up your ever more fanciful accusations and insinuations against my the level of competence in communicating Billy’s texts – I would have left you to “walk your path of wretchedness” probably one day last week. But my old colleague from way back, one Mr. Michael Horn, has done you the honour of agreeing with you and disagreeing with me. So, while he and I continue to exchange several affable email thoughts a day, as is our habit, about various other matters, I find myself here, on his now-popular blog page, batting back your endless misleading and illogical accusations, assertions, insinuations, misconceptions, allegations and so forth. This may be because Michael is – no offence, Tony – simply a much more important player in this continuing daytime drama here, and, as anyone who’s read the FIGU forum archives will tell you, Michael and I often work as a defacto team in trying to get to bottom of things. I’m not saying it’s deliberate. It’s just that a good dispute is a good way to dig down into a deep dark topic if it’s done right, without anger or degeneration. Michael’s a bright guy. Very…tactical. He knows that I would have given up on you if – fortunately or unfortunately for you – he hadn’t initially sided with you about the putatively wrong idea about the need for healthy scepticism as a prerequisite for avoiding belief.

    So I’m going to address your last accusation with my best evidence to support the idea that you are dead wrong about the context and meaning of the word “Zweifel” in the hope that – even though I don’t expect you to react logically to it – other readers here, perhaps attracted to the debate through their planet’s grapevine, perhaps in some distant brighter future, can maybe see this high-water mark of silliness for what it’s now become, and it can become an historic object lesson about how the truth must be vigorously, logically defended by those in a position to do so.

    This means a little German lesson is inescapable.

    I’ll stick with http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de but do visit the FIGU dictionary https://figu.org/dict/ if you want to try to decipher the Figuese we have to use. For example, all the untranslatable words: like “Ausartung”, normally translated simply as “degeneration”, needs to be, “a very bad get-out of the control of the good human nature”. No joke. That’s what we’re up against. Billy insists and I have utter confidence in his wisdom and integrity. Nothing to do with faith. I know him from his work. I judge him by his fruit.

    Tony, I am not TRYING to “twist words” with my translations. If you read German you’d know how unfair, baseless and unknowing your accusations are.
    In fact, I work very hard to UNTWIST Billy’s astonishingly comprehensive compound German sentences into something readable to modern English readers.
    If you had any idea how “impossible” it is to render such an exquisitely precise language like German – reportedly uniquely analogous to the Lyran language from which it stems, let alone trying to decipher the abstruse spiritual concepts of a man with an IQ of 500 – you might have been more charitable towards my work and been less sceptical of my analysis of it for you.

    Much more than English, German often favours paired terms. Little couplets of clichés, if you will. For example, “Sturm und Drang”, “Ab und Zu”, “Angst und Zweifel”, “und so weiter, und so fort”. You’ll notice the rhythmic cadence. In English: “storm (turmoil, charge, forward line, gustiness, welter, turbulence, gale, outcry, tempest, rush, take by assault) and stress (drive, desire, longing, urge, compulsion, craving, intrusion, infiltration, interpenetration)”, “from (as, starting, as of, ex) and to (at, with, on, for, too)”, “fear (anxiety, trepidation, phobia, worry) and doubt (self-doubt, being of two minds, disbelief, to contest, to question, to query, to have qualms about,)”, “and so on (further, more, farther, to flare out, reach out, Attaboy! Attagirl! [Amer. Colloquialisms], onward, long) and so forth (off, on, fort, Begone!, Away with you!, Off you go!).”

    I hope you’ll note that the sheer number of words in English which these common German words can legitimately be translated into indicates that the CONTEXT of each word is of absolutely paramount importance for knowing which word is best (the least worst) in each place, and the number of compounding variables which have to be taken into constant consideration – era, location, dialectic influences, intent (humour, sarcasm, irony, etc.), nuance, mood, literary context (poetic licence, etc.), readership (intelligence, schooling, experience, age, etc.) – is daunting, Tony. From print. No Audio to hear the vocal inflections. No video to see facial expressions. It is by far the most intellectually demanding work I’ve ever done – even worse that repairing radar units alone on 24 hour shifts for 3 years in Stuttgart. It’s more like running as fast as you can, except you do it with your brain. After a stint of a few hours of translating (like before I wrote this to you) we find that we have burnt an entire meal’s worth of calories, no exaggeration, just with our brains.

    Now please turn your attention back to the excerpt I provided from my book, which you’ve edited and reproduced repeatedly, and look again, this time carefully, at the context which you ignorantly dispute. Can you see that within each sentence, every one of the four instances, without exception, where you read the word “doubt”, it’s invariably directly preceded by the words “anxiety and”? Did you notice? In the one place where the word “doubtful” is used, it’s preceded by the words, “Anxious and”?

    Did you notice that, Tony? Presumably not.

    This is called “CONTEXT”.

    But in the broader context of the entire paragraph, nowhere does Billy suggest that you should not doubt the unsupported, perhaps outlandish, claims of some unknown person who is telling you that what he SAYS is true and you should unhesitatingly believe that it IS true without any doubt whatsoever on your part, assuming that you can manage that degree of blind misguided faith. This is common sense, and when, as translators, we see the possibility that the context may somehow be misunderstood, we always try to avoid that as much as possible, but that almost invariably leads to another possible option which is at least as misleading in another way, or more misleading to one or another of the various groups of readers we have to constantly bear in mind. So we sometimes have to say, “Oh well. If they are mislead by THAT, they clearly lack the plain common sense to make much of ANYTHING out of Billy’s work, so we can’t worry about it. We’ll just do the best we can in the circumstances and cut our losses”. And LOSSES are unavoidable in all translations, PARTICULARLY from (rich, exact) German to (poor, chaotic) English. It’s even worse for U.S. Americans, and worse yet because of Billy’s unique style and enormous vocabulary. Just telling you like it is, my friend.

    When the word Zweifel (doubt) is preceded with the word Angst (fear/anxiety) it seems to refer to the doubt that ACCOMPANIES anxiety, and, in this particlar quoted context, other feelings about the self, in this instance, and one’s emotions and inner conflicts, etc. If that’s still not clear to you, then that’s the best I can do.

    In closing, I hope that you have a better understanding now of the tasks and problems involved in the translation of Billy’s words and ideas with an acceptable degree of (in)accuracy. You may be aware that the entire Geisteslehre (Spirit lessons), which actually comprise almost half of the 26,000 pages so often mentioned, is “never” to be translated, and that also applies to the new corrected Talmud Jmmanuel (which would knock your socks off if you knew what Jmmanuel REALLY did and said!) and of course the OM. There are good reasons for this that have to do with the conveyance of simple MEANING, something almost impossible here sometimes.

    If you doubt my explanations here, you’re doing the right thing. If you are unprepared to accept that you (and I guess Michael too) may have a fundamental problem with the interpretation of the word “doubt”, then, as I see it, that makes you as close-minded as the fake “skeptics” we so correctly criticise.

    Salome.

  2. Hi Dyson,

    I too am a very busy man, and this discussion has dragged on way too long for me, but it is a very important spiritual teaching that we are discussing. So, I will try to shine some light on it for you.

    Oh by the way, this is not a competition to see who understands the Meier material better, that would be an absurd notion. Each individual will understand it to the level of their intelligence.

    First, I will paste below what I consider to be a very good explanation of this issue by a fellow blogger and native German speaker.

    By SG above in this blog.

    “A decent explanation – IMO – of what the German word “Zweifel” (roughly translated: “doubt”) actually means can be found here:

    http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Zweifel

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

    1) some form of questioning a claim or something similar
    2) “inneres Schwanken” (taken from http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Zweifel), roughly translated
    as “inner unsteadiness”, perhaps even as “inner fluctuation”

    So this clearly shows that doubt *always* has a very negative side, and if you take into account what I wrote above under number 2), then Billy’s text becomes a lot more clear.

    As a native German speaker, I also wish to point out that the excerpt Dyson quoted above from “Macht der Gedanken” does not only speak of self-doubt, but of *all* doubt!”

    Second, I must mention to you Dyson that I found it a bit humorous that you wrote the following:

    “As I said, repeatedly, it means self-doubt in this context, which you’ve imprudently removed, and for someone who hasn’t even read the book I WROTE,…”

    YOU DID NOT WRITE THIS BOOK, YOU TRANSLATED IT, THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THOSE TWO THINGS. Through out history literally countless of translators have misunderstood books that they have translated. Also, isn’t it true that Billy approves of all translations? If that is the case, then he left the word “doubt” in the translation, instead of using “self-doubt”.

    But even above and beyond all of the above, and I say this without bragging, boasting, or any ego problem, just the truth, I am a man of a very high intelligence and a scholar of many serious and important spiritual and practical subjects, and in my educated opinion skepticism/doubt is evil. You can say otherwise for a thousand years, it will not change my mind. You would simply be incorrect. You have been incorrect many times in your life, you are incorrect about this point, and you will be incorrect many times in the future, so don’t make a big deal out of it. You are human.

    Thank you. Have a great day.

    1. 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.

      Cheers!

      1. 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.

  3. So, what do we search engines for!

    Two suitable pieces:
    a) from https://figu.org/dict/node/895

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

    b) from http://beam.figu.org/artikel/1359539170/legitimer-sinn-des-lebens-%E2%80%93-und-erst-gedanken-dann-gef%C3%BChle?page=0,3

    “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.

      1. 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.
        ————————————————————
        http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Zweifel

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

        1) SOME FORM OF QUESTIONING A CLAIM OR SOMETHING SIMILAR
        2) “inneres Schwanken” (taken from http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Zweifel), 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 http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Zweifel

        “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

        http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de/dings.cgi?lang=en&service=deen&opterrors=0&optpro=0&query=Bedenken&iservice=&comment=&email=

        1. 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.

          1. 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:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5UahMPJ8Tc1b0tReC1DdVRlTmM/edit?usp=sharing

            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.

            Cheers!

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

    1. 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.

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

    1. 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?

  5. 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??

    1. 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 *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.