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,
Authorized American Media Representative
The Billy Meier Contacts
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
all of these responsibleless pot-shot artists, like those mentioned here, are nothing other than mindless status-quo-bots of the machine … stuck in the matrix of the comfort of the masses
Nice try, Michael.
As is obviously also the case with The Amazing Randi, IIG’s crafty lawyers have effectively worded their so-called “challenge” in such a way that they are perfectly free to decide to withhold their prize regardless of the evidence.
And “IIG WILL ONLY ACCEPT YOUR LIVE DEMONSTRATION”.
“The Independent Investigations Group (IIG) is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal abilities and events, both supporting and conducting original research into such abilities/events.”
http://www.iigwest.com/index.html
reliable: 1. Capable of being relied on; dependable: a reliable assistant; a reliable car. 2. Yielding the same or compatible results in different clinical experiments or statistical trials. Synonyms: reliable, dependable, responsible, trustworthy, trusty
information: 1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction. 2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. 3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information. 4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge. 5. Computer Science Processed, stored, or transmitted data. 6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome. 7. Law – A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
$100,000 Challenge Terms & Conditions:
“6. IIG WILL ONLY ACCEPT YOUR LIVE DEMONSTRATION, CONDUCTED BY IIG as described in the PDPA,(Preliminary Demonstration Protocol Agreement) as evidence for assessing your claimed paranormal ability. Anecdotal accounts of past events are not valid information. IIG will not focus on theories or explanations of how your ability might work unless and until both the Preliminary Demonstration and Final Test establish that you actually have that ability.”
Were I a betting man (and I’m not), I’d bet you that hell would freeze over before IIG parts with their prize money, even if the Plejaren rebuilt all three wedding-cake beamships and landed them in the White House rose garden.
As you know, Michael, you’re trying to deal with the insanity of IIG’s RELIGION here.
Good luck!
Right. Money not gonna come of course, but the retraction would be nice. Many would-be Meier listeners have been turned off exactly because of these rascals and their failed debunking. Will be curious to hear if they respond.
Arg. I know “No signs, or only few signs shall be given…” (or whatever the exact quote was–as translated, by you, Dyson, I think) but all this makes me wish Billy would just present himself and show some “special powers”, collect the money and do some good with it and then we could say nana nana boo boo to IIG and others.
I suppose this is inconsistent with the mission though…but sure would love to see it…But someone tell me again why this is bad idea? To shocking? To coercive? AAAHHHHH.
Man, they are so damn smug too. I’m sure they’d be quick to say the same about Michael…but, of course, it’s a little different when the fact of the matter is that one party is trying to inform as to the most important story in history and help insure humanities future survival…and the other party is trying to thwart those efforts.
You must get so frustrated Michael…
*Too* shocking? *Too* coercive? Spelling/grammar never my strong suit…
Yes, Andy. I think you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head. “Too shocking. Too coercive.”
I can’t spell English either. Spelling’s simple in German because it’s phonetic, not deliberately impossible. But that’s another long story.
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/gaiaguys/meierv7p22-23.htm
We Earth humanoids MUST finally LEARN to THINK, not just BELIEVE if we’re EVER to be considered fully human by all the developed human races out there in our unimaginably vast and fascinating universes, currently still going about their business without us.
After all, that’s precisely why Billy and the Plejaren are HERE.
The OM always puts it very nicely. Here’s the quote you’re after, Andy:
20:42. Gegeben ist das Wort der Wahrheit, und dieses ist genügsam vollauf, um die Lehren der Wahrheit zu offenbaren für jene, die da sind willig, die Mühsal der Erlernung durch eigene Kraft anzugehen und zu tragen.
(The word of truth is given, and this is wholly sufficient to reveal the teaching of the truth for any who are willing to make and to bear the effort of learning through their own power.)
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/gaiaguys/meier.truth.htm
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/gaiaguys/Om.htm
It’s that last bit that the arrogant/ignorant know-it-all professional “skeptics” (criminal fraudsters) should pay particular attention to – “FOR ANY WHO ARE WILLING TO MAKE AND BEAR THE EFFORT OF LEARNING THROUGH THEIR OWN POWER” – but of course the “skeptics” won’t be reading this because THEY don’t BELIEVE in space aliens, do they?
Neither do I.
I KNOW this is obviously the real deal because I’ve proven it for myself, even though I can’t prove it to anybody else. But they can prove it for themselves whenever they feel like it.
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/gaiaguys/meier.sdw142.DerfalscheWeg.htm
And while I’m about it:
Canon 55, verse 8 (20-23) – Die Unkenntnis um die Wahrheit ist die Wurzel aller Übel. Übel aber ist Gift für den Eizelnen, für die Völker und Nationen. Und das Gift verwirrt das Denken, das Bewusstsien und die Psyche. Dies aber wird der Mensch erst durch die Wahrheit erkennen, wenn ihn die Wahrheit frei macht.
(The lack of recognition of the truth is the root of all evil. But evil is poison for the individual, for the peoples and nations. And this poison confuses the thinking, the consciousness and the psyche. But the human being would first recognize this, through the truth, if the truth has already set him/her free.)
It’s VERY difficult for me to stop once I start quoting this astonishing book which, ALONE, proves the legitimacy of the Meier case for anyone with a functional brain! According to OM’s introduction, the below proverbs were known by the Lyrans as the wise saying of peace. King Solomon drew directly from them, and was wrongly given credit for them, and, to a large extent, he greatly falsified them. (Naturally! What would you expect?) They make utterly compelling reading. Pity the book is never to be wholly translated, but Billy gave me permission to do the occasional excerpt.
Canon 32:507, 632, 1117 & 1480: Unwissen ist unbeständig, wie die vom Wind getriebene Wolke. Geheiligt ist der Mensch, der fröhlich warten gelernt hat. Die Ehre enes Menchen ist wichtiger als Geld und Gut. Keine Antwort ist eine klare Antwort.
(Unknowingness is impermanent, as the cloud which is driven before the wind. Blessed is he/she who has learnt to wait joyously. A human being’s honour is more important than money and possessions. No answer is a clear answer.)
And among my favourites of many: 32:2059 Auch ohne einen Hahnenschrei dämmert der Tag.
(The dawn breaks even without the rooster’s crow.)
Here’s what FIGU has to say about the OM:
“Die wichtigsten schöpferischen Gesetze und Gebote, Ordnungsregeln und Richtlinien; Ziel und Aufgabe des Menschen im materiellen und geistigen Leben, ausgelegt und erklärt durch den JHWH Ptaah und seinen Propheten Billy.”
(The most important creational laws and recommendations, rules of order and guidelines; Ziel* and task of the human being in the material and spiritual life, interpreted and explained by the JHWH Ptaah and his prophet Billy.)
https://figu.org/shop/b%C3%BCcher/om?language=en
* Ziel: [tsi:l] (pl Ziele) For Billy, the English terms “aim” or “goal” are simply not acceptable as translations for Ziel. Translations such as “end” or “culmination point” describe it better, but these are still inadequate, and so the German has been carried into the English translation.
Cheers!
A big thank you to all you do to make the teachings available to the English, non-German, reader.
Hi Dyson,
I concur, thank you for all of the great work that you do for all of us.
You are a true champion of truth.
Thanks for the kind words, brothers, but think for a minute about what a great honour and privilege I’ve been blessed with to have the astonishing good fortune to just happen to be born into the exact point in history where I can find that our planet’s very last true Prophet LIVES and has just published his prophecies and lessons in German, waiting to be promulgated in English, and all I had to do was learn to translate and try to keep uploading it to the Internet come unsuccessful assassination attempts and successful imprisonment.
A VERY small price to pay for having a role in saving Earth! No praise for that is required.
And on another happy note, Billy has just now given me permission to have published my existing translation of the seven virtues, seven principals of being human, the human being’s seven areas of evolution, the seven mights/strengths of the development of the psyche, the human being’s seven powers, and seven failings/mistakes and the seven main periods of the life of the human being – all from the never-to-be-openly-published Geisteslehre (Spirit Lessons).
As soon as FLAU can publish it, it will appear here:
http://au.figu.org/
Keep your eyes open!
🙂
Cheers!
awesome! u da man, DD! it’s a slow process translating the Spirit Lessons.
Here’s how I deal with people who disagree: 4 types you need to know.
As a critic of scams and potential scams, I very often run into people who don’t agree. They generally fall into four categories:
Sincere arguers — they don’t agree, but they are polite and point out “your mistakes”, and when you point out their mistakes they’ll concede that you had a point, and you narrow it down to where there’s not enough data and what there is can be interpreted either way, and call a truce.
Misguided enthusiasts — they are sincere about their disagreement, but they’re not so polite, and often repeat what other people say without critical thinking, and often they don’t react logically as well, esp. when you point out they used fallacies, or red herrings, and such.
Scammers — they know they’re lying or using fallacies, but they don’t care. When you point out their problems they may turn into trolls, or just leave in a huff.
Trolls — they’re just out to rile you, not to really defend anything
So how do you deal with them? Depends on which type they are.
Sincere Arguers
Sincere arguers don’t agree with you, but are usually open-minded enough that they will attempt to engage you with logic (or what they think is logic), based on what they know. However, often their logic are actually fallacies. If you engage them politely and explain where they went wrong, and so on, they may even concede defeat, or leave politely. If they won’t concede, you can always “agree to disagree”.
Beware that a lot of misguided enthusiasts act like sincere arguers. It is how they respond to their mistakes pointed out that show who they really are.
Misguided Enthusiasts
Misguided enthusiasts are the people who “know just enough to be dangerous”. They think they know a lot, but they actually know very little, and they fit what they know around their beliefs. They believe enthusiastically, even fervently, and they are honest. Unfortunately, their lack of facts and lack of critical thinking often lead them to just repeat whatever they are told (often by scammers, see next section) and you basically have to teach them skepticism 101, and why skepticism is not a virtue, but instead negativity.
Furthermore, when you show them that what they believed was wrong, they get cognitive dissonance, and there’s no telling how they will reconcile the conflicting “truths” in their head. Backfire effect happens quite often (that instead of accepting whatever they believed was fake, they reject reality and believe even deeper what they believed in before).
To deal with misguided enthusiasts you have to treat them with kid gloves, and try to lead them one step at a time toward the “real” reality and away from their beliefs. If you shock and awe them you’re more like to get the backfire effect. Instead, take baby steps, get them to agree each step, eventually show that what they believe was wrong, and the “real” reality makes much more sense.
The problem is a lot of scammers will act like misguided enthusiasts (it’s a simple enough disguise), until you lead them so close to the truth they no longer have wiggle room.
Scammers
Scammers know they are lying, and argue with logical fallacies, concealed evidence, and when those fail, they may even resort to character assassination, hacking, filing fake takedown notices to domains, even hack attacks, against you.
Scammers rarely engage you in debates directly, preferring to play the puppet master, and convince misguided enthusiasts to argue with you instead. Their propaganda tools work only on sheeple. However, some very proud ones may choose to engage directly with propaganda (mainly as a gesture to others) and when they go on long-winded advertorials and get banned, they claim that is “censorship” and play the part of a “victim” for sympathy (yet another propaganda tactic).
When spotted and revealed, scammers often turn into trolls (see next section) or disengage entirely.
Trolls
In general, the best advice to deal with trolls is don’t feed them. These two sayings apply:
Never wrestle with a pig: You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.
Never argue with an idiot.
They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
If you must deal with a troll, never react with anger, which is what they are looking for. Instead, react with amusement and light mockery. Trolls don’t like being on the receiving end of jokes. Trolls will often become angry (instead of causing anger) and get banned for some outrageous behavior, or leave because it’s no fun playing with people who sees through their tricks.
So how do you tell them apart?
Trolls are pretty self-evident: they post stuff that if spoken, would require their mouth washed with soap.
Initially, it is best to assume that your opponent is a “misguided enthusiast”, and indeed most people are. Use gentle engagements to ascertain their type.
If a misguided enthusiast actually concedes points, and supports his/her points with good logic and evidence, and recognizes bias on both sides, then you may have a genuine sincere arguer.
Scammers rarely engage directly, and when they do, they are usually disguised as a misguided enthusiast. To tell them apart, a misguided enthusaist, when faced with a gentle mistake, will often realize they are wrong, but change topic, like “Okay, I was wrong about that, but this is something else…” Scammers don’t usually recognize their own mistakes.
Thank you.
Hi Tony,
Genuine skepticism is a true virtue, but only if it’s LOGICAL and REASONABLE. The pros are not skeptics, they’re mostly cunning stooges and/or gullible dupes.
Cheers!
Hi Dyson,
I respectively disagree with what you said concerning skepticism. I’m never skeptical. To me, it’s a waste of time and energy. Instead, I keep an opened mind and investigate everything and everyone until I learn the facts that enable me to judge correctly. To me, skepticism is a mental weakness based on fear.
I know that most people believe in ” healthy skepticism”, but I firmly disagree with that notion.
I do agree with what you said regarding the “pros”.
Thank you.
I guess we could all agree that the “pros” are also…”cons”.
Totally absurd cons.
Yo Tony!
I’m perfectly happy to amicably agree to disagree with you about scepticism being a negative trait, and maybe it’s just semantics, but here (briefly) is my reasoning.
The same way English has been abused so we “believe” in unidentified flying objects (making us stupid nut-cases), the word “skeptic”, which simply means “one who has trouble simply taking things on faith”, now seems to mean “dogmatically closed minded, paid anti-truth-campaigner”.
For the sake of clarity, let’s take exaggerated situations.
The opposite of being sceptical is being gullible, and a gullible person will readily believe, whereas a sceptical person will tend to doubt, and need some convincing. That’s my use of the words.
So if you’re not a skeptic, you tend to be prepared to believe, whereas a skeptic tends to want to prove the matter to him/herself before the thing is accepted as true with his understanding, as opposed to his/her belief.
The central issue of the renewed teachings is that we are finally evolving enough to start to leave the Old Age of Belief and enter the New Golden Age of Knowledge.
Belief requires the acceptance of something for which there is no logical evidence. That is to say, taking it on faith.
Ptaah says, “Wer die Wahrtheit nicht mit seinem Verstande, sondern mit Glauben erfassen will, der kann die Früchte aus ihr nicht ernten.” – OM 53:26.
(He who will not comprehend the truth with his reason, but with his belief, cannot harvest the fruit from it.)
Because I also see this as a self-evident truth, I strongly hold the views I expressed about skepticism (naturally while keeping an open mind to logical evidence) as being a positive trait, that is to say, virtue.
I hope I explained that adequately.
Cheers!
I disagree with Dyson on this one. It’s one thing to be skeptical about something but to identify oneself as a skeptic is unnecessary…if one is a critical thinker.
Skepticism is unnecessarry if one simply maintains a scientific frame of mind, i.e. applies the SAME objective, logical, neutral standards to all claims. Skeptics always come to the table with preconceived notions, i.e. beliefs, that something simply MUST be false and that science itself isn’t sufficient to reveal the truth. And look what that has brought – or more correctly set back – humanity for millennia.
This couldn’t be more in evidence than with the pseudoscientific skeptics who’ve relentlessly attacked the Meier case as a hoax and who are now completely incapable to the point of impotence to respond at all to the evidence that clearly destroys their position.
HEY! How about this answer?!
An answer that maybe synthesizes Tony’s, Michael’s, and Dyson’s comments on the matter…
Recalling my philosophy undergraduate days, been thinking about Aristotelian “virtue ethics” a bit lately.
For every “sphere of moral behavior” (not sure if those were Aristotle’s words), there is of course a negative pole and a positive pole. For example, in the ‘willingness-to-do-what-is-right-in-face-of-danger’ sphere of moral behavior, there is a negative pole of cowardice and a positive pole of brashness/foolhardiness. Both poles are vicious. The goal of course is to hit “the golden mean;” the virtuous middle ground between the two poles.
I’m sure you see where I am going with this…
As Dyson implied, in the sphere of moral behavior that is ‘point-of-willingness-to-accept-something-as true,’ there is the negative pole of gross gullibility and the positive fool of gross close-mindedness/unhealthy skepticism. Both positions are wrong, illogical.
Dyson seems to want to name the golden mean in this sphere as “healthy skepticism”, while Michael call is calling something like “scientific-minded.” I’ll call it simply “reasonable.”
But we all agree missing to either side of that healthy and logical middle way is to err. (In any given instance, there will always be discussion as to what exact level of evidence ought suffice to call something true, but both parties are acknowledging that there is some objective, most logical position to be had in the middle somewhere… that NEUTRAL, objective stance Michael, Tony, and Dyson were talking about above).
I think it mostly is semantics. And thought maybe Aristotle might help reconcile this [pseudo-]argument…
Above should read, “…and the positive *pole* of gross close-mindedness…”
Very well said Michael.
Hi Dyson,
I don’t think this is a matter of semantics at all. I still and always will disagree with using skepticism as a mental tool for learning. It is not a virtue, but instead a weakness, a mistake and a fault.
What Michael and I are saying is that so called “healthy skepticism” is not necessary, nor required, in the learning process at all, but rather will surely slow it down or even block it, as certainly proven in regard to the Meier case by countless individuals.
I would never be skeptical, I would consider that to be a serious mistake and foolish. All one has to do instead of starting out skeptical is to do a personal investigation of whatever/whomever, reach the facts, and then make a good decision. That’s a very simple and very effective way of learning. Skepticism only complicates the issue, and can confuse the mind right from the beginning.
In my totally scientific opinion, skepticism by any definition is not a virtue, but rather a mental illness. This has been proven in clinical studies. As most of you know, and as Billy and the Ps have mentioned, there are many forms of mental illness that are being produced in our times by many different factors. I’m sure, you Dyson, can elaborate on that subject expertly.
So, if you would like to learn anything, throw out skepticism and doubt, and investigate with intelligence and clear logical critical thinking.
Thank you.
Tony,
Darn, thought I laid it out in an agreeable fashion.
If an adult told you they had an invisible friend that always tags alone with them… what would be the proper internal response but…skepticism?
Along those lines, Dyson seems to say, logically enough, that one ought have enough a dose of “healthy skepticism” to avoid erring on the other side, gullibility.
Whereas you and Michael say that no, there is no need at all for skepticism. One need only stay in the “golden mean” in between the two poles, always remain scientific, reasonable, neutral, etc…
I would actually prefer the way you talk about it…but to argue over Dyson’s articulation of the matter…is to argue over semantics.
You say “skepticism by any definition is not a virtue”… yet the way the term was defined for you was as a virtue, meaning simply not being gullible, to require a certain level of evidence before accepting something as true, etc.
You think it is right and proper to be gullible? Of course you don’t–one ought have a “healthy skepticism” in regards to outrageous claims (a VIRTUE by this context/definition!), that is, be reasonable, etc.
Why are you so skeptical of skepticism? One has told me this is “a mental illness…”
Previous sentence was just a joke. I just enjoy arguing, thanks for the opportunity (even if its only over semantics!!). 😉
I think I read the above somewhere on the internet before and seems like a guide for dealing with the associated problems of being an internet forum moderator. That being said, most of the above deal with some sort of disingenuous manner on the poster where there was never any sincerity in the first place.
Then there is the whole can of worms where folks do not necessarily interpret what you say with what you believe to be conveying. Language very much is a perspective held by your own eyes and no one else. It is literally for your own eyes only. People are allowed to make mistakes and are warranted on a personal level to not be publicly embarrassed, hounded by it, or be otherwise blamed in order to be made felt lowly and humbled. The above 4 examples are intended for folks that go beyond human relationships and are actively disrupting a forum or thread. Some extra care has to be made by the forum moderator given that nature of the internet is completely public in that the nature of the said medium should not negate the trust in judgement folks have when they interact with people through different mediums.
Disagreements normally are a communication issue and not something that demands a personal dishonor or proof of fault from anyone or to be continually harassed by it. People’s time is limited and given the indirect nature of the medium, it’s very difficult to build that trust with the public at large as very quickly a forum moderator can be known as fair to being overly sensitive, judgmental, and biased by simply by just interacting.
Everybody makes mistakes (including the alleged extraterrestrials).
Hi Duke,
I disagree with so many things that you say, that it would take an average size book to reply to you adequately, but if you are implying that the Ps are not ETs by saying “alleged extraterrestrials” then you are super mistaken. I suggest, if that is the case, that you take a much closer look at the scientific evidence that has been presented regarding Billy Meier.
Thank you.
I’m sorry but I don’t understand your reply or your disagreements considering I’ve had some experience being a moderator on forums. Also, the majority of that post explains things that generally spawned thanks to the internet (like trolling). It’s missing flamebaiting and a few other things but mainly its to identify the non-discussion and disingenuous nature of folks. The genesis of such a post is not all that difficult to ascertain.
Now to be clear, are you disagreeing and saying that the alleged extraterrestrials do NOT make mistakes? Also, why do you think I am mistaken? Whose perspective do you think I mean when I say alleged? I explained it before but I understand people are responsible for their own thinking, reasoning, and conclusions if they cannot logically ascertain the meaning of such actions. Therefore, I cannot help them nor will they ever see things as they have happened neutrally and make a positive discovery but choose to promote their one perspective view of the world.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alleged?s=t
al·lege[uh-lej]
verb (used with object), al·leged, al·leg·ing.
1.to assert without proof.
2.to declare with positiveness; affirm; assert: to allege a fact.
3.to declare before a court or elsewhere, as if under oath.
4.to plead in support of; offer as a reason or excuse.
5.Archaic. to cite or quote in confirmation.
Origin:
1275–1325; Middle English alleg ( g ) en, probably < Old French aleguer (< Medieval Latin, Latin allēgāre to adduce in support of a plea; see allegation), conflated with Anglo-French, Old French aleg ( i ) er to justify, free, literally, to lighten (< Late Latin alleviāre; see alleviate); homonymous Middle English v. alleg ( g ) en, with literal sense of Old French aleg ( i ) er, replaced by allay in 16th cent.
Do you disagree with the definition of the word? You said you could write volumes on the stuff you disagree with but maybe you should check with a dictionary first. Also, the voluminous amounts of posting I've done on Mike's blog where I quote the source material, do you also disagree with that too?
Billy, from his own experiences and testimony, sums it up with Quetzel in Contact 228:
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_228
Billy:
It is indeed as you say.
Es wird wohl so sein, wie du sagst.
But without secret-mongering: Sfath was voluminously oriented about everything, because next to Ptaah, Sfath embodied the last fully extensively aware person in regards to everything.
Aber ohne Geheimniskrämerei: Sfath war über alles vollumfänglich orientiert, denn nebst Ptaah verkörperte Sfath die letzte voll umfänglich wissende Person in bezug aller Dinge.
He, however, had to get to the bottom of that secret himself, because he also only received partial information from his father.
Er jedoch musste selbst das Geheimnis ergründen, denn von seinem Vater erhielt er auch nur teilweise Informationen.
The course of the receiving of the information thereby ran in such a way, that each descendant – female and male – only had information made accessible to a certain point, that is, the basic information.
Der Gang des Informationserhaltes lief dabei derart, dass jedem Nachkommen – weiblich und männlich – nur bis zu einem gewissen Punkt Informationen zugänglich gemacht wurden, eben die Grundinformationen.
That is equally valid for his father and thus Sfath’s grandfather, and so on, and indeed until back to Henok, respectively Nokodemion. Gleichermassen galt das für dessen Vater und also Sfaths Grossvater usw., und zwar bis zurück zu Henok resp. Nokodemion.
Everything further had to then, through one’s own learning and through one’s own hard efforts, be independently learnt and fathomed so that evolution was guaranteed.
Alles weitere musste dann durch eigenes Lernen und durch eigene harte Bemühungen selbständig erlernt und ergründet werden, damit die Evolution gewährleistet war.
The conditions are also still the same today, consequently, therefore, you and Ptaah, as well Semjase, have to go the same way, which also applies to me.
So verhält es sich auch noch heute, folglich also du und Ptaah sowie Semjase den gleichen Weg zu gehen haben, was auch auf mich zutrifft.
That also applies to the Earth humans, because if all knowledge was simply tossed out to them like feed and they fed on it thoughtlessly and without processing, then it would bring no proper success, but rather only a certain school-knowledge, while the undigested remainder would be secreted again as excrement.
Auch auf die Erdenmenschen trifft das zu, denn würde ihnen alles Wissen einfach wie Futter hingeschmissen und von ihnen gedankenlos und ohne Verarbeitung gefuttert, dann würde es keinen eigentlichen Erfolg bringen, sondern nur ein gewisses Schulwissen, während der Rest unverdaut als Exkremente wieder ausgeschieden würde.
In other words: Everything undigested would be forgotten, and would therefore be completely useless.
Mit anderen Worten: Es würde alles unverdaut vergessen und wäre also völlig nutzlos.
But if a certain minimal material is offered, which can be thoroughly further worked on and success can be progressively achieved, then the knowledge persists in a firm form and can, at any time, be transformed into wisdom and expanded.
Wenn aber ein gewisser geringer Stoff dargeboten wird, mit dem gründlich weitergearbeitet werden kann und fortschrittlich Erfolge erzielt werden, dann bleibt das Wissen in fester Form bestehen und kann jederzeit zu Weisheit umgearbeitet und erweitert werden.
___
Well put I would say.
The 252th contact states that Plejaren never tell lies; but studying the contacts they seem to deny things that can not be said or do not have permission to speak. Sometimes there is confusion when Meier denies some things that were stated in the contacts relating to other aliens , to the realms above , psychic experiences and even the content of religions that can “sometimes be beneficial” (some contents, not the religion itself).
“You have denied Often things Which , However , were otherwise laid out differently by Earthlings – indeed the true and given.” (Contact 252 , Meier to Ptaah )
I think it is important to take that into account, because is often not only a logical or purely objective reason is involved .
Sometimes the arguments are really hard to believe, as the evidence of the similarities of terrestrial products with WC-Ufo . I would find it much easier to believe that , guided by their advice or federation , the Ps sought similarities with terrestrial objects (plates , lids , decorations ) to not shocking the psyche of those not prepared to the unknown (or dislike that matters) . This assumption sounds more reasonable to me that the explanation given by Ptaah; therefore not always logic and pure reasoning leads us to better understand the different matters explained in the contacts and texts written by Meier.
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_252
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_254
(And between the two an amazing excerpt by Florena about the Popes:
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_253 )
(And with that curious spheres… a Xmas-tree-Ufo!? At all a good image to this end of 2013)
(Off course, to accuse someone of lies and frauds without proofs is really defamatory, to not scape to the focus of the present post).
Some of it’s common sense. You have to look no further to see how things fail like the other UFO related groups (or UFAILO as I call those folks like MUFAIL). How many times are they busy going off the deep end with the UFO material where the number of extraterrestrials and counting lights in the sky is basically their only point to the subject? The Meier material UFOs rarely move and when they do it’s alleged by the extraterrestrials to be done in a manner to appear as if on a string. Whether or not that is true is up to the person themselves to figure that out.
Hi Duke,
Yes or no, do you think Billy Meier is a fraud? Please do not give me a vague answer, yes or no.
Why do you ask such a question in a presumptuous way in that I must answer it at all? What good would come out of answering it other than to satiate some personal quest to see what side of the fence people are on? Sorry, but there is no need to necessarily answer your question as the relevance of it is ultimately lost on me.
Hi Duke,
That’s what I thought. Have a good day.
Here are two Dysonizations that he was unable to post…due to technical difficulties:
This one to you replies to MH says:
December 21, 2013 at 5:08 pm
Hi Michael.
I disagree with you that you actually disagree with me, and I think you may have gotten unwittingly (on your part) but deliberately (on the part of the English-corruptors*) snagged on the misuse of the new designation “skeptic” (see my previous comment) and you may also have some misunderstandings of the how REAL science works. And that’s also deliberate, since what passes for modern science here on Planet Suicide grew out of alchemy which was a branch of occult wizardry, and is even now laces with Latin and Greek jargon to keep specialist knowledge away from us “great unwashed”. Tony’s words, “scepticism” and “sceptical” I see as fundamental to (real) science. And my previous comment also referred to the new (post MJ-12) definition of “skeptic”, which doesn’t have much to do with genuine scepticism, as I described it in my last comment.
I’ll paste in the relevant bit about the scientific method below, with your indulgence, but please just let me describe briefly how I see it.
If we’re scientists, and you make a what you think is a new discovery, you then describe it in detail and publish it with the intention of having your fellow scientists independently assess it in order to prove for themselves that you’re right or wrong. This is skepticism. I don’t just say, “I trust Michael. We’re both experienced and competent scientists and I’ve known him for a long time, so I’ll just believe that he’s right, and I don’t have to check his work before I publicly support his discovery.” What I do, and what you WANT me to do is to BE SKEPTICAL of your claim and TRY to find any flaws that you’ve overlooked in your theories, methodologies, conclusions and so on. It’s largely a deliberately destructive sceptical process whereby independent attempts are made by your peers to see if your ideas are true. It has NOTHING to do with belief. THAT’S pseudoscience. REAL science is rooted in healthy, open-minded, reasonable and logical scepticism.
Here’s what I wrote on your blog here
https://theyflyblog.com/credibility-commits-stuicide/10/24/2013
just two months ago, “Sadly, “science”, as currently still exercised here on Planet Suicide, deserves to be categorised as part of the “occult” (Latin – “occultus”: covered over, concealed) because the truth is SO jealously guarded – from normal lay people, by its high priests looking down on us “cattle” from their lofty, ego-gratifying, “ivory towers” – that even THEY lose sight of what they’re doing and fall prey to their own historic thirst to play the role of omniscient gods who command the exclusive monopoly on the “truth”. Meier’s texts single them out for special blame for most of Earth’s (pre)historic ills.
Before we go any further, PLEASE read: “The Science Delusion”
http://www.gobookee.org/sheldrake-the-science-delusion/
How about PRETTY please read “The Science Delusion”?
Here’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
(snip)
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”
The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself,[discuss]supporting a theory when a theory’s predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance)
(snip)
That’s scepticism.
Trying to covey simple ideas in the English language is like trying to nail custard pies to the wall. So I propose, Michael, that if you still disagree with all of the above, we settle on who’s actually right with custard pies at ten paces. OK?
Cheers!
* http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/gaiaguys/meierv5p50-52.htm
and this one to Tony replies to Tony Vasquez says:
December 22, 2013 at 5:43 pm
Dear Tony,
Umm ..
Are you tacitly telling me that your refuse to amicably agree to disagree with me?
And this increasingly bizarre debate has nothing to do with semantics?
Are we both using the same English dictionaries?
doubt = to hesitate to believe
absence of doubt = to believe unhesitatingly
I defend your right to believe what you like, Tony. I even defend your right to unhesitatingly believe whatever you like.
But please do make the distinction between your own ideas about the putative virtues of belief, unhesitating or otherwise – and those advanced by Billy, most especially if they’re going to be opposite to each other as they are in this case.
Cheers!
To elaborate, Robert Boyle, considered to be the father of Chemistry, wrote a scientific type of work in a form of a dialogue called the “Sceptical Chymist”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sceptical_Chymist
Using that as a springboard, the drift away from the fanciful notions of alchemists (that did not really postulate a scientific theory for chemistry except centuries old hypothesis advanced by Democritus), Boyle brought some sort of tangible foundation and scientific theory to chemistry with some basic mathematics behind gas pressure and volume from his own studies. This was at a time (mid to late 1600s) where advances were being made to ballistic understandings, steam power (1st patent in 1663 and workable commercial steam engine in 1698 and the idea going as far back to Hero of Alexandria 130BC), and machines of all types that finally chemistry budded out from the prior religious mindset of alchemy. Of course, the fruits of these efforts could not be fully reaped without industrialization and better manufacturing where we get the work (or genious) of Watt later on.
Some of the first scientific based societies were formed and one of the earliest one’s in Rome (where Galileo was a member). Later, the two Medici brothers founded a laboratory for about ten years following on the Galilean methods. Yes, the Church followed and tested Galileo where much ado is made of ONLY his inquiry but nothing else about his impact or works. Cardinal Medici on the other hand shows otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopoldo_de%27_Medici
We can thank Galileo for making the necessary mathematical improvements over Tartaglia to ballistic theories in order to make better guns and subsequently influence Christian Huygens, Leibniz, Bernouilli, etc. I should add, Boyle was the first to put to print ballistics as a word having Galileo made the correction to mathematics to earlier hypothesis.
Lastly, this is in stark contrast to the pinata history of occult spread out from the works of Blavatsky and her latter day mystics/ascended masters that essentially made up a lot of things in order to mold history to fit her silly notions and theories of counter culture and counter history. This fake history of the occult should be obvious to the Meier reader in its treatment of Jmmanuel/Jesus. Quite frankly, I think its obvious at this point but not sure if the average reader actually picked it up.
Hi Dyson,
With all due respect, and I consider this a discussion, not an argument.
Look, this is a very important subject and to me it has nothing to do with semantics. “Semantics” can be used almost anytime in discussions, if one so chooses. The idea that skepticism is a correct mental process and a virtue is greatly flawed. I don’t care what anyone says or thinks that contradicts that statement, many people are mistaken about many things.
I will not repeat what I posted previously, but to me, it is all valid.
If you read carefully what Billy said below, I think it will verify my point.
From FIGU Bulletin 002:
“UFOs, respectively UFO sightings, represent no problem whatsoever for the obstinate skeptics, because in their opinion UFOs are, in every case, nothing but hoaxes, mistaken identities of clouds, flocks of birds, helicopters, sport or weather balloons, meteorites, shooting stars, rockets, satellites or swarms of insects, etc. Malicious individuals among the skeptics and critics even claim that the entire matter is nothing more than contrived stories of fraud, lies, deceit or charlatanry and are disseminated for fun, egoism or profit.
And later in the Bulletin:
“Yet by and large, it is primarily the sectarian would-be UFO contactees who, through their absurdities and inanities, paint the entire gamut of this UFO phenomenon with the glittering aspect of absurdity. As a result, their attempts are then virtually ripped to shreds in mid-air by skeptical, critical, all-devouring and asinine type of journalism. The entire phenomenon is taken out of its original context and slurred by the popular press, etc., on the premise that a lie is more impressive than the truth, and that this type of mud-slinging journalism is financially more rewarding than sound, truthful and correct reporting, which was journalism’s original slogan in earlier days but has since become a very rare virtue.”
Now, you can mention the scientific method or semantics all day long, but the above confirms that skepticism is a negative way of thinking and not a virtue to me, which I knew long before I began to read the Meier material.
If you choose not to discuss this topic any longer, I understand. Sometimes people cannot agree about something until a later date, until more thinking and research has been done.
Thank you. Have a great day.
Dear Tony,
Language is a fragile chain of many words. The entire chain fails if one link fails. The language chain of the renewed teachings is very long. 26,000 some pages. And it’s not English.
You’ve brought into the light possibly the most serious and fundamental Meier-translation misunderstanding I can imagine and the fact that Michael suffers from it too is a matter of grave concern to me and I hope he’ll let me try to get to the bottom of it now, and not chip me for not being brief enough here on his blog.
Thanks for sticking with me, Tony. I admire your strength of convictions and your support of the good idea of being open minded and not fixed in concreted-in, rusted-on unshakably dogmatic views like the fake “skeptics” are who call themselves “skeptics” with the same audacious invalidity that makes them call us students of the re-newed teachings “Meier BELIEVERS”. Both English terms are deliberate (Bafath) opposites, calculated to confuse and deceive the planet, and keep us, as their swarming dumbed-down slaves, far from the liberating and empowering truth as long as humanly possible.
Quetzal discusses this international conspiracy here:
443. Das aber wird nicht alles sein, denn auch die Sprache wird verkommen, denn durch die schändliche Macht US-Amerikas werden die Sprachen der Welt amerikanisiert.
443. But that is not all, because also the language will deteriorate, because, through the shameful power of USAmerica, the languages of the world will be Americanised.
444. Der US-amerikanische Geheimplan ist seit dem Ersten Weltkrieg darauf ausgerichtet, insbesondere die deutsche Sprache auszurotten, und zwar im Zusammenhang mit den geheimen Weltherrschaftsplänen US-Amerikas.
444. The secret USAmerican plan, since the First World War, has been organized to eradicate the German language in particular, and indeed in conjunction with USAmerica’s secret, world-domination plans.
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/gaiaguys/meierv5p50-52.htm
And I know this is harsh, but the above is in the context of your ”America as the devil incarnate” selection of my translation you made on Michael’s “Another Step Closer” thread on December 14th so it will come as no surprise to you.
Billy also writes, “For very many words and concepts in the German language there exist no kind of words or concepts of equal value in the entire English language, as well as in many other Earthly languages, neither in the form that they are the same value as would be expressed in German, or that they could describe the German word-idea even slightly, even only in the most distant form.”
Ptaah adds, “Vom amerikanischen Englisch solltet ihr unbedingt absehen, denn es handelt sich um eine banausenhafte, ungebildete und unkultivierte Sprache, die nicht den Werten deiner Bücher und denen aller eurer Schriften entspricht.”
(You [translators] should unconditionally refrain from American English because it deals with a philistine, uneducated and uncultivated language, which does not correspond to the values of your books and those of all your texts.)
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/gaiaguys/meierv9p379,380english.htm
This medium you’ve got in front of you now – written English and American on a public forum about Billy Meier – is obviously a wonderful one for revealing/sharing our personal communication problems, in this case with not only literally universes of interested readers, but all of history for all time. If you feel a little exposed here sometimes, that might be why.
But this medium is also just about the worst I can imagine for trying to communicate with people who have very different traditional ideas about what individual words mean in general standard English and how that meaning is conveyed through sentence structures. I can state this as an independently verifiable, self-evident fact, given my work, which demands an encyclopaedic knowledge of the most contextually appropriate and geographically pertinent meanings (in order to translate) of both Billy’s idiosyncratic German, and “standard English”, which is not at all the same as modern U.S. American, a dialect I grew up with as my native language and used exclusively until I was sent overseas (by the military) when I turned 19.
So I, personally, am trying to communicate, here in my comments on Michael’s blog, in a sort of mongrel mix of informal modern English/American so that the REST of the modern English-reading world, many with it as a second language, can also understand Billy’s precious timeless teachings. For that I use a somewhat proscriptive set of dictionaries (which define words the way a translator normally has to, to be understood by the majority), as opposed to a descriptive set of dictionaries, which contain any and all geographical and culturally uses (and usually unknowing misuses) of the word in question, and often include the explanation, “correct through misuse”. (!?)
You’ll notice in my previous replies to your grossly erroneous assertion that “skepticism is not a virtue, but instead negativity” that I said, “Trying to covey simple ideas in the English language is like trying to nail custard pies to the wall.” “Unmöglich” (literally: “impossible”) is the word the Plejaren linguists settled upon. So forgive me when I struggle here.
First we have to agree about this following definition or we’re all utterly wasting our valuable time.
“Skepticism or scepticism is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
So the professional, self-styled “Skeptics” are not skeptics. Nor are we believers.
If Michael, you and I – who are obviously obstinate [1. Stubbornly adhering to an attitude, opinion, or course of action; obdurate. 2. Difficult to manage, control, or subdue; refractory. 3. Difficult to alleviate or cure] and aren’t shy about expressing our subjective, hard-won understandings of the world – could only sit down together for a day over food and beverages and talk face to face, instead of in print here, I think you’d soon realise that the meanings of words – just plain words – that you and I use, are so different from each other’s, that most of the fundamental areas of disagreement that you see from me about this wearisome “scepticism” debate would quickly show themselves to be simple cross-cultural language problems; it IS – at face value – a simple, classic, semantic argument.
And it has now become so entrenched that if either you or I were less peaceful, patient and strong willed, we’d be getting acrimonious. But I know that you won’t and you know I won’t because, we’re brothers and I think you’re sincere and you’ll take the time to follow my argument here and I hope, through my previously published work, you know all that about me too. And if you then still believe, as a professional astrologer, that scepticism as a negative, so be it, as long as you know that that’s NOT what Billy teaches, but the exact opposite. I’ll try to explain, and I ask for some slack here from the folks that don’t like to read long things.
Lengthy explanations about English USING English are impossible. Brief ones are even that much more impossibler.
I contend that, not only do we disagree about the meanings of the word “semantics” (meaning: word meanings), we also disagree about the meaning of the word “argument”! Happily, at least I can agree to disagree even if you can’t Tony, so no hard feelings. OK?
In an effort to find bog-standard meanings, I’m not using some obscure source or the gold-standard Oxford Unabridged English Dictionary. It’s just http://www.thefreedictionary.com and it’s the generally the primary (commonest) meanings I’m providing too.
SEMANTICS: “a branch of linguistics dealing with the study of meaning, including the ways meaning is structured in language and changes in meaning and form over time”
(This is what I’ve now devoted my life’s time and energy to in order to try to respect the Prophet with my modest translations and interpretations of his great German-language works.)
ARGUMENT: “A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood:
A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason:
A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.
The minor premise in a syllogism.
It’s important to know that our argument here is not at all disrespectful, angry or acrimonious. It’s an argument, not a quarrel. But the Bafath have now finally very successfully ALSO made “arguments” (good, necessary) MEAN “quarrels” (bad, unnecessary). That’s one of the most important issues of many that Billy tries to deal with here on Planet Upsidedown.
Non-acrimonious, friendly arguments and disputations are absolutely REQUIRED for us to collectively spiritually/consciously advance. It is not “unloving”. Quite the opposite. Billy teaches that “friends” who praise without loving and justified criticism are really our very worst enemies. Many folks have been unwittingly poisoned by the Bafath’s crafty FALSE happy-clappy “New Age”.
This following Meier quote seems to get inserted into my comments on every one of Michael’s blog entries, but, IMO, can’t ever be stressed enough:
“Tatsächlich ist das Gros der Menschen in ein Stadium verfallen, in dem sich das kommunizierende Sichauseinandersetzen mit dem Nächsten sowie das Diskutieren ebenso kaum oder nicht mehr finden lässt wie auch nicht das Sichauseinandersetzen mit den globalen Geschehen, denn diese Notwendigkeiten sind bereits vielen verlorengegangen.”
(Actually, the majority of humans has fallen into a state in which disputes participated in with neighbours, as well as discussions, are just as rarely or no longer to be found, as neither are quarrels with global events, because these NECESSITIES have already been mostly lost.)
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/gaiaguys/meier.56.ratgeber.htm
Right. Whew. That was the required background, and now to Heidi Peters’ 1995 translation which has misled you. Billy’s language has to be read very carefully in the original German if you don’t want to misunderstand. If you rely on a translation, not only do you have to read THAT even MORE carefully, but the translator has to have (according to Billy) a perfect command of both languages – obviously an impossibly high criterion, but he conveys his meaning well using that expression.
The FIGU dictionary
https://figu.org/dict/search/node/verbissen
was started as a result of the insuperable problems encountered during the failed professional translation for the Goblet of Truth. Heidi Peters was an American-speaking (marrying and migrating) native German lady, and amateur volunteer like all of us, and many of her preferred English terms of the ‘90s have since been seriously revised by FIGU because they are seriously misleading.
I’ll capitalise the words which I think are most responsible for misleading you about Billy’s teaching.
Für STURE Skeptiker stellen UFOs resp. UFO-Sichtungen in keiner Weise ein Problem dar, denn IHRER Meinung nach handelt es sich dabei und in jedem einzelnen Fall um nichts anderes, als nur um Täuschungen oder um Verwechslungen mit Wolken, Vogelschwärmen, Hubschraubern, Sportballons oder Wetterballons, Meteoriten, Sternschnuppen, Raketen, Satelliten oder Insektenschwärmen usw. usf. Die BÖSARTIGEN UNTER DEN SKEPTIKER UND KRITIERN behaupten gar, dass alles nur Schwindel-, Lügen-, Betrugs- oder Scharlatangeschichten wären, die entweder aus Spass, Geltungssucht oder Profitsucht in die Welt gesetzt würden.
http://www.figu.org/ch/verein/periodika/bulletin/1995/nr-02/ufos
(UFOs, respectively UFO sightings, represent no problem whatsoever for the OBSTINATE skeptics, because in THEIR opinion UFOs are, in every case, nothing but hoaxes, mistaken identities of clouds, flocks of birds, helicopters, sport or weather balloons, meteorites, shooting stars, rockets, satellites or swarms of insects, etc. MALICIOUS INDIVIDUALS AMONG THE SKEPTICS AND CRITICS even claim that the entire matter is nothing more than contrived stories of fraud, lies, deceit or charlatanry and are disseminated for fun, egoism or profit.)
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/FIGU_Bulletin_002
The operative word is “STUR” – here rendered as “obstinate” – NOT “Skeptiker”, being of course, “adherent of the philosophy of skepticism”, as described above.
Moving on …
http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de
This resource is a pretty good unbiased descriptive equivalent of the freedictionary, and offers the following:
stur (as adjectives and adverbs) – obstinate, cussed, wilful; willful [Am.], stolid
“Stur” isn’t in the FIGU dictionary, nor is it ever used anywhere in the Kelch der Wahrheit (Goblet of Truth), but “obstinate” (defined above) is – and its German original is NOT “stur”, it’s “vebissen”, which literally means “bitten” – acting like a mad dog infected with rabies through bites. More figuratively: rabid, dogged, or even more loosely, badly jarring/clashing as in the clashing of styles, colours, etc.
Now doesn’t that remind you of Derek and Phil and Steve and all the other professional “skeptics” who stole their name from the most noble foundations of science (Latin for “KNOWLEDGE”) in order to criminally corrupt and confuse the whole pig-ignorant planet and the American/English language victims in particular?
That’s why they insist on labelling US as the weak-minded, illogical “believers”, when in reality belief is only possible in the absence of logical evidence, which is their mendacious contention about Billy in the first place.
Tony, in order for you to get the central message of the Meier material (Age of Knowledge vs. Age of Belief) you have to KNOW that English words, as they are used for the Meier translations, are often seriously misunderstood by native speakers, and – the same way that the Swiss FIGU folks say they need to carry around German dictionaries to understand what Billy is saying to them – the NON-German speakers have to carry around dictionaries in their native language to understand the translations of Billy’s abstruse material. And that goes DOUBLY for English. Double it again and add a bit for “American”.
My creational obligation is to cut your food for you into pieces to can fit into your mouths. That is to say, convey the apportioned truth as I know it, to those who seek it in honesty, in manageably sized doses.
If I wrote more on this topic I’d be chewing your food for you, and not only would you then lack many of the nutrients (not to mention the taste and texture) that I’d ingest instead of you, the whole exercise would be grossly insulting and disrespectful to everybody, quite disgusting and only produce a vomit-like, baby-food material.
Striving to strive to learn means that each and every single step of the long steep ladder must be taken by the individual student, even the tiniest ones, which are words.
Thank you, Tony. You have a great day too.
Cheers!
Hi Dyson,
Ok, let’s agree to disagree on this point. Obviously, being gullible or believing with blind faith is idiotic, but being skeptical with a closed mind to any degree is also idiotic. Being skeptical with an open mind is also incorrect behavior for learning because it is unnecessary for reaching the facts.
My definition of skeptical is, “marked by or given to doubt”. I have taught some serious subjects in my life, and 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 that what I’m teaching them is correct as soon as possible.
I understand the usage of the word skeptical in regards to the scientific method, but 99.99% percent of the people we deal with are not scientists, are they? But even scientists should not doubt, but rather they should question intelligently. So, from a practical and wise view point, I never recommend that anyone be skeptical, because to MOST of the people that word means to doubt, and many times to doubt extremely with a very closed mind.
So, for example, if I was to attempt to educate some people about the Meier case, I would never suggest that they were to be skeptical about it at any point in the discussion, that would not be a wise thing to do, that would only hinder them.
If you disagree with the above, that’s fine, but I think we should move on to different topics at this time, if you don’t mind.
Thank you Dyson. Have a marvelous day.
Fine Tony.
We can amicably agree to disagree about 1.) the views you hold about belief v. doubt/skepticism, and 2.) the diametrically opposing views Billy (and science and I and others familiar with Billy’s material) hold.
But you can see how this friendly dispute engendered a lot of information that otherwise would never have emerged. Thanks for that.
Cheers!
Hi Dyson,
I didn’t want to discuss this topic any longer, because we are going in circles with it, but because of your last post, let me ask you to do this. The next time you speak with Billy, ask him if it’s necessary to have doubt in the learning process. Ask if one is trying to learn truth, is it necessary to doubt the truth first. Clearly, my position is that doubt must be removed first before truth can be learned correctly, especially very controversial and profound truth.
Thank you.
Science, if we use the word in the sense that a scientist would use it, is relatively new when viewing our history. With the exception of mathematics, there is little science in Antiquity and the Middle Ages that would be comparable to modern standards. The scientist is primarily concerned with basic principles describing nature being subject to repeated experimentation or appropriate observation. Thus, the growth of science is an inductive process where new increments of knowledge evolves existing principles. The application of science to machines for example is a deductive process as we start with the principle and proceed to the mechanism. Therefore, it should not be mistaken, with looking at things historically, the fine works of craftsmen and inventors able to be done were largely to reasons primarily unknown to them.
Thus, the scientist must get his due as well as the engineer and craftsman. Though we should not also be oblivious to the fact and special meaning to the word science as typed above or the revolutions such advances usually cause.
We in the modern era tend to have a passion to put things into their proper place when our ancestors thought differently of things. I hope this helps at least set up a framework even if the austere definition of science, as a scientist would hold to, does not necessarily preclude everyone’s involvement with self-observed growth or evolution.
Thanks Tony,
Ah ha! I think I may have finally stumbled upon our stumbling block enough to discover where it actually is. I hope. I guess I still haven’t made myself clear, though not for any want of trying my best. It’s an ENGLISH problem.
(Damn Bafath!)
When I say that one should initially doubt and question a statement of putative “fact” from a possibly untrustworthy external source – as opposed to unskepically and readily BELIEVING it – you evidently thought (believed?) that I was saying that one should experience SELF-doubt, and presumably the anxiety and confusion which often accompanies it. How could you possibly think that? No. Naturally, SELF-doubt is terribly destructive and should be overcome, through the might of your thoughts, as quickly as possible along with all those other normally accompanying negative feelings which are engendered by our own often unconscious but mighty thoughts, which we are obliged to learn to control. The word “doubt”, in THAT sense (Zweifel) is mentioned no less than 16 times in Macht der Gedanken, and in the above negative (self-doubt) sense. The book explains things in detail.
(From Ch XII)
“Hat der Mensch einmal seinen ureigenen sowie den schöpferischen Sinn seines Lebens gefunden, dann vermag er sich derart selbst zu führen, dass er zur Erreichung des erkannten Sinnes mental einen geraden Weg einschlägt und sich bemüht, so wenig Fehler wie möglich zu begehen. In dieser Form bemüht sich der Mensch, so wenig wie möglich nach links oder rechts auszubrechen oder in Richtungen zu schauen, die devolutiv und nicht evolutiv sind. Das aber ist verbunden mit der Notwendigkeit, dass Ängste und Zweifel rigoros ausgeschlossen werden, weil sie böse auflösende Elemente sind, die jede gerade Linie jeder evolutiven Bemühung aufzubrechen oder zu verbiegen vermögen und alle Anstrengungen nutzlos, unwirksam und zunichte machen können. Gedanken der Angst und des Zweifels führen niemals zu Fortschritt und Erfolg, folglich durch sie niemals etwas Positivwertiges, sondern in allen Graden nur Negatives erreicht werden kann. Angst und Zweifel sind derart negativ wie Hass, Unfrieden, Ehrlosigkeit, Ungerechtigkeit und Unehrlichkeit usw., denn sie führen immer zu Versagen und Verlust in irgendeiner Form. Treten irgendwelche dieser Aspekte auf, wobei besonders Angst und Zweifel eine besonders negative Rolle spielen, dann enden alle guten Gedanken und verlieren sich in einem Wirrwarr von unerfüllbarer Ziellosigkeit. Selbst starke Gedanken enden in dem Augenblick, wenn sich Angst und Zweifel in sie ein¬ schleichen. Dadurch gehen sowohl die aktive Kraft und alle sonstige Energie der Gedanken verloren, so aber auch die erarbeitete Erkenntnis in bezug auf den ureigenen und den schöpferischen Sinn des Lebens.”
(Once the human being has found his/her very own sense of his/her life, as well as the creational sense of his/her life, he/she is then able to manage himself/herself such that, for the sake of the achievement of the recognised sense, he/she mentally follows a straight way and makes an effort to make as few errors as possible. In this form the human being makes an effort to swerve as little as possible left or right and makes an effort to look as little as possible in the directions which are devolutive and not evolutive. But that is bound with the necessity of rigorously excluding anxiety and doubt because they are evil elements of disintegration which are able to break or bend every straight line of every evolutive effort, and can make all efforts useless, ineffective and can ruin them. Anxious and doubtful thoughts never lead to progress and success; consequently, nothing which has a positive value can ever be achieved as a result of them, rather, at all levels, only that which is negative. Anxiety and doubt are as negative as hate, unpeace, absence of honour, unfairness and unhonesty, and so forth, because they always lead to failure and loss in some form. If any of these aspects arise, whereby especially anxiety and doubt play an especially negative role, then all good thoughts end and lose themselves in a chaos of unfulfillable purposelessness. Even strong thoughts end the moment anxiety and doubt creep into them. The active power as well as all other energy of the thoughts is thereby lost, as is the achieved cognition concerning one’s very own sense of the life and the creational sense of the life.)
Please bear in mind that of course the above comes with a very big condition: “Once the human being has found his/her very own sense of his/her life, as well as the creational sense of his/her life …” I don’t know many people who fit into that category yet.
I’m sorry to be so “disagreeable”, my friend, but I do NOT think I, in particular, AM “going around in circles”. Quite the contrary, in fact. My path is Billy’s ancient one here; as straight as a pool cue, narrow as a knife, and, unfortunately, also “hemmed with wound-tearing thorns”. The Creation is the truth, according to OM. Immutable. And the truth is hard, often abrasive. It liberates and empowers. But not unlike fire, it can give a nasty burn to those unfamiliar with its nature. But I get the distinct sense that you ARE going in circles around this topic, which – I remind you – as belief v. knowledge, is THE central plank of Billy’s current campaign here on Earth, so it’s not to be brushed aside lightly if Michael and you do have the most fundamental possible misunderstanding about the very cornerstone upon which all else – in so far as consciousness-evolution is concerned – is to be constructed.
First of all, you also have a very erroneous conception of the nature of my relationship with Billy Meier. “The next time you speak with Billy…” HUH? I live in Tasmania, Tony. And WELL below the poverty line these dangerous post-9/11 days. I’ve never met Billy. I’ve certainly never spoken with him on the phone, etc. either, and I can hardly imagine any reason why I ever would. But his comprehensive, published works are slowly becoming quite familiar to me and I will tell you (trust my integrity), without having to go to Switzerland and waste Billy’s inconceivably precious time and energy, exactly what he’d say about “doubt”, as in doubting the claims of others and readily taking things like that on faith. It’s the central theme of most of his books.
Billy says, “Don’t believe ANYBODY, not even me.”
https://figu.org/shop/schriften/informationsschriften/those-who-lie-about-contacts?language=en
And do you know the final message to humanity from the Lord Buddha, who was also, like Billy, a real, ET-related Prophet, but of a different spirit lineage?
“DOUBT EVERYTHING. Find your own light.” – Last words of Gotama Buddha, in Theravada tradition.
It’s always the same unwelcome renewed teaching of the inconvenient truth that these guys try to deliver to us, and Buddah’s was much less falsified than those of the prophets of Billy’s spirit lineage.
You ask, “If one is trying to learn truth, is it necessary to doubt the truth first?”
If you are trying to LEARN the truth – what the truth IS – then obviously you don’t already KNOW what the truth is, so how can accept something, without doubt, AS the truth until you KNOW what the truth is, except with your BELIEF?? And then you still don’t know what’s true, you just have more stuff you believe in.
In strict English: how in the world can you doubt that of which you are as yet unaware?
This is not a rhetorical question. It frankly seems to me that your most basic logic is fundamentally, fatally flawed, Tony. Please correct me if I’m wrong, or if the language I try my hardest to use (standard English) is so very different in the meanings of common words than those you have, that I’m still not getting your point here.
“Wer die Wahrtheit nicht mit seinem Verstande, sondern mit Glauben erfassen will, der kann die Früchte aus ihr nicht ernten.” (He who will not comprehend the truth with his reason, but with his belief, cannot harvest the fruit from it.) – OM 53:26.
You write, “Clearly, my position is that doubt must be removed first before truth can be learned correctly, especially very controversial and profound truth.”
Yes, of course, but a bit of self-doubt won’t entirely negate the learning of, for instance, the truth about how to overcome self-doubt, anxiety, confusion, etc. Logical? I’ve never ever been referring to “SELF-doubt” in my support of logical, open-minded scepticism. I reiterate that I was referring to it in the way Buddha did with his last breath.
But I certainly agree with you about not wanting to discuss this topic any longer with you because you don’t seem to be able to climb onto the straight and narrow with it for some reason, and continue circling. But, since you asked me to ask what Billy would say, and I don’t have to in order to know, I felt obliged to give you his answer. And I threw in Buddha’s views for free. Of course if the above book excerpt still makes you doubt all the evidence I’ve given you, I might ask you why you’re so being so obstinately sceptical of Billy’s teaching that I’ve tried to convey for you, and just go to Switzerland and ask him yourself if that material step somehow would put your mind at rest about the nature of your feelings about belief v. knowledge.
I hope I’ve made that clear this time, mate, and not been unnecessarily tactless while trying to avoid the oil-and-balsam diplomacy which is expected, as their inalienable right, by believers.
Hang in there!
🙂
Cheers!
Hi Dyson,
Again, with all due respect, and I must ask you to speak to me with respect. If you want peace, I will give you peace, but if you want war (of words) I will give you that.
You are the one going in confused circles. You may be a pretty good translator, but you do not understand what you are translating very well, in my opinion.
I suggest that you read very carefully what is said concerning doubt in your last post, because we certainly disagree with what is said.
This is my last reply to you concerning this point. We understand this totally differently, and in my opinion I am correct, and you are certainly incorrect. It has been a long and not too interesting discussion to me, but I’m sure it has been a very good discussion for others to witness and study.
Michael’s post was absolutely correct, and all of mine were too. I know that you will never agree with that statement, so let’s move on to different topics.
No offence taken, no offence given.
Have a great day.
Hi Dyson,
You wrote – “And do you know the final message to humanity from the Lord Buddha, who was also, like Billy, a real, ET-related Prophet, but of a different spirit lineage?”
According to Billy, Buddha had nothing to do with ET’s, nor did he have an ET originating spirit-form.
Where do you get your info?
=============================================================
Hi Billy,
Thinking about Gautama Buddha and how he discovered the truth without any ET contact, and looking at the spiritual development of us earth beings (except a few) now, and extrapolating this to Siddhartha Gautama’s time 2500 years ago, it makes little sense that Gautama Buddha had a “jump” in consciousness in just one lifetime to a level of a prophet.
Is it possible to make a huge leap in consciousness of several millennium ahead of the rest in just one lifetime?
No, that’s not possible.
Gautama Buddha discovered some truths, but he also figured out things which were/are not in line with reality.
——————————————————————
Who exactly is the Buddha, I have searched the forum and found no answers. Was he a contactee?, and what is ‘Nirvana’ given in the Buddist Scriptures, how can it be related to the Spiritual Teachings of our Space friends?
Answer
Buddha was a prophet, but he had no contacts with ETs.
Nirvana is the “plane of release” (in German: Erlösungsebene). It does not exist. There is no relation to the spiritual teaching. Nirvana is wishful thinking and fantasy.
—————————————————————
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_205
20. This also applies to legends woven around him(Buddha), which were invented by his followers to make more of him than he really was, namely a simple yet educated person, but who was not very informed of and not well-educated in the real spiritual interests and in the spiritual-creative laws and their relationships and their workings and who even misunderstood many of the facts of the teachings and also wrongly taught these as a result.
Thanks very much Bruce. I stand well and truly corrected! I might have been confusing Buddha with one of the other ancient Eastern religious leaders mentioned as a true prophet in one of Billy’s books. But I’m not convinced it doesn’t say that somewhere.
But I always like to be corrected when I’m wrong!
Cheers!
How can we be sure that Buddha did not have contact with the group of ET (which are not classified as ET as they have been earthbound for centuries) under the Himalayas? This may explain why Buddha was only partially right. Billy did say out of all religions, Buddhism was the closest to the truth.
Yo, Bruce!
BINGO! I KNEW I’d read it somewhere! It only took me a month to stumble across too.
🙂
re: https://theyflyblog.com/regarding-iigs-retraction-of-defamatory-claims-against-billy-meier/12/18/2013/comment-page-1#comment-16930
I wrote, “And do you know the final message to humanity from the Lord Buddha, who was also, like Billy, a real, ET-related Prophet, but of a different spirit lineage? “DOUBT EVERYTHING. Find your own light.” – Last words of Gotama Buddha, in Theravada tradition.”
Now lookit this:
OM 20:95 – “Es waren gegeben den Menschengeschlechtern und Völkern der Erde Propheten von alters her, so also ward gesendet der Henoch und der Elja, der Jesaia und der Jeremia, und der Jmmanuel und der Mohammed in direkter Folge und steter neupersönlicher Wiedergeburt, nebst dem Johannes und Elias und dem Hjob und allem Heer der anderen Rechtschaffenen und Gerechten, wie sie da auch waren der Buddha, der Zoroaster und der Babatschi und andere.”
(Prophets were given to the generations of men and the nations of Earth since times of old, thus Enoch and Elia, Josiah and Jeremiah, and Jmmanuel and Mohammed in direct succession were sent and constant reincarnation, in addition to John and Elias and Job and the entire army of the other righteous and just, as also were BUDDHA, Zoroaster and Babatschi and others.) [my caps]
(Not sure of all the accepted English spellings of names here.)
And I don’t know why there’s the contradiction either. To me, in German, it seems very much to say that “Buddha, Zoroaster and Babatschi and others” were “also” “given” (“gegeben” by the ETs) to humankind. Perhaps it just got altered for some important future reason like the “Zionists” being replaced by the “secret services”, the extraterrestrials being replaced by boards and ropes, and the frauds, attention-seekers and schizophrenics being replaced with MILABs, and another contact I can’t mention being edited with an insertion.
Confusing.
Cheers!
Above – reads: “in direct succession were sent and constant reincarnation”
WRONG. (Sorry.)
SHOULD read: “were sent in direct succession and constant reincarnation”.
Hi Dyson,
I replied to you yesterday, but I guess Michael thought what I said was too harsh, confrontational, or maybe the post didn’t go through.
Anyway, I thought because you wrote me, that you deserve a response.
I think that you are misunderstanding the teaching concerning doubt that you posted. I hope that you don’t think you are always correct. I think you know that we all make mistakes.
So, I suggest that you study this matter a little more until you realize that my position is correct. If you never do, so be it. I’m sure we will not agree on every point of discussion.
You can have the last word on this matter if you so choose.
Thank you. Have a great day
Thanks Tony, and I’m not offended. I’m glad to be given an opportunity to have everybody nail their colours to the proverbial mast. I DO treat you with respect by taking you to be intellectually robust enough to accept that which I mean to be loving constructive criticism about your misunderstanding of the crux of the material. If I treated you like a hothouse flower and not a grown man, THAT would be disrespectful.
And I’m happy to admit I was wrong about Buddha having ET contact, for what that’s worth. I look forward to telling my devout Buddhist friend in Sydney that I was mistaken!
It still doesn’t explain Billy’s “don’t believe” quote.
To me, it just seems the bleeding obvious that if you don’t KNOW, but ACCEPT something as DOUBTLESSLY TRUE, then you MUST BELIEVE.
We wouldn’t be having this problem in German.
But if you and Michael actually believe/think/feel/assume/accept that you have to readily believe – WITHOUT ANY DOUBT! – that something is already true in order to start to learn whether it IS true (?????), then either your use of words is extraordinarily unconventional or you’ve both somehow missed the simple central message of the entire mission, being: the Old Age of Belief must give way to the New Golden Age of Knowledge.
Please – Bruce – somebody – correct me if I’m somehow wrong about that because I know a lot of people who have been wasting a lot of time for the past several years, Billy included.
Peace (in wisdom)
On the issues of doubt, skepticism, etc., it seems to me that it can be simple enough to regard a claim of any kind with…neutrality. Of course the reason that claims are questioned is that they may seem “extraordinary”, outrageous, etc. History is full of such things…many of which have now been proven to be false, as well as those that proved to be authentic and true.
However, once a claim is made, the process should simply be one of neutral, logical, objective testing to determine the facts. That’s why I say that skepticism isn’t necessary when one approaches things scientifically, neutrally. At the very least, any understandable skepticism (as opposed to the ridiculously prejudicial, institutionalized kind) is superseded by the scientific process of evaluation, testing, etc. So it doesn’t really matter what the claim is.
Therefore, no arsenal of special skeptical weaponry designed to deal with “paranormal” or “supernatural” claims is necessary. Are such claims really so threatening to the beliefs of those who call themselves skeptics that science isn’t sufficient? Why bring a prejudicial belief system to the table?
We now have evidence that such an approach actually hogties the skeptics themselves when something as incontrovertible as the WCUFO evidence is authenticated. Where can they go from here? If truth and integrity truly are their guiding principles then they simply move to acceptance and acknowledgment of the truth…thereby gaining entrance to the non-exclusive club of truth seekers who neither gloat nor chastise them for their late arrival.
After all, there are none among us who haven’t, or won’t, at some point show up late for the party should we allow doubts and…skepticism to distract us from an objective search for the truth.
What a mental image you’ve given…one of Phil (I’ve stolen thousands of Billy’s photos) Langdon, Derek (don’t you know who I am) Bartholomew and Steve (I’m not accepting your post cause you swore) Robbins ALL HOGTIED, LOL. You forgot the proverbial apple in the mouth cause they aren’t talking.
Hi Michael,
Beautifully said and 100% correct. Really, all it takes is a logical open minded personal investigation into the Meier case to prove to oneself of its authenticity. There is more than enough evidence provided for this. People should just stop being so damn mentally lazy and do their homework. It doesn’t make sense to choose to be so ignorant of such great truth.
Thank you. You are truly a great champion of truth.
I strongly suggest that every proponent of so-called “healthy skepticism/doubt” read and STUDY the following great spiritual teaching.
In my opinion, it cannot be explained any better than this.
Once the human being has found his/her very own sense of his/her life, as well as the creational sense of his/her life, he/she is then able to manage himself/herself such that, for the sake of the achievement of the recognised sense, he/she mentally follows a straight way and makes an effort to make as few errors as possible. In this form the human being makes an effort to swerve as little as possible left or right and makes an effort to look as little as possible in the directions which are devolutive and not evolutive. But that is bound with the necessity of rigorously excluding anxiety and doubt because they are evil elements of disintegration which are able to break or bend every straight line of every evolutive effort, and can make all efforts useless, ineffective and can ruin them. Anxious and doubtful thoughts never lead to progress and success; consequently, nothing which has a positive value can ever be achieved as a result of them, rather, at all levels, only that which is negative. Anxiety and doubt are as negative as hate, unpeace, absence of honour, unfairness and unhonesty, and so forth, because they always lead to failure and loss in some form. If any of these aspects arise, whereby especially anxiety and doubt play an especially negative role, then all good thoughts end and lose themselves in a chaos of unfulfillable purposelessness. Even strong thoughts end the moment anxiety and doubt creep into them. The active power as well as all other energy of the thoughts is thereby lost, as is the achieved cognition concerning one’s very own sense of the life and the creational sense of the life.
Dear Michael and Tony,
If I repeat myself, by trying to pull ideas together which seem not to have been read, hidden as they now are in all the verbiage, it’s in the spirit of loving enlightenment and consistent with Billy’s axiom that “repetition is the mother of all learning”. I hope to explain the below simple declarative sentence, if not for you, maybe for your other readers. It’s worth doing. Please bear with me.
Most basically: “Skeptics” (as in these professional debunkers) is a gross misnomer, so don’t trash true skepticsim, which is, by definition, “DOUBT regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere” and remains the cornerstone of all deductive reasoning, as opposed to taking things on faith without any doubts.
Michael, you write, “On the issues of doubt, skepticism, etc., it seems to me that it can be simple enough to regard a claim of any kind with…neutrality.”
In my way of thinking, neutrality requires a balance of polarities. It means that, without preconceived notions, biases, desires, etc., you remain open to logical acceptance on one hand, but maintain your healthy (REAL) skepticism (doubt about the truth of the claim, not SELF-doubt/anxiety/confusion, etc.) about the claim you wish to test. If you have NO doubts, how is that neutral? Why are you TESTING then if you have no doubts? HOW can you test? Aren’t you testing your DOUBTS to see if they are verified or negated by your tests? That’s how (REAL) science works. That’s what Billy teaches. Don’t believe. Know through initially doubting logically unsupported claims until you can logically prove them one way or another to yourself through your own deductive reasoning – our own supporting logic.
You continue, “However, once a claim is made, the process should simply be one of neutral, logical, objective testing to determine the facts.”
That is precisely what I’ve been arguing all along, as you can read. Whereas you two SEEM to me to be arguing that something that you don’t know to be true must initially be accepted, without any doubt, as true before it can be further studied. I don’t get that at all. It seems crazy to me, like religious doublethink, which I made the effort to describe here for you last October 28th.
https://theyflyblog.com/credibility-commits-stuicide/10/24/2013/comment-page-1#comment-15517.
But you wrote, “those who CALL themselves skeptics”. So they only “call” themselves that but are not REAL skepics, who would be adherents of the virtuous skepicism which unavoidably forms the most fundamental framework of the scientific method, as previously described.
Please. One more time in case you missed it in the clutter:
On the 24th, I wrote, “First we have to agree about this following definition or we’re all utterly wasting our valuable time. – ‘Skepticism or scepticism is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or DOUBT regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.’”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
And I got NO objections to that definition at the time, so I was forced to assume you both DID agree with the encyclopaedia.
But I see that you obviously DON’T agree with the conventional definition of scepticism after all, being, “DOUBT regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere”. And – if that wasn’t already bad enough! – you have apparently fallen right into the cunning “newspeak” trap the Dark Order’s language-abusers set when they started calling themselves “skeptics”, and us, “believers”. George Orwell spends 17 pages of his appendix of his famous and prophetic dystopia novel, “1984”, explaining in great detail how and why it all works. It starts on page 376.
Free download: http://libcom.org/files/1984.pdf
George Bush (et al) told us that 9/11 was done by Arabs criminally conspiring to hijack passenger jets, using box cutters. Before he decided (believed) that was a proven fact, it was an outrageous conspiracy THEORY. And then he told us:
“We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror.” November 10, 2001 – President Bush Speaks to United Nations
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/tolerate.htm
(Recall that Billy told us the so-called “War on Terror” was really another religious war between Christianity and Islam.)
But in this Orwellian world of 2014, to be a “conspiracy theorist” is to be a tin-foil-hat-wearing paranoid schizophrenic. And a “skeptic” has become a champion of unbiased reason.
And anyone who is the slightest bit sceptical of the “swamp gas” explanations for unidentified flying objects is a “true believer”.
And the official motto of the grotesquely illegal U.S. “detention facility” (“torture prison”[Billy’s apt expression]/concentration camp) at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is: “Honor Bound to Defend Freedom”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/59498-3×2-940×627.jpg
Give me a break, guys.
And I hope you read Quetzal’s information, also from my comment of the 24th, about the English language conspiracy.
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/gaiaguys/meierv5p50-52.htm
Billy explained the following, on February 3rd, 2007, and he basically endorses the sworn testimony of us ignored Disclosure Project whistleblowers. Billy also endorses plain civilian common sense, which would manifestly be LACKING if you are a self-styled anti-truth “skeptic”, which should never be confused with being a REAL skeptic. I’ve translated it for you. Please read it. It’s very important.
„Die Verdunkelungs-, Verleumdungs- und Verschleierungsmachenschaften vieler Regierungen, Militärs und Geheimdienste usw. verschiedener Länder begannen also schon sehr früh, und zwar viel früher, als von den reellen UFO-Forschern allgemein angenommen wird. Gemäss den Erklärungen der Plejadier/Plejaren waren aber speziell die Amerikaner in dieser Hinsicht führend, wobei diese auch jene waren, welche schon früh handfeste Beweise der Existenz ausserirdischer Flugkörper in Händen hielten, und zwar nicht erst seit dem Roswell-Fall. … Nicht genug damit, dass sie – und gewiss auch bestimmte Regierungs- und Militär- kräfte – Antifilme gegen Ausserirdische finanziell unterstützen und fördern, nein, sie scheuen sich auch nicht, allerlei Horrorgeschehen vorzutäuschen, wie z.B. Entführungen durch Ausserirdische sowie Menschen- und Tierverstümmelungen usw. usf. Auch in Sachen Kornkreisfälschungen sind sie nicht untätig, und zwar in den verschiedensten Ländern. Natürlich gibt es bezüglich all dieser Dinge auch Scharlatane, Betrüger und Schwindler auch jeder anderen Gattung, doch dürften die Geheimdienstmachenschaften wohl die schlimmsten sein, denn gerade durch diese werden Desinformationen erstellt, durch die die wirklichen und tatsächlichen Geschehen in diesen Beziehungen verteufelt und lächerlich gemacht werden. Natürlich gibt es bezüglich all dieser Dinge auch Scharlatane, Betrüger und Schwindler auch jeder anderen Gattung, doch dürften die Geheimdienstmachenschaften wohl die schlimmsten sein, denn gerade durch diese werden Desinformationen erstellt, durch die die wirklichen und tatsächlichen Geschehen in diesen Beziehungen verteufelt und lächerlich gemacht werden.“
The darkening, slandering and obscuring machinations of many governments, militaries and secret services, etc., of different countries, began therefore already very early, and indeed much earlier than would be generally accepted by the real UFO researchers. According to the explanation of the Plejadian/Plejaren, however, especially the Americans were leading in this respect, whereby these were also those who held the proof of the existence of extraterrestrial flying objects tight in their hands already early, and indeed not first since the Roswell case. … Were that not enough, that they [being the secret services] – and certain also determined government and military powers – financially support and demand contra films against the extraterrestrials, no, they do not shy from simulating all kinds of horror-events, like, for example, abductions by extraterrestrials, as well as human and animal mutilations and so on and so forth. They are also not inactive in matters relating to the falsification of crop circles, and indeed in the most differing countries. Naturally, in respect of all these things there are also charlatans, deceivers and swindlers and every other sort, yet the secret service machinations are probably indeed the worst, because it is precisely through these that disinformation is established, through which the genuine and actual events in this regard are bedeviled and made laughable.
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/gaiaguys/meierv7p438-444.htm
Calling themselves skeptics doesn’t make them skeptics, nor does calling us believers make us believers. Do we call ourselves believers? I’m certainly not one. I don’t unhesitatingly believe things. I’m proud to call myself a skeptical thinker, otherwise I never would have embraced the Meier material the way I did because I would have had no doubts about the mendacious and ridiculous party line that it’s all just swamp gas and charlatanism. LOGIC? Didn’t you guys have to first DOUBT the “official story” that UFO are bunk, in order to have a REASON to look further and maybe even find some supporting logical evidence which proved your doubts to be well-founded, like Meier’s beamship photos? Isn’t that logical to you?
On the 19th I wrote to Tony, “The pros are not skeptics, they’re mostly cunning stooges and/or gullible dupes.”
And he promptly replied, “I do agree with what you said regarding the ‘pros’.”
So can we at least agree that these professional Skeptibunkers are NOT real skeptics?
On the 21st I wrote, “The same way English has been abused so we “believe” in unidentified flying objects (making us stupid nut-cases), the word “skeptic”, which simply means “one who has trouble simply taking things on faith”, now seems to mean “dogmatically closed minded, paid anti-truth-campaigner”.”
So can we at least agree that these people “who CALL themselves “skeptics'” have no greater entitlement to that label than I would If a called myself a jet fighter pilot? This is NOT skepticism.
So, Michael, after you imply as much by writing, “those who CALL themselves skeptics”, WHY oh WHY do you then go on to write, “That’s why I say that skepticism isn’t necessary when one approaches things scientifically, neutrally.”
So – having seemingly fallen into the trap – you reject “doubt” about a claim (true scepticism) because you inseparably associate it with these criminals who have adopted that name in order for people to do just what you’ve done and reject true neutrality.
It’s deliberate and orchestrated language-abuse which unavoidably becomes idea-abuse and makes English impossible to think in. We need words – with agreed upon definitions – in order to parse our discrete ideas so they can be rearranged into useful constructs. Without that we might as well be a pack of howler monkeys.
I did the best I could in English, and I imagine you guys did too.
Salome.
P.S. Tony, I hope you read the entire book I translated for you that you’re re-quoting my above excerpt from out of context. Did you?