Donate Button
Thursday, March 28, 2024

The Billy Meier UFO contacts โ€” singularly authentic โ€” ongoing for 80 years โ€” the key to our future survival

Skeptics: Not so Sharpe after All

For the sake of the context of what follows, on January 31, I sent an email (copied below*) to every group on this list for which there was an associated email address.

To date, I received responses from two of the representatives. The following interaction is between David Sharpe, the one representative who expressed the willingness to discuss the Billy Meier case with me. To date, I don’t know which college David is associated with.

I don’t know if he’s a student of Prof. Peter Boghossian or not. But certainly if this is the kind of thinking that Prof. Boghossian is trying actively to convert religious believers, or anyone else, to for that matter, it’s merely substituting one ridiculous religion for another.

Hi David,

Thanks for your responses. First, what stood out for me in my first pass through, were the huge number of assumptions that you make without any substantiations whatsoever for them and the complete lack of specificty in responding to the very specific points that I made. This seems to be because you had already made up your mind before hand that this “just couldn’t be true”, i.e. you approached the matter as a skepticโ€ฆand not as a scientist.

I’ll insert my specific responses to your comments below.

DS: You have a large and extensive website, so forgive me for not being able to take the time to parse over its entirety. I think the most relevant question is simply this: have you provided enough evidence to convince a rationally skeptical man? Have you met the criteria I laid out in the previous email? Have you established that extraterrestrial visits are more likely than any alternative explanation?

MH: Actually, I have a large and extensive website AND a large and extensive blog. Since the first thing you admit is that you didn’t “take the time” to read them in their entirety, you again confirm the inescapable fact that you dealt with the entire matter prejudicially. Ironically, most skeptics would gleefully point out that most “extraordinary claims” suffer from little evidence and even less credible evidence.

Obviously, logically, you destroy the credibility of your own questions, i.e. assumptions before you start.

DS: As for the alleged eyewitnesses: I’m afraid that the eyewitnesses you cite are no more convincing than the alleged eyewitness accounts written down in the Bible.

MH: I’m going to be polite in my responses. Please tell usโ€ฆwhy? How do you compare referring to a mythological book, from thousands of years ago, with real, living people within this and the last century?

DS: It’s entirely possible that your eyewitnesses accounts were fabricated whole cloth, either by the alleged eyewitnesses themselves or by you just making up names and dates and accounts.

MH: It’s entirely possible that you’re not who you say you are. In fact, I was unable to find you in an internet search. Does it mean that you don’t exist, are someone other than who you claim to be, etc.? And – of course – since the names (and in many cases photographs) of those witnesses are listed, and many of them have contributions that are available online and in publications, why would any sensible, intellignet objective person make such an absurd statement?

DS: I admit that this isn’t guaranteed to be the case by any means, but it doesn’t need to be. All it needs to be is a more probable explanation than alien visits, and I think it is.

MH: I left the above two sentences to stand on their own since they are so embarrassingly devoid of logic, credibilty and substantiation as to be self-evident.

DS: I explained why I think, a priori, that alien visitation is extremely unlikely in my previous email. I know you’ve offered some counterarguments to my points, but I don’t see any which sufficiently refute my basic a priori estimate of alien visitation probability.

MH: Since I’ve made counter arguments supported with extensive, specific information, you’re not “seeing any” doesn’t tell us anything of course. Why didn’t you choose to refer to and refute any of the specific examples?

DS: You can’t simply get around current knowledge of physics by wishfully hoping that it will be different in the future – we have pretty damn good reason to think that light speed is the limit, and hence, alien visits are really unlikely by virtue of physics alone.

MH: How do you know that? Are you a physicist? And should we accept your own wishful thinking in place of evidence? Did you not read the comments of Prof. David Froning, who indeed is a physicist? If you disagree with him, why didn’t you explain how and why, instead of just saying that “we have pretty damn good reason to think that light speed is the limit”?

DS: The radar reports you cite are also not terribly convincing. A million different things can cause radar blips to appear, including but not limited to glitches in the hardware or software of the radar installation, weather, birds, experimental aircraft, airborne debris, et cetera. Or the story could be entirely made up. Again, while no one of these explanations is *extremely* likely, all are more likely than alien visitation.

MH: So, without any substantiation, such as even pertaining to your own background in radar technology, or citing instances when 238 (military) radar sightings were previously shown to be just bogus blips, you’d like to dismiss the report. And then you offer your childish speculation that it’s all “made up”?

Do you not see that your claims and arguments are, in comparison to all of the evidence provided to you, completely wild, unsubstantiated, devoid of logic, reason andโ€ฆcredibility? In fact, it’s your responses that are “made up” and transparently devoid of mature, logical thinking, obviously because the voluminous evidence is so intolerable to you.

DS: In regards to aliens showing themselves: Aliens need not show themselves to individuals, whether it be to Mr. Meier or to political leaders. All an alien has to do is show up in the middle of Times Square, and he’d be photographed by thousands and thousands of people. Pretty soon, the media would be on the scene, and they could broadcast interviews with the aliens on worldwide television. I see no reason why this would cause the panic and mass suicides that you propose – sure, some people would be pretty shaken up, but I see nothing to suggest that most people are so fundamentally disturbed that the existence of alien life would cause them to kill themselves! You can’t postulate such a ridiculous claim without ample evidence, and I don’t see any evidence you could possibly drum up for that claim. I know I certainly wouldn’t be bothered at all to discover that aliens were being interviewed on TV.

MH: Let’s grant you that to acknowledge the existence of what you call “aliens”, a term I never once used in my communications with you since I don’t like the comic book connotations associated it and I prefer to use “extraterrestrial”, perhaps may not be so terrifying for the majority of people on Earth. Why then is it so threatening to you, a college educated person, to actually examine and address the voluminous, specific evidence offered to you? How would you even begin to cope with the unavoidable reality of something that you already dismiss as impossible, using the most desperate and inept arguments?

DS: The ridicule you mention only arises when people make claims without sufficient evidence. If your accounts of aliens are indistinguishable from accounts that might be made up by insane people, attention seekers, or manipulators of the gullible, you will be ridiculed and justly so. But if your accounts have the obvious sorts of evidence that reasonable people might expect (like, say, interviewing aliens on national TV), you won’t be ridiculed at all. Far from it.

MH: I know that the skeptics probably have special terminology that they use to describe when someone postulates something replete with ad hominem attacks, character assassination, and broad based disparagement to justify being dismissive of evidence that they haven’t examined, disagree with a priori, etc. And they must also have a nifty little term for the generalized assumptions about the kind of evidence “reasonable people might expect”. Perhaps after reading our exchange – and hopefully examing the evidence you wouldn’t – some of the more scientific, intellectually honest ones among them will help you outโ€ฆshould any such exist.

DS: As for the photos you present: I’m sorry, but to me, they look like incredibly obvious fakes using models. I do not pretend to be a forensic photography analyst, nor do I pretend to have any claim to knowledge other than my layman’s familiarity with faked photographs.

MH: Well you should be sorry for even bothering to tell us what they “look like” to you, while at the same time assessing the photographs as fake, AND admitting you don’t know what you’re talking about. This is as good a point as any among the many opportunities you provide, to point out that this is precisely why those who call themselves skeptics are often indistinguishable from the religious zealots and believers that they so admantly criticize.

DS: But it would be downright impossible to convince me that these aren’t at the very least reproducible with fakery. Same goes for the incredibly grainy videos.

MH: The relgiosity of your mindset should be clear enough for anyone to see. You tell us that no evidence could convince you to the contrary. So let it be pointed out that in my original comprehensive email below I linked to irrefutable, expert professional analyses conducted with state-of-the-art technology that is easily testable. I wonder why you even took the time to “respond” and openly confess an intransigent, self-indicting belief-based attitude.

DS: I know you cite several skeptics who allegedly couldn’t reproduce the images or the videos, which leads me to think of a couple scenarios:
1. You’re only posting the interactions with skeptics on your website which are favorable to your cause.

MH: You had the opportunity to present arguments favorable to the skeptics. Why didn’t you?

2. You’re selectively editing or manipulating your exchanges with skeptics to seem favorable to your cause.

MH: Please be specific. Refute my arguments, show where the editing and manipuations occurred and how the skeptics would have otherwise prevailed.

3. The skeptics didn’t replicate the imagery because they couldn’t be bothered and didn’t have the money or time to invest in it.

MH: We all know that to be simply untrue. Some skeptics went to very great lengths to try to do so. And of course all they had to do was to duplicate that which had been presented by a man living in a rural environment, before the computer age, who had no money, accomplices etc., which they were unable to duplicate with all of the resources avalable to them today. All of this is easy to determine if one actually searched online.

4. The skeptics did replicate the imagery, but they didn’t do it to a standard acceptable to you (maybe because they didn’t have as much time or interest as you and Meier do)

MH: The skeptics duplicated an effect but as the professional analyses clearly show – they couldn’t come within light years of the details that were revealed under close examination and that authentic Mr. Meier’s evidence. Of course none of the modelmakers, or their skeptical supporters, have offered even the most basic photo analyses of their efforts, let alone all of the in-depth technology based analyses, to support their own claims.

5. The skeptics did replicate the imagery, but you aren’t posting it, or you are holding them to unreasonably high standards. A person on the street may, when asked out of the blue, find the skeptics’ images to be as convincing as Meier’s originals.

MH: You do know, don’t you, that any of your fellow skpetics who have survived reading your comments so far are now so deep in cringe mode that I needn’t throw another straw on the camel’s back?

DS: I will keep repeating this: I don’t have evidence suggesting any of these are the case, except for my own subjective suspicions. But all of them are more likely than your claims being true, simply because people lie and fake things ALL THE TIME, whereas alien visitation is pretty darn unlikely.

MH: I think by now everyone knows you don’t have any evidence to support or substantiate any of your theories, accusations, suppositions, wild guess, etc. We get it. In all fairness, however, you did say that you would take this on and also post our exchange broadly on various blogs and forums, which I do hope you will doโ€ฆsince I am doing so myself.

DS: The forensic papers you keep citing are terribly unconvincing.

MH: Oh, and just why is that? Could you be specific?

DS: I want to see peer-reviewed papers in well-respected journals with reproducible results.

MH: I think I addressed this in my blogโ€ฆbefore you had responded. How, oh how, did I know that this was coming?

DS: You may have a former IBM chemist write a paper in favor of your theories, but so what?

MH: While you’re grossly misrepresenting exactly what we do have from Marcel Vogel, isn’t it painfully obvious that you’re essentially destroying your own peer review argument?

DS: Some of the top people at the Human Genome Project believe there’s a magic bearded man in the sky who watches us when we have sex. Plenty of otherwise-intelligent people believe in crazy, unevidenced nonsense and are willing to lie to themselves and others to keep it going. That’s why we have peer review as a check – the hope is that, when exposed for all the world to see, the peer reviewing process can help us limit our crazy as a group.

MH: See above regarding unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks, innuendoes, etc.

DS: The scientific predictions you make are more interesting, but they too have their problems. I obviously didn’t have time to extensively check them all, but a few popped out at me.
1. For starters, many of them are not impossible to have known at the alleged copyright date. For example, scientists in the 1950s and 1960s were already predicting the consequences of global warming (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science#Increasing_concern.2C_1950s_-_1960s ).

MH: “Not impossible to have known” doesn’t exactly cut it. And of course you don’t even attempt to answer how and why a 14 year old boy is publishing specific information about manmade climate change, which I actually didn’t see mentioned in the article you referenced.

2. Some of them are just plain wrong. For example, Meier predicted that the magnitude of the AIDS epidemic wouldn’t be known until the years 2003 and 2004, which is just not true. World AIDS Day was first held in 1988, and the UN started the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS in 1996. In 1995, the CDC publicly announced that AIDS was the leading cause of death among Americans 25 to 44. It goes on and on – the 90s were a huge time for AIDS awareness.

MH: The true magnitude of the illness isn’t measured by holding an event. Certainly you’re aware of the huge increase in deaths from AIDS since 1988. You apparently also ignored the fact that Meier foretold AIDS – by name – in 1958.

DS: Additionally, there is a claim that mobile phone radiation can trigger reactions, which just isn’t true. Every single solitary double-blind peer-reviewed study to date has found that all claims of sensitivity to non-ionizing radiation are bullshit.

MH: Maybe, it’s still inconclusive. Time will tell.

3. These claimed predictions strike me as being a lot like the predictions people pull out of the Bible. If you have enough source material to work with, there will be some predictions which end up true, some which end up false, and many which you can selectively quote to seem true.

MH: It seems that you’re quite familiar with things in the bible but you can’t give any specific examples of how Mr. Meier’s specific, prophetically accurate scientific information is “a lot like” it. Your non-specific, generalized, unsubstantiated claims simply reflect yourโ€ฆbeliefs. You may soon have to confront the fact that you’re making an awfully good case that being a skeptic is indeed another form of religion.

4. Many of these could be made up whole cloth or highly manipulated.

MH: But of course you can’t show that even one of them is. Why not?

5. You’re apparently relying on me not knowing how copyright works! The moment that you write something down, it’s copyrighted by default. There’s no record or proof of that unless you chose to go the extra step of filing it with the US copyright office – it’d be more convincing if you showed those filings than the stuff on this page is. If such filings were ever done. Otherwise, it’s entirely possible that you just picked a nice date and put it on paper.

MH: Well, you didn’t disappoint me. The record or proof certainly exists in the form of the document and/or book, etc. Yes, filing it with the copyright office is additional proof. But you obviously are unaware that all sorts of records – from book publishers, merchants, verification of the date it irst appeared online, etc. – can and are used to easily authenticate such claims. Again, you’re “it’s entirely possible” isn’t only amateurish and unsubstantiated, it’s an attack on my character and credibility for which you offer not one shred of evidence.

6. And finally, EVEN IF you could prove that none of these quotes are made up, that you haven’t selectively edited the quotes, that you haven’t chosen to just list the ones which you can make seem true, and that there was no preexisting evidence – it doesn’t prove your claim! A man being a really good predictor doesn’t prove any other claims he makes, just like being born of a virgin doesn’t prove you’re God or anything else about you.

MH: I think it’s unnecessary to try to improve upon the perfection of the ineptitude demonstrated here. Such is the stuff of which skeptical attacks on the Meier case are composed. And, at least as frightening, such is the level of “thinking” in colleges and universities among skeptics.

DS: By the way, just a side note – polygraphs and other “lie detectors” are pseudoscientific nonsense, they’ve been proven over and over to not work.

MH: You’re factually incorrect. Do a little research on the current situation regarding the admissiblity of polygraph tests. More importantly, the reader of this interaction between us will have no trouble in seeing how deliberate your attempts have been to discount any and every category and example of evidence, adhering to what can now be seen as the skeptical premise that to have an abundance and variety of testable, credible, authenticated evidence is the same as…no evidence at all. When the skeptics have already made up their minds in advance, the facts be damned.

DS: To be frank, the situations you and I are in are very different.

MH: now that’s an understatement and one that I won’t disagree with.

DS: You quite obviously spend your life doing this, and as a result you have the ability to go on and on about it and link me to a million different pages on your website I simply don’t have time to parse through. I’m a skeptic with a fairly normal life, and can only participate in this sort of thing to the extent that it piques my interest. So rather than going further into the minutae of your emails, let me simplify the argument greatly.

MH: Well, if by “doing this” you meanโ€ฆthinking for myself, you are correct. And I have a rather rich and accomplished life as well as this interest. But we understand that instead of the detailed response you promised you chose to ignore all of the annoying, evidence containing “million different pages” and minutiea”. Instead, you’ve boiled it all down to your following expectations:

DS: If aliens had actually made it to earth and established contact with humanity, I would expect several things. For starters, I would expect the aliens to understand our natural skepticism, and thus I would expect them to take the steps to overcome it by making themselves known through obvious methods to anyone who cared to see them. They’d land in Times Square and go on TV and show up on talk shows, et cetera. They’d be photographed and video-recorded by hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. They’d be willing to shake hands/appendages with even the most ardent skeptics. They’d be willing to have their dead dissected by our top biological researchers. They’d show off their cool technology and establish a sharing of cultural and technological information. I can go on and on.

MH: And here we have more of your unsubstantiated, prejudicial, cynical expectations:

DS: By contrast, I would expect to see a much different situation if someone were just making up stories of alien contact. For starters, I would expect to see fake photographs and videos. They’d likely be just from a handful of sources, because faking something extensively takes a lot more resources than having something real recorded by lots of real people. You’d have a few central figures who made this thing up for money or for power or for their own personal amusement. They’d make themselves seem important by making predictions, and yet they’d claim humility and swear off all but the purest motivations. They’d branch out into making more extensive claims, maybe even throw some spiritualism into it, just so that they can seem to have more answers and get their followers more involved. They’d imagine that there is some kind of conspiracy against them perpetrated by those nasty evil skeptics. I would expect the aliens and alien craft to look very similar to the arbitrarily-chosen archetypes invented by science fiction writers in the first half of the 20th century (flying saucers, for instance) rather than looking like anything which is actually aerodynamic or built for spaceflight, particularly atmospheric entry and reentry.

When I glance through your web site, I see something which I estimate to be far closer to the latter than to the former. And to convince me otherwise, I need extensive proof which is obvious, incontrovertible, peer-reviewed. I want to talk to the aliens, and until I do, sorry, but I just can’t believe it. Lies, fakery, mistaken natural phenomena, mass hallucinations, you name it – they’re all more likely than aliens.

MH: And of course, in case there was any doubt, youโ€ฆglanced at my website. In the place of using reason, critical thinking, scientific protocols for the examination of the evidence and claims, we’ve been treated to your “estimate”. I’ll now wonder just who you have in mind for the peer review of the “aliens”.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I’m in this for the extent of my personal amusement and no more, so I apologize if I’m not quite interested in going as far into minutiae as you are. I don’t do this for a living. With that in mind, I’d like to hear one thing from you. If you had to choose the top three reasons you believe that alien visitors have come to earth, what would they be? I don’t mean the top three lists or categories of arguments, I don’t mean the top three sections on your website. I mean the top three singular data points or arguments whose essence should be compressible into no more than a few sentences each.

MH: As for the top three points that you request, I’ll go with these right now, from among many:

1. To emphasize that we must take 100%, complete self-responsiblity for our own lives. That no one, no outside real or imaginary forces, gods, gurus, saints, saviors, extraterrestrials, leaders, priests, ministers, rabbis, mullahs, etc., are responsible for us.

2. To encourage us to learn how to trulyโ€ฆthink. How to think logically, to develop what is called neutral-positive thinking, which means to first see things exactly as they really are before proceeding with any further thoughts, feelings and actions.

3. To break the bonds of millennia of mind-enslaving, fear-inducing religions and sects, with their false beliefs, dogmas, rituals, superstitions, etc., which also includes more the recent, rigid, prejudicial sects such as atheism and skepticism, which promote their own very limited world views and understanding, which have served to suppress and retard the search for, and the awareness of, the truth just as the more tradtional religions have.

DS: Oh, and as a last note: it’s clear you are making money from this. You have sponsored products you link to on your web site, like the water filtration product.

MH: Obviously, David is a very young person, if not chronologically then in his lack of critical, logical thinking abilities. He is most likely unfamiliar as well with my standard responses to being criticized for being self-responsible, self-supporting, etc. Of course he’s probably unaware that I do all my representation of the Meier case voluntarily, – including interacting with many other people incapable of stringing even a few evidence-substantiated, logical thoughts together – even though there would be nothng wrong if it was a paid career. Gosh knows that whatever job he is doing or going to do based on his education, any degrees, etc., his current level of thinking indicates that he will be dangerously overpaid.

However, he also is unaware that I, and others, self-produce almost all of the products that I make available to people who, without coercion, want to purchase futher information.

Of course David did make a point of how little of the freely available material he actually availed himself of in doing his “research”.

While one could conclude that this was just an exercise in futility, taking advantage of a weak minded opponent, etc., it’s far more troubling than that in my opinion. Consider that my original email went out to dozens and dozens of college/university level students (and perhaps faculty members) who define themselves as skeptics and atheists. Only one of them responded to the essence of the information that I presented to them.

So it appears to me that many colleges and universities, which should be truly teaching people how to think critically, are churning out some significant numbers of people who, in many cases, may have just substituted one secular religion for a the more traditional ones.

I will only add that Ihad submitted my new film, And Did They Listen?, to a professor at what shall for now remain an unnamed university. Today I received her reply:

“Michael,
I took some time over the weekend to watch parts of the film. I appreciate the passion and determination you have put into this project. However, I regret to say that it is not something that will be shown nor endorsed by XXX. If you would like me to return the DVD, I will be happy to do so if you provide an address. If you prefer, I would be happy to donate it to the local public library in hopes that more people may come across it and watch it.

Best of luck to you,

Bxxxx”

Here was my response:

“Bxxxx,

Thanks for getting back to me. Certainly you can give it to the library. But I would also very much like to know your specific objections to the film.

Since it will be on US TV, and distributed internationally, I am interested to know just what would specifically make it inappropriate for the ASU studentsโ€ฆmany of whom will both see it eventually on TV and learn that it was deemed inappropriate for them to see at the school.

Thanks,

MH”

I am not holding my breath but should she reply, you can be sure that I’ll post it.

Yes, the term “dumbed down” may be overused but what else can, or needs, to be said about the wretched state of thinking, intellectual honesty and curiosity among students, professors, etc., when they are presented with the opportunity to critically evaluate that which confronts their conscious and unconcscious belief systems.

*My original email to all of the college and university atheist/skeptics groups. Subject line: An invitation to upgrade your thinking:

Atheism: Much easier than Confronting theโ€ฆTruth

See also:

MINDBOGGLING!

Can Youโ€ฆSEE what You’re Looking At?

Can Youโ€ฆSEE what Youโ€™re Looking At?

โ€ฆand of course:

The Fatal Flaws of Faith and Belief

God-delusion and God-delusion Insanity

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

34 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tony Vasquez - Professional Astrologer

Hi Michael,

Explain to me how that wasn’t a huge waste of time.

It reminds me of the “discussions” I used to have with skeptics of astrology 30+ years ago, which I no longer have, no matter what. Unless a person does his own personal investigation into a matter, he will not be convinced. People have to travel, pretty much the same road we have traveled, in order to be convinced of Billy and his material. For now, there is no other way.

Philip Brandel

I personally commend your zeal Michael!…

We are taught to find the truth for ourselves. Yet, someone had to lighten the path for us to see(if we wanted). Others seem only to close their eyes and wonder through the dark forest, as is their path..

I personally wholeheartedly wish I could “get out” from behind this masquerade that so many people seem to be stuck behind.
The hindrance of the truth and not speaking out about it.
We can debate things tell the world has fallen into utter chaos behind us.
This world only knows(or doesn’t) how bad important information needs to be distributed. To hopefully slow the progression of our own earthly deterioration.
The planet and all that reside on it depend on the initiative of the truth and those who bring it!
For only the two that responded…. I’m sure many more are probably reading/thinking/ and watching us right now..
The ones that benefit the most are the ones you probably never hear from. That was the case for me for many years. I didn’t know what to say, until I new what to personally think..

I commend you Micheal for having the courage to rough a few feathers!

Peace…

Andrew Hua

I join Philip in his commendations, but, to zeal and courage, I would like to add PATIENCE as an attribute in this case.
I had to take several long, deep, drawn out breaths to calm myself while reading through the correspondence between MH and DS.

Philip Brandel

Very wise addition…
Some here show a very weathered level of patience!

Especially as it pertains here, in the US… The land of “instant satisfaction” with striving for as little work as possible in getting to “it” mentally and physically.
It has become the new American Dream it seems for many.

That’s ONE aspect of the Figu folks that I admire… their ability to be patient(with the truth) and work for the now, to fulfill the later.

This country lacks patience(as I personally see it), which seems to directly correlate or be a response to hard work, determination, and all out perseverance in any en devour found worthy. Especially when looking out ward within the eye of the “instant satisfaction” hurricane.
No wonder no Figu group can(stay together)form here in the U.S… and as it seems to me, the closest thing to it is Michael’s(and others) monthly meetings?(coincidence)
No Figu group has been able to weather this powerful hurricane of American laziness.
I think I’ll name this seemingly never ending hurricane “couch potato”, in a long lineage of illogical storms never ceasing to ravage our beautiful blue earth, from time to time.

My very being of existence must question everything… and I will never be able to understand even a s-midget of it without at least a little patients.
A hard lesson to learn… one that has been harder for ME to understand than that of religion.
Even now.. this hurricane pushes me to want to “sing from the mountain” and when no one hears through the whirling of “couch potato”.. I pack up my Alp horn and head home.
Defeated without even having truly tried.

Instant satisfaction has no place in spreading (helping others see it if they want) the truth!
Something for me to personally strive higher for….

At this point my girlfriend would be red in the face… She hates when I ramble on and on “outward” with personal thoughts. Especially when they have to do with just one word:)

Think its finally time for that thing called sleep:)

Peace

DS

I’m DS. I am blown away at your misunderstanding of my main thrust. I’ll try to explain it more succinctly.

When I am confronted with an unlikely claim, it only makes sense to ask myself the following question: “based on what I know so far, which theory is the most likely to be true?” I choose the theory most likely to be true, I base my life on that theory to the extent and degree that it is probable, and I change my beliefs if any other theory becomes more probable.

That’s why I kept offering alternative theories while freely admitting that I had no specific evidence to support them. As long as I can reasonably judge an alternative off-the-cuff theory to be more likely than your theory, you haven’t convinced me. For example, when I watch a magician perform a trick, I judge that the probability of a natural explanation is higher than the probability of a magic explanation. I don’t have any evidence to suggest that his performance is “just a trick”. But given all my past experience and familiarity with how the world works, I think it’s reasonable to say that any natural explanation at all is more likely than a magic one. Hence, an entirely rational man believes that what he’s seen is a trick, rather than magic, even without specific evidence. Your theories are exactly the same – I don’t need specific evidence to recognize that the claims you’re making are extraordinary, and so it’s entirely reasonable for me to not believe them if I can think of any alternative which is more likely. Some of your evidence is interesting, but none that I have seen so far is credible enough and extraordinary enough to make my alternative theories less likely than your proposition. The process I’m describing here is the exact same process nearly everyone goes through when confronted with any claim ever. You’ve probably never disassembled a traffic signal to confirm for yourself that it works via LEDs and electricity, but you wouldn’t accept a claim that fairies operate it either – only an estimate of probabilities is needed to make that judgement.

As for your criticisms of me “glancing through your website” and not taking enough time to evaluate your claims: what you’ve done through the course of this “debate” is called a Gish Gallop, and it’s a scummy debating technique that lets you think you’ve won when you haven’t. William Lane Craig uses it all the time. Here’s how it works:

1. Throw a million arguments and cite a million papers and sources at your opponent as quickly as you can.
2. If your opponent doesn’t have as much time as you, as much familiarity with the subject matter as you, or as much interest as you, he simply won’t be able to go through every single solitary argument you posted and refute it or account for it.
3. When your opponent leaves many of your arguments untouched, you pretend that you’ve won. You claim that your opponent has no answer to XYZ argument, you psychologize your opponent and pretend that he’s scared of accepting the truth, et cetera, et cetera.

You’ll notice that I opened the debate by honing in on your claims. Specifically, I talked about the WCUFO and its consequences on the probability of extraterrestrials having visited earth. You proceeded to unload the entirety of your website and blog on me, when I specifically indicated that I have real-life time constraints and am only in this for the giggles. If you want to have an honest debate where winners and losers can be determined honestly, you have to limit yourself and focus on just a few very specific propositions at a time, not moving on to another claim until one has been resolved.

By the way, you’re still totally wrong about polygraphs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Validity

Sheila

Hi DS, (is that **** **** for short?) can you answer one question about the polygraphs? In 2013 Chad Dixon was sentenced to 1 year 9 months for teaching law enforcement and pedophiles how to beat the polygraph. If the polygraph is so bogus why is your federal enforcement agencies willing to put people in jail for beating them?

Sheila

Thanks Michael for removing the truth LOL. You might want to mention to DS that no witness of Billy Meier’s has taken the U.S. based polygraph beating course. And a minor correction to my last post – why is the federal enforcement agencies only willing to put people in jail who TEACH how to beat the polygraph? With a free pass for law enforcement and pedophiles who take the course. Seems kind of backwards to me.

Anthony

Dear DS,

You said, “…I judge that the probability of a natural explanation is higher than the probability of a magic explanation. I donโ€™t have any evidence to suggest that his performance is โ€œjust a trickโ€. But given all my past experience and familiarity with how the world works, I think itโ€™s reasonable to say that any natural explanation at all is more likely…”

I totally agree. I think that you are practicing a healthy criticism. There are thousands of pages, photographs to the Meier information. It can take years for someone to see the value. But the first thing that is necessary is that the observer be interested in the subject matter. If this is just for “giggles” for you, I can see how you might not have the desire to go through all the material to look for logic and reason, to make a natural sense of it. It is totally reasonable that the uninitiated to UFOs, Universal laws, the ills of religion, etc, could see all this Meier gear as a magic trick.

Best regards!

Tony Vasquez - Professional Astrologer

Michael,

DS said, “and am only in this for the giggles.” Do you think he can hear me laughing at him all the way from Vegas?

Seriously, DS, if you have any interest in the Billy Meier material, do a personal investigation into it, you will not regret it, IT IS ALL REAL AND VERY IMPORTANT.

Andrew Hua

DS

You’ve addressed probability and likelihood several times in your response. Forget the WCUFO for a moment and use your own sensible judgment to consider my two queries:

1. Do you realise how many stars there are in our Milky Way galaxy?
2. Do you realise how many galaxies there are in the galaxy cluster within which our Milky Way resides?

Here are some ideas from a couple of nice and easy “wiki” pages which you seem to prefer:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercluster

Given the sheer numbers involved, which of the two is more probable?;
1. That life exists elsewhere external to (outside from) Earth as simple microorganisms or even as more advanced, intelligent life forms, whether it be on planets with extreme environments (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile) or on planets similar to our own beautiful, blue Earth…
OR
2. That life exists solely on this miniscule ball of rock and dirt, like some sort of silly “magic trick”?

No magician can make all those stars disappear. Just look up and THINK about it.

Allen Anderson

Thanks Michael, I love the fact that this person felt his knowledge was so great that he required little/no review of your work, besides the information that you sent him, before he was able to offer his “opinion” to explain it all away. I guess the world will continue to be flat until people like DS get around to the logic, and reason aspect regarding what is and what could never be. Everyone’s an expert until truth is required, and the rest of us are just legends in our own minds, and the truth as it is must just remain too inconvenient to be bothered with.

doirecity

I wonder what clicked differently in our heads Michael when we came across the Meier Material and why so many so called educated people can not see the truth.

Do you think it maybe down to our spiritual level or we simply recognized the truth when we saw it.

I wish I could remember what I was searching when I came across the Meier material but I know that I had first came across Richard Nolon and bought his book. That was a waiste of money.

I can only imagine people interested in the ufo material are coming across Billy’s work but quickly dismissing it.

Have you noticed an up tick in the amount of people that are researching Meier’s work Michael. Have seen the snowball gain any momentum. Or are we still a bunch of black sheep.

If things do change for the better you might need to get a secretary and a few body guards.

Keep up the good work.

Anthony

“Have you noticed an up tick in the amount of people that are researching Meierโ€™s work Michael. Have seen the snowball gain any momentum. Or are we still a bunch of black sheep.”

People are either interested in Figu or they are not. There is no halfway to any of this.

People who see value in Meier’s works are interested in all the subjects surrounding the case, not just parts. And when a person finds the Truth they are relieved that they are not the only ones who:

1. Love the subject of extraterrestrials, time travel, beamships, etc.
AND
2. See the nonsense of religion and want to get away from it.
AND
3. Understand that since the universe is one big family, that there must be consistent laws and recommendations that EVERYBODY, ANYWHERE can hold on to and apply.
AND
4. Agree with overpopulation and can see the ills associated with it like: wars, social problems, pollution, environmental destruction, animal and habitat extinctions, etc. In other words, conscientious people.
AND
5. Think that the mainstream history books have been manipulated and corrupted; and that there must be a better account for our earth history.
AND
6. That understanding, knowledge, wisdom are not something that is a final result; but rather learning is a process that continues.
AND
7. People that are not afraid to be black sheep and not follow the crowd.

If a person is missing any of these desires/outlooks then he/she will not find value in Billy Meier and move on. And it is okay that they move on. We should not be forcing people to see ALL that we see. They will get it in time.

doirecity

I would fully agree Anthony. Christianity and many of the religions quarrel over same sex marriage, contraception and so on. You’ll find though that many are now opening there minds to a more logical way of thinking. Although it probably a stretch to expect them to jump this bandwagon. Evolution will prevail though!!.

Having a bit of fun here!!

Our evolution who art in creation. Hallowed be thy wisdom. Bring us this day our daily dose of spiritual consciousness and forgive us for our close-mindedness. Lead us not into religion but deliver us as far away as possible. Amen

As Billy Put it himself.
“I am always open to each and every thing and always willing to learn something new and to also live into the future in this sense”

Anthony

Thank you DS for this explanation on how an intellectual believer, rather than a sincere, open minded problem solver, bulldozes over his opponent:

“1. Throw a million arguments and cite a million papers and sources at your opponent as quickly as you can.
2. If your opponent doesnโ€™t have as much time as you, as much familiarity with the subject matter as you, or as much interest as you, he simply wonโ€™t be able to go through every single solitary argument you posted and refute it or account for it.
3. When your opponent leaves many of your arguments untouched, you pretend that youโ€™ve won. You claim that your opponent has no answer to XYZ argument, you psychologize your opponent and pretend that heโ€™s scared of accepting the truth, et cetera, et cetera.”

Hey Dyson Divine, does any of this seem familiar? This is exactly what you do, cheesecake, to make yourself seem more knowledgeable than your neighbor!!! ๐Ÿ™‚

Cheers!

Allen Anderson

If the majority of the Meier case is disregarded initially, save for the prophecies and predictions, as Michael included in As Time Fulfills, just a few of the verifiable, corroborative, and in my opinion, irrefutable, and easily researched facts that anyone willing can confirm, makes any and all famous, or infamous seers, clairvoyants, etc. a laughing stock when considering the accuracy, and detail compared to what the Meier information contains. Yet people like Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, Isaac Asimov, etc. etc. are revered for their insight, why? When compared to Billy, these men were stating vague and next to impossible to verify things that required a level of interpretation that could lead to far more misunderstanding and confusion. This part of the Meier material can be a key to unlocking the bolted doors of “belief” and let the light of fact through to begin to understand that these things were stated not as visions by Billy, but as observations given to Billy by those with a technology that we currently can only imagine. This is no “magic trick”, and even a 5th grader can discern the difference between imagination filling in the blanks, versus fact that requires little imagination to comprehend.

Maybe I’m just one of the “lucky ones”, that was willing and able to call B.S. at an early age when it came to the failed religious indoctrination attempted by the Catholic church and my very indoctrinated parents, although my parents were somewhat willing to allow me to find the truth for myself, they still refuse to read ANY of the books, or let me hold court at any family gatherings, which is fine for me, as it limits the arguments that inevitably arise as two of my siblings share the same distrust of anything religious, but still care not for the real truth.

Helen

One can present the information. And we must accept another even if their views, beliefs, or behavior differ from our own, as it is our responsibility to be tolerant.

Semjase to Billy in Contact Report #115: You yourself will not appear now or in the future as a rewarder for the cult-religious believers and also not as a condemner or executor of judgment for all those who have lived and acted in the wrong.

Marco K.

I don’t get why you waste your time with light-speed-is-the-limit dogmatists, who couldn’t think their way out of a box if their life depended on it.

Marco K.

Good luck! ๐Ÿ™‚

Darcy Wade Carlile

Can anybody explain why the calendar celebrates Lincoln’s birthday?

Darcy Wade Carlile

I always get Bob Hope and George Washington mixed up, maybe they were the same incarnates. Abe probably used Kennedy money. That cheesecake would have to be plenty big to fit all those candles and it is not very likely Lincoln or Washington are fit enough to blow them out this week.

Tony Vasquez - Professional Astrologer

Michael,

All you can do, is introduce the evidence to people, and if they won’t do a personal investigation, by reading, studying, looking at the videos, that you present, then there is no hope, that they will be convinced. Sincere, open-minded people, must convince themselves, through hard work. How many hundreds of hours did we spend reading and studying the Meier material, before we were convinced? Mentally lazy people will simply miss out of the best scientific information, prophecies, predictions, and other great truth. What is a man without truth? Nothing.

Tony Vasquez - Professional Astrologer

from Contact Report 228

http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Humanoid_lifeforms_in_the_known_universe

Quetzal:

106. Known to us, in this galaxy, are only 2,630,000 highly developed human civilizations, which actually belong together, whereby, from other galaxies known to us, a further 1,141,000,000 can be factored in.

107. We know of 1,040,000 civilizations which are developed to an

essentially low level in this galaxy which you call the Milky Way.

108. Our scientists estimate that in the entire universe about 6,000,000,000,000 to 7,000,000,000,000 essentially human civilizations, of higher and lower form, would have to exist in your material space-time configuration.

Tony Vasquez - Professional Astrologer

Humanoid lifeforms in the known universe.

http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Humanoid_lifeforms_in_the_known_universe

During the 469th contact of 11th August 2008, Ptaah listed the following different kinds of human beings that they know of:

Human being types in the known Creation (according to The Plejaren Federation.)

Type – Description

Humanoids – Like the Plejaren themselves and the Earth humans

Amphiboids – People who resemble animals that live in the water; they live on land and in water, like Asina and her people

Reptileoids – Human-reptilian forms with a skin covered with scales

Insectoids – Human-insectoid forms; their skin having a chitin quality

Sauroids – Human-sauropode form, their skin resembling that of an elephant

Primatoide – Human-primate form with more hair on his skin than the Earth human

Condicoids – Humanoids who are capable to move along through levitation, like the ones who were seen sitting on the roof of the SSSC

Teropoids – Human-birdlike body with a long neck, face and beak-like mouth

Hydroids – Human-fishlike body, who are living in the water, but can leave it for longer periods

Thermoids – Humanoids who are living in hot zones of very high temperature

Frigoroids – Humanoids who are living in regions with very low temperatures

Aรซrioids – Humanoids who are breathing poisonous gas or living in different gas environments, respectively

Acoroids – Humanoids of humanoid body, whose skin is covered by a fine acid layer, as it is the case with the Trilaner (Trilans).

Floroids – Humanlike and diverse plant bodies

Kentauroids – Life forms with part human, part horse-like bodies

Faunoids – Bodies part human, part animals with hooves

Cheruboids – Very light human life forms, with wings with which they are capable to fly

Seraphoids – Very light life forms with a human-animal body, with feathered wings by which they are able to fly

The non-humanoid life forms are called Peregrinhumanoids, which means strange-humanoids (Fremdartighumanoide).

Note: There are no Reptiloids disguised as members of governments etc. on Earth!

gchamp

What a lame DS is. He clearly looked at the photos and deemed this whole case false even admitting he didn’t take the time to do any reading. And for his claims on AIDS awareness, just watch TV and you will see more safe sex commercials that should be a good enough counterargument for DS since he failed to provide any scientific or peer reviewed material himself.

Scott Reed

Hello Mr. Horn. Thanks for all you do to help spread the truth. As far as skeptics such as DS one simple question to them would be “Does love exist”? If the reply is yes of course I love my children, spouse, family, etc. Ask if they can prove it to anyone including the objects of their feelings. Obviously you and I know that material evidence such as monetary support, blood relationships, and even the physical showing of affection like hugs kisses and sex offer complete truth of love. It can only be proven to oneself by oneself. Also it works the same way with the recievers of the love. Through the individuals own inner contemplating and his/her own deep understanding of their feelings with logic and reason is the evidence given.
Question to DS “Do you love anyone or anything” ? PROVE IT TO ME WITH EVIDENCE. Thanks, Michael. Scott.

Scott Reed

It should read …offer no complete truth of love.