Or: How People Like to Fool Themselves

One of the core principles of the spiritual teaching is to first…see things exactly as they are. Not as we want, nor fear them to be. In terms of dealing with the truth, the fields of skepticism and so-called UFOlogy have a great deal of trouble. Both of them are effectively very religiously oriented and influenced, whether their adherents recognize it or not.

The skeptics believe that their worldview must be supported through means that include denial, suppression and ridicule of that which contradicts and confounds them. They freely resort to pseudoscientific efforts to marginalize and ridicule everything that’s contrary, and  that won’t succumb, to their beliefs.

IIG Fails Its Own Evidence Challenge!

So, since we haven’t given any space to them for a while, here’s an update on the professional skeptics’ organization IIG which, while loudly trumpeting a challenge for “testable evidence” in the Billy Meier UFO case, has failed…its own challenge.

And not for the first time.

While IIG has claimed that I have failed to provide evidence that they requested…I never said that I was in possession of any metal samples in the first place. How can I “fail” to provide that which I never claimed to have? All of their grandstanding and disingenuousness notwithstanding, they also fail to mention that they were:

Directed to the freely available, testable, still irreproducible sound recordings

Offered the freely available, 74-page WCUFO analysis to test

Provided with the freely available, testable, nighttime WCUFO photo

IIG’s response, and the results of their own testing that they’ve been salivating to conduct, has been…absolutely nothing. All bark and no bite of course from an organization that touted a disingenuous “challenge” that they never intended to conduct in the first place.

IIG: A Record of Lies

It’s not surprising, since they also didn’t keep their word – which they gave months ago – to revisit the evidence in the Meier case. The reasons are quite simple. They are a shamelessly pseudoscientific, religiously oriented group of truth deniers who’ve already previously had to retract their false claims against the Meier case…and who’ve resorted to blatantly lying to keep their ruse going.

James Randi retracted his claim that the Meier case is a hoax long ago but for some strange reason neglected to write Meier the check that should have followed. If one says something’s a hoax and then retracts their claim, they are saying that it’s real and authentic. It couldn’t be simpler. Unless of course they also lied about their own award, as not only Randi did but also IIG, with its own fancy, deceptive:

“If it’s found to be otherworldly, Billy Meier could be eligible to meet the IIG and JREF Paranormal Challenges — with a combined prize total of over One Million Dollars!”

Stuart Robbins: A Record of Cowardice

James Randi, IIG and its representatives, such as James Underdown, and of course Derek Bartholomaus (formerly with IIG) have simply lied because they were unable to successfully challenge the evidence in the Meier case. In my opinion, their cowardice and dishonesty is on par with that of the celebrity seeking, wannabe scientist, Stuart Robbins, who, by censoring posts on his own blog containing Meier’s evidence refuting his claims, shows his prejudice, cowardice and complete lack of integrity and intellectual honesty and  in dealing with the incontrovertible authenticity of the Billy Meier case.

Robbins has threatened me with legal action but apparently I haven’t said about his behavior that is factually incorrect. Obviously he’s so afraid of doing anything that would bring public attention to the Meier case, it’s information, evidence, etc., and his complete and utter failure to debunk it, that he’d prefer to take his chances with people’s short attention spans than risk further public awareness (and being given the boot by NASA) by standing up for his positions, etc.

The prospect of being publicly checkmated and humiliated has clearly dictated his refusal to test the WCUFO photo himself. So the skeptics are also first class cynics that seem to have chosen a strategy of focusing on getting their 15 minutes of fame, career advancements, etc., rather than prioritizing finding the truth.

No surprise there…just more denial.

29 comments on “Skeptics Group IIG Fails Its Own Evidence Challenge!

      • Yeah, and I’ll also set up a…sunglasses concession so they’ll have to by them from me to avoid the harsh glare of the truth. And I won’t give ’em any discounts!

  • Michael,
    I contacted the IIG when I did the WCUFO analysis, and I sent them a link to my youtube video with details of this investigation. They were very polite and told me they were going to check it, but I have not received from them any feedback (It was 20 months ago). To me, their analysis is more based on “perception” than scientific investigations. They referred to me to the Occan’s razor principle, and through this principle, they told me it most logical that the WCUFO was a small model made by Billy, than an ET craft since it was the most logical explanation. To me this is perception, and it is an “easy” way to explain this. As far as I know they have not conducted any scientific investigation on the WCUFO, like evaluating its size based on the reflections on the spheres or any other verifiable method.
    And Billy case is done in a way that through perception you can find easy answers about it. It provides skeptics an “exit door” to get away without harming their already established believe system. But after doing a detailed investigation anyone can find it is not what perception shows. The WCUFO is not a small model and the pendulum UFO does not really move like a real pendulum. I would like to exchange solid arguments with them in the future if they want to comment on my findings or show me their own… so I will be patience waiting form their comments.

    • According to their arguments, the people you see on TV are only about…2′ tall. So much for their…perception and Hokum’s Razor.

  • MH, James Randi has many clips on YouTube where he talks/brags about debunking all sorts of pseudosciences, paranormal claims and numerous other things. Why don’t you put one up on YouTube about his retracted claim that the Meier case is a hoax and not paying up?

  • ‘If one says something’s a hoax and then retracts their claim, they are saying that it’s real and authentic. It couldn’t be simpler.’

    No Michael, no, no, no… that’s a logical fallacy. If a claim has not been proven to be false, it doesn’t mean it automatically has been proven to be true. Bot claims need to be demonstrated, else only the neutral position is justified.

    It’s the same like this: Can you prove that God does not exist? No? Then you must believe he does exist!

    Doesn’t work that way, right?

    James Randy’s retraction means that he thinks he no longer can demonstrate that the case is a hoax. That doesn’t automatically means he now thinks the claim that this case is true has met it’s burden of proof, and he has to pay the check. He could also hold the neutral position, which means: I don’t know, but I think neither the claim that the case is a hoax, nor the claim that the case is true has met it’s burden of proof.

    Michael, I certainly do not consider myself ‘a shining beacon of logic’ or something, but I’ve noticed you commit a hell of a lot of logical fallacies in what you write. You REALLY need to work on that. I suggest you study the following page for example:


    • Hi Simon,

      I can appreciate your logical correction of course. But I can also appreciate that James Randi, and others of his ilk, have long attacked the Meier case and indeed claimed that it’s a hoax, while suffering no damages for their unsubstantiated defamations of Meier and his character, honesty, etc.

      None of these parasites have the intellectual honesty, courage, integrity, etc., to come forward and say, as you effectively suggest, “I am mistaken and in truth I can’t honestly say that the case is a hoax.” Since they had made the determination that it was – and let’s remember they are the ones who offer these supposed awards for “proof of the paranormal, etc.” – they bear a special responsibility. After all, they claimed that Meier was a hoaxer, fraud, cheater, etc., and effectively denied his being entitled to their award. Then, instead of a retraction at the very least, they claim to have never said it in the first place.

      People are often awarded money in defamation suits, as you may know. Of course these are usually the results of costly trials, showing damages, etc. But in this shoot fast digital age people feel that they can defame others absolutely without consequence. James Randi (and IIG) have financial awards for proof of the paranormal. They’ve both decided that Meier’s evidence not only doesn’t qualify but is falsified. The actual facts establish Meier’s evidence as authentic. Certainly neither parties have challenged the recent authentications by Prof. Zahi.

      What would…honorable people do in such a case?

      So, while your logic may be correct…I think my ethics are even more so, hence the languaging of my comments.

      • So essentially perception, emotion, personal ethics, individual integrity and scruples and people’s morals can be without logic or be devoid of it or applied without it or taken out by choice or ignored with inpunity.

  • You know Michael, it’s a complicated World. It’s chock full of what I like to call bubbles: little worlds on itself with different school of thought. We sort of live in this ‘Meier case bubble’, and they live in their ‘Sceptical bubble’. Then there’s all kinds of other bubbles like all the religions, new age teachings etc.

    We all like to think that we are ‘right’ and the others are idiots who haven’t seen the light yet, but I think the truth is we all only know a tiny little part of the whole story, and hardly anybody is immune for cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias etc. and oh boy don’t we hate to admit it when we were wrong sometimes?

    The problem is, we hardly talk with each other, because we already know the truth, right? I appreciate you do try to talk to people from other bubbles, but I think you need to ‘learn the language’ of the others side(s) to make it more effective. I checked out this little world of sceptics a little, James Randy, Bill Nye the science guy, Michael Shermer and yes, they are extremely annoying sometimes. It seems they put a fence around their little set of accepted knowledge and they shoot on anybody who dears to take one step outside the fence. But, they are well versed on this logical stuff, logical fallacies etc., even IMO they do not apply this for things outside the fence, so if you want to get through to them, I think it’s best to play by these rules (I think it’s always good to play by these rules btw.), because else, they will tear your argument apart on these kind of things, and ignore the point you’re really trying to make. Just a thought…

    • Simon,

      Again, I wouldn’t argue with the essence of what you’ve said. I should fill you in a bit though. My approach to the skeptics (local spelling in the US) dates back to…2001. I approached them pretty openly and, of course, the first thing they told me was that the case was a hoax. I remembered I have these:



      Now I should tell you that at many points along the way I reached out to people like Bartholomaus and Underdown, and many others, offering a kind of cooperative investigation into the case. It was essentially ignored and looked down upon…every time.

      Now, I freely admit that I was in my own learning curve during all these years. I have zero background in science, other than having a chemistry set when I about 10 years-old and creating noxious odors and minor messes in my home with it. The thing that I discovered was that when one starts to investigate the Meier case with an open yet critical mind, the truth of it can teach one how to think logically and scientifically. Certainly I’ve engaged in some hyperbolic bits of logic stretching. But the fact is that I’ve also done so to invite the overconfident skeptics to come and show just how “easy” a target the Meier case is. In fact, I’ve volunteered to come to any of their large events and present the Meier case to their audience and take on all and all challenges from their top skeptics. They won’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.

      I certainly would be willing to do such an open presentation, especially now that the WCUFO photos have been proved authentic by Prof. Zahi. JUst what would they do if I brought one of them up from the audience to do the PhotoShop test right before their very eyes? Watching a whole room full of skeptics having to debunk themselves would be a priceless event.

      So while I may not have perfected exactly how to effectively communicated with the professional skeptics, I’ve certainly tried. I think though that rather than worry about their rules and bubbles and adapting to their language, the real answer is that we both just simply speak the language of…truth. It pops all bubbles and illusions.

      • No doubt these skeptic groups will immediately jump to the conclusion it’s a hoax. I hate it how they have hijacked (and IMO polluted) the therm skeptic, which actually should be a designation to be proud of, as though they were the only group which can think logically, implying that a view that doesn’t agree with them is automatically illogical.

        The rules of logic are indeed universal, and not exclusive to so called ‘skeptics’, or any other group.

        I think you make the same logical fallacy with the WCUFO as with the James Randy thing. I understand there was a claim of skeptics that this was a model in front of a black curtain, right? In other words they thought the claim that this picture was a hoax had met it’s burden of proof. If you wanna prove it’s a picture of a spacecraft you could take the following steps:

        1. Prove that the claim this is a model in front of a black curtain is false, which you can do by dropping the pic in PS and enhance the brightness. Low and behold: a pole and a road, so not a black curtain.

        At this point, we’re back at the neutral position.

        2. Now you have to demonstrate it’s indeed a large object, which makes it pretty likely it is what Billy said it is. I’m no expert on this photo stuff, but Rhal already explained me something about dept of field etc. and how this shows the ship is at the same distance as the pole and therefore 7 meters wide. You could also try to figure out if that halo couldn’t be caused by anything else then some kinda weird energy field.

        If you do that, you’ve demonstrated that the claim that this is a large object (and therefore most likely a spacecraft) has met it’s burden of proof. Don’t be surprised though if the skeptics would then challenge you to prove it’s not only a large object, but also a spacecraft…

        But if you only show step 1 in front of a bunch of skeptics, I guarantee you: they will laugh their pants off, and I doubt they’ll ever invite you again. You need to demonstrate that the claim that it is a large object is true, not just debunk the claim that it’s a model in front of a black curtain. Especially on those who are not even familiar with this last claim, disproving it will not even make the least impression.

        • I guess I should have also referred to Prof. Zhai’s 74-page report (http://www.tjresearch.info/Zahi_WCUFO%20Investigation.pdf) for which, in addition also to a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pjcbF1oK8Q) he has presented his protocols so that, according to the SCIENTIFIC method, the tests can be duplicated…which indeed show it to be a large object.

          But I will say that any group that would “laugh” at a process by which they themselves can take a digital copy off the internet of a 1981, 35 mm FILM photograph. and enhance it and have those actual details be revealed – which includes the fact that the UFO was photographed from above – are simply fools not worth the bother.

          But then of course…I repeat myself.

          • Presenting the report would be fine, off course…

            If the same picture would have been taken without the WCUFO on it, you also wouldn’t have seen the pole and the road, it would be a fully black picture. If you now, 35 later, would have enhanced the picture, the pole and the road would appear. But is that so impressive in and of itself? I don’t think so.

            So why would it suddenly become impressive if the WCUFO is also on the picture? What does this pole and road tell you about the object that already was visible in the original picture? I don’t think that is immediately obvious. But maybe you can use it to say something about the WCUFO (depth of field stuff etc.).

          • At this point I would leave you to contemplate what may just be “impressive” about a totality of 64 35 mm, non-digital, film photographs (some of which were taken in broad daylight within 20′ of the object), and a five -minute video, of a completely unknown, extremely detailed, well constructed, large metallic object that not only can be seen to have been photographed in daytime at treetop level (by someone at an equal height) but which was also photographed from above at night, the otherwise hidden details of which only becomes apparent when very modern technology is employed, and the actual revealed contents of which where known too, but never revealed by, the one-armed man who photographed the object.

            Sure, nothing unusual about that. Happens all the time around here. If I may reprise the title of one of the ordinal articles…can you SEE what you’re looking at?

          • Then present this whole totality of evidence to the skeptics, and do not imply that this single PS test, without any knowledge of the context, reveals anything special.

            You see, this is what is called a straw-man argument. I say that in and of itself it’s not really impressive or convincing to make a pole and a road visible on a nighttime picture, and it doesn’t immediately reveal anything about the WCUFO, and you twist my words and imply that I said that the whole totality of evidence is nothing unusual.

            All those skeptical guys who are skilled at debating and stuff are gonna see right through that Michael, it’s a classic mistake, and you need to stop doing that if you ever want them to listen to you.

          • I don’t know why you assume that EVERYTHING hasn’t been made available to them. It has. Perhaps you should be questioning…THEM.

            Please also understand that I’ve extended all of the evidence, prophetic information, authentication – do you remember that this was done years ago: http://theyfly.com/Scientific_Experts.html – to the pack of arrogant, religiously oriented, know-it-alls for over a dozen years.

            And, while it should be no secret by now, they’re merely useful for showing those who are ready to think just what happens when people remain stubbornly, rigidly in denial. I’ll continue to use them as the dark curtain upon which to project and show the reality of the Meier case. But make no mistake about it, I truly neither care nor expect them to “get it”. As I said, they’re basically a religiously oriented group that is heavily invested in maintaining their primitive, cultic world view. And it’s actually MORE useful for highlighting the truth the longer they stay stuck there. Which will be a very long time.

            So rather than any kind of frustration, they provide fodder.

          • I didn’t assume that, I just wanted to say it’s better, during a lecture or something, to present a body of evidence then to suggest one single piece of ‘ultimate’ evidence proves it all…

            Well… there’s this problem we have right now in this world that we’re completely flooded with an overwhelming amount of mostly crap with some pieces of gold here and there and it’s just very hard and time consuming to separate the crap from the gold, especially because a lot of crap looks like gold but is still crap. I think that even when all people would start right now to critically examine and question their believes and try to find out what’s really true, it would still be a hell of a job that would take a lot of time and multiple generations, before we reach a situation were all people more or less have a similar, accurate view on reality… But, we will not do that, so it takes even longer…

          • I take it that you haven’t seen my lectures.

            Of course you’re right that it’s essentially a fool’s world with lots of fool’s gold. It is and still will be a helluva job but if one doesn’t start as soon as possible it makes it even more difficult.

            Many of us have taken to riding out the flood to higher ground and still try to assist those who haven’t gotten on their boats yet. Fortunately, the willfully ignorant skeptics provide self-identifying warnings as to just where the rocks are hidden that would delay the journey to safer shores. They are loud, reliable and intractable…so they provide something firm to push the vessels away from.

Leave a Reply

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