Donate Button
Thursday, March 28, 2024

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

Skeptics Group IIG Fails Its Own Evidence Challenge!

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

29 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Andy

Is there a comprehensive record of your correspondence with the Unamazing Randi anywhere?

Andy

K, thanks.

Ev

Michael, what is the IIG site?

Ev

oh, sorry I see it is a skeptic group.

Sheila

Hi Ev their acronym stands for Idiots In a Group so maybe you recognize them now?

Silvana

I’m not surprised when it comes from people like that.

J. Smith

Keep hitting them where it hurts Michael! They’ll have to face up to the truth no matter what.

Terry Carch

Yes, these phonies will just have to face up to the truth where it hurts.”Make it so Mike they`ll have to face their own vises and demons absolutely”!

Rhal Zahi

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.

Phil Maple

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?

Simon

‘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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Matt Lee

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.
Logical?

Matt Lee

Randii and IIG should be nominated for the nobel prize in ‘cheapskate’ category.
Stingy bastards!

Simon

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

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.

Simon

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.).

Simon

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.

Simon

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…