it sets them free

We just posted the new show; I actually had only the barest idea of what I wanted to speak about, as you’ll see, so it took on a direction and life of its own. (There were also some technical difficulties, so think of it as…a radio show with some flashing pictures.)


44 comments on “The Truth Doesn’t Take Prisoners

  • Some folks just forget that it’s easy to sit and ask tough questions all day to people like this is the new way to do investigative reports. Problem is, when you start to make “logical conclusions” based on that alone without doing any sort of research to back up your claim, how then can you prove you were exactly right to come to those conclusions in the first place? “Logical conclusions” of this type can be done by anyone the talent wording things with the English Language and not something logical conclusions are bases off of. But, in reality they should have bracketed with ‘sic’ every time someone wants to go down that road.

    Real logical conclusions are actually based off evidence and facts, not email responses to the opinion of folks. To see intelligent folks continually fail to meet that level day in and day out shows they’re more related to circus performers or actors in an Opera than real researchers. The fact that intelligence people somehow want to glue themselves to Mike like flies looking for a feast are actually showing their true intelligence in the process considering they have zero response to what real research they have done and quite shameless about that.

    In other words, having coffee, tea, and McDonald’s all day doesn’t replace whether or not you did research to come to that conclusion. Sorry to say the obvious from just some regular guy!

    • Here’s the problem with your thesis, although mostly I agree with you. Just because you personally are not provided said proof as Eduard has provided, does not negate the fact that others have some proof as well. We must use caution when we discriminate against certain claims that are made. Not everyone is liar, but many are. People exist here who very adequately apply a durable amount of prudence with respect to their particular situations, they simply choose not to make it part of the public record, for what ever reason and it’s up to all of us to either accept it or not, period. These types of people get to the point where they care very little whether you believe their claims, it simply isn’t worth the hassle for them. It is what it is. Many times people feel compelled not to share certain things of a physical nature for various reasons, which should be respected. But like always, these people would be ridiculed and attacked, and probably even in a worse form had they provided the said proof people are demanding.

      • The problem really is that the reality of the Meier case actually escapes many people, including you.
        The single most important story/event/discovery is what’s under discussion and considering the kind of “reasoning” that you, Mahesh and others have indulged in, it’s absolutey clear that it’s far beyond your comprehension.

        Consider this, you’re raking Meier over the coals about this information, actually about his truthfulness, credibility, etc. – despite the voluminous, still irreproducible evidence and, yes, the prophetically accurate scientific information – and then you drop in the unsubstantiated and utterly irrelevant “others have some proof as well” and go on to tell us how nice and modest they are, how it’s “not worth the hassle, etc.”

        If you really were a deep thinker you’d realize what pathetic double standards you’ve expressed here, what should also be called a LACK of standards, as you casually endorse unnamed, non-specified people, evidence, etc. Yet you have the gaul to call into question the honesty and integrity of the one man who’s meet and exceeded every standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. How generous of you.

        Maybe when your thinking matures, when you can also at a moment’s notice – as I’ve personally seen Meier do – pull out documents that pinpoint when and where you were, and who you were speaking with and exactly what was said on any particular day, even decades earlier, when you can do that and show that’s there’s any uniquely important information contained therein that’s even worthy of critical examination, maybe you’ll look back on your own arrogance and blindness, your own rush to be right rather than DEEPLY thoughtful and…get it.

        • “Billy Meier is fraud” “he has perpetuated a hoax” “he has backdated all his so called prophetic information to look like he genuinely prophecised them” “if he lied about this then everything that he has ever produced must be called into question” “MH is therefore also a liar and a cheat for peddling this Billy Meier fraud which he continues to profit from such” “it is incumbent on him to stop and seize immediately every promotional activity, interviews, talks, lectures and every public claims he has made about the authenticity of Billy’s ET contact case”.

          Phew that was a mouth full what other rubbish do these blockheads want me to say on their behalf seeing as they don’t have the balls to come out and say it with their own two lips.
          These leggards should’ve already determined by now that DR Deardorff’s semi-plausible deniability factor doesn’t apply to Billy Meier’s contact case for no good reason and at every turn even the Plejaren and Billy himself would sabotage his own case from time to time to continue to challenge our credulity so that it prompts us to again and again overcome our religious tendencies to just ‘believe’ everything that we are told thereby missing the all important opportunity to ‘think’ for ourselves for our own beneficial spiritual development which is only possible when we consciously generate our own thoughts out of our own striving and volition.
          There is always a deeper and more meaningful wisdom behind Billy’s actions that continues to get overlooked by those who least understand the spiritual aspect and the Creative laws considered at work thereby missing the plot.
          It will continue to be the case again and again and again that those people who are stuck in the periphery of the physical evidence will never be able to penetrate deeper into the significance of the case thereby depriving themselves of meaningful learning as well as the all important spiritual development which was what this case was all about in the first place.
          Objections after objections without applying their own understanding of spiritual knowledge which is the case for all skeptics who never bothered themselves with learning this crucial aspect of the case which is a must in order to fully comprehend the case and the reason why it is what it is.

        • I think we got our lines crossed somehow. I think I misunderstood the post I was replying to. I would in no way question the case as these others do. My bad if I misread the previous post. It’s been a long week.

          • After thoughtful consideration to this matter of proof, it may be wise to refer back to a particular contact report that simply explained that neither Billy or the FIGU were to partake in any further discussions regarding the validity or proof of the contacts as such pursuits were proving to produce nothing of value. It may be wise to remember those instructions. People either get it or they don’t. I will also be refraining from including things of a personal nature as all it appears to do is cause unnecessary strife and argumentation. We are here to pursue our own individual evolution first and foremost and then concern ourselves with the external world. My 2 cents for what it’s worth.

          • Hi Forto,

            What can I say? There are certain avenues where proper research is documented and evidence presented in order for a case to be considered whatever that may be. When I say in quotes “logical conclusions”, I was trying to convey a sense where folks are using that in a present sense of an argument based off of what is said rather than what actual tangible evidence we are all here for. After all, are we here to discuss and come to the conclusions based on our use of the English language or something more profound and actual? Mike certainly isn’t talking about UFO-Paranormal ‘experiences’ so we can largely avoid having to go into touchy-feely disco club mega-remix.

            If you will notice, I was attempting to be a bit more specific towards a certain mindset that is common on the internet. You can experience this very quickly especially if you discuss recent history such as WW2 or today’s politics. Be warned though, “logical conclusions” will be a lot more thick and trying to have a conversation becomes games with the English language than actually trying to learn something out of it. Ridicule and attack then become common because of the interaction and beliefs on some words than what the evidence you have means. See where this is going?

            So, it is not truly a case of calling someone out for being the liar they are now is it with this in mind? Rather, in typical internet logical conclusions, it is EVERYTHING from the argument to the evidence that gets lumped into since it is clear we’re not discussing the relevance of the evidence, but merely the relevance of the persons with the evidence determining their relevance together. Do you see that?

            So who is getting the lion’s share of the flak over which evidence we are discussing? Mike or Billy’s or both; or none?

            PS: This whole debate about underwater “water and heat” makes for some interesting case for power generation I didn’t think was possible in a way Dyson and I were going back and forth over, over a year back, on deep geothermal energy. It’s all GREEK to me.

        • MH I think you didn’t receive the message from forto correctly. Are you worked up from too much effort lately with not enough breaks to rest, away from all the Internet drama? Take time to rest your intellect sometimes … it’s no good to be overstrained – it gets the mind all wonky!

          And I really agree with you forto – and if I’m not mistaken, I didn’t see you as accusing Billy of anything. If I’m right, you were just stating that when people have their own evidence of something’s truthfulness, a lot of times psychical evidence … then a lot of times they just won’t try to go and announce it and they won’t try to “prove” it to anybody … right?

          • Tyler,

            Thanks, I’d have to go back and look but I think I was responding to a point and not viewing it as an attack from Forto who made it. Time permitting, I shall go aback and see!

  • Michael, I would like to know where we can verify that these contact books were published before their recent versions were released. Just finding out for somebody else.

    For example, block 5 of the contacts (1983 to 1989) was re-released in 2004 and re-copyrighted then.

    Where do we find the publisher who published the original books from the 1970’s, 80’s and so forth before they were re-released after 2002, 2004 and so on?

    Looking for those.

    • And I’ve heard you say before that they were published in library of congress. I looked but did not find them there. Can you elaborate abit?

    • The real answers lie with FIGU. You should try writing to them and asking. The contacts after 1978 wren’t, to the best of my knowledge, published in book form but were distributed like the earlier ones and then put into the various Blocks.

      The earlier books were actually published by Wendelle Stevens and had Cotnact Reports form 1975 to 1978.

  • The problem with using search engines like google or wikipedia is that it it constantly being updated. So if they posted erroneous information 2 years ago, that information would never be known unless you had been on the site 2 years ago and copied it. This always extends to NASA in which they updated Apophis size to 325 m (which still isn’t in line with the Plejaren’s 350 m size) and previous to that, their information claimed it was a lot smaller. Where is the previous to the current information information held? It’s like dropping keys in lava, it’s gone.

  • Okay, just looking for Wendelle’s books from 1975 to 78. I can only find “message from the pleiades” vol 1-4 which were printed between 1988 to 1995 (so far). Which contact books did he publish before that?

    • Those are the ones. You’ll also find copyright dates in some of them that go back to 1978, which is when he first got the CRs for the 1975 – 1978 period.

      • Can you share the names of the books? I’m kind of drawing a blank at the moment. I saw him hold up a 600 page version in a late 1970’s interview, but the writing was too fuzzy to see. It didn’t look like the covers of “message from the pleiades” at all. And those aren’t 600 pages per book if I understand correctly. This one was a lot thicker. That might be a good place to start (if at all possible).

  • The first “message from the pleiades” book seems to show a 1988 publication date (from what I’ve found so far). But I could be wrong. Can you show me where the 1975 to 78 copyrights are? Or are that 1978 date referring to the preliminary/supplementary investigations? Because I did see the 1978 date on that. Just wondering if I’m missing something and want to be as clear as I can as I try to verify this for somebody.

  • Those that say Billy Meier is a hoaxter either have not the intelligence to understand his more profound statements, or are simply liars consciously concealing the truth. Anyone who believes such is a fool and must be mocked into oblivion as we ride into the future – not debated.

Leave a Reply

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