Billy Meier: More Constant than the Speed of Light

Pseudo-scientist, Stuart Robbins, proved wrong  – yet again – as scientists corroborate more of Billy Meier’s prophetically accurate information

Scientists announced that the speed of light isn’t always constant, confirming once again what UFO contactee Billy Meier said waaaaaay back in 1979:


27. Now, I am actually interested in your questions and calculations.

28. Present them to us.


Happy to do so, my son. Thus, my first question: Is the speed of light constant of presently 299,792.5 kilometers per second, which is calculated by our earthly scientists, correct?


29. This figure is of correctness.

30. But I notice with your question that you speak of a present constant; what do you want to express with that?

Billy: I have calculated that the light constant steadily decreases within the framework of a certain half-life.


The above information is ironclad, i.e. verifiably published long prior to the “new official discovery”. This prior, copyrighted, online publication alone constitutes a legal standard of proof. Meier’s original publication preempts our scientists by a mere…36 years.

Wendelle Stevens referred to Meier knowing this information even earlier:

“First of all, the ETs do not measure distance in terms of light-years because that is our unique creation. They say the speed of light is neither constant nor does it travel in a straight line (except over very small distances) — being speeded up and slowed down, and bent every which way by magnetic fields of force, which are everywhere.”

About this time, one particular pseudo-scientist might just be feeling kinda pStupid. That’s right, skeptic Stuart Robbins*, the know-it-all and shill for the party line who unambiguously declared Billy Meier to be a hoaxer, fraud, etc., when earlier provided with Meier’s information about the speed of light. He dismissed it as wrong because it hadn’t yet been proved by terrestrial scientists.

Robbins of course will probably now resort to attacking the article itself but I doubt that he’ll attack the Cornell University Library for posting the research report. Then again…maybe he will.

Traitors to the Truth

Now, in light of yet another corroboration of Billy Meier’s specific, voluminous, prophetically accurate scientific information, does my including Robbins on my “traitors to the truth” category really so sound so harsh? Think what’s at stake here as these poseurs and sold out know-it-alls suppress and attack the Meier case. Meier, the same man who has tried for decades** to warn us away from the dead-end path of self-destruction that we, in our moth-to-the-flame, suicidal, religiously deluded, overly entertained, ignorance and arrogance passionately pursue in our own hell-bent, lovable little ways.

Contact 251

According to Mariann Uehlinger, another prediction that has fulfilled as well is sentence 197 of contact 251, from February 3, 1995. The movement of complete Gewaltlosigkeit (non-violence) is, the “Gruppierung” (another group) is the EU and the woman who will reach a powerful Weltmachtstellung (world might position) is Angela Merkel from Germany.

(These references are to this information in our unnumbered English version: “Initial efforts are being made by a new movement to promote total non-violence; while a woman gains a high and influential position among world powers through another group’s formation.”)


*For more about Stuart Robbins’ Greatest Hits, er, Misses, start with my unfortunately overly-optimistic, first blog about him:

Stars in His Eyes

Then use the TheyFlyBlog Search for about 10 pages of more information about just how wrong Robbins and the rest of the skeptics can be…at humanity’s expense.

**For a reality check, please see:

UPDATE on the New IS Planned Holocaust

The Only Way to Stop the IS

URGENT: Another Prophecy Fulfilling

Billy Meier’s Update on ISIS


Thanks to Philip Brandel, Bruce Lulla and Mariann Uehlinger for the information.


242 Replies to “Billy Meier: More Constant than the Speed of Light”

  1. NOTE to all:

    I just received a comment from WM that fit all the criteria for…not being allowed. In fact, I sent the following message:

    “Your comment provides no substantiation for your claims. Example: In addition to more – NON-SPECIFIC – speculation about the evidence, you refer to a non-existent “cult religion”. Should you wish to substantiate that with something other than your own ill informed imaginings, it will be posted.

    I don’t have time or space for everyone who wants to indulge in mental masturbation, just so they can see their own rambling nonsense online somewhere.

    Again, present substantiated arguments and they’ll be posted. If you’re not up to it, as I assume you’re not, then just have a nice day somewhere.


    However, it bounced back because this particular armchair expert apparently isn’t using a real email address. In other words, some phony who wants to pontificate and criticize Meier doesn’t have the integrity to use even his real email address.

    I don’t think “WM” will be submitting any further posts, unless of course he provides a real identity and a real email address…as well as submitting comments that actually say something, contain substantiations for his claims, etc.

    And should Andy take exception, I’ll once again point out that he sucked up a lot of air here pushing Mahesh’s so-called research in our faces about the Ice Man…when it was clear that Mahesh had tried to assert that scientists had proved that the details provided to and by Meier regarding his injuries, death, etc., were actually speculative, with some scientists themselves disagreeing with the conclusions that Mahesh was asserting.

    Similarly, Andy had supported Mahesh’s equally ridiculous claim that Meier had obtained his information about the ozone damage, chemical and atomic factors, etc., from obscure THEORETICAL papers that could even only be found online recently.

    When I pointed out to Andy that Meier already had commented on the ozone situation, etc., in 1951 and 1958, Andy…changed the subject. So, if anyone thinks I’m being capricious, please instead consider that I’m simply fed up. And that means that, as I’ve said, only actual, verifiable substantiated evidence that Meier did in fact alter, falsify, backdate, etc., will be permitted. If it exists, if you have it, I’ll post it. If not, well, then…not.

    1. Oh to the stupidest cop out of them all, the religious cult excuse. So much for such sophistry there WM. And as I know and hope this rant can and shouldn’t go on. It shows the level of logic when some fall to this level. As it seems more than not, all that most can ever see, as they are within themselves apart of it. Never seeing anything but that which they only know. Never seeing beyond needing these things to begin with.
      I within myself, am the proof of this world being befouled by such degenerative nonsense such as religion and its beliefs. No one but myself to come to that conclusion! The ultimate thinking stupidity perpetuated by mere humans. Billy’s ‘case’ is the epiphany to me, to the realization of the insanity of such logic within our world. Anyone whom has actually looked into this ‘case’ should at least see that! Beyond overpopulation only stands the mental disease of beliefs within ‘religion’, and all they encompass.

    2. Oh I’m up for it — the question is will you acknowledge alas this proof I have tried presenting a dozen times?

      First, no, I “changed the subject” because it has proven impossibly difficult to get you to acknowledge the couple instances of backdating already under discussion — “arrow” and MUFON, both veritably backdated. (And have you read Mahesh’s ozone info about bromine and CFC’s? It WAS backdated…proved by copyright dates! Some words are in the original copy, different words are in the later publication of the same CR).

      And again you try to make it about the death of the Ice Man — and STILL will not acknowledge THE PROOF THAT MEIER BACKDATED, found here:

      “If it exists, if you have it, I’ll post it.” There’s your freakin proof. And there’s more where that came from.

      How many instances of verifiable backdating will it take before you quit telling us there is no evidence of backdating? Because I can keep em coming…

      1. Now, as I mentioned in your immediately previous question, I will provide more specific answers for you when you tell us what kind of computer Meier used to transcribe that contact.

        One thing, I still haven’t found part 4/4 online. It may be that I’m not clicking in the right place but at the end of 3/4 it says 4/4 is coming but there’s no link.

        Hey, maybe it’s an age thing, you know like younger people find things to click on that don’t exist in my time-space configuration.

        1. Don’t bother asking Matthew.
          He probably hasn’t read it.
          If he has he hasn’t thought about it.
          If he has he doesn’t understand it.
          If he has he doesn’t apply it.
          If he has I certainly can’t find any evidence.

      2. Believe what ever you want Andy.
        Though I have long ago dealt with people who have come out with better examples and evidence of slander in this case, than you or Mahesh. Some that have gone to Switzerland when this ‘case’ was in its prime. People easily accessible to all! And a few less known that didn’t go there and one would most definitely have to follow quite closely to learn from, as they fall away in their beliefs, one after another, never finding anything to what is the truth. The only legitimate contact case!
        I could all of a sudden come and turn everything around here too and say, it was all backdated, religious cult with no evidence but words I can also easily find and type on MY computer. Maybe you have been talking to your brother the pastor for to long lately? Good chat over the holidays. Who knows. It might be time to step away from the computer, dumb-phone, I pad, whatever and find the facts and information for yourself. Deal with all of this within yourself, it has taken me many years of DAILY thought to come to my own.
        This is far from being about some dates and pleasing poor old Andy and everything he has ‘invested’! This ain’t got nothing to do with religion, and no one here is going to send you flowers or hold your hand, when you seem to need and want something that can be traced back to where it came from, Switzerland, in ‘German’. Or have you invested to much already?
        Is Billy Meier in contact with highly evolve extraterrestrials from the depths of the cosmos? Guess have to go back to the beginning? Are we alone in the universe? Or does Mahesh have to answer this for you too?

    3. Michael,

      Attached to this post is an email account at which I can be reached. Will you allow the challenge of my critical analysis to enter your blog-world again, which is supposedly an open forum for discussion of the Billy Meier Case, or will you continue to censor and evade fundamental logic and reason out of fear?


      1. WM,

        Now that you have provided an email address you’re free to post, however it had nothing to do with censoring or evading logic. But the same caveat applies, especially to challenges pertaining to the authenticity of the Meier material, specifically but not limited to the issue of the Iceman info.

        So feel free to provide substantiation for your claims,, etc., and know that if it should really meet the clearly stated requirements it won’t be posted. Since it’s past the time that I usually quit here, please know that if you do submit more information I will be getting to it, and any other posts, in about 10 hours.

        1. Michael,

          So you are forbidding the use of high thought-forms as pivot points for thinking and discussion on your site – ie. pure, abstract logic; the fundaments for rational thought stretching all the way back to Heraclitus, Plato, the Buddha… and beyond.

          It is in these that lay the basic faculty which lifts Human minds out of the mud and into higher dimensions of relation and revelation.

          I find it ironic that for many here it is just such high level thought-form articulation by Mr. Meier that make it so difficult for them to question some of the basic facts in the case, yet you are asking that such not be used in the discussion of same.


          1. WM,

            I suggest that you apply your approach to today’s blog, since the question I posed to Andy apparently stumped him. But again, I’m not looking for philosophical conjecture, provided factual substantiation to the information which, I think should now be clear, shows the completely unfounded, fallacious nature of the attacks on Meier’s Iceman information, as well as other such attacks.

        2. C’mon Michael what’s going on here. Have you laxed your usual standards by not demanding his real name as well.
          I mean gee if you can’t even put your own real name to your convictions, beliefs or thoughts what are you doing here in the first place.
          Cowardice is a hallmark of spinelessness and being spineless means self betrayal is that much easier and if you can betray yourself easily its even easier to betray other people.
          So Will Maverick please include your real name.

Leave a Reply

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