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:

Quetzal: 

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

28. Present them to us.

Billy: 

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?

Quetzal: 

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.

NOTE:

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 http://www.nonviolence.com, 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. The content of this thread has captured me…

    In the search for truth I find it very useful to stay away from personalities and personal factors as they only muddy the waters. I therefore steer away from making comments concerning any specific person(s). Rather I am primarily and publicly interested in the general principles, logicality or illogicality of the ideas, and consistency of the thinking people employ and arguments/notions provoked in any particular endeavor, by groups and individuals. I find these to be the real causally impactive ground, and that’s where I’m interested in working.

    In this way then Sheila, I make absolutely no comment on the quality of your or anyone else’s personal processes, as I only have imperfect knowledge of them.

    Further, I indeed do stringently attempt to adhere to my previously advocated guidelines concerning thinking and judging which you refer to, in all my engagements, and have also done so in, with sporadic intensity, looking at Billy Meier’s Case.

    On a baseline level of logic and reason I see a lot of belief-oriented and personality-based conflation in all those who powerfully hold to Mr. Meier’s case being precisely what is presented and claimed. It is this that leads such ones to accept and attach the various claimed narratives to the physical, intellectual, and predictive evidences, however strong or weak such evidences may actually be.

    I observe that when pressed on especially the sketchy evidence, the ultimate reason for the *belief* in the case is the moral integrity, wisdom, and benevolence of Mr. Meier himself, the quality of his character (which I make no comment on). Taking up such a posture causes the flow of logical assessment to be interrupted and leads to the misapprehension of basic facts.

    1. WM,

      You really do need to upgrade your familiarity with Meier’s voluminous, prophetically accurate scientific information. There’s tons of it and there’s absolutely NO “belief” required, suggested, advised, hinted at, or encouraged.

      The comments regarding Meier’s character were made as part of an inclusive, comprehensive process of evaluating the claims connected to his authenticity, accuracy and of course integrity, which have come under fire mainly from those who are grossly unfamiliar with all of the evidence, methods, procedures, etc., necessary in conducting an objective investigation of the case and its claims.

      Couple Meier’s information with the equally voluminous, physical evidence – the UFO evidence has at least five recent authentications to support it – and the only thing “sketchy” in evidence so far is your Johnny-come-lately uninformed assertions.

      However, this is not an infrequent occurrence and even somewhat expected as people first come upon the information and/or only give it a very cursory examination. So don’t be put off by having this bluntly presented to you. If you search not only this blog but also http://www.theyfly.com and sites linked from it, you’ll have quite a bit to review and consider. I’m also sure that many people who post here and are familiar with various aspects of the case will also be glad to help.

      Lastly, pardon me for having to repeat it but we were somewhat besieged with incompetent claims and attacks which, when rebutted and thrown back at the claimants, were found to be badly wanting in accuracy, diligent research, understanding of how real life works, etc.

    2. WM did you just walk off the set of Star Treks.
      Save us the borg talk.
      No we haven’t been assimilated although we have been aquainted, well with the truth that is.
      It may be an unfamiliar territory for you but once you cross over to this side of the fence where the grass is greener you will surely understand from thereon what real logic and common sense really means.
      So please do stringently adhere to your principles and guideline at your expense but if I had some advice for you Stop digging your own grave and start reading the volumnous and free information generously available from this website and the links provided that way you can start to let in some much needed fresh air and you’ll be thankful for it.

      1. Matt Lee,

        You say to WM “So please do stringently adhere to your principles and guideline at your expense…”

        How could it possibly be to WM’s disadvantage to evaluate evidence and argument according to the best of his logic?

        WM,

        Beware MH’s claims about Meier’s “voluminous, prophetically accurate scientific information” … all is not as it seems. As continues to be exposed on this website, http://www.billymeieruforesearch.com/, there is nothing “prophetic” about Meier’s scientific information, and moreover, there has been found at least a couple demonstrable instances of backdating, which — in the least — hint at purposeful deception.

        And FYI, it is of little use to attempt to engage in debate around here. Should you simply try to discuss the Meier case in light of certain facts about the evidence, such the facts noted in the previous paragraph, you will invariably be met with unsubstantiated lies/insults such as you are “badly wanting in accuracy, diligent research, understanding of how real life works, etc.”

        Please do explore the Meier case, I’ll be curious to hear what a fellow rationalist concludes about the matter — but don’t expect to enjoy an honest debate around here. Indeed, simply attempting to critically analyze the proffered evidence is “essentially a huge distraction and misdirection of time, energy.” Though MH says he is open for challenge and debate, from what I can tell, he absolutely does not mean it.

        If you’ve ever tried to discuss the problems of religion with the fervently religious… that should give you a good idea of what you are in for around here (e.g., Matt Lee’s 12:23 am comment…). You will do as you wish of course, but my advice: try not to sink too much time into this vile, intellectual vacuum.

        1. Maybe if your challenges and attacks were based on logic, means, motive and opportunity, consideration of a comprehensive body of corroborated information, documentation, eyewitnesses, authenticated physical evidence, character of the principles – instead of the shallow, ill thought out, already shown to be erroneous, deficient, illogical attempts – not only would you be feeling better received but you’d recognize how the last thing on Earth that YOU’D want to experience is someone trying to make a case against YOU with documentation that’s already been shot full of holes…but which your adversary is still screaming should be viewed as strong evidence of YOUR dishonesty.

        2. What a waste of 8 years just to arrive at your conclusion Andy time not well spent maybe you forgot to include the spiritual teachings in your studies

        3. Gee you sure do bandy around the words logic like lollipops when you yourself have failed miserably to apply it here on numerous occasions where Michael tried to point you ad nauseously in the right direction at finding out exactly what this word means and how it is intelligently applied with his very patient and generous proffered responses.
          Why not just do us a favour and join the other lame Pseudo Robbins camp that way we won’t confuse you for a cameleon

    3. On a baseline level of logic and reason I see a lot of belief-oriented and personality-based conflation in all those who powerfully hold onto pseudo-scientific information. In this way then WM, I will make a comment on the quality of your or anyone else’s personal processes.

  2. WM says “Taking up such a posture causes the flow of logical assessment to be interrupted and leads to the misapprehension of basic facts.” Which basic facts do you feel are being misapprehended here?

    1. Sheila, perhaps he was referring to this: MH continues to promote the Ice Man as a “corroboration” when it has now been PROVEN that not only did Meier NOT disseminate info about the Ice Man before it was known, but that there is blatant backdating in this CR.

      Doesn’t mean the entire case is a hoax — but it does mean MH’s makes claims that are extremely misleading.

      1. This is another example of the slippery, disingenuous, deliberately misleading kind of language and argument that is taught to human beings so as to turn them into the kind of scum that many lawyers have come to embody.

        Andy says: “it has now been PROVEN that not only did Meier NOT disseminate info about the Ice Man before it was known, but that there is blatant backdating in this CR.” Please notice that Andy DOESN’T say, “it has now been PROVEN that not only did Meier NOT WRITE info…”

        It’s a huge difference. It’s the difference between someone walking into court with a person’s diary, with a specific, dated entry…and claiming that it’s invalid, a lie, hoax BECA– — — USE it wasn’t disseminated to other people. Cd\ertainly Meier often did disseminate his information. And perhaps some other people did see it. But Andy’s trying to indict Meier as dishonest, to impugn his character and integrity BECA– — — USE there’s no evidence of his disseminating it, etc.

        Because Andy apparently has been taught to be a “specialist”, i.e. to see the world as composed of lots of completely UNRELATED factors – instead of understanding that certainly in Meier’s case there’s an abundance of related and interrelated factors – he arrogantly and shallowly tries to make the kind of specious, sophomoric arguments that he only hopes and prays to never be on the receiving end of.

        He’s unclear in his own thinking, while confident that the case is a hoax. He says, “Doesn’t mean the entire case is a hoax,” which of course means that he KNOWS that parts of it are, which would be as good as saying that the whole thing is. So he says that I’m the one making “claims that are extremely misleading.”

        In ancient China legend has it that acupuncturists were required to hang lanterns outside of their residences for each patient that died under their care. What should be required of lawyers, and aspiring lawyers, who themselves freely kill the truth and assassinate the character of others?

        1. MH,

          Yes! I re-address because we may be getting somewhere now. You say: “It’s a huge difference. It’s the difference between someone walking into court with a person’s diary, with a specific, dated entry…and claiming that it’s invalid, a lie, hoax BECA– — — USE it wasn’t disseminated to other people.”

          Yes, yes. Very good. This is exactly what I am saying, and exactly why I have NOT called Meier a hoaxer. (We’ll leave aside for now the fact that the arrow part and the MUFON name were blatantly backdated for whatever reason; I’ll assume it was for legitimate reason, or honest error.). But you are right of course, just because Meier did not prior disseminate does not mean he didn’t actually have the conversation on the date at the top of the contact. BUT you also must realize this then does not count as strong evidence in favor of the case — prior disseminating is what makes the informational evidence strong, without it, it is not strong evidence of the extraordinary claim that Meier is in contact with ET’s.

          But, now that we are both in agreement that Ice Man did not fit the bill, you mention other instances that you are suggesting do fit the bill? Which ones? Something about A-bombs and ozone? I very much would like to discover a true example of Meier prior publishing scientific info, please point me in the exact right direction and I will report back.

          By the way folks, no, I do not know who WM is. Though I am apparantly equally despised, I am not pulling an Astro-tony.

          1. Stop. When you are able to comprehend that you’re not dealing with some sterile “example” in a text book but a COMPREHENSIVE, CONSISTENT body of congruent, information, with narratives referneced forward and backwards many times, with no evidence presented of falsification, hoaxing, dishonesty – means, motive and opportunity – then tell me that we’re getting somewhere.

            We’re not walking into the proverbial courtroom with a single, unique, isolated piece of information but indeed a page from that diary…out of thousands of pages. More than just a single word or two, it’s a significant piece of conversational content recorded by someone with a RECORD OF HONEST CHARACTER, etc.

            So no, we’re not in agreement because the ESSENCE of the question is not…is NOT if it was disseminated but rather if it was AUTHORED when stated. There is zero evidence to show that it wasn’t. For the zillionth time, we already have long known that certain specific information may be withheld. But the enteire contextual framework, the discovery of the Ice Man, the fall, etc., are all there, in that dated document.

            The preponderance of evidence of every sort – including the character of the man – points to the authenticity of the critical fact of his writing the information about this discovery BEFORE it occurred.

            So don’t try to put words in my mouth. Instead focus on letting the information and explanations penetrate your own thinking.

            I for one don’t despise anyone here (or most anywhere else). It’s the thinking that seems to be disliked, etc.

          2. Oh, wow, ok I see. So as for the “voluminous, prophetically accurate scientific information”… we are simply supposed to take his word that he wrote it when he did.

            I suppose it is still evidence of a sort — why would he write all this? I get it.
            But, I guess we will agree to disagree that the informational evidence is “ironclad” if you can offer no verifiable instances of prior publishing.

            But you are still not playing quite fair when you say “…with no evidence presented of falsification, hoaxing, dishonesty…”.

            As you know, I HAVE presented evidence of falsification — the arrow part in the Ice Man contact, the Mufon name, and the outer space photos all represent evidence of hoaxing. You continually suggest we have zero reason to be suspicious/skeptical, zero reason that we should not take Meier at his word… but that simply isn’t true any longer. I realize that these troubling facts are making you uncomfortable… but unfortunately the fact is that when Mahesh has tried to get answers about these indications of deception from Core Group members, he has only received evasive responses. They have simply tried to sweep these things under the rug, as you are doing now. These indications of deceit have not been explained. Thus, Meier no longer gets a free pass as to his alleged impeccable character.

            (By the way, “arrow”, “MUFON”, and outer space photos, represent only 3 of the peices of evidence that indicate deception — I can bring forward a couple more if you continue to suggest these three mean nothing and should just be glossed over).

            You’ve asked why do I make a big deal of this, why I am not “prosecuting” others or myself where they or I have been deceitful, inconsistent, etc?– because these people are not attempting to convince me of the extraordinary claim that someone is in contact with ET’s.

      2. Oh I understand, you obviously know WM and sent him/her here to help you in your legal case against Billy Meier, Michael Horn and the Plejaran. What don’t you get about the fact that contact reports are sometimes not released before they happen? It’s like when a bunch of lawyers get together before court and decide between them what the sentence will be and the last one to know is the person who was charged. Now pretend you are the person charged. You have access to the lawyer’s notes that states what the sentence will be but through FOIA you access all the information and find the notes were much more elaborate. Do you claim the lawyer notes have been backdated with the extra information?

        1. Gee these slippery lawyer wannabes they are starting to p**s me off big time.
          Self obsessed creatures that they are and nothing not even a whiff of spirituality can be detected.

    2. I formulated a detailed answer to your question Sheila, and to the larger question in play which the continual and childish insult stream ever more attempts to obscure, but the blog page will not allow me to post it. I post this in part to see if my ability to do so still exists.

    3. Dear Shiela, et al.,

      I apologize if this post appears multiple times. Both last nite as well as this morning I’ve made the attempt via the normal avenues but receive absolutely no feedback, neither “your post is being moderated” nor “duplicate content detected” (different IPs, browsers, etc… have been tried).

      As I said earlier, I refer to illogical conflation.

      For instance, if we set aside any concerns over the validity of Mr. Meier’s photographs, videos, and sounds recordings of unconventional flying craft (in part or whole), and for the sake of argument simply accept them all as actual representations of such flying devices, then we have just that piece of evidence. That is to say, we have footage of an unconventional flying device. We do not though have any absolutely verifiable and utterly intellectually honest means of connecting the various narratives Mr. Meier has published with this evidence of unconventional flying craft.

      To provide another, if there are indeed genuine instances of Mr. Meier publishing information about various planetary bodies prior to such information ostensibly being gathered by a NASA spacecraft expedition and so on, then this would simply mean he is in some way in touch with an organization or group able to gather technical data on planetary bodies within our solar system (a minute little corner in the overwhelming vastness of the Universe) which would seem outside the scope of above board Earth technological capabilities of that time. This though doesn’t necessary mean said organization or group is from a distant star system etc…, just as it neither speaks against this. It simply doesn’t directly address the matter in such a way. So we have to look to other sets of more confirmable data to determine if it is more or less likely that the source of information is from a distant star system or more Earthbound.

      In this case of course there’s also the possibility that Mr. Meier may have gained said information from some technical prospectus existing prior to said expeditions, or the consensus of a body of specialists theorizing about coming results based on telescope observations etc… and simply committed himself to an informational gambit of sorts. People engaged in various future-oriented fields do this all the time.

      To cover another area of evidence, whilst Mr. Meier may have either been told by non-terrestrial people, or by use of his own spiritual force divined that Russia would again come into competition for Arctic Circle resources and to this end bolster its military presence specifically in Arkhangelsk. It is also possible, however unlikely, that as a person who watches the world with adept intelligence, he came to understand, from economic and geopolitical writings, that as the Earth’s population continues to exponentially grow these Arctic resources will again become a hot commodity and the major powers bordering it will come into competition and eventual conflict over them. Further, he could have looked at or already been familiar with some of the landscape of that area and again, in a logical and rather sure gambit, predict that Arkhangelsk, which for hundreds of years and now again is a major port city and prime Arctic port for Russia, would be involved in such operations.

      A possibility, not a surety. Certainly in this impressive instance, a seemingly slimmer one.

      I rather think it is a mistake to underestimate the possibilities of the Human’s mental complex, as the readers of this material should be familiar with. Genius is capable of feats which to especially those who have never tasted it, may seem rather impossible for an Earthling. The fact is though that the highly exceptional among us can be possessed of a distant reach indeed!

      In Mr. Meier’s case, it is his person and word, the quality of his wisdom-teachings, power of his thinking, and depth of his insights which constantly and subtly asks that these evidences be connected with the overarching story and claims. But the fact is that the two may not be linked, a possibility which the extremely incredulous bits and pieces in the case bolster. This connection is a leap of faith – a belief.

      Further first-hand, more individual experiences could represent a genuine and intellectually honest tipping point. But if the overarching assertions are true in this case (“the mission”), it may point to another ingrained incongruity that such would be the avenue of absolute confirmation.

      Such aside, and to restate, there are several other technical possibilities, even where other people’s reported sightings and such similar experiences may be involved, for many of the phenomena and evidences which represent Mr. Meier’s case.

      Look for the confirmable kernal, and whilst certainly we must make room for feelings and intuitions, forcing oneself to match these up with real, unvarnished facts is a personal safeguard and exercise in self-honesty and consciousness development.

      Lately I’ve seen Mr. Meier’s materials more and more presented/represented, and the community of people interested in them whipped up and encouraged the behave in belief-based, religious manners. This represents a devolution into old and extremely negative patterns, and even at the cost of short-term gains in publicity, dissemination of information and material, etc… should not be resorted to.

      1. I’m allowing this post by WM, since it’s the closest thing to trying to substantiate, etc. However, it is nonetheless pure, wild speculation that still indicates that he’s grossly unfamiliar with the established facts of the case.

        Also, since he has provided a false email address, it’s possible that he may not have received the information that such speculative posts as his are no longer going to such up the air here, this one being his last hurrah.

        If he does wish to post here he will at the least have to submit his posts form an actual email address. And of course there are a lot of existing and future posts on which to express one’s opinion. But I think we’re soon also going to close even the need for speculation as to what are essentially any questions about Meier’s honesty, when one gets right down to it.

    4. Dear Shiela, et al.,

      I apologize if this post appears multiple times. Both last nite as well as this morning I’ve made the attempt via the normal avenues but receive absolutely no feedback, neither “your post is being moderated” nor “duplicate content detected”. So I’ll try altered my posting name and email in this attempt (different IPs, browsers, etc… have been tried).

      As I said earlier, I refer to illogical conflation.

      For instance, if we set aside any concerns over the validity of Mr. Meier’s photographs, videos, and sounds recordings of unconventional flying craft (in part or whole), and for the sake of argument simply accept them all as actual representations of such flying devices, then we have just that piece of evidence. That is to say, we have footage of an unconventional flying device. We do not though have any absolutely verifiable and utterly intellectually honest means of connecting the various narratives Mr. Meier has published with this evidence of unconventional flying craft.

      1. All that needs to be said here is that it’s beyond obvious that you haven’t read and/or understood the voluminous information published by Meier spanning over 60 years. So you too view the world as simply a bunch of unrelated evens occurring, with no causative relationships. Uh-huh.

        1. Right I think this is the same old mistakes critics of Meier are always guilty of in that they don’t even know what the words due diligence mean or how to go about doing it and so no wonder stupid question bordering on the moronic infest so many forums out there including this one.

    5. To provide another, if there are indeed genuine instances of Mr. Meier publishing information about various planetary bodies prior to such information ostensibly being gathered by a NASA spacecraft expedition and so on, then this would simply mean he is in some way in touch with an organization or group able to gather technical data on planetary bodies within our solar system (a minute little corner in the overwhelming vastness of the Universe) which would seem outside the scope of above board Earth technological capabilities of that time. This though doesn’t necessary mean said organization or group is from a distant star system etc…, just as it neither speaks against this. It simply doesn’t directly address the matter in such a way. So we have to look to other sets of more confirmable data to determine if it is more or less likely that the source of information is from a distant star system or more Earthbound.

      1. Thank you for another, patience trying example of speculation (the kindest thing I can think of saying).

        At this link:

        http://www.theyfly.com/Confirming-Meier.htm

        …you’ll find information regarding Meier’s verifiable foreknowledge about specific information concerning Io, a moon of Jupiter (as well as other information). You’ll notice that the best the skeptic could do is to point to information published AFTER Meier did. Further, Wendelle Stevens had the information in his possession prior to the announcement form NASA/JPL. Further, the best the skeptics could do was to criticize that Meier got some details wrong because our science had some different information.

        Now, several years back I personally spoke to Dr. Joseph Veverka from Cornell University who was directly connected with the Voyager project. He was rather amazed at Meier’s information, to say the least. Of course the problem with Dr. Veverka is that he’s an actual scientist involved with the Voyager mission and apparently he didn’t/doesn’t sit around all day with his thumb up…in the air, playing on the internet.

        So perhaps this is as good a point as any to – once again – say to all the know-it-alls who continue to show that they know nothing about the Meier case, actual investigation and research, enjoy yourselves, twiddle your thumbs with your imaginary, fact defying nonsense that bears no relation to the actual truth. The real question is how Meier has managed to retain his sanity, good humor, patience and hopefulness when time and again human beings snatch defeat from the jaws of logic and reality. Some cynical people may at this point say that humanity is about to get…800 years worth of the kind of grief that it most certainly deserves. Good thing I’m not cynical.

        P.S. This may also be a good time to do what Matt did a few days ago and suggest that people look at what Meier had to say in 2008:

        http://www.theyfly.com/2008-prediction

        1. Michael,

          I’m familiar with this information concerning Dr. Veverka. I neither dismiss it nor do I end allow my legitimate critical thinking processes to end there. For other possible “means” exists.

          1. To all concerned,

            It appears that we have an epidemic of self-styled “experts” who are anything but. Another coulda, woulda, shoulda proponent who is, apparently, quite impressed with himself…for reasons completely not in evidence.

            Editorial comment: Sir/Madam, you are demonstrably devoid of “critical thinking processes” which, of course, hasn’t stopped any of your predecessors. And of course you’re completely unfamiliar with the Meier material. So here’s the deal – and it goes from here on for all of the know-it-alls, either substantiate your claims with actual specifics, i.e. the real, substantiated means, motive and opportunity employed by Meier that establish his having falsified, hoaxed his information/evidence, etc., or I will spare myself further time wasting chats and attempt to reason with you, etc.

            The burden of actual…proof is now on anyone disputing Meier’s evidence. Not coulda, woulda, shoulda, actual verifiable evidence sufficient to PROVE your attacks on Meier’s evidence. If you don’t see your latest bit of speculation posted, that will be the reason. No, you’re not being censored or blocked, only blatantly stupid, unsubstantiated assertions aren’t going to suck up any more space or time. I know that this will bother some people…mainly those who have provided nothing but such speculation and faulty thinking.

        2. If WM’s reasonable comments are trying your patience, you should probably get another job. Or, at least quit saying you are open for debate.

          So this Dr. Veverka is on the record then vouching for the authenticity of the Meier case?

          1. I suggest that you read my last response to WM.

            As for a job, I volunteer my time, so I also have a choice as to what I do with it and being open to debate doesn’t require me to continue to suffer fools. In fact, if you don’t like it, you don’t have to post here. But if you, or anyone else wants to post proof for these accusations, feel free to do so.

            It actually should be sufficient at this time to say that you’ve so far squandered your opportunity to demonstrate that you can think.

            I didn’t tape record Dr. Veverka’s comments. And what does it matter? You already know everything.

          2. No. As I stressed continually a few weeks ago, the burden of proof is on you, per YOUR repeated claims that you can prove the case. Nevertheless, as for this: “Not coulda, woulda, shoulda, actual verifiable evidence sufficient to PROVE your attacks on Meier’s evidence,” I actually did mention proof in regards to backdating/false pictures in nearly every message I’ve posted here the last few weeks.

            On and on with your thinking skills “argument.” Since this is the heart of your “argument”, what have YOU done to demonstrate your thinking skills, besides look through the thesaurus for synonyms for “stupid” so you can have more names to call people?

            You mentioned on the other page there is no room for doubt for anyone who has researched the large body of material. I in fact have researched the large body of material…and I find plenty of room for doubt. PLENTY OF ROOM, especially given the handful of instances of backdating and fake pictures, and your evasive, non-response to these evidences of deception.

            You sound like an old, whiny, bitter fart of an old man. How pathetic are you, how weak is your case, that you must insult every time you make one of your off topic “points”?

            Oh, and you whine about my insults, about my “character assassination”… such a “cry baby” you are!

            How delusional must MH be in his old age that he expects us to take his word at face value that Meier predicted events before they happened…without offering any proof, except the date in his diary? How idiotic, naive, moronic and without thinking skills must MH be to proffer such “evidence”?

            LET ME GUESS, MH…YOU DON’T LIKE HOW I AM SPEAKING ABOUT YOU RIGHT NOW??? Oh, come on, you just need to “toughen up” … and… and… wait for it… “LEARN HOW TO THINK” !!!!! Bam! Gotcha! Game, set, match!

            Keep spreading that peace and harmony buddy.

            Matt Lee, Sheila, et al.,

            Before you call me a bunch of names, I hope you picked up the sense of satire in my post here (perhaps my tone in this message sounded similar to that of another frequent poster here…).

            Sayonara.

          3. Andy,

            You inadvertently raise an important point. What we “like” and “don’t like” in life is extremely unimportant. Finding out what’s true…seeing things exactly as they really are, is what’s important. When one keeps that in mind then it’s almost impossible to feel “insulted”, as least that’s my experience. If I find things that are negative about me but true, then I seek to correct them. If they’re not true, they have absolutely no negative impact on me.

            I also explained that in one of my online videos, you probably should view it.

            Now, I’d like you to explain something. In Contact 238, the one in which Meier first is told and writes about the Ice Man, did you notice the information about Gorbachev and Yeltsin, as well as the Pope and the lengthy writing abouthte dangers people face from religions, etc.?

            You notice that the conversation goes into over 500 sentences and, in the English translation, some 71 sentences are missing before it’s picked up again about the Ice Man, at number 586, on page 402. The narrative (or rather the translation) skips to where Ptaah answers at 27 sentences later at 637. And the information from Meier and Ptaah is very specific about the age of things in the Milky Way, etc., the Destroyer, etc.

            Then there’s a further gap between the last numbered sentence, 705., and where Meier speaks about not only the fake moon landing but the attack on Pearl Harbor, etc., which Ptaah respnds to in sentence 803. The second translation there runs to Billy’s response to 839.

            At the bottom of the page there are some notes from the translators, including this:

            “Billy’s question immediately preceding Ptaah’s sentence 655 concerns the most primitive form of (non-carbon-based) life, called talposbacteria, which is not yet recognized by terrestrial science.” (See: http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_256)

            Now you’ve probably noticed before what a lengthy and complex transcript this is. And of course you probably clicked over to Contact 256 where you see that Meier starts the contact right off speaking about talposbacteria, mentioning that he had spoken to both Quetzal and Ptaah about it previously. As a matter of fact, we are informed by the translators that it was in Contact 238, sentence 655, where Ptaah is responding to Meier about it.

            You’re also aware that this contact indicates that there were some 161 pages, from page 283 – page 444.

            So, my question to you here is…what kind of a computer did Meier transcribe this contact on? I’m sure if you don’t know that Mahesh does and will tell you. When you answer that I will provide additional responses to your question here, which I think will clear up a lot of things for you.

            Fair enough?

  3. As a casual follower of this, one of the more intense discussions, I’ll just add that the case is so vast in unique and specific evidence. As odd as it sounds, one of the most intelligent things one might say about the Billy Meier case is, “I don’t know.”

    1. Andy you said “Before you call me a bunch of names, I hope you picked up the sense of satire in my post here (perhaps my tone in this message sounded similar to that of another frequent poster here…).”

      “Sayonara.”

      See this is a good example of you actually not getting it do you understand?

  4. Unknowningness is a matter of being,
    but ignorance is a matter choice.

    Reflection is needed for clear-thinking,
    Reaction oft requires no thinking.

    What then of the teachings?
    Unheeded when egos reign.

    — 11

  5. 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.

    MH”

    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: http://ufoprophet.blogspot.in/2014/09/should-billy-meier-be-awarded-1000000.html#axzz3QZd4OYGI.

      “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?

      WM

      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.

          WM

          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 *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.