New skeptical attack again helps prove authenticity of Billy Meier’s prophetically accurate scientific information
For several months there have been allegations form certain people that Billy Meier falsified his information regarding the 5,100 year-old Iceman, as well as other things like the connection between the ozone damage and chemical and atomic radiation causes.
I’ve repeatedly not only rejected those attacks them but also stood firm in my determinations that Meier never backdated any information. Time and again I’ve challenged the accusers to explain the logic, the means, motive and opportunity by which Meier supposedly accomplished this alleged hoax. I’ve pointed out his known and proven good character, absolutely devoid of any proven dishonesty, lying, hoaxing, etc. I’ve also pointed out that someone whose physical evidence of extraterrestrial UFOs has now been independently authenticated several times, wouldn’t need to create a problematic body of allegedly false information.
What’s a Writetyper?
Nonetheless, such rebuttals and challenges were basically ignored, described as “irrelevant”, etc., mainly by young, inexperienced people who, in the digital age, may not even know what a…typewriter is, nor how critical to disproving their foolish attacks it could turn out to be.
Here’s an excerpt from an article that I posted ten years ago, quoting FIGU member Hans-Georg Lanzendorfer:
“Made more difficult yet is that Billy, in the year 1984 did not in any form or way have a computer at his disposal, because the PC plainly and simply entered his office for the first time in the year 2002. Billy had, however, up to the year 2002 diligently written the contact reports with a mechanical type writer and, despite the urgings of the group members, had long avoided using a computer. A falsification of the contact reports and the prophecies would also mean that he would have had to have prepared countless typed pages with gaps in the text to make the retrospective inclusions possible. In the case of a falsification he also would not have knowledge of which coming event to insert in which contact report, so it would not be possible for him to determine the free place for the insertion. Quite aside from this, it is generally known that by inserting (something) the text can be disrupted over several pages away. Falsifications or retrospective inclusions would therefore mean that, in the meanwhile, he must have had to have repeatedly, with his typewriter, copied uncountable, already available pages.”
And while Hans-Georg goes on to say more about it, we have learned that Meier didn’t get his first computer until…March 5, 2001, well after the initial Iceman transcript. Now since Andy, one of the accusers along with Mahesh, is studying to be a lawyer, it appears that he doesn’t like to consider such pesky inconveniences as logic and MMO, i.e. means, motive and opportunity in determining the truth of such accusations, etc.
Practice makes Perfect
In keeping with the logical explanation about the known facts presented by Hans-Georg, and considering the serious difficulties Meier would have faced trying to backdate this particular contact, does Andy wish to state, unequivocally, that Meier falsified and backdated all of the Iceman information in Contact 238 and most likely also Contact 256, since the information about the bacteria picks up again there in reference to what was said in Contact 238?
Remember, Andy, we’re dealing with pieces of…paper here, not online pages. So the reality is that if Meier falsified the Iceman information, he’d most likely have to go back and redo most of the entire transcript– in each and every copy – which he’d also somehow have to acquire. While it’s easy to create a new page from almost any place in an online document, trying to change information from well within160 pieces of paper is a huge amount of trouble, even in one document.
I for one would find it quite interesting to watch Andy try to convincingly explain, and substantiate, what Meier’s motive would be to even attempt this bit of time-consuming trickery – and then, after all of the effort, to never draw attention to, or claim credit for, the information himself.
Just Methane Around
Regarding the bacteria that thrive in heat, the conditions in Meier’s information greatly exceed the temperatures at which these bacteria are so far known to survive. Even more interestingly, there’s information in this same contact about bacteria that thrive on…methane gas. Contact 256, from 1996, was originally translated and already online in 2006 – meaning that this “new discovery” from 2007 is actually just another corroboration of Meier’s prophetically accurate scientific information that he published well prior to the “official discovery”.
Ironically, it seems that we may have Mahesh’s and Andy’s failed debunking attempt to thank for helping us find it.
Are there little inconsistencies that occasionally occur and appear in the course of real life and very human events? Certainly and sometimes information* may even pop up some time later and satisfactorily, or not, explain the situation. But attributing low, dishonest motives to someone who has a record of good personal character and honesty, is far more indicative of the lack of those qualities on the part of the accusers, who’ve shown such a long, stubborn and determined investment in their cynicism and blind ambition.
It’s good to be able to recognize an honest person…it’s even better to become one.
*The following is an excerpt of information just received from Christian Frehner of FIGU. Each person should draw their own conclusions. However, those who wish to maintain that Meier was effectively falsifying information need to substantiate their claims, which includes credibly addressing all of the information above:
“In the original contact 238 of November 9, 1990, on page 2018 (original) the information about the arrows is missing, just as it is the case in SWZ 79/1 on page 60. And also the date is wrong in both “places”: 4105 years instead of 5105 years. In the SKB Nr. 13 there’s something astonishing to notice: In my edition on page 2539, the one that I scanned for you, there’s the correct year (5105 y.) and also the information about the arrows, but in the version that is published on Mahesh’s site, the arrow information is not included. It’s a mystery to me. Perhaps the book was printed two times. I don’t remember, and I don’t have the brown SKB anymore.
In the course of the production of the new PPKB Blocks, Ptaah, Florena or Enjana were correcting the old contact notes together with Billy and Bernadette, usually on Saturday afternoon each week, in order to correct as many transmission errors as possible (there were really mistakes in it due to the high-speed transmission). Therefore, in PPKB Block 6, on page 398, the ‘arrow information’ plus other minor corrections were applied to the text during that correction process.
Regarding the publishing date of the Iceman information I would agree with Elisabeth Moosbrugger that the WZ 79/1 and 79/2 were published in autum 1991 (certainly not before the Iceman was found), and possibly even at the time or a little bit after SWZ 80 was published. And what I’ve just noticed: Between WZ 79 and the trio 79/1+2 and 80, the font of the text in the SWZ has changed from typwriter style to computer style. Obviously at that time we had a reorganisation in our book-publishing office…Btw: In PP Block 13 there will be additional information on the Iceman. He and his father do not originate from the Lake Zurich region, but came up there from southern regions.”