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.
Real Life
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.
or
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.”
good one, Michael. I can see why it is/has been confusing for people who try so hard to discredit the material. But to pick a few things to go on about is really not the whole of the, what I believe to be, vital information for the people of this planet. One must have a open mind or resonate with the material, which I am lucky to have both, which takes everything we have been told and taught to “believe” out to the trash bin, not to be recycled again.
Nice one!
Well well well
The point will be lost of course on those who will failed to look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves “gee am I perfect enough that I don’t make any mistakes or as a result of other people’s mistakes I get to be blamed for them” before they project their irrational expectations on Billy.
It obviously ties in with your MMO the real life factor of course in that the more that one tells a lie the greater chance of making a mistake therefore given the impossible accuracy of Billy’s prophetic information with minor sundry mistakes as in printing error etc it is absolutely indisputable that Meier never had the MMO to carried out a hoax because of the sheer impossibility made more difficult by comprehensive documentation of his life which is counterintuitive if he intended to lie.
People must get this through their heads that the more you put out the less wiggle room you have for maneuvour especially if its based on a lie which is impossible to maintain in the long run by the sheer exponential increase in probability of making mistakes.
Precisely so.
And perhaps now not only will Mahesh remove his inaccurate accusations, etc., but he can proceed to tell us, as I’ve suggested he would say before, it was all just intended as “a way of proving the authenticity of the Meier case”.
If Mahesh wants to roll with the wrong crowd then he’ll just have to inadvertently prove the Meier material time and time again. It might just be a handy way to get Andy aboard as well.
What inaccurate accusations? Mahesh never called Meier a hoaxer, and nor have I. Mahesh has simply and rightly pointed out, that despite your misleading claims, Meier has never verifably prior disseminated any specific piece of information. (That is, at least as far as I am aware…and because you wouldn’t take me up on it when I invited you to point me in the direction of such an example, I will take that to mean you are not aware of such an example either. Do correct me if I am wrong). Mahesh/Simon’s work, of course, has also shown that Meier space’s outer space photos are fake.
I missed here where I helped prove the case. There is no reason to believe that your copy is from before the arrow was found, and there is every reason to believe it was not. Your copy is identical to all the later versions that were published post-discovery of the arrow; all the older copies have arrow talk in them, none of the early ones have been found to have the arrow part in them. (I’m having trouble posting the link, but Mahesh/Simon have a nice side by side comparison of the CR from all the different publication dates. I’ll get it up later).
Your talk about the alleged difficulty/unlikelihood of changing documents via typewriter…well its contradicted by the later part of your own post. Between SWZ 79-1 and SWZ 88 — that is between June ’91 and the September ’93 publications of the CR (back in those writetyper days!) — the year 4105 was changed to 5105. CR’s have been changed, whether before Meier had an office computer or not.
In any case, yes I am saying things have been added into later contact reports and without drawing attention to the fact that they have been altered — i.e., they were backdated — and arrow is demonstrably one of these examples. The MUFON info is another such example. CF even mentions this CR is about to be changed again, with the information about Zurich being changed.
I am unclear as to what you think is new that you are bringing to the table with this post, and it is in fact quite ironic that you should wish to continue to promote the Ice Man info. Here are the facts:
1 – Meier allegedly writes about the Ice Man a few months before it is discovered. The CR is dated before the discovery of the mummy, but the info is admittedly NOT disseminated before it’s discovery.
2 – Meier/Plejaren first date the mummy at 4105, but scientists say it is older. In the third reprinting of the CR, the date is changed to 5105, closely matching the estimates of scientists.
3 – An arrow is found in the Ice Man’s back about a decade after the discovery of the Ice Man itself. None of Meier’s early printings of this CR spoke of the arrow in the mummy’s back before it was discovered; after the arrow was discovered, all of the printings of this CR mentioned that there was an arrow in the mummy’s back.
4 – CF states that the CR will be changed again in regards to Ice Man’s home town. The CR originally said Zurich, now it will be changed to the southern regions. This matches what scientists tell us on the issue.
Thus, Meier disseminated nothing on the Ice Man before it was publicly known. And now, with the Zurich bit, we are going on three instances of where this particular CR has been changed to match discoveries of scientists.
So what in here makes the Ice Man a corroboration of anything? As far as I can tell, with the facts as they are, if anything, Meier’s Ice Man CR appears to point in the direction of the hoax hypothesis.
The default position of the rationalist, the scientist, would be that Meier did not really author it when he says he did. He may have, I don’t know, but there is certainly no proof of the case within this “corroboration.”
Again, I am not calling Meier a hoaxer (nor, again, have I seen Mahesh call Meier a hoaxer)…all I am saying is that the informational evidence does not itself prove the case’s authenticity. (Not by a long shot). I feel like I have repeated myself a thousand times. Please clarify if there was something new here that I missed.
And you still apparently do not understand the burden of proof concept. You continually ask about MMO… I continually say I don’t know. I am not ashamed to say that. And I never called Meier a hoaxer, so there is no obligation on me here to speculate about MMO right now. But YOU do have a webpage where YOU claim the Ice Man proves the Meier case is real. That claim is laughable, and I stand by that 100%. (Again, I think it began as an honest mistake on your part; you, like me and Mahesh and Simon, had erroneously assumed that the contact reports do not get changed over the years…but this unfortunately turned out not to be true).
And no, you will certainly not get any apologies from me. But whenever you are ready to give me an apology for the countless, completely out of place, distracting and despicable, ad nauseum insults issued at me… I am all ears. I won’t hold my breath.
You have failed to note and/or understand things that are long since an open part of the car. Meier’s transcripts of transmissions that come to him telepathicaly are apparently quite fast and known to have some errors and/or omissions, which is also why the long-established correction process has existed, often with the direct help of the Plejaren who have the complete record of all conversations, etc. And when documents were trnasferred from origianl typewriter versions to computer versions, likewise errors were sometimes made.
Apparently you are one of those etremely rare, flawless individuals who hasn’t, for example, hit a…4 instead of a 3 or a 5 on a keyboard. Congratulations.
And once again you try to slip in that Meier’s information wasn’t “disseminated” as opposed to written as dated and claimed, and you further claim that as far as you are aware “he has never verifiably done so”. Really, did you actually miss the information in this blog pertaining to his PRIOR publication of the methane eating bacteria AND the verifiable PRIOR online publication of it?
Did you also miss how this Contact 256 is tied into Contact 238 BECA– — — USE of the bacteria information? And did you miss figuring out just how Meier would indeed have to have MAGICALLY postdated Contact 256, as well as rewritten Conttact 238…even though it’s been online since BEFORE the “official discovery”?
Typical of the contortions that defensive skeptives go through, you are effectively giving Meier near magical powers, virtually unlimited time, resources at the same time as accusing him of unethical motivations, smearing his character so you can try to maintain your foolish, immature world view…where demonstrably exceptional, good people are fair game for you to attack in order to protect your ego.
In time, certainly if you continue along these dreadfully wrong-headed, disinformation and defamation spewing paths, you’ll encounter the results in the “world out there”.
And let’s be clear, you’re not being randomly “insulted”, you and your behavior are being described in words suited to EXACTLY the kind of stubbornly wrong, unsubstantiated, defamatory accusations that are deserved.
Obviously trying to reason with a super-smug, absolutely illogical, willfully ignorant, dweller in deep denial is a futile thing.
You explain, “Meier’s transcripts of transmissions that come to him telepathicaly are apparently quite fast”… yet I am the one who is “effectively giving Meier near magical powers”???
Kind of funny. I get it though; Meier didn’t have much MMO as far as we can tell. But, obviously its you making the extraordinary claim, and thus the burden of proof is on you… and it is a heavy one: “Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary measures.” –Carl Sagan
STOP talking about my alleged “defamation” of Meier. Jesus Christ. We are solely talking about your claims as to the strenght of the informational evidence. For the thousandth time, I HAVEN’T ACC– — — USED MEIER OF ANYTHING. At this point, it is virtually you who is defaming me by continually trying to put words in my mouth. I SOLELY accused you of making bloated claims — which proved wholly justified.
With your continual misrepresentation of my position, and the divisive and unjustified “Andy is the enemy” dichotomy you have set up, it may have been forgotten that I have said on a number of occasions that I think… that Meier may win on a “preponderance of evidence” standard.
Now to the substance: The issue wasn’t about making typos, of course typos are excusable… but you seemed to suggest that contact reports couldn’t be changed because they were on typewriters. Obviously, this is untrue.
You bringing up the methane stuff is really a red herring, which serves to distract from the obvious fact — the fact which I have been trying to get you to acknowledge for a month — that the Ice Man is not a corroboration of anything. You are tying to move the goal posts again.
One thing at one time. But the Ice Man is over now, and I did previously ask for a verifiable instance of prior-publishing, and I’m glad that you have finally offered one. I’ll have a look and report back.
But then I am done, because I agree with this completely: “Obviously trying to reason with a super-smug, absolutely illogical, willfully ignorant, dweller in deep denial is a futile thing.”
P.S. — Keep justifying your juvenile insults, and I’ll keep pointing out that in all the legal and scientific literature that I read (hours and hours every day) I have NEVER EVER seen one party insult the party holding the other position. This seems to only happen on Fox or MSNBC… and here.
It seems that you’ve really “wasted” those eight years. You’ve long known – or certainly should have – about the information in the case regarding how Meier transcribes it, the claims, the eyewitness reports, etc., etc., so if you have any issue with anything, why haven’t you previously stated that the Contact Reports themselves must all be, somehow, falsified because obviously Meier couldn’t receive them – as he says he does – telepathically? Why are you even interested n the material?
I think what’s actually coming out here is your own internal conflict. There are no red herrings, goal posts aren’t being moved. WHat’s happening is that you’ve tried to make someone out to be a liar and when shown numerous solid, logical reasons and examples why it isn’t so, you’ve gotten all the more flustered.
You act as if there are simply a couple of isolated pieces of unrelated information and that they show obvious falsification. I suggest that you…stay with that, sell it to yourself, because you certainly don’t want to think it through. Typewriters and 160 pages, etc., etc.? No problem, you’ve…figured it all out, sitting at your computer.
The simple facts are that Contact 238 contains information from a given date and time pertaining to a discovery that didn’t happen until well afterwards. In that same contact Meier just happens to also mention info about bacteria, which he again brings up in Contact 256…and refers back to discussing it previously, as occurred in 238. The information in 256, including about the methane eating bacteria, is published 11 years before “official discovery”. At the very least – unless you can prove otherwise – that makes the publication date for Contact 238 logical and acceptable.
A rational, logical person who considers all the facts, the real and extreme difficulties of going back into every copy of any CR and falsifying the info in these TYPEWRITTEN documents, etc., the necessary MOTIVATION to even attempt it, realizes that you’re simply trying to prove not only tremendous dishonesty but the man’s “evil brilliance” at the same time. You’re really incapable also of seeing that this is a personal issue for you because you don’t like being referred to as anything less than what you…imagine yourself to be. Your thinking shows that you’ve overrated yourself.
Since I’ve had the pleasure of knowing Meier since 2000, and you’ve done all your brilliant research sitting at your computer, I admit I have a certain disdain, even contempt, for the kind of shallowness that you and the other armchair experts exhibit. Truly, you’ve given not a thought to how wrong you are about a man and his motives in your attempt to override all reason and logic in attacking him.
Life has inconsistencies and, believe it or not, Billy Meier isn’t a trained seal whose purpose in life is to confirm to your infantile, inexperienced ideas about how real life, with its messes and inconsistencies, takes place. Once you live a real life, you’ll better understand.
So enjoy your beliefs.
Talk about willfully ignorant. I don’t know about wasting 8 years…but I have certainly wasted the last 3-4 weeks.
For the last time — even IF it is found Meier never prior published on anything, and that the CR’s changed in certain places overtime, this does NOT mean the case is a hoax. It would only mean the informational evidence does not prove the case.
I really don’t know how I can be any clearer. I literally just wrote two paragarphs about it in my preceding message (and have stressed it in virtually every post) where I was begging you to quit twisting my words, and explaining that this conversation was never about Meier per se, about whether he is a liar or not, whether he has good character, etc… but solely about YOUR claims about the informational evidence.
But you go on and on with “you’ve tried to make someone out to be a liar…..you’ve given not a thought to how wrong you are about a man and his motives in your attempt to override all reason and logic in attacking him.”
I’m dumbfounded. My patience is long gone. Because you are apparently incapable of discussion, I’m outta here (discussions, conversations…you know, those things where there is a back and forth exchange, where one listens to the other, and then the other actually addresses what the other person has just said…).
Was this your strategy the whole time because you were uncomfortable with the facts I was bringing forward? You decided to keep trying to make this conversation about a NON-EXISTENT attack on Meier… to get the attention off of your misleading, bloated claims about the informational evidence which was always the sole topic of conversation? To just ignore everything I say and instead just CONSISTENTLY, WITHOUT FAIL, TWIST MY POSITION until I was so fed up I would leave?
Well…it worked! See ya later.
I see now, Andy now isn’t claiming that Meier backdated his information, etc., what his real problem all along is that he doesn’t like my conclusions…based on my own thinking, consideration of the evidence, MMO, Meier’s character, etc.
Well ya coulda fooled me with all of that backdating, insinuating that Meier got his ol’ typewriter out and went about falsifying info, etc., that I thought I read coming from Andy. All along it was actually about calling me fraudulent and a liar for…what? For declaring my support for the authenticity of the case, the evidence. So it wasn’t that Andy and of course Mahesh are saying that the case was fraudulent, it was me being for fraudulent for my conclusions and support for Meier’s authenticity?
It wasn’t an attack on Meier at all, silly me. All that stuff about saying that he backdated the Iceman info, the info on the ozone and A-bomb. No, that was actually only attacking me because I supported Meier’s authenticity which, it would seem to me to mean that, help me out here, I was fraudulent and a liar for supporting something that they say is real but that they attacked as being false. So, Mahesh’s statement about “deconstructing” me was what it was about for Andy as well.
Maybe because it’s late, honestly, I’ll have to look at this again in the morning. There’s something just kinda…odd about it all.
Michael,
Listen, if you are truth-seeker, which I take you to be, then we are on the same team. (I am going to capitalize words — doesn’t mean I am shouting, just means I don’t know how to get italics on here).
First, you write “…what [Andy’s] real problem all along is that he doesn’t like my conclusions…”.
Bingo. Instead of rereading my previous post as you suggested you would, I’ll spell it out super clear for you right here, and then maybe we can actually move forward with a fruitful discussion.
The conversation began several weeks ago with me — in good faith and goodwill — trying to bring these two related messages to your attention:
1) Your claim about the informational evidence, in general, is misleading. (When I refer to “your claim about the informational evidence, in general,” I refer to your claim that the informational evidence is the so-called “higher standard of proof” that PROVES the case “beyond a reasonable doubt”). Secondly,
2) Your claim about the Ice Man, in particular, is misleading. (When I refer to “your claim about the Ice Man, in particular,” I refer to your claim that the Ice Man is supposedly a very striking example of Meier usurping terrestrial scientists, and thus in itself proves the authenticity of the Meier case).
I tried to bring this to your attention, so that you wouldn’t open yourself up to obvious, easy attacks from skeptics. This was my good faith and goodwill motive.
Now I will tell you why I feel both of these claims of yours are misleading. (But first, again, notice I never attacked Meier’s honesty/character, but only challenged these two claims of YOURS).
Your first claim (that the informational evidence, in general, proves the case beyond a reasonable doubt) stems, presumably, from the idea that Meier has allegedly published dozens of bits of scientific information before this information was otherwise terrestrially known. I say this is misleading because, from what I have seen, Meier was never actually the FIRST publisher of the relevant information. (I may be wrong here, but Mahesh’s work seems to show this that Meier was in fact never the first publisher. But I will look into your methane-eating bacteria info soon. Perhaps this “corroboration” is an exception and is a true PRIOR publication, and, if so, I will change my position about the strength of the informational evidence).
Your second claim (that Meier’s Ice Man info proves the authenticity of the case by itself) is CLEARLY misleading, now that it has been shown that Meier did NOT disseminate any info about the Ice Man before it was publicly known. (Yes, I use the word “disseminate,” opposed to write/author, because writing the relevant information in “his diary,” allegedly on a certain date, isn’t enough to cut it as strong evidence or as a genuine “corroboration” of the case. It is not that I am calling Meier a liar about the dates in the diary — but what makes a “corroboration” is Meier DISSEMINATING information BEFORE it is otherwise terrestrially known. He very may well have written things when he said he did, but we cannot be expected to simply take his word at it, given the extraordinary nature of the alleged source of the information. You said the Ice Man PROVES the case — this is only true IF he disseminated info before it was publicly known…which he did not).
So, to recap:
I am confident your claim #2 is misleading because Meier never PRIOR disseminated info on the Ice Man. Your #1 claim MAY hold truth, IF we can find a couple examples of verifiable PRIOR publication (again, I will look into your methane-eating bacteria info and get back to you; perhaps this is a true example of prior publication).
Additionally, yes, I never claimed Meier was a hoaxer, and this all along was all about YOUR claims. Again, I brought it up because I didn’t want you to be open to obvious (and legitmate) attacks from skeptics.
It seems you got confused with my talk about “verifiable instances of backdating.” Well, the truth is, that THERE IS verifiable instances of backdating. The information about the arrow in the Ice Man’s back is a verifiable instance of backdating, and so is the name MUFON in a different contact report. BUT, again, this does not mean I am calling Meier a hoaxer…perhaps there is a legitimate and honest reason why these bits are found in the later publications but not the earlier publications.
Finally, my good faith and goodwill suggestion still stands: YES, you should take down your page about the Ice Man, because it obviously does NOT prove the authenticity of the Meier case, because there is no PRIOR dissemination…and therefore it as an easy target for the skeptic to latch onto and call BS on the entire case because they can easily and legitmately call BS on your claim that the “Ice Man proves the Meier case is real.”
I came as a friend, I am still unclear as to why you were determined to make me an enemy.
Andy,
Let’s agree that we’re all truth seekers here. Now remember you said this:
“Whether the Meier case is true or not (again, I think it is), if people should continue to hold out this Ice Man thing as an example of Meier knowing something before anyone on earth, than this is down right fraudulent.”
To try to keep it simple, from today’s email you concede that, “It is not that I am calling Meier a liar about the dates in the diary…” so in fact you agree that he may in fact have known it. So, if I have concluded from all of the evidence that I have thought through that you’re…right, that in fact that he did know it, then why would I be fraudulent for supporting it?
You go on to say, “He very may well have written things when he said he did, but we cannot be expected to simply take his word at it, given the extraordinary nature of the alleged source of the information.” Here is where I think we may be having our dissonance, friction, misunderstanding.
You would be right that we shouldn’t take his word…IF this was anything even remotely resembling a fluke, lucky guess, a person with absolutely no record of accuracy, character, etc. – let alone absolutely HISTORICALLY authentic UFO evidence. But such isn’t the case. Certainly the fact, with which you agree, that there’s a preponderance of evidence that gives authenticity and credibility to the case is an enormous contributing factor which, when cosidered with other relevant factors, means, motive, opportunity and known character through an exceptionally, to the point of almost singular uniqueness, well documented life and diary, etc., weigh irresistibly in the favor of Meier’s truthfulness, including as to when he wrote the Iceman info. His record of it preceeds the “official discovery”.
This requires that we think about and weigh all of the evidence, including that which is specifically only about the Iceman. It’s been explained, long ago, that Meier makes errors in his transcriptions that are done at high speed. But perhaps it bears mentioning again that he doesn’t get a verbatim transcript delivered to him telepathically in German, as far as I understand it he recieves the information in SYMBOLS, simultaneously transalating them WHILE he types, with one hand. If I’m in error about this we’ll soon find out.
Final corrections are made at a later date and transcripts may or may not be widely shared in the group until then but in some cases it’s much sooner, as I learned in conversations at the center. Not the least important thing to consider is the actual language in the conversations, such as the Iceman. Meier doesn’t simply say, “This will happen on this day.” He publishes the information that he’s participated in discussing in these conversations. Everyone should refresh their memories and read all the info here (http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_238) not just the Iceman info.
This is where our logical reasonoing and common sense must come in. In fact I won’t comment more on that part until at least after people have absorbed it for themselves. So taking ALL of this into consideration, we must ask oursleves if we have sufficient reason to instead believe the OPPOSING, accusatory conclusions, that Meier deliberately falsified, backdated this information because the word arrow may have been left out earlier and/or inserted later in the corrected version. What would a reasonable person conclude in the face of the evidence?
In order for someone to appreciate my conclusion that the Iceman “proves the case”, they’d have to become familiar with all of these details – all of them – and of course they are available. In fact I could and probably have said that any number of these corroborations prove the case. First, as we all know, one can only prove something to themselves. And we all know that the Meier material is staunchly against anyone trying to prove anything.
So why do I make these statements? First, I have taken the evidence and weighed and concluded that it’s authentic…far beyond any reasponable doubt. Those are my conclusions. And I have chosen to assert my conclusions to provoke interest, dsicussion, research…THINKING. So if one thinks about it they may just disagree with your statement, “You said the Ice Man PROVES the case — this is only true IF he disseminated info before it was publicly known…which he did not.”
But if someone disagrees with you, such as I do, they aren’t “fraudulent” for making that claim. In fact, what if people evaluate this evidence and agree that it proves it to them? Are they now fruadulent to if they state that?
Now I’ll let you consider all that and I’ll make a couple of other comments. So far I’ve been unable to find page 4 of Mahesh’s Iceman information. It appears that it’s been removed after I pointed out the erroneous conclusion/immpression he was trying to promote, i.e. that scientists firmly disagreed with Meier’s information about what killed the Icman, etc. That means that 1/4 of his “case” against the information, or Meier, or me, or whatever he tried to do has been withdrawn…WITHOUT HIS PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGING IT. In our hypothetical court room drama do we assume that it’s acceptable to proceed – let alone give any credibilty to the lawyer who says, “Oh about that 1/4 of my evidence, I withdrew it…but let’s proceed anyway.”?
Further, I certainly stand behind my conclusions that Meier absolutely published, and often disseminated, specific, accurate information before “official discovery”. I already cited the Jupiter information, which Wendelle Stevens had casually mentioned having in his possession upon his return from Switzerland about three days before the corroborating announcements were publicly made by NASA. Stevens didn’t even know at the time exaclty what the significance of the information was.
Now when skeptics tried to say that Meier hoaxed that info, the best they could do was to come up with publication dates AFTER Stevens had it and certainly well after Meier first published it. (http://www.theyfly.com/Confirming-Meier.htm)
Now let’s go to Mahesh’s claims that the ozone, chemical and atomic information was published before Meier did. As I recall, Mahesh is citing speculative articles and information clearly not available to Meier at the time; Mahesh’s has never shown evidence that Meier ever obtained, let alone had access to this other information.
But here’s the more important point, which I have presented to you here a couple of times before:
Meier already foretold those things in…1951 and 1958, closing out even the most remote chance that he didn’t know about them before, or that he was falsifying, backdating, etc. This is hugely important. In fact, if you notice, certain things that are told to Meier, or mentioned by him, in contacts from 1975 on…were ALREADY published by him prior. Examples would be the two planets beyond Pluto, the fakemoon landing (1958), also the climate change and warming, rising sea levels, immigration problems, etc., etc., etc., all before 1975.
Let’s also note that when he was 11 years old, in 1948, he foretold: life destroying ray and vibrational weapons , modern day electronics technology , the coming environmental destruction , man’s early ventures into space , genetic engineering technologies…as we pointed out in “as the time fulfills”.
It’s almost at times as if the Plejaren were/are playing straight men/women to him.
Please also remember, regarding this backdating nonsense, that I first had possession of the 1,800 pages of CRs in 1986. I started to see the first corroborations in newspapers in 1988. There was no internet, no search engines, press a button and look things up. I wasn’t finding and hadn’t found, let alone seen or stumbled upon all of this information anywhere else. I wouldn’t even have known where to look for it, or even where to start, since Meier’s corroborated information I was finding was pertaining to the ozone damage on one hand, then it’s about earthquakes and oil drilling, then something else over there, then over there.
I would have probably had to go to a very well equipped library to start looking. Of course the joke is that some of these obscure theoretical papers and publications that Mahesh has tried to claim Meier had plagiarized…weren’t even available on the internet until recently, when he found them. They certainly weren’t coming up when we were doing searches even a few years ago.
So I think that you may have some questions for, and issues with, Mahesh. Why hasn’t he come forward to explain and apologize for the apparent removal of 1/4 of his Iceman “evidence”? Talk about…RETRODICTING. Wy hasn’t he addressed Meier’s obviously 20-some year earlier publication about the ozone damage info? Why hasn’t he acknowldged that even the obscure theoretical papers, etc., were neither making the same conclusive statements that Meier was, nor were they AVAILABLE even to him until recently?
Awaiting you responses.
P.S. — Interesting comment WM. I will take that as a compliment, so thank you. I will address your remarks after a snooze…
Andy,
For the love of creation!!!
Stop! STOP saying that Billy backdated the contact reports; there is not one shred of CREDIBLE evidence to support your claim. And how dare you accuse Meier of being a liar and a fraud when you can’t offer one logical explanation to back up his motive. Please don’t say you’re not calling him a liar and a fraud because what else do you call accusing someone of being dishonest and misleading? A LIAR? A FRAUD? See the connection yet? You have no right to slander Billy Meier just because your stubborn, delusional mind can’t understand and apply MMO …It’s surely not due to Michael’s lack of trying to educate you on the subject either!
Stop saying that Billy’s photos are fake! The photos that YOU viewed, quite possibly were fake, but I can assure you that they were the doctored photos that Ptaah warned us about in the contact notes, NOT Billy’s originals. There are many charlatans and swindlers out there Andy. You would know that if you sincerely tried to learn how real life worked back then, and now too. It’s quite obvious that you do not grasp the concept of a world without computers. You think everything happens with the press of a button via Google. Well I’m sorry, life back then wasn’t such a walk in the park as it is today. People had to actually get off their butts to find out things and they even had to pound pavement and take flights to other countries. Can you imagine what a real investigation is like? You constantly buck Michael, but if your wheels were spinning in the right direction, you would crawl under his wing and try to learn a thing or two. He is a remarkable human being who has spent many years researching this case so people like you can learn the truth before it’s too late! Your ego won’t let you accept the fact that you have been schooled by someone far wiser than you. You should be beyond curious to find out what other things Michael has learned over the years from the greatest story in human history! I know I am! He is not out to pull one over on you, me or anyone else! He is sincere and only wants the best for all human beings…even you, Andy! I hope that those impulses hit you sooner than later. Follow the truth and it shall set you free…
Salome!
Melissa, yes, you are right. MH has come forth with straight forward, head on dialogue with these people who (as I have said before), I feel, have made it their mission in life to take him down. Also, I have said before that I admire his tenacity and strength of character to address these attacks time and time again with a LEVEL head (but this level headed view is not a view that a couple of people here think he has) – and from what I surmise, this is in no way the first nor last time in all the years he has been connected with the case. Has his point of reference changed? Not that I have seen.
As it has been pointed out, this isn’t a game, either you are in it for further knowledge for self hence the betterment of all or you are in it to argue a few points, of the massiveness of the case, to inflate a one-upness sense of “I am right, you are wrong”.
btw, Melissa, I had a bit of a chuckle with your “For the love of creation!!!!!” comment 🙂
Ok. We aren’t talking past each other anymore. Very good.
You wrote a lot, I only address this for now:
“So, if I have concluded from all of the evidence that I have thought through that you’re…right, that in fact that he did know it, then why would I be fraudulent for supporting it?”
Somewhere in a comment here I had backed down from saying your claim about the Ice Man is fraudulent, and adjusted my position to be that I simply think you have a very expansive definition of “proof.” In any case, I still hold your Ice Man page is grossly misleading because it gives the reader the impression that Meier disseminated info before it was known, which he did not.
The fact that “His record of it preceeds the “official discovery”” is virtually irrelevant for our purposes here. You claim there is PROOF of the case through the Ice Man info alone…but, plainly stated, there is no PROOF of the case in the Ice Man info if there is no proof of prior dissemination.
So my mission here now becomes: Is there really any verifiable instances of prior dissemination? Again I will stress, it doesn’t matter how obscure the journal, if the information was otherwise already known by someone on earth when Meier disseminated the info, it is not going to fly as a proper corroboration because the simple fact is that between these two options: 1) Meier got the info from ET’s, and 2) Meier got the info from an obscure terrestrial source… the default position must be 2.
Again, it’s not that I necessarily distrust Meier, but I think it is disingenuous to proffer as a “corroboration” anything that is less than a verifiable instance of true prior dissemination.
I really am playing the devil’s advocate here for the sake of the benefit of the case, for the benefit of your work, and for the sake of myself finding a satisfactory conclusion about the case.
That said, you claim that there really is some examples of true prior publication. And, IF this is the case, then I agree, this probably really would seal the deal, make the case ironclad, proved beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.
Jupiter info, planets beyond Pluto, methane bacteria, and A-bomb and ozone. These are the ones I will focus on and try to discover if they really are genuine examples of Meier usurping ALL terrestrial scientists.
May take a little time…
PS — Not that it is that important, because part 1 and 2 were the only relevant parts for this discussion, because those are the parts that deal with date of dissemination of the info…nevertheless here is Mahesh’s part 4 of his Ice Man analysis: http://ufoprophet.blogspot.in/2014/10/should-billy-meier-be-awarded-1000000_30.html#axzz3QoEAr3Li
PSS — Melissa, you write:
“Stop! STOP saying that Billy backdated the contact reports; there is not one shred of CREDIBLE evidence to support your claim. And how dare you accuse Meier of being a liar and a fraud when you can’t offer one logical explanation to back up his motive. Please don’t say you’re not calling him a liar and a fraud because what else do you call accusing someone of being dishonest and misleading? A LIAR? A FRAUD? See the connection yet? You have no right to slander Billy Meier just because your stubborn, delusional mind can’t understand and apply MMO …It’s surely not due to Michael’s lack of trying to educate you on the subject either!
Stop saying that Billy’s photos are fake! The photos that YOU viewed, quite possibly were fake, but I can assure you that they were the doctored photos that Ptaah warned us about in the contact notes, NOT Billy’s originals.”
YOU please stop slandering ME. Have you read anything I have wrote? Again, I have stressed it in virtually every post of mine — I am not calling Billy a liar. Here is the deal: There is most certainly a “shred of credible evidence” that there is “backdating” in the CR’s. I guess you haven’t read Mahesh/Simon’s work yet. “German ufological group” (I think that was the name) was changed to “MUFON” in later publications of a CR. The part about arrow in the Ice Man’s back was added into later publications of a CR. If this isn’t “backdating”, I don’t know what is. BUT it could be that these are honest and legitimate discrepancies, that something got lost in Meier’s telepathic transcription process. Thus — for the hundredth time — I am not calling Meier a liar, but simply pointing out that many of the so-called corroborations have verifiably been shown to NOT be examples of true prior publication. My argument solely speaks towards MH’s claims about the informational evidence, and NOT about Meier’s honesty.
(Oh, and yes, the outer space photos that were allegedly authenticated by Ptaah, turned out to be fake. But again, this could be honest error. Please read Mahesh’s site so we are all on the same page).
And again, please stop misrepresenting my position.
For the sake of time right now, I’ll focus in on this:
“Again I will stress, it doesn’t matter how obscure the journal, if the information was otherwise already known by someone on earth when Meier disseminated the info, it is not going to fly as a proper corroboration because the simple fact is that between these two options: 1) Meier got the info from ET’s, and 2) Meier got the info from an obscure terrestrial source… the default position must be 2.”
This is factually, logically incorrect. Your main problem, in my opinion, is that you truly have zero experience in the pre-digital age and you can’t fathom the improbability (probably impossibility) of Meier’s having actual, verifiable, access to terrestrial sources (of similar, theoretical) information that he has published in abundance about a wide variety of topics. You don’t seem to traps what you’re actually claiming that he did, i.e. weave specific, scientifically accurate information BACK into very complex dialogues, in precisely recorded, dated conversations.
When you say that “it doesn’t matter how obscure the journal” the answer is…OF COURSE it matters how obscure! Here it comes again…means, motive and opportunity. You make a claim like that and you’d better be able to…PROVE IT. Heck, neither Mahesh nor YOU had access to that “it doesn’t matter how obscure the journal” and you’re trying to make a REASONED argument that it would be sufficient to refute and disprove Meier’s authenticity, with his record, his evidence, his character? To quote an awful example, “If the gloves don’t fit, you can’t convict.” And those gloves don’t fit.
In order for us to make headway you’re going to have to get your head out of the computer age and into the real life circumstances – more than amply established by years (decades actually) – of documented observation and on-site investigation that began decades ago. This is anything but irrelevant. It’s crucial. If you don’t have a clear grasp of the facts and the circumstances, then you’re only dealing with two-dimensional, video-game like concepts and unsubstantiated THEORIES. That’s not an attack, it’s friggin’ reality.
These documents originally came to me on 1,800 mimeographed pages …do you know what mimeographs were? I by no means was the only person in possession of them. Mahesh actually has copies of copies.
We’ll see what you come up with regarding the other examples I presented. As far as the page you linked to, thanks, there was no link at the end of Mahesh’s part 3. And when I get the time I’ll see if all the info is still there. If it is then it’s as good as worthless, since it also included the statement that the scientists are NOT in agreement about exactly how the Iceman was killed, by exactly what injury. So there goes 1/4 of the Maheshinations in that matter.
Stated simply, putting all content of spiritual, philosophical, and metaphysical natures, as well as considerations of character and so forth, completely aside; taking only into hand the material and time-conditioned evidences; the fact is that there is no way to truly determine who Mr. Meier was/is in touch with.
There is no way to say if it’s a group of various Earth Scientists, some breakaway civilization type of group, an intelligence agency, or a group from a distant stellar locale. That’s really it.
I believe Andy is, in part, simply looking for this honest intellectual admission, for this level of maturity and rationality.
Admitting this in no way means abandoning the spiritual expressions and insights info life Mr. Meier has written of so expertly. Nor is it equivalent to saying Mr. Meier is a fraud or hoaxer. It simply admits the physical evidences are inconclusive when stacked next to the total claim.
I also hold that such a self-admission is psychologically healthy.
Again, since you have absolutely no in depth familiarity with the case, and are only talking from a speculative, theoretical point of view, which is essentially just an intellectual exercise, I would encourage you to go beyond just enjoying having somewhere to see your thoughts in print and move on to delving into something substantial.
This has been suggested before but also ignored. So are you vying for the position of the of he kindly, middle-aged, resident philosopher?
Andy,
Yes, I’ve been reading your posts…for days. I get angry at your lack of reasoning, your stubbornness towards thinking and your blind allegiance to yourself!
You might not actually come out and say that Billy is lying, but let’s be real here, isn’t accusing someone of backdating a journal the same thing as accusing them of being dishonest? And then wouldn’t you agree that saying someone is dishonest means that they didn’t tell the truth? What is the opposite of telling the truth? It’s pretty easy to read between the lines. You’re not actually calling Billy an outright liar, but you’re saying that he did something dishonest, which of course, in my book, is the same thing.
To be honest, I don’t think you can comprehend what Michael and all the others are trying to point out to you. It just goes right over your head every time. I can’t understand why it doesn’t click with you. Can you internet babies really be that void of reality? There’s really not much more that can be said. It’s just frustrating to watch Michael try to explain things to you and you refuse to think. All I can say is I hope you take another long hard look at the case and all the information and evidence. It speaks for itself!
Salome!
Michael,
I am in fact extremely familiar with the case. I’ve even investigated most of the principle investigators and I consider, within the carefully limited context I noted, my above post to be absolutely accurate.
But take note, the post in no way makes a statement about my total assessment of the case. It only speaks to the total conclusion drawing potential of the physical and time-conditioned/dependent evidence up to the present moment.
There though are entire further sets of discussions for further consideration and discussion which hold within them different radii of sound judgement making potential.
They though do not violate this first basic position-potential, in the same way that the laws of aerodynamics which enable a jet to soar through the air do not invalidate the laws of gravity, they simply supercede them in certain circumstances.
WM,
I trust that you are enjoying yourself.
Dennis, Darcy, Melissa, Sheila et al,
Even though me and MH might alas be getting off to more cordial footing… I can’t help but have one laugh at his expense, as he has tried to have so many at mine (including this entire blog post): I hope it was not lost that his big “gotcha” in this blog post turned out to be a big…dud. As AIH points out on the next page of comments, these methane bacteria have been known about since…1996.
And so it has been with every “corroboration” so far closely examined…
MH,
Yes, part four was kinda hidden on Mahesh’s page. But again, it doesn’t really matter if his work there is poor or not (and I can’t even speak towards that – haven’t read it), because the part 3 and 4 stuff is entirely beyond the scope of the conversation. More importantly:
Nothing I said was “factually, logically incorrect.” You still don’t seem to understand the burden of proof issue. You said you could prove the case through the informational evidence ALONE beyond a reasonable doubt (97% certainty), thus you carry the burden of proof.
Again, I never said “I will prove Meier is a hoaxer” (which indeed would require a showing that Meier had sufficient MMO). I don’t have to prove anything…because I don’t carry the burden of proof. To win, all I have to do is show there is some other possible explanation for the informational evidence, and thus sow some 4% doubt.
This really is shifting the goal posts when you ask me to prove MMO; it really is the definition of shifting the goal posts. You were the one who said you could prove something to me. Again, the “trial” we have been holding, per your repeated claims, is whether the informational evidence ALONE proves the authenticity of the case. This claim was built on the premise that Meier was allegedly the FIRST to publish all sorts of info. You would probably win if this was true, but, from what I have seen, it is not (I have yet to look at the other “corroborations” you have mentioned). If Meier never truly prior published, you virtually lose by default given that the possibility does exist that Meier could have got it from terrestrial source.
And it actually really doesn’t matter how obscure the journal. If, in every case, Meier was not truly the first person to know the given piece of information, you will not sufficiently carry the burden of proof, because there is the possibility that Meier got the info from a terrestrial source. Perhaps Meier has secret correspondence with intelligence agencies, perhaps the local library had all the relevant information in recent academic journals. these are possibilities, unlikely perhaps, but so too is it unlikely that… a Swiss man is in touch with ET’s from a different space time continuum. Again, it’s not on me to prove anything, just show there are other possibilities, just sow a bit of doubt in your case.
Indeed, let’s imagine this “trial” for a moment where MH will prove beyond a reasonable doubt the authenticity of the Meier case based on the informational evidence alone. You really think the jury is going to side with you concerning this extremely grand claim of yours, when you don’t have VERIFIABLE examples of true foreknowledge to show? You seem to suggest you would still win even if no verifiable instances of foreknowledge are found, because Meier has written so voluminously about so many things and he was busy raising a family etc.,etc., but the fact is you will not be able to prove that Meier is not a sleepless prolific researcher, or was not meeting with intelligence agents on his contacts, or was not otherwise having correspondence with a group of people highly informed on the latest scientific discoveries. With verifiable examples of foreknowledge, you probably win, without ‘em, you certainly lose.
Now, in a different trial, where you were going to prove the authenticity of the case using ALL the available evidence – particularly if on a “preponderance of evidence” standard (51%) – in this trial I am very open to the possibility that you could win. This conversation was never about whether Meier is a hoaxer (which would require an MMO discussion), and all and only about your claims about the strength of the informational evidence – and, if there is no prior publication, it aint that strong…
Actually Andy, I was waiting for you to bring that up. As you noticed I pointed out that the information may have been in earlier papers. But now the other shoe drops as well. Just how, when and where did Meier gain access to THAT information and…WHY?
Really, those papers I can guarantee you were not in the newspaper bin at the Freihof down the road for Meier to read at coffee.
Unfortunately, if you’re REALLY not curious about that, if you’re not pondering why, some 20+ years ago Meier, as you’re now also insinuating, is SOMEHOW obtaining these super obscure, rarified, specialized, apparently English language papers on methane eating bacteria…then you really are back at square one.
I have my own little theory, which I will present. But truly, the lack of intellectual curiosity and the two-dimensional criticism about my claim, is not boding well for the future of our young people, our country, or our world. Yes, you’re still stuck and I say that in as neutral a way as possible.
This is in part due to your lack of experience in real investigation and the plain fact that had you ever (and I hope someday will) taken your butt to Switzerland and allowed all of your sense and reasoning to begin to grasp what this is all about, you wouldn’t be following Mahesh down a very foolish dead-end path, the only satisfaction derivable therefrom may be to criticize and complain about my claims and conclusions…not the most productive use of time for someone who says that they know the case is authentic.
So this academic exercise still has you in a place where its true multi-dimensionality reveals far more than your 2-D approach. Hopefully you will yet grasp that and have your ah-ha! moment.
As for methane-eating bacteria, I suggest that you – and everyone else – refresh their reading (certainly after being exposed to all this gas):
http://theyfly.com/The_Crime_Against_All_Life.html
http://www.theyfly.com/Atmospheric_Collapse.htm
So just what could Meier have interested in, thinking about? Hey, I have a better idea! What could this lead us to if we start to learn…HOW TO THINK?
Bravo Andy and Michael 🙂
This also may be a good time to post this, which I may be posting again, etc.:
It has been pointed out to me by a FIGU member that the ratcatchers (Rattenfänger) are not only prominent people out in the world but can also be those who try to gather like-minded people around them to do harm to Billy and the FIGU-members and, because the law of causality works the same everywhere, they also do more harm to themselves. This doesn’t mean that anyone who criticizes and differs in opinion is such a person but only those who have a focused intention to draw others into such a purpose, with themselves at the center of it, in a fight against the truth.
Two things about the Iceman that science is saying:
1. He was involved in fighting prior to his demise.
In the contact report it says that he was watching two other groups fight and was not involved in the conflict.
2. The arrow that pierced his back was someone else arrow (the ones he was supposedly fighting with).
In the contact report it says that it was his own arrow.
So here are two discrepancies in which science may be wrong. If and when they figure out they were wrong, will you still claim that scientists were the first?
I like your point Sheila.
Gee Michael for a moment there when I just entered this thread page I thought to myself am I in the twilight zone or Ripley’s Believe it or not museum.
Well these damn lawyers they have a knack for twisting things I didn’t expect anything different of course but gees it really is twisted that now I am trying to untangle my mind after reading Andy’s exchanges.
Now I am all infected by the Andy contagion that I am compelled to ask you does your support and endorsement of the Billy Meier case indicative of it being a hoax?
Twisted isn’t it
Well, since I’m sure that we all agree with Andy that we are here as seekers of truth, perhaps I have provided some answers to his recent question that could help to clear up our misunderstanding.
Melissa,
Nothing has been said here that I “can’t comprehend”. Your tone is utterly disgusting. Please quit speaking to me as if I am some kind of delinquent child. (Spare me the “but you are acting like a delinquent child” remark — All I have essentially done here is try to put certain FACTS on the table). Facts like:
Demonstrably, there is backdating in certain parts. Plain and simple. I just gave you two examples. No this does NOT mean that Meier is a liar, nor have I ever called him one. Never in my life have I ever had so much difficult being understood. And I don’t think its for lack of clear writing. I honestly don’t know how I can be any clearer, so I will cut and paste from my last message:
““MUFON” … arrow … if this isn’t “backdating”, I don’t know what is. BUT it could be that these are honest and legitimate discrepancies, that something got lost in Meier’s telepathic transcription process… I am not calling Meier a liar…”
If the content was transmitted to Meier, as the comprehensive record of the entire body of information, etc., etc., etc., demonstrates, then it’s not a matter of “backdating”, it’s a matter of correction.
If one doesn’t accept that this is part of the challenge of the process then that’s up to them.
I am very curious about why Meier would write all this, IF it was a hoax. I don’t know why. The apparent like of a motive indeed speaks towards the authenticity of the case. This case is extremely fascinating whether it is authentic or otherwise, and I think it about it tons.
“Backdating” vs. “corrections”
Yes. Could be simple honest corrections — which I have stressed numerous times. On the other hand, quite frankly, they don’t appear that way. “Arrow” for example — this would have made for a stunning corroboration had it been in ANY of the publications of this CR pre-discovery of the arrow. BUT, it wasn’t “corrected” until after the arrow was found. “MUFON” would have been a stunning corroboration, BUT it wasn’t “corrected” until after MUFON came into existence. Had the Ice Man’s true hometown been in ANY of the of the previous publications before scientists weighed in on it, it would have been a nice corroboration. The simple fact is that there seems to be a pattern; whenever Meier has tried to speak about something that was truly an unknown by terrestrial scientists… it always turns out he was wrong, and then these details are “corrected” in later publications — without drawing attention to the fact that it has been “corrected”– AFTER the unknown becomes known … presumably so as to falsely appear as stunning “corroborations.” As I recall, IIG found some instances where Meier was wrong about something, and coincidentally, he was wrong in the exact same way that the literature at the time had gotten it wrong.
To be perfectly clear: I STILL MAINTAIN THAT I AM NOT CALLING MEIER A LIAR, but simply the more I see of the original CR’s, the more red flags keep popping up.
Thus, it really isn’t accurate when you say there is no evidence of deception. There is a growing handful of such peices of evidence. I would say that there is NOT ironclad proof of deception, but there is certainly some evidences that are suggestive of purposeful deception.
Although I had recently said I think the case is authentic, I am increasingly getting closer to the other side of the fence. One reason is because of FIGU’s evasiveness in regards to Mahesh’s questions about all these “corrections” and the fake pictures. They refuse to address these curious examples that seem indicative of purposeful deception.
Also you underestimate resources at libraries. I don’t know why you think it is so impossible that a library would have a dozen or so scientific periodicals that come in on a monthly or quarterly basis, chalk full of cutting edge research, theory, and discoveries. Indeed, as for Meier’s methane bacteria info (which it turns out, these bacteria do not eat methane, but instead eat carbon dioxide and hydrogen and produce methane as a by-product [it’s okay, I am becoming accustomed to you misstating things]), when he mentions these critters in the CR, the CR reads like Meier is just relaying something he had read. Why you jumped on this as a “corroboration” is beyond me.
Recall that court room scenario I had set up — you really think you could win that case without one example of true prior publication? Not in a million years. I wouldn’t vote for your side. No jury member with half a brain would.
I can tell you as a matter of fact your “arguments” you’ve put forward here, your understanding about science and legal proofs, would get laughed out of any classroom. The case may be real. But your ability to have a rational discourse is non-existent.
Thus, I’m done here. Whether because of your plain inability to understand, or because you have been purposefully trying to twist my position, I have spent way too many hours and words trying to get you to acknowledge certain basic things.
YOU freaking “learn how to think”. Geez la weez, I thought you were done with the insults. It’s just so pathetic and distracting. And look what you’ve done, you’ve got a whole cheerleading team now that apparently thinks this kind of behavior is good and appropriate. It’s really disgusting. So much talk about peace and harmony — I don’t see how you or any of your cheereaders will ever help create any of these values, should all of you’s remain incapable of having such a basic level of decency that you refuse to communicate in a non-offensive way.
If you weren’t laughed out of the classroom for ineptness — you’d be kicked out for lacking such a basic level of respect for the other person.
Thanks for the links. I actually know a thing or two about methane, as I have a forthcoming article on the problems associated with methane and the lack of legislative framework to deal with the problem. An article of which I am being encouraged to submit for publishing in an academic journal…where it is required that one “knows how to think.” I bring this up because the core of your “argument” is my alleged “inability to think” and you have effectively called me an idiot in every comment…when it appears that I am the with notable academic acheivement, and you the one authoring grossly misleading articles based on extremely shoddy research.
Thus, as much as you would like it to seem, you’re not talking to a idiot, but its now become clear I am talking to one — and not only an idiot, but frankly, short of AstroTony, the most offensive person I have ever spoken to. Good riddance.
And so it goes. Instead of my adding to that, “…having learned nothing,” I’ll leave you to determine for yourself what you have and haven’t learned.
As for the “cheerleaders”, just consider that maybe everyone who’s tried to encourage you to think, to get a sense of reality may not be cheerleading me but the plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face realities that accord with their own understanding of life and view of your lack of it.
Have a nice day.
P.S. Regarding your sensitivities, feeling offended and insulted, a sample of the way other people sometimes express themselves in comparison:
“That’s easily said, that I should again take away all material and the teaching and writings from these forgers, schemers and thieves, sneaks, and whatever else they all are that is otherwise evil. They are altogether so maliciously evil, nasty, and dirty that they couldn’t care less for what is right, for respect, truth, and justice, and they all step into depravity with their feet. I have, indeed, demanded everything back from all of them, but just unsuccessfully. One might almost think that all of America is animated and inhabited by such degenerates, but it proves itself time and again that in this country, there are still people who truly and honestly deserve the designation of person, even though these people seem to be rather scarce. But they are actually there. And because they are there, in addition to the dog-cunts, sneaks, crooks, deceivers, liars, and swindlers, I can’t simply cram everyone into the same dirty hat; rather, I must differentiate and at least provide our material and the teaching of the spirit to those who are deserving, who honestly and also sincerely search for the truth and for the light and who are willing to recognize the truth, to acknowledge it, and to follow it. But this refers not only to people who are Americans but also to citizens of other countries, out of which swindlers, liars, deceivers, and the like emerge, in terms of alleged contacts with you or with other life forms from other planets or alleged connections and alleged contacts with higher spirit levels and so forth, whereby especially Germany, Italy, Spain, Mexico, France, and South American countries stand out, besides America. But by the fact that I and we ourselves must take a stand against all of these liars and deceivers, schizophrenics and lunatics and other insane people using harsh words, we waste a lot of strength and initiative, which we could use for better things, and above all, for the spreading of the teaching of the truth and for the fulfillment of the mission. Nevertheless, we must try to reach all those people who truly strive for and search for the effective and actual truth, but who are misled by all the liars and deceivers, etc. and who, therefore, often follow the wrong paths, namely because instead of the truth, webs of lies, as well as filthy and vulgar lies and distortions of the truth, are served to them as tasty morsels by the lunatics, delusional sick people, charlatans, liars and deceivers, by the schizophrenics, megalomaniacs, and the validity addicts, and by the crazy and unbelievable scum, by what means those who are sincerely endeavoring are misled and sometimes even driven to insanity, not to mention that they must still pay exorbitant sums for the mendacious and fraudulent machinations of the greedy liars and deceivers, etc. and that they are exploited to the bitter end.”
Now it also seems like Mr. Andy may be wrong regarding the Methane-eating bacteria:
“the bacteria feast on methane” (http://www.livescience.com/2055-methane-guzzling-bacteria-thrive-bubbling-mud-pots.html)
Interestingly enough, Andy himself was referring to Meier’s methane info, on 10/17/14:
“Been doing a lot of methane research myself. I had been wondering why Meier kept harping on about the huge number of animals and their methane release, because typically one finds numbers suggesting methane from agriculture only amounts to some 18% of global green house gas emissions (which is still higher than transportation, at 11%).http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html (actually, per this link, the EPA apparently has it at 14% and and 13%, respectively).”
Well Andy, now maybe you know. And now maybe you know why he was even mentioning methane-eating bacteria. Kinda like giving us the same “hint” that the magazine article does: “These specialized bacteria could help to suck up methane from the Earth’s crust that would otherwise spew into the atmosphere.”
The rest of his commnets there are notewoorthy as well.
P.S. — As for you lie about Meier not having access to journals, etc. “It’s all half as bad, for on the one hand, Sfath taught me a lot of knowledge in this respect, but on the other hand, I also learned a lot at school – even though I was a big truant – and moreover, I’m also learning constantly through professional books, professional articles in newspapers and magazines, as well as through professional television broadcasts.”
P.S.S. — It’s not about my sensitivities, it’s just that it makes it impossible to have a conversation. And believe, Meier is not on your side here. You quote where he is talking about liars and scum. If you think I deserve the same treatment, you’re bloody kidding yourself. I came here in good faith and good will simply to discuss certain facts and the strenght of the informational evidence. Here is what Meier really has to say about such discussions:
” 4) It is necessary to learn to acquire a reasonable way of speaking for a respective conversation or a discussion, which corresponds an expressful and thought-feeling-based equalisedness, of the uprightness and the decency and can also be brought to expression through the personal views, desires, expectations, hopes, opinions, interests and wishes, IN A NON-OFFENSIVE WISE. ”
” 7) It is necessary to learn that the fellow human beings are to be approached, friendly, openly and honestly, whether it be in order to discuss something with them, to have a conversation or in order to get to know them. Friendliness, openness and honesty awaken similar thoughts and feelings in the fellow human being as well as a corresponding behavior. In addition, these values give the impression of an equal standing, i.e. of equality and equivalence.”
“10) It is necessary to learn to represent one’s own views, opinions, one’s own thoughts and feelings, one’s own knowledge, wisdom and love as well as compassion towards the fellow human being, WITHOUT ATTACKING THEM WITH IT, IN ORDER TO HARM AND HURT THEM.”
And my justification for pointing out how disrespectful your language is:
“18) It is necessary to learn to stand up for your own rights, not to allow yourself to be exploited, not cheated, not calumniated, not suppressed, not disadvantaged nor treated unfairly in any other wise, but rather he or she must insist upon fairness and on a decent, honest and fair behavior.”
And my sole reason for being here:
“20) It is necessary to learn that clarifications must be sought for, if unclear directions, explanations and instructions are issued, because in such matters complete clarity must always be the rule, so that no errors and erroneous deeds and no damage comes forth. Uncertainties and confusions are thereby to be avoided and safeguarded from trouble, disadvantages and damage.”
From “Self Assertion” found here http://beam2eng.blogspot.com/
Hey, that’s all wonderful…too bad you weren’t able to make as clear a case for all of your own, wild coulda, woulda, shoulda, the-devil-made-him-do-it claims. And why did you choose to feel…INSULTED by my posting of Meier’s comments, instead of identifying with such things as:
“One might almost think that all of America is animated and inhabited by such degenerates, but it proves itself time and again that in this country, there are still people who truly and honestly deserve the designation of person, even though these people seem to be rather scarce. But they are actually there.”
As for your private email to me, Mr. It’s-All-About-ME-and-What-You-Owe-ME:
“Go ahead and approve that last comment of mine. You owe it to me. And then I’ll leave you be. If you don’t approve it, you aint gonna hear the end of it, and I will certainly make sure the audience sees that comment regardless.”
…for whatever reason you seem to think that everything revolves around you, little things like doing my grocery shopping just before the stores close actually take precedence over catering to your demands. It’s a matter of my personal choice, my self-obligated duty, that I have this blog, which is conceived of and designed solely in order to have a place to offend you, obviously. The one time I don’t take out my computer to see if there are any comments, lo and behold, I get threatened by Mr. Sensitivity.
Well because you had just written a comment, and were thus obviously at the computer, and it took you 20 min to approve my comment, you were obviously again contemplating trying to weasel out of owning up to the facts of the matter. And you most certaintly did owe it to me to post that. It is all about me in this case — you wrote this whole blog trying to get a laugh at my expense. I’m sorry it backfired. And yes, I wasn’t going to let you get away with you not posting that comment, like I know you were wanting to do, and I would posted it elsewhere, because I am so tired your continual dishonest twisting of things.
If you think I’m the kind of degenerate that deserves that kind of treatment, simply for pointing out facts… I don’t know what to say. Have a nice life.
“obviously at the computer” only when I was ACTUALLY at the computer. Shopping is difficult enough, now I’ve got some kind of a taskmaster as to when I can go and buy eggs?
How dare you shop while Andy cries Michael. Man just think, this ‘Andy'(as he could be Fred for all we know) might make 100$ an hour someday, as a lawyer? While some of the most truthful of ‘humanity’ runs blogs and entire endeavor’s for peanuts, only to have to listen to them complain about lack of evidence within a treasure trove of it.
Fred will make a perfect American lawyer!!!
I am but a ‘cheerleader’ to the truth!!!!!!!!
It doesn’t take a lawyer or skeptic to see past that:) Or does it.
Well, Philip, I guess I could shop less frequently and buy more…or get chickens inside my place.
We could give Andy the benefit of the doubt and chalk it all up to overly long hours studying…
P.S. If anyone talks to Andy, please let him know that I’m now shutting down operations here until tomorrow and if he doesn’t see his next complaint until then, it’s only because I haven’t yet mastered the need to sleep.
I aint been so worked up in a long time, and the time delay on my posting, after you had just posted no less, about made me lose it… really wanted to make sure I go my damn point across. But I certainly shouldn’t have sent that email, it is shameful and embarrassing. I apologize.
Andy,
No problem actually, thanks. It seems like a good time to reflect on the fact that all of the “stuff” going on in the world isn’t just going on and affecting “other people out there”. Those of us who are involved in the mission, thinking our way through things, studying the spiritual teaching, also have the opportunity to see how we’re relating to that world out there and of course to each other…including here.
That’s directed to me, to you, to everyone. So at this point I’d also like to suggest, in terms of the “issue” that seems to have gotten many of us stirred up like ants that just had water poured on our little hill, that we focus on what this mission and teaching mean to us, how we can apply it in our own lives.
At a certain point we recognize that any conflicts we have that we perpetuate with others, are possibly also internal issues that are in need of applying neutral-positive thinking to. We can also observe how doing so affects our ongoing thinking, feeling and actions…and interactions.
In this sense we find that the more we live in peace, love freedom and harmony within, it is reflected in how we live and interact with others.
So we also get a chance to let others live and view things as they wish and if we do disagree, etc., we find the best ways to interact with each other while still allowing each person the freedom of their own thinking, expressions, conclusions, etc. We can go back and look at the various expressions and contributions we’ve all made here and not only find out what we agree/disagree with but also notice how we feel, how we react to it all and then find out what is going on inside us when we have those reactions…pro or con. Of course it’s also true and helpful to remember that one can be expressing all sorts of thoughts, opinions, even feelings…and still be loving and peaceful within themselves and in their actual thoughts, feelings and intentions towards others.
Nice post Andy.
You offered me some advice in this above mentioned previous article-thread so if I may in turn offer you some unsolicited advice: don’t bother making purely rational arguments to inherently illogical (ie non self-consistent), irrational/emotional or only partly rational thinkers; or if you are going to do so, detach from the process and allow whimsy to rule in your heart whilst so engaging.
If you look at realistically extrapolated, total population figures from well accepted personality tests such as the Myers-Briggs (which I consider valuable), you’ll see that rational types are in the minority, and intuitive rationals very rare indeed. Thus most folks cannot understand or grasp their thinking.
For instance, one of several simultaneous motivations for me engaging here in rare fashion is a sudden interest in testing how folks involved with this case think and reason, their response patterns, etc…
You strike me as an intuitive rational type. Incidentally, I’d classify Billy Meier as such a type also, probably an INTJ, though of course this isn’t the end all be all or all-encompassing measure of all magnitudes of personalities.
Most people can’t really entertain engaging in a pure, detached, objective exploration of a matter where one really and truly doesn’t actually hold a hidden position already formed; or in the case where one does already hold some sort of general intuition and position, having the genuine ability to suspend said positions and engage in an, at least in large part, unbiased, new investigation of some aspect of same for the purpose of improving and expanding ones understanding, testing assumptions, perfecting a system of thought, knowing no bounds, etc…
Most folks/personality types are less multi-dimensional in their thinking, becoming really invested in whatever positions they take up/come to believe with their emotions becoming highly involved. They hold a team, us vs. them mentality which is very difficult to escape.
Rationals on the other hand are able to deal with matters at more of a distance, and thus grapple with them more objectively, which in turn results in more accurate results and all the advantages which come along with this.
So I suggest you keep your own council insofar as your thinking goes and don’t ask or expect folks to operate in a way which is very foreign to them, or at least don’t become attached to the result. Incidentally, having read and absorbed… approximately 75-80% of the totality of this cases English language material over the last few years as interest and inclination moved me, I have come to basically three possible meta-positions on this very interesting case. I’d be interested to hear if you have come to some similar meta-assessments and hear what they are, perhaps on some other forum as Michael will not allow such here in his sandbox.
I am genuinely interested in what other rational thinkers (this not being the same as purely material thinkers) think of this extremely interesting case which holds within it many layers or value, some only becoming evident as thought is allowed to become a bit more sophisticated than I see many posters demonstrating here.
Sorry, I edit-mangled a bit by deleting a paragraph.
I refer to advice you offered me in the comments section of “… More Constant than the Speed of Light”.
To add one more thought to this discussion, regarding Mr. Meier and the entire case, I generally think everyone here underestimates the true ability of genius, which whatever else can be said about Mr. Meier, I believe this is a fitting title. Especially one who has a well oiled organization in place to carry out his determinations. I don’t mean this in accusatory fashion, simply as a statement of fact. Such capacities can be used for positive or negative purposes.
Thanks for more pontificating.
Andy is anything but a rational, factually based thinker. He so needs to twist the known facts and circumstances to fit his agenda.
I’ve had the opportunity to investigate the case, the locations, the people, the eyewitnesses, etc., and these immature armchair experts, with solely online familiarity with the case, treat it like a video game or worse.
You post your arrogant, inaccurate assessments of people instead of actually addressing the evidence, since you’re incapable of doing so. I happen to be an INTJ and my intuition tells me that you like to hover around, pretending intellectual superiority, and pontificating. So be a poseur and a pretender if the takes you feel good. It certainly hasn’t shed any light on anything but your facade.
Michael,
You strike me as far too much of an emotional reactionary to be an INTJ, but perhaps you aren’t quite so in areas of your life that don’t involve dealing with challenges to Mr. Meier’s case.
Your pointing to your own first hand experiences are prime factors in your positions concerning the case are absolutely fair.
If I had such, then most certainly my own positions would, in one way or a few others, change.
If though it is ultimately these first hand experiences of yours which stand as your most powerful reasons for your holding the position that the case is absolutely, unquestionably valid and of the precise nature presented, then isn’t it a bit disingenuous to ask your audience, most of whom I take it haven’t been to visit with Mr. Meier personally multiple times, meet with first hand witnesses, etc… (if your marketing strategies are at all successful) to, based on primarily online and printed evidences which you also sell – arm-chair class materials as you call them, come to a similar rock solid position as your own?
May I ask, if you hadn’t had all the first hand experiences you claim to have had – meeting Mr. Meier many times, having deep and probing conversations with him, being witness to phenomena, speaking with many first hand witnesses, doing thorough first-hand testings, etc.. etc…, would you hold such strong positions? … Did you hold such immoveable positions prior to such first-hand experiences?
Giving you the benefit of the doubt since you are so unfamiliar with all of this, I had already determined the case was authentic years before my personal experiences.
My most powerful reasons are logically deduced from all of my investigation, reading, research, watching the prophecies fulfill before my eyes, etc., etc. There are many people who haven’t indeed done all of that first hand work but who have studied all available information about the case and logically deduced its authenticity, based on any number of factors, such as the analyses of the UFO evidence, the prophetically accurate information, the spiritual teaching. Many people also had enough common sense to conclude the authenticity from the known facts about the case, consideration of means, motive and opportunity as also examined and investigated by a number of on-site professional researchers, the accumulated evidence of Meier’s character, as well as first hand eyewitness reports, as well as primary witnesses passing lie detector tests, etc., etc.
Additional factors such as the consistency, accuracy and continuity of information – which Andy simply trampled over in his reckless assessment – was another contributing factor.
I in no way encourage or support “true believers” any more than I do thoughtless, illogical skeptics who present inconsistent and inaccurate arguments.
And meeting Mr. Meier, though it first occurred 14 years after I began my involvement, only added to the evidence of authenticity. Since I also tried to trick him, 4 times in 3 years with the same question, which he always answered quickly and consistently with the same answer, I was assured that he wasn’t lying and that he was a remarkably honest and balanced individual.
As for being emotionally reactionary, as someone who voluntarily spends about 8 – 10 hours per day, which includes carrying a computer with me just to make sure that my moderation of the blog is timely, in addition to writing my blog, researching, putting together multi-media presentations, spending time at the local university in relation to the case, answering international correspondence, doing media interviews, etc., the last thing that I truly want to do is waste time with people who contribute to efforts that appear to me to be directed at undermining the case with disinformation, etc.
Of course people should determine the truth for themselves; they can be skeptical all they want. And if I’ve made any mistakes, they really could be feeling the necessity at all to address people such as Andy, who appear to me to be so illogical, etc. Perhaps I should have simply approved his comments and moved on without response.
I will probably deal with things differently here. There’s certain enough evidence of how a number of people think, pro and con, about this issue. If there really are any more challenges, if there really are any other people who truly support preposterous assumptions and defamatory accusations that rely on Meier having to actually be a deceitful, dishonest, fabulously manipulative charlatan, then they are on notice that their accusations now MUST be accompanied by actual, credible, substantiated evidence.
I’ll spare myself further frustration and delete any that aren’t so presented.
Your interesting and knowledgeable WM. I place Myers briggs assessments in mild value, which is still in the value banding, we are in agreement here. To be honest I have never used the personality profiling on anyone but Quetzal, who I designated to probably be an INTJ, the only reason I thought that was because I am basically an INTJ. Quetzal would disagree with that though, he would probably explain that the system is only partially correct that introverts can extrovert and that the scheme is not quite formed properly in the facts, which I would tend to agree with him about given that he is a scientist of the great sciences, fine material sciences and a psychology scholar, and has stated that most of our psychology practices are wrong, improperly formed.
Anyway, interesting WM, thank you for sharing your opinions. Nice to know someone else in the world has been reaching into the upper tier of these various ideas, especially given that they are from another world, we often forget and neglect the steepness of the slope.
Sorry, I meant in my below/above post that I and Quetzal were INTP not INTJ as I stated in the post. Swap that over from INTJ to INTP to make sense of what I wrote, and it is important that it is INTP not INTJ to make sense.
I would add that Meier is very balanced, obviously, between introvert and extravert, a trait that I happen to have as well. I know some INTJs who don’t seem to have much capacity for the extraversion aspect. So I also think that the typing has its flaws and limitations, though useful for understanding some things. As a matter of fact, when I first took the test it suddenly made my life “make sense” for me and launched me into fast forward in terms of researching the scientific info, etc.
Oh great WM, are you a wannabe psychologist/psychiatrist? Don’t get me started on what a crock that profession is. We are so much more than a personality category WM. But I’m sure your studies claim otherwise.
Michael and Daniel,
Actually the “I” or “E”, the Introvert or Extrovert portion of the designation formulation doesn’t so much describe the direction of the personality, but more so its energy system.
As a rule, an Extrovert *gains* energy and inspiration from interacting with others, noisy and bustling environments etc…; whereas an Introvert *spends* energy in such outwardly oriented circumstances.
Introverts gain their energy and inspiration from their own inner world of thoughts, feelings, and ideas. Thusly they must retreat into some degree or solitude in order to recharge. Extroverts don’t work this way.
This energy system designation though doesn’t necessary dictate the sociability of a person/personality. It is quite possible that an introvert is quite the flitting butterfly, but they will be worn down by it and need to retreat. This can work though, especially as the introvert builds up “callouses”, learns to slow and prevent major energy drainers (within and without), etc…
Likewise, a person with an extroverted energy system may be averse to social situations. This though almost always leads to a dysfuntion in my view, as the expression cuts the individual off from their energy source.
Out of these observations and contemplations, in combination with others – namely spiritual-mechanistic factors, I’ve arrived at the position that Introverts are generally higher evolved individuals than are extroverts. For quite naturally, as one uncovers and develops one’s spiritual faculties one will become more and more connected to the energies emanating therefrom. Whereas the extrovert, by their obvious nature, hasn’t yet thoroughly cultivated such ground in themselves, either on the spiritual evolutional and/or psychical levels (there being some room for ratio play where these structures intersect).
Concerning the “P” or the “J” – Perceiving or Judging, I consider this to be the weakest of all the designators in the formula. It is also the most recent addition.
If memory serves, the original three letter designators belong to the inventor/discoverer, the esteemed Carl Jung, though he didn’t express them as an acronymic system. These I consider to be quite solid and generally lifelong lasting.
The Perceiving or Judging aspect though I have observed as being able to change in an individual, particularly as they age. I consider that most folks, especially if they come to a level or material success (run a business, manage concrete assets, etc…), become more of a Judger, as least in their practical affairs.
Judgers operate and think in a terms of a Reality truly existing, actual and reliable facts, laws, etc… And so, the next position I’ve arrived at will perhaps become predictable, Judgers again tend to be higher evolved in psychic (partly material experience based mind you) and spiritual respects. Perceivers are a bit more dreamy and rather unsure, not so much as to what the solid position is, but rather fundamentally as to if there is one at all.
As the thinking and observing power, and all the forces that enable it, become stronger, then one is able quite clearly determine that there is a true and absolute Reality.
Michael,
In response to your answer regarding my question pertaining to the importance of your own first hand experiences in forming your very solid positions concerning Mr. Meier’s case; I would say that the very existence of such a compulsion/impulsion in you (to seek out such further experiences by visiting Mr. Meier, interviewing first-hand phenomenon witnesses, etc…) points towards some degree of insufficiency in the written and more remote evidences you had in hand and which made such an impression upon you.
If these written, photographic, video, prophetic, and philosophic evidences had truly been absolutely sufficient, you wouldn’t have sought out the other type before more fully committing to the Case.
Nuuuuuuuoooooo, doc,
Haven’t you heard of doc-you-mean-taries? Remenber that old quote attributed to Freud, “Sometimes a cigar’s just a…cigar.”
You do tend to get things both complicated and backwards, as we all do at times. I already KNEW the case was legit and I wanted to meet the people, document things, etc.
Nowadays, everybody’s taking selfies and movies with their phones which DOES seem to indicate some kind of narcissim, boredom…compulsions, etc. Taking all the time, effort and expense to do what I can to bring the information to the world – now and for posterity – is not in the least motivated by any of the things you incorrectly presume. I like the adventure of it as well.
As much as INTJs like systems, etc., there are always truths that may lie outside of them. But I see that you like to try to figure things out so I hope the feedback helps.
Wm,
As the old TV detective used to say, “Just one more thing…why is your IP address that of one of the major web spammers, as identified here: http://anti-hacker-alliance.com/index.php?details=37.59.101.107?”
Just asking.
Michael,
A reasonable answer.
Just because I/one may ask a question from or speak of some system you shouldn’t assume that encompasses my or anyone else’s thinking. All language based communication involves some degree of limitation
…
Random proxy tool which I apparently need to work on.
Agreed Michael and WM. Thank you
One tiny last thing, there is a real study of psychology, but we dont quite hit it with our studies found on earth at this present time (as has been stated several times by any of us already, agreed). But its my understanding that there is not a great gulf between the real study and current accepted study, if one can do something incredibly profound with their brain, which just about excludes me honestly, which is why I have not taken psychology talk too far. But in the future as we find greater stability on earth these types of studies will gather tremendous weight.
WM,
you’ve got me thinking, (sorry for extending the conversation even further to everyone else), take everything I say as wrong so that you check for yourself, but, psychology is probably pegged to consciousness evolution, in the current life and current life path and to a greater or lesser extent creation evolution, and therefore the planet, and earth which has humans from atleast (minimum) 3 different planet in their past, for their evolutionary length of evolving, so in order to understand psychology and its real study, these various important factors must first be factored in (possibly) in order to understand what is happening universe wide (based on the creative natural laws), if this study is going to be based and founded in concrete and solid footing. Thanks
Sorry, one last comment, psychology becomes a tool and a weapon if it is not properly understood and fully nourished in the facts because it is wrong, if its interpreted wrongly its a weapon used mostly for political greed-might etc. So dont promote psychology unless your sure you’ve got it right, you’re on the wrong planet to have intellectual ideas accepted by the masses of people. Thanks again, and final thanks.
Daniel,
Concerning your 12:35pm post: Bingo, with the modification that the psyche is associated with and influenced in its formation and flavor by consciousness and spiritual evolution, the spiritual aspects coming into a stronger and stronger position of influence as the evolution becomes higher and higher; the spirit in turn empowering the consciousness evolution potential as well as a means of expression.
And to you 12:52pm post: Only insofar as a thing is apprehended in effective accuracy can it be used and referred to as a tool. Just as also every tool may be perversely used as a weapon.
Only where wisdom rules is a thing used to it’s true and utmost potential, for the greatest good, whereas raw ability absent this delivers quite a dose of power, usually destructive in the end.
Good stuff.
Salome everyone,
…. I never said it publicly, but I am also a witness….. of Billys amazing powers of consciousness…. I will however not satisfy the sensation seeking minds here by saying more than it is necessary, so dont ask….
… The sceptics are NOT helping humanity and they will be also responsible for what is coming now and in the future…. The US and Europe f.ex. should embrace the thought of getting chipped… :-/ …. Also there should be a distinction between the term “sceptic” and “sceptical person”, because as those two terms developed differently in the last years. Now the term “sceptic” is more like a denier of everything, who wants to disprove something no matter what, may it be in the field of sciences or other, while the term “sceptical person” is a person who thinks again and again about ALL facts and comes to his conclusions (being as neutral as possible)…. The truth is, if one examins the case of our dear Billy in detail, even over the stupid internet, in the worst case one “does not know if it is true or not” and in the best case that “it is real”……
Only the weak intellectual minds argue that a tree is not a tree, or that reality is “the matrix” or they interpret a lot of strange and foreign ideas and thoughts in the behaviour of others, which are not true and which that person is not seeing like that… That is also the reason why so many misunderstandings come up in life, because everyone thinks he knows it best ….. As an extreme example: Instead of accepting reality and doing what is necessary to survive an earthquake, they tell themselves that it is nothing and that it is not an earthquake, the reason why they will stand there paralized and hindering those who act accordingly to the situation to save themselves….. More than once I could witness such a behaviour in reality during earthquakes….
… everyone has to know where she/he stands….
Very nicely said, Nicolas!
Salome
“Ironically, it seems that we may have Mahesh’s and Andy’s failed debunking attempt to thank for helping us find it.”
Thanks Mahesh and Andy for further helping to prove the authenticity of the Meier case! I know it is NOT what you both wanted or intended but we must follow the truth wherever it may lead. Sorry if I have a chuckle at both your expenses! 🙂
Considering the high volume of persistently wrong accusations and attacks by Andy & Mahesh, I think I’m oging to have to set up an…Apologies Here bin for them.
I will probably also need a volunteer to empty it…frequently.
MH, I thought Mahesh and Andy were good for nothing in the Meier case, but I was wrong, they are good for something. To help prove the authenticity of it. How ironic. I’m still chuckling at them! 🙂
btw, I will gladly help empty the bin when it’s full of trash that comes from their mouths.
Duly noted!
Mike are Lawyers exempt from catastrophes like anarchy and 2 civil wars ?
Sure, that’s WHY they study law!
Nicolas,” I for one REF– — — USE to be chipped come hell and high water. I`m a very STRONG advocate for the RIGHT to privacy”! I don`t trust ANY govenerment and coporation that takes way our rights to do and think as one wishes and believes thankyou very much. I simply DON `T trust theses malevolent nefarious cabals who spy on us and for BIG pharma to sell and tell us what kinds of drugs we should take not only in the name of GIG bucks but also so theses nefarious ones can create ALL KINDS of diseases in oder to shorten our lifepspand just so they think they can put us in prison and kill us because we must be chipped and told to take their drugs just to make money off of us. This is what they do to children and not the`re going to drug us adults too. If you don`t believe me check out the article on AlteNet”! Talk about not just the dumbing down of the human race on earth but also big pharma TRYING to make us sik and DIE SOONER”!
Terry ask Billy for more details on implant RFID and see if he can elaborate more on whether it is past the point of no return to stop it or if the program is a limited time offer transplanting chips in people. Does chipping last for another 800 years?
Also Mahesh helpfully pointed out that the space pictures were falsified from broadcasts that were aired while Meier was on the road in the middle east. Either he somehow coordinated this by communicating with collaborators on Switzerland while working as a bounty hunter in Pakistan telling them to somehow record NASA tv shows for future reference or maybe “unbelievably”perhaps someone else had a hand in messing with his photographs.
Terry , Its OK , just take the vaccinations , listen to the law makers . Drink the kool aide we will be fine . Good sheeple . Its getting comical its so unreal . Hey today we send a big shout out and HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO BILLY . BEAM is such a beautiful description of a mountain of a man . Billy is a nickname to me that is such a renewed lease on life , we can only understand that with time he will be heralded as he deserves to be . Simply AWESOME !
Happy Birthday BEAM! Do you like cake and candles ?
Does repeat yearly celebrations like B-days harm the psyche ?
Come on, Darcy, think that through.
I have to get those books yet and read them to find the information …http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Books
ahah, I was most happy to realise that it was Billy s birthday today that I was on my own B-Day a couple week ago… actualy personally I find celebrating my personal aniversary depressing but I dont think it should be like that.
Terry , I punched out too soon . If I die sooner , the sooner I get back in the race to rattle some nerves and make a bigger difference 😉
Too much jogging ‘as bad as no exercise at all’
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31095384
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_371
Billy:
Since we’re already talking about unnatural things: how does it stand with jogging and “Nordic Walking” or as such is called, with which two sticks become used by the hands? You once said that this is extremely harmful to the body and its organs.
Ptaah:
Jogging and “Nordic Walking” are likewise harmful to health because through these unreasonable sports, the skeleton and its joints are strongly impaired and damaged, as when great exertions are made, the body’s organs and particularly all functions of the heart can be damaged, but also the lungs, the spleen, and the kidneys. But this likewise happens in other kinds of sports, such as in soccer, in various forms of snow and ice sports, as well as in cycling and all sorts of extreme sports. Overall, all types of sports are wrong for the physical training of the body if these go beyond the scope of what is normal. Described as normal is everything that doesn’t belong to extremism, fanaticism, or exaggeration, and it is to be respected that even in normal sports, no excesses take place through larger exertions.
Ballet is an art form not a sport. Ballet is very creative but it does go to extremes too. The point I`m making is that it is better to stay thin and healthy even though ballet may be extreme but it doesn’t have to be. You can exercise very lightly without going into extremes in any sport or exrcise creative or otherwise. Ballet is a 24/7 demanding creative profession that require an awful lot of exercise and work but it does not have to be. Thepoint I want to bring out is we have a terrible epidemic obesity and overweight people on this planet that should be addressed but so seems to me nothing is being done healthwise in dieting, healthy alternative foods, eating less and doing something about other activties otherthan just siting etc,etc. We not only need to train our brains but also our bodies too as well Look at the P`s,do you see any fat people on Erra? ‘Iconferm I`m NOT a spmmer”!
Hi Terry, do you realize that ultra thin people die faster if they have a chronic disease?
Just a note on law and lawyers. Pontificating that natural calamities and disasters are “acts of God” rather than acts of nature proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the law and lawyers exhibit complete foolishness, falsity and ignorance. While generally lawyers now go for the facts, what is one to expect from people who believe such superstitious nonsense?
Good point Chris. They actually they don’t go for facts, they usually find out how successful that person is (looks like the god thing is successful) and that will guarantee a bigger payout and of course if it goes to trial – their take is 33%. So it’s obvious what the motivation for lawyers is – the money. My son used legal aid and you get what you pay for – which was nothing – the court would not even allow him to represent himself and he would have done a better job.
I honestly think that somehow Mahesh is dreaming of a way to Michael irrelevant (deconstruction), he can pick up where Michael left off and take over the following that Michael has, along with any funding (motive).
But Mahesh/Simon can surely make his/her counter claim if he/she is up to it.
Mahesh and Simon are both men.
Really? Where’s your evidence?
Ha ha
Don’t wait for him to backdate it or I should add try backdating that.
This can also be the icing on Billy’s birthday cake because Michael you nailed it, great job!
Icing the Skeptics as in frostbite and burn according to natures laws.
░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░█░░█░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░█░░█░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░█░░░█░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░█░░░░█░░░░░░░░
███████▄▄█░░░░░██████▄░░
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░
▓▓▓▓▓▓█████░░░░░░░░░█░░
██████▀░░░░▀▀██████▀░░░░
Thumbs up, thank you for the article Michael, I am not a spammer.
Hey Everyone ,
Andy , I get your position and respect your position . I think that aside from the points you cling on you too can understand the body of work is more than just a small point of concern . Move past that few concerns you have and even chalk them up to being an error . After all we are all human and can make mistakes . Are you not still mesmorized by the the entire body of work . I think a man trying to be accurate 100 percent of the time is pretty daunting . The idea of being entirely accurate is really not what this whole thing is about . I am sure you would agree . Nevertheless I would say your still a participant that has a voice here and is actually still welcomed to have the opportunity to listen to and consider . I also wanted to comment on the lawyer issue as well . So many lawyers and so little prosecution these days . Do you get what I am saying ? With so many lawyers and so little attention to personal acountablity I would just point that out . Eric Holder is a total joke and the job he has done should lead to his own arrest for incompetence . Just an observation holding a lawyer named Holder to his own sworn standard . AT LEAST .But hey , what do I know . Just another sheep in the heard or flock or whatever its described as . Dumbed down and only using a small part of my brain like the rest of us . I would like to think I am striving to use more brain power and finding harmony with the creation .
Thanks for that David. Yes, the legal system is obviously far from perfect.
Happy Birthday Jmmanuel and Billy!