MUFON Got It – I Really Think They Got It!

“So, my first question is, are you saying that the entire transcript that contains the information pertaining to the discovery of the Ice Man, and all the other details, was backdated? Is that what you’re actually claiming?”

We’ve been over this ad nauseum. If you had actually read the FACTS exposed in Mahesh’s part 1 and 2 analysis (or for that matter, digested any of the some half a dozen messages I posted here on the same topic), instead of summarily dismissing his work, then you would know the situation. I will not attempt to explain again because I don’t know how to explain my position any clearer than I have already. (I think you understand by now anyway, but for some reason prefer to play ignorant. If you really don’t know, my position should be clear after reading Mahesh’s part 1 and 2 analysis).

I am not sensitive to insult, especially concerning things I well know to be untrue, like that I am “stupid, inexperienced, unthinking, devoid of real life experience.” What is frustrating is when someone continually says they are up for being challenged, and then they prove utterly incapable of having that invited discussion.

(By the way, even if your insults were true, they are nevertheless precisely ad hominems. Insults during the course of a debate is exactly the definition of ad hominems, and they are ad hominems regardless of how accurate…and they are in every case an inappropriate distraction [and typically a sign that the issuing party is losing on the merits]).

You say, “I have tried repeatedly to point out all of the problems with this “thinking.””

All you have done — after I pointed out the Ice Man is clearly not a corroboration but actually points toward the hoax hypothesis — then all you did was move to saying, ‘well, you know, he’s got a great character, so we should BELIEVE him.’ After trying for weeks to get you to address the nature of the Ice Man info, this was virtually your response. You asked us to simply BELIEVE Meier has done something truly extraordinary simply on the strength of his character (despite the rather compelling indications of purposeful deception within the very text you ask us to believe). Just like you BELIEVED Meier when you started sending emails to James Randi and making webpages without ever having even verified if Meier actually published the relevant bits of info at the time necessary to make a corroboration…which, as it turns out, he did not.

I don’t know about your “Mahesh misrepresented the scientists findings…”. I know you have mentioned something along those lines before, but it was beyond the scope of the discussion before which was solely focused on publishing/dissemination dates. But now I will look at Mahesh’s alleged misrepresentation; but I will also mention at the outset that Mahesh talks extensively about the differing Ice Man death accounts in his recent post which Matt linked above.

As for “Mahesh falsely accused Meier…”. Point me to that please. I haven’t seen Mahesh accuse Meier of anything. Quite the contrary it seems he has, like I have, taken great pains to not accuse Meier of anything, despite all the indications of deception and your bloated and tiresome claims about the strength of the informational evidence. Indeed, as I had quoted Mahesh above:

“..one can only state that first, the information Meier published combined with the publication dates doesn’t in any way prove Meier’s foreknowledge and second it even supports the null hypothesis, which is that Meier’s information regarding the ice man was based on terrestrial scientific information. But that doesn’t definitively PROVE that Meier falsified information. Apparently MH doesn’t understand these subtle but critical nuances.”

I wish I knew how to make those last two sentences italicized, bold, and thrice underlined.

I have not seen Zahi/Lock’s response to Mahesh’s outer space photos, where is this found? Please do provide that link.

Again you ask, “…you’ve viewed this material for a long, long time. What say you about the Meier case, true or false?”

Well, let me put it like this: I once read somewhere that there are three magic words which most people would do well to say more often… “I don’t know.”

You’re right though, it has been a long time. But it wasn’t until very recently that I discovered that the “higher standard of proof”, your unverified claims about the strenght of the informational evidence, is largely bull s**t.

Thus, I am yet still on the fence but increasingly teetering towards the hoax side (with yours and FIGU’s evasiveness in regards to Mahesh’s findings pushing me all the further that way).

As I said some months ago, the last time this whole ice man stuff was brought up, instigated by Mahesh and his cohorts……it is more about taking you down, Michael. I saw it directly on a Friends of Billy and Figu fb page, deleted soon after. I had left that page because of all of this before that post showed up but was talked into coming back by an admin. Some people I knew, at that time, still fully thought Mahesh was doing good work in support of the mission and from what I understand from them, he was. I cannot say one way or another really since I had just come on to the social media scene in regards to the Meier material. Seems to me that according to “their” Meier findings they would simply move on! They certainly have a bone to pick or rather an arrow to pick. I say “put it on ice”, have a cocktail!

Ok, yes, I spent two paragraphs explaining how I would not explain my position, because the facts are a little complicated and we’ve been over them numerous times. But, I will reiterate. The facts are as follows:

It is unknown whether Meier truly had a discussion about the Ice Man before he was discovered; there is no evidence for this. He certainly disseminated the CR in ’91, but only AFTER the mummy was discovered. But there still could have been room for a stellar corroboration, because the arrow wasn’t discovered til a decade later. But, as it turns out… this important detail was left out of the original publication/dissemination. And nor was it found in the next two (three?) publications of the CR either. It only appeared in the CR AFTER scientists discovered the arrow. And, in the recent publications, the readers attention was not drawn to the fact that this info was inserted much later than the original CR and only after the arrow was found…which is seemingly the definition of “backdating.” I don’t know what more proof you could want. (Indeed, this is your favorite kind of proof, copy right dates).

As I’ve said before, I suppose this could be honest, legitimate mistake. But…again I refer you to Mahesh’s question:

“What are the chances that “errors” arise in the alleged telepathic transmission exactly with the pieces of crucial information that could have been the strong evidence for Meier’s foreknowledge (ARROW) and also results-in conveniently matching the incorrect scientific information (age of 4,105 years) at that time?”

Indeed, you were so tricked by this instance of backdating that it sent you on million dollar wild goose chase.

You ask is the entire CR backdated? Well, as for the date on the contact, like I said, there is no evidence he actually had the convo on that date (but I am NOT saying necessarily that he didn’t actually have the convo on that date). He definitly disseminated/published the CR on the Ice Man soon after Ice Man was discovered. So no, I wouldn’t call the entire CR “backdated”, only that it would have been nice if (and it would have been necessary for it to be a corroboration) if he had disseminated/published before the ice man was discovered.

I’ve only yet really glossed over some of the comments in response to me in this thread (I did read in full your response, MH), but I saw some comments along the lines of ‘where do I get off nit-picking on these slight errors…you’re not perfect, obviously we all make mistakes etc., etc…’

Yes, we do all make mistakes.

I’ve only looked a bit at original German CR’s. And my German is poor, so I wouldn’t know for sure, but I would anticipate that like most books, there are relatively few to none typos. But what we do find is “errors” — gross errors that do not appear to be anything like typos– and they occur exactly at the moments one would expect if it was a hoax. Again I refer the reader to Mahesh’s quote above.

MH, you write, “The offered possible explanations don’t seem to satisfy the two of you.” In light of the nature of these “errors”, no, your explanations certainly do not satisfy me at all. (Again I refer you to Mahesh’s question above). Aside from the fact that the arrow part was left out and only later appeared in publications after the arrow was found, there are other such gross “errors” that do not look anything like typos or innocent mistakes. Like “MUFON” for example — something that I have heard you cite as a corroboration. Again, it turns out to be actually indicative of hoax hypothesis. The orginal CR spoke of “the german ufological organization will be one of your greatest enemies…” (or something very similar, I don’t have it in front of me). But then later, AFTER the creation of MUFON, all of a sudden in the later publications of that same CR it reads “MUFON will be one of your greatest enemies…” (or whatever the exact wording is).

The very bit that would have made for great corroboration… again the bit that was miss-transcribed. What a coincidence.

You say “I’d suggest that you apply those three magic word, “I don’t know”, at this point.” I’m confused. I’ve said those words many times here. I DONT KNOW whether there is a hoax afoot– but I do know there is mounting evidence that it is. (But, of course, there remains a lot of solid evidence, indeed Aphophis as you mention appears purty good at first glance).

But you also say “And of course as far as scientific information that Meier was given in advance, later discoveries corroborate all or most of what he was told.” That’s the thing though — from what has now been revealed by Mahesh, Meier didn’t really appear to have ever been given any scientific info “in advance” of anything. Perhaps Aphophis is an exception.

I am curious to see Zahi’s/Lock’s debunking of Mahesh’s universal barrier photo analysis…Mahesh’s work appears pretty “ironclad”.

You say you’ve never known Meier to be dishonest. And thats fine — and I believe you on that. But what I know is that Meier/Ptaah held out a number of outer space pictures to be genuine…and, at the moment, they all appear patently fake. I also know there are a handful of “errors” in the CR’s that are extremely damning evidence against the case.