New Confirmation of Billy Meier’s Warnings about Apophis

NASA scientists informed that Billy Meier verifiably published warnings about the Red Meteor, now known as asteroid Apophis,13 years before “official discovery”

NOTE: The information here has been updated on May 6, 2015, since it was shown that Guido Moosbrugger’s book, Und sie fliegen doch!, containing the first verifiable publication of information about the Red Meteor, aka asteroid Apophis, bears the copyright date of 1991. Thanks to Mahesh for pointing this out to Matthew Knight.

Cover pageCopyrights page

page 392-393

1991 Red Meteor Documentation







There’s been some excellent new research and information concerning when knowledge of the Red Meteor by Billy Meier, now referred to by scientists as asteroid Apophis was first verifiably published.

Matthew Knight has discovered that the date is actually 1991, 10 years earlier than previously thought and 13 years before “official discovery”! Additionally, Matthew provides more information that supports Anton Hahnekamp’s theory that there could be a connection between referring to Apophis as the Red Meteor and the Torino scale. While that connection still remains speculative, there should be no doubt that Meier warned about this incoming object long before our scientists discovered it.

The following are Matthew’s notes on the new details:


In Contact Report 150, Billy Meier reports that he met with an ET named Quetzal. Billy discusses the “rote Meteor” (Red Meteor) with Quetzal. (1) [Note: Meteors are asteroids (rocks without comas/tails) and comets (rocks with comas/tails) that burn within the Earth’s atmosphere, extending 483 kilometres from the Earth’s surface. That’s about one
hundred times closer than current 2015 scientific estimates for Apophis’s pass.)


‘…und sie fliegen doch!’ is published in several different language versions and printings, including the first German version from 1991,  where it states that the Red Meteor will make a hole in the surface stretching from the North Sea to the Black Sea. (3)


Professor Richard P. Binzel had the idea for a near-earth object (NEO) scale.


Prof. Binzel’s near-earth object warning scale appears in print for the first time.


The ‘Torino Scale’ is officially adopted by participants of the June 1999 international conference for NEOs, held in Torino (Turin), Italy, hence: Torino Scale. It predicts the hazard levels (0 – 10) of near-Earth objects with five colour codes; from white, level 0, “NO HAZARD” near-Earth objects, to, red, level 10, “CERTAIN COLLISIONS” meteors. A “red Meteor”, as described by Meier in 1994, would be a Torino level 9, “CERTAIN COLLISIONS”, code red, object. (4)(5)


Guido Moosbrugger’s, ‘…und sie fliegen doch!’, 1991 book is translated into English in, ‘And Still They Fly’. When translated, the “rote Meteor” is changed to proper noun capitonym, “the Red Meteor”, gaining the status of a national adjective. The warnings about “land between the North Sea and the Black Sea” being devastated by the meteor appear on page 265. (6)


Kitt Peak Observatory discover Apophis (99942) on Dec. 21st. Arecibo Observatory researchers say that there is 2.2% – 2.7% chance of Apophis hitting Earth. Torino level 2 to 4. Size estimates drop from 450 to 390 metres, (7) to “the size of two football fields”, or, 210-330 metre diameters. Torino drops to level 1, “NORMAL”, code green. (8). No “Red Meteor” associated with Apophis. Apophis will fly by Earth on 13th April 2029 and reappear in 2036.


NASA’s Infrared Telescope Facility in Hawaii estimates the size of Apophis as 350 metres in diameter. Torino drops to level 0, “NO HAZARD”, code white. (7)

1-in-45,000 chance of Apophis hitting Earth in 2036. Torino Scale 0, “NO HAZARD”, code white, asteroid. (7)


According to Contact Report 471, the Red Meteor “prophecy” becomes a prediction meaning it will definitely happen. Billy says, “…the Red Meteor… is not a prophecy, but a prediction and, therefore, a cosmic event. If I remember correctly… the great danger by the meteor would threaten Earth on the 13th April, 2029, while at the same time he also named a date for the year 2036.” Ptaah “And what to say about Quetzal’s prediction regarding the meteor; I can only confirm his information.” (9)


NASA: Apophis is 330-350 metres in size. (Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy). The Arecibo Observatory recalculate the chance of Apophis hitting Earth in 2036 as dropping from 1-in-45,000 to 1-in-250,000. Apophis estimated to pass 18,300 miles away from Earth in 2029. Apophis is a Torino Scale 0, “NO HAZARD”, code white, object. (7)


NASA: Goldstone single-pixel observations of Apophis rule out potential of 2036 Earth impact; Torino Scale 0, “NO HAZARD”, code white. The Herschel Space Observatory observations increased the diameter estimate by 20% from 270 to 325 meters, which translates into a 75% increase in the estimates of the asteroid’s volume or mass (7) which is closer to Ptaah’s 350 metres as stated in CR 475, part 2, published online before 2013. (10)


China, France & US estimate that Apophis is due to pass within 35,000 kilometres of Earth (21,748 miles) away from Earth in 2029. (The moon is about 363,000 km away from Earth). No collision is expected. US scientists research Japanese data of observations in 2005 of another asteroid similar in size and calculate that Apophis “is likely” to experience “minor landslides” as it passes the Earth. Apophis could be a “…mass of rocks of varying sizes clinging together” and “some of the rocks would be moved by Earth’s gravitational pull”, whereby, “a thin layer of the surface would be removed”. (11) In 2036, Apophis is expected to get no closer than 36 million miles (57 million kilometers) away. (12). The “Icarus” Journal, vol. 242, publishes an article about how tidal effects are likely to cause small avalanches on the surface of Apophis which bring it closer to Earth than estimated. (13)


NASA states there is NO HAZARD associated with Apophis. Size is about 330 metres in diameter. NASA collaborate with the ESA on the AIDA mission to impact a low-threat asteroid Didymos (800 metres in diameter) in 2022 and throw it off course with a probe travelling at 13,000 miles per hour. (12)(14)

The prediction is explicit: Apophis will create “a new continent, due to an enormous crack of the Earth, from the N to the Black Sea, from which will spew forth red hot lava” on, either, the 13th April 2029, or, 2036 – if nothing is done against it. (5)

Saturday, the 10th of October 1981, 3:15 AM:

Quetzal:  “Earth humanity should listen to your words and warnings, but that especially they do not do.” (1)

UPDATE: May 4, 2015

My Polish friend has confirmed my findings about the Polish book, ‘UFO Z PLEJAD’ being the first known publication date (1994) for the “Red Meteor” prediction. He bought the book about 20 years ago in a book store in Warsaw and still owns it. He confirmed that the text in the PDF file version of ‘UFO Z PLEJAD’ is accurate and the Red Meteor information appears (in Polish) on pages 307 and 308 in the original book!

Billy’s “Red Meteor” warning prophecy was codenamed “red” a year before Professor Richard P. Binzel had the idea for a near-earth object (NEO) scale, 3 years before the scale was in print and 5 years before it was officially adopted by participants of the June 1999 international conference for NEOs, held in Torino (Turin), Italy, hence: Torino Scale.

For the 1994 warning to exist as anything other than an as of yet uncorroborated prediction, three subsequent events had to occur:

  1. Many scientists to identify, monitor, discuss a named near-earth object (NEO) that could pose a high risk:

Confirmed: (NEO) Asteroid Apophis discovered and named an asteroid in 2004 and given highest ever Torino Scale 4 that fell to a Torino 1 later in the year. Since 2005, scientists have said that Apophis is NO HAZARD, code white, Torino level 0 asteroid.

  1. Billy to publicly name an already identified NEO as the Red Meteor.

Confirmed: Billy’s conversations with Ptaah since 2008, including CR 475 where the Red Meteor is identified as Asteroid Apophis. Quetzal’s warning would be a CERTAIN COLLISION, code red, near-earth object and was this warning was in print since 1994.

  1. NEO Apophis, the Red Meteor to hit Earth if nothing is done.

Matthew Knight




(3)’UFO Z PLEJAD’ Guido Moosbrugger AGENCJA NOLPRESS, Bialystok 1994, ISBN 83-85212-11-6



(6) ‘And Yet… They Fly’ by Guido Moosbrugger Publisher: Steelmark; 1 edition (Sept. 2001). Language: English ISBN-10: 0971152306 ISBN-13: 978-0971152304










See also:

New NASA Discovery: The Earth Is Round!

The Red Meteor – Apophis        ‪New Cartoon Warns of Devastating Impact from Apophis Asteroid

‪UFO Contactee Warns Apophis Asteroid Could Devastate Europe

‪Scientists’ ‘New Discovery’ About Moon’s Surface Already Published

NASA Corrects Apophis Information, Size Is almost exactly what Billy Meier Foretold

Russian Meteor a Warning to Prevent Apophis Impact


   *More Apophis information from the Billy Meier case:  

            New NASA Discovery: The Earth Is Round!

The Red Meteor – Apophis

‪New Cartoon Warns of Devastating Impact from Apophis Asteroid

‪UFO Contactee Warns Apophis Asteroid Could Devastate Europe

‪Scientists’ ‘New Discovery’ About Moon’s Surface Already Published

NASA Corrects Apophis Information, Size Is almost exactly what Billy Meier Foretold

Russian Meteor a Warning to Prevent Apophis Impact

264 Replies to “New Confirmation of Billy Meier’s Warnings about Apophis”

  1. Hi All, I found this news article which might be interest to subject on Apophis. It mentions the “older rocks tend to be reddish in these observations”?

    “To know for certain whether this happens, astronomers will need to observe Apophis during its 2029 pass. Scientists age asteroids by surveying infrared light; older, weathered rocks tend to appear more reddish in these observations. If a high-quality spectrum can be obtained during the approach, it should be possible to compare the color of Apophis before and after its flyby, Bottke says. “When [Apophis] makes its pass, we’ll get to run the experiment. Whether it’s all solved or not we’ll have to find out.”

  2. Andy,
    Where’s your evidence? Pointing to someone else’s website only shows you didn’t do anything yourself. Where’s your comprehensive analysis, in your own words, that I can examine and understand your viewpoint. I want Investigator Andy to bring those ‘smoking guns’ out and show your fraud/hoax that leaves no doubt. Post it to me so I know you’re addressing me directly. I highly predict, if answered to, your patented talk around, pile on, fluff and fold, fact-less, diatribe diaper diarrhea will appear. I meant for the reader to gag on that description to really sense its stench.

    1. Shawn,

      That’s an odd characterization of my comments. Again, aside from a couple pot-shots, virtually my entire efforts here have been to reveal the FACTS that are constantly being obscured, and I’m continually trying to bring people back ON topic — I haven’t “talked around” anything, I’ve done the exact opposite.

      I guess you weren’t around for the broader discussion that started six months ago, where I touched on examples of what I call “extremely damning evidence indicative of hoax.” (For the last time, note that I did NOT say I have “proof” of hoax).

      Anyway. I won’t tell you to just “learn how to think”, or “get off your butt and find the answers yourself” … I will be helpful and dialogue-promoting and answer your question face-on like a normal respectful person.

      I will point you to a handful of the damning bits of evidence. For starters, see Mahesh’s BMUFOR site concerning:

      -“2003 QQ47”
      -San Fran photos
      -Outer Space Photo’s (about a half a dozen of ’em)

      The first three will be found on one of the BMUFOR’s two pages of CR analyses; the last two are found on BMUFOR’s Photos and Videos page. That should be a good start. (Be forewarned, this is a good deal of reading…but please do get through it all, and then perhaps me and you could be able to have a real conversation because we will then actually be up to date on certain relevant portions of the photographic and ‘prophetic’ evidence unlike almost everyone here).

      Although I have been careful not to say I can “prove” case is a hoax… frankly, I may soon be willing to say that. Have a look at those five above and then come back and tell me if you disagree (2003 QQ47 is a doozy!).

      1. “Although I have been careful not to say I can “prove” case is a hoax…”, yeah, the armchair investigator.

        If the case is a “hoax”, that means that ALL of the investigative team’s work is completely wrong, as is Gary Kinder’s as are all of the photo, film, sound recording, metal sample analyses, 100 eyewitnesses, five other photographers, all of the CRs, prophecies, predictions, spiritual teaching, etc.

        I almost can’t describe the particular thought-feeling experience as someone who actually…knows the case is real from all of the preceding as well as my own personal investigation and experience.

        So I tell ya what, put up or shut up. You’ve been asked to do it before. It’s been pointed out to you that your thinking skills are below sub par, your logic non-existent and your overall approach, if I am to be polite, amateurish.

        THe things we are dealing with, trying to accomplish, whatever you may think of them, are far more important than giving space and time to the kind of crap that you and your friend’s purposeful, stupid attempts at “deconstruction” warrant.

        So your NEXT post either has your “proof” or it won’t be appearing here, just know that. And should it not contain it, you won’t be posting any more of this drivel on this blog. You’ve had all the rope you need and I thin you’ve also kicked the chair out from under yourself.

        1. PS — my understanding on metal samples and sound recording is that they have been debunked. Experts also disgaree on the pictures…

          NOTE: To all concerned,

          Andy submitted three more posts that are simply more claims and innuendos, so I’m not posting them. His P.S. about is the beginning of the third one and I’m done accommodating that kind of stuff.

          He would like to drag things on about Meier’s photos being “hoaxed”, etc., thereby negating the independent, expert analyses of experts both years ago and quite recently. He and his cohorts are well aware that Meier himself published information stating that certain categories of photographic evidence had been compromised – and these WEREN’T the stunningly clear UFO photos taken primarily in Switzerland, as well as in India. Of course we haven’t seen those attacked yet but I’m sure they’re working on it.

          He has repeatedly claimed that Meier has “backdated” his information, without being remotely able to actually substantiate it, or credibly explain just how Meier accomplished such a colossal task of deliberately manipulating 40+ years of thousands of pages of complex, consistent information without means, motive or opportunity. As someone who’s personally been involved with researching the case for the better part of 36 years, which has included 14 trips to Switzerland, interviews with the parties, etc., when I’m someone proudly clams that they can just sit on their butt and try to indict the case and Meier without needing to investigate all available elements, then I know the person is a fool.

          When Andy presents qualified, credible, substantiated photographic analyses of Meier’s UFO photos, the ones that have already been thusly examined and authenticated, as well as similar evidence that contradicts the sound recording analyses, then we’ll post them. (I recently met one of the sound engineers who analyzed the sounds, Nils Rognerud, who certainly will be interested in seeing Andy’s evidence that Meier hoaxed the sounds.)

          The circus is over and it isn’t going to be conducted here.


          1. You ask me to put up or shut up,

            NOTE: Andy would like to post another challenge here but, unfortunately, he still hasn’t answered, complied with, the following from 3.15, which also required of him before posting again. So he waited and figured that I’d forgotten. I hadn’t, I just let him try to sneakily avoid answering some questions himself. More about this kind of behavior later but once he complies, he can resubmit this (edited) post:

            NOTE: We interrupt this post by Andy to remind him that he’s been asked several times to answer a few questions, such as:

            Why did he endorse Mahesh’s inaccurate information that scientists had indeed drawn unanimous conclusions on the cause of death of the Ice Man?

            Why does he reject Meier’s information on the ozone damage, a-bomb connection, etc.?

            Why does he state that only a certain portion of a photograph will be vastly distorted but the rest of it not be?

            Why does he not refer to the the debunking of Mahesh’s claims about the photographs by professional photographer Chris Lock?

            Why is he comfortable with a supposedly pro/com site by someone who gathered original documents, etc., under the guise of “archiving” them, when that person is mainly attacking the case everywhere possible and still failing to (otherwise) openly state where he stands on it?

            Is he himself pro or con on the case?

            Is Andy a student at ASU?

            1. MH, good points! Lets see if he can answer them properly. I doubt it though.

              Btw, what happened to Mahesh? He’s gone quiet lately.

              1. Dennis,

                It’s quite telling that these amateurs think they know everything about events ongoing for over 70 years that Meier’s been the center of but strangely can’t answer basic questions about…themselves. Perhaps Andy doesn’t know what school he’s going to. Maybe he could…ask someone?

              2. I, Moshe Levy, who does not know either Andy or Mahesh, have stopped posting here because I was causing people emotional distress, and I don’t want to do that. Unless he’s posting under an alias, Mahesh hasn’t posted here, at least not recently.

                1. For all we know Mahesh could be posting here hiding behind one of those “hide IP address” software’s that uses IP from another country.

                  1. Actually I doubt it. Since he isn’t forthcoming with responses to the frequently asked questions to him it’s doubtful that he’s doing much of anything except perhaps checking this blog.

                    THere is something that skeptics may want to ponder and that is, at what point do the known circumstances of Billy Meier’s life precede the possibility that he was running all over the world getting information from terrestrial sources for his prophetically accurate information?

                    Just as an example, from whom, how, when and where did Meier get the information about 3-D, touch-screeen technology – in 1982 ( – and how will the skeptics explain it other than to try to impugn his character and accuse him of “backdating” it?

                    When we see their idiotic attempts to futilely show that Meier was falsifying virtually all his information after the fact, it effectively means that eh was super busy cheating but not really having all of the contacts with the information from the Plejaren, etc. This is why when people like Andy – who doesn’t know what school he goes to – concoct all of their foolish stories they strenuously avoid dealing with means, motive and opportunity and can ONMLY at best make up silly theories.

                    1. Really? And just who is “prohibited”? Do you mean someone who’s posted 474 times since 2011, who makes ridiculous claims and demands but who…won’t answer simple questions posed to him?

                      Maybe you mean someone else?

                    2. Andy has been here for a long time. He’s had ample opportunity to counter proof with proof when the discussion came to a head. Nice sounding English words whose only proof is the word arrangement isn’t the level of proof that Mike has asked time and time again when discussing about Meier or his material.

                      At some point, reality has to intersect and that is something the bunker de-bunker mentality flatly refuses to do because it is easier to what-if an argument then actually put one’s self at the time and circumstances of the claim to determine whether or not it is true. That is why you have to go on site and examine the evidence … first hand. Maybe that is missed by the internet generation or folks that have personalized information to them (like in the form of ads) that are unconsciously looking to find data that self-promotes their doubts rather than seeing things for what they are.

                    3. I find it ironic that the people who stick closest to the topic of the original blog post are called ridiculous by others who bring up completely unrelated topics like where someone attends university or what Meier’s motive would be to lie (completely irrelevant to the original post). Andy’s comments and Mahesh’s site must be rock solid if MH’s rebuttal is “yeah, but where do you go to school?” or an unrelated question related to 3D touchscreens.

                      I know I said I was removing myself from commenting for a while, but I couldn’t resist when I read these comments implying that MH won a debate when in fact he just prevented his opposition from being heard. Anyway, I’m going to go quiet again for a while (I hope).

                      I hope that anyone who is considering whether Meier is a legitimate predictor of the future will review the exchanges between Andy and MH and decide for themselves who sticks more closely to the topic of the original blog post, who offers more logical arguments to support their case, and who has a habit of changing the topic when they’ve lost a debating point.

                      Finally, as a reminder, I have met neither Andy nor Mahesh and my views are completely my own. For example, I don’t believe Meier has ever had any contact with an extraterrestrial presence, whereas I think Andy and Mahesh are still undecided.

                    4. I guess this needs to be repeated:

                      “You misperceive. It’s simply a matter of having someone who has nastily impugned the character of a remarkably good man stand up and reveal just a tad about himself, since he’s so willing to recklessly try to skewer someone whose openness, documentation, candor, truthfulness is not in question to any reasonable person.”

                      “Really? And just who is ‘prohibited’? Do you mean someone who’s posted 474 times since 2011, who makes ridiculous claims and demands but who…won’t answer simple questions posed to him?

                      Maybe you mean someone else?”

                      Is giving a guy…four years to do actually make a case, rather than just give us his uneducated “opinion”, that equates to “preventing” him from being heard? Someone who can’t answer the questions he’s been asked – and remember, I’ve been pressing him to show means, motive and opportunity, which he obviously can’t – is hardly qualified, or capable, to try to “deconstruct” something of the magnitude of the Meier case.

                    5. What was Mike winning on HIS blog? Unlike most other blogs, Mike has let this go for a long time. Isn’t it obvious why?

                      Or, are you guys too high on your horses to see you folks rely on merely words alone acting as if you’re God’s gift to perfection. The reality of the situation is that you guys have the bar set up so high you expect what you can do with two hands on the internet is some how equal in comparison to a man that has tragically lost one ARM for a good part of his life some how is an elusive concept to grasp hold of. Technically, this is called “straw man” argumentation when you rely on argumentation on evidence alone and no evidence on the contrary considering the man and material you folks are apparently here about is Eduard Meier, not Michael Horn.

                      Unless, you folks are looking for Billy Horn … I can’t help you with that one.

                    6. Duke at 2:47: I don’t think your description of a straw man argument is accurate. A straw man argument is when a debater acts as if his opponent’s argument is something different than it actually is, and the refutes that other argument.

                      An example: Andy argues that Apophis doesn’t prove anything (yet) about Meier’s prophetic ability and MH responds as if Andy were arguing that Meier is a hoax because MH is more comfortable arguing that.

                    7. I think you’d better go over ALL of Andy’s comments and positions and mine as well.

                      Isn’t it funny that an aspiring lawyer (Andy) would like to have innumerable chances for Mahesh and him to try to skewer Meier, to try to show that the case is a hoax, yet they try to isolate away and disregard all known facts and circumstances, consistency, the elements of means, motive and opportunity, etc., that reveal what would be for both of them combined an unattainable level of comparable accurate, authentic information, evidence, etc., pertaining to their own lives and the events, etc., in them.

                      When I start to see arguments that effectively say that three, high-level, professional investigators and researchers, and nine other people in attendance, couldn’t tell the difference between – couldn’t even raise the question about – what were photographs of a real place and event (along with the details about cars that didn’t exist at those times and now do) and paintings but that a couple of ambitious, inexperienced debunkers sitting at their computers 37 years later KNOW the “truth”, then it’s time to move on and let the fools sink in their own swamp.

                      Not only do I not have an obligation to keep allowing repetitive, insubstantial and unsubstantiated claims to be made, I do have a responsibility to pull the plug on further repetitious attempts. Of course if and when Andy and Mahesh actually can really prove their claims, they’re welcome to submit them. And to reiterate, Andy NEVER answered the means, motive and opportunity questions that I repeatedly posed, so it’s not merely that he couldn’t figure out what school he went to. (I thought that maybe something relatively simple like that was in order since he was presuming to know so much about another man’s life and details that spanned decades.)

                      Now, if you want to put forward evidence that shows that Meier “hoaxed” anything feel free.

                    8. I think that BEAM has faked some of the “evidence”, including the early picture of Semjase as well as Quetzal’s beamship. His wife has spoken about that too, and I think we should take her seriously. I have no doubts that the Plejaren exist, and that they have been in contact with Billy. However, Billy “acted up” in the past, as a young man, and no doubt there are elements of his personality that even the Plejaren have a bit of trouble with. . . . So, not everything from the “horse’s mouth” is necessarily “true”, but everything should be taken with “a grain of salt”.

                    9. That makes no sense because if you believe Meier is in contact with the P’s, WHY would he need to fake anything?

                    10. Take Billy’s EX-wife’s words with a “grain of salt” then as she signed an affidavit stating that Meier was telling the truth about everything. As for your thoughts regarding Meier’s past, they also say, “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth” especially important if you think it’s talkin’ crap.

                    11. Regarding evidence of a hoax, if I provided a video of Meier in which he says (after being translated into English) “I have never spoken with any extraterrestrials,” and the surrounding content indicated that it wasn’t taken out of context, would that be sufficient evidence of a hoax?

                    12. Wow, you mean the same guy who for seven decades has not only been saying that he’s been talking to them since childhood but also has over 100 eyewitnesses, including me, as I have also received info from them, through Meier that was prophetically accurate, etc., etc., etc., that guy?

                    13. You invited me to put forward evidence that Meier hoaxed anything, so I’m trying to determine what you’d consider sufficient evidence. Would the example I provided at 9:53 do it?

                    14. You’re obviously playing a game and time is running out on it. So submit whatever it is you want people to consider.

                    15. It’ll be much more efficient to find and present the evidence if I have an example of what’s sufficient. By knowing what would be compelling evidence to you, I can find some that matches it. Otherwise, I’m just guessing.

                      I don’t really like my odds, though, if you won’t agree that Meier saying it directly is enough.

                    16. Let me save you some trouble. In Meier’s own words – which I was present for when we filmed The Silent Revolution of Truth:

                      My name is Eduard Albert Meier, but all around the world I am simply called “Billy”. I received the name in Teheran when I was on the road and since then this name has remained with me.

                      I’d say in in and of itself, my childhood was very good and very pleasant for me. I learned very much on the one hand because of my parents, and on the other hand because of an extraterrestrial called Sfath, whom I got to know in 1942.

                      Speaker (S): “How old were you then ?”

                      BM : “I was 5 years old. And this man, Sfath, taught me very much of my school knowledge besides many other things just as pastor Emmanuel Zimmerman did.

                      Then I confided in the pastor and he told me I did not need to be afraid. He explained to me what telepathy is.

                      Whenever I ran off, Sfath helped me to hide somewhere or he took me in the spaceship and he flew somewhere with me where we could talk and where I could learn from him.”

                    17. Because it’s Meier’s saying in his own words, on film, that he’s been meeting with the extraterrestrials since childhood.

                      My time is limited now, if you want to post something then do it and stop wasting ALL of our time.

                    18. NOTE: Moshe submitted a post that didn’t contain his “evidence” that Meier is a “hoaxer”, therefore the post was not approved.


                    19. Moshe,

                      The evidence you speak of, would be of great interest to me.
                      If as true as you speak, a test of the minds it would be.


                    20. Yea, and there is also a logical fallacy where someone goes a = b, b = c, then say a = c when in reality a =/ c. What that means is the person above is cherry picking what they want to argue about making logical links of a small subset of things ignoring everything else usually done to disprove or prove of something they have worded. In other words, it is an illusory correlation or more fancifully worded as correlation does not imply causation. This is actually something VERY common with such things as history AND current events where people will believe what they want and ignore the rest just to correlate in their own mind certain things (i.e. blame the US for everything as an example).

                      Mike has repeatedly brought up the material as a whole even if the blog topic is just one part of the case. I don’t know what reality where small subsets constitute the only way to prove anything ignoring everything else around it isn’t much of an argument.

                      So yes, someone is trying to argue the irrelevancy of the case on a small subset ignoring everything else around it which constitutes, by your definition, of a straw-man seeing that others willingly ignore the complete evidence of the case just to refute an argument in their mind.

                    21. Duke at 3:14: I don’t think the logical fallacy you state in your first sentence is a fallacy at all. I think it’s just logic.

                      You said that someone is trying to argue the irrelevancy of the case. That may be, but it’s not Andy.

                      The example you gave isn’t a straw man because he was responding to MH’s specific argument in the original blog post, not an argument Andy created in his own mind.

                      Andy was barred in part, I believe, because he refused to announce to people reading MH’s blog where he works or goes to school. That’s probably a double standard, since MH probably hasn’t required that of commenters who support MH’s positions.

                      MH has the right to ban whoever he wants, including me, but the logic leading to the decision in Andy’s case was flawed.

                    22. Take a crash course in the real history of the Meier case. Not only has he been the target of 22 physical assassination attempts, and ongoing attacks against his character by the puny likes of Mahesh and Andy, but the original investigators as well were attacked for their work on the case.

                      Wendelle Stevens got sent to prison on trumped up charges, people lied about Lee and Brit to Meier and even for a long time Meier and the Plejaren thought that they had been dishonest, until they penetrated into the situation. But the Elders too were criticized and pressured for their involvement. I’ve had countless attacks against my character, false things said about me in a couple hundred pages online, etc.

                      None of us have hidden behind screen names, refused to state our actual positions, refused to substantiate our positions and claims, etc. I have contempt for cowards and liars. If someone’s going to come here and defame others, they won’t get a pass because they do or don’t support my position.

                      Andy has repeatedly demonstrated cowardice, disregard for repeated requests to actually substantiate his claims – not just refer to Mahesh’s flawed work – and is beyond reluctant to reveal anything about himself, in true internet armchair expert fashion.

                      So I’ll take you up on your suggestion, if you again state that I’ve banned Andy rather than put clear conditions under which he is allowed to post here, if he even wishes to do so, then I’ll gladly “ban” you for repeated, deliberately misrepresenting what my position is. That should make you happy.

                    23. I agree with Moshe. Michael is treating this forum like there is a trial going on here (presumably to prove BEAM’s credibility) and he is being the judge, ordering people to “stick to the topic” or being in “contempt of court” (and barred from testifying any further in Michael’s court). In fact, true debate is not being allowed and I agree with Moshe that in a forum where we can be told to “shut up”, perhaps the best idea is to leave. . . . (since we are not “on trial” here and are free to go)

                2. The only one I see having emotional stress is yourself Moshe. Why did you say that my comment about Mahesh hurt your oversensitive feelings if you don’t know Mahesh? You do not sound like someone who doesn’t know Mahesh considering you’ve defended him every chance you get. But nice try.

            2. Why waste any of your precious time andy with these poor decades bickering ****s, nothing to offer the world except terrorism and enslavement, when the secretive ***t extraterrestrials land on the white house lawn to speak with our democratically elected leaders then they on our behalf with formulate some kind of dialogue as we pay them to do, nationally, until then its money, politics, national borders and ***s trying to sell books and make money off billy meiers photos and thinking that the extraterrestrials will celebrate them, if they even knew they existed, just like God does

              1. Hi Moshe, I find it funny that your idea of who won is based on how close to the topic they stayed, you’re very much into following manmade laws, aren’t you? If you haven’t studied Billy’s Meier’s volumes of works, how are you able to compare it to Mahesh’s site?

                1. Sheila,

                  To me, Moshe, Andy and Mahesh appear to be working on the premise that if “some” things in the Meier case “could” have been hoaxed or “could” have been known about earlier with regards to some information/prophecies, then the WHOLE case could be or is a hoax. All based on “could have beens”. All these “could have beens” are supposed to super seed and wipe out ALL the hard evidence in the case. That good investigation?

                  1. I’ll state this again then for their benefit: The KNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES absolutely prohibit event the remote possibility that Meier hoaxed the evidence.

                    Because these people have tried to dissect information as if it exists in a vacuum, devoid of the known circumstances, the absolutely established details of the man’s life and the absolute absence of ANYONE EVER coming forward to show complicity, collusion, connection, collaboration, etc., etc., etc., plus this inability to address the means, motive and opportunity also in light of all the known circumstances and absence of collaboration etc. – their efforts are ignorant, incomplete and amateurish.

                    One cannot effectively reason with people who lack this understanding and who – obviously – lack sufficient life experience to comprehend their own ignorance of the matter. This isn’t any “personal attack”, it’s the plain stated, factual truth that addresses the relatively recent epidemic of internet know-it-alls who not only can’t/won’t answer these questions but who couldn’t even begin to account for…their own lives in terms of the details, scrutiny, continuity, consistency and requisite…CHARACTER which, if they had it, they’d be most hesitant to try to impugn in the case and person of Billy Meier.

                2. Sheila at 6:41: The reason staying on topic is valuable is that it avoids having people change the debate mid-stream. Poor debaters sometimes deflect attention to avoid admitting that their argument is weak. As an example, during the discussion of Apophis, you diverted the discussion to some photos.

                  Presenting dozens of poor arguments in favor of a case doesn’t strengthen the case. No matter how high you pile junk, it’s still junk.

                  Any single argument should stand on its own and not rely on a general belief in Meier’s honesty or coming up with a motive for his actions or knowing what journal he read something in, etc.

              2. Guest
                Unless, of course, those leaders aren’t democratically elected at all, but, manipulate the vote, or, are offered contact with ETs, but, do not respond, or, real terrorists kill & enslave more and more people every day – then all your quips will appear tasteless, ignorant of the truth and defamatory and you will have given God much too much credit.

            3. Another example of FIGU’s attempts to “control” the conversation. You won’t get anywhere with people, Michael, if all you continue to do is tell them to “shut up” if they don’t say what pleases you!

    1. You misperceive. It’s simply a matter of having someone who has nastily impugned the character of a remarkably good man stand up and reveal just a tad about himself, since he’s so willing to recklessly try to skewer someone whose openness, documentation, candor, truthfulness is not in question to any reasonable person.

  3. Andy,
    I’ve previously read Mahesh’s site. I wasn’t impressed then, or now. His weak attacks dramatizing simple translation discrepancies to prove pointless inconsistencies does not help build a case. I’ve been to Switzerland, I’ve met Billy, I’ve experienced the locations where photographic evidence was captured, I’ve talked to witness’s, I’ve learned a great many things about the people helping him in the mission. What have you done? Oh! You’ve read Mahesh’s site. You say I can compare notes with you after I’ve read Mahesh’s garble? You have a long road ahead of you.
    It’s clear to my understanding that your point all along was to interject the idea of a “hoax” into this blog, regardless how flimsy your premise was.The narrow path you’ve chosen for this game plan won’t shield you from the elephants of truth you must contend with if you wish to stay on this trail. So far you’ve attempted to swat a few flies from the elephants rear. This is no way to begin a great journey. To pursue greatness, you’ll need to be great in your own wisdom. Wisdom thats been missing from your start down this misguided path.
    This reminds me of a joke i heard while in preschool, “Question – how do you get out of an elephant who’s swallowed you? Answer- you run around and around till you get pooped out!” Andy, you’ve been going in circles and I can see your pooped out. You’re right, you should take a break. But remember, elephants don’t forget. Waiting for your return will be the enormous, powerful, unending truth of creation, delivered to Earthlings one final time by ‘Billy’ Eduard Albert Meier(Beam).
    Logic says you haven’t done your homework. If you had, your questions would of been entirely different.

Leave a Reply

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