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 comments on “New Confirmation of Billy Meier’s Warnings about Apophis

  • Sil, excellent point Michael. No, that never came up and according to Mahesh there is only one photo, the ONE in Geo. Sucks to be Mahesh/Moshe/Andy right now. 11 photos, that is beautiful.

  • Eleven photos and twelve witnesses. That’s more than enough to convict in a court of law, which in some states at least in the US “only” takes seven witnesses.

          • MH at 1:48: I could be mistaken, but I don’t think that the time travel pictures were from the same trip as the Great Voyage pictures.

            I’ve found references to the 11 SF earthquake photos on Mahesh’s site. Apparently, Meier indicated that those photos “correspond very exactly” to portions of the Geo painting.

            Meier once again got angry at the Plejarans because aliens had sent those images telepathically to the Geo artist. Then to add insult to injury, Quetzal took the photos from Meier. As I’ve said time and time again, those Plejarans have really left Meier out to dry.

          • Things described by the investigators, such as the details about the cars, apparent different points of view, etc., are NOT explained by Mahesh.

  • Sheila,

    No doubt Mahesh will ignore and chose not to talk about those other 10 photos, as he always does with things in the Meier case that he cannot challenge. A good researcher my ass!

      • Dennis, Sheila,

        Oh dear oh dear. The irony is stretching to untold heights. I can’t help but be a bit blunt about this: you go on and on about how Mahesh is terrible researcher… but YOU haven’t even read his page? You criticize someone for lack of research when… you haven’t even read/researched his work?

        There were 16 photos in the magazine, and together they could all account for Meier’s 11 photos. Indeed, thats why Queztal allegedly destroyed them all.

        Now imagine the odds that the photos Meier captured on a time travel trip, just happened to appear “very accurate” (by Meier’s own admission in the CR!) to paintings that had been in print weeks before. Astronomically small. Sucks to be Sheila right now.

        We could have a much more fruitful dialogue if we were all up to speed on the facts. In the least, it would save us all a lot of frustration and embarrassment if we refrained from commenting on work that we have no more than glanced at.

        • I read Mahesh’s blog a few months ago, all four parts, have you updated it? The painting in question was not done weeks before Billy’s photos were taken, it was done the following year in 1976.

          • Sheial,

            I think Meier’s photos were from 1978. But here’s the real issue.

            We’ve got a couple of people who want to make a big stir, to actually deconstruct the case, I’m just a focal point for it. That’s fine actually. But in their zeal and stupidity they remind me of that old joke about the man who comes home unexpectedly and finds his wife in bed with another man. While he stands there shocked, she looks up at him, denying the whole thing and says, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”

            And here it is in terms of the SF earthquake photos. There were 12 people there apparently. Three of them were PROFESSIONAL, EXPERT INVESTIGATORS who personally held the photos in their own hands and examined them. Two of these people were still, at the time…SKEPTICS of the Meier case.

            But what our foolishly ambitious, self-serving friends would have us…BELIEVE, is that these people (and the other nine eyewitnesses) were the incompetent, deluded fools that these skeptics are. Right some people who WEREN’T there, who don’t have between them a fraction of the actual investigative skills, knowledge and experience have “figured out” that Meier simply put some paintings or photos of paintings on the kitchen table. A silly Lt. Col. from the USAF – who was tasked by the Air Force with researching the UFO phenomenon beginning in 1947 – and two private investigators – who are employed and trusted by Fortune 500 companies, banks, etc., to secure electronic communications and prevent espionage, etc. – are no match for these two, sitting at their computers and creating their own fantasy versions.

            So we’re waiting for Andy to document his claims and we’ll of course specifically add to them this particular one. We’ll have him explain, please, just how and why he and Mahesh are smarter, are in fact right, how they KNOW that the 12 eyewitnesses DIDN’T see what they thought they saw as they examined and passed around the photos.

        • So, are you saying you’re just reading the CR just to prove someone else is “wrong”? I’m a bit curious why you bother and which facts you’re looking for? Though, if you’re actually reading out of interest, you should go a little further and put the ‘why’ pieces together and ask bigger questions.

          After all, it’s not like Meier is writing just to one person on the internet but to some very very personal people at the center in Switzerland day in and day out. So, instead of trying to prove someone “wrong”, how about trying to understand why the very folks in Switzerland from the beginning are still there? Wouldn’t they have a natural human reaction if discovering something as truly being fake react in a certain manner that is usually not very pieceful? Consider the Swiss love their firearms as much as Americans do into that mix if you do want to think a bit larger world view of things and how close to home certain conclusions can be made if what you want to suggest exists.

          Whilst it is understandable if you lack funds to physically visit Switzerland to see how the folks operate there, it doesn’t cost much to step outside the knee-jerk perspective and visit the place in a fair manner. AFTER ALL, it’s not like the SSSC is a literal church where people just go there to believe or not like it’s a debate against two polar views.

          • I DON’T buy this nonsense about lacking the funds to go to Switzerland! Baloney. Here’s a guy sitting at a computer effectively telling us that Meier – a man who verifiably had no resources to accomplish such a “hoax” – somehow indeed DID accomplish all of this, while this guy can’t even demonstrate how he himself, living in a US city, going to a college, etc., doesn’t and can’t accomplish a relatively small task himself.

            We’ll hear all sorts of excuses and denials, all sorts of deflection and denial but the fact remains that this is someone accusing a man of a huge elaborate, dishonest, deceitful fraud, even suggesting of course how he did it…but he himself can’t demonstrate a relatively simple thing like using a credit card to buy an airline ticket? People, this is the kind of stuff that these know-it-all, wimpy, spineless, online armchair experts are made of.

            Let’s just tell it like it is.

          • Michael,

            I just don’t understand how Switzerland is relevant at all. Like, really, at all.
            The thing is, I actually can get a lot more done sitting on my butt in front of the internet than any trip to Switzerland. The internet is infinitely more useful for investigating the ‘prophetic’ nature of the material — and the photos. The San Fran anecdote proves this. The investigators were blown away by the photos…because they weren’t benefited by the world wide web, and if they were, they might have been able to discover that Meier’s photos were seemingly identical to recently published paintings.

            What could I possibly learn in Switzerland? Nothing that I haven’t already conceded — Meier has one arm, he lives in rough terrain, does not have an enormous library in his house, and it seemingly would have been very very difficult for him to accomplish the physical evidence and the voluminous writing while supporting a family and upkeeping the farm. (A lot of this seeming difficulty may go away if he has some behind the scenes help; e.g., people feeding him cutting edge scientific findings that he publishes right away so as to appear who scooped the scientists).

            By the way, one of your nemesis’s, Simon, HAS been to Switzerland and also maintains his skeptism and reports he learned virtually nothing about the authenticity of the case by visiting. The Switzerland thing really is a non-sequiter and non-starter.

            I realize you left me some questions elsewhere on this blog. I have been traveling, hanging with family, etc., but I’ll get a response back to ya soon.

          • Simple truth: Trained investigators – and observant laymen – were looking at PHOTOGRAPHS, which were in no way paintings. Deal with it.

            And consider that perhaps sitting on your “butt in front of the internet” may have contributed to your thinking abilities settling there as well.

            When someone says in effect that they “learned virtually nothing about the authenticity of the case by visiting” there, it may just be a reflection one their limited capabilities…which run counter to those of not only the investigators but also a very large number of people over the decades. However, with your particular….reasoning abilities here on display, perhaps it’s better that you don’t suddenly subject yourself to doing any actual, real life, on-site investigation and content yourself with the frankly idiotic presumptions of various wannabes who think that other people can’t tell the difference between paintings, photos of paintings and photos of real life events in a real city.

            You may also want to keep away from sharp objects, heavy machinery, etc.

            P.S. Obviously also Quetzal destroyed the photos BECA– — USE they were photos of a real event. They would prove the event whereas paintings…wouldn’t. Get it now?

          • P.S. Every time I see the…bullet hole in the window in the shed I reflect on the fact that it was a deliberate attempt to kill Meier, one of 22. It’s been deliberately left there as well.

            Now when I contemplate, when I think about it, it leads me to consider that if this man was – as only a real fool would claim – some kind of hoaxer, it would be highly unlikely that these efforts were made to kill him. (I’ve interviewed witnesses to 14 of the attempts.)

            If I was someone actually trying to determined he authenticity of the case and considering all the evidence, this would be a significant factor. Of course if I was out to…”deconstruct” the case and concoct infantile, convoluted theories to try to do so, I certainly wouldn’t want to get off my butt and actually see real evidence, including the remains of the tree with the OVAL hole, speak to real people, eyewitnesses, etc., visit actual locations where ships were photographed, factor in all these things and have use my gray matter – and common sense.

            No, it would be sufficient, just knowing about the existence of all these things, to act like a pompous jerk and posit ridiculous, speculative, unsubstantiated “theories”, which ultimately would put me at the center of the universe, at the center of the Meier case, i.e. it would mean that Meier was trying to fool…me and of course my equally brilliant associates. But all of us are just to smart for that, we can see through this ruse of his…as we sit on our fat butts in front of our computers.

            This is the dumbing down of the digital age, proceeding so effectively because many, if not most of these people, in this digital generation, are simply SO out of touch with elements of reality that to them real people, real events, real situations and difficulties that the Meier case embodies must seem like…science fiction.

          • Let’s say I’m incapable of figuring out how to buy an airline ticket, that I’m an Internet troll, that I’ve never met Meier, and that I’m stupid. In fact, you’ve already said or implied all of those things…

            None of that makes my arguments regarding Apophis and the photos any less accurate.

            I view a trip to see Meier as similar to a religious pilgrimage or traveling to see the Dalai Lama. It’s a religious, more than a fact-checking, trip.

          • MH at 10:00 wrote: “P.S. Obviously also Quetzal destroyed the photos BECA– — USE they were photos of a real event. They would prove the event whereas paintings…wouldn’t. Get it now?”

            That’s not what Meier claims. Quetzal took the photos to save Meier embarrassment. You might be recollecting Stevens’ version, which differs from most other people’s.

          • Now that we’ve had yet more pointless comments, I’m sure people will decide for themselves.

          • So I would learn the case is real by going to Switzerland because… I would see a bullet hole? I’ll take your word it exists, and save myself the 2k.

            You think I am being flippant, but really, tell me how going to Switzerland would in ANYWAY AT ALL help me prove authenticity of case to myself? It won’t, and you can’t. Please put this tired, irrelevant misdirection to bed.

            All the evidence is in the books and photobooks. These are what are needed to determine authenticity of case. Going to Switzerland–unless one were to discover a super smoking gun of deception–would largely by a waste of time as to determining hoax v authenticity.

            (By the way, I grant that 22 assassination attempts, while not proving the case is real, would be strong evidence that something extremely important/interesting is going on in Hinterschmidruti. But I am skeptical about this claim after discovering the ‘prophetic’ material and outer space photos are a bunch of bull crap).

            I don’t understand what you are saying about Quetzal and the destruction of the San Fran photos. Like most of the things that come out of your mouth, it represents bad logic on top of a misunderstanding of the facts. If the San Fran photos were of crappy quality like the space photos, then they could very easily pass for photos of a real event when they were really actually photographs of paintings (indeed, the original paintings are impressively lifelike and could themselves be mistaken for photographs). Your suggestion is demonstrably false — there is at least three people who saw Meier’s San Fran photos and were orginally impressed, and then later saw the paintings and said they had been fooled by the photos. That is, this proves that people can mistake photos of painting with a photo of a real scene.

            And taking photos of paintings is apparently a go-to tactic of the “MIB” (or Meier) that seems to fool investigators every time (see dinosaur photo, caveman photo, universal barrier photo…). Or, that is, it fools investigators who simply go to Switzerland but don’t/can’t avail themselves of of the internet!!!.

            (Oh yeah, it wasn’t MIB this time. I forgot. The excuse for the San Fran photo is ridiculous at a whole new level… I’ll refrain from going over those embarrassing details here).

            This is utterly pointless. I don’t know why I bother to reason with someone who is so delusional or dishonest that he still maintains Meier is due the million bucks from Amazing Randi for the Iceman ‘corroboration’ — a ‘corroboration’ that has been so comprehensively debunked that it actually is indicative of HOAX. It’s simply impossible to argue with someone who, instead of conceding a point or a fact they have obviously muddled, instead just insults the person, misdirects the convo, does some more naming calling, and then claims victory… It’s just a waste of time.

          • “All the evidence is in the books and photo books.” and that, my friend, is why I call you unthinking and immature.

            We can just imagine if police departments, the FBI, medical examiners, scientific researchers and investigators of all kinds espoused that text book perfect expression of, among other things, laziness and incompetence.

          • P.S. SInce you’re an aspiring, or perhaps perspiring, attorney, did ya ever hear of a jury actually going to see either the scene of the crime, or some place that was especially relevant to the case they were hearing?

            And if you think that the photos and texts were “hoaxed”…why would they be, “All the evidence” you need? Ouch, talk about logic.

          • I have a feeling that BEAM has somewhat discredited himself by manipulating certain “truths”. I am thinking of the picture of Semjase that was taken off the Dean Martin Show. . . . . If he has falsified evidence, as it were, even for a good cause (that of promoting the case), he has done great damage to his personal credibility. This damage cannot be undone.

  • Andy,

    I took others word for the extra photos. I don’t know about them but I know the Meier contact case is real. That’s why I don’t bother reading Mahesh’s website since it’s really about questioning/attacking the authenticity of the case as well as deconstructing MH. I don’t like how Mahesh claims his site is about the pro’s and con’s of the Meier case but whenever he talks about the case it’s always about the con’s.

  • Andy, if I may point out something with how something is being communicated.

    “I’ve never called Meier a hoaxer.”

    compared to what was said just before that here:

    “But if we are going to talk about preponderance of evidence, we actually have to look at all the evidence. And all these extremely damning pieces of evidence that Mahesh and others have found, you seem to want to pretend don’t exist or try to sweep them under the rug. ”

    ‘Extremely damning’ piece of stuff (Mahesh and others whomever they are would like to have you think that) but yet you didn’t literally say Meier was a hoaxer as if that is going to deflect some conclusion you don’t want other people to run into. You have suggested that time and again but just not literally which isn’t really coming across the fence. I think this is in part of seeing the Meier material as some unreal example of the question of God between a non existent atheist and a theist.

    This isn’t a matter of a perhaps or what-if. This isn’t a perspective on logic either but rather something a bit more harder to look at and closer to home. Mike doesn’t want to you believe in the Meier material but if you’re not clued in on how your own perspective is showing what you mean regardless of how you word it, no one can help you on that and we’re not going to get anywhere anytime spoon.

    After all, I think we can agree God isn’t going to pull us out of this mess of ours …

  • My (biased) interpretation of activity in this thread to date regarding photos:

    –Sheila says that if and when Mahesh reveals the name of the archivist who stated that the colony painting was done before the Meier photos, she may consider his argument. I pointed out that Mahesh did state the archivist’s name and that there were 4 pieces of evidence of the colony painting’s creation date. Sheila implies that she believes that the Congressional testimony was falsified. (I’ll respond to that later.)

    –MH changes topic to the San Francisco photos. He asks if Mahesh’s site discusses all 11 photos or just the one that was obviously the same as the painting in Geo. Sheila said that the site didn’t discuss all 11. Congratulations are offered to MH and insults to Mahesh from Sheila, MH, Dennis and Chris, until I pointed out that Mahesh did address all 11. Meier himself said to Quetzal that the pictures “correspond very exactly” to sections of the Geo painting. The photos were so damning in their resemblance to the painting, Quetzal took the photos and destroyed them so Meier wouldn’t suffer further embarrassment over them.

    –Commenters respond to this in different ways. MH asks about some people who said the photos hadn’t look identical to the paintings. (I’ll comment on that argument later.) Duke and Dennis change arguments. Sheila indicates the photos were done before the painting until MH corrects her. MH makes an argument about flying to Switzerland being important.

    And that brings us to 4:30 ET U.S. on Saturday afternoon. At least, that’s my biased interpretation.

    • People who lack the credibility to do the simple, credible things, yet attack others who indeed did the work, among them highly qualified professional investigators, are simply blowing smoke to make themselves feel important.

  • I have just been exposed to 4 pages of Troll poop. Sigh. I have spent years studying the Meier information, and if I had a question about something, I, like my extended family here, would research and find the answer on our own. I love a spirited debate, and this blog is wonderful for that, but reading Troll droppings is like watching a frog swim in a bucket….he goes round and round and round…..and round and round and round….and….need I say more. I’m going to pull weeds in my garden now, maybe when I glance up at my fence I will see a troll fall over backwards into my pool and drown…I love gardening.

  • I think this discussion is winding down. As far as I know, there’s only one argument still out there. The other comments are just general name calling.

    Here are some counter-arguments to MH’s argument that there were multiple witnesses claiming the SF earthquake photos were not the same as the painting:

    –Meier stated the photos “correspond very exactly” to the painting.
    –Quetzal finds the similarities between the photos and the painting so great that he destroys the photos so they can no longer harm Meier. (If there were differences between the photos and the painting, why would Quetzal, a very advanced human, have destroyed the photos, which would have vindicated Meier?)
    –When other Meier photos have been found to be fakes, a typical first tactic seems to be that Meier’s photos aren’t very similar to the other image. Then later supporters explain that the images ARE the same but that someone had sent telepathic images to the artist or the men in black intervened or the film developer was in the power of a conspiracy, etc. In other words, they deny the similarities and then excuse them. From the dinosaur photo to the Asket photo to the Universal Barrier photo…
    –The accounts of FIGU members Kurt Stadlin and Herbert Runkle, as well as Gary Kinder, also support the hypothesis of identical images. Guido Moosbrugger, co-founder of FIGU, claimed that several members of the core group established that there were only a “few minimal differences” between the images.
    –Stevens is probably the person MH is referring to when he says witnesses support the claim that the images were different. Stevens was never able to compare the photos to the painting directly, but had to recall the photos from memory. On the other hand, others who had both at the same time said they’re the same. Also, other parts of Stevens’ account vary from the contact reports.

    I base the above on the Billy Meier UFO Research site.

    I think a typical neutral observer would lean toward the photos being of the painting.

    • Instead of all that off target stuff, address the basic fact: The people who saw the photos, saw PHOTOS of a real event in a real city. None EVER said they were photos of paintings. Images can look similar…if the image was of a place, situation, etc., similar to one in a photograph.

      Please, get off of these arrogant, amateur, obviously ill thought out comments. Can…YOU tell the difference between photograph of a place and a painting? And if you look at the illustration from Geo, no reasonable person would think that it was a photograph. Please, mature your thinking.

      • My previous comment at 11:04 already addresses yours at 11:25. I hope anyone reading your comment will re-read mine. I’ll add to that:
        –This isn’t the only time Meier supporters have believed a painting or drawing was a photo of a real event. It has happened over and over (dinosaurs, universal barrier, march of progress, etc.), until the sources of the photos are discovered. Some supporters even continue to claim they’re photos of actual events AFTER the original images are found.
        –Cognitive dissonance is an incredibly powerful force.

        • That’s right, after all you’d know, right? 37 years later, despite no one ever coming forward and saying, “Gosh, now that you mention it, we had 11 photographs of a painting and were just too stupid to notice it.”

        • Whoops, yes, Moshe.. I didnt see this comment when I posted above, had been trying to make the same point. Yes, cognitive dissonance, this must be it.

          Michael — some one did come forward and say exactly “Gosh, now that you mention it, we had 11 photographs of a painting and were just too stupid to notice it.” In fact, three people have said this. How many decades you have been investigating this case? What the hell were you doing? Your trips to Switzerland didn’t help much apparently — Mahesh has uncovered more in a year about the case than apparently you have in a lifetime.

      • MH, well said!

        But they aren’t mature and/or logical enough in their thinking to get that. So I think you may be wasting your time with them.

        • Dennis,

          At this point unless people are posting substantiated evidence for their claims – not theories and what if, maybe, etc. – I won’t be posting any more of the speculative junk that anyone can see through. The investigators and nine other people were there e examine the photos. These armchair experts need to go there and interview any of the remaining eyewitnesses and get their statements directly.

          Of course I can just marine the look on Lee and Grit Elders’ faces if they were asked, “Well, couldn’t those have been photos of a…painting?”

          • You say that only an idiot would believe that a photo of a painting is a photo of an actual event? I’m not going to be the one to disagree. But that’s exactly what your colleagues have done many times, as I pointed out in a previous comment.

  • Allow Mr. Obvious to just make a few comments and questions . First the mass of photos would clearly cover more ground than a single painting. More angles and nuances . Yes the cars were of the future , as were buildings that were verified to be commissioned to be built and had been built since . Its also been commented upon regarding the ability to have some pick up fine particulate sensory things in their pituitary gland and vibration . So a painting was made clearly from this influence . Almost confirming that an event took place highlighting the event end results. Regardless of what took place first , its clearly obvious that Meir had the experience and because of his brain quotient being of only a few that has ever lived , he had another pick up his brain waves and the event as inspiration , very clearly perceived . Its too specific to be coincident . No MR. Obvious points out that photos are photos . And paintings are paintings . Photos of a painting are obvious . Painting of a photos are not so much . But in this case its a painting by a person who was tuned in to the same event . This reinforces the case , not divides it . Pick another case in history where a person paints a ‘vision’ and it happens to be a real event . From a picture or reality . like a person painting the world trade centers to a very specific reality , 25 years earlier and its a picture of say the firefighters raising the flag on top of the rubble . Really ? Name the happening . Paint has been around for tens of thousands of years , what event ? , So like I said long ago , the Californians should be leaving in mass exodus scared out of their minds , the drought , and the fact then when San Andreas ‘snaps’ its going to snap at 1500 miles an hour north west . So launched into the ocean as a now island without water to put out the fires . Might as well call it the rolling fires when it goes down . Its sickening to watch this go down. BTW , California is the fourth largest economy in the world . That is post earthquake global economic collapse , guaranteed . Then its onto the walking dead as reality . So who cares about who did it first . Its possible that Miers trip was time travel based and happed after the painting . Regarding the technicality of the sequence . The painting could have been made from just Quetzels thoughts of the carnage having know of it earlier . So trying to make oneself appear smarter than the actual event is just plain stupid . And the level of discredit actually makes obvious the Wylie Coyote falling off the cliff with his or her ACME rocket and parachute …………….pppPPOOFfff.

  • As for Apophis , its close enough that nobody talks about it being capable of hitting the moon as well . Another mega disaster scenario. At least Putin reads the contact reports and has been working on a plan .

Leave a Reply

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