Peer Review of Billy Meier’s UFO Evidence and Information

May all of our peers peer deeply into the truth before we disappear

Here is a combination of definitions of peer review:

The evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review helps validate research, establish a method by which it can be evaluated, and increase networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation.

We have two elements to consider. The first is that Billy Meier’s physical evidence was reviewed, analyzed and authenticated by experts whose knowledge and experience in their respective fields, as well as access to respective technologies, far exceeded Meier’s. Meier wasn’t their peer in terms of formal education, technical knowledge and expertise, etc. He had no training, education or background in photography, sound recording, or metallurgy, the three main categories of his physical evidence, nor did he have any experience in model making or special effects, the means that he was accused of employing in his photographic evidence, etc.

The peer review premise is quite correct in some ways, i.e. that there are scientific experts who know more about certain matters than non scientifically trained individuals who are not their peers in this regard.

Meier’s evidence was, and continues to be, authenticated by experts using the state-of-the-art technologies of the day, all of which exceeded that which was proven to be available to him, as was established both by the nearly decade long, on-site investigation by Lt. Col. Wendelle Stevens and his team of professional investigators and by author Gary Kinder’s own independent investigation. While it must be noted that Meier certainly didn’t have access to the technologies used in authenticating his evidence decades ago, neither did the majority of other people.

The Latest Analyses

Conversely, while the technology used in the latest analyses done by Rhal Zahi and Chris Lock to authenticate the WCUFO, the Pendulum UFO and the Energy Ships is far beyond what was available to anyone in the 1970s and 1980s, it’s now available to almost anyone who wants to test the evidence for themselves. This makes relying on peer review irrelevant, as the protocols used by Zahi and Lock are noted and reproducible by any interested parties.

Of course one only needs PhotoShop to do this test on one of Meier’s 35mm film photos. It’s so easy that even a…scientist from SETI can do it, leaving them to debunk themselves when they get the same results that any 10-year-old with a computer can.

In terms of his information, especially what is referred to as his prophetically accurate scientific and world event related information, traditional peer review is in one sense impossible…simply because Meier has no peers. None of the scientists, or any other human beings in the world, have his experience in terms of contact with extraterrestrial human beings, being on board their craft (since he was five years old), venturing into space, traveling in time, etc.

However, due to the existence of the internet it is now possible for anyone to conduct a very accurate form of peer review of much of Meier’s prophetic information. The democratization of access to information, to finding and examining the pieces of the puzzle, doesn’t guarantee that people will necessarily understand everything, or see the big picture. But they certainly can validate the existence of much of the information prior to “official discovery” or occurrence of the foretold events and they can do it as well as any “expert”.  A copyright is a copyright, whether you’re a PhD or not. If they don’t have considerations such as fears of loss of employment, tenure, income, “reputation”, or their egos, experts can not only perform as well as anyone in informational searches, they‘ll reach the same inescapable conclusions.

Almost Extinct

Meier doesn’t point to the ongoing corroborations of his prophetically accurate scientific and world event related information, nor try to profit in any way from it. All of this runs completely counter to the known patterns, motives and behaviors of human beings who make what are called extraordinary claims. And of the oft repeated “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, while Meier’s evidence is more than extraordinary because it’s also authentic, it’s only necessary to apply already existing, standard scientific methodology in evaluating it. There is no “paranormal”, nothing requiring “special” standards; things are indeed either hoaxes or conform to laws of science that we haven’t yet discovered, or recognized.

But comprehending this requires something that’s becoming almost extinct, the ability to think. Then we are faced with the realization that all of the specific, complex, consistent and so far unerringly accurate information, as well as the physical evidence, originated with this one man, in pre-computer times. This already escapes the understanding of a generation that is absolutely ignorant about the realities and additional challenges this posed, thinking that they were themselves birthed from CD drives, which are of course also now becoming extinct.

Occam’s Razor

Since the core of the Meier case has to do with complete self-responsibility, no one needs to rely on the “experts” to determine the truth about Meier’s physical or informational evidence – and thereby the case – for themselves.

While inept skeptics may try to claim that Meier “backdated” information, or plagiarized it – always without factual substantiation and only through mere supposition – those interested parties who actually think their way through, evaluate and weigh the known and proven circumstances, means, motive and opportunity, etc., will be faced with one of the skeptic’s most frequently referred to rules or principles, Occam’s Razor, and for the skeptics the truth may be the cruelest cut of all.

No Precedent

If you search for most famous photographic hoaxes you’ll find things like this and this…where one notices that the foolish person who included one of Meier’s famous, authenticated UFO photos simply couldn’t grasp the difference between the actual, primitive hoaxing attempts and a stunning, full color broad daylight photo like Meier’s. She was apparently also unaware that unlike every other example she (or anyone else has ever) posted, Meier had presented not merely one, or even a few, photographs but hundreds and even films, video, etc.

There is a complete lack of precedent for Meier’s evidence, spanning as it does multiple categories of physical evidence and volumes of informational evidence. People are quick to accuse someone of a hoax but when in all of history has anyone come forward with hundreds of pieces of supposedly hoaxed evidence which, when examined by independent experts, has been authenticated?

Actually, when has someone accused of hoaxing evidence in one category also presented, and been accused of hoaxing, evidence in several other categories, which also have been independently authenticated? And when has someone accused of hoaxing a variety of physical evidence come forward with voluminous amounts of specific prophetically accurate scientific and world event information?

Add to the questions why Meier, a partially disabled man who lives in a remote part of Switzerland, has never sought to publicize, promote or profit from his evidence and, in fact, has let it be the responsibility of other interested parties to dig through all of it and authenticate it themselves.

Peer Deeply

For the relatively few people left on earth who have a real sense of ethics, integrity, honesty, logical thinking, professionalism, etc., such operations as SETI, its counterparts in the UFOCI such as MUFON, etc., are seen as the unfortunate testaments to the cynicism, greed, suicidal stupidity and materialism of these times. Most likely within a generation, or less, people simply won’t know (or care) about such things as finding and living in truth, peace, love, freedom, harmony and wisdom, etc.

Having succumbed to their insatiable desires for irrelevant distractions, techno toys, entertainment, celebrity worship, using their bodies as billboards for other people’s art, and becoming pierced and punctured walking hardware stores, the inevitable and willing surrender to being bio-chipped will most likely occur, as Meier foretold. Later, as people look to attain “singularity” with their toys will be the ubiquitous condition, followed by the overthrow of whatever is left of the human beings by their independent robotic creations. Those who seek transhumanism as the next trendy thing will ultimately, and all too late, wish that they’d first taken the time to become…true human beings.

May all of our peers peer deeply into the truth before we disappear.



With this item now in the news about an area near Stonehenge where ritual human sacrifices occurred, perhaps a review of the information Meier published years before this “new discovery” would be of interest. Please note that Florena told Meier that Stonehenge was built in “several phases” and she mentions “Stonehenge and other related Kraftorte”, i.e. places of power.

Recent discoveries pertaining to Mars were also superseded by Meier…decades ago (UFO Skeptics Throw in the Towel – How Did Meier Beat NASA by 32 Years?). More detailed information can be found here pertaining to what occurred on Mars and another planet known as Malona or Phaeton, which was destroyed by its own inhabitants and remnants of which are now to be found in the asteroid belt.


See also:

Cutting through the Peer Review Dodge and Distraction








45 Replies to “Peer Review of Billy Meier’s UFO Evidence and Information”

  1. I invite you, Mr. Horn, to see my non-profit site’s imagery at the following subsite:

    As an astrophotographer, I take the night sky seriously. As a journalist, I understand the need for more than blurry imagery and misrepresentation. The objects are small in this case and require high grade optics and critical focus to capture detail.

    The objects visit the east to west commercial flight path over my location regularly with side visits to the area of the Air Force base located 3-4miles to the south. The Extras are close to our planet, well inside our ionosphere, populating a near Earth region upon which I focus. Those circular discs with a spot or hole in the middle, as seen on the shuttle, have been captured from my backyard. We don’t need government to disclose. We the people will take over now, thank you.

    My movies show many daytime ufos in and around clouds darting about, some with no particular destination. All are quick. Except at night, when they slow to jet liner speed and present opportunities for capture.

    How? By using high resolution lenses of longish focal lengths, high ISO#’s, and heavy mounts, I can accrue evidence that paints a picture rather vividly.

    The Extra’s vehicles are mostly invisible due to their high speeds. There is no magic. Fast frame rates and hi resolution sensors can easily show this to be …are you ready?…Factual.

    This shall be presented to a MUFON team at odds with it’s past ethical reputation and eager to get real evidence accrued, investigated, and published at a major, respectable, news outlet,

    Orange lantern-ism is or was a MUFON standard appraisal. What they will see and record from my location will be recorded and imaged simultaneously, as an event, by myself, so that MUFON’s hierarchy cannot make false claims. That will end, along with the lantern misrepresentation and fake seriousness. We are way past that point now.

    So, around the 25th of September, one of MUFON’s first steps back to credibility will be taken in my backyard.

    I will post the results, naturally.

    SETI is not looking in the right place. And Stephen Hawking can’t be serious, unless he’s carrying water for the DOD. It is, by the way, that important.

    Good seeing to all.

    1. Hi Stephen,

      Thanks, I did look at your site. The photos of course are very interesting but, as I’m sure you understand, inconclusive, i.e. there’s no way to determine their origin or much about them.

      But I think more important points would be:

      Simply on the basis of UFO photos, you actually help to show how utterly amazing Meier’s abundant, clear, daytime (and nighttime) UFO photos, etc., are, dating from 1964 – 1981.

      More importantly, as interesting as UFO photos are, the highest probability at this time is that they are of…secret military craft. Not only has Meier long made this point but it’s clarified further by Joe ( Please pay particular attention to his effectively saying that the public is used as a kind of feedback mechanism by the military in order for them to evaluate aspects of their technology.

      Yes, we also know from Meier that there are four groups observing the Earth for a very long time and that their ships are seen now and then, here and there.

      While I do post information especially pertaining to the authenticity of Meier’s UFO evidence, it’s the least important aspect of the case, the most important being the spiritual teaching, which is the core and core purpose of the case.

      Organizations like SETI, MUFON, etc., are basically shills for vested interests whose purpose definitely ISN’T to find real evidence of extraterrestrial life and, thereby, Meier’s singularly authentic, still ongoing contacts. This is an industry in every sense of the word,not only that profits from people running around chasing lights-in-the-sky but also including the manufacture of sophisticated weapons whose main purpose of course, in the grand ol’ ‘mercian tradition, is to wage endless war for profit.

      I understand and appreciate your interest in the UFO phenomenon but it’s a dead-end, tightly controlled game, the outcome of which based on where we now stand in relation to the prophetic information – according to the immutable law of cause and effect – is unfortunately the utter destruction of much of our world and that definitely includes the place from whence the wrecking ball against humanity has been ceaselessly launched…the USA.

    2. stephen pitt, Google author Henry Stevens books he backs up everything with paperwork. Even the skills that science has had since 1950 exceed what cameras sold to the public can fully capture. The images most find so amazed at seeing are massive amounts of power being applied in the sky thanks to such maniacs as Professor Teller. Back in the 30’s and 40’s people like Doctor Rife would wind magnetic coils around a lens to change what that lens would be responsive to, but went into the 1952 wormhole of knowledge. Remember the military is not hiding from us as much as they are not wanting satellites or radar seeing them. The biggest thing that made the f-117 and b-2 stealth come out was not one really good picture it was the new Doppler weather radars. MUFON has not changed you would do better sending anything the Mexican UFO reporter.

  2. I totally agree with you MH. That last post to Stphen is so very true. I`ve givin up watching those You Tube UFO videos a long time ago. Now I only pay attention to you and Billy. Insidently every so oiften George Noory brings on Peter Devenport for those “Lights in the Sky ” reorts. Why not send Peter Devnport all the information on those REAL Billy Meier UFO information and let Devenport know what the REAL TRUE UFOs are and the people behind those UFOs who come every now and then to visit Billy.

    1. That’s a good idea Terry. I think I was in contact with him years ago. But people should feel free to contact him and maybe bring him up to speed on what’s really happening, good idea.

  3. I’m posting this comment just sent to me by Prof. Scott Antes, pertaining to the WCUFO analysis, as well as the Occam’s Razor commentary by Rhal Zahi and Chris Lock (’s_Razor). I will post a few of my own comments but I will leave it to Rhal and Chris to respond directly:

    All right, then. I’ll make few unbiased observations here. Michael knows my take on these, but I’ll roughly follow the order of his (Zahi’s) post. Please note that I am an engineer, scientist, photographer, university educator, and a scholar. Most importantly of all, I am objective, unbiased. In other words, it makes no difference to me if a thing is this or if it’s that. What bothers me to no end, however, are false claims—and people believing in those false claims. My good friend Michael knows that I call the shots as I see them, and that I base my statements on facts—not opinions. I have no intention of offending anyone. That having been said, perhaps the following will give the reader some things to consider:

    “Skeptic’s explanations: Photo 841…a very small tree (a bonsai).” As Zahi correctly states, this is not a bonsai tree, and anyone who says it is knows little of bonsai trees, which look nothing like the tree in photo. (Note: “Bonsai” refers to an art form, not a particular species of tree, although certain species lend themselves much better than spruces to that art form.) Without being able to examine the tree itself, because it has conveniently disappeared* (as has much of Meier’s “evidence”), if someone asked me what species of tree that is/was in the photos, I would say it is/was very likely a juvenile or dwarf Norway spruce.** My wife and I have had such trees (dwarf varieties) as indoor ornamental trees before, along with Norfolk Island pines. (Only dwarf Norway spruce varieties are suitable for indoors, as regular Norway spruces grow very fast and tall.) Regular Norway spruce look different than the one in the photo when mature, taking on a smoother elongated conical shape (see the stand of adult Norway spruce, RH background, in Photo 844), as opposed to the more squatty “ragged” shape they have when immature (or when a dwarf variety). Plus, Norway spruce is the dominant evergreen in Northern Europe. Also, the trunks of these and similar species show on young trees, as in the photo, but usually not so much on mature trees, since the branches grow to, or sag, to or almost to the ground. The lower trunks typically are visible as much as shown in the photo on mature trees only when humans prune them—as someone also would do if using a tiny tree as a bonsai project. We have many spruces in my neighborhood, and people often prune off the lower branches so that they can mow right up to the trunks. In any case, one does not have to have lived in or around forests for 65+ years, as I have, to see for themselves what I’m talking about. Just go on line. Research on the Norway spruce is easy, since it’s a very popular tree. Lots of images.

    *This tree has totally disappeared. According to quotes from the Internet (

    “In fact, the owners of the farmhouse have said that there never was a tree (near that spot) on the property. Here is Meier’s official explanation:
    When Meier, on a later contact, asked (Semjase) what happened to the tree, she told him that they had ‘changed its time.’
    (She told him) that they had removed all specific memories of this particular tree from the mind of its property owner, in a manner undetectable by him.”
    Hmmm. And the moon is made of green cheese? Please do not insult our readers’ intelligence. What reason would the Plejaren have for deleting evidence that they were here—when they apparently *want* people to know they were here? As I see it, the only one who would benefit from its mysterious disappearance would be someone who hoaxed the photos. This is a gigantic red flag, as we call it; a warning that something is amiss.

    **Side note! Could the tree in the photo be a fir, as claimed elsewhere? Sure, but who cares? (I agree with Zahi that it’s a Norway spruce.) We can’t confirm its genus and species 100% without seeing the tree and its needles up close. Firs do grow in the mountains of Europe, but they are far less common than Norway spruce. And if that tree in the photo is a species of fir, it looks nothing like an *adult* fir tree (of which my wife and have many on our undeveloped New Mexico mountain property). It could possibly be a juvenile fir, although it doesn’t look like one to me. Bottom line, spruce or fir, it certainly appears to be a dwarf variety or a juvenile—not an adult tree. (Interestingly, referring to the second paragraph above, dwarf fir trees also are used in the art of bonsai, but from what I’ve read, like spruce they are not the most suitable species for that art. Still, you can buy both trees on line, for decorative and bonsai purposes.)

    Related to the same paragraph: Obviously, if the tree in the photos is a juvenile or a dwarf, the airborne craft shown in the photos cannot be a full-size vessel. If anyone still thinks the tree behind the saucer is full size, look at those trees in the background, to the right in Photo 844. Those are mature trees back there, an average of 45 meters (148 feet for Norway spruce; firs grow much taller) high, at the distance (maybe half a kilometer) they are from the single tree in the foreground (whatever species it might be), the tree in question can likely not be more than a few meters tall, at best. Another consideration of note: Such trees typically grow in stands, not isolated individuals as the one shown in the photos.

    What’s missing from the photos, that would make accurate analyses much easier, is a clear view of the base of the tree trunk. Since we cannot see the base of the tree trunk at all, we can’t tell how long the tree has been standing there at the time of these photos.*** Immature (and dwarf) trees of this and similar species are very easy to plant—and to uproot (in other words, to fake these photos). If we could see the base of the trunk, we might easily tell whether or not the tree was recently (in terms of the photo date) planted. Thus, a close-up photo of the tree trunk base (no UFO necessary) would help to more easily validate or invalidate the photos under discussion.

    ***Note: Other Meier photos (elsewhere) of this tree do show the base of the tree’s trunk, but the photos aren’t sharp enough to determine how long the tree has been in place.

    What further seems odd to me about the tree in the photos (added to tree comments above) is the relatively large diameter and perfect straightness of the exposed trunk (which isn’t what the trunk looks like in other photos). Again, I’m just going by these two photos here. (In other photos of the same tree, the trunk looks normal.) It almost looks as if a board, painted to look like a tree trunk in a distant photo, has been attached to the tree’s trunk. Very weird. One might look at its too-perfect straightness and consistent diameter and wonder why the trunk tapers so radically once the branches begin. I’m not saying anything’s afoul here; I’m just saying the trunk looks strange to me. As someone who also has worked a great deal with trees and wood since the early seventies, that trunk looks strangely fat, only where it’s exposed, meaning it must tapir unusually radically from there on up. But then, all trees of a singular species don’t necessarily all look alike. Oddities do occur in Nature, but usually only when the seedling or young tree is exposed to environmental stresses. Just saying….

    What I find most bizarre about the photos is the WCUFO is itself. (I’ve talked about this with Michael.) Having spent decades as a design engineer, I can say without reservation that whatever that thing is in the photos is no spacecraft. I would expect that maybe someone in the 1870s might come up with a (non-operational) design like that, but even Nicoli Tesla’s flying saucer designs from the early 1900s are far superior to the toy shown in these photos. Seriously, no one with an advanced technology would ever design a spacecraft that looks like the one in these two photos. Again, no disrespect, but from an engineering standpoint, it is laughable. Utterly ridiculous. About as aerodynamic as, well, a wedding cake. Any senior-level engineering student should be able to point out why the design is not viable. I have mentioned to Michael all the reasons why the craft in the photos is bogus, but he’s still convinced regarding its authenticity. Note: Some of Meier’s other UFO photos are very impressive, very realistic. I’m not talking about those here. I’m talking about these two photos only right now. It amazes me that Meier would publish such silly photos of an alleged UFO, when he already has some very convincing photos published elsewhere.

    Speaking of photos, arguments in Meier’s favor often state that in 1981 (when these photos were taken) we didn’t all have computers, so we couldn’t generate photographic special effects. Georges Melies (Paris) was a master of photographic special effects at the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries! When I started in photography in the late 1960s, photographers were doing all kinds of special effects, without computers. Another argument is that a one-armed rural farmer could not have done that kind of work. Perhaps not by himself, but surely any number of people could have done it for him or with him. Another argument is a study done by Zahi which supposedly explains how the WCUFO photos must be authentic. I dismiss that study, and find it without merit. I’ll let you in on something some of you might not know: Any skilled but biased researcher can write a very convincing study on practically any topic and draw whatever conclusions he or she plans to. This doesn’t mean the researcher is intentionally fraudulent, necessarily; it just means that the researcher’s beliefs override his or her objectivity. I could show you plenty of books that are done so professionally that they sound unquestionably factual (to those who don’t know better), when actually they are just “official sounding” nonsense.

    Additional notes: While one Meier video of an alleged UFO circling this (or a similar) tree is an issue I will not address here, skeptics and analysts often ask about how the photographer could successfully suspend a UFO model and photograph it to seem so realistic. (In case I haven’t been clear, I do not see these two photos as being realistic at all.) If one thinks about it, such a technique is not the only way to photograph a UFO (or model of a UFO). The technique I’m suggesting requires two people, in this case, and it might take several tries to get the photo(s) just right, but as someone who was once an avid photographer, I know it’s doable. I’m not saying anything other than that quite a number of methods could produce the Meier UFO photos in Meier Photos 841 and 844. Anyone who argues to the contrary simply hasn’t played with photography very much.
    Conclusions: Agreed, the tree in the photos is not a bonsai. Agreed, the same tree is shown in both photographs. Disagreed, the tree is a full-sized tree, the supposed spacecraft is full-sized. As I professional, I cannot support either of the latter two claims. Once again, however, without having been able to see the tree (or the alleged UFO) in person, I must draw my conclusions the same way everyone else must draw theirs, by analyzing photos. And, as I’ve told Michael many times before, I have no criticisms about any photos unless I definitely can see and explain what the photos tell me. Some of the outside statements Michael repeatedly uses to support the authenticity of certain photos are either inexperienced opinions or the results of biased analysis (seeing what one wants to see).
    Speaking of which, Zahi’s conclusion, “So, here we see how the simplest explanation becomes too complex. In the end, we will find the simplest explanation is that it is a space ship.” What??? Sorry, Rahl, but that is a ridiculous statement that says nothing. If you are a credible scientist, you know that. Please refrain from making a bad name for legitimate scientists. Claiming that any object is a UFO might be a simple explanation, but that doesn’t make it correct. The simplest explanation isn’t necessarily the most accurate one—especially when we’re talking about space aliens visiting Earth.
    The bottom, bottom line: The above photographs are not evidence for a UFO flying near or around a tree. In fact, to someone who knows what’s what, they are clear illustrations that the photos are fakes. Sorry, Folks; I’d rather they were otherwise—really, I would. But don’t believe anything I just said; do the research for yourself. Accept facts, not hype. And when it comes to arguments either way, be sure not to fall into the trap of taking anyone’s word for whatever it is (or isn’t). Some thorough research, as I said, and you can draw accurate conclusions for yourself. Speaking of research, I’m an established and credible researcher, known in academia as a reliable source of information. As I said up front, I am objective, not biased. Scott E. Antes, March 2017

    1. As I mentioned, I will leave it to Rhal and Chris to post more specific responses.

      In my opinion, Scott has made a number of grossly inaccurate assumptions, and dismissals, while ignoring many facts.

      Regarding the size of the tree and the WCUFO, I’ve been to Switzerland many times and noticed that – quite contrary to Prof. Antes’ unsubstantiated assertion – very often there indeed ARE solitary (or far spaced) trees on hills, fields, etc. And plenty of them. They vary in height and one could guess as to the size of the tree in the two photos (841 and 844). If this tree is only 20’ – 30’ tall how large would the WCUFO be?

      We know that there are…different size WCUFOs, another factor to consider, and perhaps Zahi and Chris will address these points.

      Let’s jump to this video for a minute:

      Meier is clearly HUNDREDS of yards from it as he zooms in across the field:

      Would Prof. Antes presume that this is a “dwarf” tree and a small model close to the camera?

      All one has to do is see WCUFO 9 here:

      …where we get a great deal more detail of the tree, including pruned branches, etc. The far greater clarity is consistent with the object being indeed at a great distance, making the details indistinct until we have the zoom. Of course this in itself indicates that Meier isn’t a “hoaxer” using small, dwarf trees and models to create an illusion. Also to note is that Meier took 63 WCUFO photos, not just two or three, and from various distances, etc.

      We also have Prof. Deardorff’s earlier analysis of the WCUFO here:

      As for Prof. Antes’ question:

      “Please do not insult our readers’ intelligence. What reason would the Plejaren have for deleting evidence that they were here—when they apparently *want* people to know they were here?”

      It’s only his lack of in-depth research into exactly these aspects of deliberately creating the “controversy” that makes it seem to be an “insult”, which unfortunately compels him to accuse Meier of hoaxing, which in itself is an insult to any people who’ve thoroughly investigated and…REASONED their way through all of the available evidence.

      Remembering that there is nothing to believe in the case, I suggest that the first thing to focus on is the photographic evidence and determine whether it’s a “hoax” as Prof. Antes suggests. After that, we could discuss the how and why of not inflicting the irrefutable reality of ET life – which could’ve been accomplished in about five minutes rather than 75+ years – on a world completely unequipped to accept and tolerate such an invasion of free will…let alone the existence of others who don’t possess the same, insane desire to kill and murder other beings out of irrational fear, etc. (which is based on projections of their OWN craziness onto everyone else).

      So returning to the tree issues, if Prof. Antes is absolutely sure that the tree in photos 841 and 844 is a dwarf tree, would he still try to claim that the tree in WCUFO 9 is also? If not…does it support the hoax theory, or the authenticity claims?

      One of the most glaring failings of Prof. Antes’ critique is his…ASSUMPTION about how an advanced spacecraft is “supposed” to look. Again, he’s at a disadvantage, having obviously not read the explanations in the Meier contacts about the kinds of propulsion, protective energy fields, etc. Unfortunately, simply trying to be dismissive by calling photos “silly”, when one isn’t first aware of, let alone taking issue with the long available explanations from the Plejaren, isn’t very scientific.

      Prof. Antes also falls into the long shredded “woulda, coulda, shoulda” attacks that presupposed Meier indulged in trick photography, had accomplices, etc. A combined total of at least 30 years of actual, on-site research – including that done by Gary Kinder, the initially skeptical, independent author – completely eliminated that theory. There was simply no actual…EVIDENCE for it. And all of the known circumstances of Meier’s life also speak against him having either inclination or the…TIME to engage in the kind of fraudulent activity that people are so quick to project onto him. With ZERO evidence for such claims. In other words, both means and opportunity have been ruled out.

      As for motive, just what would motivate a man to keep on presenting his evidence and information to the world after numerous assassination attempts, which now number 23…as well as attempts on the lives of his children?

      And, unlike Prof. Antes’ non-specific, unsubstantiated comment about the 74-page study, “I dismiss that study, and find it without merit.”, which he follows with more assumptions about “biased researcher”, the actual, independent experts who have analyzed the physical evidence in this case – going back over 40 years ( – were indeed specific, expert in their fields and used the state-of-the-art technology of the day to do their analyses and draw their conclusions.

      Let’s also make it quite clear that the 74-page analysis was done with technologies and protocols that certainly weren’t available in the 1960s, 70s and 80s for Meier to study, so as to, brilliantly devise ways to fool the experts then…or decades later. Such oversights by Prof. Antes make his conclusions seem obviously uninformed and allow us to fit Prof. Antes to his own comment:

      “This doesn’t mean the researcher is intentionally fraudulent, necessarily; it just means that the researcher’s beliefs override his or her objectivity.”

      As far as the UFO circling the tree, again, not only will Prof. Antes have to be specific in asserting his objections and theories, he’ll have to refute the new analysis by Zahi and Lock, as well as the rather expert opinion of Volker Engel and Marc Weigert – of Uncharted Territory, who were Academy Award-winners for Special Effects for “Independence Day” – that they also expressed to me personally when I originally interviewed them in 2006:

      “But, to reflect on the statement that’s in the film, I also remember seeing a shot on the Super8 reel that showed a UFO circling around a fairly tall tree. According to that shot, we said that we can’t conclusively say whether it’s real or not, but it seemed impossible to stage that kind of a shot with a miniature (it would have to be hanging on a very tall crane, with wires – but even then the movements would be hard to achieve.) So, yes, in regards to that shot, we mentioned that we could definitely do it today with CG, but at the time these were supposedly shot – it would have been very hard, probably even impossible, to fake this kind of shot.”

      I’m sure that Prof. Antes doesn’t want us to take his word for ANY unsubstantiated conclusions, grossly lacking in specifics, let alone over the verifiable credentials of actual experts in the field.

      He also makes the mistake of of offering this assumption:

      “The technique I’m suggesting requires two people, in this case, and it might take several tries to get the photo(s) just right, but as someone who was once an avid photographer, I know it’s doable.”

      …which has also been refuted in the investigation when the owners of the camera store specifically described UNBROKEN negatives that were sequential and NEVER showed any evidence of “practice” or flawed shots, i.e. anything indicating a set up for a “hoax”. Why hadn’t Prof. Antes availed himself of ALL this foundational information…BEFORE attempting to do such a haphazard hatchet job on Meier?

      In this matter, of course, my experience as a researcher far exceeds Prof. Antes’. This is clearly not his area of expertise or specialization. One of the main failings here, obviously, is his lack of familiarity with the original analyses done by people who were anything but “inexperienced” or “biased” in their fields. In fact, Prof. Antes’ bias is evidenced by his many assumptions and opinions based on things like “aerodynamics” that simply don’t apply.

      Even our own scientists know that we won’t get too far in space trying to throw fuel-filled tin cans at planets – no matter how “aerodynamic” they are. I’ll point out that accusing Meier of a fraud with such frankly amateurish “reasoning” is not worthy of my scientist friend…nor would he accept a comparable “study” from a student in one of his own classes!

      As for all of these points, indeed Occam’s Razor again applies. Rather than go through such convoluted and failed arguments that indeed bespeak a prejudicial, uninformed rush to judgment, I’d suggest using that razor to cut through the…beliefs that underlie Prof. Antes’ critique.

      A good place to start would be with the earliest analyses…and most certainly an actual, careful reading of the new 74-page analysis. Then, it would be appropriate, indeed REQUIRED, to offer SPECIFIC objections to the analyses and the comments from experts at McDonnell Douglas, JPL, Mars Mission, USGS, IBM, the Naval Undersea Lab, Uncharted Territory, Excalibur Sound Labs, etc.

      P.S. I also suggest that Prof. Antes carefully read, study the details and respond to these: (some photos missing)

    2. Never mind the murdering and destruction of our planet.

      OK Professor, in your mind you have debunked these “TWO” photos, now if you wouldn’t mind, please move onto the actual reason for these photos, The Spiritual Teaching, and debunk “TWO” books authored by “Billy” Eduard Albert Meier (just TWO) on the subject.
      I suggest: The Might Of The Thoughts and Goblet Of The Truth.

  4. Re; Prof. Scott Antes.

    “*This tree has totally disappeared.”

    No. Different tree, different location. The tree’s, in both cases, are Wettertanne. Google -> Images.

    You wrote a lot about the trees… What can one say with certainty? I have also seen tree’s. I have never seen two trees the same. I have seen odd looking trees. The tree’s near Billy Meier do not have to compare to the tree’s near you. Your sphere of experience.

    “As I see it, the only one who would benefit from its mysterious disappearance would be someone who hoaxed the photos.”

    Be logical now professor. Given that it causes you to believe that it’s a hoax, how does it benefit the creator if the creator intends to convince?

    “And the moon is made of green cheese? Please do not insult our readers’ intelligence.”

    You fall into a trap that most people have done throughout history. You believe that nothing greater than that which currently exists, can possibly be achieved, or that it must conform to your idea of what the future will be. If you believe that consciousness and memory can never be manipulated then that is your failing. Making up something, that cannot be accepted, for the purpose of convincing people of it’s authenticity is entirely counter-productive and illogical.

    “What reason would the Plejaren have for deleting evidence that they were here”

    This is already explained. One can only choose to accept it or not.

    “when they apparently *want* people to know they were here?”

    Your misunderstanding.

    “the airborne craft shown in the photos cannot be a full-size vessel”

    At what size is something full-sized? The craft in these photos are apparently 3.5m and 7m in diameter. Both sizes were used in these photos.

    “Having spent decades as a design engineer. I can say without reservation that whatever that thing is in the photos is no spacecraft.”

    Again, you fall into the aforementioned trap. Because you have experienced the past, you believe that you know the future, and what advanced extraterrestrial spacecraft should look like. That is absurd. The 12th-century swordsmiths never could conceive the design of a LASER. Our technical know-how cannot be compared in any way, shape or form to that of the distant future because everything that has it’s progression must also have it’s unknown.

    “Seriously, no one with an advanced technology would ever design a spacecraft that looks like the one in these two photos.”

    Why? Please explain your experience of ET spacecraft design.

    “About as aerodynamic as, well, a wedding cake”

    This is really where you lost all credibility. Professor? Ah, you are joking with us? A machine that is propelled and controlled by energy fields does not need any aerodynamic qualities. Ah, perhaps nothing greater than our current flying machines can possibly exist? I wonder how aerodynamic a wedding cake shaped hot air balloon is?

    You should not continue with this. The fact that you think that futuristic spacecraft must be aerodynamic is bordering on career suicide.

    “Any senior-level engineering student should be able to point out why the design is not viable.”

    I would hope that such a student would be able to be honest with themselves and avoid the aforementioned EGO trap.

    “It amazes me that Meier would publish such silly photos of an alleged UFO”

    One should consider the blindingly obvious.

    Re: photographic special effects. Have you read Wally Gentlemans comments? Did he know what he was talking about? Still after 40 years no-one comes up with anything comparable. So all of Billy’s hoaxing helpers stay silent for no reason. Even the son that hates him. The grand deceivers who are so determined to help humanity (because deceivers are…good people?), that they come up with the idea of… convincing the world that they are frauds? Brilliant! Just as Mr Assad is in such need of help to get shut of his countries invaders that he decides to…turn the entire world against him. Oh yes. Genius! Sorry for the digression.

    “In fact, to someone who knows what’s what, they are clear illustrations that the photos are fakes.”

    With the timed release of information, such as high-resolution copies of the photos, things will be revealed that cannot be seen or determined today. You’re above comment is therefore false, as anyone who knows what’s what will understand that all the evidence is not yet available.

    “I’m an established and credible researcher, known in academia as a reliable source of information”

    This is why ‘professional’ people avoid the Meier material like the plague. Nothing you have said has any logic or credibility. Most people on Earth can give reliable information concerning their own sphere of experience. Your comments are assumptions, beliefs, delusions of grandeur, of which you spent several paragraphs telling people not to succumb to. You should write your own analysis and do presentations. I’m sure MUFON would pay you handsomely.

    “and that I base my statements on facts—not opinions”

    Yet nothing about the tree can actually be nailed down and your comments on the WCUFO can only be opinion.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.