Donate Button
Thursday, March 28, 2024

The Billy Meier UFO contacts singularly authentic ongoing for 80 years the key to our future survival

A Quantitative Assessment of Evidence in Three Cases, Part Two

Distant light in sky may be planet-like object; Swiss man’s photos of UFOs more certain

First, despite the somewhat highfalutin title, this article isn’t going to be filled with attempts at scientificese, or fancy jargon, only the facts as we know them.

Now let’s identify the the cases under discussion.

Qualitative Evidence

Click graph to enlarge.

As a number of people surmised, R stands for Roswell (it could also stand for Rendlesham) as both of them are UFO cases in the strictly anecdotal category, which didn’t stop Stanton Friedman from selling books on Roswell while pretending it met any real scientific criteria.

M stands for the Meier case of course and P will prove to be familiar too, in a moment.

Science and Evidence

Since I’d mentioned the scientific method in the previous article, Professor Scott Antes, from NAU, sent me this information:

“Steps in the scientific method: Observation, formulation of theory, formulation of testable hypotheses (“If this, then that…”), evidence-based testing of hypotheses (including analysis of testing results to determine whether or not those results support hypotheses), conclusion. If evidence testing of hypotheses supports the theory (“supports,” not “proves”), through repeated testing, then we’ve established a fact. Eyewitness accounts and verbal testimonies are not testable evidence, nor are photographs evidence of what an otherwise unidentifiable object shown is, or from whence it came.”

So we’ll see how closely we can conform to that understanding.

A Little Piece of the Bumper, Please

P stands for…Pluto, in the case of Pluto (remember, I simply said three cases, not necessarily UFO cases) we’re asked to accept, to believe the information given to us by scientists connected to NASA’s New Horizon’s mission. Which means we still have the same problem that I pointed out to Professor Stephen Tegler, the head of the astronomy department at NAU. When he said that he wasn’t interested in seeing the book of Meier’s 617 UFO photos but only in “Hard evidence, a piece of a bumper” as he put it, I asked him if he could show me the piece of…Pluto that he kept at NAU. He had to admit that neither he nor NAU actually did have one, so they relied on – wait for it – photographs for their knowledge of the planet, etc.

Pluto, as you may know, was “officially discovered” in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, even though there’s a pretty good chance it existed before then.

Meier’s Evidence

We should also point out that Billy Meier’s earliest photographic evidence dates back to 1964, in rural India, with a published account by a well respected reporter pertaining to his seeing 80 of Meier’s UFO photos (also including the cross-in-the-sky) 11 of which have survived to this day.

Eyewitness accounts are considered in legal matters, being subject to examination, cross-examination and weighed against forensic scientific evidence.  One of the crucial factors in weighing the evidence is witness reliability. There are now over 125 eyewitnesses* to multiple events, with over 1,200 clear photographs taken by Meier and five other photographers. The photographic evidence has been authenticated by independent experts using state-of-the-art equipment, their conclusions being that there was no hoaxing involved, no models used, no special effects, no digital effects, etc.

One of the eyewitnesses from the 1964 event, former UN diplomat Phobol Cheng, can be seen here and here. Ms. Cheng was also evaluated for honesty by an expert consultant to the US Army, as shown in our film, The Silent Revolution of Truth. All 17 of the witnesses in Switzerland who took state-of-the-art lie detector tests passed, registering as 100% honest. To the best of my knowledge, none of the people associated with the New Horizon’s mission have been similarly tested. Oh wait, they’re scientists and any form of lie detection is supposedly unreliable anyway…though still in use by various parties.

So in the Meier case there is an abundance of mutually supporting photographic evidence and eyewitness testimony.

Back to the Photos

As far as I know, we don’t have any actual eyewitnesses to Pluto. The only actual evidence being…photographs, such as from the New Horizon’s mission, and what scientists say they can theorize from them. Of course there’s not much one can say or conclude about the spot of light in the night sky that is Pluto as viewed through a telescope. We’re told this about the other information gathering technology:

“Data were gathered by the suite of science instruments aboard New Horizons, including the Ralph infrared spectrometer/imager, the Long-Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI), the Alice ultraviolet spectrograph, twin REX radio science experiments, the Solar Wind Around Pluto (SWAP) detector, the PEPSSI charged-particle spectrometer, and a student-built and operated dust detector.”

Since my graph didn’t include any of these it should also be pointed out that it didn’t include any of the specific technologies used in analyzing Meier’s evidence either, including these from the original investigation:

1. Microscope 10-100 x power minimum.
2. Microdensitometer; Recommend Joyce Loebel-Vickers PI V77 or comparable
3. Interferometer; 0045 Tolerance with .06 micron window.
4. Infraredometer; +7 -.0001% deviation from I degree Kelvin +/-.0001% from wavelength.
5. Digitizer; Recommend Fairchild CCD-2: 512X512 array minimum.
6. Image Process Computer

Any of these systems: De Anza Systems Ramteck Systems

ComTol systems Evans-Sutherians Spatial Data FORTH Systems

Auxiliary

1. Light table.
2. Copy Camera 4″X5″ with film holders.
3. Infrared film system for copy prints.
4. Electron Microscope.
5. Thermoluminescence peak/streak camera. 6. Kirlian Photography system.
7. Spectrum Analyzer.

…and the technologies used by Rhal Zahi and Chris Lock in the three recent analyses here, or Marcel Vogel’s metal analysis. Sound recordings are testable physical evidence and can be admitted and discussed, challenged, etc., in court, as well as in a scientific setting like a sound laboratory. Meier presented four separate sound recordings, which were tested by professional sound engineers in multiple professional studios, including the naval Undersea Laboratory in Groton, Connecticut, and determined to be authentic, i.e. containing irreproducible sounds, from no sound source of record, with specific, discreet patterns and frequencies, etc. There were more than a dozen eyewitnesses to these recordings (including an undercover policeman) a number of whom took lie detector tests.

Interestingly enough, Meier also provided seven-fingered, finger and hand prints. Speaking of evidence, fingerprints certainly are the kind of evidence that is welcomed in investigations. Finding the owners of these particular prints is an entirely different matter, however. It should also be mentioned that the prints remained on the car for a couple of years after my report was published, yet no scientists came to examine them, despite Meier saying they’d be welcome to do so.

A Little Comparison

Despite its being demoted in status to a dwarf planet, everybody “knows” Pluto is a real object, right? (Maybe being named after a god of the underworld led to its being diminished in stature and importance.) Anyway, the New Horizons spacecraft took its closest photos from 8,507 miles away from Pluto. Meier’s closest photos of the WCUFO were taken approximately 15 – 20 feet from it, with many of his other photos taken within about 100 meters or less.

We also have a number of films, including the Hasenbol flashing lights UFO. Visiting that for a moment we first look at one of the famous Sunlight UFO photos, which were among those that were tested – and authenticated – in the original investigation. Since we’re also talking about NASA here, we should point out that Michael Malin, the principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera on NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, found Meier’s photographs to be “credible, they’re good photographs”, with no evidence of hoaxing, models, etc.

The first film here shows Meier and a TV director walking up to the tree where the craft hovered in the Sunlight UFO photos. It gives us a reference point for the size of the tree and, thereby, for the UFO. The next film is of the same craft, filmed the same day Meier took the Sunlight photo, where he zooms in on it and captures the two alternating, flashing lights. The film was examined by Nippon TV and found to be authentic, not tampered with, no model, special effects, etc.

While Pluto’s photos show an object and some surface detail, we don’t really have any other known objects nearby to compare it to for size…or any other comparative elements, unlike with many of Meier’s UFOs that were photographed, filmed or videotaped next to large, known objects, trees in particular. For all we do know, “Pluto” could be another object, a moon of another planet, etc. Dare we mention that in this day of fantastic digital effects, etc., that a whole lot of trust is required to accept NASA’s information with out any actual…proof? Of course everyone knows that NASA’s beyond reproach when it comes to information about objects in space, though not everyone may agree.

Just Asking of Course

Does what we “know” about Pluto meet the requirements provided to us by Prof. Antes about the scientific method, or do we largely take all of these theories on…faith in scientists and science? To ask certainly isn’t to mount an argument against the information about Pluto, just an attempt at trying to have a level playing field when considering Meier’s evidence which is, obviously, far more information heavy and testable than what we have for Pluto, some of which can be tested by a 10-year old child with a computer.

It’s also a nice touch that Meier foretold the following in 1958:

45) Towards the end of the Twentieth Century, in distant solar systems, new planets will continuously be discovered, which, however, can bear no human life.

46) New solar satellites will also be discovered in our solar system that move far outside the orbit of Pluto, yet that will only be after the turn of the millennium.

He published information about the coming discovery of these objects again in 1978 and Wendelle Stevens published this same information from Meier in a separate book, right around the same time. For the anybody-could-have-said-that crowd, please note that…nobody else did. And that included any scientist, from NASA or elsewhere.

Who Do You Trust?

So what’s the problem with all of these “scientists”, who stubbornly stonewall any investigation into the evidence rich Meier case? Why the snobbish, self-centered refusal to look through the proverbial telescope…let alone at authenticated photos taken 15 – 20 feet away from the UFOs? Absent a chunk of the remote rock suddenly showing up in Prof. Tegler’s classroom, all we really have to theorize information about Pluto is photographic evidence and…if it’s good enough for Pluto it should be good enough for the Meier case, along with everything else he has presented.

Let’s not forget that there’s a supposedly scientific organization that also supposedly dedicates itself to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), which at this point appears to be nothing more than a good ol’ boys and girls club, that thrives on funding and cocktail parties and, like the equally fraudulent UFOCI, doesn’t want to find what it says it’s looking for.

Comparatively speaking, up until now Pluto has simply been another…light in the sky. With the New Horizon’s mission, we now have clearer images and more information, trusting of course in science. With Meier’s 1,200, stunningly clear, still irreproducible photos, we’ve had the best evidence of objects of extraterrestrial manufacture – to say nothing of the even higher standard of proof contained in the prophecies, predictions and the spiritual teaching.

Does the theory that a distant light in the sky is actually a (dwarf) planet have more validity than the clear, long authenticated evidence of extraterrestrials and their spacecraft visiting Earth? While there’s less actual certainty about Pluto, with Meier’s voluminous, authenticated evidence surpassing any theories, it appears that the case meets Prof. Antes’ stipulation:

“If evidence testing of hypotheses supports the theory (“supports,” not “proves”), through repeated testing, then we’ve established a fact.”

Might the lofty scientific community now deign to examine the freely available documentation, evidence, analyses, etc., knowing that it won’t cost anywhere near the $720 million spent to get within 8,507 miles of Pluto? The immediate value to humankind, and our future survival, will greatly exceed anything from that mission and could actually help bring about a real… New Horizon.

 

NOTE: While we’re getting all scientific-like, this article in The Wall Street journal echoes this warning from the Henoch Prophecies:

  1. Even when the North American continent will be stricken by the most terrible catastrophe which has ever been recorded, evil military powers will wreak havoc with computerised and nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, whereby it will also happen that computerised weapons become independent and cannot be controlled any longer by human beings.
  2. Overall, this is the most important part of Henoch’s prophecies.

So while the know-it-all “scientists” of the world facilitate our rushing headlong into destruction, we may all rue the day that their sophistry and pretentiousness superseded their intellectual curiosity, ethics and honesty, having too long declined to set aside their arrogance and prejudices and actually behave like real scientists.

*Information on witnesses:

Witness Testimony Part One

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

25 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chris Lock

This is a significant post, Michael. These scientists researching the Pluto photographs have categorically confirmed that we can and do know things from photographs — from the images alone — without proving we have the original print (NASA may not even make prints for some of its photos these days) or knowledge or otherwise of trickery etc. Careful analysis does reveal specific data. It is irrelevant that the untrained eye and analyst cannot follow what is clearly evident to professionals and anyone who takes the time and effort to look and properly research the images. As with the Pluto photographs, it is not what needs to be absolutely proven in terms of taking the photograph but what the photograph categorically evinces from its incorruptible data. As the Meier photograph papers (by Rhal and my own meagre contribution) show there is both data that cannot be confirmed and data that can be — and has been — proven that shows that at least some of these Meier photographs are genuine and extraordinary. One photograph alone proven genuine is enough to demand full professional investigation of these extraordinary images and the whole enigmatic case surrounding them; because we know there is something here. Such action from the professional community is way overdue.

gary lomas

Exquisitely written and presented Michael. Lets hope that it seeps its way into the minds of the prigs, but I do fear that even then, most will once again be ‘paid off’ to keep all silent from the people, and the others either threatened, or unable to egotistically face the FACT that they are both wrong and ignorant (scientist, per say)
Since the ‘objective’ of all written information regarding Billys information and help for us all is to awaken us to an open mind for the TRUTH, then both think about it and apply it ( amongst other things) i.e. consciousness evolution and the Spirit lessons. I think it would be a good / wise move to actually send a copy of your article to all relevant parties / publications, and not rely on them ‘finding’ it on your site by chance…
You do a RELY good job Michael, you have forged your life, and are realizing your chosen Destiny in both a ‘polished’, undaunted, balanced, and often humorous way…
Your knowledge, and integrity shines bright…
All the best, regards and thanks, your friend Gary

Andrew Grimshaw

I took but one word of importance from this blog:
teaching
Salome.

Anthony A.

MH- You have gone too far. Pluto is NOT a case it is a planet.

People can look through a telescope and CONFIRM the existence of Pluto. This can not be compared with an intangible UFO case based solely on photographs, film, testimony, eyewitnesses, samples, all of which comes from Meier and his camp. In other words, the public can’t confirm Meier by SIMPLY taking a telescope and pointing it somewhere to see that it REALLY is there. The Meier case is NOT easy to determine as real; and often takes years for the average individual to sort through all the material to be able to discover for themselves that this is NOT a hoax. And even then once the student comes to the conclusion Meier is the real deal, this is an individual thing and can not be cookie cut for the masses like looking through a telescope and definitely seeing a real object in the sky — without having to take someones work or word for it. THERE IS NO “proverbial telescope” with the Meier case!

Anthony A.

A light in the sky (UFO) does not follow a predictable orbit that lasts long enough for people to confirm with a telescope. In other words, UFOs are often here and gone within in a matter of minutes. Pluto is up there for anybody to see! How can you compare unidentified flying objects with planets that have been discovered that can be found with a telescope in a predictable manner?

Taro Istok

Pluto, as a dot in the sky can be proven by anyone. But that’s about it. The accuracy of EVERYTHING else about it must be taken on faith. If there were signs of extraterrestrial activity on Pluto, are you sure you can trust NASA to publish it? I’m not saying that there is, I’m saying that blind trust is folly.

Meier’s UFO’s cannot be as easily seen as that dot in the sky. However, the quantity, quality and variety of evidence rules out anything other than extraterrestrial objects…as long as one bothers themselves with the evidence.

The verification of the object itself differs. But the study of each case involves so much more than that very first step. I think you’re placing too much importance on only that first step. The obvious double-standard which exists within the scientific community is unacceptable.

Sheila Clark

Excellent job Michael. Pluto haha, good one.

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA19954
This is probably my favourite photo of Pluto. If you have an iPhone, click on the picture then zoom in. Now look at the bottom right of the photo then go up about 1/3 of the way.

The answer to Pluto in FIGU Bulletin 007. How appropriate sil. http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/FIGU_Bulletin_007#section_2

Billy nailed it 19 years ago. Take that all skeptics.
My hypothesis is that the Pluto Express has finished its mission. It’s original landing spot is on the left of the picture looking like a kid with a very long neck riding a bicycle. Back to bottom right, the robot has pushed its “fuel source” to the appropriate pick up point by its closest approach by New Horizons. With the robot having pushed the highly reflective aluminum/magnesium/titanium sphere you can see its duel tracks in the “snow”, losing pieces of itself along the way.

gary lomas

Hi all…I felt I had to share the following, as is both relevant to ‘ A quantitative…’ and an incredibly informed / accurate presentation by Prof (deserves the title) Stephen Emmott, on the subject matters in discussion : It’s a filmed presentation I just watched on sky atl….c about World pop’ / warming / food / climate / etc etc, and is both really accurate and informed, and he aint afraid to speak the truth (definitely one of the good guys…) So informed infact, that I have to wonder if he has / is studying Billys info’ ?
Go out of your way to watch this… entitled : Ten Billion ( first broadcast 12 July 2012 )
Among other things he is head of comp’ sci’ at micros… and bio’ …oxford/univ’ coll’ ldn and a really sincere and knowledgeable ‘good egg’

Taro Istok

Nice comparison of contradictory methodologies. It clearly reveals the double-standard actively employed by both the scientific and UFO communities. In addition to the moon landing hoax, there are other reasons to distrust NASA and other government agencies:

British hacker Gary McKinnon claims they have someone who is dedicated to removing UFO’s from images prior to release. Brian O’Leary claims Carl Sagan tampered with the Cydonia “face” prior to release to make it look less of a face(BTW, the point is not that it WAS a face but that data was tampered with). He also claims Sagan was closely associated with NASA’s active ET cover-up. These are of course, verbal, witness testimony, so not proof. But I personally think they are good enough reason for pause, particularly with other government activities publicly revealed by Wikileaks, Snowden etc.

Sheila Clark

Check out the city at Sharp Crater on Mars. No amount of airbrushing can disguise the towers, buildings, ships and bridge. All those illuminated circular disks must have been their “energy source” if Pluto is any indication.

Matt Knight

Sheila

The Mars photos are interesting, but, the evidence presented of ancient civilisation is weak IMO. In a previous investigation of NASA’s photos of Mars, supposedly showing cities, roads, etc., turned out to be an effect of the way the cameras scanned the surface for 3D.

Do you really think that NASA would leave any significant evidence, like airbrushing, of an ancient civilisation in their photos, if, they found it, with what today’s CGI software can do easily, e.g., Clone Stamp, Healing Brush & Patch Tools in every standard version of Photoshop?

The supposed road & bridge look like effects of the way the camera scanned the landscape, where, it is more likely that indistinct areas are scanned quickly with minimal data due to frame rate & data size limitations, or, it could be as a result of simple motion-blur. The boat looks just like a boat-shaped piece of rock to me. The block of stone with a cut is interesting, but, rocks can form in many strange, but, naturally-forming shapes, e.g., Giant’s Causeway, Northern Ireland.

Sheila Clark

Okay Matt, but a girl can dream can’t she? Was your previous investigation done by yourself or did NASA tell you it was the way the cameras scanned the surface? New photos of Mars come out Monday to Friday. When there is so much in a picture that can be zoomed in on, I doubt their patches can cover everything. I checked out your Giants Causeway but cannot find a natural looking rock which looks like a boat but we’ve got a giant’s boot and a camels back though…
Correction Mount Sharp (not Sharps Crater apparently because it’s not a crater) looks to me very much like photos I took on the bank of the canyon overlooking the city of Drumheller. It was easy to tell natural rock from buildings. Knowing our ancestors were like us and build cities close to water I’m assuming this was the real reason NASA chose this area.

Matt Knight

It would be good to find evidence, but, nothing I’ve seen so far qualifies. My reference to Giant’s causeway was in response to the photo of rock on Mars with what looks like a cut in it. Many rocks on Earth look like other things.

As with former missions also showing evidence of cities (as this video proposed: http://youtu.be/2DoZHWi1_oA), I did my own research & shared what I found here: http://forum.figu.org/us/messages/14/12958.html?1385268121#POST68194

Taro Istok

I tend to agree with Matt here. I haven’t been able to find this city however I have, purely out of curiosity, followed some of the Mars photos claiming ET proof. It’s all apophenia thus far if you ask me. I’m quite convinced NASA carefully reviews every image prior to release and keeps a tight, heavy lid on anything suggesting ET activity.

One thing to consider is that Mars is a different planet. We can’t automatically assume rock formations will follow that of Earth’s. It’s quite possible that some of these things are remnants of the past Mars civilization and that NASA missed some. But so far none that I have seen are conclusive, unfortunately.

Stephen Lane

Didn’t the Sirians remove all traces of any past civilisations on Mars?

Mait Kingumets

Stephen,

This is from figu forum. I am not sure what that really means.

“In the meantime the problem has been dissolved. The Plejaren have taken contact with the old Sirians.”

http://forum.figu.org/us/messages/863/13656.html

Sheila Clark

I get it Matt, rocks look like other things. But that is only one picture. Have you checked out any since or is that it, put a fork in it, you’re done? It wasn’t that long ago I got into it with Stephen Lane who has shields and hugs (thank you) and we argued about craters vs mounds. What gets me is all the perfectly round mounds and we know this doesn’t happen in nature very often. Volcanic activity perhaps on occasion. Perfectly round asteroid impacts, I don’t think so. I propose these highly reflective perfectly circular mounds were their energy source. They are all over the place and can no longer be hidden. They had a high civilization and were able to space travel after all.
I referenced Drumheller because of all the dinosaur bones they have found there from 65 million years ago. Mount Sharp in Gale Crater is the perfect spot for Dino digging. As far as I know this evidence is still there.

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA19929

In this Nasa pic the dark brown in the forefront used to be water. Zoom into the shore. What do you see. Save it. Over the course of the last 70,000 years (please correct me if this number is wrong) sand covers everything but cannot take away the basic shape of the structure. That’s how they were able to find the Sphinx at Gaza. This ship or land mass in the foreground with NASAs number of 85 m (about 275 ft) as the length, this will help gauge the size of everything else, check it out. Do you think that wall is naturally occurring? I don’t. Look at the 90 degree.
In the HP finally humankind will know their true history.

Matt Knight

Good rock find (yawn). Knowing our true history will involve things like research, physical data to study, excavation, corroboration, regular space travel to Mars and settlements, etc., so it will be a long time before we can unmars any of these things. The Grand Canyon has alot of 90 degree angles, but, they are just rocks too.

Sheila Clark

After the aging gene is reversed is when we will find our true history. The remaining inhabitants of Mars died there. NASA is not infallible.

Robert Forrest

So once again its a case of “haves and have nots”. First, The Haves ( This would be, Billy and friends as well as MH and a list of others. ) these guys got photos, film, metal, sound, and the ability to show that they know. What we do not know about our selfs yet. They demonstrate that they are farsighted and honest in their conclusions. AS for the, Have Nots. ( this group of individuals verys in size and shape. Depending on their field of expertise, ufology, paranormal, ect. Then there’s space technology. ) these guys are looking, to take or find, photos, films, metal, sound, and anything else they can get their hands on. They have spent much more than 720 Mil, to find what they are looking for. But all they are doing is confirming, what Billy has already informed us of. ( Thank You NASA). So maybe it’s not a complete waste. Mostly they are like art critics. They hold the art up to their nose and describe what they see. Limited to see the completed work as a whole. Billy and his friends have intersected with NASA before. Proving they knew, well in advance what they would discover. Well it’s their $ they can do what they want with it. Seems they would save a lot of time and $, if they invest a little time brushing up on the Billy info. Isn’t anybody just the least bit curious, on what they have not told us????! I know I am. So I go through as much as the information as I can, everyday lately. It’s all taking shape on the world stage. We all play a part in some way. Salome Robert.

Terry Carch

Has anybody notice that you DON`T hear ANYTHING about overpopulation and how they skirt and avoid the issue of overpopulation? As far as Carl Sagan is concerned I used to like Sagan until he came down with cancer and stated to DENY ANY ET existence. When that happened “I threw ALL his books out except his last book Contact which was later made into a film with Jodi Foster. I think I later threw that book out too. Now I just CAN`T stand Sagan anymore due to the fact that he was such a supporter of the existence of ETs and then just turned around and went in the exact opposite direction,what a bloke Sagan was. Now I hate him for that! YIKES!:(((

George M

Population growth is spoken about politically behind closed doors or in private conversations, in my experience.

The problem seems to be the point of view of people in positions of authority.

Most logical people will agree that population should be viewed in terms of the proper number of people, with the proper habits of resource sharing suited to this planet at this time. That is fairly well indisputable.

Many people in authority, be they politicians or religious leaders, instead view populations in terms of self interest. Religious leaders in the moslem world openly speak of population growth as a means by which they can take political power. Look at Europe presently.

Politicians, on the other hand, are too self interested to openly say what they say behind closed doors – that some populations, in this case moslems, are reproducing at a disproportionate rate as compared to others.

Sometimes it is pure cowardice, whereby politicians will only speak of these things in private so as not to alienate potential voters, and in other cases it is self interest, whereby they pander to those populations so that they may themselves acquire a new voting base.

Either way the outcome is the same – a reckless mismatch between what this planet could be, and what it irresponsibly, criminally, is. But they do talk about it – of that I can assure you.

George M

A valiant attempt, MH 🙂

All sorts of grief happens when you combine 4 things:

1) large numbers of people who do not think for themselves
2) large numbers of “experts” or “authorities” who decide what is true and what isn’t based on their opinion
3) large numbers of “experts” or “authorities” who selectively apply different standards of evidence so as to support their opinion and/or ego and/or job
4) large numbers of peole who do not think for themselves and who instead accept the opinions of “experts” or “authorities” despite points 2 and 3

It is abundantly clear that a different standard of evidence is being applied to the Meier case, as compared to other cases, and since most people do not think for themselves, relying instead on “experts” or “authorities” who do not align with the Meier material, then those people will not accept evidence, no matter how obvious.

Comaring the standards of evidence is a good idea, imo. Nicely done, MH.

Terry Carch

Sorry to be off topic again MH but here is an article you and Billy and the P`s might be interstead in to counter the Wallstreet Journals fear of evil computers. the article is from the website BACKCHANNEL. How Elon MUsk and Y Combinator Plan to Stop Computers From Taking Over. There are no comments on that article but responses. IN Star Trek The Next Generation there is an android called Data played by Brent Spiner. My point here is to suggest a user-friendly android,AI and also a user friendly computers too as well. I suggest that Billy and the P`s look into these ideas if we want to avoid these eveil cumputers and evil robots that the Pentagon are so desperate to use against ISIS and all the rest of these so-called terrorist incuding us innocent human beings too as well. Maby the Wallstreet Jouranal should think about more positive ideas too instead of being so negative with evil computers that want to destroy humanity on Earth.