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.

Quantitative 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


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






0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
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.