Astronomer threatens legal action in response to Billy Meier UFO info
I sent Stuart Robbins an email* today, which provided him with several links to Billy Meier’s prophetically accurate information, recently and unknowingly, corroborated by scientists, who thought all of the items were…”new discoveries”.
It’s interesting that, less than three hours after I sent my email to him, Robbins had composed his evasive, defensive response.
While he says he’s “always behind in responding, if you send me a claim that you believe in”, Robbins failed to note that no “beliefs” were sent to him, just factual information that he could easily verify, or attempt to rebut, if he was able to.
I then posted my comment** on his blog.
We can now await how Robbins will respond to all this. To reiterate, I sent a professed scientist/astronomer information that corroborates that UFO contactee, Billy Meier, has consistently scooped our best and brightest scientists by 30 years – and much more – with specific, prophetically accurate information in a variety of sciences. It doesn’t appear, nor has it ever been shown, that he could have possibly acquired the information any way other than he claims, i.e. from the Plejaren human extraterrestrials.
But maybe Robbins has another explanation. What I presented to him is either true, or false. There isn’t any other possibility.
Will Robbins deign to deal with this information, ignore it, or take some kind of legal action because I had the gall to put his integrity, character, qualifications, claims, etc., to the test?
The clock is ticking.
It’s been a while since I updated you on the newest, independent corroboration of the scientific information in the Billy Meier contacts.
Here are a few links:
So that you understand my reason for this, I intend to publish a blog with your responses, which I hope will represent a truly objective, credible and scientific assessment of the information. I will also say that should you choose to not respond i will consider it to be a default acceptance of the accuracy and legitimacy of the information, and conclusions, expressed in the above articles.
There is no trickery involved here. I – and many others – found your previous responses to, and avoidance of, the actual facts to reflect a highly prejudicial, “skeptical” but not scientific approach to this information.
If you truly are a scientist then, absent credible, substantiated rebuttals to this information, it shouldn’t trouble you that the material is correct and represents a singularly authentic, unprecedented scientific event in human history. In fact, you should probably be thrilled that this has occurred in your lifetime.
I look forward to your response.
Authorized American Media Representative
The Billy Meier Contacts
**”To be clear, Stuart has tried to debunk the Meier case in the past and his own claims are demonstrably inaccurate. But more to the point, the links I sent Stuart contained easily verifiable evidence that Billy Meier scooped our best astrophysicists, at least three times, by…30 years and more.
This is quite easy. Since Stuart represents himself as a scientist, he’s obviously aware of the the validity of copyrights, as the internationally recognized standard of proof of first publication. It doesn’t establish that what is copyrighted is true, though in the case of Meier’s information it’s our own astrophysicists who – unknowingly – have corroborated and confirmed the accuracy of the information and, thereby, the authenticity of the Meier case as well.
I am, of course, doing a screen capture of this post, in order to verify that I submitted it, in case it somehow fails to appear.
Also, I will be doing exactly as I said in my email to Stuart. I will publish my email to him, I will refer people to this blog and – hopefully – I will have Stuart’s specific, pertinent responses to the specifics that I have provided him. Should he wish to take more time to try to evade the very important, in fact, historically important claims, evidence, etc., with blogs such as this, he risks being considered less than relevant as a “scientist”.
And I am willing to risk the consequences of doing such an unseemly thing as holding someone accountable for what they have already said, as well as for pointing out how they may be shabbily trying to avoid looking through the proverbial telescope…because they don’t like what they will see.”