UFO contactee scooped NASA – again – by 23 years
The Express newspaper published this interview with me pertaining to Billy Meier’s warnings about Apophis, which he published 23 years before NASA “officially discovered” it.
Perhaps because Apophis will hit between the North Sea and the Black Sea -unless deflected as per the advice from the Plejaren – Europeans may be just a bit more concerned about it coming to their neighborhood than their American cousins.
And maybe the good folks at Asteroid Day will want to make a…T-shirt about Billy Meier now.
See also:
US GOVERNMENT CONFIRMS EXTRATERRESTRIAL UFOS
NASA Fatally Wrong about Asteroid Apophis
Harvard Prof. Avi Loeb’s Search for ET Is Over
How Did He Know BEFORE the Scientists?
Brain Damage from Space Travel and Bad Attitude
Alien Life? Look Through the Telescope, Prof. Wright
The Now Unstoppable Environmental Destruction
The now unstoppable events fulfill as they must, because of the unreasonableness of humankind for far too long. For those who wish to remain alert and clear-headed in the extremely demanding coming times, nothing is more important than learning how to think. Our thinking determines everything about how we live our lives and our thinking is what forges our destiny.
The Way to Live
Please see more books by Meier here.
This is such fantastic news!
Great!
Hello Michael and all. I just seen the article from Daily Express, came up on my Google news feed 11hrs ago. Good job.
Salome, Scott.
Well done, Michael!
Michael Horn is not a scientist.
Partial definitions of scientist and research scientist:
A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.
A research scientist is a scientist who works primarily with gathering knowledge and understanding research.
Someone who conducts scientific research or investigation, in order to discover new things, etc
I hope that is…helpful.
You can say what you want Michael, but you are not a scientist. I have never heard you in the past call yourself a scientist because you know that you are not and you also know that the article you posted is not really accurate in describing who you are. You, Michael, are the American Media representative of the Billy Meier UFO case. Nothing more, nothing less. And that’s how the Express article you posted should have described you.
A research scientist is somebody like Marcel Vogel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Vogel
It’s a bit patronizing that you think you know Michael better than he knows himself. Michael, who has researched the Meier case for many years, has referred to himself as a research scientist on more than one occasion, you haven’t been paying attention. I also think that Michael knows far better than you what he spends his time doing — and that’s a lot more than many other research scientists. Maybe start worrying more about the severe climate catastrophe, the monstrous overpopulation and the worldwide anarchy that is racing towards us and less about Michael’s job title.
Hi Joseph,
Well, at least we’ve established that you’re not much of a…researcher: https://theyflyblog.com/about-michael/
Now, perhaps you can tell us just what it is that you do, if you’ve discovered it yet.
Michael>
Actual scientist here, just to let you know that you by no standard meets any criteria pertaining to “scientist” or “research scientist”. Let me remind you that the word “research” is used differently in the scientific community to the public, just like e.g. the word “theory” is. To be a researcher you need to do more than just look stuff up on google, and you need expertise to evaluate what you find. Journalists are not researchers, bloggers are not researchers, and neither are you.
Hi Peter,
First, please substantiate that you’re an “actual scientist”, since your comments don’t lend any credibility to your claim.
Let’s start with, how would you know that I “by no standard meet any criteria” pertaining to “scientist” or “research scientist”?
A little more background for you. Approximately 60 years ago, I began to get interested in the obvious to me contamination of the air. I expressed it at the time as “the dinosaurs are coming back to get us”. Not scientific, and not entirely accurate but…close enough. In 1968, with my concern growing, along with two friends I created the content (script, artwork) for an animated program titled, “Captain Tim and the Case of the Little Pollutions”. I’m sure you’ll recognize the literary reference in the title.
In 1970, tried to sell that program to an L.A.-based animation company, Filmation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filmation) and one of its owners, Norm Prescott. I was told that, while Norm liked the artwork and story, “no one’s really interested in air pollution”.
Interestingly enough, my concerns about air pollution also led me to do…research on water pollution. That led me to become the sole salesman for a fledgling water purification company, which I helped to build into a million-dollar company, shortly after which the owner died. I then did a similar thing as sole salesman for another very small company which, by virtue of my acquiring the Starbucks and other prominent accounts, also became hugely successful.
I had already started my specific…research into the scientific information in the Meier contacts in the 1980s. In fact, I found and correlated dozens and dozens of specific examples of these correlations, subsequently significantly added to by a number of other people from around the world.
As I’m sure you already know and appreciated, this process required that I had already read a significant amount of the English translations of the CR, and that I had pretty good recall of the info. And, of course, the process works both ways, i.e. having the necessary knowledge of the CR that would allow me to notice information that would subsequently be published by various scientific organizations, news services, etc., either as “new discoveries” or merely mentioned in the body of the voluminous amount of material that read.
The other means involved/involves deliberate searches for/through information to see if “new discoveries” had been made and/or information that I had missed, that had been unpublished online at the time but uploaded later, etc., etc. Of course, there’s more to it than that because information about one particular topic can also be included/referred to in another, even seemingly unrelated one, a certain word or phrase here and there, etc. I’m sure that as a…”scientist” you understand all that’s involved.
Additionally, I troubled myself to meet and get to know the original investigators in the Meier case, beginning in 1987, and probe further with them how they came to their conclusions, which of course also revealed more information, etc.
BTW, regarding my ability, perhaps even “expertise”, to “evaluate what I find”, I think this man put it nicely:
https://theyflyblog.com/2017/08/18/billy-meier-beyond-reasonable-doubt/
Now, pardon me if I point out that the following statement isn’t a masterpiece in logic:
“Journalists are not researchers, bloggers are not researchers, and neither are you.”
…and of course its unsubstantiated in general and in specific.
Please do feel free to regale us with your own background, qualifications, etc., and – more importantly – what you’ve contributed to humankind in the past 60 years. I won’t mind being pleasantly surprised.
P.S. Please also use your full name when submitting comments and, of course, respond the email I sent regarding verification of ID. To not do so is to make skeptics, critics, etc., appear less than credible, even if some of their criticisms may be.
Michael,
Anyone can be a science researcher. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that you are a scientist researcher. These terms are rather wrong and misleading. Because people can be misled into thinking that you are a real scientist when in fact you are not. You might argue by saying that they are basically the same, but they are not. If I were to do some research in Chemistry, then would that automatically make me a Chemist? I mean a qualified Chemist? No, I don’t think so.
In my opinion, the way you have described yourself “Science Researcher” in the link you have provided “About Michael” sounds correct. But the way the author from the British tabloid express.co.uk described you as a “RESEARCH SCIENTIST” is rather wrong and misleading. Again, you might argue by telling me that they basically mean the same thing. But I beg to differ.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate you. As bizarre as it might sound, I actually respect you.
Joseph,
I think you should describe the important distinctions that you would make between the two attributions. I will point out that “some research in Chemistry” would be different than “decades of research in chemistry”. But please present your viewpoint in more detail.
Thanks.
Joseph,
I’m just curious, do you think someone has to have a degree in a certain field in order to practice or contribute in said field?
What criteria are you using for the basis of your assumptions?
Sorry, Michael Faraday, William Herschel, Gregor Mendel, Srinivasa Ramanujan: Peter’s decided you’re out.
“Knowledge that is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.” ~ Plato
We know that Michael Horn is an independent scientist who does not rely on grant money. Look at other so called scientists, the SETI goofs who have been listening actively for 10 years for alien noises at $10 Million per year and have heard nothing. They were given the Billy Meier information but their lack of response proves they don’t know how and cannot handle a “contact” even if it fell into their laps.
it’s not about a person, it’s about the information. it’s not about labels, researcher, scientist, analyst, is irrelevant. The evolution of consciousness of the earth human being is the goal. I can see why the plejaren say it will take 800 years before we become peaceful, rational thinking human beings.
MH, just ignore Joseph Darmanin. He is a nobody and likely that is not his real name.
What would be good is too take the advice provided respectfully by Ptaah (with regards to implementing sun sail drift method) and preventing a catastrophe…time is pressing.
That’s good that a reputable journal from here printed that. At least it can inspire some to research..
Here’ today’s second instalment of Michael’s interview with the Express:
express.co.uk/news/weird/1187996/Asteroid-NASA-latest-warning-news-God-of-Chaos-Apophis-update-Earth-impact-99942
Thanks, I didn’t see that.
Welcome.
The Express is really the only UK newspaper who has stood by Brexiters through all this uncovering of how bent our EU member political system is, so really pleased they were the ones to cover this.
I liked the first version better. As it’s quite obvious Elon Musk knows nothing about Apophis.
I wonder if he’s corrected the Pi calculation yet?
For some reason I can’t reply directly under Michael Horn’s answer to my post. But it doesn’t matter.
Michael,
A science researcher is a person who researches anything to do with science. This can mean that you are a scientist, but not necessarily. Yes, even if, as you have said, have done many years of research in science, you should not call yourself, or even allow others to call you either a scientist or a scientist researcher because people might be misled into thinking that you are actually a scientist when in fact you are not. However, on the other hand, to call yourself a “science researcher” as you have claimed in the “About Michael” link which you had provided is certainly more appropriate than how the journalist of the Express website had described you by calling you a “RESEARCH SCIENTIST” because like I have just said, it can lead people to think that you are an actual scientist when really you are not. The terms “science researcher” and “research scientist” are maybe perhaps similar to one another, but they are certainly not the same.
Melissa Osaki,
You had asked me if I think someone has to have a degree in a certain field in order to practice or contribute in said field. I think the answer is, for the most part yes because when it comes to let’s say chiropractors, dentists, medical scientists, optometrists, physicians and so forth I would expect them to have some sort of qualification to back their claims. However, on the other hand, in this case, a science researcher, which shouldn’t be confused with a research scientist, can have a certain knowledge in science, but not necessarily have the qualifications of a scientist. Also, when you think about it, the word “scientist” can be a little vague because there are obviously various types of scientists.
Again, don’t get me wrong. My intention was not to mock or ridicule Michael Horn. The problem with the Express website is that for every credible article they would publish about UFOs would then be unfortunately followed by several other articles about UFOs that are not so credible to put it mildly. But at least it is a step in the right direction for the journalist of the Express website to post information about the Billy Meier UFO case.
Hi Joseph,
I appreciate you’re taking the time to expound here. In doing some basic searches I found these definitions through Google searches:
sci·ence
/ˈsīəns/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
“the world of science and technology”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist: A scientist is someone who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest. In classical antiquity, there was no real ancient analog of a modern scientist. Instead, philosophers engaged in the philosophical study of nature called natural philosophy, a precursor of natural science.
sci·en·tist
/ˈsīəntəst/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
“a research scientist”
What is the difference between researcher and scientist?
There is no big difference, mainly it is a matter of convention. Usually a researcher is one who does any kind of research ( even in literature, or sociology or non-science topics), while a scientist is the one who do research in science, and is affiliated with certain organizations.
Of course, there are varying degrees of proficiency, expertise, etc. For instance, Marcel Vogel was a research chemist for IBM, though he had no earned degrees. There are those who actually try to use that against him.
Now, lest anyone think I’m comparing myself to Marcel Vogel, of course I’m not. But I think that people do hold very rigid ideas about titles, degrease tc., though the degrees certainly can’t be viewed as guarantees of excellence, overall intellectual superiority, etc. As you may have read (https://theyflyblog.com/2019/04/02/how-did-he-know-usgs-scientist-ufo-prophet-mars/) USGS scientist Ken Herkenhoff knew nothing about lightning on Mars, which many people, myself included, had learned in our study of the Meier material. And Herkenhoff obviously didn’t possess the in-depth knowledge about Mars that was published by Meier – as is the case in many other areas of the scientific information that I’m familiar with.
So, while I’m not running around making claims that I can’t substantiate, it’s because of my specific decades of research that I can make other claims, i.e about the singular authenticity of the Billy Meier uFO contacts that are also based in what I’ve referred to as “the higher standard of proof”. And there are people who perhaps wouldn’t object as much you do to the descriptive term:
https://theyflyblog.com/2017/08/18/billy-meier-beyond-reasonable-doubt/
I also happen to be one of the last people granted a teaching credential in California some years ago, without any degrees and based solely on my life experience. Again, I’m not putting myself next to many of the great teachers and scientists throughout history with or without degrees. At the same time, I don’t shrink from the use of the terms. However, perhaps you can still convince me.
P.S. Joseph,
There’s an old saying, “Those who can’t do, teach”, which certainly isn’t always true. Perhaps, in my case, I do both.
My view is that Title doesn’t impact one’s ability to recognise, or, express the truth, so no need to claim one, or, anything else if it doesn’t fit completely, or, comfortably. Title is rarely an indicator of expertise, but, true experts do often have titles, but, nothing can supplement years of hands-on experience.
We need a few more titles / levels for this specific study described under Jschwjsch (like 50 levels down from that and keep going until you hit ‘able to breathe’) for those not liking being ‘(spiritual teaching) people’. Thought ‘people’ meant carrion-eaters, or, something anyway?
Certainly.
Joe…in a university hospital I got more knowledge, advice and truth from a PATIENT at the hospital than all the doctors and nurses combined. I now call him Dr. John Pepper. The last Doctor I talked to told me there are no diseases that can be transferred from animals to humans. I now call her the pretend doctor who has no clue. Having a degree does not mean someone is smart.
Most research scientists with titles are bought out or are too afraid to speak the truth in certain areas.