Mick West’s fear and lack of integrity motivated him to protect his skeptical beliefs
This is a strange situation. I happened upon some information about Mick West and his site, wherein he debunked certain things like phony UFO claims, chemtrails, etc.
Because I thought that he was a more scientifically oriented person than all of the hacks in the skeptical movement, I sent him various info on the Billy Meier contacts…including Joe Tysk’s definitive article on the authenticity of the Meier contacts, all of the independent expert analyses and authentication, etc.
Somewhat surprisingly, because I thought he was more scientific, I received a quick, dismissive response from Mick, claiming the evidence was a hoax. Of course, he didn’t offer a word of substantiation for his claim, nor did he comment on any of the information from the independent experts, spanning 40 years.
The Cult Temple of Cowardly Censorship
I posted information on the “Pendulum UFO” on his forum here. You’ll notice from the start that he’s titled the thread “Billy Meier’s Claimed UFO Contacts and Videos [Fakes]”
You’ll also notice that the film I linked to is a fuller version than the clip we’ve been most familiar seeing over the years. I also offered to address the predictable challenges and questions. Many appeared but – still as of this writing – all of my responses were removed…censored. And this despite my rectifying some issues with links and posting guidelines, etc.
As someone who’s most certainly allowed plenty of challenges, skepticism, attacks, etc., on this blog, the stench of Mick’s cowardice is rather odious.
Below, in case that too was removed, is the main portion of my original post on the forum:
At 8:23 you’ll notice that the farm house and tree are clearly real and in the distance, also behind the bank of large trees to the left.
From 8:29 to 8:53, the UFO basically hovers above the tree, with only slight movement but with absolutely no wobbling, such as you will immediately have with any attempt you make to replicate the film.
From 8:54 to 9:01 the craft simply and slowly moves – without wobbling – at an angle up to the left, basically from a standstill with no possible known means to accomplish such a movement without first being moved in the opposite direction to gain momentum. However, even with momentum, a distinct and uncontrollable wobbling would’ve been evident, as also should’ve occurred in the film we see.
You will notice, now and then, that the UFO does exhibit a brief wobble but all movements are clearly being controlled, as the UFO is seen to stop and start and to move in various directions, all under complete control, and minus the wobbling that would, if this was indeed a small model on a string, be continuous and uncontrollable.
To further demolish any credibility to the model premise, all one has to do is to notice the space between the UFO and…the top border of the frame. While we don’t know exactly how high in the sky it is, we can make basic, relative calculations that show – forgetting for a moment that we have evidence that this is a full-sized tree in front of an actual house and an object that is clearly, therefore, no model – that it would be impossible to have been done by the one-armed Mr. Meier. Everything else then can be seen to be authentic as well, including the backwash effect on the tree top from the craft passing over, etc.
There was other reference information in my comment, which may perhaps still be visible.
The Desperately Dishonest Debunker
In one of my other – censored – comments, I pointed out that the segment actually starts at 8:14, where Meier then pans to the left, establishing that the houses, tree and artifacts, as well as the UFO, are all in the distance, clearly as large objects a good distance from the camera and with a large bank of trees in the foreground to the left.
As Mick has hurriedly tried to “debunk” Meier’s film, he’s ignored all of the necessary and troublesome little details and avoided even trying to conceal his bias and ineptitude. For starters:
- Why was he using…two hands?
- Where is the tree over which he should be positioning his model and demonstrating the backwash at the top?
- Why doesn’t he show his model moving from stillness up to one side and hanging there, motionlessly, for a moment?
- Why didn’t he reproduce the proportionate distance between the object and the top of the frame, as established in Meier’s film?
- Why didn’t he use a disk-shaped object like the UFO?
Mick shows not only cowardice, a lack of integrity, blatant dishonesty and no respect for the scientific method, he also reveals a fearful desperation in his sloppy rush to “debunk” what he actually…can’t.
Again, as I’ve learned from these experiences – even when I’m hopeful that there’ll be exceptions – those who identify as skeptics are all too often not scientists. And, in this case, they’re also unethical cowards, which is unfortunately ever more prevalent in our society.
Lastly, I’d still gladly debate Mick but he knows that he’d have to account for all his failings, something that neither his cult-like followers, nor his own lack of character, require of hIm.
NEW VIDEO!
See also:
Let’s Give the UFO Skeptics Another Chance
The Deceit and Dishonesty of Derek Bartholomaus
Top Skeptic RETRACTS Hoax Claims – Helps Prove Meier Case Real!
Skeptics at IIG Caught Falsifying Evidence!
BREAKING: IIG Skeptics Retract ANOTHER Claim against Meier Case!
Rahl Zahi’s Analysis Report on the Pendulum UFO
This is an unexpectedly appropriate time to suggest that studying the spiritual teaching can also help people who have recognized or unrecognized issues with their integrity, irrational beliefs, inner fears, over-ambition, etc., to develop the necessary self-awareness and self-responsibility to work on character development. In fact, there’s almost no aspect of our lives that can’t be improved through the study of the spiritual teaching, such as contained in the books below:
The Might of the Thoughts
Get It Here!
Arahat Athersata
“AFTER SEVERAL COVER-TO-COVER READINGS OF THE ARAHAT ATHERSATA BOOK, I BECAME ABLE TO NEUTRALIZE OR ELIMINATE MY MIGRAINE HEADACHES WITHIN SECONDS.”
EDDIE M.
“I JUST FINISHED READING THE NEWLY TRANSLATED ARAHAT ATHERSATA AND I MUST SAY THAT IT IS THE MOST HELPFUL BOOK I HAVE EVER READ. THE BOOK PUTS IT IN SIMPLE AND EASY TERMS HOW ANYONE CAN CHANGE THEIR BAD THINKING NEARLY OVERNIGHT, A MANUAL FOR A HEALTHY MIND IF YOU WILL.
AND A HUMAN CAN NOT ONLY ELIMINATE PAIN, ANXIETY, DOUBT, DESPERATION, ETC. BUT ALSO REAL ILLNESSES BY JUST THINKING AS NATURE INTENDED IT FOR THE HUMAN BEING.”
ANTHONY A.
Get It Here!
from Contact Report 251
Ptaah to Billy:
“…For this reason, we executed maneuvers with our genuinely existing flying objects, e.g., jerky pendulum movements and certain skipping and floating movements, which ordinarily are not a part of our flying objects’ normal movements and flight techniques. Instead, they appeared like those ridiculous, abrupt pendulum and strange swaying movements of the manipulated movies and photos by the UFO swindlers, liars and charlatans. The fact that we chose to execute these movement types is based on the reasoning that they, in particular, would result in the worldwide, fierce UFO controversy which resulted in many hardships for you, of course.
You were accused of fraud, deceit, charlatanry and, indeed, dishonesty. You were further charged with constructing models and then photographing and filming them. Often we felt very sorry for you, but were unable to change any of this.
Only by executing certain flight maneuvers, which you then were able to film, photograph and disseminate throughout the globe, was the worldwide UFO controversy ensured that led to the previously mentioned outcome. In the future, they will also bring about additional and by now urgently needed results.
It may be some consolation to you now to know that everything has occurred with the desired and intended outcome, and that you are now the most important person in matters related to contacts with extraterrestrials and UFO affairs – you probably are the most famous personality worldwide in these matters….”
Could be worse. The skeptic could claim eyewitnesses in the Meier were under hypnotic suggestion making them see things that weren’t there!
Ed, as Michael and others have pointed out previously, you’ve beat this poor horse into the ground. There is absolutely no comparing your UFO stories with the abundant and overwhelming scientific, environmental, geopolitical and photographic evidence in the Meier case. It has the most comprehensive and Earth-shattering information that you’ll ever find. You should consider yourself lucky to have come across this priceless knowledge long before the brainwashed masses ever wake up.
Dear Melissa. I think the irony here escapes you. Both Billy Meier and Michael Horn are mindless skeptics in their own way when they condemn other UFO/Contactee cases without any real substance to back up their claims. I can accept an eyewitness in the Meier case such as Phobol Cheng. When there are additional eyewitnesses that increases the likelyhood of an actual event. That’s why I think the Meier case in its early 1960s stages was real. What happens in my experience of the last 17 years is that staunch Billy Meier supporters don’t have the objectivity acknowledging eyewitnesses in other contactee cases simply because Billy Meier said so. A double standard sets in and I think that’s unfair. And no, I wont let this particular Meier falsehood go!
Hi Ed,
Being a mindless skeptic applies more to someone who claims to have researched the Meier case and then tries to convince others that Adamski, Menger and other so called UFO contactees bring any real value to mankind. The difference between all the others and Billy Meier becomes painfully obvious when one looks at the information and evidence brought forth.
Meier’s information changes everything we’ve ever known and it will continue to benefit all of mankind for the rest of our human evolution. All those others will only be a fleeting memory and a footnote in the history of Earth humanity because they bring no value or truth to the consciousness. I feel bad that you can’t see the forest for the trees.
Melissa, in the age of George Adamski the message centered around the dangers of nuclear weapons and if you actually read contactee books they also deal with spirituality. Here’s an excellent website on George Adamski;
https://www.the-adamski-case.nl/
Here’s testimony of former U.S. Navy pilot Commander Graham Betune who witnessed a mothership and smaller crafts identical to what George Adamski photographed and spkoe about;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsgS2TiNaJc
May I suggest you do more research because you seem to be oblivious off what actually happened..
Hi Ed,
I appreciate your concern for my obliviousness, but I can promise you that I’ve done my homework on UFO cases. My interests have always been in these areas along with observing the planets, stars and things of that nature. I’ve already come to a definitive conclusion and know for certain that the Meier case is 100% real. I’m not doubting that others have seen extraterrestrial ships, but these are just sightings. Billy is the only person on the planet who has conclusive evidence of long term contact with an ET race.
For some reason, many can’t see the big picture when it comes to Billy Meier, but that’s okay because the evidence will continue to corroborate itself and become the foundation for all future seeds to grow. We might as well just accept that we aren’t going to agree and move on.
Ed,
While Melissa was kind and generous in approving your post, I want to openly inform you that we won’t be approving any more comments about the fraud George Adamski. If you wish to participate in discussing the Billy Meier contacts, the various topics raised in the the blog articles, you’re certainly welcome to do so.
While we’ve requested it many times of you before, I hope it’s clear now what the policy is.
Thanks.
Dear Michael Horn,
I saw you had some problems with the rather strict rules being applied on metabunk. However the forum is rather strict in its rules about claims being made.
Let’s start with the first claim you made in your post there:
“At 8:23 you’ll notice that the farm house and tree are clearly real and in the distance, also behind the bank of large trees to the left to the left.”
and for completeness I include your add on you comment made here:
“I pointed out that the segment actually starts at 8:14, where Meier then pans to the left, establishing that the houses, tree and artifacts, as well as the UFO, are all in the distance,
I was (and now again am) confused about the tree at hand ( https://www.metabunk.org/posts/234819/ ).
Are we talking about the tree I circled red there? Or is it a different tree?
There are two shots you are talking about:
– from 8:14 to 8:28 . This shows a pan, houses but no UFO.
– from 8:29 to and further. Here suddenly there is a tree and a UFO.
Are these two shots taken from the same position?
Hi MsVC,
Thanks for your question and comment. The real problem, in addition to any I may have had with the rules format, is with the blatant dishonesty of Mick and the moderators. I was involved in exchanges with two of the moderators and while I indeed wasn’t clear on some of the protocols, the clear intention was to not allow the development, or presence, of the evidence that establishes the singular authenticity of this case.
Of course, as your question shows, there are things that can need clarifying, especially with some of the clarity of the evidence. BTW, since I’m banned form that forum, I can’t click on your images, etc. I’ll try to clarify as best I can and I’ve also written to Switzerland to get further clarification.
At 8:22 in the pan we can see the tree and the house(s). We can also see the presence of what appear to be a number of poles, from the right side of the frame to behind the house on the left. From 8:29 on we indeed do see the UFO above the tree that’s shown to be in front of the house during the pan.
We know that Meier zoomed in, with his camera on a tripod. What I don’t know yet is if he got closer than when he panned, or if the height of the camera changed, etc. I hope to have these answers and I’ll post them here when I get them.
Since you’re here, I’d like you to also know that I had put two links in my censored comments that would be very helpful for people to know about. One of them was:
https://theyflyblog.com/2018/01/22/usaf-osi-investigator-concludes-billy-meier-ufo-case-real/
As you’ll see, this formerly skeptical military investigator spelled out how one can approach all of the evidence in this case but specifically starting with Meier’s earliest photographic evidence in India, in 1964.
I also included this:
https://theyflyblog.com/2014/06/15/billy-meier-ufo-case-prove/
You’ll see that you can do this experiment with one of Meier’s WCUFO photos.
Speaking of which, I tried to post this too:
“As far as Phil Langdon is concerned, I worked with him, through correspondence, back about 10 years ago. I encouraged him to take his best shots. The problem is that he couldn’t duplicate Meier’s photos or films but he could duplicate the effect, at least until further scrutiny was applied. Phil, of course, refused to have his efforts tested, simply using the same standards and protocols that were applied to Meier’s, because he knew they would be shown to be small models close to the camera. His attempt to duplicate the film clip I included with the UFO and the tree – which of course he couldn’t and none of you can either – failed even on his first attempt. I pointed out to him that he failed to show his model moving up to the left side at an angle and pausing motionlessly, etc. He then redid it, attaching wires to the left side of his model, etc.
Anyway, before we get on to the prophetically accurate scientific information – the “higher standard of proof” in the case – I’ll just ask that someone here (Mick) simply duplicates the film. Now, I don’t mean to spoil everyone’s enthusiasm but, just as Derek Bartholomaus had to retract his supremely confident claims:
http://www.theyfly.com/Top_Skeptic_Fixed.htm
The same will happen here. So, let me start with the obvious. Mick has a photo of himself holding a fishing pole…with two hands. Meier has one hand. So, a sloppy start, as was easy to predict.”
As we all saw, Mick was in such a hurry to not only censor information but to debunk the Meier film that he started off using two hands…a clear fail right away.
I also sent Mick a lot of other information, such as:
https://theyflyblog.com/2019/03/14/how-did-he-know-before-the-scientists-part-1/
This includes some of the “higher standard of proof”, i.e. the prophetically accurate, scientific information that Meier verifiably published long BEFORE “official discovery”.
Mick definitely didn’t want me to start presenting this, which would’ve come after providing such things as all of the testing of Meier’s physical evidence, as can be found here:
http://theyfly.com/UFO-Proof-&-UFO-Evidence.html
http://www.rhalzahi.com/docs/WCUFO-EN-v2.pdf
http://www.rhalzahi.com/docs/pendulum-EN.pdf
http://www.theyfly.com/sites/default/files/ESinvestig3NovV2.pdf
So, while I may have fumbled around with some of the protocols because of lack of understanding, Mick has quite deliberately acted to suppress…your knowledge of what he was privy to and which scares the stuffing out of him. Simply put, he’s acted dishonestly in the extreme.
Mick can’t duplicate ANY of Meier’s evidence and, as you can see and read here, it’s not to be forced on anyone. I have seemingly and repeatedly made the mistake of thinking that most “skeptics” would like to know the truth. That clearly isn’t the case.
And, in contacting Mick, as I also conveyed in my emails to him, I thought it would be fantastic if the”King of Debunkers” recognized through logic, etc., that the Meier case is singularly authentic and of unparalleled scientific and historical significance, something that we then, coming together initially from different perspectives, could bring scientists, skeptics and…all concerned human beings of planet earth together to recognize the truth and perhaps mitigate some of the now unstoppable – and long foretold – events coming to humankind and the planet.
If you – and any other skeptics, etc. – would like to participate here as well, and pose your questions, challenges, etc. – the other people contributing here and I will answer you honestly and to the best of our capabilities.
Thank you.
See also: https://youtu.be/IP_yug8wMkQ
Michael Horn,
“above the tree that’s shown to be in front of the house during the pan.”
This is what I don’t see. I made three screenshots from the video you originally posted ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAHfOmvz6_s& ) which hopefully clarify things; I marked a few things I think are the same between the different shots;
https://imgur.com/a/L5FuQRA
As you can see I put a question mark on the tree below the UFO. I placed the questionmark in the panning shot where I would expect the tree to be, but it is not there.
Can you point out which tree you mean in the pan shot?
“where in February 1975 the first film of a demonstration flight of a beamship was taken by Eduard Meier, whereby later a relevant „Wettertanne“ (= a huge fir tree with very long branches because the tree is standing alone on a meadow) was eliminated.”
So from this comment I make up the pan shot was taken after the tree was eliminated.
I assume you are also aware of the claim made by the owners of the house denying there was a tree at that location?
Thus the only evidence of the existence of this tree is in this single shot from Meier; no other photo’s, videos or evidence exist from this tree in this location?
“The movements are abrupt and jerky in such a degree what no terrestrial flying device would withstand.”
A scale model would be able to withstand such movements of course 🙂
Regarding the abrupt stopping. On each of the three accounts it does this it looks to me the camera has been stopped and is started again.
https://imgur.com/a/r1XKhaB
You see double exposures, the white line at the top etc. This only happens when the UFO stops abruptly, nowhere else in that shot you can see this.
(I won’t go into further detail about Mick West and metabunk; doesn’t seem appropriate to me.)
Hi MS VocalCord,
Right now I’d say that the tree in question is probably the one in your second and third frames there.
Yes, the people there, and in another instance, said there had been no tree in the locations where Meier took his photos, films, etc.
Now, as for your claim that “A scale model would be able to withstand such movements of course” that isn’t in evidence at this time. And certainly Mick didn’t demonstrate it. However, I think you may want to read this independent analysis of the so-called “Pendulum UFO” film…but keep in mind that there will be more coming for the authors of this document, now that the fuller version of the film is available:
http://www.rhalzahi.com/docs/pendulum-EN.pdf
Of course you’re free to question/challenge their findings, etc. However, in all fairness to you, there are eight films by Meier, a video, and some…617 surviving UFO photos to consider. Read Joe Tysk’s article in the 1964 UFO photos in India.
The point here is also that this isn’t something handed to us on a silver platter. We are required to actually…THINK and do so logically, as well as employing any and all technologies that may assist us in evaluating the evidence. Some of us have spent 10, 20, even 40 years or more researching and investigating the evidence, the information, interviewing the principals, etc., etc.
If you choose to make a determination, pro or con, just based on what you’re seeing and thinking about it now, either way, you’ll be shortchanging yourself, in my opinion.
I look forward to your response of course.
P.S. I think that reading the analysis may also in part explain why you think the camera stopped and started, if in fact it didn’t, their analysis shows the UFO “jumping” from one place to another within one frame, etc.
Michael Horn,,
You started the original post with this first claim:
“you’ll notice that the farm house and tree are clearly real and in the distance”
But this is now an invalid; There is no tree in the pan shot; The people living there deny there was a tree; the tree only exists in Meier’s UFO shot. A tree which can be seen in different shots on different locations in Meier’s videos and photos. ( “THINK and do so logically” )
“Now, as for your claim that “A scale model would be able to withstand such movements of course” that isn’t in evidence at this time. ”
It was in response to the claim you posted in another response except reversed:
“The movements are abrupt and jerky in such a degree what no terrestrial flying device would withstand.”
But now it isn’t evidence? Come on…
“P.S. I think that reading the analysis may also in part explain why you think the camera stopped and started, if in fact it didn’t, their analysis shows the UFO “jumping” from one place to another within one frame, etc.”
It doesn’t explain anything; regarding the ‘jumps’ the article didn’t even notice the third break I pointed out.
He tries to simulate film editing with digital video editing; that just doesn’t make any sense at all. It is a completely different process.
If you stop the camera the frames will slow down; this will allow to expose the UFO on two different places in the same frame. It is very simple. It’s all movie camera frames artifect.
Wait, I think you’re right about the tree not being there then either. from the translation:
“where in February 1975 the first film of a demonstration flight of a beamship was taken by Eduard Meier, whereby later a relevant „Wettertanne“ (= a huge fir tree with very long branches because the tree is standing alone on a meadow) was eliminated.
Here you see the location of the demonstration before the elimination of the tree, over which you see Semjases’s hovering beamship.”
As for the comment about a model, well, why not test/replicate it to find out?
I’ve forwarded your conclusions about the film to to the authors and see if they comment.
Of course, if we’re dealing with a large, unknown object in front of a large tree and house, etc., we still have the problem of what it is. I think you’re already familiar with he conclusions of several photographic and special effects experts who acknowledge those facts. So…
To MS VocalCord and all concerned,
I was just sent this link:
https://youtu.be/gB7UfdgHIb0
…to an interesting interview with the lead investigator in the original investigation into the Billy Meier contacts, Wendelle Stevens.
So for now the tree can’t be used as evidence since it only appears in the UFO movie itself. (and there is evidence the tree was never in that position)
What is also striking about the tree is the pan shot; The video is shot of the original film (hence the not so good quality) by a Japanese crew.
https://youtu.be/1JiH368WgB0?t=940
It starts out with a few shots, the pan shot appears (without tree) and then UFO tree shot is shown. The video captured directly from the film is chronically arranged, starting from early 1975.
Except for the pan shot. Since the tree isn’t there anymore the pan shot most have been taken later, but it is shown before the UFO tree shot. That doesn’t make sense since the rest of the film is completely chronicle.
Regarding movements; nothing out of the extraordinary (except for the abrupt stops) can be seen; on the contrary; all of the movements make it appear as if it is something on a wire;
https://imgur.com/a/uRcsZ4E
– when moving sideways it is moving up and tilting, exactly what you would expect from something on a wire.
– When released it starts making a pendulum movement; exactly what you would expect from something on a wire.
The only extraordinary movements are the abrupt stops but those always come together with a frame break in the movie. It is clear when the movie is started again there is a white bar at the top of the frame. Besides the three breaks I’ve shown before ( https://imgur.com/a/r1XKhaB ) there is a fourth one: Exactly where one would expect it to be if it is just an artifact of starting the movie; When switching between the pan shot and the UFO tree (8:28) there is exactly the same type of frame to be found:
https://imgur.com/a/eQ6fwEj
Of course one can say this is because the UFO exactly at the same time made a ‘jump’ again, but that is becoming a not so good argument in my opinion by now.
“Of course, if we’re dealing with a large, unknown object in front of a large tree and house, etc., we still have the problem of what it is.”
So far for me no evidence at all can be found in this video; on the contrary, most evidence for me points in the opposite direction;
– A non-existing tree and inconsistent timeline for it.
– Movements which can be expected from something on a wire.
– Movie frame breaks around each extraordinary movement. The same breaks which can be seen at every start of the movie.
Hi,
First, I’m glad that you’ve come here to discuss the matter and that you’re sharing your observations.
But I’m going to again ask you if you read this from Joe Tysk:
https://theyflyblog.com/2018/01/22/usaf-osi-investigator-concludes-billy-meier-ufo-case-real/
While we’re glad to discuss each of your points, please understand and respect that you’re discussing this with people who’ve taken the time to examine and think about not only this one film – which is hugely important – but also a vast amount of other physical and informational evidence. We’ve done that over years, and even decades, and we’ve based our conclusions not just on “it looks like” but, in addition to our own thinking,questioning, etc., also on a number of independent experts’ analyses, also using the state-of-the-art equipment from 40 years ago and the state-of-the-art equipment of today…neither of which Meier had access to himself.
There are already so many details you’ve overlooked that we can discuss. I’ll mention only a few.
At 11:58 in the film, we have the tree in front of the house, evidence of the poles we also saw in the panoramic view and the UFO over the tree. The presence of the house and the poles establishes again their relative size, making the tree and the UFO also large objects. Leaving aside for now how the UFO – free of any wobble – SLOWLY moves to the left side at an angle, by 12:20 Meier has zoomed back a bit, revealing other structures. All objects and structures in the film have very much the same light values. At 13:13, the top of the tree can be seen to be moved by the backwash of the UFO.
All of the objects have somewhat “fuzzy edges”, revealing that none are small objects close to the camera. And of course, going back to 8:30, we see that the distance between the top of the frame and the UFO is immense. Had the object actually been a small model on a string, it would have been completely uncontrollable. And we still have to grasp that Meier has only one hand.
Now, before you try to “answer” these points, which of course you’re free to do, I ask you to do a few things:
Read: https://theyflyblog.com/2018/01/22/usaf-osi-investigator-concludes-billy-meier-ufo-case-real/
Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB7UfdgHIb0&feature=player_embedded
And do this simple experiment: https://theyflyblog.com/2014/06/15/billy-meier-ufo-case-prove/
I’m asking you to do these things because they contain important elements to understand, as well as to do, in terms of actually participating in the investigative PROCESS, not just commenting here and there as to what may or may not “look like” or “make sense”, etc. After you review the above, we can go into very specific detail as to WHY they are important, contributing elements to the investigative process.
We are interested in finding and knowing the truth. If one comes to “debunk” something, which is a prejudicial approach, they will actually delay the process of finding the truth…whatever it may be. And while some of this may seem laborious, certainly in comparison to a guy rushing up a ladder and moving an object around that’s clearly suspended from a long pole, we have the interest and patience to dig into the details and minutiae to arrive at the truth. And we hope that you do too.
We have very few rules here, one of which is that people use their first and last names, as you’ll see we all do. I didn’t mention that before because, unlike the site that banned me, we’re not looking for reasons to stifle discussion. However, now that I’m sure you realize that there’s no censorship here, I’ll ask you to please use your full name too.
Dear MH,
If this movie shot really was such good evidence it wouldn’t require all the noise being added to this conversation.
As you know there can be found many experts and critics who contradict the ones you bring up, but I’m not interested in such a discussion.
…
NOTE: MS VC submitted two post that had interesting points. However, in addition to not being willing to read/watch the three items I had several times requested her to, as well as saying that she won’t post under her own name, her comments aren’t approved, as she also said she would accept.
Of course she’s welcome any time to return and pose her questions and challenges, using her real name, as we all do here.
This brings into focus some of the underlying problems that skeptics/debunkers have and which, in fact, reflect a larger problem in the world.
Let’s say for a moment that at some point, the truth of Meier’s contacts and the existence of the Plejaren become inescapably clear and obvious to even the most obtuse denier. Consider this, from Contact 215, in 1987, when Quetzal was presenting Meier with the Henoch Prophecies:
“Quetzal: You apparently never give up hope. Your optimism is honourable and deserves to be heard by human beings, but the way things have developed throughout this century there is not too much hope that human beings of Earth will come to their senses and heed your words. This will then be the case only when the prophecies prove to be true or, even worse, have already come to pass. Probably only then will the time come when the defamations against you will end in regard to your contacts with us, although they will long continue to be vehemently disputed by your enemies as well as by pathological know-it-alls and critics who dismiss them as swindle, lies and fraud. The full truth about our contacts with you will be proven in the distant future, and then mankind will accept our help we offer through you—even when they erroneously assume we come from the seven-star system known to human beings of Earth as the Pleiades.”
As we know, the prophecies certainly have been, and continue to be, proven true. We can see that the juggernaut is indeed unstoppable and we must plan and act accordingly.
We can also see that those who identify as skeptics/debunkers approach many things in life from that prejudicial perspective, with a clear agenda – not to find the truth – but to prove wrong anything that paints outside of the narrow lines that they have decided will define every picture. This comes from a very deep-seated fear of life itself, manifesting in actions of desperation and irrationality that they seek to give an appearance of normalcy (among other things) to and which often take the form of cultish groups, publications, etc. In some ways these are no different than any other religions, cults, etc.
Certainly, there are people who hold skeptical views who are also loners, who may be viewed as contrarians, curmudgeons, “oddballs”, in the same way that various people who see most things through the filter of conspiracy can have varying degrees of rigidity, fanaticism, denial, etc.
It seems MS VC may have chosen to miss the opportunity to find the truth, if she ever really wanted to. She arrived here somewhat curious about the film in question but, despite her comments and criticisms being published and discussed, when those who know the topic.infinitely more thoroughly and better offered some advice as to how to better research it, she basically defied the recommendations and advice, determined to try to debunk the film, strictly on her own terms.
Why was she…afraid to take a little helpful advice, to broaden the scope of her familiarity and knowledge, to recognize that unlike the cultic, snarly skeptics and deniers who rushed to attack the Meier case and what comments of mine were allowed to be posted…we DON’T operate from a fear base, we’re not AFRAID that the truth is something other than we WANT it to be?
Considering that among the professional investigators and researchers, and those who are professionals in other fields, i.e. aerospace, military, legal, photography, filmmaking, special effects, metallurgy, sound recording, physics, etc., etc., there are literally hundreds of hours of investigation and analyses, which have resulted in the authentication of the Meier case, its evidence and information, etc.
What REAL student would tell those who freely and patently were offering and specifically recommending extremely relevant materials pertinent to their inquiry that they weren’t interested? Probably only those who wanted to reach a predetermined conclusion and felt that they were so close…and didn’t want to be disturbed by FACTS which, they correctly feared, would very much throw into disarray their prejudices and hoped for conclusions…as the evidence in the Meier case has done time and time again.
I willingly went into their lion’s den but, you’ll notice, with the single and therefore praiseworthy exception of MS VC, so far none of the others will risk coming here. Certainly, the FORMER “King of Debunkers”, Mick West, hasn’t had the courage to do so.
MS VC can still, or may have already, viewed the recommended materials. She may even pop up to say that she didn’t see their relevance…or possibly to engage in a discussion about their extreme relevancy. She’s welcome to come and do so under the few, non-discriminatory rules we have, which also goes for any of the other skeptics, including the ladder climbing, fishing pole waving little fellow who really wishes that all of this would now just go away.
MH
That’s too bad. I was hoping that Miss VC would stick around and dig a bit deeper.
Hi MIss VC,
It’s refreshing to read challenges of the case that aren’t emotionally-driven.
In addition to MH’s recommendations, the following video study of the Pendulum UFO may also be of interest as it explains why the movements of the UFO are, well, unearthly: youtu.be/8BI-pt3L9I4
In my view the Pendulum UFO is the first ever filmed evidence of time travel, but, no-one else has said this, or, necessarily agrees with me.
MS VocalCord,
BTW, I read a lot of the transcript of Mick debating Wigington about chemtrails, which I though was pretty good.
I thought he’d be interested in Meier’s info about it but we never got that far:
https://theyflyblog.com/2015/10/25/frying-the-friendly-skies/
https://theyflyblog.com/2014/07/08/thwarting-evil-elite/
https://theyflyblog.com/2019/07/23/proof-chemtrails-killing-brain-cells/
Here is what I received from Christian Frehner in Switzerland:
The film segment of 8:14 to 8:28 was not taken on the same day as the rest, what is clear both from the narration and the weather condition… and also the point of view and the distance between Billy/camera an the houses was different between the two days.
8:08: Der nun folgende Ort befindet sich nur wenige hundert Meter südwestlich von Hinwil,
8:15: … da im Februar 1975 von Eduard Meier der erste Film eines Demonstrationsfluges (eines) Strahlschiffes aufgenommen wurde, wobei eine massgebende Wettertanne später eliminiert wurde.
Hier sehen Sie den Ort der Demonstration vor der Eliminierung des Baumes, über dem Sie das schwebende Strahlschiff von Semjase erkennen.
Das Schiff befindet sich hinter dem Baum, was leider nicht sehr gut erkennbar ist.
Beobachten Sie nun beim Demonstrationsflug die kreisförmigen acht- und oval-förmigen Bewegungen des Schiffes und dessen ungeheure Wendigkeit.
Oftmals erscheint es, als ob das Schiff, von einem gigantischen Pendel getragen, am freien Himmel hängen und mit einer Faust dagegen geschlagen würde.
Die Bewegungen sind derart abrupt und ruckartig, wie es kein irdisches Fluggerät aushalten würde.
Diese Filmaufnahmen wurden gedreht im Monat Februar 1975 um 17.30 Uhr, bei nur noch schwachem Tageslicht und bei Schnee und Regen.
Das sirrende Geräusch das Sie hören stammt vom Strahlschiff.
Erzeugt wird es dadurch, dass sich das Schiff mit hoher Geschwindigkeit um die eigene Achse dreht, ohne dass es gegen Luftwiderstand abgeschirmt ist.
The following location is only a few hundred metres to the south-west of Hinwil,
… where in February 1975 the first film of a demonstration flight of a beamship was taken by Eduard Meier, whereby later a relevant „Wettertanne“ (= a huge fir tree with very long branches because the tree is standing alone on a meadow) was eliminated.
Here you see the location of the demonstration before the elimination of the tree, over which you see Semjases’s hovering beamship.
The ship is situated behind the tree, what however is not perceptible very well.
Now, during the demonstration flight, observe the ship’s circular, eight- and oval-shaped movements and its enormous manoeuvrability.
Often it seems like the ship is born by a gigantic pendulum, hanging in open sky and being beaten against by a fist.
The movements are abrupt and jerky in such a degree what no terrestrial flying device would withstand.
These film exposures were taken in February 1975 at 5.30 p.m., at nightfall (feeble daylight) and at snow and rain.
The whirring sound you hear is originating from the beamship.
It is created in such a way that the ship is rotating on its axis at highspeed, and without being screened/shielded against air resistance.
P.S. One of the things I asked of Mick in our emails was to perhaps assist to get Michael Shermer to look at all of the evidence, analyses, authentications, etc. While I have issues with him and other skeptics, for many years I’ve stated that I respect things about him and his positions:
https://theyflyblog.com/2019/07/26/lets-give-the-ufo-skeptics-another-chance/
https://theyflyblog.com/2015/01/20/lets-hear-it-for-michael-shermer/
https://theyflyblog.com/2017/11/30/when-a-skeptic-gets-it-right/
http://theyfly.com/PDF/RandiRetractsClaim.pdf
http://www.theyfly.com/Michael_Horns_Rebuttal.html
I think that Michael Shermer would be more fair minded…if he would look through the proverbial telescope, certainly more so than Mick who just exemplifies bad character.
See also:
https://theyflyblog.com/2017/05/02/alien-life-look-telescope-prof-wright/
https://theyflyblog.com/2013/04/22/why-wont-they-look-through-the-telescope/
Hi MH
I hate to judge a book by its cover, but 60 seconds watching Mick West speak, reveals exactly your conclusion: that in spite of his current body’s years, the guy is a scared little boy incapable of original thinking, with the intellectual depth of a puddle after a light rain.
Thanks for coming out to play, Mick.
Next!
Michael, the first link in your article (link: https://www.metabunk.org/billy-meiers-claimed-ufo-contacts-and-videos-fakes.t10966/#post-234836) leads to a login/registration page on metabunk.org , where one first has to make an account to see the post. Was it already like this when you posted on that site?
Hi Arnoud,
I had to make an account to see the thread, but it shows Michael as being banned from the site. They ban him and then go on to post all the lies they can find about the Meier case. These people are such weaselly cowards who can’t form an original thought. Anything that disproves or disagrees with their delusional paradigm has to be shutdown and forbidden. The censoring of speech will come back to bite all these cowards one day.
https://www.metabunk.org/billy-meiers-claimed-ufo-contacts-and-videos-fakes.t10966/
Michael:
I looked at some of the links you sent me and tried to explain them to my very arrogant, know it all brother in law and honestly, he is not interested in any proof that I have to offer. He is into conspiracy theories and there is so much negative info on Billy and his supposed “UFO Cult” on the internet that he just wants to put it all down as a hoax. He also told my mother in law that I pray to extraterrestrials!!! And she is very annoyed that I am not into christianity , so that just made things worse. I completely understand what you are going through with this guy. My hat goes off to you in dealing with these people. They are just blind idiots that like to criticize because it makes them feel more superior. As far as my brother in law goes – I am done responding to his sarcastic remarks. I told him that I never asked him for his opinion and to mind his own business and stop talking about me to other members of the family. Hopefully that will work.
Salome
Diane Grebe
Hi Diane,
Isn’t it interesting how lazy people are these days? Instead of doing some real independent research, they look at a few falsified pictures of dinosaurs and conclude that the case must be a hoax. How lazy and uncritical can you be?
Hi Melissa, thanks for your reply, I understand. We have an organization like that in the Netherlands, “Stichting Skepsis”, who act quite the same, I am sorry to say.
It just amazes me how people can accept everything else without any tangible proof, except the actual case which has so much proof, that they think it is fake despite explaining it so well. People are really blind and asleep! It is really a sad situation we are facing.