The Billy Meier Contacts: Copyrights Beat Peer Reviews

As supposedly reliable as peer review is, it is by no means guaranteed to be bias free

I’ve previously written about the limitations of relying on peer reviews to determine the authenticity of the Billy Meier UFO contacts:

Peer Review of Billy Meier’s UFO Evidence and Information

Cutting through the Peer Review Dodge and Distraction

Of course, since there are few if any people who could be considered Meier’s peers in terms of his evidence, experience, etc., raising peer review as a demand necessary for serious consideration of the case is a very familiar, knee-jerk reaction popular among so-called experts who, apparently, never learned to think for themselves.

Nonetheless, there’s actually an abundance of peer review support for the authenticity of the Meier contacts and accompanying evidence. As I explained in An Open Conversation with SETI Director Bill Diamond, there is more peer reviewed information on the evidence in the Meier contacts than any other UFO case, or even most other scientific subjects and claims:

“We understand that the combined investigative information, included in A Preliminary Investigation Report, (542 pages) by Lt. Col. Wendelle Stevens, (USAF) and Light Years, (265 pages) by Gary Kinder, at over 800 pages, quite obviously contains many times more than the 5,000 – 6,000 words in standard peer reviews. Therefore, we don’t see any need to include Stevens’ A Supplementary Investigation Report (547 pages) unless requested.

Regarding peer review, Lt. Col. Stevens had the distinction of being tasked by the US Air Force, in 1947, with investigating UFOs, which he continued after leaving the service. His experience as a pilot and investigator is not likely to be equalled by many, if any, scientific experts who usually review astronomical material, etc. Stevens’ team, for the Meier case, included high-level investigators, Lee and Brit Elders, who provided counter-espionage and communication security services to Fortune 500 companies, banks, etc.

There is additional information from other scientific experts at NASA, JPL, USGS, McDonnell Douglas, IBM, etc., here, as well as by NASA aerospace engineer Matthew Wieczkiewicz, USAF OSI/Department of State investigator/supervisor Joe Tysk and in the photo analysis, as originally published in A Preliminary Investigation Report.

As you also know, in preparation for the rigors of their missions, our US astronauts are trained in photography, as well as briefed on sighting possible anomalous objects, etc. Like the special qualifications of Stevens, they have expertise that only a scientist with similar training would have. As such, these words by astronaut Gordon Cooper, pertaining to the photographic evidence from Mr. Meier, bear serious consideration:

‘I saw the pictures the day after the investigative team went to Switzerland. I know the investigative team very well. They came to my home to show me all their pictures. Very fine, very fine they were absolutely authentic. And yet the whole world is trying their best to make them out to be fake’.”

The simple answer is to rely on copyrights, especially for the “higher standard of proof”, i.e. the specific scientific information published by Billy Meier, which we claim is prophetically accurate, i.e. verifiably published before “official discovery”. While we have approximately 250 specific examples, about 125 of which were published here up until 2015 (on the greater part of the page) the most important ones at this time pertain to the information about COVID-19 provided by the Plejaren to, and published by, Billy Meier on the blog.

In addition to the ease with which the actual publication of the information on the blog can be verified, this simple online test has almost two dozen examples and was first published in September 2020.

Peer reviews, pro or con, are by no means guaranteed to be bias free and may later be found to have erroneous conclusions. Copyrights firmly and legally establish when information was published. They don’t establish whether the information is correct.

It’s actually so-called “official sources”, like the CDC, WHO, etc., that effectively do a “reverse peer review” of the Meier COVID information. By that I mean they make their announcements about confirmed facts after Meier’s already published the information and usually in far greater detail.

We’ve never had to retract, redact, remove, or correct any of the Plejaren/Meier COVID information, unlike what’s certainly happened – a good number of times – with the “official sources”.

Take self-responsibility for determining the truth for yourself, using scientific standards, logic and critical thinking. Then see who else is interested in the information and willing to apply those same standards, without prejudice pro or con. The truth will reveal itself to those who do.