Donate Button
Saturday, September 18, 2021

The Billy Meier UFO contacts singularly authentic ongoing for 80 years the key to our future survival

Skeptics Want New Debate on Billy Meier UFO Contact Case!

Opposing viewpoints must be based on, and include, credible substantiated evidence to the contrary

I was recently informed by some of our readers that Rich Giordano was going to invite me to participate in a debate with skeptics regarding the Billy Meier UFO contact case, though he hasn’t yet contacted me. I had written Giordano numerous times requesting a debate with people like Darcy Weir, and others, who’ve attacked the Meier case without ever substantiating their claims.

This is considered acceptable behavior in so-called “UFOlogy”, the least credible, least scientific field of study, overflowing with disinformation promoted by self-described UFO “experts”, “researchers” and “investigators”, not a one of whom has any independently authenticated evidence of extraterrestrial manufacture, nor any significant, previously unknown scientific information.

Nonetheless, many of them have vigorously suppressed and/or attacked the Meier contacts in order to sell their books and/or have some kind celebrity or fame, such as it may be. They shy away from debate and prefer to hurl ad hominem attacks from the sidelines, as has frequently been the case.

Parameters and Conditions for Debate on the Billy Meier UFO Contact Case

In order to have a meaningful, professional discussion/debate about the singular authenticity of the Billy Meier UFO contact case, certain parameters and conditions, protocols and standards must be adhered to.

Therefore, no ad hominem, personal, or other kinds of attacks irrelevant to the factual authenticity of the evidence, hearsay, etc., will be allowed. Trying to introduce such distractions into the conversation will result in the offending individual(s) being dismissed from the discussion.

Therefore, all challengers must agree to address the following points and any opposing opinions must be substantiated with credible, verifiable evidence to the contrary:

      1. Astronaut Gordon Cooper’s assessment of Meier’s photographic evidence
      2. USAF OSI/Dept. of Defense Investigator Joe Tysk’s conclusions
      3. Analyses of photographic evidence by the original investigators
      4. Analyses of evidence by Marcel Vogel, scientific and sound experts
      5. Recent analyses by Francisco Villate (Rhal Zahi), Chris Lock and Christian Frehner
      6. The 90+ eyewitness reports, which include other photographers
      7. Conclusions of NASA aerospace engineer Matthew Wisczkiewicz
      8. Historically unprecedented Groom Lake UFO photos
      9. Meier’s Mars information published years prior to NASA
      10. Billy Meier’s Environmental Warnings
      11. Attorney/prosecutor Robert Joyner’s assessment of Horn’s courtroom quality research
      12. The New Online COVID Test

I understand that in addition to Darcy Weir, Rich Giordano mentioned that Steven Cambian, Thomas Fessler and perhaps others are very interested in participating in such a debate. So, once it’s agreed upon, I’ll be announcing the date for the debate and the participants who’ve accepted and signed off on the parameters and conditions above.

I’ll also announce those who’ve refused to accept and abide by them and, consequently, won’t be participating.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
28 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
I am not Herbert
I am not Herbert
Blog Member
August 20, 2021 11:36 pm

hi michael, please consider debating C.W. Chanter on youtube? he seems unorthodox at first, but he’s good. he has steven cambian on his channel all the time, and lots of other interesting people too. he was instrumental in taking corey goode down a notch. you can find him here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzEDwsA6ooejNKnEfi0Vqrg

I am not Herbert
I am not Herbert
Blog Member
Reply to  MH
August 21, 2021 7:50 pm

thanks michael,

i’m hoping that with C.W. maybe it could be more of a conversation with him allowing you to present your points, and going from there…

he’s got a decent audience of good-humored (fairly) free thinkers

for us, it’s more of a meeting of the minds, trying to agree on truth, rather than trying to ‘win’ a debate

steven i’m afraid, would be in it to win at any cost, he’s deeply prejudiced =(