Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help   FIGU-Website FIGU-Website
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View FIGU-Shop FIGU-Shop

Archive through December 24, 2014

Discussionboard of FIGU » The Mission » Mission related documentaries, presentations and interviews » Archive through December 24, 2014 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Earthling
Member

Post Number: 888
Registered: 05-2008
Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2014 - 06:41 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mahesh, your summation of Michael Horn's multiple examples of what needs to be part of a true investigation into the truth is not only irrelevant but knee-jerk, emotion-driven, thoughtless, blind, short-sighted, etc and therefore irrational. And is precisely what's wrong with so-called psuedo-scientific laboratory-confined investigations of the sort that Stuart Robbins, NASA employee / waste of tax-payer money, pseudo-scientist is guilty of.

Michael & Bill both gave you excellent tips for what ALSO goes into an investigation of the true truth and not some psuedo- and incomplete investigation in the name of "scientific research", which is only an incompleteness, all of which obscures the deeper and immaterial-hidden aspects of a real investigation.

I have absolutely nothing against your work, in fact I'm all for it, however you do not know it all yet, Mr. Mahesh Sherlock Holmes, it could take decades to relatively perfect such a craft and therefore you have much to learn about what is part and parcel of a real search for the truth. If you haven't yet seen the Wendelle Stevens, Lee Elders original movie, I'd start there, although I'm sure you've seen it, however you may wish to refresh your memory.

In the meantime, you do do very good work even if you are missing much to come to any sort of conclusion one way or the other regarding the veracity of the Meier case. I realize it is all a work in progress, therefore it would behoove you to pay attention to the salient points elucidated both by M. Horn and Bill, which can only benefit you and benefit the pursuit of the truth and instead of emotionally reacting to Horn's excellent points, as well as Bill's, you could learn from them and improve your craft/investigative process at the same time.
http://beam2eng.blogspot.com/

Bruce
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Michael_horn
Member

Post Number: 941
Registered: 07-2009
Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2014 - 07:38 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Regarding my "whole reasoning", no it isn't. Please read more carefully. You need to address means, motive and opportunity such as you have found in your investigation. And it would be helpful if you started to…understand the real life components of a real investigation.

Please note that this you're not examining a bug under a microscope - or even just a photograph of a UFO - this is a real life situation of extraordinary proportions. While of course we've used the corroborations that have appeared online to support claims of Meier's authenticity, etc., everything has to be put in perspective and considered comprehensively.

Perhaps you've noticed in the original invention, which spanned a number of years, that not only were the photos and other evidence analyzed but also the locations were visited, Meier's resources and associates investigated, they studied him, his character, how he spoke, etc.

In other words, since things don't just happen in a bubble, they spent time considering his…means, his possible motives and the opportunity for him to do things, such as making models, hoaxing photos and other evidence, etc. They considered his…obligations to his family, work, how he had to allocate his time, weather conditions, etc., etc.

Lee and Brit Elders are high-level private INVESTIGATORS, so they UNDERSTAND those protocols, etc. Therefore reproducing Contact Reports and insinuating hoaxing, backdating, falsifying on Meier's part, posting dates that another article may have been written by someone else as a source, etc., takes up a lot of space online - but it doesn't establish that Meier had the means, motive and opportunity to have done it.

So, as an investigator, please show us what you found when you investigated…just like the original investigators did. And remember, while they didn't have the internet, they did have every tool that Meier himself had, plus others that were far more sophisticated with which to examine his evidence.

Do you have evidence that, on or around a given date connected with Meier's publishing any particular piece of evidence that you're calling into question and showing a comparative source, Meier had or obtained access to it, directly or through the assistance of a collaborator? Evidence,not "he could have".

Can you show when and where any specific item that you refer to was indeed translated into German and sold at a particular location that Meier had reasonable access to and that he, or an associate, indeed could be placed at that location?

Fancy websites really are fun, aren't they? But people's reputations should not be sullied simply because one can sit back comfortably and produce something online that is only a partial piece of work.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Michael_horn
Member

Post Number: 942
Registered: 07-2009
Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2014 - 08:58 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Let me add that this really isn't a "scientific investigation". We've already established that Meier's scientific information was quite accurate, in fact that's what's actually prompted the new approach, suspicions, etc.!

So it's the procedural aspects, as is recognized by Bruce, Bill, and others here. And I agree also that it's a good thing to probe and pick, prod and push into the matter to see what can be learned, revealed and/or discovered anew. It's just that it should be comprehensive and utilize respected standards and procedures for doing so.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Simon_cg
Member

Post Number: 7
Registered: 03-2011
Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2014 - 09:42 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

@Historeed

So is your non-answer to my questions...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Mahigitam
Member

Post Number: 580
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2014 - 11:02 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

CLAIMERS (=BURDEN OF PROOF):
Billy Meier, FIGU, Michael Horn,..etc

CLAIM:
Meier/Plejaren were the first ones to be aware of and/or to publish information before everyone else on earth did. And this is the STRONG, IRREFUTABLE, IRON CLAD, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that proves the authenticity of the Meier case.

PROCESS OF VERIFICATION:
If we can show that the information was already published and available in the media before Meier published it, then the above claim is falsified or disproved.

CONCLUSION:
If the above criteria is fulfilled, then the claim that there is - STRONG, IRREFUTABLE, IRON CLAD, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that proves the authenticity of the Meier case - is falsified and proved incorrect.

MISUNDERSTANDING:
1.
As you can see, the above conclusion never made any statements other than that which is being derived from the investigation being launched on the claims made by Billy Meier, FIGU, Michael Horn,..etc. It never stated that Meier is a liar or a fraudster. For someone to conclude that Meier is a trickster, then he/she has to provide evidence that supports their claims. We never claimed or stated that Meier is a trickster who went out to the nearby libraries, book stores,..etc and have used that stuff in his CRs as evidence for his case. Since we never claimed it, the burden of proof does not lie with us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

2.
These words - STRONG, IRREFUTABLE, IRON CLAD, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE - are used iteratively to represent the type of information published by Meier. It makes me wonder whether the person(s) who use these words even understand the meaning of each word. Please first familiarize yourselves with their definitions and intended meanings in the realm of science.

One simple meaning that is relevant to our current discussion is that a strong, scientific evidence has to STAND ON ITS OWN, which up to now Michael Horn very much agreed but strangely seemed to have changed his stance and plays the MMO (Means, Motive & Oppurtunity) card as a last resort, when confronted with counter-evidence. Evidence that can 'stand on its own' means that we should be able to derive firm conclusions based on the pros and cons of the evidence that is - BEING INVESTIGATED/UNDER INVESTIGATION - itself. If we bring in any arguments that are outside to the investigation, then that is a pseudo-investigation whose conclusions are considered illogical & unscientific.

p.s: If you have any disagreements or felt that I have misrepresented anyones position, then let me know. If you have nothing, then in my next post I will show why the MMO argument is weak and invalid.
ufoprophet.blogspot.com
"..covers the media archives from 1970's about the most controversial Swiss UFO Contactee - 'Billy' Eduard Albert Meier."
billymeieruforesearch.com
"..researching and archiving both the pro & con evidence of the case."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Verlanis
Member

Post Number: 112
Registered: 10-2012
Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2014 - 03:49 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Hard evidence was there in Contact via the metal samples which stands on it's own because the guy who did the analysis was one of the top people to have been able to perform the job accurately. Despite the asinine claims of the investigation sites, Marcel Vogel has Patents on hard disk semiconductors which are still in use to this day. It definitely requires a high knowledge of metallurgy, and that electron miscroscope technique is as valid today as it was in the late 70s.

Rahl Zahi's work is far more "layman" in approach, but just as solid as the metallurgical analysis;if not more solid just because of the simplicity of the approaches used.

Ingo Swann is the only person I have seen say anything about Jupiter's rings & volcanoes on Io before Billy's Great Journey.

I have watched Billy's words written in 2008 or so about Otzi the Iceman come true in 2013; a "Michael Horn" type of experience.

Semjase's description of Creation on a physical basis is the exact same description of String Theory, in different wording, spoken in a Congruent time period of 1974- 1984. Superstring Theory was Formed Congruently with the earliest Semjase contacts.

I used capitalization in ad-hoc for the sole purpose of emphasizing in the now dead Hand Written format.

Billy's story stands upon itself just fine just from the Physical evidence alone. Add in all these other crazy realizations, and yes his motive becomes exactly as he has done: Spreading the word asked of him by the Plejaren "Peace Corp."
Jack --
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Blake_p
Member

Post Number: 272
Registered: 07-2012
Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2014 - 07:22 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Regarding the Three Blind mice, Mahesh,Simon,and Andyv24. These people have been playing both sides of the fence against the middle for a while now. And even though this conversation on the forum was necessary and inevitable, nothing in all the conversations I've seen on Facebook and every other conceivable Figu forum with all the legitimate points made has sunk in,even in the slightest bit.
This is the definition of megalomania,and not only that,trying to elevate themselves on the backs of so many people who have spent years,even decades, thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars of hard earned money to produce material for others.
So I keep hearing that you know the case is real but you still try to disprove the case at the same time,sounds like a conflict of interest to me. Honestly I think it's shady to ask for all kinds of information from people in the guise of "An Archive" of FIGU material,and then turn right around and use that info for a "New Skeptical viewpoint". Sorry but you can't be a proponent of the case and a skeptic at the same time, which is something that also shows a distorted way of thinking.
I agree with Michael,stop being armchair investigators and get out there,spend your own money and time with a real investigation,instead of trying to trivialize and minimalize previous info to support your own desired result,at least that what it seems.
P.S. All these people who use cult and Figu in the same sentence or as a reference really need to think about going back to school and learning some things,seriously.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Piyali
Member

Post Number: 113
Registered: 08-2012
Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2014 - 07:23 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Salome Mahesh, Salome Michael,

For Mahesh, I have two questions that I request you to clarify for me:

1) Why do you repeatedly, on your part write this:

"As you can see, the above conclusion never made any statements other than that which is being derived from the investigation being launched on the claims made by Billy Meier, FIGU, Michael Horn,..etc."? "etc." - who else represents "etc"?

I ask because, the words you use in your above statement, are made my Michael Horn, NOT by Figu esp. NOT by Billy himself. They are not all one entity, but different human beings.

Billy provides information, not "claims". But most importantly, he has given to the the Spiritual Teaching, which is more important to focus on for many of us.

Figu, represents the core group members, and those of us who are students of the Spiritual Teaching. Some of us are interested in the scientific investigations, and the investigations that matter, have proven to me, as I can only speak for myself, without a doubt the authenticity of the Meier Case. However, it is the Spiritual Teaching that he brings to us, that has made it iron clad for me. Not the discrepancies and mistakes of those individuals, who are making their own claims based on the information made available to them and the larger Figu community. Not everything is made available to us. Only some.

Michael Horn is the official American representative of Figu, doing his best to bring to this part of the world Billy's information.

To Michael, I ask this question: Do you base your words, "STRONG, IRREFUTABLE, IRON CLAD, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" on your own personal individual investigations? If so, is it possible that you may have to refresh some of your claims and update them? Would it be possible for you to re-consider the discrepancies that Mahesh and his team, who are also helping him with their own translations and interpretations, are specifically trying to convey to you? Is it possible to "Listen" to them, instead of going into a "defense"? I ask, because the very fact that you are even engaging in this conversation with Mahesh to in turn prove him wrong, makes this an important matter for you, does it not? Wouldn't it be wise to team up with Mahesh, and provide an accurate information to the public, instead of creating a division among us?

You are the more mature one who has taken on a huge responsibility to bring the Truth as you have learned and understood it, to the English speaking world. To you I am extremely grateful for the movies you have made for us, for it one of those videos, "The Silent Revolution of the Truth", which finally got my attention. So is it not wise to choose your words carefully, with thought, so that young investigators who come after you don't go against you, but can respectfully and thoughtfully further investigate and add to the information provided by you?

Billy has made no claims anywhere that he was the first to prophesize this or that. He simply gave the information as was given to him by the Plejarens, as well as some which he deduced by his own calculations himself and received clarification and confirmation on them from the Plejaren.

These prophesies and predictions have been known by the Proclaimers of Truth, who have all, from time to time, gave us these very warnings, as is Billy giving to us today, who is also one of the ancients, a real Proclaimer of Truth. He claims nothing as his own, only gives us the truth which the human beings of our earth need to know for our evolution.

Each of us come to our own conclusions as to what Billy's information mean to us, regardless of what the Figu person next to me thinks, understands or claims. We can all only share, but the interpretations, understandings, mis- understandings, etc, is on each and every one of us respectively. It is our own responsibility to ourselves.

This whole thing for Mahesh, is to prove mainly that the claims made by Michael, "STRONG, IRREFUTABLE, IRON CLAD, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" which are Michael' claims not Billy's, as false evidence.

2) Dear Mahesh, your investigation is your investigation and it is your right to investigate or not, share them on your websites, etc. for others to find you, read your information and come to their own conclusions. But you are adamant about proving yourself right above everyone else. Why is this so important for you to do?

What Michael claims, are his claims from his own investigations, and if you have proved that his information is flawed and have pointed it out to him, is that not enough? You have shared your website link with us for those of us interested to investigate your investigation and come to our/their understanding, conclusions, etc. Is this not enough? Ypu brought what you found to our attention, is this not enough? Why is it so important for you to get the approval of the Figu society about your investigation?

You use Michael's words to prove the "claims" of "Billy Meier, Figu, Michael Horn etc." false...why do you, Mahesh, club them together, just because they all happen to be members of Figu, as many of us are too?

Some of our friends think this is not personal, but it does become personal, because it is a personal journey. And any assertion by either of you, becomes, for me at least an unnecessary distraction, and hence I find myself responding too.

If the sparring of words continue, I will not read anymore, because this argument is leading nowhere, but stoking the big egos that each are defending, instead of coming together to correct any mistakes that might be their in your investigations, which always have potential to evolve and is never it, esp. when you call them, "Scientific".

I really like the points that Bill has clearly written: Posted by Tat_tvam_asi on Thursday, December 18, 2014 - 07:16 am. They are very important to consider.

As are the words written by Earthling: Posted by Earthling on Friday, December 19, 2014 - 01:52 am.

Thank you.
Salome with Love ~
Piyali
Salome with Love ~
Piyali
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Michael_horn
Member

Post Number: 944
Registered: 07-2009
Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2014 - 08:29 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It can produce a difficult moment when one fails to recognize a remarkable truth.

I think we'd all agree that if the Meier case is true, it's the most important story, event, situation, etc., in all of human history. Of course if one's actual goal is to prove someone wrong, or the words he used, claims he made - instead of determining if the conclusions are correct or not - then maybe that the person is seeking something for themselves, some kind of importance, profit, position, etc., that is in fact more important to them than the remarkable truth.

Because the real question still is if the Meier case is real and true. The next question could be if it's also true that at the time that I - AND Mahigitam - were searching and/or discovering, we found that Meier's information was not only accurate but that NO previously available evidence contradicted that he published it first. So far Mahigitam hasn't disputed that…he's simply obfuscated and avoided it. After all, it was HIS own experience too. And by pursuing the path of means, motive and opportunity, LOGIC alone will reveal to him that he dicovered the truthfulness and authenticity of the matter.

So far the question doesn't include anything pertaining to Meier's being inaccurate. As investigators, we'd have to consider that if he had gotten one, two or even a few very specific scientific facts right…it could be just luck. But since we now have close to 200 specific examples - and who knows how many more still remain untranslated in German - we have to move towards one of two conclusions, i.e. he either had some remarkable, impenetrable hoax in play, or he's telling the truth about his extraterrestrial contacts…which would make this the most important story, event, situation, etc., in all of human history. And that is still the core of the matter.

But first we have to strenuously pursue recognized protocols for determining if he had the…means, motive and opportunity for such a hoax. Oh yeah, one more thing: We'd have to present the EVIDENCE that he in fact DID hoax this massive body of accurate information.

Since no one, including Mahesh, has so far demonstrated that there was any kind of hoax, and since up until most recently we had NO evidence that Meier didn't publish some of the information first - and of course we were using the (unavailable to Meier) internet to do all of our searches and corroborations - then maybe Mahesh would be happier with this:

A voluminous amount of highly specific, accurate scientific and world event related information, independently published by Billy Meier constituting irrefutable, ironclad evidence that the Plejaren extraterrestrials provided the information to him. This also includes prophetically accurate information that was verifiably published before the foretold events occurred.

That's fine with me. The conclusion is the same: Billy Meier's contacts with the the Plejaren extraterrestrials are authentic and the most important true story in all of human history.

Really, isn't…THAT what we're trying to determine?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Michael_horn
Member

Post Number: 945
Registered: 07-2009
Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2014 - 09:02 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I also suggest that Mahigitam, Simon and Andy each either endorse or refute the following statement:

After lengthy investigation, I have found no actual evidence that Billy Meier had the means, motive and opportunity to have obtained his scientific and world event related information, as previously cited by Michael Horn and Mahigitam as being both accurate and evidence of Meier's contacts with the Plejaren extraterrestrials, and I therefore conclude that such information supports the claims that the case is real and authentic.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Vincent
Member

Post Number: 213
Registered: 06-2013
Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2014 - 01:12 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's been a while since there's been such a lively discussion here. Thanks to all! I love it because this forum often seems dead. I like to see that Dyson guy come back. In the archives he was good at starting lively discussions.

Blake, you raise a good point about Mahesh playing both sides of the fence. When I think about that, it does not make sense. How can someone be for the case and at the same time against it? I think your right, it is a distorted way of thinking.

Good posts all!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Michael_horn
Member

Post Number: 946
Registered: 07-2009
Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2014 - 04:26 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Let's also take these statements and see what they are and aren't actually saying:

Not only that each and every prophecy/prediction which has been either promoted or not promoted as evidence has been proven to be not the case; but there is so much of evidence for editing the prophecies/predictions.

For example see this prediction of MUFON:

http://www.billymeieruforesearch.com/prophecies-predictions-probability-calculations/analysis-of-contact-reports-1-100/#Arab-Israeli_Conflict_MUFON

We have several examples of this kind.

So far I have not found any prophetic/predictive evidence, that scientifically supports the claims of Meier.
…………………………………………………….

Now there's a difference between so "much of evidence for editing the prophecies/predictions" and "We have several examples of this kind."

However, so far as I know, Meier's scientific information has not been shown to be inaccurate. Rather, as I mentioned before, this controversy exists BECAUSE it's accurate and that I've claimed that it was published before other sources and therefore validates the authenticity of the case.

As I've recently mentioned, the very facts of it's being quite abundant, specific, covering a wide range of topics, etc., AND that no credible evidence has ever been presented - despite the best efforts of the most dedicated skeptics - to show that it was not acquired by Meier as he stated it was, leads one to conclude that he and the case are truthful; whether they all can ultimately be shown to be "prophetically accurate" certainly a great number can.

As others have mentioned, there is also the matter of the letter pertaining to the death of Franco, the many dozens of eyewitnesses, including those who passed lie detector tests, to say nothing of the previously and recently authenticated physical evidence, etc.

This is what is quite simply known as a…proponderance of evidence. From such a preponderance of evidence, which includes the absence of credible refutation of the evidence, what conclusion would a reasonable person draw in terms of the truthfulness and authenticity of the case and its central character?

I think most reasonable, unbiased people understand this process, this concept, which is also related to the idea of a person being innocent until PROVEN guilty.

So what may be missing also from Mahesh's website and proclamations is an expansion of my previous statement:

"After lengthy investigation, I have found no actual evidence that Billy Meier falsified, backdated or plagiarized, nor had the proven means, motive and opportunity to have obtained in any manner other than he has stated, his scientific and world event related information, as previously cited by Michael Horn and Mahigitam as being both accurate and solid evidence of Meier's contacts with the Plejaren extraterrestrials, and I therefore conclude that such information supports the claims that the case is real and authentic."

The above statement would supersede the far less important - and actually evasive - statement, "So far I have not found any prophetic/predictive evidence, that scientifically supports the claims of Meier."

It would do so because, if indeed the skeptic is interested in the TRUTH and he can not refute the the content of the statement I suggest, then the very core of the matter, i.e. the authenticity and truthfulness of the man and the case are both resolved and established.

As I asked before, isn't THAT what we're trying to determine?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Verlanis
Member

Post Number: 113
Registered: 10-2012
Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2014 - 03:45 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Playing both sides of the fence is a natural occurrence of a researcher because a hypothesis is needed as a measuring tool, a reference point, and an object to test to the point of destruction. Blindly gathering information is only one part of the entire process of testing validity. Putting that gathered information under the fire of testing is what builds a working hypothesis, but the gathered information should not be discarded simply because one idea that proved "false" could turn out to be a key tenant later on merely because it's importance was not understood at the time of preliminary testing. Once the rough hypothesis is formed after repeated testing then it becomes a matter of finding other tests useful for the process of destroying your hard-built hypothesis. Whatever remains standing becomes the groundwork for a new and better hypothesis only built for the purpose of destruction yet again. This is how any hypothesis gains the title of theory or becomes a straight out Fact. The test of shadowy Truth is a process that requires much more hardwork than simply being skeptical. Meier's case is a shadowy Truth and that is why the case has held so strong over these years.
Jack --
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Mahigitam
Member

Post Number: 581
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2014 - 09:14 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

@Piyali

1) "who else represents "etc"?"

Other investigators (ex: Wendelle Stevens) and supporters of Meier case.

"I ask because, the words you use in your above statement, are made my Michael Horn, NOT by Figu esp. NOT by Billy himself. They are not all one entity, but different human beings."

I too used to believe the same thing that Meier or FIGU CG never made any grandoise, unsubstantiated claims but I was proved wrong. Here I refer you to this link, where both Meier, Plejaren and FIGU CG members make similar claims as Michael Horn and even support and use Michael Horn's work in their articles.
http://www.billymeieruforesearch.com/prophecies-predictions-probability-calculations/#WHY_INVESTIGATE
(Don't miss 'More References' page in the same article)

Even if they didn't cite Michael Horn's work, common sense tells us that by allowing Michael Horn (official American media representative of Meier case) to make these claims on behalf of Meier/FIGU for decades and do nothing about it suggests that they approve his work and claims, thus undeniably making Meier & FIGU equally responsible.

2) "But you are adamant about proving yourself right above everyone else. Why is this so important for you to do? "

It is a distraction to the current discussion to comment on how others perceive (subjective domain) my intentions/work. It does not change a thing regarding the evidence. So I kindly request everyone to focus on the evidence and not the personalities. All I can say for now is that I am not adamant and I just seek the truth and present it (irrespective of pro or con results) without twisting or making-up any "facts".
ufoprophet.blogspot.com
"..covers the media archives from 1970's about the most controversial Swiss UFO Contactee - 'Billy' Eduard Albert Meier."
billymeieruforesearch.com
"..researching and archiving both the pro & con evidence of the case."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Mahigitam
Member

Post Number: 582
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Monday, December 22, 2014 - 01:44 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The next question could be if it's also true that at the time that I - AND Mahigitam - were searching and/or discovering, we found that Meier's information was not only accurate but that NO previously available evidence contradicted that he published it first. So far Mahigitam hasn't disputed that..he's simply obfuscated and avoided it."

It is true that in the past I have shared nearly 150 potential "corroborations" to Michael Horn in order for him to check and publish. But only later did I find out that he either publishes articles - without any verification at all or only verifies superficially - with the theme 'Meier proved right again'. When sometime after receiving a fair dose of criticism online, I looked into these "corroborations" and found out that there were many holes in my otherwise overlooked work because:

1. I didn't search online good enough to find much earlier articles than Meier's
2. Made large assumptions - which should never have been made in the first place - on the integrity of the content and publication dates of the contact reports. What I found was that the content has been edited (new info inserted and old info deleted or changed) and the contact notes were only published much later than the "corroborated" articles appeared in the news media.

At that time anyone has only two options - either to keep silent about it or to go back, correct mistakes, start again anew and publish the results (irrespective of pro or con) of the new investigation openly without hiding/with-holding any facts.

I chose the second option which obviously had upset a section of Meier case supporters who were & still are using this out-dated work to defend and promote the case. Instead of acknowledging and correcting mistakes, we (those who acknowledge the findings) have been attacked viciously. Unfortunately for some reason, Michael opted for the first option and chose not to inform the Meier case students, supporters and readers about the facts. And it boggles my mind that he still uses this out-dated, incorrect and biased results as "STRONG, IRREFUTABLE, IRON CLAD, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE".

I even shared these findings with Michael Horn more than a year ago who also expressed his disappointment. And even recently I shared with him many of my findings that contradicted my own earlier work. Even on the Billy Meier group in facebook, a couple of months ago he was again informed by me and other members who read my work or helped me with it, that most or all of my work is based on poor research & assumptions. We expected that he would respond appropriately and make necessary corrections, instead all we got was denial or silence, personal accusations and pseudo-scientific arguments- as we all are witnessing right now. And it is outright shocking to me that he now even denies the fact (that can be easily proven with email correspondence & facebook group posts) that I made him aware regarding my out-dated work earlier.

"As investigators, we'd have to consider that if he had gotten one, two or even a few very specific scientific facts right…it could be just luck. But since we now have close to 200 specific examples - and who knows how many more still remain untranslated in German.."

The crucial point here is whether these so-called 200 "corroborations" meet the scientific criteria or not. On my website, we will demonstrate that none of these meet the criteria.

"But first we have to strenuously pursue recognized protocols for determining if he had the…means, motive and opportunity for such a hoax. Oh yeah, one more thing: We'd have to present the EVIDENCE that he in fact DID hoax this massive body of accurate information"

See my post no. 580 above which clearly lays out the process of verification and the burden of proof. What you are proposing is nowhere near scientific method and you are free to latch onto any pseudo-scientific "methodology" which is the same thing that is being used by new-age community.


"..since up until most recently we had NO evidence that Meier didn't publish some of the information first - and of course we were using the (unavailable to Meier) internet to do all of our searches and corroborations.."

As mentioned above, you were made aware of earlier publications than Meier's by several other skeptics (IIG) and also by me years/months ago to which however you have either remained silent or in denial or resorted to pseudo-scientific arguments. Since now you have at least openly acknowledged it, what are you going to do about it ?
Since there is no prophecy or prediction that meets the scientific criteria, I guess your only option now is to play the MMO card and use it every time for each prophecy/prediction.
Besides the following link which clearly refuted your - 'Meier has no access to scientific information'- argument, it also refutes 'Meier must need internet to insert info into CRs' argument. It is silly to use that argument at all. Libraries, book stores and subscriptions were the INTERNET of those times.
http://www.billymeieruforesearch.com/prophecies-predictions-probability-calculations/#Meier_has_no_access_to_Scientific_Information

"However, so far as I know, Meier's scientific information has not been shown to be inaccurate."

I guess you can always come up with your own generated meaning and interpretation for the word "inaccurate". Or make an overly-used argument in UFO communty that our poor scientists and technology are incapable to find the true facts or values. But there were dozens of these examples (even takes into consideration the ET-factor) that soon will be on our website. And as a starter its strange that you have somehow "forgotten" the contradictory info of blood traces being found on the tools of 5,100 year old Ice man. Care to explain ?
http://ufoprophet.blogspot.in/2014/10/should-billy-meier-be-awarded-1000000_30.html

"After lengthy investigation, I have found no actual evidence that Billy Meier had the means, motive and opportunity to have obtained his scientific and world event related information, as previously cited by Michael Horn and Mahigitam as being both accurate and evidence of Meier's contacts with the Plejaren extraterrestrials, and I therefore conclude that such information supports the claims that the case is real and authentic."

Correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying that even though "our" earlier work was nowhere near scientific and wholly based on blind assumptions and beliefs, we should stand by it, defend and promote it as though it is "STRONG, IRREFUTABLE, IRON CLAD, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" ? As said above, you are free to promote whatever you like with whatever claims you like but I am never going to hide or twist facts and misrepresent the case and pass on the mis/dis-information to the world. Unlike you I am happy to admit my mistakes and make corrections.

As mentioned several times above, playing MMO card whatsoever does not make any change to the facts about publication dates of Meier' CRs and news articles in the media. It seems you are trying to avoid presenting any evidence without using MMO.

CHALLENGE:
I would like to challenge you to present any evidence that meets the SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA (criteria not according to you but according to accepted standards in science domain) without using MMO card! Let us bring some neutral, non-biased person who has no vested interest and make him judge. Are you ready for the challenge ?
ufoprophet.blogspot.com
"..covers the media archives from 1970's about the most controversial Swiss UFO Contactee - 'Billy' Eduard Albert Meier."
billymeieruforesearch.com
"..researching and archiving both the pro & con evidence of the case."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Piyali
Member

Post Number: 114
Registered: 08-2012
Posted on Monday, December 22, 2014 - 08:52 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mahesh, thank you very much for sharing the link of your blog in which you have argued well, but nowhere did I read that Meier has himself falsified anything.

Falsification is equivalent to lying. To make (something) false to change (something) in order to make people believe something that is not true. Hence you have made serious allegations yourself based on your own "scientific" research.

If I was contacted by highly evolved extraterrestrial human beings who gave me important information, and I knew how to read and write, I too would want to buy books and other materials to corroborate things for myself, learn and understand things myself. This would not prove anything to others that I am falsifying and claiming things that someone already wrote or said. It would simply mean that a keen serious interest in me has developed and is there to learn from all that is available to me, because I am being told fantastic things by these evolved human beings that I in this lifetime did not think about or know about till I was educated in it and informed about by them.

Can you prove, what, if any, Meier has taken from any of the books he bought for himself to study, which information is not his own that he claimed himself he found out?

He has made no claims whatsoever and when asked, he has always responded truthfully.

As I wrote before, what others write according to their understanding, is their responsibility. And you are included in this.

And I would also like everyone to note, that this time, Mahesh has thrown a challenge here, again, just like in did on FB, but without any instigation from anyone here, other than this own tremendous desire to prove something. So it would be my suggestion to not respond emotionally, but only factually and categorically, if you are guided to do so and the knowhow to do so.

One question for you Mahesh: How did you find the Meier case? Did you find it yourself by chance, or did someone point it out to you?

If someone brought your attention to the Meier case, then it is likely that you swing from one extreme opinion to another according to what others say, as opposed to what comes from within you. So in conclusion, you have been swaying from a complete believer to a complete skeptic.

The word "scientific" is bandied around far too often.

It is always stated, that we do our own investigation and come to our own conclusions.

Nowhere have Meier or Figu tried to convince anyone of anything. You believe or not, follow or not, feel convinced or not, it is all upto you. if this is all questionable to you, why are you here trying to convince us? Why not give everyone an opportunity to come to their own conclusions. You have provided all your links. That should be enough yes?

You are basically providing information yourself according to your findings. This may speak to some and not speak to some. It depends on the person.

Throwing a challenge, now this takes it to a whole new level - I hope the responses are thoughtful and not personal.

Thank you again. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me.
Salome with Love ~
Piyali
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Michael_horn
Member

Post Number: 948
Registered: 07-2009
Posted on Monday, December 22, 2014 - 09:40 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mahigitam, in addition to being quite excitable, is apparently unaware of basic investigative protocols and is conflating and confusing some things.

Means, motive and opportunity is anything but "pseudo-scientific 'methodology' which is the same thing that is being used by new-age community". If only the New Age community used it instead of fantasies! Here's a "clue" for Mahigitam and friends. Take a look at this link http://crimefictioncollective.blogspot.com/2012/01/forensic-evidence-of-motive-means-and.html, which is actually information/discussion about how writers incorporate the very important elements of credible investigation into "crimes" into their novels, etc.

If you want to get the mother of all MMO, deductive reasoning, etc., read/watch Sherlock Holmes…hardly what one would try to demean by calling it New Age!

Regardng the skeptics, I think this article: http://www.theyfly.com/Confirming-Meier.htm not only debunks their efforts but shows that they actually corroborated Meier's evidence.

We're not going to play a game here. So for those who may be unclear about it, I'll only, again, refer to some basic, strong specific info, of which there is plenty…if people do understand MMO.

I first received the early transcripts for the Contact Reports in 1986 and in 1988 began recognizing that so-called "new discoveries" - as described by scientific laboratories, media, etc. - were already included in those reports, which covered the period of 1975 - 1978.

The previously referred to information about A-bomb/ozone damage, etc., was in there, as was information such as about Mercury's core, the twin craters in the Atlantic, etc., as referred to here:

http://theyfly.com/A-Sampling-of-Evidence.html

The books they were in came out well after the paper copies of the translations of course, due to the realities of translations, printing books, etc., in the non-digital age.

Information about Mars, the connection between earthquakes and extracting petroleum/gas AND from dams and large cities, etc., were in those reports…along with tons of other stuff, as noted through the years.

Now, if Mahigitam wants to effectively claim that the information was inserted later in Meier's material (which of course would be a pretty good trick based on the known, existing facts) then all he has to do is…STOP being an uninformed amateur and do what any good detective, researcher, investigator would do: Establish the means, motive and opportunity…and provide that actual EVIDENCE.

Evidence ISN'T theory.

That means that Mahigitam takes his statement, "It is silly to use that argument at all. Libraries, book stores and subscriptions were the INTERNET of those times," and spells out the means, motive and opportunity - what, where, when and how Meier used that "internet" - and of course provides the EVIDENCE that he did so. Since we have published evidence of Meier's publication of his information, it would be…SILLY of Mahigitam to not provide actual evidence which, again is NOT theory.

Now, Mahigitam may be confused as to what is scientific and what is procedural, investigative in regards to establishing authenticty of evidence, etc. Meier's information about Mercury's core, Io being the most volcanically active body in the system, etc., are pieces of information that happen to be scientifically accurate. In fact these two would seem to qualify for being prophetically accurate as well. Note: Even Prof. Joseph Veverka, who worked on the Voyager mission did not claim that the information about Io was known to them in October 1978, when Meier first published it…when I personally spoke to him on the phone about it.

So we come back to the point that Mahigitam is actually still avoiding. Therefore, this statement:

"After lengthy investigation, I have found no actual evidence that Billy Meier had the means, motive and opportunity to have obtained his scientific and world event related information, as previously cited by Michael Horn and Mahigitam as being both accurate and evidence of Meier's contacts with the Plejaren extraterrestrials, and I therefore conclude that such information supports the claims that the case is real and authentic."

…simply compels a straight answer. If Mahigitam, Simon and/or Andy disgree with it, all that's required is that they clearly show that Meier indeed had the means, motive and opportunity to have obtained all of his information through existing sources, etc., and that means that they NOW provide the EVIDENCE that he did.

Unless of course they actually haven't conducted such an…investigation.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Vincent
Member

Post Number: 215
Registered: 06-2013
Posted on Monday, December 22, 2014 - 01:17 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mahigitam,

When you finished your investigation on whether the Meier case is genuine or not will you post your findings here and on your website?

I hope you don't say something like your investigation may never finish and then decide to stay sitting on the fence because then people (like me) will think you have ulterior motives and not an honest investigation.

There is ample material there to investigate and anyone that cannot come to a conclusion/finding in their investigation (in a reasonable time) is not a good investigator in my opinion. I had an open (little sceptical) mind when I investigated the case and certain hard evidence I found there allowed me to quickly come to a conclusion.

Again, how long will it take (in your thorough honest investigation) before you tell us your findings whether you think the case is genuine or not?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Newinitiation
Member

Post Number: 1261
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Monday, December 22, 2014 - 01:54 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think its a healthy sign that such debate or issue comes about that inevitably comes to head in acute form.

What genius I mean what genius Billy and the Plejaren are.

To set up such a scenario to inevitably happen and will continue to happen for the next 800 years or so by proponents and skeptics alike.

To set it up in such a way that people continue to evolve out of these debates for more learning , insight, cognition, understanding, recognition, knowledge, thinking, awareness and so forth.

The fact of the matter is I think Billy the arch crook always have a way of running rings around our intelligence in such a way that its hard to anticipate exactly what it is until hindsight clarifies it on the proviso that we think through everything in detail.

Absent the contact notes or any other information Billy has presented there is no possibility of such issues or debates arising because we don't have anything to go by.
What does that say about us and about Billy and the Plejaren.

The opportunity given for further discovery is the genius and often overlooked aim of this whole process.

Self discovery and self development.

People laud how good they are in fitting the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle but I have more admiration for the puzzle makers.
These people are the true geniuses.

We are at its mercy because we didn't create it but are going with what has already been created just as it is the case with Creation to its creations

This latest example of the appearance or perception that Billy has inserted information after the fact and from sources other than himself, his other worldly sources and from the as yet unknown unknown or from the already published mundane sources before his publication throws up a whole lot of other questions namely how to establish that he had indeed access to all these information to rip off and in particular why those particular information and not any other plus the time factor, how did he get a hold of that particular information out of so many out in the middle of nowhere in Switzerland and how long does it take to read these publications on top of looking after his family going to work showering sleeping eating cleaning farming labouring fixing leading a group having midnight rondevus with other worldly people writing lecturing interviews tending to guests building etc
I think that to establish all this and more is the first scientific thing to do.
To fit the evidence and proof with the scientific methodology of our time but then to establish the flaws of our scientific methodologies as our criteria of sound scientific methodology in this case is superceded by something otherworldly that which it cannot yet establish.

Take for instance reincarnation and the existence of the spirit form.

How do you prove its existence when our science is or its methodology is inadequate.

This much I can guarantee is irrefutable and Ironclad.

Matt lee
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Earthling
Member

Post Number: 890
Registered: 05-2008
Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2014 - 02:30 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Perhaps when Mahesh is finished refuting everything in the 600 and counting contact reports, he can find out where and how Billy stole the contents of the Goblet of the Truth, his penultimate charade, the culmination of his life's work of hoaxing the human beings of earth in an arched crook kind & sort of way that only Jmmanuel and Mohammed could appreciate, or Kal Korff.
http://beam2eng.blogspot.com/

Bruce
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Michael_horn
Member

Post Number: 949
Registered: 07-2009
Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2014 - 09:23 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As was to be expected - since it was intended - Mahesh's non-investigation has caught the eye of some Meier detractors, who cited the issue about the Asket remark that Mahesh contends that Meier himself retroacted.

So here is my response to him and his list:

Thanks Victor,

It seems that - for reasons that completely escape my understanding - people would just love it if the Meier case wasn't true.

There is quite a discussion going on (http://forum.figu.org/cgi-bin/us/show.cgi?12/27) about the so-called "falsifications", the only problem being no one has presented any evidence that Meier has falsified…anything.

As I and others have been patiently attempting to point out to the skeptic, there are actually investigative procedures for determining the truth. The skeptic hasn't demonstrated that he understands (or wants to understand) let alone that he has proceeded to utilize them.

I've hammered away at one such very standard procedure known as means, motive and opportunity. It's of enormous importance and, as everyone must by now know now, critical to determining the presence and validity of, and access to, evidence and establishing a preponderance of it, etc.

Now I know that in the UFO community anything resembling investigative procedures, scientific facts, credible, substantiated evidence, etc., is as unknown as speaking Aramaic. Nonetheless, since it's a community badly in need of a reality check, integrity, etc., I'll risk the blank stares, claims that "you're avoiding the issue!" and proceed.

To the point, the skeptic, for all his bluster, misunderstanding and willful ineptitude, of course hasn't provided one example, one actual piece of evidence that Meier - ever - did in fact back date, retrodict, falsify…ANYTHING.

Common sense, which is arguably in very short supply, tells us that a man living in the pre-digital age, in a rural environment, under all the known and established (through years of on-site investigation) conditions and circumstances as Meier, simply didn't have the means, motive and opportunity to acquire and publish about…200 specific examples, of scientifically accurate information, much of it what I call "prophetically accurate" because it was published before other sources, let alone to produce the voluminious amount of still irreproducible UFO evidence.

Certainly any actual, credible, substantiated evidence to the contrary is welcome.

In the meantime, for those who preoccupy themselves with trying to trip Meier up - for the terrible crime of trying to wake up a largely idiotic world so that it can avert its own self-destruction - I invite you to reflect on what he wrote and published, in 1958, along with many other things:

83.) And it will be that fanatical Islamists carry out bloody revenge on the distant descendants of the Christians, for their earlier crusades when they accomplish their deadly and destructive acts through irrepressible terror all over the world.

And also to consider this information, from 1987:
175. And it will be that the fanatics of Islam will rise up against the countries of Europe and all will shake and quiver.

176. Everything in the West will be destroyed; England will be conquered and thrown down to the lowest level of misery.

177. And the fanatics and warriors of Islam will retain their power for a long time.

178. However, not only Europe will be affected but ultimately all the countries and peoples of the Earth, as the great horror expands to a war that will encompass the entire world.

…and especially this:

217. Far in the West, it will be different; the United States of America will be a country of total destruction.

218. The cause for this will be manifold.

219. With her global conflicts which are continuously instigated by her and which will continue far into the future, America is creating enormous hatred against her, worldwide, in many countries.

220. As a result, America will experience enormous catastrophes which will reach proportions barely imaginable to people of Earth.

221. The destruction of the WTC, i.e., the World Trade Center, by terrorists will only be the beginning.


It's a most regrettable thing to be on the wrong side of history - let alone the truth - something which the cynical, ambitious, profit-oriented, disinformation-spewing, self-important denizens of the UFOCI (UFO Community and Industry) have shown ZERO regard for.

So, for those who wish to continue hiding their heads in the sand and spewing out nonsense about "alien" this and that - without an ounce of real knowledge about any of it - certainly continue to do so and throw your pebbles at the Meier case.

For those who may wish to actually know the truth and focus on learning that which has been given us by Meier and the Plejaren to help us assure our own very threatened future survival, it's basically all free for the taking.

Michael Horn
Authorized American Media Representative
The Billy Meier Contacts
www.theyfly.com
…………………………………………………………

When people masquerade as "investigators" - but stubbornly REFUSE to utilize standard investigative tools - then of course they have the effect of muddying the waters…as well as (unintentionally) helping to spread the truth.

But I must say that as someone who does actively work to disseminate the information, answer questions and challenges, etc., having to deal with gratuitous idiocy isn't the best use of my time.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Votan
Member

Post Number: 256
Registered: 12-2011
Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2014 - 11:52 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Merry Xmas and a happy new year to all.

Next year will be better if we have the right frame of mind.
joe
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Mahigitam
Member

Post Number: 583
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2014 - 04:21 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

@Piyali
"Mahesh, thank you very much for sharing the link of your blog in which you have argued well, but nowhere did I read that Meier has himself falsified anything."

The following statements A and B are two, totally different claims requiring different standards of evidence to prove with 100% certainty:

A. There is no evidence to support the claim that Meier has advanced foreknowledge of future events and he published them first before media did
B. Meier deliberately falisified text and perpetrated a massive fraud

An objective investigation can only answer A with 100% certainity and never can answer B with the same certainity as A. Claim B can only be said to be proved 100% when Meier himself admits to it.
In my investigation I stated A and never B. I already mentioned this in my last post and in the future I will just refer to this post in case anyone brings up this issue again.

@Vincent
"Again, how long will it take (in your thorough honest investigation) before you tell us your findings whether you think the case is genuine or not?"

I can tell you right now. There is no strong, scientific evidence that proves all the claims (contact with ETs, prophecies/predictions,..etc) made by Meier as genuine. If you think you can present any evidence for prophecies/predictions that proves the foreknowledge of Meier/Plejaren, put it forward and we will have a discussion.
ufoprophet.blogspot.com
"..covers the media archives from 1970's about the most controversial Swiss UFO Contactee - 'Billy' Eduard Albert Meier."
billymeieruforesearch.com
"..researching and archiving both the pro & con evidence of the case."

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page