| Author |
Message |
   
Marbar
Member
Post Number: 154
Registered: 12-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2010 - 06:58 pm: | 
|
Rest in peace Wendelle Stevens. Trhank you for bringing the Billy Meier Case to the world. |
Smukhuti
Member
Post Number: 483
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 05:53 pm: |
|
The latest FIGU Special Bulletin has a brief memoir on Wendelle Stevens and a part of it is in English, i.e. handwriting analysis of Wendelle Stevens.
http://www.figu.org/ch/verein/periodika/sonder-bulletin/2010/nr-57/wc-stevens?page=0,1
Salome.
Suv
|
Lth
Member
Post Number: 92
Registered: 06-2010
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2011 - 01:36 am: |
|
http://www.myspace.com/billymeiercontactreports/blog/541864036
Hello everyone. The above address is to a translation on Ben's site (authorized unofficial translations). This particular page is part of contact 117. I would like to ask Christian or any of the actual FIGU Core Group members to please help clarify the part at the top of this particular page. I mean specifically in regards to the apparent contradiction about the burned parchment. According to Wendelle Stevens' account, the paper in the picture was in BEAM's possession but in the contact notes, the same parchment is said to be in the possession of an unknown to BEAM collector and that BEAM only has a photo of the document. I can think of one particular possible explanation that clarifies the contradiction (without anyone having lied), but I would like to ask for clarification from FIGU directly. This type of confusion could be very damaging to the credibility of FIGU and BEAM so I hope it can be clarified.
(To the moderators: I am aware that Christian and some of the English speaking Core Group members who occasion the English forum do not always monitor it, so please pass this post on to them if you would be so kind. Thanks in advance...)
Thomas |
Sonik_01
Member
Post Number: 193
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2011 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Hi Lth,
I think it's unnecessary to bother the core group members as they are extremely busy putting together everything in Figu for the future(organizing, etc.). I can answer your question easily. The photo of the parchment was sent to Billy by an unknown to Billy British collector. Billy is currently in posession of the photo of the parchment.
Salome, |
Lth
Member
Post Number: 93
Registered: 06-2010
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2011 - 12:14 pm: |
|
> Unfortunately that doesn't clarify the contradiction so I will wait for a > response from FIGU. Thanks though... |
Kingman
Member
Post Number: 842
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2011 - 12:24 pm: |
|
I agree Thomas.
This is a potential credibility destroyer for Billy. While it won't change the way I think about the knowledge we all receive through Billy, I know it would cause some of my newest researchers to create some heavy doubt. Events such as these always cause some great exchanges that usually spawn better opportunities for learning, in my experience.
But clarifying this bit would keep things moving along in the positive.
a friend in america
Shawn
|
Lth
Member
Post Number: 94
Registered: 06-2010
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2011 - 12:42 am: |
|
> Yeah Kingman, I support the case but this could lead to really big problems > later. I think it best to clarify while BEAM is still here to do so. |
Eddieamartin
Member
Post Number: 101
Registered: 08-2010
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2011 - 07:15 am: |
|
Gentlemen,
Perhaps there is an element to all this that I am missing; the which, would someone please post it. Thank you.
As I understand it.
This 'statement' from Wendell Stevens is enough, in everyone's rational and logical thinking, to be sufficient to overshadow the horrendously overwhelming mountain of analyzed evidence which has been presented and brought forward by Billy himself?
Evidence, which has impressively withstood the scrutiny of analysis by some of earth's brightest minds and technologies?
Unless there is something that I'm missing here; logic and rational thinking lends no hand towards the realization that a simple statement or recounting by someone, who was obviously very excited about the things which he saw and perhaps handled in conjunction with other objects, that this simple statement disproves and nullifies the mountain of evidence?
I am having difficulty with this type of thinking, and rationalizing, as well as the conclusion, everyone is coming to, from a simple statement.
Please post that which I am missing out of this equation; thank you.
Salome,
Eddie
[7:-)
|
Memo00
Member
Post Number: 462
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2011 - 09:11 am: |
|
Hello to all
I think that if a person is not able to find the truth by himself it is useless and wrong to try to do anything to change that person for the better, it is like doing your own son´s homework.
There is nothing wrong with some doubts and unclear things with the "evidence". It is made on purpose to make persons use their brains.
There are many mistakes in Wendelle Stevens books so it is better to rely on the FIGU material.
Salome |
Lth
Member
Post Number: 95
Registered: 06-2010
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2011 - 11:21 am: |
|
> You are missing that Wendelle's account does not mesh with the contact > reports. |
Lth
Member
Post Number: 96
Registered: 06-2010
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2011 - 11:28 am: |
|
> BTW I have drawn no conclusions so you should reread my posts if you > believe otherwise. |
Lth
Member
Post Number: 97
Registered: 06-2010
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2011 - 11:17 pm: |
|
Memoo, that kind of thinking is fine except that it makes FIGU look the same as those unreal religions that just refuse to answer valid questions because they cannot answer them. I personally feel and believe that BEAM is honest and tells the truth just as I also believe Wendelle would not have fabricated all those details which conflict with the contact reports. Also remember that Wendelle's account was based on his own experience with BEAM and not from a bad translation of the contact reports. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I can think of one reason that could possibly explain the situation without anyone having lied. Blindling believing anything without investigating the last details available is exactly what BEAM teaches not to do. He himself does not want to become a figurehead to be followed but has said to investigate all the facts until you come to the truth.
I believe I have found the truth with FIGU but until I know it without any possibility of doubt, I will continue to think and to search and to ask valid questions. I ask that you not criticize me for being open and honest in my search. I respect your right to have your views so please do likewise for me.
Moderators: Whomever posted my original request for info, could you let me know to whom you have passed that info in FIGU please? It is much appreciated.
Thomas |
Kingman
Member
Post Number: 843
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2011 - 12:27 am: |
|
Wendelle Stevens has done an incredible amount of work for Billy's Mission. Not all perfect, and some clearly drawn towards some religious aspects that Wendelle considered important enough to him, that he was influenced to decipher some materials through these beliefs.
I loved Wendelle, yet have never personally met him. But he will probably have several real strong mashes within his written Billy Meier conclusions. They will be dealt with over time, and maybe different methods will be used in each case . But in the end, reason will decide what the truth really is. How could it be otherwise.
a friend in america
Shawn
|
Eddieamartin
Member
Post Number: 104
Registered: 08-2010
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2011 - 08:18 am: |
|
Hello Lth,
I think I understand why this is important to you, and, by all means seek your answer.
Regarding the following statement, you feel is an answer to my post: "> You are missing that Wendelle's account does not mesh with the contact > reports."
I still see no rationale my friend. I too could go visit Billy, view and handle some things, later on write about it and my recounting conflicts with the Contact Reports; would this discredit the Contact Report?
In my own logic and rationale, I just can't see where Wendelle's recounting of a personal experience somehow discredits the Contact Notes.
Now, if a Contact Note was to later be presented, that conflicts with its original version, then I can see reason for alarm and investigation into the source of said conflicting version.
Salome,
Eddie
[7:-)
|
Rarena
Member
Post Number: 647
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2011 - 09:59 am: |
|
Dear Thomas,
There are conscious lies and unconscious ones. Having known Wendelle, the man, and all the information he has compiled; with detail, using the scientific method, properly analyzed, collected and cataloged thoughtfully... it is stands to reason and logic he was a truthful man.
We all evolve at different levels and make our own mistakes in order to learn from them. You have to admire Mr Stevens' loyalty and steadfastness to the truth regardless of certain inconsistancies to have amassed such a quantity of accurate material from the very complex German and Swiss German languages.
Like all of us, he has probably made certain unconscious choices which may have not been entirely correct and hopefully he learned by them if he indeed recognized them. He has followed the source (Billy Meier) for over thirty years and correctly recorded and observed these amazing details, of this most facinating case, for the English speaking world to read in relative ease... In fact, I would say he is the reason you yourself know about many details about this case, no doubt.
The truth stands on it's own. I also admire your interest in the truth and realize Wendell's many books on the subject may have some unconscious errors or his own personal philosophy intertwined within his many, many, truthful words.
Maybe it would be best to ask Billy this question yourself and discover the real solution to this percieved problem rather than depend on others to do so. |
Eddieamartin
Member
Post Number: 105
Registered: 08-2010
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2011 - 11:40 am: |
|
Hello Lth,
I found an answer to your question below. The very same question was asked in 2002. Hopefully this will help you in your quest.
Salome,
Eddie
=======
Norm
Posted on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 08:07 pm:
There's a completely different story about this scroll in Wendell Stevens book "Message from the Pleiades" Vol.4 page 15 under the above photo it says,
(Below, in Norm's post, the following quote appears in red).
"This is the seared fragment of scroll given Eduard Meier in the tomb in Egypt by Asket when she took him there under the protection of a "cloaking device" that allowed them to walk past the Egyptian guard there unobserved."
=======
Christian Frehner
Posted on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 01:05 pm:
Hi all,
Regarding the "parchment": Yesterday I spoke with Billy about this "parchment matter", and that's what he told me:
The facts about the "forum parchment" is as follows: Billy received a letter by a certain Jim Crowley that contained a letter and the negatives. The letter and envelope did not show any address!
Billy then gave the negatives to the ex-Core Group member Harald Proch so he could make some photos from the negatives. Harald Proch's profession is that of a photographer. (It seems that this incident is the reason for Hans' version of the story.)
Billy did never see the original document!!! And he doesn't have information about the owner of the parchment except that which he was told in the letter (regarding the Egyptian black market etc.).
Salome,
Christian
PS: Regarding Norm's comment (in red color): It is true that Billy had a "parchment" in his possession that he had shown to Wendelle Stevens. This he did under the condition that Wendelle would not tell anybody about it (which he, Wendelle, did in the meantime, obviously).
There really was an Englishman involved, but Billy did never reveal his name (in order to protect him), nor did he tell anybody except Wendelle about this incident.
It is important to note that this peace of paper or parchment, which (btw) Quetzal has taken into his possession many years ago, is not identical with the parchment that we are discussing here in the FIGU forum!
[7:-)
|
Lth
Member
Post Number: 98
Registered: 06-2010
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2011 - 09:42 pm: |
|
> Thanks for the clarification. I imagined something like this. It is much > appreciated. I think having the image in Wendelle's books of the wrong > parchment is the cause of the confusion but those books are published > already so I suppose the damage is done there. At least now everyone has > the real explanation of why there is only an apparent contradiction and not > a real one. Thanks again to Christian and everyone who helped to find this > explanation, especially BEAM. |
Lth
Member
Post Number: 99
Registered: 06-2010
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2011 - 09:49 pm: |
|
> Eddie nowhere did I ever say that the contact reports were discredited. > Please do not misread my words. I understand your error but that is how > larger misunderstandings can begin. |
Eddieamartin
Member
Post Number: 108
Registered: 08-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 - 09:06 am: |
|
Hello Thomas,
Sorry that the wording in my post gave that impression my friend. I meant that as a worse-case scenario. My deepest apologies to you.
Salome,
Eddie
[7:-)
|
Bennyray37
Member
Post Number: 49
Registered: 01-2010
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2011 - 07:51 am: |
|
Wait a minute, I want to make sure that I get this straight, so that I myself can provide a clarification in a Translator's Note.
It has to be the case that the document that Wendelle included in Message from the Pleiades Volume 4 is the same document under discussion in Contact 117. At the same time, the document that Wendelle had Michael Hesemann translate into English, in all probability, has to be the same document found in both Message from the Pleiades Volume 4 and Contact 117, as the middle six names of the English translation most certainly line up well with the middle 6 names on the photographed document.
So is it that Wendelle mistakenly related a story of some other document that was found in Egypt during the Asket travels, a document which I am completely unaware of, and applied it to the document of Contact 117 but then truly had the document mentioned in Contact 117 translated into English by Hesemann? |
Lth
Member
Post Number: 101
Registered: 06-2010
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2011 - 09:21 pm: |
|
> The photo attached to the Stevens book is not the actual one related to the > story Wendelle recounted because that one does not show several different > languages apparently. If it does then we are back to square one again. |
Bennyray37
Member
Post Number: 50
Registered: 01-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2011 - 06:22 am: |
|
I don't know about anyone else, but I find the 8,000-year-old Lyran fragment to be quite interesting. I'm just amazed at how little seems to have been written on it, since it should be taken as a big thing! I'm most interested in all the details of how Meier came across the photo of the document, and I tried to gather together all the important facts from the Contact Reports and from what was discussed about this on the forum in 2002. Here is what I have gathered so far about the find story:
At some time around the end of the year 1977, Meier received an envelope in the mail, which had no return address on it. Meier opened the envelope and found some photo negatives inside as well as a letter, which showed itself to be written by a man named Jim Crowley. In the letter, this Jim Crowley spoke of a fragment of an ancient scroll that had been placed on the Egyptian black market for sale several decades before. He explained that the fragment had been purchased in Egypt, together with other specimens, by a noble Englishman, said to be a private collector of antiquities, whose name still remains unknown to this day. The Englishman returned to England and added the fragment to his private collection there. Some time later, this Jim Crowley from England somehow came across the unnamed Englishman's private collection and secretly photographed the fragment. Jim Crowley then mailed the negatives of the fragment to Billy, along with the letter, asking if Billy or the Plejaren could decipher the letters; however, Crowley did not provide any return mailing address on his letter either. Billy then gave the negatives to Harald Proch, a photographer who was a member of FIGU in the 1970s, so that Proch could make some photos from the negatives. Once the photos were made and given to Billy, Billy immediately recognized the ancient Lyran script that he was still able to master rather well and translated the document into German. At the 117th Contact, Meier then gave the photo and his translation of the inscription to Ptaah. Ptaah verified that Meier's translation was perfectly correct and then performed an analysis on the authenticity of the fragment. The Plejaren analysis yielded that the fragment was genuine and more than 8,000 years old.
I would like to know if anyone has come across more information about the find story of this fragment? Has anything else been written about this in any of Meier's other books that are still presently only in German? Does anyone have a good resolution color photograph of the document that they can send to me? Is the original letter from Crowley still in FIGU's possession? If not, does anyone know more details that were on the original letter, if such are allowed to be made known, and whether the letter was hand written or typed?
--
Benjamin Stevens |
Smukhuti
Member
Post Number: 706
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, April 05, 2015 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Noticed couple of discrepancies in the Preliminary Investigation report that got overlooked in Supplementary report. These should have been addressed in the "Update" section, but were not:
1)
Four specimen of metal were given by Meier to Wendelle Stevens were said to represent 3 of the seven state of their beamship metal. Wendelle first mention they were 3rd, 4th and 5h states. But 3rd, 4th and 5th state also could be 4th 5th and 6th state as the numbering of states are not consistent between p.413-418 & p.419-427 of preliminary report. Page 419 onward, 4th state equated 3rd state of preceding pages and so on. Preliminary report had large number of errors corrected in supplementary report, but this seem to have been overlooked by Wendelle
2)
Wendelle describe in page 426 that the metal sample vanished from the plastic bag while it was been carried by Vogel to Ames Research Lab. But in page 529 of Supplementary investigation report, Wendelle describes that the sample was kept in a plastic bag, and Vogel called Richard Haines of Ames Research Lab to come over, and the metal sample vanished from the envelop before Vogel could show it to Haines. The supplementary report, published at a later date contained more accurate information. Moreover, the second description also match with the description in Gary Kinders book “Light Years”. So I am assuming, the initial description in preliminary investigation report is wrong and Stevens got incomplete information from Vogel initially that the sample disappeared while he was about to show to Haines of Ames Research Lab, and Wendelle thus incorrectly presumed that Dr Vogel was intending to physically carry the sample to Ames Lab.
"Learn things today that others wouldn't learn today so that tomorrow you can learn things that others can't learn."
- Somebody
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
