Archive through June 28, 2010

Author Message Proud2bmyself Member Post Number: 9 Registered: 04-2009 Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 10:55 am:        Hey MODERATORS I have been reading pretty much the entire questions to billy answered section and I noticed this question which I will quote below "Kaare Member Username: Kaare Dear Billy, In regards to the humans from the planet HASTER, located in the 483 Million Light year distant JENAM Galaxy, who in November 1980, with the help of the Plejarans, built an Earth station deep in the North Sea, - Do they still man and operate this station today?, and did they go through with their decision to make contact with one or more Earth Humans? Thank you Regards Kaare" The answer was "Where did you read this information? We don’t find such information in the Contact Notes" I have found the answer to their question.. it is contact report 141, here is the link.. http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_141 Also the link to the page where the question can be found if you want to correct anything or resubmit it to billy can be found here.. http://forum.figu.org/cgi-bin/us/discus.cgi?pg=next&topic=12&page=7546 Many Thanks and I hope this helps! And if it has been answered since then, I am sorry i havent gotten that far on the section, then please disregard everything I said. Peace!} Salome, Brandon Young Calenwath Member Post Number: 25 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 10:22 pm:        Just want to say welcome to new members ive noticed posting recently, Theawakening, and Neutralperson. My advice Neutralperson, dont wonder so much, direct all that energy towards your own enlightenment and spirtual evolution. This may mean finding the answers on your own. Thats ok, we are all here to answer any questions you may care to ask, but one's own spirtual development is a unique journey just like a fingerprint. Welcome, and Salome Shane Bodhran Member Post Number: 88 Registered: 08-2008 Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 12:48 am:        Hi all, has anyone seen the new youtube videos "debunking" the Meier photographs, he does the best job so far in recreating almost all of them and also has videos showing how he did it and built the models all with one hand, I have to say he's put a hell of a lot of work into this, he may be connected with Kal Korff, not sure about that, but I know korff is promoting this as new evidence of hoax. Is anyone working on debunking this debunker? Search for Mrmorlam1 on youtube. Salome Tony. Thomas Member Post Number: 1087 Registered: 03-2004 Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 03:34 am:        I have actually just watched the videos on that channel and I have to say they are really well done. I would not discount Mr Meier's story just on the basis of those videos however they do make one look more closely. I still believe that Mr Meier is likely telling the truth but I have always left it open to the possibility that he was also not so honest. At any rate, just as it is easy to "prove" someone is a hoaxer, one can a also "prove" that someone is a hoaxer when they are telling the truth. Granted it is possible to actually prove facts with enough direct access to the facts and reality, most of us can be mislead in either direction even if we try to be critical thinkers. The end result is that we may never know for sure if Mr Meier is real and honest (though I believe he is) so we should become people capable of thinking correctly and logically without reliance on others to lead us. His messages hold weight whether or not he is a hoaxer. Does anyone else think that overpopulation and a great moral lacking on this planet do not exist? I for one think Mr Meier says very accurate things, even if somehow it did turn out he was the biggest fake ever... something to think about Bodhran Member Post Number: 89 Registered: 08-2008 Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 04:59 am:        Hi,Thomas I didn't mean to infer that it casts doubt on the validity of the case, there is so much other evidence from the original investigations by stevens and elders that back up mr Meirs own photographic evidence,subject these photos to the same testing, see if he can do the photos without any setup shots in between the others a was testified to by the people who developed Meir's. See if he can do it with people following him around for years without discovering how etc etc..I would imagine that close examination by someone who knows what they are talking about will actually help again prove the case further, as has happened previously with other attempts. This does not look like an amateur attempt but some one who has devoted a lot of time and effort, it smells of someone trying to make money out of something they have already invested time in, like I said,kal korff seems to be involved in this somehow and everyone knows how sneaky and unscrupulous he can be, I await the professionals verdict. Salome Tony. Thomas Member Post Number: 1089 Registered: 03-2004 Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 07:35 am:        I understand Tony but the fact is that there is no one bit of evidence that BEAM has presented that cannot be faked so it is not a certainty that he is telling the truth though, once again, I believe that he is. If David Copperfield can fool people in front of the statue of liberty into thinking it is no longer in front of them, then all of BEAM's evidence can be fabricate too. The films you pointed to are just one example. My point is that, regardless of whether BEAM is real or not, he states some really good stuff that is applicable to life, whether or not his story is real, and also that we need to lead and think for ourselves. If you will recall, that is one of the reasons the Plejaren supposedly do not present themselves nor give 100 percent indisputable evidence of their real existence. See what I mean? Bodhran Member Post Number: 90 Registered: 08-2008 Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 09:33 am:        Yes I see what you mean, by the same token though,i still think that it is our duty to try and debunk the debunkers when they spout proof that the evidence us hoaxed, it's evidence that things can be reproduced but not evidence that what they are reproducing was faked, if you know what I mean..we should keep things on an even playing field as per plausible deniability,which is the main reason the case has stayed in the public eye in the first place, you can't fully prove it either way..of course the message is more important than the evidence but it has been the constant to and fro between the for and against that has been pivotal in introducing people too the messages in the first place I think. Salome Tony. Michael_horn Member Post Number: 295 Registered: 07-2009 Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 09:46 am:        I am well aware of these efforts and want to add a few points. Let's remember that Phil is making models of objects that a VERY unlikely man made of VERY unusual looking, detailed objects that exhibited "craftsmanship" that exceeded certainly his own abilities and resources. Further, in all the years - since 1964 in India - no one has come forward to show a hoax, collaboration, etc. A careful look at some of Meier's photos reveal dissimilar metals and rather seamless, detailed manufacturing, etc. So there are a lot of factors to consider that people today, with a lot of technology, materials, time, etc., don't often take into account and actually try to dismiss out of ignorance and arrogance. So we have someone, Phil, who is very good at reproducing the EFFECT of the Meier photos, etc. The point was brought up about the tests Meier's evidence was subjected to. Everyone interested should read the analysis (http://theyfly.com/PDF/PhotoAnalysis.pdf) to understand just how much effort and expertise was put into it. I don't have a background in photography, or other technologies, but I was able to appreciate and understand that great care was taken in the process. I learned additional information, from Wendelle Stevens and Lee Elders, about confidentiality agreements that they had to sign with some VERY high level facilities, which prevented them from ever stating who they were and who was involved in the testing/analysis. However, the facilities and personnel that they were allowed to mention were/are still quite credible. BTW, Korff has long attacked Jim Diletosso because he doesn't have a PhD and lied about it. First, I don't defend people's lies. Second, Diletosso's work stands on its own; his background and accomplishments are very solid and, of course, by Korff's "standards", Korff's opinion itself is obviously worthless, since he neither has a PhD nor is he an expert in the areas that Diletosso is. I think that we should let Korff continue on his merry way into his well deserved, self-created, complete mental meltdown. (I also learned that one of the main reasons that Stanton Friedman has either ignored or opposed the Meier case, leaving him to do the "rubber chicken" circuit blathering on about "Roswell", is that Stevens refused to allow him and other members of the "UFO community" to participate in the examination of the Meier evidence BECAUSE they wanted to avoid association with the lack of credibility that are connected with these parties.) Now, Phil and his supporters should have his photos, and/or still images from his videos, examined in the same way that Meier's were; they were able to get an awful lot of information from all the various methods they used. Undoubtedly the tests will not reveal the same results, or conclusions, as were determined from Meier's evidence. The objects will not be shown to be very large and a great distance from the camera, of course. However, I should also add that I already have a very thorough critique of Phil's efforts with the WCUFO, done by Chris Lock. I haven't posted the article for a couple of reasons. First, Korff and Phil, etc. were counting on my participation to get them a big boost in circulation; Ptaah warned me to withdraw from the project with Korff because of his treacherous intentions, which became quite evident as soon as I did withdraw. So I am leaving it up to them to get the "controversy" going about Phil's work and create a real "demand" for a public response. I will only say that there's a REAL giveaway when one looks at Phil's WCUFO images next to trees and Meier's. Hint: compare the relationship between the size of the tree branches to the craft in both. I want to make a few specific comments about some of Phil's films. First, look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaly5zJaanQ. Now here we have a very nice, small model and Phil shows us his Rube Goldberg rigging that, of course, Meier just MUST have done himself despite the preposterousness of it and lack of any evidence. (I suppose the five other photographers of the UFOs, including the Swiss skeptic, must have all just borrowed Billy's set up from him for their photos!) What Phil fails to do here of course is to compare his film clip with Meier's that shows the characteristics of a large craft a good distance from the camera, the edges somewhat blurred, etc. The key thing to perceive here is that duplicating an effect isn't the same thing as duplicating the actual film/objects, which isn't to take anything away from Phil's efforts. He's done essentially the same thing that people who make model airplanes do, with the exception that he modeled after Meier's UFOs and had the luxury of utilizing things that are not established to have been in Meier's possession, which is not insignificant. Let's also remember that the models that Meier and/or his friends - and even Wally Gentleman - made were actually quite crude in comparison. Gosh, didn't anyone see all of these convenient kitchen materials, fishing line, ropes, super glue, spray paint, etc. sitting around just screaming "UFO model material!" at them? And didn't the investigative team notice, when they loaded Meier's camera with film for one of the photo ops, that he was packing all of this stuff in his nap sack? Really, no one ever noticed the smell of silver spray paint from all of the presumed models that Meier must have been making, according to Phil? Didn't anyone ever see EVIDENCE that such spray paint was being used, such as paper or cardboard, pieces of wood, traces on a wall or table of silver spray? And why were no such obvious materials ever traced to Meier either? I wonder how much silver spray paint is even sold today by the farming supply stores in his area, which is a good distance from larger cities, etc. The devil is always in the details and regarding http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-4PdUiXciA, where is the verifiably full size house for scale comparison? And where is the starting of the movement from stillness, without any wobble, to a momentary almost complete pause as the UFO moves to the left? Even in this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYLLzq_fefg he can't duplicate that pause, instead he tries to fool us by showing his model as it swings DOWN from the left side but not from a motionless state. And the close ups in Meier's film has all of the objects, UFO, farm house, trees, equally blurry; none of these are small objects close to the camera. In the same clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYLLzq_fefg) he tries to duplicate the jump away shot but again only gets the effect, without showing a clearer branch in the foreground, closer to the camera, with a fuzzier ship in the distance (and we don't know how many frames were used in his version; the ship disappeared and reappeared in one frame in Meier's film). There are, and will continue to be, various giveaways in all of Phil's work that are unavoidable because he is trying to duplicate with small models what was in fact occurring with large objects. His distance and close ups will also be too clear, etc. So he'll constantly have to study and try to create various effects, which he hasn't succeeded with yet, all of which of course are somewhat comical because the actual investigation in Switzerland effectively ruled out all of the trickery that Phil has been racking his brain to come up with. And, of course, all he has to do is to submit his evidence for the exact same testing, which isn't too likely. I think he could have a nice career in model making/special effects though. Bodhran Member Post Number: 91 Registered: 08-2008 Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 05:04 pm:        Hi Thomas and all, forget what I've said, I just found Michael Horns extensive statement on Phil Langdons pictures from the steelmark site, as always Michael explains the situation very well and puts the whole thing into perspective. Damn ,I just wasted a question to Billy on it too before I found that!!! It's hard to keep updated on everything that's going on all the time! Salome Tony. Davidmg Member Post Number: 59 Registered: 03-2008 Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 05:28 pm:        Bodhran; Indeed, this person has put a great deal of effort into claiming that Mr. Meier is faking his evidence. But a few things to take notice of. Anyone with an experience in photography and a good eye for depth perception as well rational thinking can clearly see the size of his model is not congruent with Mr. Meier's original photos as well as the size of the craft that is in Mr. Meier's original photograph. And of course the shining fishing wire can be clearly seen. Good effort but ... sloppy An attribute that Mr. Meier does not convey. One important aspect that everyone seem to forget to take notice of (including the debunkers) about the Meier case is that the military is not at all interested in debunkers. It just goes to show you who has got the more valid claims. I can pretty much say with assurance that there are no military bases set up at or near Kal Korff's residence or any of the other so called debunkers homes. And on my last comment about Mr. Meier's photograph number 12 on March 3rd 1975. I would very much like to see if this fellow can take a picture of not one but two UFO's taken from above the beam ships and with one arm. Davidmg Earthling Member Post Number: 460 Registered: 05-2008 Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 06:30 pm:        Michael, what's Phil's motivation in trying to discredit Meier? Michael_horn Member Post Number: 296 Registered: 07-2009 Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 09:27 pm:        I can't say for certain what motivates Phil but we can't assume that it's something dark, or at least always was. For whatever reason, he thinks/believes that the evidence is fake and wants to try to prove it. Actually that's a respectable thing to do, rather than just blather on like all the rest of the skeptics do. The problem may be that he can't accept his own obvious failings when his work appears to be otherwise so "good". If someone gets that seemingly close but there's ALWAYS a missing piece, etc., then it could get frustrating. If they really believed Meier faked everything then they could go a bit bonkers. reminds me of those Rubik cubes where you got one or two sides looking good but... If a truly objective truth seeker always keeps coming up a few essential pieces short in putting the puzzle together, they could have a very big "A ha!" when they get that it's real. Somehow though I think Phil has gotten very invested in (figuratively) "gunning down" Meier. But he keeps getting beaten to the draw and rather than concede that no trickery was involved (if he knew Meier he'd already have gotten that by now) he's stuck because he feels that he simply HAS to be right. So when I've said that he may go bonkers, like Korff, I mean it, without meaning him any ill will. In a way it really is comical to see him with all of his rigging, tossing lines in trees, etc. - but completely avoiding the testing, let alone acknowledging the facts about the tests that Meier's evidence easily passed, or I could say that established its authenticity. I had exchanged emails with Phil and tried to remain open and friendly to him but the attacks came from him too so I cut off the conversations. In one email though he had tried to be dismissive of Meier's photos from 1964, concocting his idea of how Meier faked them, while completely ignoring the eyewitness testimony of Phobol Cheng and others, the newspaper article, etc. The Korff method, which Phil appears to be emulating, is to attack everyone personally, try to dismiss all testing, etc., and carry on like a fool. (Korff is really displaying signs of mental breakdown as all of his machinations are coming back to him in their own way.) So their attacks against Meier are probably more indicative of their own character flaws, their own dishonest inclinations, their own fears of being "conned", etc., rather than anything to do with honest inquiry. Nonetheless, I do hope that through Phil's own impressive efforts he will realize that Meier and his evidence are authentic and truthful and that he can now learn things that are - as we all know here - far more important and the real reason for the decades of ongoing contacts. Thomas Member Post Number: 1092 Registered: 03-2004 Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 10:35 pm:        > But Adamski had witnesses too Michael and that is why I am saying people > can be fooled. As I also mentioned, I believe Mr Meier is telling the truth > but that shouldn't eliminate us looing at things as carefully as possible > since we don't actually know that he is telling the truth factually. I have > studied this case since 1990 and I have yet to find anything to prove it > definitely a hoax so I continue to have an open mind toward the whole > thing. Neutral positive means examining both the positive and the negative > since both contribute to learning. Peter_brodowski Member Post Number: 518 Registered: 01-2004 Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 11:10 pm:        hey there thomas, just my 2 cents here... you should only ever speak on behalf of yourself, for obvious reasons. there are things in meiers evidence that cannot be hoaxed/copied. i think that is quite obvious as well. i find it strange that you would leave room for the possiblity that meier is a hoaxer, because simply put, either you have thought things through logically (thus you will determine without a doubt that meier is genuine and truthfull in his words) or you have only partially contemplated matters, leaving you without a conclusive view on the matter. it is absolutely certain that meier is telling the truth. this can be determined using common sense. there seems to be a habit for some, to be "critical thinkers" which means absolutely nothing, because crtical and logical do not necessarily go hand in hand. i think you are being dishonest with yourself for some unknown reason to me. why would somebody who is not 100% convinced a person is honest, and yet ask for this mans opinions and rely on this person for answers in regards to certain questions? i.e. the semi-monthly round of questions to billy. i don;t mean this as a personal attack, but reading your posts, it seems to me that you are on the one hand trying to pose the notion that meier is possibly a fraud, and on the other hand that he is most likely genuine. this seems to give the impression that you are trying to save face while simultaneously support two conflicting points of view. i find you to be quite interesting for the fact that you seem so sure of yourself and yet you clearly demonstrate you are the opposite. can you elaborate more on why you are not 100% sure that meier is the real deal? by the way this is not meant to be offensive or hurtfull in anyway toward you thomas, thanks Thomas Member Post Number: 1093 Registered: 03-2004 Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 11:49 pm:        > No offense taken Peter and I do speak for myself. It is just that > examining all possibilities is the best way to the truth and it is a fact > that everything that Mr Meier has produced can be replicated. It has > already been shown in many places. If you can find one piece of evidence > that is impossible to replicate that actually exists now to be looked at, > then please show it. As I mentioned, even large and seemingly impossible > illusions can be achieved. If David Copperfield can make the Statue of > Liberty disappear in front of someone's eyes, then lesser things can surely > be faked. I am just being open minded and as clearly and unbiased as I can > be. Kingman Member Post Number: 816 Registered: 07-2004 Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 08:36 am:        Thomas, This forum is for the people who have concluded that Mr Meier is actually having contact with the Plejaren and has had his evidence clearly shown to be real. If your unable to comprehend that we discuss the reality of his contacts here maybe your at the wrong forum. The idea is to study the spiritual treasures Billy returns to our planet, and not to continue doubting our abilities at correct reasoning. We accept Billy's truth and work within that framework. This is a necessary realization one needs to fathom for themselves, and until that point has been reached, one should refrain from the skeptics point of view postings. Time is valuable and attempts at returning to uncertainty about the authenticity of Mr. Meier's material evidence is counterproductive at this point. And no, everything Mr Meier has produced hasn't been replicated. Nothing created by others has stood up to the scrutiny Meier's materials have. The fakes of others to debunk Billy's materials fail, EVERYTIME. It is not a fact he has been replicated. This should be abundantly clear. Thanks for listening. a friend in america Shawn Michael_horn Member Post Number: 297 Registered: 07-2009 Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 09:09 am:        Thomas, I think you missed some very obvious points here. Adamski didn't present anything even remotely near the body of physical evidence that Meier did. And I am unaware of five other photographers who also photographed the alleged craft in his case. More importantly, you miss the big point: Phil has NOT duplicated Meier's evidence, he has duplicated an EFFECT...very different. And not only are the differences between his and Meier's photos/films clearly evident, his failure to have his photos tested using the same standards and protocols (the best that were available at the time) speaks loudly. Let's remember what Meier said back in 1958, "...because they are already creating phantasmagoria, through movies and television, as well as later through a worldwide netting of computers and electronics, through which they deceive themselves and see things that do not exist, and are only visually determined for the eye, subsequently their sense for reality disappears and they can no longer distinguish between reality and fiction, etc." Skillful manipulators will cleverly try to fool people using Meier's own evidence as the basis for doing so. Let's not lose our sense of reality when childlike simplicity and clarity can perceive the differences. BTW, has anyone else realized that Meier didn't have to work so hard to get it "right", every time? Meier didn't study other photos and films of UFOs (the existing evidence going back to 1964 was minimal and not very clear) but his evidence forms the base of study now. It's additionally funny that someone has dedicated so much time and effort, a luxury that Meier didn't have of course, to say nothing of all of the resources that the hoaxer presumes that he did. Speaking of resources, in the film here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQWwaDzF4qo it seems that Phil starts with two plates that are already drilled, i.e. appear to have holes in them through which he is feeding wire. So the question is, were those plates pre-drilled? If not, why don't we see Phil drilling them with one hand and what kind of devices he used, including to stabilize the plates? I could be wrong but my sense is that if you try to drill through a plate, depending on what it's made out of, it make crack or it may start to spin when the drill bit hits the surface, unless it's held firmly in some manner. Now this is just to point out that not everything is shown, contrary to the impression Phil would like to make, nor is there any evidence that Meier actually had and used ANY of the materials that Phil uses. This is no small matter. If, as the investigators discovered for themselves and the witnesses attested to, Meier didn't have any such resources and/or abilities (let alone the time, imagination and inclination) then it can be understood that Phil is trying to solve a problem using things that were never used in the original evidence. Actually, people do it everyday when they try to fix or make something work by using material other than "original equipment"; cosmetics also come to mind! Or just imagine that you tape or glue something together that wasn't taped or glued before you broke it. So Phil actually does us a favor when he shows us, Penn and teller style, what he's done, how he's rigged all his lines, etc., simply because there is ZERO evidence that Meier ever did anything except as he said, "When the ship comes, I press the button." Thomas Member Post Number: 1096 Registered: 03-2004 Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 09:35 am:        > Sorry Kingman but nowhere in the forum rules does it say that one must > believe Mr Meier 100 percent to participate here. I am afraid that certain > people here are falling into a trap that Mr Meier himself said we should not > fall into: blind acceptance. As I have said numerous times to apparently no > avail, I believe Mr Meier but I also find value in looking into all aspects > of the case, pro and con. I have spoken at length with at least one of the > moderators here and that person is completely aware of my position. If they > or any other moderator feels that I am out of line, they will surely tell me > themselves. It is for noone else here to force their opinions on others and > that goes for me too. I just state my mind in a clear, non threatening > manner and yet I am asailed by certain people without cause. If you don't > agree with me, I can respect that, but don't go into a sort of Bible > thumping mode with BEAM as the substitute. It defeats everything he is > trying to teach us. Thomas Member Post Number: 1098 Registered: 03-2004 Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 09:49 am:        > Michael I have plenty of respect for you but you seem to miss my point > which is that we should continually look at all sides of reality to get the > full and complete picture. The scope and the depth of BEAM's info and > evidence is largely why I believe him plus the contents and wisdom that his > books contain. That said, everything in his eviddence can individually be > torn apart which I have no intention of doing, yet it still rests a fact. > Even in the notes it is mentioned I believe that no undeniable evidence is > given for reasons already stated. However those with eyes to see will > notice that BEAM is the real deal. My eyes are fully open which is why I, > unlike some others here (not you, but others here) are afraid to look at > anything that goes against the case. I see it this way, everything negative > eventually works towrd the truth in the long run just as the positive does. > BEAM said something to that affect as well and I agree. I am a supporter of > Mr Meier and as such I reserve the right to look at all sides of the story > with an OPEN mind rather that with tunnel vision. Gary Kinder was the first > source of info for my on this case and he seems to have had the same > openness that Meier and the P's commended him for. I am just a flunky here > but at least you guys (not so much Michael who seems level headed already) > can give me a break if I say something is interesting even if it seems > something negative for the case. Michael_horn Member Post Number: 298 Registered: 07-2009 Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 10:12 am:        Thomas, This really isn't about belief, so I think we're having an apples and oranges conversation. I think you stated that Phil had duplicated Meier's evidence. I have pointed something out to you that you've not responded to, i.e. that he didn't but has only has duplicated an EFFECT. This is absolutely not the same as duplicating something specific. You could say that someone who mixes vinegar and baking soda duplicated the EFFECT of a small eruption/explosion, etc. as caused by a volcano. They didn't create a volcanic eruption (please refine the example as necessary to understand the point). When you say that "everything in his evidence can be torn apart" you're making a generalized, unsubstantiated and incorrect statement. It's not about "undeniable evidence" really, it's about the fact that when someone does try to tear it apart and deny it, and clearly comes up quite short in doing so, they can be shown to have failed. And it's not about attacking Phil for his efforts, as I'm sure should be quite clear. It is about just gently returning the ball over the net, if one has any interest at all in playing that game. Obviously, most of us have moved on into the heart of the matter, i.e. the spiritual teaching and we have seen volumes of Meier's prophetic information corroborated. So we don't need to "believe" anything. However, since the physical evidence is the most controversial (both deliberately and successfully) a little bit of time can be spent in addressing the best attempts to debunk and/or duplicate it. So, if you wish to respond, please do so by addressing the points, which I think include some incorrect statements on your part insofar as what has or has not been "duplicated", "torn apart", etc. Thanks. Hector Member Post Number: 596 Registered: 04-2006 Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 12:02 pm:        When people discover the Billy Meier case they exhibit different reactions to it. The vast majority of the people approach the Billy Meier case constantly repeating a single contagious mantra: "Show me the evidence, where's the evidence". These people need the "evidence" in order to accept Meier's new portrayal of reality, how reality really looks like according to Meier. Without the "evidence", these category of truthseekers are not able to question or doubt their perception (defective, deficient perception) of reality, not based on facts or research, but on illusion and second hand opinions. A certain courage and risk is necessary in order to make spiritual progress. To the human eye, reality is always subjective, because it is always in motion, it is constantly changing and moving, just like anything in the universe. If reality( = what surrounds us) is constantly moving, adapting and evolving, then the human consciousness just can't resign itself, it can't be content with an static, invariable, unchangeable perception of reality. When lazy people use their "show me your evidence" mantra as a wild card in every occasion, they are refusing to try to break their illusory perception of reality. To these people, the plejaren spaceships are fake not because they can be "replicated", but because these pictures of plejaren spaceships do smash and disintegrate their present views about extraterrestrial life forms, aliens, the earth's ancient history etc etc. Some other small minority does not show much interest in the evidence, pics and vids, but more in the things Meier has to say. I'm included in this small minority. It is obvious that reviewing, scrutinizing, analizing Meier's pics and vids one zillion times does not bring anyone any progress or personal evolution. I can watch Meier's pics and vids one billion times and learn almost nothing. But when Meier, the plejaren and Arahat Athersata do challenge me to compare my view of reality with theirs in relation to life, death, reincarnation, "God", the Big Bang, ancient earth history, human psychology, "paranormal sciences" etc etc....then I have lots to learn, lots to study and lots to think about. I suppose (assume) that the plejaren and Meier's perception of reality is quite broader, richer and detailed than mine. Yeah, I assume it. I have nothing to lose and much to gain in the process. Thomas uses the concept (term) "blind acceptance" when refering to some attitudes in the forum....In my case...is Hector blindly accepting what Meier and the plejaren say? No. Absolutely not. What Hector does is trying to confront (challenge) his present personal knowledge and his 2010' perception of reality with those of Meier and the p's. Hector admits Meiers and the P's consciousness advantage and superiority. It's like Hector was myopic and Meier wasn't. I'm sure I'm a spiritual shortsighted guy, while Meier proves to possess an admirable ability to present things as they are and not as they seem to be.(Remember Billy's book title Meditation from a clear sight...lol?) Well If we start with the premise that our extraterrestrial friend's perception and understanding of many matters is more detailed, precise and accurate than ours, this implies that it is our understanding which has to grow, and not theirs. This makes the difference between BELIEF and CONSCIOUSNESS EVOLUTION. Belief being something static, unchangeable, not dynamic, not fluent, no striving for something higher... and EVOLUTION OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS representing quite the opposite (movement, progress, evolution, effort, striving for something higher). I started from the premise that my perception of reality has to CONVERGE with that of those who are at a higher level than me. And my perception of reality cannot converge with Meier's and the p's if I do not make a tremendous effort in order to make those two different views converge and harmonize in a single, unique stream of knowledge and wisdom. This process of "consciousness convergence" must be of course voluntary and free of coercion, pressure, force or subjugation. Once again...Belief = That illusory perception of reality that the human being considers to be complete, free of mistakes, absolute, unchangeable, needs no revision or update and does not need to be scrutinized or put under the microscope. Belief is not in line with Creation's Laws and Commandments, and unlike striving for higher knowledge and wisdom, it's of perishable nature. (Sorry for the rambling..) Best regards Smukhuti Member Post Number: 402 Registered: 06-2009 Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 02:30 pm:        Thomas, Agree with you that there might be possibility of fraud and so one must keep an open mind. But if I may say 1. "I am so far 100% satisfied that the case is genuine, but would listen to any view in contrary with sound logic and grater or equal set of objective evidence/testimony", or 2. "Above quote equals to blind faith" 3. "I am 95% convinced and 5% I have kept aside for doubts that may come or areas that seem to be duplicable in the set of evidence". Read along if you consider either or both the second (2) or third (3) sentence more in line with what you are trying to put through here, which I presume you are, through "I have > studied this case since 1990 and I have yet to find anything to prove it" and also through "I am afraid that certain > people here are falling into a trap that Mr Meier himself said we should not > fall into: blind acceptance." *** First of all, There are indeed areas of the evidence like the witness testimony which we have no guarantee that all or any of them are correct and there would always be questions asked in these areas. Meier photos are only a part of the evidence and not the full evidence. Whoever tries to duplicate Meier material or say, duplicate the effect of the Meier photos can be validated, only if there is a head to head test by very sophisticated instruments which would be able to tell the distance of the objects seen on the photo from the camera, the shadows, heat signature, etc. etc. That has not happened for any of the "duplicates" as I understand. On the other hand, it has happened for Meier photo to a great degree, by respectable and well known members of the scientific community, the movie industry and sophisticated instruments of the armed forces. If you give me a screenshot of a really well made science fiction movie and a Meier photo, and do not tell me which one was shot by Meier, more often than not, I can very well select the science fiction movie screenshots as genuine. Why? I do not have proper tools to validate those. At first glance, some of the stills shown in Phil's video seemed to be taken from Meier photo itself. Now, wow! Either they are really taken from Meier's photo, or they are really well made. Regardless how well made Phil's photos are, they are not subjected to the same level of tests that Meier’s photos had been through. We are in an age where visual illusion delivered through multimedia is nearing perfection. Looking through even trained eyes is no longer enough to judge a fake. Let Phil subject his photos to neutral members of scientific community, movie industry and instruments used by the armed forces and then we'll talk. Then there is possibility of real disc shaped spacecraft, belonging to either of at least 5 nations. Regarding validity of the Meier case: Hypothetically speaking - if a point blank fraud would approach me and say to me that overpopulation is the root of all problems on earth, I would gladly agree with the fraud. If a fraud gives me a bible and Talmud Jmmanuel and tells me that TJ is the real deal, I would gladly agree with what is being written in the TJ; as that makes sense to me more than anything else. That may be to be my doom, but my present level of logic cannot find a better product in TJ over the bible. IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT THE FRAUD IS SAYING. That is because my level of consciousness is dragging me to the material that I should associate myself with. While, these were subjective issues. Photos and material evidence are altogether different ballgame as they are objective and can be proven genuine or fake conclusively by experts through tests (still someone may choose not to take the verified testimony from experts for granted as per their level of understanding). Here, a fraud is a fraud – the end. Thomas, I was a God believing person only 2 years ago. I came in contact with Meier material only when frequent question started coming to my mind about God, about conflict between religions about what philosophy extraterrestrial civilisation might had. After coming to know about the Meier case and reading the contact notes and reading about the evidence, I had no problem in choosing a path which I think is right. Not because some Swiss UFO contactee Meier tells me it is right. 10 months ago I witness two radiant fireball (one large, one small or maybe behind) for full 10 minutes, very near to my parental home in the outskirts of the city; which I still doubt were spacecraft flown by ET’s. At the moment of excitement I called my religious mother (who has recently started to agree with the hypothesis that we might not be alone in the Universe) and atheist father who came out and saw them. The radiant ball were making wobbling movements exactly just like in Meier videos while in still position. 10 minutes later, they moved together slowly westward and vanished a minutes separate from each other. My mother later went out for an errand and witnessed the larger ball at the same location where I located them initially and watched it vanish. Even though I'm still not sure they were spacecrafts from another world, there was an impact in my mind and I would confess this incident has made me somewhat unidirectional in taking Meier material at face value. So if you feel there are areas where Meier photos were found lacking in the tests that were conducted, and Phil's photos have matched and bettered them, please let us know. It is a genuine request from someone (I) who does not want to vouch for things that are fraudulent, to someone (you) who thinks that there may be areas of evidences in the case which are duplicable (and verifiable with same set of parameters) with 30 year old technology and hence Meier could also have done that. Salome. Suv Kingman Member Post Number: 817 Registered: 07-2004 Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 05:13 pm:        Ok Thomas, I see your steadfast in your position. So by definition you are a skeptic, right? Which is very much ok, really. I will simply suggest something which I think is worthy of contemplating. When you finally find that smoking gun, post your discovery so we all may have an opportunity to examine it as well. Until then, since you say you are a supporter of Mr. Meier, support him. You see, it is illogical for the position that you hold to. How will finding one single piece of evidence that is really suspect of chicanery equal to negating all the absolutely reasonable evidence that is available and shows the reality of Mr.Meier's case. A single piece could change your mind? That other shoe may never drop and where will it have gotten you? Oh, and bible thumping? Really? Bible thumping? Now I think your just saying something silly. And yes, it has been stated that this site is for people who have already reasoned out that Billy is telling the truth, so arguing a position of doubt is, well, it's illogical. You should know that I too don't believe in this Mr. Meier. Yes it's true, I don't believe, I know. Time to move forward, unless of course you have any doubts lingering, then I say, figure it out, then get back to us. That would show a level of honest respect for all who truly value this site. a friend in america Shawn

Administration Log Out   Previous Page Next Page