1 of 18
1
Expand your understanding
Posted: 08 December 2005 04:44 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2004-12-22

While most people on this forum probably agree about the dangers of religion, I wonder how many have given any thought as to how the religions, in this case Judaism, arose.

I suggest that you read the selection below that I have excerpted from the book of Ezekiel and that you then visit my site at http://www.theyfly.com and prepare yourselves to do some homework.

While virtually every religion rests on the patently foolish and completely inadmissible premise that "what's in this book is true because this book says it's true", the information that I am referring you to is backed up 55 years of specific, impeccably prophetically accurate, scientific and world event related information published by the man at the center of this case.

It will no longer be sufficient to simply dismiss the nonsensical and bloody religions, we will have to understand how they arose… and who the gods actually were.

Ezekiel 1

15: Now as I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel upon the earth beside the living creatures, one for each of the four of them.
16: As for the appearance of the wheels and their construction: their appearance was like the gleaming of a chrysolite; and the four had the same likeness, their construction being as it were a wheel within a wheel.
17: When they went, they went in any of their four directions without turning as they went.
18: The four wheels had rims and they had spokes; and their rims were full of eyes round about.
19: And when the living creatures went, the wheels went beside them; and when the living creatures rose from the earth, the wheels rose.

Ezekiel 3

12: Then the Spirit lifted me up, and as the glory of the LORD arose from its place, I heard behind me the sound of a great earthquake;
13: it was the sound of the wings of the living creatures as they touched one another, and the sound of the wheels beside them, that sounded like a great earthquake.

Ezekiel 10

1: Then I looked, and behold, on the firmament that was over the heads of the cherubim there appeared above them something like a sapphire, in form resembling a throne.
2: And he said to the man clothed in linen, "Go in among the whirling wheels underneath the cherubim; fill your hands with burning coals from between the cherubim, and scatter them over the city." And he went in before my eyes.
3: Now the cherubim were standing on the south side of the house, when the man went in; and a cloud filled the inner court.
4: And the glory of the LORD went up from the cherubim to the threshold of the house; and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the glory of the LORD.
5: And the sound of the wings of the cherubim was heard as far as the outer court, like the voice of God Almighty when he speaks.
6: And when he commanded the man clothed in linen, "Take fire from between the whirling wheels, from between the cherubim," he went in and stood beside a wheel.
7: And a cherub stretched forth his hand from between the cherubim to the fire that was between the cherubim, and took some of it, and put it into the hands of the man clothed in linen, who took it and went out.
8: The cherubim appeared to have the form of a human hand under their wings.
9: And I looked, and behold, there were four wheels beside the cherubim, one beside each cherub; and the appearance of the wheels was like sparkling chrysolite.
10: And as for their appearance, the four had the same likeness, as if a wheel were within a wheel.
11: When they went, they went in any of their four directions without turning as they went, but in whatever direction the front wheel faced the others followed without turning as they went.
12: And their rims, and their spokes, and the wheels were full of eyes round about—the wheels that the four of them had.
13: As for the wheels, they were called in my hearing the whirling wheels.
14: And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.
15: And the cherubim mounted up. These were the living creatures that I saw by the river Chebar.
16: And when the cherubim went, the wheels went beside them; and when the cherubim lifted up their wings to mount up from the earth, the wheels did not turn from beside them.
17: When they stood still, these stood still, and when they mounted up, these mounted up with them; for the spirit of the living creatures was in them.
18: Then the glory of the LORD went forth from the threshold of the house, and stood over the cherubim.

Ezekiel 11

22: Then the cherubim lifted up their wings, with the wheels beside them; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them.
23: And the glory of the LORD went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain, which is on the east side of the city.

Okay, we have wheels, rims, spokes, construction ­-is that specific and physical and structural enough? Does that sound like the “Creator of the Universe” to you – or perhaps the aircraft that whoever he was flew in on? It couldn't be clearer, at least not since it came from a rather primitive fellow who really had no reference point for the kind of craft he was seeing. And "the Glory of the Lord" was another term for those vehicles, the Biblical UFOs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2005 11:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2005-02-06

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/scam.html

I’ll believe anybody who can make money in the stock market, and not before.

Rod

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2005 02:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2004-12-22

Rod,

I always ask people who send me unfounded disinformation by debunkers to do their due diligence instead of being lazy. This “company” is no longer in business, never filed a lawsuit, never produced “evidence” or “experts”, etc. since it was a front for a disninfo agent named Kal Korff.

We have proof far beyond a reasonable doubt that the Meier case is absolutely authentic that would prevail in a court of law…and you can examine a good amount of it for free at my site.

As for people who make money in the stock market, sorry, we don’t worship that god either.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2005 06:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

Many people, throughout time, have written fantastic things, about subjects which, presumably, they had to draw largely upon their imagination to describe.

H. G. Wells wrote about trips to the moon, long before such voyages actually took place.  Most constructed objects, at the macroscopic level, can be well described using simple geometric shapes.  It seems at least as plausible that Ezekiel was simply tripping the light fantastic, and wrote about something which, to a modern reader, kinda-sorta sounds like technology.

However, for the sake of conversation, I’ll assume that he really did see beings in some sort of flying device.  Is it logical to assume that aliens built the device, and traveled here to commune with the locals, but wound up doing such a piss poor job of it that fleeting references and difficult to prove encounters is all that we have?  After all, extraplanetary travel (or extradimensional, or whatever) seems to imply a degree of intelligence and capability for accomplishing complex undertakings.  I agree that there are possible explanations, but they seem to me to be of ever increasing implausibility.

Might it not, therefore, be more plausible, again assuming that Ezekiel actually saw someone in a flying craft, that another human, somewhere, developed flight technology?  After all, we know that the Earth is inhabited by an intelligent race capable of producing flight technology.  Temporal chauvinism predisposes us to think that flight was not possible until recently, but a moment’s honest thought reveals that some machines can fly, even if they happen to be built by people living in otherwise “primitive” times.

So, I put the question out directly, how the bloody hell does one arrive at the notion that it is more probable that aliens built that craft rather than humans? 

Of course, that is still assuming, for the sake of conversation, that the craft existed, which is still hard to buy.  Ever played with a prop on a stick?  You know, the kids’ toy?  Put it between your palms, spin, let go and voila!  Flight!  They have been making such things for a long time.  Perhaps Ezekiel saw the metal flying toy of some princling, and got an idea.

So, the bottom line, for me, is that while such things are certainly interesting, they fall short of being compelling.

I will examine your site though, as time allows.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2005 07:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2004-12-22

Hi Matt,

The answers to your questions are easily found through your own due diligence but let me point out that a search on the word “vimanas” will be helpful, as will a visit to this site:

http://www.ufoartwork.com/

The truth is often hidden in plain site and humanity has it in front of their noses for a few thousand years.

Of course, if you read the info at http://www.theyfly.com and put on your thnking cap you will find some further answers. And let’s not assume that so-called “aliens” were NOT humans, I never said they weren’t.

But don’t make the same mistake the religious believers do of trying to make the obvious into something more mystical than it is. Ezekiel was being enormously careful and specific in trying to describe the phenomena he was observing and you will see actual, authenticated photos of similar objects my site.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2005 11:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

Michael:

I appreciate the fervor which you seem to have for this subject matter.  While others might be inclined to question your integrity, I see no compelling reason dispute your honesty or your intentions.

That said, I’m not convinced.  Well, actually, it is more accurate to say that, at this time, I am provisionally convinced that the Meier evidence/case is flawed.

Here is a quick and dirty rundown of my issues:

1. The lack of a scientific approach - I’m sure this makes me sound like every other skeptical “jerk” out there, but I have to.  Unless there is evidence which I can (re)gather, and reach, on my own, the same conclusions (at least some of them), then I have a great deal of difficulty seeing why I should accept what has been presented.

2. The photos and video are horrible.  Beyond the nebulous issue of how they could be hoaxed when they were taken (of course they could be), and how one might go about authenticating them or disproving them, the fact remains that they are not all that good.  In fact, they are spectacularly bad.  Take the video of the saucer circling the tree.  What possible reason would any craft have for flying around like that?  Also, the argument that the inclination of the craft somehow reveals that it wasn’t hung on a tether seems to leap to the conclusion a little quickly.  It looks like a gyro on a string to me, which explains everything, the apparent tether, the shape of the object, and any apperent oddness of the inclination.

3. There are a variety of things which were supposedly “revealed” to Meier, presumably so that he could reveal them to other people for some purpose or other.  It is quite obvious that Meier has been spectacularly unsuccessful in getting any sort of major traction with these messages.  At the risk of seeming unkind, it is also quite obvious why Meier wasn’t able to get much traction.  It should have been obvious to the Aliens (or whatever you want to call them) as well.

4. The prophecies are oracular - One might as well read Nostradamus.  Nations are attacked.  The French have problems with Islamic imigrants.  Lacking dates, and uniquely specific details, these kinds of “predictions” are no more impressive than the “Mysterious Matt” psychic shows that I occasionally put on for my friends’ children.

5. The scientific knowledge is not conclusive either - Either it is sufficiently obvious (nuclear testing might cause issues), or sufficiently at odds with what is being discovered (humans and apes descending from common ancestors) to cause it to be viewed with extreme skepticism.  The argument that a farmer with a sixth grade education could not make it up is absurd.  There are plenty of impressive autodidacts in this world, who have accomplished impressive (even earth changing) things with little or no formal education.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2005 12:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  280
Joined  2005-02-24

Why is this discussion in the Judaism section?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2005 12:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2005-02-06

Right Matt. And Michael, I may be rolling my eyes but I don’t want to be a jerk either. The thing is, we have a choice to make. Either the most incredible thing in human history has happened, or Meier hoaxed it. Given no more evidence than what we have for Bigfoot, you ask us to decide. What would you do? I hope you don’t believe in Bigfoot too.

Not one scrap of alien evidence. Not a piece of cloth, metal, or even a piece of alien brocoli or a fingernail clipping. Matt’s right. If they really wanted to make their presence clear, it wouldn’t take much, and they should know it. I’m sorry, you have nothing that is definitive or persuasive. Not even my wife could travel for lightyears and not leave a card.

MJ, I guess because they visited the early Jews.

Rod

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2005 01:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2004-12-22

Hi Matt,

I appreciate the exchange of ideas, so let me respond to each of your items, and pardon me if I seem too direct but thre’s a lot here to cover:

1. Absolutely incorrect. A six-year long investigtion into the case including expert scientific examination of Meier’s photos, films, sound recordings and metal alloy samples. Briefly, they were found to be authentic, the photos and films were of large, uunknown objects not models or special effects. They were, and remain, irreproducible even with today’s technology. This is also the case for the sound recordings and the metal alloy samples. Scientists involved with the testing included personnel from IBM, JPL, NASA, USGS, Naval Undersea Labs, Excalibut Sound Studios, Nippon TV, Canadian Film Board, etc.

2. Hardly! You really have to look at even the few photos available on my site and understand, first of all, that models and special effects were ruled out, that you’re looking at some rather fine machining of dissimilar metals, etc. As for the film clip, while it may among the least clear on a computer screen, the analysis written about is accurate. If you observe closely you’ll see the top of the tree moved by the backwash of the craft. The scene starts with a far shot and then goes close up, it’s clearly shot outdoors and there’s no way anyone could suspend a model that big (unobserved) let alone manipulate it in ways that also would defy the laws of inertia, as close examination also reveals. Meier’s photos and films are acknowledged, even by the most skeptical of people, as absolutley the best ever taken - and there were more than 1,200 of them.

3. The role of a true prophet (think of Galileo here so as to avoid the religious connotations of that term) is always extremely difficult - someday you may look back on your own skeptical argument and wonder how you jumped to such conclusions, we’ll see. But the truth is not something that is easily embraced by humanity, filled with know it alls and the ignorant, just pound their heads full of an illogical belief system and they’re happy but expand the paradigm and you often do so at risk to your life or, as in Meier’s case, you risk it 21 times.

4. Somebody didn’t do their homework! Read my article, “Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt” for some very specific dates/events that were corroborated. furthermore, it isn’t only dates that one looks for but specificity of information, largely unknown at the time, and how close it is to events that do later occur. The Paris info is quite specific and appears twice before the events actually occurred! Add to that the remarkable accuracy of the Meier material and the absence of the to be expected erroneous material and you’re in a different league. For example, when Meier stated, in 1978, that Io was the most volcanically active body in the solar system five months BEFORE the probe got there to confirm it that’s more than pretty good. Then, when NASA announced, in 1998, that the composition of the dust ejecta is primarily dust particles and sulfur ions Meier looks pretty good, having specifically said the same thing…in 1978. He’s a Swiss farmer, for gosh sakes! Do you know anyone who, in 1978, was describing the as yet unseen moons of Jupiter and providing such info? Me neither.

5. Sorry but that’s intellectually dishonest, or just ill-informed on your part. The information re the connection of earhtquakes to petroleum extraction and A-bomb testing to substantial enviornmental and genetic damage that Meier published, as early as 1951 and 1958, was unknown or, at the very least, unpublicized at the time. And when you start putting all of the pieces of the puzzle together, the physical eviednce included, you go so far beyond an “autodidact” that it’s silly to mention it.

But it should be mentioned, and researcched by you, that there are 120+ witnesses, including a retired UN diplomat, 15 witnesses took and completely passed lie detector tests (including Meier), there are five other photographers of the craft, other witnesses to the contacts and ETs and not even one person who’s come forward in all the decades past to claim that he helped Meier in any way, financially, techologically, etc.

So, feel free to take it from there!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2005 01:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2004-12-22

Rod,

Please don’t be so lazy, Review the very ample documentation of the six categories of still irreproducible physical evidence and then challenge me…and the scientists who authenticated them. I didn’t come here to waste your time, as I’ve spent 26 years of my own researching the case, meeting the principals including the investigative team and numerous witnesses and other photographers.

If all that you have to offer is glib, prejudicial and predictable banter please excuse me for not responding to it further. I have cleaned the clocks of the professional skeptics, i.e. CFI-West, James Randi and Michael Shermer and have supporters of the case among real scientists, so your superficial comments don’t impress…and they are factually inaccurate.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2005 12:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

[quote author=“Michael812”]Hi Matt,

I appreciate the exchange of ideas, so let me respond to each of your items, and pardon me if I seem too direct but thre’s a lot here to cover:

Don’t worry about being too direct.  I have pretty thick skin, and, given that you chose to post what you did in a forum of mostly skeptics, I am guessing that you do too.  We obviously have radically different viewpoints on the issue, and, try though we might, if we are both honest, we will admit that each of us brings a different inclination of belief to the table on these issues.  You might convince me, I might convince you, or we might have to agree to disagree.  While we are figuring that out, I suggest that neither of us pull punches, because all that will do is delay our arrival at whatever ultimate conclusion we will come to. 

1. Absolutely incorrect. A six-year long investigtion into the case including expert scientific examination of Meier’s photos, films, sound recordings and metal alloy samples. Briefly, they were found to be authentic, the photos and films were of large, uunknown objects not models or special effects. They were, and remain, irreproducible even with today’s technology. This is also the case for the sound recordings and the metal alloy samples. Scientists involved with the testing included personnel from IBM, JPL, NASA, USGS, Naval Undersea Labs, Excalibut Sound Studios, Nippon TV, Canadian Film Board, etc.

There is, though, a difference between experts not being able to prove that any of this evidence was faked, and proving that it means what Meier says it means.  Of course, that is accepting, at face value, that all of the experts are as represented, and gave the opinions that they are said to have given.

2. Hardly! You really have to look at even the few photos available on my site and understand, first of all, that models and special effects were ruled out, that you’re looking at some rather fine machining of dissimilar metals, etc.

I have to disagree.  The photos on your site are of a terribly low resolution.  I loaded some of the better of them into Photoshop, and zoomed in on the saucers.  No details were visible, and the high degree of compression artifacts made any sort of analysis as to whether or not the saucers belonged in the photos or not all but impossible.  What is striking, though, is that there are many similarities in image composition between virtually all of the images.  There are no complex shadow interactions, and the saucers are always backdropped against sky.  This represents the “easiest” configuration for deception, so forgive me for being skeptical when none of the photos represent “hard” fakes.

I realize that you are asserting that experts have said that they are real.  I call “Argumentum ad Verecundiam” on this one.  Why should I believe these authorities over what my own senses and reason tell me?  Without the logical reasons that these authorities might have given as to why these photos are real, it is simply an empty appeal to authority.

As for the film clip, while it may among the least clear on a computer screen, the analysis written about is accurate. If you observe closely you’ll see the top of the tree moved by the backwash of the craft.

Or the wind of the gyro.

The scene starts with a far shot and then goes close up, it’s clearly shot outdoors and there’s no way anyone could suspend a model that big (unobserved) let alone manipulate it in ways that also would defy the laws of inertia, as close examination also reveals.

I’ll go into a little more detail on the film.  I saw the original broadcast on FOX when I was a kid.  I downloaded the video clips, and viewed them full screen, and frame by frame just before my previous post.  I have a fair degree of personal expertise working with video.  Unless there is source video that is substantially better looking, the video is not well focused, and making out details is hard.  Furthermore, the lack of complexity in the shot (sky, saucer, tree) makes for far less supporting visual evidence of its veracity than one might want to see.

So, how was it done?  How does one get such “large” objects onto film like that?  Well, in this case, I would submit that the objects are small, and that they are filmed through a two lens setup.  The primary video camera would likely be fliming in a “macro” configuration, aimed at a telecine style device feeding into a second lens, designed to give the proper “FOV” so that, optically, the resulting video has the right look.

As for defying laws of inertia, grab a Yo Yo, and start playing with it.  I was able to replicate the motion of the craft quite well, after a few tries, minus the inclination, which I suspect is produced by a gyro.

Meier’s photos and films are acknowledged, even by the most skeptical of people, as absolutley the best ever taken - and there were more than 1,200 of them.

I guess I am even more skeptical then.  I need reasons, not affirmations of authority.  I’ll admit that it is possible that this is just some sort of psychological block, or whatever, and that for whatever reason, despite all these legitimate experts agreeing, this simply has not gotten any real press.  I find it to be very improbable however.  As Cuba Gooding Jr.‘s character in Jerry Maguire said, “Show me the money!”  Or, in this case, the logic, not just the conclusions.

3. The role of a true prophet (think of Galileo here so as to avoid the religious connotations of that term) is always extremely difficult - someday you may look back on your own skeptical argument and wonder how you jumped to such conclusions, we’ll see.

Honesty forces me to admit that I could, possibly, be wrong about aliens, and saucers, and so forth.  However, I doubt that I am wrong about the state of the “proof” that I have, thus far seen.  So, I seriously doubt that I will be kicking myself for not being a “believer” at this point, even if I am ultimately proven wrong. 

But the truth is not something that is easily embraced by humanity, filled with know it alls and the ignorant, just pound their heads full of an illogical belief system and they’re happy but expand the paradigm and you often do so at risk to your life or, as in Meier’s case, you risk it 21 times.

We like our sweeping generalizations don’t we?  Still, you are correct that, when people latch onto a concept that they like, they are loathe to give it up, no matter what evidence is presented.  Good for the goose. . .  The question, though, is one of methodology.  I believe that the scientific method has been pretty well vetted at this point, and if you don’t agree, or feel that we need to move beyond it, then we should dispense with this discussion, and, instead, have a more foundational discussion on the philosophy of science.

4. Somebody didn’t do their homework!

I need to re-install acrobat, so I did not get to the PDF files on your website.

Read my article, “Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt” for some very specific dates/events that were corroborated.

I will, but the title makes it sound like a legal definition of proof is being used for what I think actually merits a logical or scientific definition of truth, but I will reserve judement until I read more.

furthermore, it isn’t only dates that one looks for but specificity of information, largely unknown at the time, and how close it is to events that do later occur.

Fair warning, you are using “specificity of information” in a discussion with a computer scientist who is particularly agitated with the ID crowd at the moment.

It isn’t just unknown information, it is whether or not is is “unknowable”.  For instance, a prediction that a city will suffer a war, or riots, or what have you.  Interesting, but most cities suffer such things at some point.  Some cities are obviously more prone to such problems than others.  Predicting that a particular person, not yet born, has a pivotal role in those events, is a bit more interesting, but only if a specific name is given, instead of vague cues of the “and you shall know him by his unique mark” variety.

The Paris info is quite specific and appears twice before the events actually occurred!

But what about Italy?  Also, although there has been rioting, I am not aware of Paris being destroyed, which is what was in the non-PDF text that I saw, unless I am missing something.

Add to that the remarkable accuracy of the Meier material and the absence of the to be expected erroneous material and you’re in a different league. For example, when Meier stated, in 1978, that Io was the most volcanically active body in the solar system five months BEFORE the probe got there to confirm it that’s more than pretty good.

Why were we sending a probe to Io?  What was the speculation in the papers, and the science publications at that time?

Then, when NASA announced, in 1998, that the composition of the dust ejecta is primarily dust particles and sulfur ions Meier looks pretty good, having specifically said the same thing…in 1978.

Two can play at that game.  Mystic Matt hereby predicts that, despite the apparent potential for paradox, quantum entanglement will allow for functional Faster Than Light communication.  Yes, this communication can entail reverse-temporal causality, but the universe, as will be realized, will not allow the paradox situation to happen.  This will lead to an eventual boom in the business of transporting quantum “halves” to depots flung throughout the solar system, and ultimately beyond, allowing people to maintain instant communications as they spread into space.

He’s a Swiss farmer, for gosh sakes! Do you know anyone who, in 1978, was describing the as yet unseen moons of Jupiter and providing such info? Me neither.

Again, what was the speculation that was showing up at the time?  It is all good and well to say that nobody was saying it, but. . .  I don’t really want to head to the nearest university, and bust out the microfiche. . .  I’ll poke around and see if there are any good archives online first.

5. Sorry but that’s intellectually dishonest, or just ill-informed on your part. The information re the connection of earhtquakes to petroleum extraction and A-bomb testing to substantial enviornmental and genetic damage that Meier published, as early as 1951 and 1958, was unknown or, at the very least, unpublicized at the time.

But it wasn’t unknowable and that is the point I am driving at.  For the sake of conversation, I will take, at face value, your assertion that Meier said those things, and that they are correct (I have not actually had the chance to look them up as of yet).  The question that I have to ask myself, then, is which is the more likely explanation for how Meier came to have this information before it was widely available.  I could offer up ideas, but they would be speculation, so, instead I will simply say that there are any number of plausible mundane explanations that seem to imply far fewer improbable events than the alien explanation. 

And when you start putting all of the pieces of the puzzle together, the physical eviednce included, you go so far beyond an “autodidact” that it’s silly to mention it.

Why is it silly?  Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, a tremendous amount of progress was made in science and technology.  Often, a single person advanced their field by decades, or more, because of their singular vision.  Many of these people lacked formal educations.  Is it really so hard to believe, then, that for every one of these brilliant minds that was recognized, there may have been some number of equally brilliant minds that were not?

But it should be mentioned, and researcched by you, that there are 120+ witnesses, including a retired UN diplomat, 15 witnesses took and completely passed lie detector tests (including Meier), there are five other photographers of the craft, other witnesses to the contacts and ETs and not even one person who’s come forward in all the decades past to claim that he helped Meier in any way, financially, techologically, etc.

There have been debunkers, though, who claim to have inflitrated, and gotten proof that these claims are false.  While I will not simply site their claims as proof, I find it suspiciously convenient that all of the detractors are discredited, leaving only those people who confirm the official story.  For some reason, it reminds me of the way that the Bush administration got the intelligence community to “legitimately” support the case for the war.

With regards to the lie detector test. . .  I shouldn’t have to point out that all the test measures is whether person believes what they are saying, not whether what they are saying is true.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2005 02:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2005-02-06

Michael,

Knowing as I do the human propensity to seek things like fame and Nobel Prizes, I am largely convinced this is a hoax based on the inablity of your experts to convince other experts. Remember cold fusion? Atlantis? This simply is a good system that will keep me from devoting 26 years of my life to a fraud.

Rod

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2005 03:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  280
Joined  2005-02-24

“1. Absolutely incorrect. A six-year long investigtion into the case including expert scientific examination of Meier’s photos, films, sound recordings and metal alloy samples. Briefly, they were found to be authentic, the photos and films were of large, uunknown objects not models or special effects. They were, and remain, irreproducible even with today’s technology. This is also the case for the sound recordings and the metal alloy samples. Scientists involved with the testing included personnel from IBM, JPL, NASA, USGS, Naval Undersea Labs, Excalibut Sound Studios, Nippon TV, Canadian Film Board, etc.”

Sorry, but sticking exclusively to the metal alloy samples, at this point in time it’s naive to conclude that these are really from another civilization from outer space. First, the same elements exist everywhere in the known universe. At this point in time we have absolutely no way to distinguish “unknown alloys” from outer space somewhere from “unknown alloys” made on this planet. Considering present knowledge, you’d have to compare an “unknown alloy” to every “known alloy” anywhere on this planet. Even then you couldn’t be certain you didn’t have something some nut cooked up in his laboratory.

Years ago a UFO researcher wanted me to test some small metal alloy balls he was sure were made by an outer space civilization because they were perfectly round, much too perfect to have been made on this planet. Unfortunately, he couldn’t provide any information about the provenance of these metal balls; where they were found, by whom, under what circumstances. Luckily for me, I’d just been to a meeting of metallurgists and had been shown some perfectly round metal ball bearings that had been made on the space station. Because of the lack of gravity, they’d been made to much higher specifications than could be achieved on earth. Naturally, it turned out that what this poor guy had been duped by was some of those.

There’s plenty of mystification of science going on in the UFO field. I have yet to see any kind of actual report that doesn’t turn out to be exactly that. It’s possible to test until doomsday, coming up with all sorts of magnificent sounding reports, that miss the actual truth. I could provide plenty of examples that I’ve looked at. I was once provided electron microscope photos of an “implant” from somebody’s nose, plus an elaborate chemical analysis. One thing that constantly happens is that these samples are virtually never sent to scientists in the fields that could easily identify them. One glance at the photo of this “implant” and I knew instantly that it was Chinese silk! You simply can’t miss the structure of Chinese silk if you’re familiar with it. The lady had somehow sniffed some lint from her scarf.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2005 04:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2005-02-06

MJ,

Can you imagine someone passing that lint around for 26 years?

Rod

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2005 04:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2004-12-22

Matt,

I appreciate the direct approach, thanks.

You raise a lot of points and they have all been addressed in the research on the case, though addressing each one here is a bit tedious I’ll do my best. First let me say that there is a rather substantial body of work already published on the case and the investigation that I am somewhat hesitant to repost item by item. I am also almost, but not quite, loathe to mention that much of it is available in the form of books, DVDs, etc., since that sounds promotional.

But the fact of the matter is that the case has been marginalized not so much on its merit but because it simply is too much for certain parties to deal with. Before that sounds like “conpiracy” talk, let me tell you that I approach the mainstream media all the time and only with the airing of the interviews on WTOP has penetration been made into that arena.

And let me jump ahead and say that the information in this case, spanning about 55 years, stands so far above, in accuracy, credibility and consistency, the flimsy nonsense that was used/allowed by our country to authorize an attack and decimate people in Iraq, as well as our own soldeirs, that there’s no comparison possible. 

Certainly, we’re all familiar with the easily derided “UFO” or ghost story that TV anchors love to laugh through in their final 30 seconds on air. This is no such easily disposed of matter. So, having taken up this much space to lay that out, I will offer a few thoughts for the points you raised. And I noticed that you’re in CA, so let me invite you and anyone else here who’s interested to two of my upcoming public presentations (see my Media page or email me).

1. You will have to, if you want to know what the experts said and how well it satisfies your criteria, at the very least read my excerpts in “Scientific Experts’ Comments”, the article ““Analysis of Meier’s UFO Photos” and most likely view either “The Metal” of “Contact” videos.

Regarding the photos and films, there is a new photo book out that has extremely clear photos and the video “The Movie Footage” has about eight segments, one with three of the craft at the same time. The “Meier Contacts” DVD also has a 1980 video in it where Meier zooms about 300’ - 400’ across an open meadow and focuses in on a 14’ craft hovering in front of a tree. No one has yet been able to duplicate ANY of these…even though CFI-West accepted the challenge to duplicate ONE of Meier’s photos and ONE of his films in 2001…and still can’t do it.

Please read the excerpt re the UFO above the tree and also note that the scene starts with a long shot of the farmhouse and tree (there is also another later clip of the same farmhouse sans tree) and there’s no way anyone can reasonably claim that there were any models involved. Of course you could try to duplicate it, using the same equipment, etc., which helps reduce the “coulda been” factor, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

And, by the way, that was shot with an 8mm camera, not a video camera. There is absolutely no evidence of any models used, EXCEPT the one that the investigative team had made and photographed themselves. The comparison between Meier’s photos and the models also revealed the difference, as is explained in the original investigative report (oh yeah, I now have that on CD) and in “Contact”.

About a year ago, I brought the films and photos to a company called Uncharted Territory in L.A., the Academy Award-winning special effects outfit (“Independence Day”). They literally laughed at the idea that Meier used models (and scratched a negative with a pin where two lights are seen alternatingly flashing in a close-up, broad daylight segment). When I asked them if they could duplicate the films they said, “IF we could, we’d have to go to CGI to do it. Those aren’t models, we know models.”

As for the Yo Yo analogy, I suggest that you look more carefully at little things like how the ship pauses momentarily during a swing and the lack of the to be expected movement along another plane (uncontrollable wobble, etc.) more can be said/shown about this later.

3. To be fair in your evaluation you do need to see more proof. If you’re in the L.A./Orange County area my Dec. 14 presentation might be a good start (and less expensive than buying all the stuff).

Please do continue to check out the science on this.

4. Fair enough.

Re the title of my article, go ahead and give it a read when you can and then let’s have your questions on it.

Regarding unknown information, I think that you will have to get a comprehensive view of just what I’m referring to in this case. The “anybody coulda said this” (though no one did, certainly not all of it) argument fades in light of what’s in evidence here.

Regarding Italy and Paris not being destroyed, I am reminded of info in this case, from 1980 I think, that Meier published regarding the full, unknown extent of the magma chambers underneath Vesuvius. Laughed at for years for suggesting that Rome and the Vatican will be at grave risk when (not if) Vesuvius erupts in the not so distant future, it appears now that Meier may well be correct as recent discoveries of the magma chambers actually extending some 400 sq. kms. was announced in 2004…and Meier and his alleged ET friends say that there’s still more to be found that will vindicate their claims…and possibly help to forewarn some people. So, while I don’t wish it on Italy or France, the game may not be over yet.

We didn’t send a probe to Io but rather to Jupiter. We discovered additional, previously unknown info re Io and Europa, as well as Jupiter, from that mission. NASA actually stated that the Io info re its volcanism was the most important discovery of the mission and Meier first published it five months before the probe got there. Perhaps even more impressive, in case I hear “lucky guess” or similar from forum members, is that in 1980, NASA announced that the composition of a ring of Jupiter is composed of ionized sulfur (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1980Sci…207..181P&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=) that they determined from photos taken in April of 1979, and which was experessed by Meier thusly, in October of 1978, “Now I am still wondering, if regarding the volcanic action on the moon Io, I remember correctly.  If I am right, then you explained that the volcanic eruptions there would occur with primordial power and resemble monstrous explosions, which would thrust up their ejected material like atomic mushrooms, whereby sometimes heights would be reached up to 180 kilometer. Principally, it involves dust particles, gasses, ashes and some magma, but which would reach ejection velocities up to 2,300 kilometer per hour and beyond, as due to the lack of atmosphere of the moon, only minute resistance power is present. But you also said that the largest portion of all ejected material again falls back on the moon, as I already mentioned before. The rest, you explained, would be pushed out into space, while a part of it is drawn by Jupiter and very slowly densifies in its ring to a heavy sulfur-ion-combination. Is that correct?”

Also, see this link regarding other info about Io and its surface http://www.nineplanets.org/io.html. In light of which this, from the same conversation Meier was allegedly having with an alleged ET, is also interesting, “Aha, and will then perhaps also be discovered, that the ring around Jupiter, for the most part, consists of particles catapulted outward by large volcanos of the moon, Io, which partially are captured by Jupiter while, however, the largest portion of all the outward catapulted material again falls back on Io, and practically closes all volcano openings again, but also the gigantic plateaus and mountains, which this moon, in contrast to the other moons of Jupiter, proves to have no carter landscape, but a fantastic evenness, despite the many craters?”

5. Regarding plausible explanations other than what Meier claimed, when you grasp the totality of the situation, the time demands on a (one-armed) man raisning three kids, while rennovating a run down rural farm house, while working nights as a watchman, while going on contacts, taking photos and films, etc., dodging assassins and fighting off people trying to kidnap his kids (all documented), nowhere near a library or university, with no computers or internet or model making or speical effects technology, who is simultaneously publishing volumes (over 25,000 pages now) of information, with no financial motive, book or movie contracts…please tell me what’s plausible and what isn’t - based on reality, not speculation.

Regarding debunkers, I’ve debunked CFI-West, James Randi (who long ago should have cut Meier a check for a million bucks!) and Michael Shermer. The skeptics and debunkers are absolutely finished as far as any credible challenge to this case is concerned…though they’re always welcome at my presentations to try again.

Re the lie detector tests, first it would be good for you to see the interview with the administrator of the tests (“Contact”) and to see some of the interviews with the witnesses, many of whom I no wknow. There’s a HUGE difference between people believing what they say and all having very consistent, detailed and congruent stories, effortlessly told wothout any sense that one’s listening to brainwashed “true beleivers”.

All in all, there’s far more here than meets the eye at first glance…or even after 26 years.

Best,

MH

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2005 05:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2004-12-22

MJ,

It would be enormously helpful to the conversation, and to your own credibility, to understand what you’re talking about before jumping in with both feet.

“Sorry, but sticking exclusively to the metal alloy samples, at this point in time it’s naive to conclude that these are really from another civilization from outer space. First, the same elements exist everywhere in the known universe. At this point in time we have absolutely no way to distinguish “unknown alloys” from outer space somewhere from “unknown alloys” made on this planet. Considering present knowledge, you’d have to compare an “unknown alloy” to every “known alloy” anywhere on this planet. Even then you couldn’t be certain you didn’t have something some nut cooked up in his laboratory. “

The following is excerpted from a document freely available at my site. The full analysis by Marcel Vogel, late of IBM, is available on video:

Marcel Vogel: Research chemist for IBM for twenty-two years, held thirty-two patents, and invented the magnetic disk coating memory system still used in IBM disk memories. A specialist in the conversion of energy inside crystals, Vogel probed crystalline structures with the most complete optical microscopic equipment available in the world - a system of scanning electron microscopes costing $250,000. Lieut. Col. Wendelle Stevens, USAF (Ret.): One of the original investigators in the Meier case. In 1979, he sent Vogel crystals and metal samples Meier had received from the Plejarens. Vogel reported, ”When I touched the oxide with a stainless steel probe, red streaks appeared and the oxide coating disappeared. I just touched the metal like that, and it started to deoxidize and become a pure metal. I have never seen a phenomenon like that before.” Of another metal sample containing nearly every element in the periodic table, Vogel stated, “Each pure element was bonded to each of the others, yet somehow retained its own identity.” At 500 X magnification thulium was revealed. “Thulium exists only in minute amounts. It is exceedingly expensive, far beyond platinum, and rare to come by. Someone would have to have an extensive metallurgical knowledge even to be aware of a composition of this type”, said Vogel. At 1600 X Vogel said, “A whole new world appears in the specimen. There are structures within structures - very unusual.” At 2500 X he found that the sample was, “metal, but at the same time ... it is crystal!”

Vogel put the full weight of his expertise in these summary comments: “With any technology that I know of, we could not achieve this on this planet! ... And I think it is important that those of us who are in the scientific world sit down and do some serious study on these things instead of putting it off as people’s imagination.” Again, here is another top-level scientific specialist who is unable to duplicate the material presented to him by Meier.

Skeptics often belong to a “church” with a body of beliefs as pernicious as those of organized religions, deliberately formed and intended or not. We must leave the Age of Beliefs behind for the Age of Knowledge, which is one of the key purposes behind this controversial, 63-year long case.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 18
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed