3 of 18
3
Expand your understanding
Posted: 10 December 2005 06:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2004-12-22

I think that what everyone on this forum has in common is freedom from illogical religious beliefs. For those who want to expand their understanding, I have offered another avenue of exploration. Before ridiculing it, and revealing the inadequacy of your understanding, you’re invited to explore something without preconceptions by reviewing the freely available information.

There’s nothing to join or believe in, no one to follow or convert, just an opportunity to greatly expand your understanding of life in this universe and on this planet.

And there are only two possibilities, biggest most impenetrable hoax, or most important story in human history. That intrigued me. Now I have answered the question to my own satisfaction, if you are interested you’ll come to your own conclusions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 December 2005 10:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2005-11-14

I think I would have heard about this “most important story in human history” ad nauseum on CNN, Dateline, FoxNews, or Rush Limbaugh (joking!) by now…

that is, if there were any merit whatsoever to the claims.

I can see some value to it though.  I can print it out and use the paper for my arse the next time I have a really bad case of the Tijuana Two Step.  I’d have to buy extra soft paper.  I wonder who sells it?

Noggin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 December 2005 11:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2004-12-22

I see, another genius who “believes” that CNN, Rush Limbaugh, etc. are the best sources for real news.

Try this, it’s from D.C.‘s largest news radio station:
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?sid=623986&nid=456

And may I suggest that you reverse the order for use of that paper, i.e. wipe you face with it BEFORE you use it for the other, apparently thnking, end of your body.

And please don’t come to a battle of wits half-prepared…or less.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 December 2005 01:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

The impression that I get, still, is that those people who believe Meier have started with a conclusion (that Meier is right), and worked back from there.  While this does not mean that all of the work is invalid, it doesn’t make me inclined to accept it out of hand either, because I find it methodologically flawed.

I won’t comment further, except as further analysis of your source material prompts me to do so, but I leave the following thought experiment for consideration:

Why do the aliens only visit one person?  Surely they must know that a sizable portion of the world will not believe this one person.  If they were to simply show themselves to more people, they would be much more likely to be believed.  Unless these aliens are insane, then we must assume that they do not care to reveal themselves to humanity in any sort of “formal” way.

So, if the aliens don’t want to be formally revealed, then why tolerate this one person presenting partial evidence?  It would seem that they either must not care, or encourage it.  Given that Meier seems intent on warning people about impending dangers, then it seems that there would have to be at least tacit approval of his efforts to “get the word out”.

However, as I have already pointed out, the aliens would have to know that there is a low probability for Meier being believed by enough people to make a difference.  Many of the people who would believe, would have to accept many things on faith.

Specifically, the “hard” evidence (photos, materials, etc.), only “prove” that there are craft.  The occupants of these craft, and therefore their messages and intentions, have to be taken on faith, because they only reveal themselves to one person.

Is believing things on faith good for people?  I submit that the answer is no.  I have written on the subject at great length, but the short version is that it opens the door to madness.

Thus, I am forced to conclude that these aliens are the product of a hoax, or they are not our friends.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 December 2005 04:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2004-12-22

HI Matt,

Good questions, allow me to insert some responses.

The impression that I get, still, is that those people who believe Meier have started with a conclusion (that Meier is right), and worked back from there. While this does not mean that all of the work is invalid, it doesn’t make me inclined to accept it out of hand either, because I find it methodologically flawed.

MH: Actually, it was the othe rway around. 2/3 of the original investigative team thought the case had to be a hoax in the beginning, after six years they knew it wasn’t. They are top level counter espionage/security people who work for Fortune 500 companies, banks and government agencies at times.

I won’t comment further, except as further analysis of your source material prompts me to do so, but I leave the following thought experiment for consideration:

Why do the aliens only visit one person? Surely they must know that a sizable portion of the world will not believe this one person. If they were to simply show themselves to more people, they would be much more likely to be believed. Unless these aliens are insane, then we must assume that they do not care to reveal themselves to humanity in any sort of “formal” way.

MH: This may be far more logical than first appears to be the case, for a number of reasons. One, the old “too many cooks” problem, which may well have been a contributing factor to the formation of religions. Other factors include the amount of work on both party’s part to prepare for the enormously arduous and brutal attacks on one’s character, credibility and very life that Meier himself has endured.

They simply wanted to develop a working relationship with one trustworthy person who would have the requisite abilities, and strength of character, to undertake and complete the task. BTW, you don’t have to take my word for this, you will find more info about in the research on the case that you can consider.

So, if the aliens don’t want to be formally revealed, then why tolerate this one person presenting partial evidence? It would seem that they either must not care, or encourage it. Given that Meier seems intent on warning people about impending dangers, then it seems that there would have to be at least tacit approval of his efforts to “get the word out”.

MH: What do you mean by partial information? Please consider that, if this is indeed true, we are dealing with people far enough in advance of us technologically to accurately process a lot of data and make reasonably accurate predictions, based on the laws of cause and effect. We have people here, weather men, scientists, sportscasters, financial advisors, who do a similiar (though far less complex or accurate) job.

However, as I have already pointed out, the aliens would have to know that there is a low probability for Meier being believed by enough people to make a difference. Many of the people who would believe, would have to accept many things on faith.

MH: Meier isn’t meant to be “believed”, honest. if they wanted belief they could blow everybody’s minds and hover over the major cities of the world…creating psychosis, panic, suicides, attacks and that ol’ nemesis - worship/veneration. Then where would we be? Back where we got off on the wrong road before - more religion. Our free will, to reject or explore nad possibly confirm, the case has to be respected.

Specifically, the “hard” evidence (photos, materials, etc.), only “prove” that there are craft. The occupants of these craft, and therefore their messages and intentions, have to be taken on faith, because they only reveal themselves to one person.

Is believing things on faith good for people? I submit that the answer is no. I have written on the subject at great length, but the short version is that it opens the door to madness.

MH: Regarding faith, absolutely, I couldn’t agree more (read my article “The Fatal Flaws of Faith and Belief”). But as far as proving that there are occupants, that’s where the “prophetically accurate” scientific and world event related information comes in, which requires a bit of careful research before such conclusions are made.

Thus, I am forced to conclude that these aliens are the product of a hoax, or they are not our friends.

MH: Well, I think that before you can make any reasonable conclusions you really should delve into the information. Let’s face it, this is really far outside the day to day paradigm but I’ve spent 26 years researching and found the case consistent, not at all self-contradictory, filled with solid witnesses and evidence that’s passed expert scientific analysis. A case like this, spanning 63 years, should have long ago been revealed to be a hoax considering the vested interest of skeptics (and many jealous, so-called UFO researchers) to prove it false. And I have personally taken on the best of the skeptics, scientists, debunkers, etc., which is actually easy siince the evidence on every level is impeccable. Of course, we have that “If it’s true why haven’t I heard about it before” mantra, which is the very question that stopped those people who should have researched to find the answers - for themselves.

Best,

MH

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 December 2005 06:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23
[quote author=“Michael812”]MH: Actually, it was the othe rway around. 2/3 of the original investigative team thought the case had to be a hoax in the beginning, after six years they knew it wasn’t. They are top level counter espionage/security people who work for Fortune 500 companies, banks and government agencies at times.

I was really talking about people who were not connected with this case, but who believe.

MH: This may be far more logical than first appears to be the case, for a number of reasons. One, the old “too many cooks” problem, which may well have been a contributing factor to the formation of religions. Other factors include the amount of work on both party’s part to prepare for the enormously arduous and brutal attacks on one’s character, credibility and very life that Meier himself has endured.

Ah yes.  Well, if they appeared to more people, there would not be a need to prepare anyone for such brutal attacks, ipso facto this cannot be the reason. 

Also, a quick note on the attacks:  Meier being attacked is not valid evidence that he is telling the truth, merely that someone wants to attack him.

They simply wanted to develop a working relationship with one trustworthy person who would have the requisite abilities, and strength of character, to undertake and complete the task. BTW, you don’t have to take my word for this, you will find more info about in the research on the case that you can consider.

Except that Meier does not seem to have the abilities needed.  Belief is limited to a very small subset of humanity.

MH: What do you mean by partial information? Please consider that, if this is indeed true, we are dealing with people far enough in advance of us technologically to accurately process a lot of data and make reasonably accurate predictions, based on the laws of cause and effect. We have people here, weather men, scientists, sportscasters, financial advisors, who do a similiar (though far less complex or accurate) job.

By partial information, I mean that the only “proof” is in the form of photographic evidence of craft, a few odd bits of stuff and Meier’s own word regarding the conversations.  In essence, regardless of the veracity of Meier’s predictions and photos, his claims regarding the source of both comes down to his word alone.  If Meier claimed that the ships were piloted by Martians, but otherwise told the exact same story, then you would be here saying that that was true, and had been extensively vetted.  That is what I mean by partial information.

MH: Meier isn’t meant to be “believed”, honest.

I think that I have just made a compelling case for the opposite.  Let’s say that I believe the photos, and the predictions.  Why should I believe the claim of the source?  Ultimately, I have to take Meier’s word for it, don’t I?  I can’t meet these aliens.  I can’t talk to them.  The accuracy of his predictions don’t “prove” anything about them.

A thought experiment that I use to demonstrate this incorrect reasoning runs like this:

If I write a cookbook, filled with brilliant recipes, and attribute it all to “Zarkon the Destroyer”, the true ruler of the galaxy, people might still buy it, and enjoy the recipes, but they will (rightly) ignore my claims as to the source, unless I come up with more evidence.

if they wanted belief they could blow everybody’s minds and hover over the major cities of the world…creating psychosis, panic, suicides, attacks and that ol’ nemesis - worship/veneration. Then where would we be? Back where we got off on the wrong road before - more religion. Our free will, to reject or explore nad possibly confirm, the case has to be respected.

They could also “visit” the top psychologists, writers and politicians, and work on how best to get from “here” to “there”.  Such an approach would not induce mass panic.

MH: Regarding faith, absolutely, I couldn’t agree more (read my article “The Fatal Flaws of Faith and Belief”). But as far as proving that there are occupants, that’s where the “prophetically accurate” scientific and world event related information comes in, which requires a bit of careful research before such conclusions are made.

Again, though, as I have pointed out above, we have to take Meier’s word for it, which implies faith.  Instead of occupants, perhaps there was a tape recording on board.  Or perhaps something spoke directly into his head, and the saucers were a coincidence.

Your confidence in the totality of Meier’s claims is a form of faith!  If you came to us, and claimed to believe that the crafts were real, and that, thus far, the predictions were real, but remained skeptical of the other claims, then we would have a debate that centered around evidentiary claims.  As I previously said, I am not going to debate the evidence until I have had a chance to examine it further, but in this case, even accepting all of the evidence at face value, I still could not support your apparent conclusion.

MH: Well, I think that before you can make any reasonable conclusions you really should delve into the information.

Check.  But the thing is that I am willing to grant all of the physical evidence, and even willing to grant that Meier has made many astounding predictions, and none that have been proven false.  Even with such a huge concession, however, I still have massive issues with some of the conclusions, as I have outlined above.

Let’s face it, this is really far outside the day to day paradigm but I’ve spent 26 years researching and found the case consistent, not at all self-contradictory, filled with solid witnesses and evidence that’s passed expert scientific analysis.

You seem to be skeptical of religion, so let me try to get you to sympathize with me here.  I have heard almost exactly the same argument from many religious people, peddling their various religious beliefs.  While I realize that you feel that you are different, you must also realize that you are not coming across all that differently to me.  In fact, the only reason that I have spent as much time looking into this as I have, is because I have a bit of a personal interest in the subject matter.  I did some consulting, many years ago, for a UFO research group (more of an Area 51 group, actually).  They were all nuts, every last one of them, but they paid their bills, and were very friendly, so naturally, I learned a few things about the field in general.  If it were not for this “soft spot” that I have for things UFO, however, nothing that you have said, or even that is on the front page of your site, is compelling enough to inspire me to dig further, which is a real problem.

A case like this, spanning 63 years, should have long ago been revealed to be a hoax considering the vested interest of skeptics (and many jealous, so-called UFO researchers) to prove it false.

Like Christianity should have been proven false, considering that skeptics have had 2000 years to do it?

And I have personally taken on the best of the skeptics, scientists, debunkers, etc., which is actually easy siince the evidence on every level is impeccable. Of course, we have that “If it’s true why haven’t I heard about it before” mantra, which is the very question that stopped those people who should have researched to find the answers - for themselves.

The reason that most people won’t delve any deeper is because human beings tend to have only so much free time, and this entire subject sets off their “nutso” alarms.  Of course, that does not mean that it isn’t true, but, the fact that so much of the additional “information” lies behind doors that are unlocked by money doesn’t help any.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 December 2005 10:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

[quote author=“Michael812”]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.

Emphasis added.

You have some ‘splaining to do.

Single exposure photos, with no post tomfoolery.  And, since there has been a long exchange going between you and them, it seems safe to say that you know about these photos.  Care to explain?

Also, I have been digging into the “prophecies”, and the corelations, and the “other information” and have a few observations:

1. Just as I expected, the majority are oracular, IE, they are non-specific in at least one way, which makes it easy to post-fit them to events that happen in the future.

2. Many of the highly date specific predictions (month and year) were made mere months before the events happened.  This is different from the vague predictions for items years in advance, and casts doubts on the material in question.  After all, the best way to “predict” something, is to write the prediction after it happens.

For shame.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2005 01:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1229
Joined  2004-12-22

Psi brings up another good point.

Why is always farmers, carpenters, and apprentice photographers with 8th grade educations?

Mier, Jesus, and Edgar Cayce.

I am sure Stephen Hawkings would be more than happy to talk advanced physics and universal mathematics with aliens, and if they cured him with their advanced science, that would be very cool too.

I myself have had talked to God (after doing 7 hits of LSD at a Rolling Stones concert) and had an encounter with aliens in the desert (after eating quite a bit of peyote soaked in Southern Comfort).

Both these experiences were life enriching, opening new perspectives on human existance, but hardly what I would call “real”.

[ Edited: 12 December 2005 01:52 AM by ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2005 01:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2005-11-14

[quote author=“Michael812”]I see, another genius who “believes” that CNN, Rush Limbaugh, etc. are the best sources for real news.

Try this, it’s from D.C.‘s largest news radio station:
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?sid=623986&nid=456

And may I suggest that you reverse the order for use of that paper, i.e. wipe you face with it BEFORE you use it for the other, apparently thnking, end of your body.

And please don’t come to a battle of wits half-prepared…or less.

I never spoke of credulity when I mentioned the media outlets that I did.  Obviously, the major news media sources are whores like the rest of them and will take a story wherever they can get it.  This one, however, has apparantly been tainted with leprosy as not one of them wants to touch it.

Are you saying that they choose not to talk about this “incredible” story because it is being placed in the “hush” file?  What,  by top secret government agents?  Please.

Or is it more likely that this is looney bin material that would put their name in the toilet?

You provided me with a link to some major radio station.  Was it the same one that played Art Bell in the 90’s?  Major conspiracy theorist.  I recall the evening he was “abducted by secret FBI agents” and not allowed to broadcast for a week.  Apparantly he was about to blow the story out that the viable replacement for petroleum/gasoline had been developed. 

You are the one invested in this, not me.  That you became agitated with me so quickly for pointing out one observation tells me much.

But then again I did provoke you with my toilet paper goading.  Sorry for that.  It appears that you have become so invested in this that you lost sight long ago as to how odd you come off.

Hey, if Mike Schermer cannot debunk you, I might as well get in line to drink your koolaid.  :D   I was kidding with the koolaid provocation… aw hell, just ignore me.

Noggin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2005 04:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2004-12-22

- I was really talking about people who were not connected with this case, but who believe.

MH: I’m not responsible for people who do or don’t “believe” anything.

- Ah yes. Well, if they appeared to more people, there would not be a need to prepare anyone for such brutal attacks, ipso facto this cannot be the reason.

MH: This is the perfect place to point out that you don’t know what you’re talking about. 120+ people (most of them NOT associated with the case) qualifies in my book as a good number of people. The retired UN diplomat who is among them is a highly credible person, as one can tell when they watch her speak about her first hand account. The five other photographers also lay to rest the “no one else” idea.

I already have the feeling that I’m dealing with skeptics rather than scientists. Skeptics are very quick to float their cobbled together, belief-based comments without knowing the facts, and scientists tend to want to KNOW all the facts and they have the funny habit of asking how and why questions for the sake of discovery, not rhetorical ones.

- Also, a quick note on the attacks: Meier being attacked is not valid evidence that he is telling the truth, merely that someone wants to attack him.

MH: 21 documented attempts on his life, a kidnapping attempt on his chidren, are not indication of “someone” “merely” wanting to attack him. Not knowing or acknowledging the actual magnitude of that situation and making uninformed comments again shows the prejudicial nature of your comments.

- Except that Meier does not seem to have the abilities needed. Belief is limited to a very small subset of humanity.

MH: Once again, ignorance of the facts is in evidence. A case spanning 63 years, in which the man first published his UFO photos in 1964, and was reported on in the press the same year, and which is still provoking ever more controversy today (WTOP), would indicate to me that the man may well have the requisite abilities and character strength needed. As a matter of fact (which you may discover if you actually research the case) Meier is either rather expert in anthropology, archeology and archeological dating, astrophysics, atmospheric physics, biology, botany, chemistry, clairvoyance, cosmogony, cosmology, cryptobiology, digital effects, electronics, electrodynamics, epistemology, etymology, exobiology, filmmaking, genetics and genetic engineering, geology, geopolitics, history, linguistics, medicine, mass hypnosis, metallurgy, meteorology, model making,  oceanography, paleontology, particle physics, photography, planetary physics, psychology, religion, seismology, sound recording and engineering, special effects, taxonomy, tectonics, videography, vulcanology and zoology, etc. or he’s a genuine contactee.

- By partial information, I mean that the only “proof” is in the form of photographic evidence of craft, a few odd bits of stuff and Meier’s own word regarding the conversations. In essence, regardless of the veracity of Meier’s predictions and photos, his claims regarding the source of both comes down to his word alone. If Meier claimed that the ships were piloted by Martians, but otherwise told the exact same story, then you would be here saying that that was true, and had been extensively vetted. That is what I mean by partial information.

MH: Unfortunately, you’re noit qualifying as a credible investigator, let alone critic of the case. Incorrect and prejudicial comments such minimizing the importance of still irreproducible physical evidence and “a few odd bits of stuff” show that you are the one making unsubstantiated arguments. The following is just an excerpt but it should give you some indication of the level of professionalism of some of the parties involved in investigating the rather substantial evidence in the case:

David Froning: At the time, Dr. Froning had already spent 25 years as an astronautical engineer at McDonnell Douglas in highly classified military defense and, in 1979, became interested in Meier’s accounts of Plejaren starship travel, which mentioned tachyon propulsion. Dr. Froning found Meier’s account of tachyon propulsion (which was only beginning to be discussed by a very small and select group of theoretical physicists), and his calculations for above light speed travel to be amazing. In 1983, he was pursuing his Quantum Interstellar Ramjet idea (JBIS vol. 33, no. 7, July 1980; AIAA 81-1533, July1981; IAF-85-492, October, 1985) and plugged in his Quantum Ramjet performance equations, assuming: a given starship density, vacuum energy conversion efficiency (in transforming positrons and electrons within the quantum vacuum into photons), and vacuum energy conversion scales of distance of the order of the Compton wavelength. The resulting vehicle acceleration enabled achievement of almost light speed in about 4.3 hours and deceleration from light speed in about 4.3 hours. Meier said that the elapsed time during the “hyperspace jump” took only several seconds. Thus, trip time between the Pleiades star cluster and Earth with Froning’s slower-than-light Quantum Ramjet Drive plus a hypothetical tachyon drive would be 8.6 hours, which was within 20% of the Plejaren trip time reported by Meier. But, while Froning’s calculations were based on many arbitrary assumptions, and in no way proved the truthfulness of Meier’s account (since it was a theoretical system he was working on, only time will tell as to which are correct) Froning was somewhat startled that his arbitrary flight time computations were within 20% of the flight time mentioned by Meier. Regarding the Meier material, Dr. Froning also publicly stated that, “My colleagues and I may have made breakthroughs in our understanding of possibilities and ways for traveling faster than light from Billy Meier’s accounts of his encounters with the Plejarens.”

Eric Eliason: U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona, created image-processing software so astrogeologists can analyze photographs of planets beamed back from space, spent two years producing the intricate radar map of cloud-covered Venus acquired by Pioneer 10: “In the photographs there were no sharp breaks where you could see it had been somehow artificially dubbed. And if that dubbing was registered in the film, the computer would have seen it. We didn’t see anything.”

Robert Post: JPL photo laboratory for 22 years, was the head of that lab in 1979, and oversaw the developing and printing of every photograph that came out of JPL at the time: “From a photography standpoint, you couldn’t see anything that was fake about the Meier photos. That’s what struck me. They looked like legitimate photographs. I thought, ‘God, if this is real, this is going to be really something.”

Dr. Michael Malin: Principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera on NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft at Malin Space Science Systems (MSSS), San Diego, CA. Analyzed Meier’s photographs in 1981: “I find the photographs themselves credible, they’re good photographs. They appear to represent a real phenomenon. The story that some farmer in Switzerland is on a first name basis with dozens of aliens who come to visit him ... I find that incredible. But I find the photographs more credible. They’re reasonable evidence of something. What that something is I don’t know.” Malin also said, “If the photographs are hoaxes then I am intrigued by the quality of the hoax. How did he do it? I’m always interested in seeing a master at work.” 

Steve Ambrose: Sound engineer for Stevie Wonder, inventor of the Micro Monitor radio set and speaker that fits inside Wonder’s ear, analyzed the Meier sound recordings of one of the UFO’s as it hovered above him. Not only was he unable to duplicate the sounds with synthesizers, he found they created totally unique patterns on a spectrum analyzer and on the oscilloscope. Another sound engineer named Nils Rognerud corroborated Ambrose’s findings. Think about this for just a moment, these experts, using state-of-the-art equipment, were unable to duplicate the sounds and the unique patterns they generated.

Wally Gentleman: Director of Special Effects on the Canadian Film Board for ten years, director of special photographic effects for Stanley Kubrick’s film 2001, had viewed Meier’s 8mm film segments of the UFO’s. Showed that the manpower and costs to fake the films were clearly beyond Meier’s reach: “My greatest problem is that for anybody faking this” (referring to one of the photographs) “the shadow that is thrown onto that tree is correct. Therefore, if somebody is faking it they have an expert there. And being an expert myself, I know that that expert knowledge is very hard to come by. So I say, ‘Well, is that expert knowledge there or isn’t it there?’ Because if the expert knowledge isn’t there, this has got to be real.”

Nippon TV: Did their own examination and also came to the conclusion that there were no models, special effects or hoaxing involved in Meier’s films.

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.

MH: And before you demonstrate your predictability as a skeptic, why not tie one hand behind your back and produce a similar quantity and quality of diverse physical evidence sufficient to even warrant a lengthy investigation and similar scientific examination?

- I think that I have just made a compelling case for the opposite. Let’s say that I believe the photos, and the predictions. Why should I believe the claim of the source? Ultimately, I have to take Meier’s word for it, don’t I? I can’t meet these aliens. I can’t talk to them. The accuracy of his predictions don’t “prove” anything about them.

MH: You’ve made a case, so far, for being a run of the mill, rather lazy skeptic who doesn’t know the facts in a matter he’s trying to debunk rather than discover. I hate to be the one to break it to you but there are many things, and people, that you’ve never seen, met, touched, spoken to, the authenticity, reality and veracity of which and whom have been satisfactorily established according to the rules of evidence - with which Meier’s case more than complies.

- A thought experiment that I use to demonstrate this incorrect reasoning runs like this:

If I write a cookbook, filled with brilliant recipes, and attribute it all to “Zarkon the Destroyer”, the true ruler of the galaxy, people might still buy it, and enjoy the recipes, but they will (rightly) ignore my claims as to the source, unless I come up with more evidence.

MH: Yes indeed, as I said in the previous response, you need to get educated and not take your cues about discovery from parlor magicians like Randi.

- They could also “visit” the top psychologists, writers and politicians, and work on how best to get from “here” to “there”. Such an approach would not induce mass panic.

MH: Oh, I see, you didn’t know that an offer (in writing) was made to the Carter administration in 1979 for contact…and was refused by our government? Well how could you know all that since you know so little about the rest of the evidence in the case?

- Again, though, as I have pointed out above, we have to take Meier’s word for it, which implies faith. Instead of occupants, perhaps there was a tape recording on board. Or perhaps something spoke directly into his head, and the saucers were a coincidence.

MH: And again, you’re simply mis-stating the facts in evidencee, i.e. over 120 witnesses, five other photographers, witnesses who completely passed lie detector tests, etc. So, although there’s a preponderance of evidence and cirumstances that have completely ruled out a hoax…as a member of the Latter Day Church of Skepticism you will make ignorant statements instead of asking questions that might help you to make an informed opinion. Stunningly familiar.

- Your confidence in the totality of Meier’s claims is a form of faith! If you came to us, and claimed to believe that the crafts were real, and that, thus far, the predictions were real, but remained skeptical of the other claims, then we would have a debate that centered around evidentiary claims. As I previously said, I am not going to debate the evidence until I have had a chance to examine it further, but in this case, even accepting all of the evidence at face value, I still could not support your apparent conclusion.

MH: Whatever the heck all that is supposed to mean in light of the FACTS already in evidence but sppsrently unknown to you.

- Check. But the thing is that I am willing to grant all of the physical evidence, and even willing to grant that Meier has made many astounding predictions, and none that have been proven false. Even with such a huge concession, however, I still have massive issues with some of the conclusions, as I have outlined above.

MH: Fine…but become informed enough to not float arguments that are patently false and that reveal your actual unfamiliarity with the substantiial, factual evidence in the case.

- You seem to be skeptical of religion, so let me try to get you to sympathize with me here. I have heard almost exactly the same argument from many religious people, peddling their various religious beliefs. While I realize that you feel that you are different, you must also realize that you are not coming across all that differently to me. In fact, the only reason that I have spent as much time looking into this as I have, is because I have a bit of a personal interest in the subject matter. I did some consulting, many years ago, for a UFO research group (more of an Area 51 group, actually). They were all nuts, every last one of them, but they paid their bills, and were very friendly, so naturally, I learned a few things about the field in general. If it were not for this “soft spot” that I have for things UFO, however, nothing that you have said, or even that is on the front page of your site, is compelling enough to inspire me to dig further, which is a real problem.

MH: Then the problem is clearly yours and likely a matter of prejudice. Since I’ve had my site up and been posting the minute amount of info on the case that I have (there are 25,000 pages of info still only in German) there has been no successful debunking of the case by scientists, skeptics or others. None. But there is no shortage of people who, like yourself, run up to the fence full of enthusiasm to hurl their quickly (but poorly formed) “arguments” against the case. And, in virtually every case, they are as ill-informed and poorly prepared as you are to even discuss the matter. Also, as is the case here, they are either consciously or unconsciously “sure” that this is a hoax, so they bring their closed minded prejudice, thinnly disguised as it is, instead of a scientifically objective, exploratory mindset to the matter.

- Like Christianity should have been proven false, considering that skeptics have had 2000 years to do it?

MH: To even compare any ancient belief system, absent the comparable quantity, quality and variety of proof that exists in the still ongoing Meier case is to really tip your hand.

- The reason that most people won’t delve any deeper is because human beings tend to have only so much free time, and this entire subject sets off their “nutso” alarms. Of course, that does not mean that it isn’t true, but, the fact that so much of the additional “information” lies behind doors that are unlocked by money doesn’t help any.

MH: Well, rather than speak for “most people” why not speak for yourself…and, before you do anymore speaking, why not THOROUGHLY explore all of the free info available at my site as well as from http://www.figu.org/us

And, quite honestly, if the price of a book, video, DVD, etc. is sufficient to put you off, please don’t expect sympathy from me. I’ve spent a very significant amount of my own money on research, i.e. obtaining everything I could, traveling numerous times to Switzerland to meet the prinncipals, see the new evidence, etc. I spend a minuimum of six (uncompensated) hours per day on related matters and represent the case on a voluntary, i.e. for free, gratis, no charge, etc. basis.

So put whatever price you will on how far you’ll go to find out conclusively whether the case is the biggest hoax or most important story in human history but a THINKING person could probably amke pretty good informed opnion based on what’s freely available…if they trouble themselves to do so.

MH

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2005 05:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

Some subjects call for skeptical investigation more than for scientific investigation.

Every time that I see a new “psychic” on TV, I could try to investigate them scientifically, but why should I?  Since I know about cold reading, I scan quickly, and see if that seems a plausible explanation for what is going on.  Do I run the “risk” of therefore disbelieving a “real” psychic?  Absolutely!  The risk is sufficiently low for me to not lose too much sleep over it, though.

Tempted as I am to simply call this one, and head on, you will simply claim “victory” and add me to the list of skeptics “destroyed” by your evidence and prowess.

From what I have dug up so far, it seems that the original negatives are no longer being investigated by third parties, and the metal and other objects have had the unfortunate temerity to walk away, and are similarly not made available for third party testing.  The eyewitness accounts seem difficult for me to verify, without flying around the world, and, in some cases, talking to the dead.  So, am I correct in assuming that the prophecies and scientific revelations of the non-earth beings is the crux of the matter?

Since I wouldn’t send any physical evidence to someone I met in a forum online either, I suppose that the revealed knowledge will have to be the scope no matter what.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2005 05:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2004-12-22

Matt,

Comments inserted below.


- Emphasis added.

You have some ‘splaining to do.

Single exposure photos, with no post tomfoolery. And, since there has been a long exchange going between you and them, it seems safe to say that you know about these photos. Care to explain?

MH: Absolutely delighted to do so. In February 2001, Mr. Vaughn Rees, of CFI-West, agreed to my challenge to duplicate ONE of Meier’s photos and ONE of his films. When they finally posted those photos, in March 2004, they claimed that they had duplicated the EFFECT of Meier’s photos, to which I responded, “Wow, kinda like I can go rent any sci-fi video that has flying objects and watch some ‘duplicated effects’.” Big difference between duplicating an “effect” and duplicating a photo of a real object.

So, when I was on the legendary Art Bell radio show and Rees called in to complain about being ridiculed, Bell asked him the same question I had posed to him, “will you submit your photos to the same standards of testing that authenticated Meier’s?” Rees’s prompt, definitive refusal to do so demolished any hope of credibility, as well it should have, and Bell sent him off to sink into the sunset of well deserved ridicule and oblivion. Shortly after this, James Randi withdrew his claim that the Meier case is a hoax.

Now, there is a FREE document on my site that outlines some of the parameters of the photographic testing that Rees refused to submit the photos for. There is a more complete version available on a CD for those of you that would dare to sepnd a dime to further check this out, as well as the video “Contact” that actually shows some of the computer examination of the Meier photos, how the determinations were made, etc. It also has some of the scientific experts speaking about their evaluation of the other evidence and it has David Froning giving some well qualified support for Meier as well. Pretty good for a “hoaxing” farmer, wouldn’t you say?

Further, you’ll notice that the CFI-West/IIG photos have no comparable shots of a “UFO” snuggled up to a large known object like a 40’ tall tree (see: http://www.tjresearch.info/moretree.htm and all related pages on this site) And, of course, these poseurs and con men never submitted a film (it’s almost five years since they accepted the challenge).

BTW, the film segment that Rees said he could reproduce, and that he said was “just a model where Meier has scratched the negative with a pin” (in order to produce the two alternating lights in this broad daylight, close-up segment), was shown to the Academy Award-winnning special effects company that did “Independence Day”. They, literally, laughed out loud when I related Rees’ pin-scratching comments. And then, when I asked if they could duplicate (a term that they seemd to understand) Meier’s film, they said, “IF we could, we’d have to go to CGI. We know models. Those aren’t models.”

So let me be perfectly clear about this, it’s still not too late for CFI-West/IIG/Randi to submit their photos to the same testing that Meier’s were. And it’s still not too late for anyone here, or anyone you know, to attempt to duplicate Meier’s 35mm photos and 8mm films…or the UFO sound recordings…or the seven-fingered hand prints…or the stunning video…if you’re able.

More importantly, since more than four years have passed and the whole non-scientifically competent skeptics organization has egg on its face, maybe instead of coming at this like a bunch of know-it-alls yourselves - and having your own lack of credibility and CFI’s fed to you on a spoon - you might do some genuine investigation and thinking.

At the very least , you should come up with a credible, factual explanation for how one-armed, resourceless, non-technological, solitary (no accomplices) man managed to make absolute fools out of the world famous Randi and his incompetent cohorts. Incompetent!

- Also, I have been digging into the “prophecies”, and the correlations, and the “other information” and have a few observations:

- 1. Just as I expected, the majority are oracular, IE, they are non-specific in at least one way, which makes it easy to post-fit them to events that happen in the future.

MH: Oracular and non-specific, eh? Okay, this is from a document published October 19, 1978,  in the possession of the lead investigator on March 9, 1979 and witnessed by two other credible professionals within a month thereafter. The dates in () are when the events, foretold in that document, actually occurred:

• Jonestown massacre (Nov. 18, 1978)
• Overthrow of the Shah of Iran (Jan. 1979)
• Chinese invasion of North Vietnam (Feb./Mar. 1979)
• Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Dec. 1979)
• Abdication of Queen Juliana of The Netherlands (Apr. 1980)
• Death of Tito of Yugoslavia (May 4, 1980)
• Mount St. Helens eruption (May 18, 1980)
• Terrorist attack on Iranian Embassy in London (Apr./May1980)
• Iran Hostage Crisis (Nov. 1979/Jan. 1981)
• Assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (Oct. 31, 1984)

And the 241st Contact, February 3, 1992, contained these specific Corroborated warnings about:

• Landslide in Brazil of March 1992
• Nuclear accident in Russia during 3rd week of March, occurred on March 27, 1992
• Landers (actually Joshua Tree) earthquake in L. A. foreseen April 23rd or 24th, 1992, occurred April 22, 1992
• Eruption of Mt. Etna in April 1992, reported April 15, 1992
• Eruption of Cerro Negro in Nicaragua in April 1992, occurred April 9-12, 1992
• Earthquakes Germany-Holland-Belgium area for April 1992, occurred April 13, 1992
• Earthquakes China-Burma April 1992, occurred Myanmaw-China border April 23, 1992

Add to that the info regarding Paris, and a few dozen other things, and the word that comes to mind that describes your comments is disingenuous.


- 2. Many of the highly date specific predictions (month and year) were made mere months before the events happened. This is different from the vague predictions for items years in advance, and casts doubts on the material in question. After all, the best way to “predict” something, is to write the prediction after it happens.

For shame.

MH: I literally laughed out loud! “Mere months”! Are you kidding me? And regarding such items as the actual extent of the magma chambers underneath Vesuvius, that was only begun to be confirmed by scientists 24 years after Meier wrote - as well as many more such, decades in advance, the shame is on prejudiced, non-scientific “true believers” in the rigid mindset of religious skepticism.

MH

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2005 06:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2005-02-06

Michael,

What you have is clearly not convincing to the outsider. Accept that. Now, if you are truly interested in truth, you would pursue further investigation. Why not take a roll of the original film, and maybe a few grams of the metal to two or three universities or independant labs….again. What’s the harm? The real truth will out in the end.

Rod

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2005 06:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  103
Joined  2004-12-22

Matt,

Responses inserted below.

- Some subjects call for skeptical investigation more than for scientific investigation.

Every time that I see a new “psychic” on TV, I could try to investigate them scientifically, but why should I? Since I know about cold reading, I scan quickly, and see if that seems a plausible explanation for what is going on. Do I run the “risk” of therefore disbelieving a “real” psychic? Absolutely! The risk is sufficiently low for me to not lose too much sleep over it, though.

MH: Obviously, there is a fine distinction between a “new psychic on TV” and a man with a 55-year record of prophetic accuracy - with no to-be-expected erroneous “junk” - wouldn’t you say?

- Tempted as I am to simply call this one, and head on, you will simply claim “victory” and add me to the list of skeptics “destroyed” by your evidence and prowess.

MH: Modesty requires that I give credit where credit is due, i.e. to the incompetent, non-scientific bunglers who thought that, once again, they had an easy mark. I guarantee that anyone who’s reasonably intelligent (and I do credit you and others here with more than reasonable intelligence, if not with objective, scientific professionalism and due diligence) could just as easily facilitate the demolition of these self-appointed “experts” on reality based on the facts in evidence.

- From what I have dug up so far, it seems that the original negatives are no longer being investigated by third parties, and the metal and other objects have had the unfortunate temerity to walk away, and are similarly not made available for third party testing. The eyewitness accounts seem difficult for me to verify, without flying around the world, and, in some cases, talking to the dead. So, am I correct in assuming that the prophecies and scientific revelations of the non-earth beings is the crux of the matter?

MH: Well, time and circumstances have a way of sometimes making things inconvenient, which is why videos and written records were made of the various examinations and analysis and why credible people (anybody here really want to attack Michael Mailin, David Froning, Marcel Vogel, Robert Post, Steve Ambrose, Naval Undersea Labs, etc.?) were willing to go on the record.

And, as far as being further inconvenienced by “going around the world”, well, I guess that’s what separates the men from the boys who sit around theorizing in their armchairs.

- Since I wouldn’t send any physical evidence to someone I met in a forum online either, I suppose that the revealed knowledge will have to be the scope no matter what.

MH: The information freely available (including the sound recordings that you can download for testing and/or attempted duplication) should be sufficient for any thinking - and truly INTERESTED - person to, at the very least, realize that they are dealing with something far outside of the possibility of a hoax, as well as somewhat outside of most known (up until this time) paradigms.

IF this case is true, I too say IF, then it stands to reason that those who are behind it, the source of ALL of the evidence of all categories, are arguably at least as smart as the smartest among us and quite possibly even much more so. That possibility considered, it is also reasonable to assume that they then would understand us, how we think, what we believe, what we fear, etc., at least as well as we THINK we know ourselves.

And, since the core of this case revolves not around ETs/UFOs but us and our self-responsibility, since it’s encouraged that we leave behind the Age of Beliefs for the Age of Knowledge, they also know that we are the ones who must work through this entire process of discovery, vetting, proof, etc. - not they who should hand it to us on the proverbial silver platter.

Following that line of reasoning, the process may become very messy, with the proponents and opponents slugging it out, which also necessitates that beliefs in the case be thrown out along with beliefs against it, until reasonable people can scientificaly reason their way to the most logical, substantiated conclusions that rest on factual knowledge sufficient to make a credible determination that will stand up to any onslaught.

If you have a glimmer, a hint that something that is well outside of the scope of an easily dismissable hoax has somehow wandered into this little section of this forum, and you’re truly willing to pull the “thread on the sweater” to see what unravels, then together we might explore what this means to us, to humanity and to our future survival.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 December 2005 07:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

[quote author=“Michael812”]MH: I literally laughed out loud! “Mere months”! Are you kidding me? And regarding such items as the actual extent of the magma chambers underneath Vesuvius, that was only begun to be confirmed by scientists 24 years after Meier wrote - as well as many more such, decades in advance, the shame is on prejudiced, non-scientific “true believers” in the rigid mindset of religious skepticism.

The point that I was getting at is that, from the quick review of predictions available on your site, there were two obvious categories (admittedly arbitrarily assigned on my part, but for obvious reason).  There were very time specific predictions, and there were very non time specific predictions.  The time specific predictions were all made very closely before the events took place.  There are a variety of techniques whereby a person can make a “prediction” today of what will happen tomorrow, and then, through trickery, revise the “prediction” so as to be accurate.  When the two are so close together, I am inclined to suspect that sort of manipulation.

On a more general note, I wanted to comment on your repeated assertions that Meier could not pull off a hoax of this nature.  How ironic is it that, in this sense, I hold Mr. Meier in higher esteem than do you?  (hopefully you can appreciate the intrinsic humor in that)

Ok, I am off to pay the rent, but stay tuned for more of my “rigid” dogmatic skepticism.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 18
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed