The "Benevolent" Visitors

But are you aware of the fact that there is a lot more to this case than these ?

Most definitely. Once you read the thread, you'll see the amount of evidence provided by both sides.

Let me ask you another way : Do you think that it might be possible for you to change your mind if somebody else will present this subject from a different angle,with opinions ( or information) taken from previously printed material ?...just answer me yes or no,and then i'll shut up

It's not a yes or no question really. He's already (imho) proven that he's committed fraud (unless you truly believe those pics to depict alien ray guns), therefore his credibility is out the window. Now, if he was able to produce a live alien or extra-terrestrial craft, then yes, that is information that would certainly change my mind, but going on the current evidence available, the only logical conclusion is he's a fraud.

I chose the most damaging evidence, as I am a "skeptical" believer...so I look at the same things the skeptics would, and approach it from the same angle. If it passes some of the basic skeptical tests, then further examination is necessary. In Meier's case, I've done the extra examination, more out of curiosity than anything else.

The down side of UFOlogy, is that you can have 100 excellent pics of UFOs, but if you have even a few obvious fakes, then you're pretty much a goner. Combine this with a cult-like atmosphere, claiming to be a "prophet", past kafuntas like the Asket & Nera hoax, the faked pics from magazines of time travelling, etc. (as you can see, I'm quite up on Billy), and it simply adds up to a lot of crap, I'm afraid....

Gazrok,

What you say is logical.I am a "skeptic" believer also..You are right,there is a lot of garbage associated with Meier( as i said on my previous post,i am convinced,some of it generated by Meier itself).I am still reading about this case.I still have to get to "Asket and co." side of it
One thing i couldn't find so far is why Hans Schutzbach ( one of his first friends) chose to defect from him...i am still looking into finding some information.If you are aware of anything on this particular subject,please give me a link.According to what Mr.Wendelle says on his first book,Mr.Hans believes in the first contacts as he withessed them as well...after that he decided to part ways with Meier...
What i really don't like about Meier is the "aura" of prophecies and involvement in politics he lately chose to get involved with...i think this is the one part that puts him ( in my eyes) on the "hoax" bin.
But there are refferences to little things i've found in the printed material i have that corroborate other things read here in regards to other types of aliens.I guess the proof of that is that i have it in print ( on that book),that at least he said those things at that time.This is the stuff i was talking about...maybe that is why i believe that he had encounters after all.But i don't think that all what he's saying is true.
For example i remember reading on Mr.Wendelle's book about one thing the Supposedly Pleiadiens said about the grays.That the grays are only a little bit more advanced than us ( just a few hundered years if memory serves my right),and that is maybe why they do what they do.They are not really that much evolved compared to us..i can find that passage.They also said something about some beings emitting "white" or "green" light that they hava seen around the Earth,but those beings avoid contact with them ( the Pleiadiens) and they run away when they see the Pleiadien ships.
I feel almost like you....way too much crap on this case...but i still feel it might be one grain of important truth,and i try to find it.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by Bursuc]

[edit on 5-5-2005 by Bursuc]

[edit on 5-5-2005 by Bursuc]

He's actually had more than a few leave his camp. Adamski had similar problems. I recall the name, but can't recall checking on that aspect very much. Meier also had a habit of stating that others couldn't continue the journey with him (when going to meet the "aliens") as they were as of yet unclean. This is where many such so called witnesses are coming from. They saw him go off in the woods, and then later come back. My money is on him taking a long toke while so alone...

As for prophecy, it's interesting that his "exacting" prophecies (those giving times, dates, etc.) are all of events in the past, and yet his future prophecies are not NEAR so specific... We actually cover this on that thread, so I won't rehash it here.

Are you sure Adamski's a fraud?, or is it mayhaps something read about the Man?

There are certain things such as home movies that got spilled on while being out for developing and the fuzz around the craft and tripods going up and down were not there when he got the developed home movies back. His warning about nuclear proliferation's another for that time..

Dallas

Originally posted by Bursuc

Prophecies,predictions (doesn't matter where they come from i don't believe them.We shape our future,and our actions i don't think that they can be "predicted")

[edit on 5-5-2005 by Bursuc]

Meier's 'ET contacts' make this abundantly clear. The course of the future is not set in stone, it can be altered.

When I first read about this case back in the early 80's all of Meiers 'predictions' seemed outrageous, but looking back now it's much different.

The thing that stands out in my mind is the 'free will' aspect to the whole of it.

Gazrok, could you post or u2u a link to the aforementioned thread, please?
[edit on 5/6/05 by Divergence]

[edit on 5/6/05 by Divergence]

Originally posted by Gazrok

It's not a yes or no question really. He's already (imho) proven that he's committed fraud (unless you truly believe those pics to depict alien ray guns

You make some good points, but why 'throw out the baby with the bathwater' so to speak.

Consider this, If the Plejarans are so sensitive to the social and cultural impacts that the revelation of the ET existence in itself would have, does it not make sense that they would have to give the people who are frightened by the prospect of ET existence a sort of 'way out'.

To say 'If you cannot accept these truths, then that's o.k. too."

If they are truly peaceful, and I believe they are, they would not try to force anything on anyone. They certainly wouldn't want to effect the collapse of civilization.

I would have to say that the proof of this pudding is in the tasting.

In the time prior to his '1995 release', Meier's 'contacts' gave him information that he had absolutely no way of knowing or guessing, and the accuracy of these predictions is quite remarkable.



[edit on 5/7/05 by Divergence]

The link to the Meier post is earlier in this thread Divergence. It's a long one, but read it, and then see how you feel on Meier.

Are you sure Adamski's a fraud?,

99.9% sure. He even copyrighted a FICTIONAL (as listed in the Library of Congress, and declared by the author) story which is almost EXACTLY like his supposed encounters, (i.e. trips to Venus, etc.), but PRIOR to his alleged "abductions".... C'mon... We have a similar thread on Adamski as well, so I'll try and find that one...

EDIT: Here it is...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 7-5-2005 by Gazrok]

Originally posted by Gazrok
The link to the Meier post is earlier in this thread Divergence. It's a long one, but read it, and then see how you feel on Meier.

Are you sure Adamski's a fraud?,

99.9% sure. He even copyrighted a FICTIONAL (as listed in the Library of Congress, and declared by the author) story which is almost EXACTLY like his supposed encounters, (i.e. trips to Venus, etc.), but PRIOR to his alleged "abductions".... C'mon... We have a similar thread on Adamski as well, so I'll try and find that one...

EDIT: Here it is...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 7-5-2005 by Gazrok]

Gazrok, you might want to explain to me why Adamski is a such a fraud while there are eyewitness testimonies that supported some of his claims.You might also want to explain to me why you use similar eyewitness testimonies for the Roswell case you advocate.Seems to me you use double standards just because contactees develop some kind of barrier for you.
If you're so convinced he's a fraud, you might want to explain to me how it is possible other people also photographed and filmed the ships Adamski first recorded, why other people also report similar looking ETs and why other people across the globe report similar experiences.
Seems to me that when it comes to contactees, you focus exclusively on the negative.The same debunking method can be done on your Roswell report but I presume that has escaped you.Perhaps you should just state that the contactee phenomena is something you refuse to think about with an open mind.

TerraX

Originally posted by Gazrok
The link to the Meier post is earlier in this thread Divergence. It's a long one, but read it, and then see how you feel on Meier.

Having read the referenced thread (and many other sources) I must concede that to include the Meier case in any reputable study on the subject would be a faux pas, to say the least.

You make a compelling and convincing case Gaz, my hat is off to you.

Gazrok, you might want to explain to me why Adamski is a such a fraud while there are eyewitness testimonies that supported some of his claims.

What are the odds that someone publishes a FICTIONAL account of something in great detail BEFORE then experiencing the SAME adventures, and then publishing a NEW book that then actually sells? I'm sorry, but any logical argument for Adamski is simply going to fail up against this.

You might also want to explain to me why you use similar eyewitness testimonies for the Roswell case you advocate.Seems to me you use double standards just because contactees develop some kind of barrier for you.

No double standards. I take the sworn testimony of high-ranking military officers, pilots, intelligence people, members of the press, and people whose livelihood isn't centered around hawking UFO wares, to be a little more credible than a hot dog vendor getting joyrides to Venus. Maybe I'm just a little crazy that way I suppose.....

If you're so convinced he's a fraud, you might want to explain to me how it is possible other people also photographed and filmed the ships Adamski first recorded, why other people also report similar looking ETs and why other people across the globe report similar experiences.

You know as well as I do that the majority of those claiming to have seen UFOs are a case of mistaken identity, and the product of assigning what they THINK something to be, AS that something otherworldly. Now, that doesn't mean that all such sightings are bogus, but the majority are either deliberate falsehoods, or mistaken mundane causes. We see a lot of copycat sightings in the field, and while some may be genuine, others are simply recanting and basing off of something they read, saw, etc. Not to mention, have you SEEN some of these photos and vids? Most are hardly believable in their own right. Adamski was one of the first to go public in a BIG way, so it's no wonder his designs of craft find their way into other reports.

Seems to me that when it comes to contactees, you focus exclusively on the negative.The same debunking method can be done on your Roswell report but I presume that has escaped you.Perhaps you should just state that the contactee phenomena is something you refuse to think about with an open mind.

Totally untrue. Look at the recent case thread of the Hill Abduction for example!!! I will admit that I need something more than witness testimony and faked photos (or pics of an anonymous human in a foil jumpsuit holding an obviously homemade ray gun) to find a contactee case compelling. The Hill case is one of the few that meet that criteria. Now, there may be other cases I BELIEVE, just from gut intuition, and logic of the facts at hand, but I wouldn't use it to prove a point.

And no, the same method COULDN'T be applied to Roswell. Other than eyewitness accounts (many of which I didn't include, if they were unreliable ones, you get those in every high-profile case), we've got (for one thing) highly trained and ranking military officers who are TRAINED to recognize aerial objects, we've got government acknowledgement of a crash of something of a covert nature, the military explanation not holding water, and then the military getting caught in a lie, newspaper press releases, etc. Hardly comparable to the "evidence" for Adamski or his cult's "experiences".


[edit on 9-5-2005 by Gazrok]

I have trouble with Jim Mars revelations .. he over extends himself as he did twenty years ago. Two of his books were very well researched after that I jusy not sure what to make of the man..though his ufo anaogy seems to stay sitting right in the mind of the believers..

Dallas

Gets into the main problem with even genuine abductees.... Once the tale is told, that's it...only so many times you can retell it. So, like stories of old, embellishments creep in, then more, then more, just to put a new twist on an old tale. So, even if the original version is based on a true event, the later add-ons tarnish the account. Even the Hill case isn't immune to this, as I believe the found earrings are likely an erroneous connection to the event, etc.

This is probably most shown in the tale of the alleged Dulce base. Cooper comes out and spins one tale, then Schneider builds on it, but adding the firefight bit, and that he got shot, etc. and it just snowballed from there, going further and further down the well after Alice.....

Originally posted by Divergence
Having read the referenced thread (and many other sources) I must concede that to include the Meier case in any reputable study on the subject would be a faux pas, to say the least.

Divergence,
I don't think that Meier's case should be totally excluded from a "reputable" study.I have read a lot about it,and i still read now.There are valid things and bits of information.I could give you a few links on the study of other pictures of his,but this is not the purpose of this thread.All what i'm saying is that i do not entirely agree with your opinion to just "forget" about the whole Meier story

One must remember that the Meier camp never provided negatives for the photo testings, but instead multi-generational prints instead, so many claims by Meier could not be tested one way or the other without the negatives, and a scientific analysis of them would be flawed from the get-go.

Personally, I'm grateful to those who came out in Meier's defense, as I learned a lot about the guy's claims I wouldn't have known otherwise, but in the end, for me, the evidence is strongly against him being genuine...incredibly so.

Gazrock,
If you care and have time,have a look here :
www.tjresearch.info...
It discusses one of his pictures.Also,if you want i can give you a kind of "report" written by one Ike42 i believe,which i find good when it comes at debunking Meier.I don't have a link,but i have it saved on my PC.Both sides of the coin.

The bottom line is that without the negatives, one cannot rule out extremely simple development techniques for ANY of the photos...or collaboration of any photolab employees, etc.

It's also interesting that others in that particular little speck of land don't see these hundreds of ships flying around for such photo ops... The supporter explanations for this are truly entertaining...and are going WAY out on that limb...