Heard something interesting about the Meier Case.

Originally posted by Linkamoto
...But Meier's case is definitely weakening lately...interesting stuff.

And BTW, I read that whole thread, every word of it. Horn was a bit front in his use of names and he came off pretty strong. Maybe it's indicative of his passion for the case/

I was going to link the thread where Meier's toady Horn got the boot, but another poster beat me to it.

Regarding Horn, I participated in a Q&A with him on another forum. It was heavily moderated because he was invited and the admins didn't want to scare him off immediately. The discussion was pre-arranged in that it was only supposed to last a few days, but Horn held on a little longer, it's 11 pages long.

Here's a link to that discussion, if anyone's interested:

www.paranormalis.com...

Me and a couple others tried to tear him a new one, but we were forced to do it politely!

Harte

Originally posted by TerraX
Hi John,

While I concur with you to a certain degree there are also a few distinct differences between the names you listed. I agree with you that something indeed happend at the heart of the matter in those contact cases. There are to many witnesses that have come forward who experienced matters as well which tend to support the 'contactees' claims. George Adamski who's generally considered a crackpot had a suprising ammount of eyewitness testimony, not only of people who were in his direct vicinity but other persons have witnessed the crafts he photographed in many parts of the world, some even took pictures as well. Howard Menger who was often accused of jumping on the bandwagon in the wake of the Adamski case, had similar support, also from his family members just like Adamski. That for me indicates that something indeed transpired. Claiming it's a hoax doesn't cover all the aspects of what's on the table here.
Billy Meier also has support in the ways discussed above but from my perspective doesn't belong in the same category as the others. It seems like controversy is a natural consequence of speaking about UFOs and ETs in public and all the names you listed certainly had their share, allbeit generated by outside sources or by their own behavior. The main reason why I view Billy Meier as a different category is because in essence, he doesn't support anyone else in the fullest extent. When you really get in to the Meier material you'll find that he and his ET contacts claim that Adamski, Menger, Bethurum (and many others) are liars, hoaxers and frauds. The eyewitness testimony? Oh, that came about through Adamski's hypnotising skills! Many people don't realise that Meier is a debunker who resorts to lame excuses and cheapshots himself, mostlikely to favor his own material. Therefore I have little respect for the man.

TerraX, thanks for your post. Your point is well taken, I had forgotten about that detail of Meiers.

George Adamski, in his Inside the Flying Saucers, describes a
trip to the moon and he claimed he saw forests, rivers, cities
on the back side of the moon. Which, of course, is not a reality.
Also, he and others even today, claim the same for Venus......
a lovely place to live. (Which, of course, is impossible given the
conditions there.)

Mike, thanks for the post.

My opinion is that the moon has 64% percent gravity as that of earth's and therefore there is an atmosphere, one that, after acclimatizing to you could breathe without supplemental oxygen. Having an atmosphere, which is thicker on the farside, it does have rivers, lakes and forests and (omigod) people do live there. As a matter of fact, the U.S. has been traveling and working there since 1962. Oh yeah, and the sky is not black in the daytime. That was what NASA was hiding with all of their shenanigans during the Apollo program. And yes, Apollo went to the moon, but 7 years after we originally went in 1962. (I know what you're going to ask: "How did the Lunar Module descend out of 60 miles orbit, land, then take off and hook up again in 60 mile orbit with only 22,000# of fuel if the gravity is really 64%?"

As far as Venus. I believe you are relying too much on data that NASA or the Russians have been giving you. Venus is a beautiful place very similar to earth. Lots of people live there.

It is also my opinion that all of the other planets in our solar system are inhabited by beings very similar to us. And by other planets I am including Mercury (yeah, yeah, I know what you are told a lead melting, same goes for the 'sulphuric acid atmosphere of Venus, pure BS imho). Big gas giant? Jupiter or NASA? But since neither of us will be taking that 'solar system' tour in the near future we'll leave it on an 'agree to disagree" basis.

I'm glad you threw those 2 words "my opinion" in there. Otherwise some folk here might take yer word for it. They are a gullible lot and easily led astray.
Now if you have real evidence to back your statements up well then let's have at it.

Bet you thought Serpo was for real too.
Just 'my opinion'.

Originally posted by johnlear

George Adamski, in his Inside the Flying Saucers, describes a
trip to the moon and he claimed he saw forests, rivers, cities
on the back side of the moon. Which, of course, is not a reality.
Also, he and others even today, claim the same for Venus......
a lovely place to live. (Which, of course, is impossible given the
conditions there.)

Mike, thanks for the post.

My opinion is that the moon has 64% percent gravity as that of earth's and therefore there is an atmosphere, one that, after acclimatizing to you could breathe without supplemental oxygen. Having an atmosphere, which is thicker on the farside, it does have rivers, lakes and forests and (omigod) people do live there. As a matter of fact, the U.S. has been traveling and working there since 1962. Oh yeah, and the sky is not black in the daytime. That was what NASA was hiding with all of their shenanigans during the Apollo program. And yes, Apollo went to the moon, but 7 years after we originally went in 1962. (I know what you're going to ask: "How did the Lunar Module descend out of 60 miles orbit, land, then take off and hook up again in 60 mile orbit with only 22,000# of fuel if the gravity is really 64%?"

As far as Venus. I believe you are relying too much on data that NASA or the Russians have been giving you. Venus is a beautiful place very similar to earth. Lots of people live there.

It is also my opinion that all of the other planets in our solar system are inhabited by beings very similar to us. And by other planets I am including Mercury (yeah, yeah, I know what you are told a lead melting, same goes for the 'sulphuric acid atmosphere of Venus, pure BS imho). Big gas giant? Jupiter or NASA? But since neither of us will be taking that 'solar system' tour in the near future we'll leave it on an 'agree to disagree" basis.

Maybe Virgin Galactic will be offering discount tours before we die?

Anyway, since we are not determining school curriculum, we can easily
disagree, no problemo.

@Harte:

Thank you for that thread. It will engage me for a while as I read it. Appreciate it.

@JohnLear:

I was just curious, under what basis are you making claims that people live on the moon and that it has forests, rivers, etc? I mean, hasn't it already been proven otherwise? If not, then who's to say you're wrong?

My position on life on other planets within the solarsystem is more based on technological theories in combination with ET intelligences. I think science has adequatly proven that Venus, Mars and the Moon have quite inhospitable atmospheres. What would be the reason then why some contactees claim that extraterrestrial people came from certain planets within our solarsystem? This is speculation on my part, but it could simply imply that ETs have bases on those planets, perhaps even with 'habitat domes'. I'm sure most of us here have seen sci-fi movies and tv shows such as Star Trek where bases are build on distant planets. I think it's probable that an ET civilization who has mastered outer solarsystem spacetravel is equally capable of constructing bases elsewhere and to be selfsuffient at the same time. (NASA is working on that.) Alien bases on Earth have been a topic in many ufo related books, why couldn't ETs build bases on other planets then?
To get back to the 'contactee testimony', it's theoreticly possible that some were shown a 'biological support dome' and not the actual atmosphere on the planet or moon in question. Howard Menger, a contactee of the 1950s, claims that he was taking on board a flying saucer and flown to the moon where they docked inside a 'domed structure'. Subsequently he was taken inside a kind of metro system and even stuck his head out of the cabine on the surface. Menger claims to have taken a couple of pictures of that trip but the resolution isn't that great. Adamski's claims are more difficult to explain adequately although if you read his account you'll notice that he was shown the Moon and Venus on a kind of tv screen and not with his own eyes. Nonetheless his claims even today seem extravagant but some softening circumstances could be applied here such as Adamski's poor eyesight. (He had glasses but hardly wore them.) It's also possible that Adamski embillished this part of the story, something his inner circle of friends noticed him doing as well later on in time.

I call it the death of dvds sells. lol

The Meier case: conclusive "smoking gun" proof of deception.


thebiggestsecret.online.fr...

Originally posted by MANNYP4
I call it the death of dvds sells. lol
The Meier case: conclusive "smoking gun" proof of deception.
thebiggestsecret.online.fr...

There's already a thread about that;
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I've even dug up the manufactorer.

Originally posted by johnlear
I think that the Billy Meier case is a true account of a Swiss farmer's encounter with ET's. I also think that the George Adamski, Truman Bethurum and Howard Menger stories of encounters with aliens were also true. Both George Adamski and Howard Menger told of being taken on trips to the moon. I think those were true accounts. Since we are all dealing with the same data, words on paper, pictures on paper and opinion, it is unlikely any of us will ever know the truth.

and quoted also the other two ramblings of this fine ace-pilot.



and i think you better stop making your thoughts public before the doctors catch you, or are the inmates of mental asylums allowed to join the great wide web nowadays?

seriosly what to you want with this nonsence, selling books or funky-light videos, shouldn´t you be rich already, former flying-ace? or is it that all your friends had enought of your freakin stories, so your only audience are srangers on the internet?

i just don´t get your kind. never will!



[edit on 3-7-2006 by hoeon]