Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
His methods and experiment would be called unscientific.

That's the beauty of the scientific method! Results can be tested for reliability. Certainly if no scientist can duplicate findings, the previous results can be considered suspect.

I think your statements are assumptions, because you don't know that will be the occurrence. Sure, many scientists stay mum on the subject....but if one were to come into possession of irrefutable proof? Chances are, they would be shouting it out to the world.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

Originally posted by Springer
I know more than one scientist who would LOVE to be able to announce to the world they have, in their hand, irrefutable PROOF of alien intelligence by way of a manipulated (manufactured) non terrestrial piece of metal!

I’d say such a scientist would instantly be labeled a quack and a fraud. His methods and experiments would be called unscientific. Let’s not forget the extensive cover-up.

And oh ya, the rocks would most likely disappear.

[edit on 27/4/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

What?!

Irrefutable, repeatable scientific proof is exactly that, IRREFUTABLE and REPEATABLE. on what basis would ANYONE be able to label that person a "quack"?!

Please...

I personally know scientists who are VERY interested in this "field", the PROBLEM is ONLY that there is no specimen that meets any of the above. If there were objects that met this criteria they would GLADLY, JOYFULLY, WITHOUT HESITATION release the data!

How many scientists do you know CN? Ask any of them if a discovery like that would THRILL them or scare them, I would bet my house on the THRILL over the scare ANY DAY OF THE WEEK mate!

Springer...

[edit on 4-27-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by Springer
Ask any of them if a discovery like that would THRILL them or scare them, I would bet my house on the THRILL over the scare ANY DAY OF THE WEEK mate!

Will do. However, most scientifically minded people I've met in the past find the subject of "little green men" totally ridiculous. When it comes to alien or alien technology most people roll their eyes and simply won't look at any of the evidence. (easily available via disclosure project)

Besides, rocks from space probably wouldn't be irrefutable proof. Skeptics would simply claim that Meier somehow carved it out of a meteor.


[edit on 27/4/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

Ok, so it's clear then that a testing to an original photo from meier was never done. Just as we thought. and before saying anything like because this person said this or saw that, we need proof (documentation that an original photo was tested) not words. "LITHOGRAPHS" = COPY = NON ORIGINAL.

I guess I will ask again and again and again!!!!!! your silence is gold.

James Randi "CHALLENGED" you since 2004 to provide metal samples from meier "WHICH MEIER STILL HAS IN HIS POSSESSION (2007)". So why out of those times you visited meier you haven't do so? Are you going to visit meier this year? you still can do it. You will prove that all skeptics are wrong. Isn't that like your dream?

Can you duplicate Jritzmann photos? because if you can't using your own analogy then they must be real.

Originally posted by MrPenny
Chances are, they would be shouting it out to the world.

Also an assumption. You don’t know that.

Originally posted by MANNYP4
James Randi "CHALLENGED" you since 2004 to provide metal samples from meier "WHICH MEIER STILL HAS IN HIS POSSESSION (2007)".

MH already explained that the last time Meier lent out a rock, it disappeared. This is consistent with a UFO cover-up.

Springer, check out this article on scientific thinking. Personally, I doubt any scientist would be able to publish his/her work. I believe he/she would be ostracized before any of his peers actually reviewed the material.

BTW, are Dr Roger Leir's findings legit?


[edit on 28/4/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

Originally posted by MrPenny
Chances are, they would be shouting it out to the world.

Also an assumption. You don’t know that.

You are correct, I am assuming there is a chance of an occurrence. I think that is a relatively safe assumption based on some years of experience. I could poll every single scientist in the world in order to validate the statement, but you and I both know, the odds of not finding a single occurrence of a scientist willing to do that is, quite possibly, zilch. I don't know how anyone could deny the existence of a 'chance' of this occurring. I am not stating, as bald fact, that it will occur.

The issue here isn't about simple rocks. The artifacts are allegedly manufactured and micro-machined constructs. Not simple rocks. The 'claimed' examination supposedly revealed clear and unambiguous characteristics of non-earthly origination.

Oh, and the raygun? I still think its just a goofy looking toy someone cobbled together.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by MrPenny
I think that is a relatively safe assumption based on some years of experience.

I think it’s a safe assumption that the rocks would disappear. According to MH, it has in the past. (and good evidence has been known to disappear in UFO lure)

I could poll every single scientist in the world in order to validate the statement,

Meanwhile, while your doing your investigation for the perfect scientist, the MIBs (its equivalent) come and take your proof.

I don't know how anyone could deny the existence of a 'chance' of this occurring. I am not stating, as bald fact, that it will occur.

Tell me MrPenny, do you believe that we are currently holding Alien technology? Do you believe in an alien presence? You don’t think the cover-up is effective?

The artifacts are allegedly manufactured and micro-machined constructs

I missed that. Could you point me to where this was mentioned?

Oh, and the raygun? I still think its just a goofy looking toy someone cobbled together.

So do I, so does Michael Horn, Wendelle Steven and even John Lear. At this point I don’t think no one is debating this point. We simply don't know what the real thing looks like.


[edit on 28/4/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

At this point, please note that abundant, credible information from the actual investigation, by Wendelle Stevens, regarding the ray gun has been posted here.

Please also note that the sound recordings have been offered, a couple of times, as testable physical evidence but restless - and disingenuous - minds prefer to agitate and relentlessly attempt to distract rather than do the necessary work to determine if what six professional sound engineers said about them being irreproducible is true.

These are some of the reasons why it's no longer necessary to get into arguments with skeptics. Another reason is that now well over 4,114,000 visitors from 117 countries have found - and are spreading - the information regarding the Meier case from my site. That part of the mission is accomplished.

And it's why the skeptical challenge is effectively over and why no one will even attempt here to duplicate the sound recordings, why no photos of UFO models will ever test the same as Meier's UFO photos - if they'll be tested at all - and why no films or videos have been, or will be made that will duplicate, let alone rival, Meier's.

I know that. And so do some of you here now.

So, while I can appreciate the way online forums work, with a certain amount of deliberate provocation by SOME people who are anything but expert in the subjects which they write about or "moderate", and while many of the topics are in themselves short of anything but conjecture, it would serve (serious) people to not become overly participatory in the epidemic of time-wasting entertainment...of any sort.

The Meier material is neither focused on proving anything nor on entertaining you. It's trying to tell you (us) that we are in for some major, still unforeseen and enormously horrendous difficulties if we don't wake up and accelerate our maturity and self-responsibility. Perhaps it's not unique in this regard, only uniquely accurate and credible.

Everything that you really need to know the truth about the authenticity of the Meier case is available to you, most of it for free. You're not required to join or belong to anything, tithe your money, follow ANY leaders, or drink any Kool-Aid.

I hope that some of you have been pleasantly surprised by what you've found and will find. And I hope that some of you are disappointed that your superficial challenges were revealed for what they were, your attempts to further slander and defame Meier weren't successful and that the expected from me battles didn't materialize.

As I said, the need to take the skeptical challenge seriously is now over and such theatrics aren't now necessary...at least for me.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
I think it’s a safe assumption that the rocks would disappear. According to MH, it has in the past. (and good evidence has been know to disappear in UFO lure)[...]Meanwhile, while your doing your investigation for the perfect scientist, the MIBs (its equivalent) come and take your proof.

? O.K. I don't know if I'm supposed to somehow respond to that. Reads like bizarre reasoning to me, but I could be wrong.....

I missed that. Could you point me to where this was mentioned?

Please see below;

Originally posted by Michael12
Anyway, with Vogel's honest assessment that HE couldn't put the alloy sample together himself, due also to the micro-machining and the probable manufacture through cold fusion, various parties suddenly took the case quite seriously. It is also said that certain superconductors came out of IBM about a year after Vogel's analysis.

We simply don't know what the real thing looks like.

I get the impression you've haven't really been following this thread very closely. Or I've totally lost my ability for reading comprehension. Aren't the images posted in the early part of this thread showing the alleged 'laser beam' weapon? Isn't that the item touted as the 'real thing'? And where did the persons you mentioned make the claim of that object in particular not being the 'real thing'? I recall comments agreeing that it 'looked' like a toy, but none of them dismissing it as such.

Originally posted by Michael12
Please also note that the sound recordings have been offered, a couple of times, as testable physical evidence but restless - and disingenuous - minds prefer to agitate and relentlessly attempt to distract rather than do the necessary work to determine if what six professional sound engineers said about them being irreproducible is true.[...]And it's why the skeptical challenge is effectively over and why no one will even attempt here to duplicate the sound recordings, why no photos of UFO models will ever test the same as Meier's UFO photos - if they'll be tested at all - and why no films or videos have been, or will be made that will duplicate, let alone rival, Meier's.

Specious comments at best, since the originals are gone and cannot be used as true testing controls.

Originally posted by MrPenny
? O.K. I don't know if I'm supposed to somehow respond to that. Reads like bizarre reasoning to me, but I could be wrong.....

To make it real simple for you. There's a cover up.

There’s nothing bizarre about the reasoning.

Or I've totally lost my ability for reading comprehension.

Bingo!

Aren't the images posted in the early part of this thread showing the alleged 'laser beam' weapon? Isn't that the item touted as the 'real thing'?

Hmm, do you know what an alien ray-gun looks like? I said that we don’t know what the real thing looks like, so Meier’s pic might as well be real.
(mr. Lear made the same point earlier)

I recall comments agreeing that it 'looked' like a toy, but none of them dismissing it as such.

Where do I say that they had discounted it as a toy?


[edit on 28/4/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

Aren't the images posted in the early part of this thread showing the alleged 'laser beam' weapon? Isn't that the item touted as the 'real thing'?

Hmm, do you know what an alien ray-gun looks like? I said that we don’t know what the real thing looks like, so Meier’s pic might as well be real.
(mr. Lear made the same point earlier)

One more time. Isn't it true that the object presented in the original post, and in subsequent posts (held by Billy Meier for instance), is being presented as a real and functioning 'laser beam' weapon by Meier, Horn, et al?

Originally posted by MrPenny
One more time. Isn't it true that the object presented in the original post, and in subsequent posts (held by Billy Meier for instance), is being presented as a real and functioning 'laser beam' weapon by Meier, Horn, et al?

Where did I say that they didn't present it as a real and functioning 'laser beam'?

[edit on 28/4/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

OK I see what you mean, I mean they all agreed that it looked like a "goofy looking toy someone cobbled together."

sorry for the confusion.

[edit on 28/4/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

Oh, and the raygun? I still think its just a goofy looking toy someone cobbled together.

So do I, so does Michael Horn, Wendelle Steven and even John Lear. At this point I don’t think no one is debating this point. We simply don't know what the real thing looks like.

What the hell does this mean? I think you're being intentionally obtuse now.

Edit: Just saw your edit. Maybe you could also retract your "Bingo" in reference to my reading comprehension?

Makes no difference. I'll achieve nothing trying to have a normal discussion with you.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by MrPenny
What the hell does this mean? I think you're being intentionally obtuse now.

No I'm not. I apologize. I tried to edit before you came back on, but I explained above. I mean they all agreed that it "looked" like a toy gun.

Originally posted by MrPenny
Edit: Just saw your edit. Maybe you could also retract your "Bingo" in reference to my reading comprehension?

I will. I’m sorry I insulted your reading and comprehension skills. I don’t see how our conversation is not normal. – a simple misunderstanding. It’s bound to happen when discussing ray guns from outer space.

EDIT: rude comment removed. D-ego at work!


[edit on 28/4/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

"Michael12 posted on 28-4-2007 @ 11:11 AM
why no photos of UFO models will ever test the same as Meier's UFO photos"

Of course they can't be tested the same. Because meier's ORIGINALS photos were never tested in the first place (please feel free to prove otherwise with documentation). They tested "LITHOGRAPHS" = COPY = NON ORIGINAL. And if you dare to post the full quotes from the so called experts you always talk about they said that without the negatives or originals photos they can't really do a full testing or prove anything. But you never care to post the full quotes instead you misquote them to look like they are favoring meier's fairly tales when in fact they aren't. Thanks to a lot smart people here and in other forums they found out your little misquoting "EXPERTS" trick long time ago, everybody know this now.

Duplicating a photo will never prove anything but just to clarify Meier's photos has been duplicated since 1986 (and maybe earlier) up to 2007 but for some reason you still say (2007) that they haven't.

In order to do the same test they first need to make "LITHOGRAPHS" from the photos and then find the old equiments with the old technology that were used to test meier's "LITHOGRAPHS" Fair right? and you will get the same results for sure, and unknown object in the "air??" in a "False Perspective" way, looking like known terrestrial components.

Terrax you are right! MH dodges the hard questions from everyone in here better than Neo dodged those bullets in the matrix.

Originally posted by MANNYP4
Terrax you are right! MH dodges the hard questions from everyone in here better than Neo dodged those bullets in the matrix.

I think he's more like Agent Smith, Manny. Smith tried to create clones of himself and we've both seen how some other posters started behaving in the same manner in the past like they had read the MH manual or something.

Originally posted by Michael12
These are some of the reasons why it's no longer necessary to get into arguments with skeptics. Another reason is that now well over 4,114,000 visitors from 117 countries have found - and are spreading - the information regarding the Meier case from my site. That part of the mission is accomplished.

Finally some grains of truth. Spreading the Meier information. That's on the top of the list, not actually finding out what is the truth through discussion or healthy debate. I'm glad more and more people find out what Mr. Horn is all about.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Personally, I doubt any scientist would be able to publish his/her work. I believe he/she would be ostracized before any of his peers actually reviewed the material.

BTW, are Dr Roger Leir's findings legit?


[edit on 28/4/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

Why would anyone ostracize someone who had a piece of metal that had been apparently manipulated by an intelligent being that test data PROVES is extraterrestrial?! There would be nothing to ostracize, you don't ostracize test data, you duplicate the tests and if they present the same results you have PROOF, if they don't you move on.

Nobody is talking about "little green men" this is about a piece of metal, physical evidence.

Peer reviews are not taunt sessions, they are either accepted based on the data or declined based on the data. If there is data that proves a piece of metal is of extra terrestrial origin and the tests that proved it can be duplicated it's all over with.

All I know about Dr. Leir's stuff is one sample he was positive was alien has been analyzed by a world class forensics expert who is also a physician (MD) and found to be very common. I was told this by the world class forensic physician himself.

In any case, I personally know people who are undeniable, world class, scientists who NO ONE would "ostracize" and who have a deep interest in this stuff who would LOVE to get data, would LOVE to have a piece of metal to test and would LOVE to be the person who "discovered" it was alien and proves intelligent life not only exists but has been in contact with us.

Based on the above personal, first hand, knowledge, I reject the idea that the scientific community would ostracize one of its members who presented genuine data for peer review.

Springer...