Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

Originally posted by WhiteWash
There was another man people followed irregardless of proof or sanity...

Therein lies the danger in belief without reason coupled with fanaticism.

You could insert Nancy Leider's picture there also. Spaced out B****!!

Time travelling aliens could give us (and Billy) the proof we need. They could let Billy film them landing and stepping out of their saucer. Invite Billy aboard while he continues filming. Then go somewhere off world or out of time. We could take up a collection to make sure he had a good video camera instead of the crappy one he has been using. I do not understand why we are expected to believe proof we cannot accept. Give us proof we will be unable to debate. We do not want OLD PROOF. We want brand new, shiny proof with ray guns updated to todays sophisticated science fiction prop standards.

Back to square one for those seeking proof. Read the free photo and sound analysis reports, the info on Vogel's patents, the comments by the scientific experts.

If it's not good enough, demonstrate why by simply duplicating the evidence yourself...and show how easy it is to perpetrate a hoax, for 55 years, that can pass scientific testing.

When Vogel said that he couldn't duplicate the metal with ANY technology known and available to him as a scientist (with IBM) he made a statement of some magnitude. He was a professional, it's necessary to not approach professional level information with an amateur's mind.

And it would be helpful for critics to develop their own credibility by actually reading, referring and responding to the information posted early in this forum.

As for why I digressed into other areas, I seem to recall some off topic (to me) posts about umbrellas and ice as a weapon.

I'll also offend the sensitive critics among you by stating a fact, i.e. that none of you are competent to judge the Meier case's enormous amount of evidence since you're clearly ignorant of it and, so far, haven't demonstrate the thinking and logic skills necessary to do so.

However, ALL of you ARE entitled to your own opinions, which is why this isn't an argument for me. It's an attempt at an educational experience such as you might provide me in a field of your expertise in which I am, like you are here, ignorant. I qualify as ignorant in a whole host of different areas. This isn't one of them. And that's why I represent the case internationally and have, so far, defeated every single skeptical challenge (actually the irreproducible evidence does that, I just gloat and irritate people about it).

There's also no need for me to respond to every misrepresentation of the case and evidence, as I said, I'm not here to argue. We can consider this like going to school. You want to argue with the teacher? Don't waste your time in class. Would I sit in an aviation/flying class and argue with someone as uniquely qualified as John Lear? Hardly. I'd either see what I could learn from him, which would certainly include intelligent questions and challenges, or I'd drop out and take his likely suggestion to...go fly a kite.

MH
www.theyfly.com

Originally posted by Michael12
I'll also offend the sensitive critics among you by stating a fact, i.e. that none of you are competent to judge the Meier case's enormous amount of evidence since you're clearly ignorant of it and, so far, haven't demonstrate the thinking and logic skills necessary to do so.

Your judgment is incredibly poor....your attempt at discourse pathetic....shameful.

Those comments are willfully rude, and stating them as fact makes ridicule of your conclusion that the "sensitive critics" lack thinking and logic skills. Mechanically, you construct good sentences; the verbs and nouns agree with the tense, commas and other punctuation appear in the correct places, but unfortunately, your arguments are consistently flawed.

Originally posted by Michael12
Back to square one for those seeking proof. Read the free photo and sound analysis reports, the info on Vogel's patents, the comments by the scientific experts.

Since in this thread we have mostly focused on the worst Meier evidence. (i.e. laser guns and dinosaurs) What would you say is the best evidence for the Meier case? (which photo/sound file convinced you?)

From what I remember, it seems you weren’t very impressed by the laser guns yourself. - until you went out and saw the tree for yourself. I agree that the Meier pics are some of the best UFO pics out there. (is the X-files’ ‘I want to Believe’ poster one of Meier’s pic?)

BTW, Whoever runs www.billymeier.com should add something to the Scientific evidence section. There’s nothing there!

www.billymeier.com...

Any chance of seing some of the "cave men" pics?


[edit on 19/4/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by Michael12
There's also no need for me to respond to every misrepresentation of the case and evidence, as I said, I'm not here to argue. We can consider this like going to school. You want to argue with the teacher? Don't waste your time in class. Would I sit in an aviation/flying class and argue with someone as uniquely qualified as John Lear? Hardly. I'd either see what I could learn from him, which would certainly include intelligent questions and challenges, or I'd drop out and take his likely suggestion to...go fly a kite.

Isn't it your job to defend him? Aren't you making money, in some capacity, with your connection to Meier?

Nobody doubts Mr. Lear's expertise at piloting a plane. His thousands of hours on the yoke don't, however, translate into his being an expert on everything.

edited to remove an inappropriate comparison.

[edit on 19-4-2007 by Crakeur]

If that's the case, then it wouldn't be important to think about what the purpose may be, especially of things like the O'Hare and other recent sightings?

Ok, what is the purpose of the O'Hare sighting? Some people (John Lear notably) believe the sighting is real but of a terrestrial (human) craft of some sort. What is your, or the Meier view, of the event?

John Lear defending Billy Meir has definately dropped him down a notch in credibility IMO.

Originally posted by Michael12

I'll also offend the sensitive critics among you by stating a fact, i.e. that none of you are competent to judge the Meier case's enormous amount of evidence since you're clearly ignorant of it and, so far, haven't demonstrate the thinking and logic skills necessary to do so.

Michael12 while I agree with this statement apparently the word 'ignorant' is a hot button here at ATS. Most people don't think they are, thats why they respond as they do.

I find the word 'ignorant' entirely appropriate in many cases and especially in this case because I believe the Bill Meier case to be true and those who do not have simply not researched the case as thoroughly as you.

That said I would respectfully caution using the word ignorant.

I appreciate your taking the time to respond to the questions on this thread. While it does seem useless in some cases there are many that read and absorb but to not post. They are the ones that are important.

I find that the continuous use of tact and respect regardless of the insults that are heaped about are the foundation of successful communication.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Any chance of seing some of the "cave men" pics?

here you go. this is Billy's caveman pic. Please note that any similarities to Ringo Starr in the movie Caveman are either coincidental or possibly the result MIB swapping the real image out with the caveman "double" of the real caveman.

Originally posted by Crakeur

Nobody doubts Mr. Lear's expertise at piloting a plane. His thousands of hours on the yoke don't, however, translate into his being an expert on everything.

I think the only reason my former profession came up is that somebody asked about my credentials. I never advanced my ability (or lack thereof) to fly an airplane as a qualification to comment on the tower on the moon, the atmosphere on the moon or the Billy Meier case. If you can post a quote where I did so I would be grateful.

Mr. Lear believes there is a tower on the moon that catches the souls of earthlings. Having him defend Meier is the equivalent, in my mind, of using Charles Manson as a character witness for a defendent accused of murder.

I find that comparison inappropriate and I would respectfully request that you rephrase it. Thanks.

Originally posted by johnlearI find that comparison inappropriate and I would respectfully request that you rephrase it. Thanks.

I have to say that I'm continually impressed with the tact and restraint John Lear shows these insulting posts. The purpose of this site is to advance unusual views, which John certainly does. Why people feel the need to attack him personally when they disagree with his opinions is beyond me.