To All of You Who Doubt The Billy Meier (HOAX): Watch this.

reply to post by Jay-morris


Good videos, I don't necessarily think that all his photo's are fake ( only reason I'm still sticking to my beliefs ) but there are a handful that are suspicious and fake for sure. The wedding cake is horrendous in my opinion, and I don't buy it one bit, but I'm still going to stay open to the possibility this could have some validity to it. Solely because some of his photo's look very good and on what I've heard from multiple sources.

Originally posted by Jay-morris
reply to post by mahigitam

 

Im sorry, but i don't buy what the witnesess say one bit. Why would they lie? Maybe for the attention, maybe because they are in on it, who knows, but at the end of the day, witnesess is not evidence. If witnesess was evidence, then we would have had disclosure by now, considering all the people coming forward about ufo's, but we don't have disclosure.

Right, back to the tree's.

There is evidence that meier used the same tree for different locations. You can find this evidence here . From this, it is pretty obvious that he used the same tree for different locations.

Anyone who disagree's simply will never believe the evidence against billy meier, so it will be interesting to see if you are open to changing your mind, or if you are just your normal billy meier believer that is blinded by the man himself.

Now, there is more than enough evidence that meier used model ufo's. You only have to look at the ufo above the truck to know this, as the model is clearly near the camera and the reason why it looks out of focus, while the tree and truck look normal. Again, you can't argue with this because the evidence is there.

As for the footage of a ufo going around the tree on a farm. There was never a tree there! And not just that, the ufo wobbles like its on a string, and you never see the ufo go behind the tree.

So, again, you have showed no evidence to prove this case real, while i have posted plenty that points to this case being a hoax.

Look here,
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b7b65514ee30.jpg[/atsimg]

1) Can you find the same dent present in 1st photo, in the other 2 photos ?
The treespace above the dent in the 3rd photo is small compared to 1st one.
2) Hanging branch in the 3rd photo has less foliage than the 1st one and looks completely different to 1st photo. In 3rd photo it divides into 3 sub-branches.
3) Less foliage in 3rd photo compared to 1st photo. In 3rd photo we can identify small sub-branches that stem from main vertical trunk, where as in 1st pic its all dense and cannot see the main vertical trunk.

The Options you are left with is that either
a) there are 3 model trees in 3 different photos
b) or the same model tree which got a makeover by cutting enough foliage in all 3 different photos.

Why would they lie? Maybe for the attention, maybe because they are in on it, who knows, but at the end of the day, witnesess is not evidence.

Or May be they saw the real phenomenon! What they saw and experienced we cannot verify as these witness statements do not have weight & there is not adequate evidence for the event . Us being unable to verify does not mean, they all lied for various reasons. If one were to propose that they all lied 100%, has to show evidence regarding it or simply has to acknowledge the limited evidence at hand and move onto where there is adequate evidence..

Originally posted by Jay-morris

Originally posted by mahigitam

His predictions. Why does he release his predictions after the date they happened. How is that predicting anything?

There is somuch information where meier has written down in the form of conversation as contact reports, some where exclusively written down as prophecies and predictions. By the way, can you show me where Meier "Predicted" world war III will be in 2006..as far as i know, he mentioned that world war III as a prophecy but not as a prediction.

Havent you looked into the corroborated information yet...let us look into it..
Here www.theyfly.com...
In 1978, Meier predicted the forthcoming discovery, and subsequent naming, of a comet that would be called Toutatis.
Also in 1991 & 2006 Meier has written down info regarding the discovery and the cause of death(arrow stuck in his body) of ICEMAN..www.theyfly.com...

I would like to hear your take on these...

Billy meier predictions are worthless, and he has been wrong when it comes to world war three, and he does only release information after the event has happen.

But for some strange reason, meier believers refuse to look at the evidence

Hi Jaymorris,

On IIGWEST website, i find
CLAIM: Billy Meier Predicted That Four Heads Of State Would Die Within Seven Days Of Each Other And This Would Signal The Coming Of World War III

And they fail to show where Meier actually did that. Can you show where meier mentioned such a thing ? I could not find BIlly making such a claim, i have gone through the entire english literature available..and found nothing


In my last post, i told that i would like to hear your opinion on the "Toutatis" and "Iceman" predictions... You skipped the topic and are focussing on something like world war III and could not point out the source..Hope you do this time...
p.s: You failed to show where meier mentioned that the dinosaur photos belongs to him. Let us not get distracted by other posts...have a nice day

Originally posted by youthsavior
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

Good videos, I don't necessarily think that all his photo's are fake ( only reason I'm still sticking to my beliefs ) but there are a handful that are suspicious and fake for sure. The wedding cake is horrendous in my opinion, and I don't buy it one bit, but I'm still going to stay open to the possibility this could have some validity to it. Solely because some of his photo's look very good

The wedding cake is horrendous in my opinion, and I don't buy it one bit, but I'm still going to stay open to the possibility this could have some validity to it.

and on what I've heard from multiple sources.

Hi youthsaviour,
I like your attitude which is so rare these days. I would like to offer my opinions on photos of WCUFO with you if you want. Before discussing these issues, we have to acknowledge that our visual perception is not at all reliable in analysing the authenticity of photos..googleptical illusions
The only way we can confidently say is to actually test them in labs. There are tests done on Billy's photos, and especially 4 photos were selected for extensive tests. It would be nice & productive, if people talk on photos that were tested rather then trust our vision system which can be fooled easily. regarding WCUFO & other photos what we can do is, to look at other objects in the scene and camera data available..we can come to some conclusions which may not be reliable.
If you have gone through the analysis done by many experts and "experts" on WCUFO available online..then we can talk this issue..have a nice day

Originally posted by subject x
reply to post by youthsavior

 

Certainly, if you were to use a statement credited to Meier in an attempt to make a case that he never said that, and had evidence to support your case (evidence other than Meier claiming to have never said that), there would be no problem.

But to use one of his claims to try to prove another of his claims, well, that dog don't hunt.

Hi
What i am doing here is not proving his first claim from other claims and it is not a way to test theories.
May be i didnt sound clear. What we have is information from meier on various things, prophecies, predicitons, conversations on all sciences, personal info regarding group members,...
Let me demonstrate using a simple example:

(a) Meier said Plejaren are influencing people on earth for many years.

(b) From the above statement, we can infer that many wonderful inventions and discoveries on earth may have been influenced by Plejaren

Later Meier says that WCUFO blue prints are actually plans of their beamships sent as impulses to german engineers...Now this is logically valid from the original premise(a)...now that doesnt mean that what meier said is true..it only means that there is no contradiction to his claims. So, the argument that WCUFO was made from dustbin lids and rest can be given the benefit of doubt to meier...So, we have to offer other arguments regarding the object being a model and not a beamship of certain size as told by Plejaren...

No. You can not build any kind of logical argument from a falsehood. Well, you can but the result would be false. I once read of a logician who, if allowed one falsehood as a given, could logically prove most anything. He was allowed "the moon is made of green cheese" as a given and logically proved that he was Pope. The logic was impeccable, but the end result was still false, as the entire argument was based on a falsehood (and the fact that he was, in reality, not the Pope).

When you start with a statement like

Originally posted by mahigitam
(a) Meier said Plejaren are influencing people on earth for many years.

This statement can not be verified as true, and the fact that Meier's credibility is the basis of the entire debate casts further doubt as to the statement's truthfullness. This effectively eliminates the statement as a basis from which to build a logical argument. So when you say

(b) From the above statement, we can infer that many wonderful inventions and discoveries on earth may have been influenced by Plejaren

your conclusion is false as it was derived from assuming a falsehood (as we must categorize "statement a" since it can not be verified and the source's credibilility is exactly what's in question here) as a given.

You can infer all you like, but a logical argument based on a falsehood will not give you a valid conclusion. Now, if you had verifiable evidence of the Plejarens having influenced us, you would have a basis from which to reach your conclusion. But, you don't. You have nothing but Meier's word, and as his word is the issue in question, you can not use it as a basis to prove anything, and doing so is bad logic. Any conclusion you draw from it is invalid.

Example:
Statement A: Leprechauns keep their pot of gold coins at the end of the rainbow.
Statement B: From the above statement, we can infer that leprechauns either steal gold from humans, or have access to coin minting facilities.

Although "statement B" is a logical conclusion derived from "statement A", "statement A" is (I hope you would agree) false, therefore "statement B" is also false, as it was derived from a false statement.

Arguing that Meier's claims are not proven falsehoods is not a valid argument when the truth of Meier's calims is the root of the debate in the first place.

I don't know how to explain it any clearer than that. If you still believe that you can derive a valid conclusion from a non-verifiable statement, I feel quite cofortable desregarding any "logical" argument you might put forth.

As I have said before, maybe the biggest reason I believe this is a hoax, and I was on the fence for a while myself, is because Billy says he is in contact with the ETs, and they told him to take these photos "for proof". Now, if he had said, I saw these craft in my backyard, and took some photos, that's all I know, I think he might get away with it more, if he just used the good photos. But, because he claims contact, and told to take these photos and films "for proof", I think we would have gotten some really GOOD photos that were obviously real. This was a time before CGI and photoshop, so why didn't we have a real landed craft photo, with Billy standing in front of it? With maybe a truck in front of it too? Why couldn't we have something more realistic than just these wobbly films, and bad perspective photos, and the super hokey WCUFO? I mean, IF Billy was REALLY in CONTACT with ETs, we'd have some REAL evidence.

reply to post by mahigitam

1) Can you find the same dent present in 1st photo, in the other 2 photos ?
The treespace above the dent in the 3rd photo is small compared to 1st one.
2) Hanging branch in the 3rd photo has less foliage than the 1st one and looks completely different to 1st photo. In 3rd photo it divides into 3 sub-branches.
3) Less foliage in 3rd photo compared to 1st photo. In 3rd photo we can identify small sub-branches that stem from main vertical trunk, where as in 1st pic its all dense and cannot see the main vertical trunk.

The Options you are left with is that either
a) there are 3 model trees in 3 different photos
b) or the same model tree which got a makeover by cutting enough foliage in all 3 different photos.

Image 1 and 2 are clearly the same tree. Anyone can see that. With a little trim here and there, you can still see its the same tree. I believe he useda few tree's and not just the one. But them two images are clearly the same tree.

Or May be they saw the real phenomenon! What they saw and experienced we cannot verify as these witness statements do not have weight & there is not adequate evidence for the event . Us being unable to verify does not mean, they all lied for various reasons. If one were to propose that they all lied 100%, has to show evidence regarding it or simply has to acknowledge the limited evidence at hand and move onto where there is adequate evidence..

Like i said before, that is not evidence. You don't know these people, and you don't know their true agenda, and considering that meier photos and footage have been proven to be fake, then you have to ask yourself why they are saying these things.

Hi Jaymorris,

On IIGWEST website, i find
CLAIM: Billy Meier Predicted That Four Heads Of State Would Die Within Seven Days Of Each Other And This Would Signal The Coming Of World War III

And they fail to show where Meier actually did that. Can you show where meier mentioned such a thing ? I could not find BIlly making such a claim, i have gone through the entire english literature available..and found nothing

Well, that information came from somewhere. Has billy or horn denied that he made these predictions? Do you have evidence that these are not from the meier camp?

In my last post, i told that i would like to hear your opinion on the "Toutatis" and "Iceman" predictions... You skipped the topic and are focussing on something like world war III and could not point out the source..Hope you do this time...

Like all of meier predictions, there is no 100% evidence that he came out with the prediction before the actual event or the news of what he is talking about.

www.iigwest.org...
1978, Hubble and Toutatis

"1978: Meier foretells launch of telescope at end of 1980s that would make unfathomable discoveries in space
Corroborated: Hubble telescope launched April 1990"

"1978: Meier writes that a comet would be discovered in late 1980s to early 1990s that would be named Toutatis, may threaten Earth in September 2004
Corroborated: 1989, French astronomers discover comet, named it ...Toutatis, predicted to come closest to Earth September 29, 2004"
I don't know if these two predictions were part of the same Contact Notes or even published at the same time. I am grouping them together because they were both reportedly predicted in 1978, and--if the information was not provided by ETs who could predict trivia in the future-- both items were probably actually written in early 1989.

I found some evidence which raises that suggestion somewhat above mere speculation. First, Toutatis was discovered on 4 January 1989, so it would have been easy to "predict" its discovery and name any time after that (and very hard to do so before that). Second, between January 1989 and April 1989, several articles were published in the New York Times reporting that the Hubble Space Telescope would be launched 11 December 1989 (the "end of the 1980s"). A schedule slip was announced in May 1989, and the launch ended up being delayed several months (until after the "beginning of the 1990s").

So, Meier's Hubble launch prediction was wrong in exactly the way newspapers were wrong in early 1989, and the Toutatis prediction was correct in exactly the way newspapers were correct in early 1989.

Of course, my hypothesis will be refuted if Meier's specific information about Toutatis is proven to have been published before 1989. I looked for the publication history of this item. It is said to be part of Billy Meier's book "Existentes Leben Im Universum" ("Existing Life in the Universe"). There have been two editions published: 1978 and 1993. The first edition does not seem to have achieved a wide distribution.

If my hypothesis is true, the precise details of the Toutatis prediction (like the name of the asteroid) will be found to have been added to the book after 1989.

p.s: You failed to show where meier mentioned that the dinosaur photos belongs to him. Let us not get distracted by other posts...have a nice day

Horn has mentioned them plenty of times and so has R. Winters. If you are still not satisfied, then watch this video. 6.11 in, you will se the photos.


Tell me what you think of this peice of footage? Its the first thing you see, which is the ship that vanishes.

Originally posted by Jay-morris
Tell me what you think of this peice of footage? Its the first thing you see, which is the ship that vanishes.

The time stamp in this video lends an air of authenticity it doesn't deserve. Meiers video was shot in 8mm or Super 8mm with a film camera. There was no embedded time code, or at least no displayed time code. Faking the disappearing ufo with such equipment was childishly simple. Just stop the camera and remove or replace the model and then turn the camera back on and, voila!, you have a disappearing or reappearing ufo.

The time stamp was created by the camcorder recording the video off of a TV, meaningless.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/966b8fa15101.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by wasco2


The cut in the film is so obvious. I mean, you can't argue with the fact that meier blatantly faked this footage. So, if its fake, you have to ask yourself how did he fake it. Well, we know there is a cut in the footage, so we know how the ufo vanishes. So, hat leaves the object itself, which clearly tells you its a model using thin wire, just like his other photos and movies.

But i have learned that no matter what evidence you throw at these guys, they just don't want to know

reply to post by Jay-morris


Eh... Regardless of whether or not Meier is faking this or not...That shouldn't discredit the fact that the Plejaren people are real. And have a real mission and purpose. From all the research I've done on the different races of Alien people, I have discovered that there is quite the variety... Alex Collier, another supposed contactee claims to be in contact with the Andromedians. In his various reports, and interviews he mentions the different races and mentions the Plejarens many times. As a matter of fact, there have been quite a number of people who claim to be in contact with different races of et's and the majority of them originate from the Lyran and Vegan star systems. With all these contactee's it's hard to tell who is actually in contact with them due to a lack of physical evidence...But one thing is for sure, and that is they all promote a similar cosmic message.

Here's a good read for you guys,

www.galacticdiplomacy.com...

Originally posted by youthsavior
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

Eh... Regardless of whether or not Meier is faking this or not...That shouldn't discredit the fact that the Plejaren people are real. And have a real mission and purpose. From all the research I've done on the different races of Alien people, I have discovered that there is quite the variety... Alex Collier, another supposed contactee claims to be in contact with the Andromedians. In his various reports, and interviews he mentions the different races and mentions the Plejarens many times. As a matter of fact, there have been quite a number of people who claim to be in contact with different races of et's and the majority of them originate from the Lyran and Vegan star systems. With all these contactee's it's hard to tell who is actually in contact with them due to a lack of physical evidence...But one thing is for sure, and that is they all promote a similar cosmic message.

Here's a good read for you guys,

www.galacticdiplomacy.com...

Come on youthsavior!

Of course it matters, as we are in a thread debating meier! I have showed enough evidence that meier is a fraud, and everyone should know know this. As for other ET races, there is no evidence at all, just radom people saying they are in contact, but thats not evidence.

Off course i believe that some of these unexplained ufo's could be ET, but i am not going to blindly believe that like you do. At the end of the day, meier is a fraud, and you should feel angry that you look up to such a person.

There are plenty of decent people who take the Spiritual approach to life, one of them is Jason chan. People like him don't feel they have to lie and fake whatever just to get you on their side.

Please stop being blind and believing eveything you come across. You seem like a decent person, and there is so much ufo evidence out there to be studied, and cases like meier should be shown for what they are!

reply to post by mahigitam

Hi
What i am doing here is not proving his first claim from other claims and it is not a way to test theories.
May be i didnt sound clear. What we have is information from meier on various things, prophecies, predicitons, conversations on all sciences, personal info regarding group members,...
Let me demonstrate using a simple example:

(a) Meier said Plejaren are influencing people on earth for many years.

(b) From the above statement, we can infer that many wonderful inventions and discoveries on earth may have been influenced by Plejaren

Later Meier says that WCUFO blue prints are actually plans of their beamships sent as impulses to german engineers...Now this is logically valid from the original premise(a)...now that doesnt mean that what meier said is true..it only means that there is no contradiction to his claims. So, the argument that WCUFO was made from dustbin lids and rest can be given the benefit of doubt to meier...So, we have to offer other arguments regarding the object being a model and not a beamship of certain size as told by Plejaren...

Im sorry, but your "critical thinking" is flawed, and at the end of the day, you just sound like the typical meier believer who is complety brainwahsed and gullible. As for the wedding cake photos, they are clearly models. We have the base of the ufo that is exactly the same as a dustbin lid. Not a bit like a dustbin lid, but exactly the same. We have a photo that clearly shows part of the model has fallen off. We also have photos that clearly show that the object is close to the camera and not far away.

Also, Mr horn saying that no one can replicate the footage and the photos is complete and utter rubbish. Check these photos out www.thebiggestsecret.org...://" target="_blank" class="postlink">here

Yes, the photos, models, and films have been replicated many times, to of the same, if not better quality as the Meier material. And they have been done so with just handmade models and wires. Now, just because these can be replicated doesn't mean the originals are fake, but it does show that it's an untruth to say they can't be replicated. But the overall case is obviously a hoax, on all aspects.

Originally posted by tom502
Yes, the photos, models, and films have been replicated many times, to of the same, if not better quality as the Meier material. And they have been done so with just handmade models and wires. Now, just because these can be replicated doesn't mean the originals are fake, but it does show that it's an untruth to say they can't be replicated. But the overall case is obviously a hoax, on all aspects.

You have to remember that horn said, and still says the stuff has not been replicated, and he is lying. You have to remember that basically all the stuff has been replicated, even the ones that look fake, like the wedding cake photos. The wedding cake photos look just as fake as the origional, but they are just showing you how they were done, and how they were made.

No. You can not build any kind of logical argument from a falsehood. Well, you can but the result would be false.

[en.wiktionary.org...]
Noun
falsehood (countable and uncountable; plural falsehoods)
(uncountable) The state of being false.
(countable) A false statement, especially an intentional one; a lie


You too agree that the statement"(a) Meier said Plejaren have been influencing people on earth for many years" cannot be verifiable. Now, i could not understand with what evidence have you come to conclusion that the above unverifiable premise(a) as "falsehood(lie)"...May be it is true or may be it is not, we dont know yet, for the evidence to call it either a false or true has not been gathered yet. so we are in search of evidence, more evidence..We yet dont know the truth-value of the premise as the kind of evidence required to prove this premise as true may not be in our reach.(ex: Seeing ET's sending impulses with their technology to humans or ....). That doesnot mean that the premise is a falsehood, but a premise whose truth-value has yet to be tested with further evidence(direct, indirect, supporting, corroborative,..).
There are many things beyond our reach at present, as i presented in my previous post; tachyons, wormholes, parallel universes, ...these things are unverifiable(but plausible because our logic allows them to fit in present mathematics & Physics), does that mean, all statements made by scientists on these are falsehood for we cannot verify them ? ..!
We can discuss whether there is any logic in the actions of plejaren who have been influencing certain earth people through impulses.
The original premise is (a), "Meier said Plejaren have been influencing people on earth for many years" . From which the statement (b), which is "WCUFO's shape/form plans could be influenced by Plejaren" can be drawn from deductive reasoning, called as inference...so the statement (b) is not a conclusion but an inference. As for conclusion(c), "WCUFO's shape/form plans are influenced by Plejaren" to be correct, we need the original premise to be correct.
Even there is a logical connection between premise(a) and inference(b)..that doesnot prove that (a) is correct.
If we are left only with WCUFO as testable evidence then we can reject the original premise..but there is still so much evidence present in the case, that may indirectly support the premise (a)....so we need to look for more evidence that supports premise (a).
To make a statement that premise(a) is a falsehood without any logical argument or evidence is invalid.

Example:
A says to B, " I have a car with mileage 20 miles/litre and i have only 1 litre of gas left in it. I started the car inorder to reach home which is 100 miles away from office."
Now from the above statement, through deductive reasoning, it can be said that the car came to a halt after 20 miles from the office, which is valid as through a little bit of mathematics we can calculate at what distance from office would the car stop. Now this doesnot warrant us to conclude that what A says is true. It can be that A doesnot have a car at all in the first place. So we need more evidence(direct, indirect,...) to prove A's point that he has a car. And that evidence has to be collected beyond A's words which can be verified objectively.
IN meier case, we just need to do that, that is, we need more evidence outside WCUFO's topic to support the premise.

Now, if you had verifiable evidence of the Plejarens having influenced us, you would have a basis from which to reach your conclusion. But, you don't. You have nothing but Meier's word, and as his word is the issue in question, you can not use it as a basis to prove anything, and doing so is bad logic. Any conclusion you draw from it is invalid.
Example:
Statement A: Leprechauns keep their pot of gold coins at the end of the rainbow.
Statement B: From the above statement, we can infer that leprechauns either steal gold from humans, or have access to coin minting facilities.

Although "statement B" is a logical conclusion derived from "statement A", "statement A" is (I hope you would agree) false, therefore "statement B" is also false, as it was derived from a false statement.

I am not using that flawed circular logic here, you havent gotten my point. I am asking for more evidence to test the truth-value of the premise, am not using Meier's words as a kind of evidence at all.
Coming to the example you stated above, Can we know that the statement(b) in Meier's case "WCUFO's shape/form plans could be influenced by Plejaren" to be false for sure..i dont think so, nor can we prove it to be as true with limited or no evidence at hand. So we have to look for evidence outside WCUFO topic, to support our premise. Now if you are ready for this, we can gather evidence that may indirectly support the premise(a)..

reply to post by Jay-morris

With a little trim here and there, you can still see its the same tree. I believe he useda few tree's and not just the one.

So, you are proposing that the trees in 3 different photos could be 3 different model trees or same one with trimming at right positions. Now our next step is to test the proposition that they are model trees. I will post some stuff related to this next time.

Like i said before, that is not evidence. You don't know these people, and you don't know their true agenda, and considering that meier photos and footage have been proven to be fake, then you have to ask yourself why they are saying these things.

I am not suggesting it as direct evidence at all but can be considered as circumstantial evidence, all i am saying is that these 120+ witnesses(from different countries, different professions,no contact with meier before,...) saw a common phenomenon at the same time several times and also even photographed them. Some even have physical contacts with ET's(phobol chang,..)..We cant just simply wipe it off without any valid reason and say they all somehow been tricked or working for meier or in their for a profit. We have the responsibility to explain their phenomenol experiences which have been carefully documented.

Well, that information came from somewhere. Has billy or horn denied that he made these predictions? Do you have evidence that these are not from the meier camp?

Your argument sounds like this...Do you have evidence that there is not an elephant flying around earth in a flying saucer ? You made a claim and its your responsibility to prove that BIlly did make those WWIII predicitons.

Like all of meier predictions, there is no 100% evidence that he came out with the prediction before the actual event or the news of what he is talking about.

I will have to find out that there is info on Toutatis present in 1978 edition of "Existentes Leben Im Universum" which not seem to have achieved a wide distribution..We can talk a lot on corroborated Prophecies and predictions for the years 2009, 2010...I will get to that later.In the mean time, what about ICEMAN, we have 1996 as the copyright date.

Horn has mentioned them plenty of times and so has R. Winters. If you are still not satisfied, then watch this video. 6.11 in, you will se the photos.

I would like to see where horn made any statements about dinosaur pics. Even if he did, he may not have full information at the time, he made those statements.
Randy winters:
---------------------
Randolph Winters was never on the "staff of FIGU." He was a self-proclaimed FIGU member who ultimately was out to cash in on what he viewed as a marketable "product". FIGU's and Meier's disassociation with him has been known for years. (whether or not Winters cares to admit the truth of what really happened). His material, which I've listened to for years, is full of verifiable errors, therefore why would you trust with certainty anything he has to say?

Posted by FIGU in 1994:
Randolph Winters New Lies, Misrepresentations, Errors and Intrigues from the USA Within certain circles in the United States of America, Randolph Winters is a well known and popular man because he depicts himself as a direct and authorized Billy Meier representative, and boasts, particularly at lectures, of his close association and collaboration with Billy and the F.I.G.U. - which is a verifiable lie. Without authorization, and in spite of a prohibition by F.I.G.U. and the Pleiadians to do so, Randolph Winters has the audacity to give lectures and radio/TV interviews, and at the height of impertinence and disdain he formed The Pleiades Project. Randolph Winters, who may be considered as one of the Mission's greatest liars and profiteers in the USA today, has now published a book with the grandiose title The Pleiadian Mission. In it he unleashes information on Billy's contacts, the Pleiadian mission and F.I.G.U. and launches wild and shabby proclamations that are not based on any truthful background whatsoever. (The same applies to Winters' UFO - The Pleiadian Contacts, a 16 audio tape set plus a book of drawings and diagrams, and the video tape The Pleiadian Connection.)
Billy Meier and F.I.G.U. hereby expressly distance themselves from Winters' deception and are able to state, after an in-depth review, that the book contains numerous untruthful details and many lies as well as misrepresentations, e.g., Randolph's claim that the contacts had been terminated in 1978. It is a lie that the contacts with the Pleiadians have ended on Thursday, October 19, 1978, and that Billy was incapable of heading F.I.G.U., as Winters states on page 232 in his book The Pleiadian Mission. The truth is that the contacts are ongoing even now (1994), and neither the Pleiadians nor Billy are planning to end the contacts in the near future.
Concerning the contact reports it must be stated that the 115th contact took place on October 19, 1978, and that Billy has since had 174 additional contacts. Of these 174 contacts, 135 were official and the basis for contact reports; 39 were of an unofficial nature and no contact reports were written on them. At this time, late 1994, 250 official contact reports are in evidence. There exist many very erroneous statements in Randolph Winters' book regarding data, representations of truth on Creation, and other specifications and statements of facts and the like. The material Randolph Winters used in his book had been given to him by Billy in confidence for Randolph's own use, respectively his personal progression. In effect, however, the material was later stolen and utilized for commercial and profiteering purposes without ever having received any type of authorization to do so, without asking Billy for his permission, or without compensating Billy in any manner for unlawfully using his material and intellectual information, to mention but a few points.
"Billy" Eduard Albert Meier
Semjase-Silver-Star-Center
CH-8495 Hinterschmidrueti ZH, Switzerland

First of all, we need to be certain that those albums belong to official FIGU albums or do they belong to one of those ex-FIGU members who tried to adulterate billy's evidence. I will get back to you on this as well.

Tell me what you think of this peice of footage? Its the first thing you see, which is the ship that vanishes.

In my next post, i will let you know my take on this video.

Originally posted by Jay-morris
reply to post by mahigitam

 

Horn has mentioned them plenty of times and so has R. Winters. If you are still not satisfied, then watch this video. 6.11 in, you will se the photos.

Hi Jay,
The video in the above link is an edited version made out of 2 different videos.
The interview of Billy Meier is called, "Billy Meier Interview by Randolph Winters - Billy Meier UFO Case - 1989" and the part where Randy shows Pictures from album is called,"The Pleiadian Mission - Randolph Winters - Billy Meier Case - 1998"...If you have the full version of the second video(1998)..there Randy mentions this while showing pictures on TV," Wendell and I are flipping through the pictures..."...So it is not a FIGU picture album but Wendell Stevens album,which contains pictures where he collected from all sources. I got the confirmation this from FIGU Passive Member and even from Randy himself.
Here is the reply i got from Randy a couple of days back:

"Hello Mahesh,

Thank you for your note. It was many years ago that I visited Wendelle at his home in Tucson az. He had a very large collection of photos from many UFO cases. The best I can remember is the year might have been around 1987 or 1988.
Regards,
Randolph"

have a nice day..
p.s: I am waiting to see the claims by Billy about Wolrd War III and also your ideas on ICEMAN

Hello.

I only wanted to subscribe to this thread so that it would show up in "myATS", but apparently you can't do that anymore without posting a comment. There used to be a button that would allow subscribing without posting, but I don't see it now.

Thanks.