Got an email from MH (supposedly) and below is my reply for those interested.
>From: Michael <michael@theyfly.com>
>To: Terra X <terrarubicon@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Quote attributed to you
>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:18:03 -0700
>
>Dear TX,
>The following was forwarded to me and attributed to you. I don't
>know for sure if was actually written by you, so if you didn't
>write it my comments are directed at whoever did:
>"I don't think it's absolutely necessary to spend a few weeks in
>Switzerland with FIGU people or Meier himself. I think I'd have an
>argument with Meier within 5 minutes. There's enough information
>availible to make an analysis about the case, and what I find
>fascinating is that when you move beyond the pictures you enter a
>realm based on belief. Not on fact, not on evidence. No, pure faith
>and good old fashioned religion wrapped in a new package. That's
>what it is Shuffle."
>I agree with the first first part of the statement, it isn't
>necessary to spend that much time, if any, for a person who has
>thinking capacity and can reason. After all, if that was really
>necessary then far fewer people would ever be able to understand and
> appreciate the information, and Meier's immense contribution, than
>is now actually the case. Just check the counter on my own website,
> millions of people from 117 countries to date. And the various
>other English and foreign (to me) language websites add to that
>number.
Well, I don't know if you're Michael or not so my comments will also
be directed to whoever wrote this.
>As for the statement, "I think I'd have an argument with Meier
>within 5 minutes." it says an awful lot about the person who wrote
>it. I wonder if that person would, or did ever, in the process of
>their education walk into the school classrooms, knowing absolutely
>nothing of the subjects they were about to learn and then had an
>argument "within 5 minutes" with their teachers. Of course, any
>teacher far more knowledgeable than an uneducated student wouldn't
>even get into an argument. The arrogance and egotism of the
>know-it-all would probably be dealt with by patient silence, or
>perhaps a one way ticket out of class.
Given the time and energy I put into the Meier case I can safely say
to the person who wrote the comments above - "get a life!".
Such a person should spend their time much more wisely. Pretending
that one individual has the road laid out for all of humanity to follow
reeks of religious fanaticism. Pretending that a person is a qualified
teacher with no actual credentials to show for it reeks of a con artist
job. Pretending that a certain teaching will lead to enlightment yet
criticism is not tolerated and contested further points a religious
zealot who has agressive tendencies when his faith is questioned.
Yes, I think I would have an argument with Meier in 5 minutes.
Knowing what kind of crap he's trying pass along as the real thing
for 30 years should be met with contempt, not with respect.
>Their next statement tells us that the writer simply doesn't know
>what they're talking about and is self-contradictory. First, they
>tell us that, "There's enough information availible to make an
>analysis about the case," and then they fail to refer to one bit of
>it, instead jumping ahead to say, "when you move beyond the pictures
> you enter a realm based on belief." How quaint, not even any
>mention of the other categories of still irreproducible evidence,
>the scientific experts who tested it, the over 1,300 pages of
>investigative reports, or the absolute failure of the skeptics to
>duplicate even one photo (please understand what that means), etc.
>But topping those omissions is the precious idiocy, "a realm based
>on belief."
The statement above is probably made by a delusional individual who
thinks his own exclusive standards (changeable at any moment) should
be followed by everyone else. For example, people did try to copy Meier's
photographs over the years yet no value is given to that fact. No mention
is made that none of the original negatives exist today for conclusive
analysis which raises the question - 'were the original negatives examined
in the first place?'. It's incredible that some people have the guts to
demand perfection from others since they skirt around issues directed at
them, avoid problematic parts completely and proceed next with attacking
the person asking the questions.
Such persons at best show signs of intellectual cowardism and at worst
are vicious hypocrites.
>Now surely even you wouldn't make such a transparently ignorant
>statement. Anyone who'd read FIGU's Manifesto and other self-
>descriptive information (
http://www.figu.org/us
>
www.figu.org/us/figu/figu_in_a_nutshell.htm
>
www.figu.org/us/figu/translation.htm) and/or who had not been
>"thrown out of class" when they went to visit (again, not a
>prerequisite) would know and understand that there is NO BELIEF
>connected in any way to the Meier case.
When you actually look into the case and are intellectually sound of
mind a person is actually able to conclude something else entirely
resulting in the conclusion that the above quote "no belief" is an
outright LIE.
When looking at keywords in the Meier case and seeing what they
stand for then it's fairly easy to conclude that there's indeed a belief
system. Only those whose thinking is impaired would deny it.
Reincarnation is woven into the Meier case. Reincarnation is a
religious concept. Meier claims to be the reincarnated 'spirit' of
biblical prophets, Jesus Christ and Mohammed. This clearly
demonstrates a 'crossover' or link to orthodox religious constructs
such as Christianity and the Islam and since Meier claims these
religions are false there's an additional goal to transform these
religions with Meier as the main religious icon.
The Meier case beyond the pictures is a new religion trying to get
a foothold and grow from there on. Sadly some people don't have
the slightest clue what they are creating or what problems could
arise in the future and to top if off they even deny it's belief in the
first place.
>Had the person who wrote that ignorant, uninformed nonsense
>discussed such matters, and FIGU specifically, with people who are
>recognized professional experts in cults, as I have, they would
>know that the free-thinking precepts that are the foundation of the
>FIGU teachings are absolutely antithetical to such
>mischaracterizations. As a matter of fact translating the words
>FREIE INTERESSENGEMEINSCHAFT FÃœR GRENZ - UND GEISTESWISSENSCHAFTEN
>UND UFOLOGIESTUDIEN, for which the term FIGU stands, will give you
>a clear idea of how plainly the purity of FIGU's purpose is
>expressed. Actually, the FIGU has more in common with a certain
>number of aspects of the - hold on - skeptical groups than with any
>religion, cult, sect, etc.
The above is another fine example of taking a bunch of crayons and
making a nice picture. The drawning is created by the person not by
the world around him.
There's one glimmer of hope though. FIGU (Meier) could be seen in
a weird way as a skeptical group, that's because in his extensive
writings he spared no one and frequently trashes persons, religions,
political figures and institutions etc. The "teacher" in his infinite wisdom
insulted half the world by now. Do he and the people that support him
actually expect positive feedback on that? Surely not! That would be
another sign of outright stupidity.
FIGU a "free interest society"? I sincerely have doubts. Could I join
and make publications were I question aspects of the case? Could I
join and skip the mandatory meditation sessions and financial
contributions? I'm a little short on cash so all the fees I would owe
FIGU which ammounts up to $500 a year are a little steep for me.
Can I?
Get real. I would be tossed out within a month for questioning the
"teacher" and I see no criticism coming from FIGU's inner circle
because there is none. In strict groups there can be hierarchy
and social policing, strangely often this happens in cults.
>So as the brief paragraph, which is actually remarkable for so
>thoroughly encapsulating and expressing the ignorance, bias, envy
>and anger of the writer, concludes with, "No, pure faith and good
>old fashioned religion wrapped in a new package. That's what it is
>Shuffle." one is presented with a textbook example of the kind of
>actual cultic, darkened consciousness that can be found throughout
>the world and which is not exclusive to religiously deluded people.
Pot calling the kettle black, is the first thing that comes to mind. Or!
A little boy gets caught with his hand in the cooky jar and then
blames it on someone else. Either way, the person who would wrote
the above is a text book example of psychological projection. His
behavior is reflected in his writings and projected on to someone else.
Rather then to have to face his own psyche the mental sewage is
briefly poored on someone else and the person feels relieved for a
brief period of time. Such persons need councelling.
>The palpable prejudice that pervades the unfounded criticism
>certainly is not the expression of someone who has actually studied
>the material or learned anything, not even the basic actual nature
>of the teachings, or of the community of interested parties
>gathering around them. Such familiarity would enable the person to
>indeed engage in informed debate and criticism, as is the case
>among the FIGU members and others who've troubled themselves to
>think and reason through the material, in many countries of the
>world.
Questioning the knowledge is an ongoing process which never stops.
It eventually and inevitably leads to improvement. Self criticism, in
proper and healthy dosage, does the same. To whoever wrote this,
take a hard look at yourself and what you're doing. "The road to Hell
is paved with good intentions", yet I wont let you off the hook this
easily. You know damn well what you're doing and what you're
trying to accomplish. You show no hesitation in completely trashing
someone when you have the oppertunity in order to reach your goals.
You're a foul, egotistical person because you do not help and council
people. No. You direct, reprimand and try to exert control over someone
elses thoughts. There is no 'healthy debate' with you. Every sentence
drips of your own selfish needs and directions aimed at steering people
to a certain conclusion. It goes without saying that control freaks need
councelling.
>While you are, hopefully, not the actual author of the brief but
>unfortunately completely self-revealing, toxic misrepresentation
>attributed to you, I hope that you will find my thoughts
>informative.
>Best,
>MH
>
www.theyfly.com
Actually MH I was the author of that message and I have another one
for you. Never email me again you sick frak.
TX
