Michael Horn & The Billy Meier Contacts

[TerraX]

Horn,
You're on notice, any further use of insulting, pugnacious language on your part will result in you being banned from this Forum permanently.
dB

Do you think he cares David? But whatever happens, he'll make another article where 'the skeptics failed' to meet the "requirements". (His requirements of course but he wont put any emphasis on that nor any negative conclusion about the case.) I hope you don't ban him since I think it's a good idea to make up a list with all the issues that are in this thread which the American authorised Billy Meier representative failed to address. This thread isn't about Michael Horn's demands, it's a free discussion on Billy Meier, the case and its spokesperson. Horn is the one who should answer questions, and he's free to decline and leave the forum should he not feel up to it.

 

[David Biedny]

I would like to first ask you to gone on record and answer if you are implying, before eveyone here, that I am lying, and I would also like to ask, since we've heard no end of the value of the "notarized document" why my providing such a statement would not be sufficent?

Now, assuming that what I have said, and what I have quoted, is absolutely true, and since you are NOT disputing the ethical and professional standards expressed by him but only whether or not he actually said it, am I correct in assuming that, should my representation of his exact words be truthful, that you will now attempt the required duplication?

And may I respectfully remind DB that if can't take the heat...he shouldn't have struck the match?

Is that too "pugnacious" a truth to be tolerate here?

Sigh...

I'm going to break my own promise to not to address you any further, as much I really abhor your attitude and demeanor.

I am SAYING that NOTHING you say can be trusted, ANYTHING out of your mouth or fingers is suspect, even in your distortion of Mr. Solomon's credentials you prove yourself to be far less than honest. A statement of your OWN opinion or experience needs no notarization, but the moment you state ANYTHING attributed to a third party, the burden of proof is on YOU to substantiate that they actually made the statement. Is this clear enough for you? Or am I being obtuse? Ken Solomon is free to express his professional opinion about my detailed image analysis findings on this forum, but it'll be a cold day in Hell before I submit to any demands you make for me to reproduce a fake image, as if that would prove anything but my ability to do so, and in NO WAY addresses the OBVIOUS FABRICATION of the analyzed image. I had a long talk with Jeff Ritzmann yesterday, a genuine and intelligent guy, and the abuse, threats and slander you put him through, after he gave in to your similar demands, is atrocious, and shows the extent of your depravity. His images are excellent, and are clear proof that it's entirely possible to fabricate entirely similar images. For chrissakes, man, how can someone who seems to be relatively intelligent have a complete lack of any logical, deductive reasoning abilities? The only answer is that you are completely aware of the truth of your actions and intent on being deceptive and destructive. For this, I will not forgive you.

Now, for the very last time, either you fulfill your promise to directly address my detailed image analysis, or you will lose the right to type here. EOS.

On preview, TerraX makes a very good point, we'll let Horn continue to hang himself. For now.

dB

 

[Michael812]

Your evasive ploy is tranparent. Now YOU are the one claiming that I falsified his credentials, pease be specific, or are you unaware of his background no tonly in the film industry but in physics?

For anyone who has an ounce of logic and integrity here, you will see that DB and GS are trying to avoid dealing with their own claims - and having their feet held to the fire simply by normal standards of accountability, which just so happen in to have been expressed by a professional of stellar standing whom I've known for 50 years.

The fact that you would want to drag him into a debate in which he has no interest, or time, to engage, is reprehensibile. Perhaps you would like instead to get a professional of equal standing to defend your evasiveness and refusal to do the right and obvious thing, duplicate with the known equipment.

It should also be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell here that I would putting my reputation at terminal risk by making up the quote, and information, and the man to whom it is attributed.

If there's any further doubt as to why this man wouldn't want to get involved, even if he had an interest in the topic, one need only look at the kind of attack that these very desperate people are launching aginst me. So, as I already asked, "...assuming that what I have said, and what I have quoted, is absolutely true, and since you are NOT disputing the ethical and professional standards expressed by him but only whether or not he actually said it, am I correct in assuming that, should my representation of his exact words be truthful, that you will now attempt the required duplication?"

And, never mind the ad hominum attack regarding nothing I say "can be trusted" smokescreen, you want my notarized, sworrn statement that it's true or not?

 

[David Biedny]

by normal standards of accountability...

That's a frikkin joke. By those standards, you're not even on the map of reality.

dB

 

[Michael812]

A direct yes/no answer please.

Let me remind you that TX is not entirely incorrect in one aspect, you're now not just playing to the choir here. You are on record, since I've copied everything here, and you can count on it being the basis of a very widely read article/press release. So, if you wish to intrude upon the privacy and expressed wishes of someone who has requested no direct involvement, consider that your ENTIRE behavior here will be shared with ALL of your peers, as well as everyone else who may come across the article/press release.

Of course, that doesn't bother me, as I have nothing (contrary to your introductory rudeness) to be ashamed of. How about you? Hope you feel the same way.

The simple, easy to answer situation now revolves around YOUR claims of having PROVED A DELIBERATE HOAX. Ethical standards for doing so have been simply affirmed by a qualified but disinterested professional. Trying to attack me, him or deflect the issue is simply giving you a lot more space, on record, for doing so.

Now, do you attempt the duplication...yes or no?

 

[David Biedny]

A direct yes/no answer please.

Let me remind you that TX is not entirely incorrect in one aspect, you're now not just playing to the choir here. You are on record, since I've copied everything here, and you can count on it being the basis of a very widely read article/press release. So, if you wish to intrude upon the privacy and expressed wishes of someone who has requested no direct involvement, consider that your ENTIRE behavior here will be shared with ALL of your peers, as well as everyone else who may come across the article/press release.

Of course, that doesn't bother me, as I have nothing (contrary to your introductory rudeness) to be ashamed of. How about you? Hope you feel the same way.

The simple, easy to answer situation now revolves around YOUR claims of having PROVED A DELIBERATE HOAX. Ethical standards for doing so have been simply affirmed by a qualified but disinterested professional. Trying to attack me, him or deflect the issue is simply giving you a lot more space, on record, for doing so.

Now, do you attempt the duplication...yes or no?

You require some serious mental health care. You can quote me on that.

dB

 

[Alea]

Replication/duplication is part of scientific inquiry...if a scientist performs an experiment, he/she duplicates the experiment UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS, to prove the outcome and validate his/her work. Duplicating a photo, that may or may not be real, proves NOTHING.

I would be interested in hearing other perspectives regarding David's analysis. NO ONE from the Meier camp seems to be able to comprehend (either intentionally, emotionally, or not) this point. With this in mind, and knowing that other individuals have duplicated Michael's evidence and what Michael's response was to that work, I would keep the conversation open - but unless Michael can meet the challenge, ban him. Both Gene and David stated more than once that they want to see more analysis and real evidence. Michael seems to think that by repeating the same song over and over and louder and louder, he'll convince the masses. That's not the way to perform any type of inquiry, especially when it should be scientifically based.

Let new voices be heard, stop the back and forth, and Gene, I think contacting Mr. Solomon is a reat idea.

Why not really do the research and put together the scientific evidence that is SO BLATANTLY MISSING from the Meier web site? I'm happy to begin correlating the Plejaren predictions to what is available historically and documented.

In addition, has anyone looked at the etymology of the word Plejaren? It's a near translation of Pleides in German. Look it up yourself and see. I used a German/English dictionary.

pleiade : Dictionary / Wörterbuch (BEOLINGUS, TU Chemnitz)

And what about a biography of Billy Meier? Did you know that he visited 42 different countries on a spiritual search from the time he left the French Foreign Legion till the time he lost his arm in Turkey? Not bad for a simple farmer, right? And Billy is his nickname...give to him by an American friend because Billy dressed like "Billy the Kid". Isn't that something!

The FIGU group was founded in 1975 and at that time, Billy transferred his farm to the FIGU non-profit organization and changed it's name. I'm all for inquiry and really getting to the truth! It's amazing to learn about Billy and all that he has spoken about in interviews on the web.

I'm in for serious and scholarly research. Anyone else on board?

 

[Michael812]

Don't worry, I'l be quoting you a-plenty in a real nice format, sent to professionals and lay people around the world, like I've put out in PRs like these:

Author Published World News Events Before They Occurred
Overlooked Photo Reveals Swiss UFO-Contact Case Genuine
Conservative Radio Host Won’t Discuss Controversial News Story on Show

So, is that your final answer, you decline to put your reputation on the line that Meier deliberately hoaxed the photos (ANY of them), and you decline to back up your claim by attempting to duplicate them (ANY of them)?

Well, I'm taking it as your final answer, I can express it in various ways such as:

Photoshop Expert Fails to Duplicate UFO Photos
Noted expert had claimed that all of Swiss man's UFO evidence was hoaxed but was unable to prove it

Give me a little time, I've been dragged me back here reluctantly and I do have a bunch of other stuff on my plate. But I do PROMISE you that I'll have a very nicely composed - and entirely accurate - PR, complete with the quotes, such as the most recent that I have already copied, and that, in the interest of leaving no doubt in anyone's mind about your abilities, intergrity and credibility shall gladly pay to publish.

......................................................................................


As for the just posted comments regarding evidence, dupllication, etc. sorry, but it is necessary since DB claimed it as FACT, not opinion. And let me say that until you read and respond to the 1,000 or pages that report on the actual, scientific investigation into hte case, you're being inaccurate.

Further, I'm more than deligthed to actually make it EASIER for DB to PROVE his case.

So, in response to DB's questions asking for proof supporting the authenticity of ANY of Meier's photos, the following questions (below) must actually be answered by DB - without any ad hominum attacks on the various experts (or anyone else) quoted or referred to. DB must specifically address the flaws he found in their analyses. Further, many of these people, to the best of my knowledge, such as those who are referred to in Stevens' book, Gary Kinder's book and on James Deardorff's webpage, are still alive.

Obviously, anyone who wants to make claims of hoax, especially in the face of so many excellent, already authenticated UFO photos and films, will need to do what any good magician, skeptic or forensic expert (in a court of law) would need to do under similar circumstances, i.e. duplicate the photo/film/video in question. Fortunately, Meier used rather "primitive", known equipment for all of his evidence, which is still easily available to DB.

As a courtesy to him, since he has already CONCEDED that he is INCAPABLE of fabricating the WCUFO itself (and in light of his obvious, blatant, misidentification of the object as a "two-dimensional cut-out), let's give DB the far easier task of simply fabricating the simpler UFO, and the same photo(s), in which it appears, at More about the Fir Tree.

Here are the questions that DB must answer:

1. If Jeff Ritzmann claims to have duplicated a Meier photo, has he submitted any photos to the same standards of testing as Meier's and, if he did have his tested, what was the outcome of those tests?

2. Specifically, what is being contested regarding the photo analysis done on the Meier photos by any of the experts quoted?

3. Specifically, what is being contested regarding the parameters of the photo analyses as reported in Stevens' Preliminary Investigation Report?

4. Specifically, what is being contested regarding the film segments in The Movie Footage video and Nippon TV's authentication of them?

5. Since Volker and Mark of Uncharted Territory are expert model makers and have said that Meier's UFOs aren't models and that they would have to go to CGI to duplicate Meier's films, why does DB - who has not established his ability to make models (or to duplicate one Meier photograph, let alone a film) - disagree with them?

6. How does DB account for the very small up and down movement of the WCUFO in video when the camera isn't moving?

7.. How does DB explain that the object itself, as well as the tree are obviously full-size and a considerable distance (hundreds of feet) from the camera?

8. How does DB refute the calculations of the forestry experts that help to establish the WCUFO as a full-sized object:

9. Regarding the tree in front of the craft's right side, Professor Emeritus D. A. Brodie of the College of Forestry, Oregon State University, said: "The tree is one of the European true firs -- Abies species. The picture has only a portion of the top of the crown, 10 to 15 feet. There could be anywhere from 10 to 50 feet of tree bole below the picture."

The extent of the tree above the UFO is estimated by Professor E. C. Jensen, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, to be between 6-10 ft. This yields a UFO diameter of from 9 to 15 ft., ruling out a model UFO, a possibility that must always be considered.

10. How does DB refute the following, and the other information at More about the Fir Tree:

THE TREE'S MATURITY. In 1985 I showed the photo that best displays the tree's trunk (#66), plus another of this series, to two professors of Forest Science at Oregon State University to determine if they could identify the type of tree. These were Profs. Richard. K. Hermann (now retired) and Edward. C. Jensen. Hermann was raised in western Germany and was very familiar with this species of tree. With certainty they stated that it was a mature abies alba, i.e., a European silver fir. Other forestry experts contacted more recently were less unanimous about the species identification, with picea abies (Norwegian spruce) suggested as an additional or secondary possibility (Hanley, 2001; Hansen, 2001; Holdenrieder, 2001). However, none suggested that it could have been a small potted tree or model tree. Thus it was no mere 1- or 2m tree, which would exhibit an unmistakably juvenile appearance in its profile, density of branches and trunk, as will be discussed soon. Prof. Hermann pointed out that its crown was already showing signs of ?stork-nesting,? or near cessation of vertical growth, due, they presumed, to the environmental stress of excessive smog east of Zurich and/or to acid rain. A potted, ?baby? tree is far too young to exhibit such effects.

The tree's trunk alone indicates its general maturity, as seen here in Fig. 2. One may notice a nodule on each side of the upper trunk,
?Fig. 2. Enlargement of tree's trunk, from photo #66, brightness
and contrast enhanced. See also Elders & Elders (1983, p. 64).

which the forestry professors pointed out as being spots where a couple of limbs had been pruned or broken off, such that later growth had not yet obscured those spots. Unfortunately, these most important considerations were not investigated by Korff. This tree was at least 13m tall if the information Meier was told by his contactor is correct: that the width of this beamship was 7m. In this case, the trunk diameter down as low as it is visible in the photo would be about 64cm.

Again, factual, documented responses, no ad hominum attacks and duplications to back up any claims of hoax.

Lastly, please ask DB to stop making unsubstantiated, anecdotal claims about seeing a UFO (probably a weather balloon or blimp) unless he provides substantiation for such claims, as has been provided by Meier and the other witness/photographers:

http://meiercase.0x2a.info/meiercase/002/index.php
Testimony from some Meier-case witnesses
http://www.tjresearch.info/witnessa.htm

If DB is again incapable of duplicating the evidence that he claims is falsified with the same means available to Meier...let him attempt it with his digital effects.

But just so that no one misses the imprtant points I made above, I will be publishing an interntionally read PR based on the exact words, and behavior, in the exchange here. So, for better or worse, DB's conduct will get some very wide exposure. And he's the one representing himself as the Photoshop Prophet of Earth, not me.


MH

 

[TerraX]

Now, do you attempt the duplication...yes or no?

What's the point Michael? Others such as Jeff Ritzmann did meet your challenge, duplicated the pictures and in the end received no credit for it whatsoever. You also have a habit of making additional demands and switching the focus on other matters which is happening right now in your debate with David Biedny. First you both need to agree on a procedure of examaning a particular aspect of the case. It's pointless to demand this or that and refuse the other person of any input. And this hand you're also going to play out Michael, duplication doesn't conclusively prove the original is a fake. It just proves it can be duplicated and this in the end you'll bring forward. Lets start over Michael and hopefully you can address some issues in a clear and coherent manner.

 

[David Biedny]

Make sure you get the spelling of The Paracast right, as well as the web site URL. Also make sure to include my image analysis, in it's entirety, which you have not acknowledged or contested.

And given that you're stating in this forum that you are, in a premeditated fashion, and with prejudice, threatening to widely distribute a document specifically and purposely designed to slander me and my professional credentials which have little to do with the paranormal research world, be ready to accept the consequences of your libelous intentions. There are witnesses here who I suspect would be happy to go on record to support my claims.

dB

 

[TerraX]

But just so that no one misses the imprtant points I made above, I will be publishing an interntionally read PR based on the exact words, and behavior, in the exchange here. So, for better or worse, DB's conduct will get some very wide exposure. And he's the one representing himself as the Photoshop Prophet of Earth, not me.
MH

Maybe it's a good idea to make a website dedicated to your rantings Horn and show the reader just how many people you insulted. You left your mark on quite a few forums where you also got banned. Maybe you deserve your own site to show everybody what you're all about. I'm sure that even on this forum a few fellows would be up for it.

 

[David Biedny]

Folks, given that Mr. Horn is breaking the rules of this site with his threats, he is now permanently banned from posting any further in The Paracast forums. Please understand our decision, this has simply grown out of control. Threats cannot be tolerated, for any reason. I'm not surprised that he has been banned from every single online venue (with the exception of the Yahoo Meier group) that he has ever visited. We cannot continue to provide him with a platform for his vitriolic attacks, it's not true to the spirit of the show. The Paracast is all about thoughtful, open discussion and debate, not commercial agendas, gratuitous attacks and psychopathic projection.

dB

 

[Aspie]

Who cares about his press release, only a bunch of nutters will read it and agree with him. I hope he stays banned because it is really annoying watching him and his cult friends sidestep questions.

Good riddance Horn, you mentally deranged bag of wind.

 

[David Biedny]

And this just in from Horn via personal email...

Dear Parsiters,

I have not only copied all of the content of the site, I have also
copied the latest "banned" message, which shall also be duly noted in
the PR...in very accurate and clear language, of course.

You guys are behaving like whipped, defeated dogs, how shall I say it,
the very "unscrupulous people" you accused Meier's friends of being.

Increase that blood pressure medicine, someone's gonna need it.

Your pal,

"The likes of Michael Horn"

P.S. I'll bet your trying to remove some of the incriminating bilge
from Biedny even now...too late.

 

[TerraX]

And this just in from Horn via personal email...

Dear Parsiters,
I have not only copied all of the content of the site, I have also
copied the latest "banned" message, which shall also be duly noted in
the PR...in very accurate and clear language, of course.
You guys are behaving like whipped, defeated dogs, how shall I say it,
the very "unscrupulous people" you accused Meier's friends of being.
Increase that blood pressure medicine, someone's gonna need it.
Your pal,
"The likes of Michael Horn"
P.S. I'll bet your trying to remove some of the incriminating bilge
from Biedny even now...too late.

Do I detect a 'little hate and anger' in Horn's words? What a representative! Hey Horn!! Copy this message as well. I've never seen a lousier, twisting, evading, demanding, arrogant, egotistical and megalomaniac "researcher" in the ufo field then you. Dirtbag.

 

[David Biedny]

TerraX,

While I understand and share your frustration with Horn and his mental issues, let's all agree to keep it level-headed and devoid of insults from here on, agreed?

And thanks for your sincere and direct support throughout this thread. I truly appreciate your efforts.

dB

 

[TerraX]

TerraX,
While I understand and share your frustration with Horn and his mental issues, let's all agree to keep it level-headed and devoid of insults from here on, agreed?
And thanks for your sincere and direct support throughout this thread. I truly appreciate your efforts.
dB

Ok David. Maybe my emotional outburst was inappropriate but seeing Horn's "work" on the internet for a number of years it's hard to stay cool-headed. Especially when he pulls the same mean stunt again and again. With him it's always the other person who's at fault and he's not reluctant to make another one-sided 'press-release' where he exonerates himself from any wrongdoing and blames the other. He's as mean as they come.

 

[ufoman]

I think I remember you Terra X on some other UFO forum. Your a supporter of Adamski. Am I right?

 

[TerraX]

I think I remember you Terra X on some other UFO forum. Your a supporter of Adamski. Am I right?

To an extent, yes. Although I'll point out right away that I think Adamski embellished his own material so I'm not claiming everything the man said is true. I don't think Adamski was a prophet, he was a messenger at best and probably just an experiencer. But do I think Adamski was a total liar and fraud? No, definitely not, there's more to it.

 

[ufoman]

I remember reading somewhere that Adamski & Meier met each other in the 50s or 60s at a UFO lecture.