Exactly. Michael Horn makes an enormous point of posing like some kind of serious researcher, as do his pals, but in the end it's all just hot air and ducking the main issues.
Kingman said:
"In fact, all the other stuff is just as fake as the WC model pictures, it's just that the WC pictures are so OBVIOUS and so EASY to expose,"
I like your confidence in knowing for fact that "all" the documented Meier info is fake. And could you direct me to your research on what you discovered.
"The Billy Meier case: more conclusive "smoking gun" proof of deception."
"The Billy Meier case:
review of arguments concerning the "weddingcake craft" pictures and footage."
Even though the conclusions presented above are more than enough to completely reject any claim the Meier case would be authentic, more is coming to cover some of the other stuff, to help newbies with the subject through the mists of the deception.
By the way, YOUR confidence in the WC pictures being
authentic is impressive, to say the least. Where is
your research that indicates it actually is? And please don't mention Deardorff, as he's completely refuted at the links given above, and it wouldn't be YOUR research anyway...
Kingman said:
Anyone who's has taken that much time, considering the size of the information, would surely record all the testing that would be required for those supposed conclusions. And where did you learn how to speak German, as most of the evidence is still recorded in that language.
Yes, I speak, read and write German, although it's not my favorite language...
However, contrary to what you suggest, similarly to what M. Horn often does, it is absolutely unnecessary to thoroughly study ALL the "evidence" in the Meier case, to validate the conclusion that it is ALL a 100% fraud.
Maybe you've never heard of it, but there IS something called statistical probability. These kind of calculations tell us that if we take a sample of something and do certain findings on it that are the same in every case, then the probability we will encounter any different result with other samples, especially when taken from the same source, is negligeable.
With the Meier case, we find the following:
* The WC model pictures are 100% fake. Other pictures show indications of fakery as well.
* ALL the film footage I have seen (like all those shown in the film "Contact") are 100% fake, as is most conclusively indicated by the clumsy movements of the models, but by other indications as well.
* The (online available) sound sample is 100% fake (and I know what I'm talking about, as sound is actually
my field of professional expertise).
* The Talmud of Jmmanuel is 100% fake (again, I know what I'm talking about, as I have deeply researched religious sources, and in short: all material based on, or referring to the torah / old testament and new testament are merely fabrications, derivations from other sources, and/or manipulations, as can therefore only be the case for the TOJ)
* Many of the Meier's "prophecies" have proven to be incorrect. Of the "prophecies" that seem correct, much can be traced to publications from the time Meier wrote his "prophecies", the rest can be attributed to simple deduction...
A.s.o...
These findings cover a good majority of all the available "evidence". So what is the probability other, less crucial evidence is authentic? Answer: too low to waste ones time on...
Kingman said:
The amount of energy that the Billy Meiers story kicks up when his evidence is looked at is quite extraordinary. He's been documenting his accounts for so many years now that he runs out of debunkers as they always end up fading into the background. That's ok, there's plenty more coming up looking for their chance to "Get Billy!".
HaHaHaHa! I say I do enjoy watching you guys go at it explaining the imagery,
In fact, personally I couldn't care less about the fact that Billy Meier has built such an elaborate hoax that allows him to economically survive the sad circumstances of his handicap.
It's just that people like Michael Horn don't stop to hassle people about it, demanding that the case be recognized as authentic. I'm all for the freedom of being fooled by conmen, just don't impose the hoax on others, OK?
Kingman said:
Since this giant robot is a fact, I can discount all the other evidence. This is how a real researcher does his duty for the betterment of mankind. Prove to me that there's no giant robot. Right I didn't think so.
You can make fun about it, but the bottom line is that I have plenty of indications for the conclusions I present on my pages, being careful not to venture any further than supported by the indications discussed. On the other hand, you are merely giving us fanatic blabble like that of a Jehova witness or something similar, offering NO serious indications as to why we would have to take the Meier case, or yourself for that matter, serious...
I hope this stirs up some serious resolutions and perhaps a 4th party investigation to confirm your work or explain possible errors. I have to say you seem credible, but shortsighted. Regardless, I am thrilled to see what develops from this. I personally do not think much progress was made for either side. However, you David did seem to hold up your end of the deal and hopefully you can continue to research even piece by piece some of the library of Billy Meiers work and not conclude here. Although your right is yours and mine is mine that goes without saying, but I will say I have been seriously compelled by the order and the sophistication which 
Replicate it! Who cares if an FX said he would have to go to CGI - did this FX guy actually analyze some negatives?????
