Welcome to the Billy Meier UFO Research website! › Forum › Miscellaneous › Introduction › Reply To: Introduction
“The pictures, especially the daytime pictures, have always been the most ‘popular’ aspect of the case. From the beginning most research efforts have been about those pictures. You can find links to other research on the ‘Investigations by Others’ page.”
Why are there virtually none of those “most popular” pictures on this website? Even in the link to investigations by others?
“As far as I know these originals have never been investigated, and now they are gone.”
Not true, Stevens and Jim Delitosso both stated in various interviews that they used some of the originals in their investigations.They also explained why some of the people involved refused to publicly comment on them to others.
“Nevertheless people have still looked into the pictures, by for example recreating the effect by building models (Phil Langdon) etc. You’ve earlier requested hi res pictures of Phil Langdon, which you apparently didn’t get, but even if you got them and you were able to prove from the pictures the ships were models, it doesn’t say a damn thing about Meier’s pictures. You would still need those originals.”
“it doesn’t say a damn thing about Meier’s pictures- What value has the recreations by Phil Langdon then if not to compare if they were models at all? You could still compare the quality of the models. If Meiers objects are of a far higher quality of construction then that is of significance seeing Langdon had two arms and unlimited time to work with ,both of which we know Meier did not have. Whatever Langdon says about being able to construct the models with one arm he undoubtedly did the initial research with both his arms and spent many weeks and months trying out his theories in English fields.
“So what do you expect of BMUFOR? Repeat Phil Langdon’s and other’s research again? Stare at the copies of copies of copies of Meier’s pics and conclude nothing because there aren’t any originals?”
For a start Langdons theories of suspension are invalid as they are impossible in the locations Meier took his photos. Anyone who has been to Switzerland knows this is true and it’s the reason Langdon refused to be flown out there to test his models,so again the only real and valid comparison that can be made is quality. Something that Langdon and both you and Mahesh do not want to discuss.
“There’s research about the space pics on this website because they were debunkable, they actually resemble frames from old documentaries that were found by BMUFOR and others, so there is actually something to report.”
It also states here on this website and in Kal Korffs book copyrighted from 1980 that Billy stated as far back as 1978 that they were ALL suspect and ALL were to be destroyed so what was the point in all that research? Did you guys miss that bit or just chose to ignore it and carry on with an exercise in drumming up negative publicity against the case?
“Furthermore I think BMUFOR has presented a lot of original research that hasn’t been done before, like the prophecies/predictions, which took a great effort to get the original publications and a lot of time (years) to get the results. This yielded a mountain of evidence that suggest the case is a hoax, which was later again corroborated by the space pictures investigation, and so on.”
Can’t wait for you to explain the civil war in America and the destruction of Rome in the near future.
“And yet ‘pro’ people ask: but why haven’t you covered this or that aspect of the case? Why do you only present ‘con’ evidence of the case?
Well for one thing: it takes a huge amount of effort and time to look into a particular aspect and come up with some result, if even possible. Secondly, the aspects BMUFOR DID cover yielded negative results. I’m sorry. And, believe it or not, these results weren’t informed by a predetermination that the case was a hoax, rather the opposite. Mahesh (and I, who assisted him in the prophecies/predictions investigation) were very much convinced the case was real, and that we would find mountains of evidence that would support this position. It was only by years of research (and disappointment) that we were forced to conclude the opposite.”
Have you read the title of your website?
It says-“researching and archiving both the pro & con evidence of the case”
This is not what you do. This is not what happened, you had already decided by the time Mahesh was requesting evidence and documents from anyone and everyone that the case was a hoax. We know this because of how soon the nature of information coming from Mahesh changed after receiving large amounts of documentation.
It was underhanded and deceitful. As is the nature of this website. You have no interest in any “pro” aspects of the Meier case. You should not pretend to do so. Mahesh responds negatively to requests for information that he deems may harm his own negatively biased approach to the case and just ignores other queries altogether if they point out inconsistencies in his own logic. If you are involved Simon then you are also deceitful. Neither of you are honest in this en devour and you know it or you should if you thought about it. It’s ironic that you both claim Meier is untrustworthy and you behave like this.
At the very least it makes your own research untrustworthy and useless to people who actually seek the truth.
Man up and be honest and remove the “Pro” from the pro and con in your title. You have no interest in it. You are just another debunking site like all the others before you.