Introduction

[Taro]

I’m not a skeptic Taro, that would imply that I’ve made my mind up about something I know nothing about.

You misunderstand, although semantics has played a large part in this misunderstanding with others before. In my opinion there are two types of skeptics:

A) The so-called “skeptic” who declares the case a hoax based on very flimsy logic.
B) The TRUE skeptic who reserves judgement until all available information has been properly evaluated.

You appear to be the latter.

[mahigitam]

@ said:
No one has ever argued for a very long time about the space photographs being authentic.Meier stated they were all tampered with in 1978. It’s also stated multiple times elsewhere in the contact notes.

There is no evidence to prove that Meier having stated that ALL of his space journey pictures have been tampered with, in 1978. More information here:

Space and Time Travel Pictures – Overview and Implications

Did you conveniently forget that Meier since 1970’s have published many of these pictures as authentic ones in FIGU books, including the recent PPKBs with claims of them being authenticated by Ptaah in 2001? Would like to hear your take on it..

[Taro]

Mahesh/Mahigitam,

Did you conveniently forget that Meier since 1970’s have published many of these pictures as authentic ones in FIGU books, including the recent PPKBs with claims of them being authenticated by Ptaah in 2001? Would like to hear your take on it..

Did you conveniently forget about plausible deniability? Why do you continue avoiding this area of discussion? Why do you dismiss this theory? Why are you so afraid to even acknowledge it?

How does maintaining fake photos explain away all of his unduplicatable UFO evidence? How does it explain physics impossible for a swinging model? How does it explain the numerous witness testimonies? A TRUE UFO researcher considers ALL possible explanations. I’m going to keep asking until you respond:

Is it POSSIBLE for aliens to have staged a fake UFO hoax? If not, why not?

Would like to hear YOUR take on it.

Also, Meier has HUNDREDS of UFO photos. Why does a website with “UFO Research” in its name cover so very little of it? The very photo you are using for your avatar was determined by original investigators to be 20-ft wide. How did Meier fool these investigators? How can you write,

Meier’s beamship photos have been shown to be fakes beyond reasonable doubt

without debunking the photo series it came from or the investigation which validated it?

You should rename your website to BMWUFOR: Billy Meier Weak UFO Research.

[Taro]

Even your magnifying glass logo is ridiculous: It’s the one thing you DON’T do— unless of course you can use it to damage Meier’s credibility.

[Tony]

It’s stated here on your website and It’s printed in the 1981 book-The Meier Incident: The most infamous hoax in Ufology. Ray Stanford states that soon after his visit in 1978 Meier told him that all of the space pictures were to be recalled and were to be destroyed.
Do you not have a copy of korff book?

[Tony]

Did you conveniently forget that Meier since 1970’s have published many of these pictures as authentic ones in FIGU books, including the recent PPKBs with claims of them being authenticated by Ptaah in 2001? Would like to hear your take on it..

No I haven’t. I think that you will find if you read it again and be honest that it states in 2001 that (firstly) the only existing genuine dinosaur pictures are to be kept under wraps and that (secondly) the pictures that are to be published in the PPKB’s were to either be original or at least only partially altered. That second part does not reference specific photographs and still references that they could be falsified but not to an extent that would warrant their removal. For example a picture of a planet or spacecraft as reference for what Billy saw which is what he stated as the reason for keeping them.
How about a long expose by yourself about how you think the daylight Beamship photos were created? I’d be interested in that? Why is there none of the hundreds of photos taken By Billy of the daylight ufo’s on your website?

[Conwenna Patricia]

Tony there are in fact mr karimundi has published images that have never been seen by the internet before -making it exact opposite of your odd description

[Tony]

There are several hundred photographs of Meier’s that do not appear on this website. All of the photographs that are actually here have been on the web for years. The fact that you haven’t seen some of them before just means you don’t know very much about the case.

[Simon]

Tony,

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. I could be wrong but I think the Wendelle team has come closest to a conclusive result, as they got pictures from Meier himself. But even then it was concluded by the researchers they needed the originals to get some sort of a conclusive result. As far as I know these originals have never been investigated, and now they are gone. 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.

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?

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. Suppose they actually were pictures from outer space, as Meier claimed. It would be quite impossible to conclude that given that again there are no originals and the copies that are left are of poor quality. So the only thing to report would be nothing, and why would you publish a report if there isn’t any result at all?

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.

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.

[Taro]

The pictures, especially the daytime pictures, have always been the most ‘popular’ aspect of the case.

Is this why “UFO” is in BMUFOR’s name? Because there’s very little actual UFO research.

I could be wrong but I think the Wendelle team has come closest to a conclusive result, as they got pictures from Meier himself.

What exactly do you mean by, “conclusive”? Photos of UFOs can never, by themselves prove the existence of extraterrestrials conclusively. However, Stevens did “conclude” that their exhaustive investigation could not determine hoax. The more evidence a UFO case has, the more significant this becomes.

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.

I want hi-res images of Langdon’s debunk attempts too. But not to determine it’s a model since we already know this. The value is in making side-by-side comparisons with Meier’s originals, particularly #808 since this is the only hi-res close-up of the WCUFO Meier has released(that I’m aware of).

So what do you expect of BMUFOR?

To drop the “UFO”. Why did you choose to include it in the first place? Good for the Google search, I suppose.

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.

Mahesh is avoiding me, so I’ll ask you too:

Is it POSSIBLE for aliens to have staged a fake UFO hoax?

I would imagine it might be difficult to accept plausible deniability too if it nullified all of my hard work. But it does account for the many things that cannot be explained any other way. BMUFOR’s research lacks a scientific perspective. When Meier’s evidence is put up to a higher level of scrutiny the hoax theory falls apart. Maybe you weren’t “forced” to conclude hoax so much as chose: When you actually understand the science that has gone into each of the numerous analyses, a one-armed hoaxer makes no sense.

[tony]

“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.

[Bryin]

While reading posts from the over 100 forum-users, since 2014, there definitely are a few wolves-in-sheeps clothing, that are being abandoned, after 30 days, and the increase in new-users ~ over 25 in the last 2 months ~ shows an interest in this work and this forum.

[Tony]

No response from Simon either. What a surprise.

[Taro]

It got too real.

[Simon]

“What exactly do you mean by, “conclusive”? ”

In this case a conclusion that the objects are definitely large, which would most likely mean Meier’s claim of what they are is correct.

“However, Stevens did “conclude” that their exhaustive investigation could not determine hoax.”

With regard to the pictures, as far as I know they never had any originals to examine. So I think that conclusion is not very useful. But honestly, the pictures have never been my greatest interest in the meier case, so I’m not an expert on this issue.

“The value is in making side-by-side comparisons with Meier’s originals”

But the point is there are no originals, no researcher ever got the originals, so you can’t make a valuable comparison.

“To drop the “UFO”. Why did you choose to include it in the first place? Good for the Google search, I suppose.”

It’s just a damn name, get over it, but yeah, you need something catchy. What’s wrong with that?

“Is it POSSIBLE for aliens to have staged a fake UFO hoax?”

Yeah, sure. But from a terrestrial researcher’s perspective the evidence would point to a hoax, so he would conclude it most likely is a hoax. Sure you can come up with some alternative theory that aliens have staged a hoax, but if we never get to see the real thing, how are you ever going to prove it? Maybe Genesis is true and God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith. Maybe the moon is made of cheese and NASA tries to conceal this for the general public, because they want to secretly sell the cheese to aliens to cover the expenses for their secret base on Mars, which is made of chocolate by the way.

If aliens stages a fake ufo hoax, what value does it have for us anyway? A bunch of aliens telling us BS? As far as I’m concerned, they can fuck off.

But the point of Meier’s story seems to be they have some valuable teachings to bring us. So why would they do anything else than to do their best to gain our trust and come of as reliable as possible? Why give prophecies that have the same mistakes as the newspapers and are only published after fulfillment? Why send us impulses with pictures that are identical to frames from old space pictures, and give some horseshit explanation that isn’t even compatible with the facts? Why rip off ‘spiritual teachings’ from other writers?

I don’t see why I should go to such great lengths and still try to uphold this billy meier story in the face of so much BS. If there’s something ‘real’ about it after all, it’s still covered in shit.

[Author]

Posts