Michael Horns behavioural mentality and sensibilities

[Bryin]

The continued barricade-mindset, on the subject of a photograph or a contact, this century or the next century, and so on and so on, reinforces for some folks, a need to cling, to this identification of mere photographs and contacts, and so on and so on.

As history often repeats itself, the more talk about photographs and contacts, the more likely that there will be narrow-interpretation-experts, and so on and so on.

[Taro]

Ex FIGU members exactly duplicated the method Meier used.

No, they haven’t. Not until they’ve released hi-res versions. Why are they afraid to release them? Meier’s UFO evidence has a history of revealing mysteries once they are scrutinized closely. Neither Langdon nor anyone else has been able to duplicate the MANY high quality parts and pristine surfaces of Meier’s WCUFO. Maybe hi-res versions of the ex-FIGU attempts will also reveal flaws just as Langdon’s had.

[Taro]

Bryin, still not sure what you mean. You have odd diction. In any case, I don’t think you understand the value of the UFO evidence supplied and comprehending the analyses that have gone into them, both “pro” and “con”. The way I see it, Meier’s UFO evidence is like a puzzle, which when put together reveals the alien reality. If you don’t have the right tools, however, you won’t even see many of the pieces.

[Bryin]

Nit-pickers and word-splitters are wearing blinkers (that cover the back part of the eye, so that the horse can see what is ahead or next to him, and not what is following) during a continual debate of photographs and contacts. The intention of adding more supporters, thereby strengthens a Multi-level-Marketing-leaders belief-podium.

[Taro]

So, the Meier case is all one big pyramid scheme? Well then, how much money can I make? What’s the initial buy-in? You’re still not making much sense, Bryin. UFO analysis has nothing to do with “word-splitting” or “following”. TRUE UFO analysis involves science and I’ve discovered that the lack of understanding of it is one common thread among BMUFOR supporters. Judging from your comments, you are no different. Do you have any science background, Bryin?

[Readabeard]

Taro you may well be literally insane were we to evaluate what you wrote “Readabeard, I was referring to Zahi’s UFO analyses. Are you familiar with them? Not sure what you mean by “adult content” but he has used science to rule out the hoax theory as previous analyses has done before him.” wtf planet are you on Taro “Are you familiar with them?” after describing the content in the previous comment, do you have dementia? Then you said not sure what you mean by adult content and then describe it as science, yes science is adult content, you know exactly what I wrote and what I meant. I think you need to read less of Michael Horns written works because you wrote like him and it is very poor standard of communication you have.

[Taro]

Readabeard, you are the last person who should be criticizing another about communication standards.

yes science is adult content

But not all adult content is necessarily science. Check your logic.

you know exactly what I wrote

Here’s exactly what you wrote:

“adult content”
“adult world”
“adult patch”
“adult themes and mature content”

No mention of “science” anywhere.

and what I meant

YOU knew what you meant. I had to guess. Who the heck refers to science as “adult content”, anyway? Science isn’t porn.

wtf planet are you on Taro

Apparently the wrong one. This website is solid evidence for a planet dominated by the logically challenged. So, back to my question. If I wasn’t clear, please accept my apologies. When I asked if you were familiar with Zahi’s UFO analyses, I didn’t mean if you’ve heard of them but rather do you KNOW them. Have you understood all parts of them? Did you try to repeat his results? Each step is outlined. Or did you instead try to refute them? Do you even have the necessary scientific foundation to fully understand them?

[Bryin]

Future generations will be amazed by such shallow-banter, on something so superficial, as man-made belief.

Maxwell Planck once said : “A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Much the same, as the shape of the earth.

[Taro]

Future generations will be amazed by such shallow-banter, on something so superficial, as man-made belief.

Bryin, if you’re referring to UFO evidence and analysis then clearly you have no science background.

[Oliver]

Meier and his huckster buddy Mike Horn take advantage of people with a low IQ and exploits their wishful thinking. Once they are emotionally attached to him and his phantasmagorical nonsense their mind sinks into cognitive dissonance.

Deductive reasoning tells rational and objective thinking people that this is a blatant hoax. Meier NEVER provides tangible, irrefutable proof of contact.

– Meier NEVER filmed the disks landing/taking off, the cockpit with instruments, the ETs walking out.
– Meier NEVER fires the silly toy gun with red plastic barrel on camera, only points to a hole. All non-conclusive garbage.
– He NEVER films his spacetrip but shows blurry and distorted pictures of which 23 where proven to come out of children text books and NASA magazines.
– His ‘Might of Thought’ was DEBUNKED as a blatant copy of David Allen’s ‘As a Man Thinketh’.

The WCUFO is the most ridiculous model of an UFO I have ever seen! LOL Meier NEVER shows it like the others floating in mid air. Either the top/bottom is cut off in the pictures or it is motionless right next to a tree. Because it was too heavy to suspend from ordinary fishing line like the others. Plus he used, the now famous, Harcostar drum lid as base and even left the handles on.

If you can think logically and apply Occams razor you can see its all fake but if you are emotionally attached to Meier like his apologists and need a ‘Prophet’ to ease your mishaps, worries and fear in life, then your mind slips into cognitive dissonance and makes excuses for the blatant hoax it is. LOOK at all of his stuff objectively. As a critical thinking person you learn to look and NOT to listen.

[Taro]

LOOK at all of his stuff objectively. As a critical thinking person you learn to look and NOT to listen.

Ok, Mr. Critical Thinker, LOOK at this video OBJECTIVELY and explain to me how Meier performed impossible physics with a swinging model:

[Bryin]

Markets with limited produce options and spoon-feeding Fred Flintstone products, remains acceptable to most.

Most folks in developed countries have outdoor produce markets, and due to customer demand those neighborhood markets follow suit and start offering quality products.

[Oliver]

Nothing extraordinary about that Tardo.
Just because Phil didn’t manage to get it
100% to YOUR satisfaction only doesn’t mean
it can’t be done. A three point hook-up with
fishing- or thin steel wire would steady the
model tremendously. Pulling the Control line a
bit sooner will get what you refer as the ‘270 turn’. Pathetic and laughable to even discuss this childish hoax.

[Taro]

Just because Phil didn’t manage to get it
100% to YOUR satisfaction only doesn’t mean
it can’t be done.

Not to MY satisfaction but to Isaac Newton’s. Are you familiar with him? I bet you think he invented the Fig Newton, but no.

The 1st: “An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.”

Since the model’s tether point allows it to wobble(or swing) freely in any direction, it is balanced while nothing is acting on it. As soon as an operator pulls on a control line, an UNBALANCED FORCE is applied. This causes the model’s center of gravity to swing like a mini-pendulum from the tether point, or wobble. This is basic science.

A three point hook-up with
fishing- or thin steel wire would steady the
model tremendously.

Pure speculation. Tool of the hack. Where are these three points attached to? How many control lines? You know Meier only has one arm, right?

Pulling the Control line a
bit sooner will get what you refer as the ‘270 turn’.

Pure speculation. Why has no one been able to do it in over 40 years?

Pathetic and laughable to even discuss this childish hoax.

Well, Phil couldn’t duplicate Meier’s UFO maneuvres. Are you calling Phil a child?

[Tony]

Taro why do you even debate this guy? He has no idea what he’s talking about and has no interest in listening to anything, he just seems to want to rant the same thing over and over. Seems like a waste of time even acknowledging him.

[Author]

Posts