Billy Meier’s UFO Metal Alloy Samples

BACKGROUND

The Plejaren ET woman, Semjase, who initially cited security orders in letting down Meier’s request for providing him with objects (music notes, books, pictures, tools, kitchen instruments, etc.) originating from their planet¹, was later somehow convinced by Meier to hand him over metal samples, the products from three different states/stages (out of the total of seven) – stages 3, 4 and 5 – each representing a different yet consecutive stage of development in the production process of making metal for Plejaren spacecrafts or beamships. These metal samples were allegedly provided by Semjase to Meier on Feb 26, 1976 during the 46th Contact Report, which were only handed over to Wendelle Stevens-Lee Elders team, more than 2 years later on April 5, 1978 for examination. Later, Meier reportedly also provided the investigator’s team with a piece of metal that allegedly have come from either the stage 1 or stage 7. More on this uncertainty later. All these metal samples from four different stages (out of the total of seven) have then been subjected to analysis at various labs, both in Switzerland and USA.

On page 427 of Wendelle’s 1982 book UFO Contact from the Pleiades: A Preliminary Investigation Report, he reports about the chemical residue which was given to him by Meier who stated that this ‘viscous and brown-black synthetic mass’ was the residue that was leftover after an ET-warning device was allowed to self-destruct; a demonstration given by Semjase to Meier and documented in Contact Report 62, Aug 12, 1976. It was not stated when exactly this specimen was handed over to Wendelle.

Also in Contact Report 246, Jan 19, 1993, Meier reports that he was provided with two types of samples – pure silver and silver-nickel-copper alloy – by the ET Ptaah during his visit to DAL Universe.

INVESTIGATION

Beamship Metal Alloy

The beamship metal alloy samples have been subjected to five separate analyses.

• Analysis I – by a metallurgist at Eidgenössische Materialprüfungs und Versuchsanstalt für Industrie, Bauwesen und Gewerbe (Swiss Federal Laboratories for Material Testing and Research Institute for Industry, Construction and Business) or simply EMPA, located in Dübendorf², Switzerland in March 1978.
• Analysis II – was conducted at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) by a graduate student.
• Analysis III – was conducted by Dr. Walter Walker, a former instructor in the Department of Metallurgy at the College of Earth Sciences at the University of Arizona in May 1978.
• Analysis IV – was conducted by Marcel Vogel (1917-1991) in 1979, who was a research scientist working at the IBM San Jose Research Center for 27 years.
• Analysis V – was conducted by Dr. Robert Ogilvie, a metallurgist for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, USA.

The metal specimens that have been analyzed include:

Stage 3

Following are screenshots from the spanish documentary ‘La Historia De Billy Meier‘ (1984).

 

On this stage 3 alloy samples, Wendelle Stevens, on pg. 413 of his 1982 book, writes:

When the four specimens of metal were given to us by Mr. Meier, he explained that he had been told that they represented three of some seven states of the metal used in the Pleiadian spacecraft. Actually we were given four specimens of metal form but one of them represented a form of decomposition that had taken place since receiving them from the cosmonauts.

The decomposed state consisted of sugar-crystal sized granules of a dull gray color, almost black. This state descended from a dark, dull gray chunk state while carried in a small plastic packet in Meier’s wallet for the several weeks before it was delivered to us for analysis. Another chunk kept in a cardboard box in Meier’s house did not decompose.

So, this stage 3 metal alloy samples is available in two forms. They are:

1. Metal chunks of dark color (left image)
2. Metal granules of a dark color (right image)

Stage 4

Wendelle describes this stage 4 metal sample as being a convoluted chunk of bright silvery metal alloy.

Stage 5

Wendelle describes this stage 5 sample as being a rounded hunk of metal with discreet goldish and silverish areas about its surface.

EMPA

Reportedly, since Meier was lacking funds to initiate an analysis on his metal specimens³, a person by the name of C.A. Fraude from Zurich (see report below) has sponsored for the testing of the specimens at the EMPA lab in Dübendorf. The specimens from stage 3 (granular state) referred to as ‘Pulver’ and stage 5 referred to as ‘Metallspan’ in the report, have been furnished to the lab on March 9, 1978 and the analysis on it only commenced on March 17. The final report was then posted to Mr. Fraude on March 31. Following are scans of that report reproduced from pages 421-423 of UFO Contact from the Pleiades: A Preliminary Investigation Report (1982).

The preliminary spectrographic analysis, on pg. 423, revealed the following constituents based on their relative abundances in each specimen.

Stage 3 (granular state) or Pulver:

Large quantities/Base metal: Lead
Major amounts: Silver
Minor amounts: Chlorine, Calcium, Copper
Trace amounts: Aluminum, Silicon, Phosphorus, Sulfur, Potassium and Titanium

Stage 5 or Metallspan:

Large quantities/Base metal: Silver
Major amounts: Copper and Lead
Minor amounts: Potassium, Calcium and Titanium

With a small note at the end of the report saying that the lighter elements between Aluminum and Chlorine haven’t been explored. The report stated that the material required to make these specimens is easily available on Earth.

“Unter anderem ist die Herstellung eines solchen Pulvers auf der Erde ohne weiteres möglich.”

“Among other things, the preparation of such powders on the Earth is very well possible.”

Apparently Mr. Fraude, after the examination was done and before the final report was published, has passed on the information to the metallurgist that these specimens allegedly are of extraterrestrial origin. This led the metallurgist to issue a notification or clarification, attached to the report (see pg. 422), on what it does and doesn’t say, and also urged not to misuse their certificate. Following is a rough English translation of that notification:

You reported to me after the examination of the powders provided by you, that this allegedly comes from an extraterrestrial spaceship. To prevent an incorrect use of the certificate issued by us I would like to inform you of the following:

The investigation carried out by us and the results from that say nothing about the origin of the powder, this could have been taken from anywhere. Among other things, the preparation of such powders on the Earth is very well possible. Its composition therefore allows no conclusions about a possible extraterrestrial origin. Such could only be accepted if the powder had been personally taken by an expert of the EMPA from an object that demonstrably did not originate from Earth – if necessary with the involvement of other experts.

We would therefore ask you to refrain from a misuse of our certificate, which could be that you announce that the extraterrestrial origin of the material has been confirmed by the EMPA.

Lee Elders, one of the investigators, has stated the following on pg. 56 of his 1983 book UFO…Contact from the Pleiades, vol. 2:

By mid-summer of 1979, the Pleiadian metal samples had already undergone initial elemental analysis by two major metallurgical laboratories in Switzerland and Arizona. From Europe came a standard report that listed lead and silver in major parts and a host of trace materials. Nothing unusual was discovered by the Swiss and their report was somewhat mundane in nature.

Meier, in 1997, in response to EMPA’s findings have stated that when the extraterrestrial origin of the specimens was made known to them, the entire matter has been torn apart by concerned person(s) at EMPA who have only then concluded that the metal specimens as just a cooking pot material. He also blames the EMPA experts for not having the desire to seriously investigate his purported extraterrestrial specimens.⁴ However, if one reads the above EMPA report, the facts, contrary to Meier’s statements, paint a totally different picture. They have clearly stated that even though they can’t ascertain the supposed extraterrestrial origin of the specimens, their analysis did indicate to them that the metal specimens can easily be fabricated on Earth. They also made it clear that in order to answer whether the furnished specimens are extraterrestrial in origin or not, one or more experts at EMPA should personally procure the material from the supposed extraterrestrial source after it has been demonstrably shown to be as such.

On the presence of Chlorine in the stage 3 specimen, on pg. 420, Wendelle Stevens seems to have expressed either his (Stevens, Lt. Colonel, USAF Ret., is neither a metallurgist nor a chemist but a UFO researcher) own opinion or that of some “expert,”  as below:

One item of interest is the presence of Chlorine in alloy with the heavier metals. This indicates a cold synthesis process unknown an Earth at the present time because Chlorine turns to a gas at a temperature well below the melting point of the other metals, and Chlorine is electrically inert and cannot be synthesized with other elements by an electrolytic process.

FIGU co-founder and core-group member, Guido Moosbrugger reiterated the above same claim on pg. 180 of his book And still they fly (2004):

Both experts (BMUFOR note: Dr. Walter W. Walker⁵ and Marcel Vogel) determined that the sample fragments were a metal alloy produced via a cold synthesis process. This process is still unknown to our technology on earth at the present time (UFO Contact from the Pleiades by Lt. Col. Wendelle C. Stevens, Ret.).

First, apparently nowhere did Dr. Walker make any claim on the cold synthesis process; unless of course the earlier Steven’s quote from pg. 420 was just a paraphrase of Dr. Walker’s statement. Second, even if he did, when I contacted Ivan Alvarado-Rodriguez (PhD in Electrical Engineering from UCLA)⁶, the person who deconstructed Marcel Vogel’s extraordinary claims which we shall discuss later, regarding the above Wendelle’s quote on Sep 9, 2015, he responded as follows on Sep 9:

These are the incorrect statements in the paragraph:

1. Chlorine reacts strongly with many metals forming bonds (particularly ionic bonds): it reacts with Na, K, Li, Rb, Ag, Cu, Al, Fe. Once chlorine reacts with a metal, it stays there. If I take a piece of iron and pour Clorox (or any other household cleaning product), I will detect chlorine on the metal if I analyze it with an EDS system. The question here is how do they know that chlorine is alloyed and not just chemically bonded to some parts of the material?  That is a hard question to answer because EDS does not tell you if the elements are chemically bonded or not. They will need a proper FTIR analysis system (Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy) and, even that, they will have to be properly calibrate to make sure they are not detecting ionic or covalent bonds that chlorine usually bonds itself with the metals. That’s why I would like to know EXACTLY how this analysis was made and see their charts. Just the statement, as is, makes me think that the chlorine they detected is nothing more than a contaminant on the metal and, if so, this points to a piece of a household item made out of metal (a saucepan or a toy).

2. The hypothesis of “cold synthesis” using the argument “because Chlorine turns to a gas at a temperature well below the melting point of the other metals” is very unlettered: Copper melts at a higher point than chlorine turns into a gas, yet you can form Copper Chloride (CuCl); same with Aluminium chloride, Silver chloride, Iron chloride, and dozens of more solid substances. You can find similar solid substances with N, O, and F, all of them gases well below the melting point of the metal.

3. The statement “Chlorine is electrically inert” is plain wrong: Chlorine has a very high electronegativity! It readily attracts electrons from other elements, that’s why it produces very strong ionic bonds. They probably confused chlorine with a noble gas.

It is not uncommon to find chlorine in metals as a contaminant. I believe this is the most likely explanation for the presence of chlorine in the metal they analyzed.

University of California

A piece of a metal fragment (stage unknown) was taken by the documentary filmmaker and an independent producer, John Stefanelli to UCLA for testing. A preliminary investigation on this specimen was conducted by a graduate student there, who stated that ‘it was certainly possible that you could find it on this planet.’

On pages 107-108 of Light Years, Gary Kinder writes:

But finding scientists willing even to look at the photographs, examine the metal, or listen to the sounds proved to be far more difficult than Stefanelli had anticipated. He knew the public still laughed at people who saw flying saucers, but with hard evidence in his hands, he expected scientists to be at least intrigued. When he took a sample of the metal to UCLA for preliminary analysis, he returned with the sample and the discovery that the stigma of UFOs still existed.

“When I went in,” he recalled, “I expected to be greeted with open arms, and I wasn’t at all. I was just another kook coming in off the street. I explained the project, I told them what evidence there was and what the story was, and they just didn’t want to be bothered. They finally turned me over to a graduate student who had some interest in it. He did some testing, kept the sample for a couple of days, and came back and said the testing had been inconclusive. He did say it was unusual, it could be from another planet, but it was certainly possible that you could find it on this planet.”

Dr. Walter W. Walker, University of Arizona

On May 12, 1978, specimens from all the three stages – 3, 4 and 5 – have been handed over to Dr. Walter Walker, a former instructor in the Department of Metallurgy at the College of Earth Sciences at the University of Arizona for analysis. Even though Dr. Walker’s 4-page report titled ‘Preliminary Metallurgical Investigation of Swiss Metal Samples’ (Professional Paper Number 78-100, 1978) reportedly appeared in its entirety in the 1978 unpublished manuscript of Wendelle’s UFO Contact from the Pleiades: A Preliminary Investigation Report, Stevens for some reason omitted this in his 1982 published version.⁷ So, in this accessible 1982 version, we have only Stevens paraphrasing Walker’s report on pgs. 415-424.

Apparently, Walker also found about the same constituent parts as revealed by the Swiss EMPA laboratory for stage 3 and stage 5 specimens. ⁸

Stage 3 (granular state):

Large quantities/Base metal: Lead
Major amounts: Silver
Minor amounts: Calcium and Bismuth

Stage 5: (Examination of this specimen is shown here in the 1987 CONTACT documentary)

Large quantities/Base metal: Silver
Major amounts: Copper
Minor amounts: Lead and Calcium
Trace amounts: Bismuth

In fact regarding the specimens belonging to all the three stages, Dr. Walker on page 4 of his report, supposedly states⁹ that they are:

“..most unsuitable for high performance vehicle structural use due to low strength and [their] tending to react with the atmosphere. … They (the specimens) are unusual in nature but nothing was found to indicate that they are of extraterrestrial origin.”

Even one of the investigator’s of the American team, Lee Elders has remarked¹⁰ to Stevens that:

“..a metallurgist at the University of Arizona had already examined one of Meier’s metal specimens and labeled it “pot metal,” a low-grade casting alloy used to make such things as tin soldiers.”

But strangely these mundane results have been conspicuously, totally omitted by Wendelle Stevens and Guido,¹¹ and are also nowhere to be found in any of the Meier literature discussing this subject. In fact, Dr. Walker was being quoted by Guido, citing Steven’s 1982 publication, as a metal analysis specialist who, along with Vogel, have determined that ‘the sample fragments were a metal alloy produced through a cold synthesis process.’ But nowhere in Steven’s book, did Dr. Walker made such a claim. Michael Hesemann, as strong proponent of the Meier case, too has repeated the same claim in his foreword for Meier’s 1997 book – ‘Aus den Tiefen des Weltenraums…Kontakte mit den Plejadiern/Plejaren.’

However, Stevens in his book, has apparently paraphrased Dr. Walker’s interesting and tentative observations. Following are a couple of those excerpts:

“In another stage of analysis, he was mounting small metal specimens in lucite crystal to be sliced very thin for microscopic examination, when he was surprised to find an unexpected outflow of gas from the solid metal specimens, so much that the crystal mounts were fractured! He said he had never seen this before and that it indicated that something was BEING GIVEN UP BY THE METAL at the low heat of the crystal mounting. Whether this is what is happening to the metal binder that holds the dark granules, we do not yet know.” – pgs. 415 and 417

“The dark oxide on the surface of specimen #4, the one containing the imbedded granules of non-metallic material, consists quantitatively and qualitatively of the same material as the unoxidized inner metal: This seems to indicate that it is  not picking up anything in the oxidation process, but perhaps contains the oxidizing agent IN THE ALLOY. Another strange thing, state #4 was found to oxidize and turn dark unusually fast – even as one watched. It could be polished bright, and a few minutes later be oxidized to a dark finish again. And this effect was observed in 16% humidity very dry conditions indeed for any oxidation. It now appears that some of the missing metal from the granular sample, specimen #1, may have simply oxidized away in the witnesses packet. But then we have another problem where did the oxide go? It was not in the packet with the granules.

The potassium may, under certain conditions, act as an oxidizing agent on these metals, but it is not known to be this active. Uranium is the only metal known to oxidize at such a  high rate. The oxide observed seems to be a protective one however, because the process seems to stop when the surface of the metal is covered. This action takes less than an hour!

The next stage of the same metal – state #5 does not oxidize, but once polished remains quite bright. We are unable to  account for this as both specimens seem to have the same component elements. And state #6, as we observed, has an even brighter goldish sheen on its surface that does not tarnish at any observable rate. ” – pg. 419

In addition to Steven’s book, the following pro-excerpt (@ 16:30 min) is from the Spanish documentary ‘La Historia De Billy Meier‘ (1984):

I have analyzed this material and there is no doubt, that this is a very unique material. I had never seen a metal of this type. I was enormously surprised by how malleable and smooth this metal is. Now I think, how is it possible that such a malleable and smooth metal could be the material used to build what we call UFOs, which are said to be able to travel through space.

And also this pro-excerpt¹² (@46:36 min) from the Japanese Nippon TV documentary on Meier case (1980):

I received this metal  from Mr. Stevens, analyzed it from a purely metallurgical viewpoint, and put it into a report. To put it briefly, I can say that this metal is a very mysterious one. This is because when I polished the surface of the metal and put it on a table, in a moment, it was broken to pieces by itself. Indeed there are only a few substances that breakdown over such a short time but it can’t be an alloy like this. I can say that, in my 25 years of experience as a scientist, I have never seen this kind of alloy. These are the micrographs showing indentations on the metal, made in order to test its softness. What surprised me was the softness of the metal. I wonder how can they create a flying object like UFO from such a soft material. Anyway, I’m sure this is an alloy yet unknown on the earth.

Again I contacted Mr. Ivan Alavarado on Sep 8, 2015, citing the above pro-claims and asking this below question:

Assuming all the pro-comments paraphrased by Wendelle Stevens and the documentary narrators were really made by Walker, can there be a mundane explanation for the effects (described in pages 415-419 of 1982 book) Walker described?

To which he responded on Sep 9 as follows:

I don’t know if what Mr. Walker observed can be reproduced because his description of the phenomena is very vague. Without a proper report on how he performed his observations and his experimental controls, it is just meaningless words. You point to links to videos that don’t show any hard data about the metals, there is not much for me to analyze. Also, the fact that someone “has never seen anything like this” does not impress me in any way and does not mean this person is on to anything; we encounter situations like this in my workplace all the time. ..

Without hard data on the metal samples that I have not seen already, I really cannot do much in this respect. I already spent a substantial amount of time looking for it. If you find anything new, send it to me and I’ll take a look; just make certain that is hard data and not videos quoting individuals saying that they are impressed about, well, nothing.

Unfortunately Dr. Walter W. Walker’s report is not accessible online. We will let you know as soon as possible when we acquire it. Now, the extraordinary claim apparently made by Walter Walker towards the end of his sequence in the Japanese documentary – ‘..I’m sure this is an alloy yet unknown on the earth’ – is in direct contradiction to the conclusion arrived at by Walker himself, which he supposedly published in his 4-page report – ‘..nothing was found to indicate that they are of extraterrestrial origin.’ The likely resolution to these two incompatible statements is that the Japanese documentary may have inadvertently misrepresented Dr. Walker’s statement. This issue would have been settled by crosschecking with the original interview done in English, which unfortunately is not accessible as well. Even if he did indicate an ET origin, as Ivan pointed out above, Dr. Walker’s claims, at best, are vague and inconclusive.

Marcel Vogel, IBM

Marcel Joseph Vogel (1917 – 1991) was a research chemist at IBM, San Jose, California. Gary Kinder introduces Vogel in his 1987 book Light Years on pg. 153 as follows:

Marcel Vogel was a research chemist, one of less than a dozen senior scientists at the IBM facility in San Jose that employed 9,000 people. The holder of thirty-two patents, he had worked for IBM for twenty-two years, inventing for the huge computer company the magnetic disk coating memory system still used in IBM disk memories throughout the world. Research begun in 1960 by Vogel also had introduced the use of liquid crystals for optical display. Now a specialist in the conversion of energy inside crystals, Vogel probed the interior of crystalline structures with the most complete optical microscopic equipment available in the world – a system of scanning electron microscopes costing $250,000.

Vogel, after being contacted and explained by Jim Dilettoso and Wendelle Stevens on the background story of the supposed ET origin of the specimens in mid-April, 1979, with Stevens particularly stating upfront that he is – “..personally convinced that the contact is actually taking place and is still to this date proceeding on an irregular basis,” agreed to examine the evidence. On this, Gary Kinder wrote the following on pg. 154:

One Saturday morning, not long after he had agreed to examine the Meier evidence, Vogel found lying on his doorstep a small padded mailer addressed to him. Upon opening the package he was surprised to find a note from Stevens and four smaller packages, one enclosing a lavender crystal, two filled with darkened metal specimens, and the last containing a half-inch triangle appearing to be an alloy of silver and gold.

Vogel analyzed the two darkened metal specimens – presumably specimens from stage 3 and stage 4 – from the two smaller packages and found small quantities of aluminum, sulphur, silver, copper, and lead. He then concluded that the two specimens, even though exhibited some ‘unusual’ property  (as Walter W. Walker above also suggested), are no better than a standard silver solder. On this subject, Gary Kinder wrote the following on pgs. 154-155:

And the two metal specimens darkened by oxidation contained only small and impure quantities of aluminum and sulphur, with some silver, copper, and lead. But they held at least one surprise for him.

“When I touched the oxide with a stainless steel probe,” Vogel later remembered, “red streaks appeared and the oxide coating disappeared. I just touched the metal like that, and it started to deoxidize and become a pure metal. I’ve never seen a phenomenon like that before. It’s just  something that was unusual.” Though the two darkened samples exhibited this unusual property, Vogel considered them no better than standard silver solder. “You could have gone to a jeweler and gotten a specimen of that,” he said.

Regarding the goldish-silver colored stage 5 specimen, Kinder on pg. 199 wrote that Vogel had found out that this tiny specimen contains silver (very pure), aluminum (very, very pure), potassium, calcium,¹³ chromium, copper, argon, bromium, chlorine, iron, sulphur and silicon. Vogel, Kinder observes, when focussed on one microscopic area of the specimen found out that it contained “an enormous melange of almost all of the elements in the periodic table” with each element being exceedingly pure. One problem with this latter claim is pointed out by the skeptic Derek Bartholomaus on his website:

Finally, if there were a material that contained almost all of the elements in the periodic table it would very likely be radioactive and therefore extremely hazardous to your health.  It is just not possible for such a material to exist in the first place.

Vogel, Kinder observes, however said that – “It’s an unusual combination…but I would not in any way, shape, or form say that this would make it extraterrestrial.” Later Vogel would make some pretty interesting and extraordinary remarks regarding the stage 5 specimen which are documented in:

• UFO… Contact from the Pleiades Vol. 1, 1979
• UFO… Contact from the Pleiades Vol. 2, pg. 57, 1983
• UFO Contact from the Pleiades: A Preliminary Investigation Report, pgs. 424-427, 1982
• Beamship: The Metal, 1985
• Light Years, pgs. 199-202, 1987
• UFO Contact from the Pleiades: A Supplementary Investigation Report, pgs. 526-528, 1989

Following are a list of those extraordinary remarks made by Marcel Vogel, garnered from the above sources:

1. Material contains almost all of the elements in the periodic table. The evidence presented is an EDS X-Ray spectrum.
2. Material contains the rare-earth element Thulium. This element is extremely rare and hard to obtain (circa 1985). The secondary bands of Thulium are not present. The evidence presented is an EDS X-Ray spectrum.
3. Material did not require gold coating for SEM imaging. No charging was observed. The evidence presented is a SEM image scan.
4. Portions identified as metal exhibit crystal birefringence. Elements in sample manifest themselves in a manner such that they preserve their identity while still bonded to the rest of them. The evidence presented is Optical Micrographs using Nomarski Phase Interference, Oblique Illumination of sample, and Cross-Polarization Imaging.
5. Portions of sample examined at a magnification of 500 diameters show evidence of micro-manipulation. The evidence presented was a scanning electron micrograph.
6. Statements made to the effect on how the metal sample was unusual, extraordinary, difficult to fabricate, etc.

These claims were left unchallenged until December 2011 when Ivan Alvarado-Rodriguez (PhD in Electrical Engineering from UCLA), a member of the Independent Investigations Group (IIG) decided to look into it. He deconstructed each of those extraordinary claims, mentioned briefly below:

1. Material contains a wide range of elements of the periodic table. Vogel incorrectly interprets the continuum Bremsstrahlung X-ray spectrum as the spectrum produced by many element bands close together. The Bremsstrahlung spectrum contains no useful information about the element composition of a given sample.
2. Material contains the rare-earth element Thulium. The EDS X-Ray spectrum shown by Vogel is Aluminum and not Thulium. This is concluded after Vogel’s admission that the Thulium secondary bands were missing. Aluminum with traces of Silver is the best explanation for the spectrum shown.
3. Material did not require gold coating for SEM imaging. Gold coating in SEM is used exclusively when the sample is non-conducting.
4. Portions identified as metal exhibit crystal birefringence. The optical microscopy methods used by Vogel are not suitable to conclusively demonstrate that some portions of the sample exhibit optical birefringence.
5. Portions of sample examined at a magnification of 500 diameters show evidence of micro-manipulation. It was found that indentations similar to those found by Vogel can be produced by conventional metal machining. The indentations have a pitch small enough to be captured with a scanning electron microscope at a 500 diameter magnification.
6. Statements made to the effect of how these metal samples are unusual, extraordinary, difficult to fabricate, etc. All of these are Vogel’s own opinions and they are not supported by the evidence he presents. It is also not clear why the claims, even if true, would make the metal samples remarkable or worth studying.

For an extensive description of these briefly layed out points, visit either the Derek Bartholomaus website or for a slightly different and condensed version visit the Open Minds website. Also watch this short video presentation given by Ivan at the 2012 TAM conference.

On the other hand, Kal Korff states¹⁴ that, when he and his colleague Sarah Shalley visited Marcel Vogel in May 1980 and asked him about the purported “extraterrestrial” claims¹⁵ apparently made by him in Beamship: The Metal video on the unusual metal specimen which disappeared (more on this later), Vogel reportedly denied and stated the following:

“No, All I said is that the first sample was unique, which it is. I reported nothing else. The samples were comprised of aluminum, silver, and thallium¹⁶ each of which have a high degree of purity.”

This same information was again reiterated by Vogel to the host Bill Jenkins on ‘Open Minds’ radio show from early 1980’s.¹⁷ Even, additional corroboration comes from the following excerpts published by Gary Kinder in 1987, who recorded Vogel’s claims verbatim, on his disappointment that his preliminary tentative findings were published by Wendelle and Lee prematurely, before him being able to review them himself and also before subjecting them to peer-review.¹⁸

“I needed additional pieces to look at to be sure there was something really unique,” said Vogel. “I was enthusiastic. I was emotionally wound up in the study of it because it was an ideal challenge, something that many scientists would have very eagerly gone into. What was unusual was the purity of the individual spots of metals in the tiny specimen. Their discreteness. That’s what intrigued me and that’s why I wanted more specimens to look at. I would have gone much further into metallurgical analysis, looking at bending action and melting characteristics. I wanted a second opinion from another person at MIT, so we could compare notes on this before we put anything into print. It was a virgin opportunity, and I had gone to NASA to elicit as well the support of their own scientists who were interested, because here was a bit of material that could be looked at. I had many contacts within IBM who were deeply interested in exploring this with me. I could have had about an eight- or nine-man team. But I shut it all down.”

The disappearance of the unusual metal disappointed Vogel, but he was equally disappointed that Stevens and Elders, eager to establish support for the case, had published his preliminary findings in their photo journal before he had been able to complete the testing, and without giving him an opportunity to review for accuracy what they had written.

“It was garbled-up bits and pieces of remarks,” he said later, “not a cohesive way of presenting anything. It was technically wrong, and I resented it. It’s unfortunate because I was willing to use all of the technology I had to find a real answer to this.”

Vogel lost his enthusiasm for the project. “Not because of the metal,” he said later, “but the  way people acted.” Of course, the metal was now gone anyway.

“I was enthusiastic,” concluded Vogel, “I was interested, I went through a lot of effort. But the case is incomplete. That’s the best way you can report it.”

Another incident where Vogel was reportedly extremely upset is when Jim Dilettoso, during the UFO Symposium conducted on Aug 23-24, 1980, has claimed that Vogel analyzed Meier’s samples and discovered that one of them contained some 60 elements fused together. Later Vogel, when approached by Korff, supposedly stated that he categorically denies ever making that claim and further pointed out that he was extremely upset because he had not been invited to give his side of the story.¹⁹

Dr. Robert E. Ogilvie, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Dr. Robert E. Ogilvie (1923-2013) was a professor emeritus of metallurgy in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, USA.²⁰ Kal Korff reports that Dr. Ogilvie has analyzed the stage 5 metal specimen, in regards to which Vogel stated was so unique, with a grant from OMNI magazine. UFO researcher Harry Lebelson, the writer for OMNI, when contacted through telephone by Korff in June 1982 apparently reported to him that Dr. Ogilvie established the specimen to be of terrestrial in origin²¹ with no presence of Thulium in the metal specimen and also that Vogel had simply misinterpreted the graphs on the spectranalyzer.²²

However, Wendelle Stevens offered a completely different version, where Dr. Ogilvie didn’t perform any tests at all, which he published on pg. 529 of his 1989 book UFO Contact from the Pleiades: A Supplementary Investigation Report:

At that point I still had the other half of the same piece of metal I had given to Vogel, which I was holding as a control. I did not tell Vogel that he only had half of the original piece, but I did tell  Harry Lebelson, then UFO Hotline editor for OMNI magazine, and Harry finally persuaded me to let him courier my control piece of the metal to a physical scientist, known to him and the magazine, at MIT for a confirmatory analysis, a second check to verify Vogel’s results. I allowed Lebelson to take the specimen to MIT and deliver it into the hands of the scientist there. ..

The MIT story is a classic example of what can happen to real UFO evidence, even in the hands of professionals. Lebelson had delivered the piece of metal to the scientist and waited impatiently for some result. After a week he called the scientist to see how the tests were coming. The professor said he had been busy and had not been able to get to it but would try during the coming week. Harry waited a week and called again. Still no time but the coming week for sure. Lebelson waited two more weeks and then called the professor again. This time the professor said he had not made any tests yet because he had seen his son soldering something around the house and a drop of the solder fell into a bucket of water. The congealed drop of solder looked so much like the specimen piece the professor had come to the conclusion in his own mind that this was probably what the metal was and it would be a waste of a lot of time and effort just to verify a piece of solidified solder, and he had made no tests. Harry immediately called me to report, and I told him to just get the piece of metal back and we would find another scientist. Harry called back again the next day to inform me that he could not return the metal specimen because it had become “lost” and the professor could not find it.

This version is of course denied by Korff and UFO researcher and author, William L. Moore, the co-author for an article published in the July 1982 issue of The MUFON UFO Journal as follows²³:

Furthermore, Stevens’ ramblings about Omni and MIT’s involvement in the analysis of the Meier samples are simply not true. Dr. Robert Ogilvie, the same metallurgist who analyzed the famed Ubatuba, Brazil, UFO fragments for Omni, did analyze Meier’s samples and found them to be mundane at best. A further breakdown of Ogilvie’s findings was presented in the expose.

Since both Dr. Robert E. Ogilvie and Harry Lebelson are long departed, we can’t confirm one version over the other. But Wendelle, who in all these decades could have easily settled this issue by simply calling up Dr. Robert Ogilvie and confirming with him whether he tested the sample or not before it was lost, apparently didn’t do such a thing. The fact that he didn’t either try to clarify or report anything regarding this issue is quite telling and casts serious doubt on Steven’s version of the events.

Controversies and Contradictions

Confusion with metal alloy state- and specimen-numbers

Lee and Brit Elders, on pg. 56 of UFO…Contact from the Pleiades, vol. 2, 1983, have published this image with a caption reading:

4th state metal specimen, designated F-1 by chemist Marcel Vogel. This mysterious specimen created an uproar within the scientific community because of its unusual bonding techniques. It showed a combination of both crystalline deposits and metal  without evidence of cross breeding, which is unheard of in our present technology. This piece mysteriously vanished while in the possession of Marcel Vogel.

There are two problems with the meaning of this caption. First, according to Gary Kinder, it is the golden-silver triangle, i.e. the 5th state metal specimen, that Vogel considered to be unique and also disappeared as well, but not the preceding 3rd and 4rth state specimens. Second, on pg. 174 of Steven’s Messages from the Pleiades, vol. 2, 1990/2005, while referring to the specimen in the respective image (same image as above) as a fourth state specimen, he however mentions that the metal specimen ‘was never tested,’ which contradicts the earlier Elders’ and Kinder’ claim. Also, Steven’s claim that the 4rth state specimen being never tested, also contradicts Gary Kinder’s account who stated that Vogel did test these earlier specimens as well. However, complicating these matters further is the fact that Steven’s on pg. 424 of his Preliminary Investigation Report, 1982, claimed that the unique and unusual claims were made by Vogel on the ‘third state of the metal received from the Pleiadians, the lustreless silver sample,’ which again contradicts the earlier discussed Kinder’s account.

As if the existing confusion is not enough, Steven’s on pgs. 417 and 419 of his 1982 book, tacitly assigns the total four different metal alloy specimens, representing three different states – state 3 (granular and ungranular states), state 4 (bright silver convoluted chunk) and state 5 (golden-silver triangle), with different ‘specimen numbers.’ The granular samples from state 3 are referred to as specimen number 1, the ungranular chunk from state 3 as specimen number 4, the bright silver chunk from 4rth state as specimen number 5 and the golden-silver triangle from the 5th state as specimen number 6. What are the specimen numbers 2 and 3? Steven’s didn’t clarify at all. However, on pg. 419, instead of referring to them as specimen numbers, he incorrectly mentions them as ‘state numbers,’ thereby creating even more confusion.

Stage 1 or Stage 7 ?

In Contact Report 46 (Feb 26, 1976), when Meier asks Semjase to provide a finished-metal, Semjase responds back by saying that she would try.

Billy:
..Nun aber eine Frage: Kannst du mir nicht noch ein Stück fertiges Metall besorgen?
Semjase:
37. Vielleicht, ich werde mich darum bemühen.

Billy:
..But now a question: Can’t you still provide me a piece of the finished metal?
Semjase:
35. Perhaps, I will try.

And regarding Semjase’s verse 35 above, Stevens reported²⁴ the following:

By the time we as an investigative team obtained our metal specimens from Meier, Semjase also brought him a sample of the first condensed state, which is one of the pieces of metal on which Marcel Vogel began his testing. That testing revealed a basic lead compound with a non-uniform mix of several discrete elements that had not been through a molten state, which agrees with the descriptions given here by Semjase.

Semjase, in the CR, indicated that she would try to bring a metal specimen from the finished or the last stage i.e. stage 7 metal. But here Wendelle reports the results of the analysis apparently conducted by Marcel Vogel, which revealed the base metal as being Lead, mixed with several discrete elements. If it is really a stage 7 metal specimen, this then outright contradicts the information given by Semjase herself in Contact Report 45 (Feb 25, 1976), where she stated that the finished metal contains an alloy of copper-nickel-silver. Perhaps one can argue that Semjase wasn’t given permission to provide a stage 7 specimen and instead provided a stage 1 specimen to Meier.

Is beamship metal alloy soft or hard?

Dr. Walter W. Walker has subjected all the specimens from different states 3, 4 and 5 to a hardness test, which measures how resistant the solid matter is to various kinds of permanent shape changes when a compressive force is applied. Paraphrasing Dr. Walker’s findings on these tests, Steven’s stated²⁵:

All of the metal specimens are too soft and lack structural  characteristics for contemporary high stress airframe application…Hardness tests on these specimens showed a degree of softness approaching that of lead for the dark gray stage in state #4. The metal gets progressively harder in the  succeeding state numbers #5 and #6.

This led Stevens to speculate that a protective force-field generated around the craft might take up the stress of the physical forces applied, and does not transfer these stresses to the ship. So, Stevens observes, then this would not need a highly stressed structure for Plejaren beamships. He also talks about how the composition of the metal specimens – lead, silver and copper – are among the best conductors of electricity, and lead being one of the best radiation shields. Towards the end, he further noted that the Plejaren’s choice of construction materials might be governed by entirely different criteria from our own. Even Walker himself, during his interview to the Jun-Ichi Yaoi of Nippon TV, expresses his wonder on how could a purported ET spaceship be made from such a soft metal.²⁶

Regarding this subject, Guido Moosbrugger on pg.182 of And still they fly (2004), stated the following:

Remarkable as well is the unusual softness of the metal alloy of a Pleiadian spacecraft, in contrast to the traditionally hard metal bodies of our airplanes and spacecraft.

Apparently all of the above “remarkable” comments by Dr. Walker, Stevens and Guido seems to have been made under the assumption that the finished beamship metal alloy would be very soft and malleable. But they, especially Stevens and Guido who should have known better seems to be totally unaware of the information in the same Contact Report 45 (Feb 25, 1976) where Semjase explains to Meier briefly the various processes, a few of their end products and also names the specific alloy (copper-nickle-silver alloy) in the final product. In the verse 42 of CR 45, Semjase clearly expounds to Meier that ‘By an, according to Earth understanding very difficult process, we convert the lead substances we assembled into the soft metal lead, which we then change by further mechanical-chemical processes into a hard metal form, which is much harder than your metal which you call steel.’²⁷ This much-harder-than-steel alloy, according to Semjase, is still not serviceable for beamships and so during the last stage(s) of refinement, this hardened alloy must then be ‘polarized by further processes of conversion into a beamship-suited alloy of a special sort and character.’

It is appalling that Stevens and Guido, who have supposedly investigated the Meier case, confirmed its purported authenticity and went on to become a co-founder and core group member of FIGU (in case of Guido), wouldn’t even take time to read or verify the same contact report(s) which they published before citing them as evidence for their extraordinary claims and drawing unsubstantiated conclusions and making fancy speculations.

Phantom elements

Stevens on pg. 466 of his Messages from the Pleiades, vol 2., 2nd ed. (2005) states the following:

The metal specimens finally delivered to Meier, which they and we had analyzed, consisted of three of the seven states the metal goes through in production and refinement. We had samples of the states, 3, 4 and 5. The sample of state 3 was mostly lead, with impurities. State 4 was nearly equal parts of silver, copper and lead. State 5 contained silver, copper, nickel, gold, magnesium and other trace elements.

However, the elements – nickel, gold and magnesium – which Stevens cited above as being found in the goldish-silver colored stage 5 specimen, were nowhere to be found in the list of constituents so far presented by EMPA, Dr. Walter W. Walker and Marcel Vogel. Perhaps those elements were supposedly found by Vogel as he remarked that he found “an enormous melange of almost all of the elements in the periodic table” in one microscopic area of a stage 5 metal specimen. Or perhaps likely not because Mr. Ivan Alvarado has thoroughly deconstructed Vogel’s assumption that the continuous spectrum obtained using Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy which ‘Vogel identifies as a wide range of elements present in the sample is in fact continuum Bremsstrahlung background radiation, which is commonly found in EDS X-Ray spectra. Even though this radiation is part of the X-Ray signal produced by the sample, it does not contain useful information about the elemental composition of the sample analyzed.’²⁸

Vogel also claims to have found the element Indium in the state 3 or state 4 specimen.²⁹ But in the list of discovered elements, conveyed to Gary Kinder, Indium is missing.

Source of Scanning Electron Micrographs

Kal Korff claims that the two scanning electron microscope photographs (see below with captions) supposedly photographed at 500X and 2000X diameters magnification level off the unique-specimen and published in the UFO…Contact from the Pleiades, vol. 1, 1979, according to Vogel, have no relation whatsoever to the metal specimen, and in fact they were just part of a completely different analysis project at IBM. According to Vogel, Korff further claims, Stevens has acquired these photos by stealing them from his home. When Korff asked Stevens regarding this alleged theft, Stevens denied it and also refused to comment as to where the photos came from.³⁰

Left image caption: This scanning electron microscope photograph at 2,000 diameters shows the remarkably efficient conductivity in this metallic specimen. This photograph was made without the gold fall covering ordinarily needed for improved conductivity to prevent electron fogging of the image. Because of the unprecedented, high conductivity of the metal specimen itself, we are able to clearly view not only the crystals but even the X-ray images of other faces of these crystals in this specimen.

Right image caption: This picture at 500 diameters shows a micro-machined face on one side of the metal specimen that could only have been produced by something exceeding the finest lasers in a most sophisticated  technology.

However one can see Vogel himself clearly pointing out these two above micrographs – left image at about 20:35 min and right image at about 28 min – in the Beamship: The Metal video, while explaining the findings of his analysis on the unique metal specimen. If this is the case, why did Korff cite the same Vogel and claim exactly the opposite, even more so? Did Vogel change his story or was it Korff who inadvertently or not, misrepresented Vogel’s claims? Or does the truth lie somewhere in-between?

Number of different specimen states that Marcel Vogel tested

Kal Korff, in his article published in the Dec 1980 issue of The MUFON UFO Journal, has stated³¹:

I spoke with Dr. Marcel Vogel, a scientist who conducted a series of tests on the Meier samples and whose opinion of them totally contradicts what the book claims. Marcel informed me that only the first sample was unique. It consisted of aluminum, silver, and thallium, with each of the three elements having a high degree of purity. The other samples were found to be ordinary crystals consisting of quartz, citrine, amethyst and silver solder, none of which proved to be of extraterrestrial origin, and they do not substantiate the claims made in the book.

In response to the above article, Stevens has published an article in the October 1981 issue of The MUFON UFO Journal, in which he stated³²:

What Korff failed to note, or deliberately omitted is that Vogel only analyzed one single specimen of metal…He evidently did not consider Korff an appropriate spokesman…He chose not to share his research findings with Kal Korff.

William L. Moore, author and an UFO researcher, in his article published in July 1982 issue of The MUFON UFO Journal, has responded as below³³:

Dr. Vogel did not analyze just one of Meier’s physical samples; he analyzed three, all of which were viewed by Korff and Sarah Rea at the doctor’s home. Vogel obviously did choose to share his findings with Korff, otherwise how could Kal have quoted Dr. Vogel in his expose?

Even we have Marcel Vogel himself on record explicitly stating that the first metal specimen (state 5) is unique while the other metal alloy specimens (presumably from states 3 and 4) are ‘no better than a standard silver solder.’ Vogel also proclaimed it in the Beamship: The Metal video (1985) and also in an interview with Bill Jenkins, ‘Crystal Healing, Mind Power’, part 2, 29:22 min, early 1980’s.  He also even stated that the amethyst crystal revealed ‘no unusual properties.’ In the face of such damning direct evidence which even Wendelle should and very easily be aware of, it is very strange that he would claim the contrary that Vogel only tested one “unique” metal specimen? Could it be because Stevens doesn’t want the readers to be aware of the negative remarks made by Vogel on the rest of the specimens?

Was the length of Vogel’s analysis video tape, 10 hrs or 2 hrs or 1 hr?

During the meeting between Al Reed, Barbara Reed, Korff and Jim Dilettoso on September 6, 1980, Dilettoso, a sound and light technician from Pheonix who spearheaded the laboratory work and the supposed scientific tests that were conducted on Meier’s different categories of evidence, has reportedly claimed that he and his team has about 10 hours of ‘him (Dr. Marcel Vogel) and the entire lab proceedings.’  In addition to that, he also claimed that they have ‘about an hour of him discussing why the metal samples are not possible in earth technology; going into intrinsic detail of why it is not done anywhere on earth that type of chemistry.’³⁴ However, contrary to the Dielttoso’s claim is Stevens’, who argued that there is a two hour videotaped analysis by Vogel in his possession.³⁵

In response to Dilettoso’s claim, Korff writes³⁶:

When this author checked with Dr. Marcel vogel, I was told that Dilettoso in no way had ten hours of video tape as claimed. According to Dr. Vogel, all Dilettoso has is an hour of tape of which Marcel himself supplied! As far as Dr. Vogel explaining on tape how the metals were not formed on this earth, he did no such thing since Marcel does not hold this belief.

It is very strange that even in what should be assumed as a fairly transparent issue, such as the length of the video tape of Vogel’s analysis, there is so much contradiction between the statements of Stevens and Dilettoso, both reportedly according to Vogel’s own information, are incorrect.

Marcel Vogel’s questionable scientific integrity

Ivan Alvarado, in Dec 2011, has adequately deconstructed all of Vogel’s extraordinary claims by showing that ‘all the results obtained by Marcel Vogel have been properly reproduced from common samples using equivalent equipment and techniques’ and that ‘some of the claims did not have data to support them and even other claims are pure anecdotes.’ Inspite of this damning revelation, Meier proponents would cite Vogel’s credentials for the basis for their strong belief that the metal specimens Meier provided must be or most likely extraterrestrial. Even Lee Elders refers  to Vogel as ‘a man of eminent qualifications’,³⁷, Jim Dilettoso refers to him as a person with a ‘perfect blend of expertise and curiosity: Eminent in his field, he had a reputation for being open to new ideas, even those on the fringe of science’, ³⁸, Guido refers to him as one of the two ‘excellent specialists’ (the other being Dr. Walker) and finally Meier calls him ‘a renown expert.’³⁹

But really, how reliable, credible and accurate are Marcel Vogel’s extraordinary claims? Do we have any reason to question his scientific integrity?

As it turns out, there are a lot of good reasons to question his scientific integrity which further casts reasonable doubt on his extraordinary claims. So let us dig a deep more and explore the real controversial person Marcel Vogel, not the person that has been selectively and conveniently presented to us by Lee Elders-Wendelle Stevens team, Gary Kinder, Billy Meier, etc.

Qualification

Billy Meier,⁴⁰ Guido⁴¹ and Wendelle Stevens⁴² refers Marcel Vogel as “Dr.” Marcel Vogel. But the fact is that Vogel holds neither a real Ph.D. nor a legitimate doctorate. Instead, Vogel was awarded an honorary doctorate from the International College of Spiritual and Psychic Sciences in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.⁴³ Unlike, Dr. Walter W. Walker (University of Arizona) and Dr. Robert E. Ogilvie (MIT) who have real Ph.D.s and qualified metallurgists, Vogel is just a chemist. Even the person behind the Swiss EMPA report is presumably a metallurgist.⁴⁴ A chemist is defined as “a person versed in chemistry or given to chemical investigation.” A metallurgist is defined as a person versed in “the study of metals and their properties in bulk and at the atomic level.”  It is very important to note that expertise in one area does not automatically confer expertise in another. Also, one can’t help but wonder whether it is a strange coincidence that the only person who made extraordinary “ET” claims is the one (Marcel Vogel) who is neither a metallurgist nor have a real Ph.D.!

Super-human or a quack?

In 1969 Marcel Vogel, after reading an article in Argosy magazine entitled “Do Plants Have Emotions?” about the work of former CIA polygraph expert Cleve Backster into the responsiveness of plants to human interaction, decided to explore these strange claims. After doing experiments, Vogel, who is again neither a plant nor an animal physiologist, claimed that he duplicated Backster effect aka plant perception/sentience. He alleged that plants can read people’s minds, behaves like batteries storing thoughts and intentions, will respond to spooky stories, can sense emotions of humans even several thousands of miles away, react more readily to children than to adults, and thrive on human love and kindness. Vogel’s work with plants and a popular 1973 book, The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, featuring his work made him a celebrity among new-age and psychic enthusiasts. What does the mainstream science say about backster effect or plant sentience? Several legitimate plant scientists tried to reproduce the “Backster effect” without success and much of the science in “The Secret Life of Plants” has been discredited. And in the view of many plant scientists this pseudo-scientific book has done lasting damage to their field.

The other pseudo-scientific subject that Vogel spent most of the remaining part of his life is designing, using and selling crystals, called Vogel-cut® crystals, which supposedly has several paranormal abilities and one of them is healing sick persons. Over the years, using these specialized trademarked crystals, he allegedly developed various methods for proximate, remote, and self healing and even reportedly claimed to have healed with the touch of his bare hands.⁴⁵ Following are some of the paranormal claims made by Marcel Vogel, on two radio interviews with the host Bill Jenkins for ‘Open Mind’ program that aired on KABC radio station in early 1980’s. The two radio interviews are titled – Crystal Healing, Mind Power (4 parts) and Crystals, New Age Healing (4 parts), and available here at archive.org website.

• had OBE (out-of-body experience) at 6 years of age and at 11 years of age, a voice spoke to him saying that he would become a chemist; and while in 1977, in India when meditating, a voice spoke to him that ‘You are to ignite the flame’
• had taught a “mind-boggling” class to 10-12 year old children on how to bend metals with total ease, locate hidden objects with telepathy, using dowsing rods and mind-to-mind feeling-communication
• had dissolved clouds in a couple of minutes
• had “communicated” with the one of the stars in Big Dipper by making it scintillate at a different rate of vibration than the other stars around and claims that humans can communicate with any planetary system
• can remotely move plant leaves, bend stainless steel, project images into liquid crystals (and photographed them with microscope) using just his mind energy
• using crystal on any skeleton, can visualize what the living being would look like when it was alive
• can contact anyone from any other dimension and encourages a 12-year old boy to do it
• building special devices for people who are suffering from “mind travels” due to their physical and etheric bodies being not-in-sync

Also, Marcel Vogel, using crystal energy has supposedly “successfully” demonstrated (host Bill Jenkins and callers to the show vouched for it) multiple times on air, the following paranormal abilities:

• remote bending of listener’s spoons, keys, etc.
• remote-healing radio listeners
• remotely projecting smell of an apple, rose and a plant to listeners
• remotely projecting his image – vibrational and not physical – into listeners mind
• space travel with listeners to a planet in Pleiades where the beings are humanoids with bulging eyes and visited their homes, spacecrafts, etc.

Vogel was tested for some of the above listed pyschic abilities – metal bending, telepathy and water divining – with children on June 7, 1980 by three skeptics, who are – the paranormal researcher and professional magician Bob Steiner, paranormal researcher and practicing attorney Charles Nyquist and the director of the Parapsychology Department for John F. Kennedy University in Orinda, California, Dr. John Palmer.⁴⁶ Their conclusions were the same for all of the experiments conducted on Vogel:

In the opinions of all the three observers, nothing took place which warrants any further investigation. There was no indication of any psychic or paranormal abilities.⁴⁷

The analysis report, especially on fork bending test, suggested that Vogel bent the spoon or fork with only physical force and not with any psychic powers. Also when he was coaching and coaxing the 9 children to bend their spoons or forks, it was revealed that 8 out of 9 children were only able to bend them with physical force and the one child who couldn’t bend it was assited by Vogel who applied physical pressure to the child’s clenched fists in order to bend it. The report also pointed out that Vogel was using some hypnotic induction techniques while trying to demonstrate the remote projection of thought and taste of a make-believe orange fruit and a cookie. And the report ended with the following excerpt:

The idea that he is sincere and believes what he purports to believe is, in my opinion, unbelievable – I do not believe it! I do not believe that he sincerely believes the things he states, nor the things on which he instructs little children. People who thus manipulate the minds of others should be held accountable for it. Children must not be allowed to be fair game for the Marcel Vogel’s of the world.

Channeling Semjase

Vogel, in one the above radio shows⁴⁸, claims he has a video tape of the purported extraterrestrial crystals that were brought by Semjase to Meier being subjected to psychometry (another woo woo) by the psychic Sheila Brown. Further, he also claimed that he had felt the presence of Semjase when a nearby person did a “radionic analysis” (pseudo-science) on Semjase’s hair (given by Meier to Wendelle Stevens team for examination) and claimed that Semjase is bald-headed with large eyes and a face that frightens people. And when the host pointed out that Meier’s description of Semjase being very human like, Vogel stated that ETs can deliberately put on an appearance that suits the needs of different people. He even reportedly claimed that by meditating over the large amethyst and quartz crystal, he talked with Semjase and also offered (May 1980) Kal Korff to meet her, to which he agreed. Vogel began his meditation but as should have been obvious by now to anyone, that even after 3 hours, Semjase didn’t show up. Apparently, Korff notes, that Vogel also invited the producer of FOX TV show ‘Encounters’ to meet with Semjase but as was the case before with Korff, Semjase didn’t show up again. ⁴⁹

Views on Meier

When Korff asked Vogel what he thinks of Meier, he reportedly stated that while he considers Billy Meier to be a fraud, liar and an anti-christian, he was certain that Semjase existed.⁵⁰

Discovery of 4 previously unknown metals

Following is an excerpt from a letter⁵¹ written by Lee Elders, on August 22, 1979, to Meier, his family and friends:

Ein Wissenschaftler in Nordkalifornien hat die Metallproben analysiert und vier neue Metalle entdeckt, die der Wissenschaft bis 1979 unbekannt waren. Ich habe noch nicht alle Details dieses bezeichnenden Fundes, weil sie mir erst letzte Woche in verschlüsselter Form übermittelt wurden. Aber der Fund hat in Wissenschaftskreisen erhebliche Überraschungen ausgelöst.

A scientist in Northern California has analyzed the metal samples and discovered four new metals that until 1979 were unknown to science. I do not have all the details of this significant discovery, because they were transmitted to me in encoded form just last week. But the finding has triggered considerable surprises in the scientific community.

The same was again reiterated by Lee Elders in the Nippon TV documentary aired in Japan in 1980. Following is a rough transcript⁵², where the narrator paraphrases Lee Elders statements:

We visited Mr. and Mrs. Elders who live in Pheonix, Arizona and immediately asked about the results of the analysis. Surprisingly, there were four kinds of metallic elements in the metal that was found only one year ago, that were not listed in the elements charts up to 1978.

Apparently the scientist from San Jose, Northern California, Marcel Vogel, according to Lee Elders, have discovered 4 NEW ELEMENTS in the year 1979, elements that were PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN. What proof did Lee Elders or Marcel Vogel provide? Nothing. This Wikipedia page documenting the discovery of the elements in the periodic table show nothing for the year 1979. Furthermore, all the elements that Vogel announced as having been found in the metal specimens furnished by Meier were all known and discovered long, long ago.

Strangely, this extraordinary claim is conspicuously absent in Lee and Brit Elders 1983 book UFO…Contact from the Pleiades, vol. 2 and also in Stevens 1982 and 1989 investigation books. Even Marcel Vogel, in the ~45 min. Beamship: The Metal video, at least in the parts that we were shown, didn’t make such a claim. It also didn’t make into the Gary Kinder’s 1987 book Light Years, which is primarily based on the investigation material supplied to him by Lee Elders. What is the source of Lee Elder’s outlandish and extraordinary claim? Did Vogel, who at first announced the discovery of previously unknown 4 new elements, later was made aware of his biggest blunder by the real metallurgists (Vogel was a chemist and not a metallurgist) in his analysis thereby forcing him to retract his tantalizing claim? A likely possibility, given the physically impossible claims he made so far on his supernatural abilities.

Disappearance of Beamship metal specimens

Vogel, after noticing that one of Meier’s metal specimens was unique, had invited a research scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center, Dr. Richard Haines, the next morning to his office at IBM. When Dr. Haines arrived at the IBM facility, Vogel reached into his pocket for the plastic envelope but couldn’t find the specimen. Vogel, according to Haines, claimed that he must have misplaced it somewhere and they both started looking all over the place, but to no avail. Even Haines, according to Wendelle, ‘thought that Vogel may have only thought he had put the piece in the little envelope, but in fact may have missed the bag and dropped it without being aware of it.’⁵³ Vogel never recovered the lost piece of metal. ⁵⁴ On this disappearance, while Dr. Haines⁵⁵ reported that Vogel told him that he must have MISPLACED it, Lee and Brit Elders, refer to this loss as an ‘unsolved mystery.’⁵⁶ However both Korff and Wendelle, rather proposes very mundane explanations.

Korff writes that Vogel’s casual treatment of handling and storing the potentially valuable and purported UFO or ET samples sent by various researchers from all over the world in a ‘black rubber coin pouch’ in the pocket of his trousers, indicated to him that he probably have simply ‘lost’ the metal specimen, implying he must have likely misplaced or dropped it somewhere. Korff further cites the following Vogel’s own admission made in the documentary Beamship: The Metal, as proof of his explanation:

I have had this happen before to me. And when I have worked with crystals like this. I did work with a crystal, study it, as I have over the last ten years, and suddenly the next day I went, go to reach for it and (it) will be gone! It will have disappeared. I first accused myself of being negligent and not paying attention, and finally I just put it aside and said it if happens, it happens. I won’t let it bother me. I don’t know how to explain it, I have no way of giving any rational explanation. And at this moment I must categorize it as a mystery.

Korff’s statement on Vogel’s mishandling is further supported by Jim Dilettoso who according to Korff has recounted that during a briefing with Lee Elders-Stevens team, Vogel took a cellophane off a pack of cigarettes and dropped the Plejaren metal samples into that, folded it up and put it in his wallet. He further gave an account of an incident where he, while sitting beside Vogel in the back seat of a car, had ‘removed his (Vogel’s) wallet, removed that cellophane, had rolled up another piece of cellophane, put it back in his wallet, and put it back in his pocket,’ all with Vogel knowing nothing of it.⁵⁷ And the best supporting evidence to Korff’s theory on Vogel’s mishandling comes from the fact that Vogel has lost another ET specimen, a chemical residue that remained after the alleged extraterrestrial selective-warning device was allowed to partially self-destruct as a part of a security-demonstration by Semjase. More on this later. Wendelle Stevens while claiming that there is ‘no question,’ of Vogel, ‘having dropped or misplaced the specimen in the process of placing it in the envelope. The shape of the specimen in the plastic material of the envelope was still there.’,⁵⁸ has offered his personal theory⁵⁹ as follows:

My own personal opinion is that once Marcel Vogel had started the process of decomposition of the specimen under the intense light, that it may possibly have continued at a slower rate in the bag in Vogel’s pocket until it was gone, and finding nothing visible in the little bag, they did not at the time think to analyze whatever might have been left in the bag, visible or invisible. There may have been some gaseous residue had we thought of such in time.

A sample of similar material had been nearly lost in Switzerland when a piece of the metal Meier had in a little plastic bag in his pocket, carrying it to a metallurgical research laboratory for analysis, sublimated away leaving only some tiny black granules, looking a whole lot like pepper flakes. Dr. Walter Walker found the same kind of black bodies evenly imbedded in the specimen he examined in Tucson, Arizona.

Wendelle also reported⁶⁰ the following on another lost metal specimen that was sent for examination to Dr. Robert Ogilvie at MIT:

Harry called back again the next day to inform me that he could not return the metal specimen because it had become “lost” and the professor could not find it.

However, after all these decades and perhaps for the first time in 2012, a new explanation emerged from Meier. I forwarded a mail to FIGU Core Group member Mrs. Bernadette Brand via a ex-FIGU supporter on Feb 23, 2012, requesting her to provide the complete metal analysis reports of Dr. Walker and Vogel by explaining that the available literature on metal specimens for a scientific-minded person is incomplete, confusing and doesn’t actually support the claims arrived by Vogel, claims that have been recently deconstructed by Ivan Alvarado in December 2011. She responded⁶¹back on March 9, by saying that I have illusions regarding the samples tested by “Professor” Vogel. She continued by claiming that Plejaren have explained that they, after noticing that Vogel would gain some insights that are detrimental to the global populace have made the sample disappear right before his eyes while the samples were being shifted on a tray to another laboratory for detailed studies. She further stated that these samples were not given back to Meier again but remained with Plejaren. However she stated that Meier was given additional beamship metal samples later, samples that doesn’t lead to any far-reaching insights and scientific breakthroughs when examined.

[At the end of the her mail, Mrs. Brand without responding directly to my question on whether or not FIGU has the complete metal analysis reports of Dr. Walker and Vogel, strongly asserted that I don’t need to contact Lee Elders for these reports on these purported ET metal specimens because they (FIGU) are well informed, have documented everything what they needed to know and wanted to know, which is available at any time.]⁶²

If that is the case, then who is behind the apparent disappearance of an another piece of the same “unusual” metal specimen that is in the possession of Dr. Robert Ogilvie at MIT? Dr. Ogilvie reportedly concluded the purported extraterrestrial specimen as really one that is terrestrial in origin, with no presence of Thulium in the metal specimen and also that Vogel had simply misinterpreted the graphs on the spectranalyzer. If this (or even the Wendelle’s ‘untested’ version) is the case, what is the need for Plejaren to make it disappear when nothing world-shattering was reported? If for some reason, Plejaren are behind the disappearance of this specimen as well, then they would have reported it back to Meier like what they did about Vogel’s specimen. So far there are zero references to the MIT specimen in Meier’s literature. Did Dr. Ogilvie, who after reportedly concluding the much-hyped purported extraterrestrial specimen as really one that is nothing unusual and terrestrial in origin, consequently became “upset” (ex: for being played into the hands of an apparent hoaxer), and perhaps misplaced it? A likely possibility which we can’t confirm since he was expired recently in 2013. However, Stevens opines that MIT is a contract university used by many agencies of the government, including various intelligence agencies, and if it finds anything interesting, they would be the last to know about it.⁶³ Likewise, Dilettoso too reportedly claimed that the metal specimen that was apparently lost in the possession of Dr. Robert Ogilvie, is actually being secretly studied by the scientists at MIT.⁶⁴ And of course both Stevens and Dilettoso offer no evidence at all to back up their claims. Some people really want to see conspiracies and cover-ups everywhere they look, even when there are none to be had. Particularly Stevens, whom according to Lee Elders, apparently because of his ‘overactive mindset’ had exaggerated or confabulated many of the extraordinary and paranormal claims he (Stevens) purportedly experienced while investigating the Meier case.

Recently, on October 4, 2015, I wrote back to Mrs. Brand asking when was the first time that Plejaren explained to Meier about their role in the disappearance of the unique sample (and also whether they have the original 4-page report of Dr. Walker). She immediately responded by saying that she doesn’t have enough time to purse such questions and directed me to read the 1987 book ‘Light Years’ by Gary Kinder for relevant information that I am seeking. Then again I wrote back reminding her that there is no such information related to Plejaren’s role in Gary Kinder’s book, as well as in contact notes and asked her when was the first time she heard it from Meier. She responded by saying that ‘unfortunately’ she doesn’t know and that she doesn’t pay any more attention to such ‘unimportant details.’

One interesting note here is that Kal Korff, who visited Vogel with his colleague Sarah Shalley in May 1980, claimed that he was given a 4rth state beamship metal specimen by Vogel who stated that it was an ordinary silver solder and nothing special. This specimen, Korff reports, was shown by him to over the years to several UFO researchers such as Jim Borden, Paul Cerny, Thomas Gates, Dr. Richard F. Haines, Glen Hoyen, William Moore, Al and Barbara Reed, and Dr. Jacques Vallée.⁶⁵ He even published a photo of it on pg. 293 of his 1995 book and claims to offer this specimen for any non-destructive analysis if anyone wishes to pay for it. Vogel, in a radio interview, also offered to share some of the metal specimens (other than the 5th state) to anyone who are sincerely interested to study them.⁶⁶

And the strangest and the most contradicting claim was apparently made by Jim Dilettoso, who according to Korff stated that Vogel didn’t lose the metal samples at all.⁶⁷

Did Meier or Plejaren ever claim the metal alloy as unique or unusual?

The above Mrs. Brand’s response on the reason behind the disappearance of the unique metal specimen and also the extraordinary claims by Vogel pertaining to it seemingly contradicts Meier’s own information (see below) from CR 45, 1976. In CR 45, Semjase states that the 7th stage metal specimen, made of Copper-Nickel-Silver alloy (for some beamships contains gold), probably be already known on Earth. To which Meier responded by saying that this alloy could be known on Earth but since he is not well versed with such matters, he doesn’t know if that is the case for sure. Then Meier asks Semjase, whether this alloy could be used for terrestrial space crafts, to which she responded ‘Surely.’ Again Meier asks, if this alloy could be used for terrestrial space crafts, wouldn’t scientists and researchers evaluate this possibility. Semjase then responds by saying that it is not yet possible to use this alloy for terrestrial “primitive” spacecrafts because, according to her for that to happen, humans have to be capable of space flight in the first place which is far-away in the future. Finally when Meier asks Semjase to provide him with such a metal specimen, she said: ‘Surely, I could grant your wish. I will see if I can bring such a piece for you.’

Here, we have Semjase herself saying that such a finished stage 7 alloy is already likely available on Earth and that she could bring such a specimen to Meier (from her planet). Nothing extraordinary was noted regarding the final-product of any of the 7 stages of the beamship metal alloy manufacturing, even in the subsequent 46th contact held on the next day, where instead of the finished stage 7 specimen, Semjase brought him the final products of stages 3, 4 and 5. And later in that CR 46, Meier again asks her for the finished stage 7 metal to which she said: ‘Perhaps, I will try.’ This may most likely explain away the apparent bewilderment⁶⁸ experienced by Lee-Stevens team as to why would Meier, even though received these purported extraterrestrial beamship metal specimens in 1976, didn’t bother to get them analyzed until they (investigators) have brought the subject of the extraterrestrial metal specimen with Meier. If the purported extraterrestrial metal specimens, according to Plejaren, have been said to be likely available on Earth with no unusual or other-wordly properties, it is perfectly understandable and totally possible that Meier apparently either didn’t feel the urgency or entertain the thought of getting them tested, thereby proving his contacts with ETs to the public.

But something strange happened to the Contact Report 45, first published in 1978 in Semjase Kontakt Berichte, 1st ed., vol. 10, after Marcel Vogel’s analysis was done in 1979 on the stage 5 metal specimen seemingly indicating some unique metallurgical properties like purity, chemical bonding, structure, etc. In the recent edition of the book containing that contact report, the verse in which Semjase points out the only reason that we terrestrials possibly couldn’t use the stage 7 metal alloy for our space crafts has been altered. A new reason has been added. And it is the requisite for Plejaren’s metallurgical technology, which apparently is impossible for us now but only possible very far-away in the future.⁶⁹

Semjase Kontakt Berichte, 1st ed., vol. 10, 1978 and Semjase Kontakt Berichte, 2nd ed., vol. 4, 1987

51. Diese Möglichkeit besteht noch nicht, denn dazu müssten sie erst der Raumfahrt fähig sein.
51. This chance still does not exist, because for this, they would first have to be capable of space flight.

Plejadisch-Plejarische Kontaktberichte, 3rd ed., vol. 2, 2003

46. Diese Möglichkeit besteht noch nicht, denn dazu müssten sie erst der Raumfahrt und unserer Metallurgie-technik fähig sein.
46. This chance still does not exist, because for this, they would first have to be capable of space flight and our metallurgical technology.

One may point out the following excerpts as evidence that Meier indeed has published the unique nature of the specimen before Vogel made his claims:

UFO…Contact from the Pleiades, vol 2, pg. 56, 1983

Meier had received the metal samples during a contact in the late summer 1977, during his forty-sixth meeting with the cosmonaut Semjase. It was explained at the time that each specimen represented a different, yet consecutive stage of development in the process of making Pleiadian metal for use in spacecraft production. The alloy utilized had a very different bonding technique which required seven different and difficult development stages, and that by our twentieth century understanding would be impossible to duplicate. The cosmonaut had also stated, “at present, Earth technology could not build their rocket-like spacecraft using this alloy, but in order to understand its true value and exact need, Earth societies would first have to be capable of space flight similar to ours . . and this information can but be only a suggestion to the Earth scientists for the still distant future.”

Light Years, pg. 155, 1987

In the separate packages, Vogel had found handwritten notes with information about each specimen. The note enclosed with the triangle said that when the Pleiadians gave it to Meier in 1975, Meier recorded in the contact notes that they had warned: Earth scientists would easily be able to analyze the components of the alloy, which included the basic building blocks of the universe. But the alloy was bonded in a unique way involving seven separate development stages that by twentieth-century earth technology would be impossible to duplicate.

“This information,” one of them told Meier, “can be only a suggestion to the earth scientists for the still distant future.”

But there are at least four issues with the above excerpts that makes them very unreliable and inaccurate. First issue is that Meier supposedly received the beamship metal specimens only during his 46th contact with the Plejaren, i.e. on February 26, 1976 and not in 1975 or 1977 as was stated. Second issue is that the nowhere else in the contact reports did Plejaren claim anything about the unusual bonding of the metal specimen and the impossibility of its manufacturing on Earth, instead Semjase, in CR 45, clearly stated that such a finished metal alloy is by that time (in 1976) probably available on Earth and could be used to build our spaceships only when we are capable of developing the space travel technology. The third one has to do with the year of first publication of both of the above books – 1983 and 1987, which are several years after Vogel made his unusual claims in 1979, which is a very long time for the information to get distorted or misrepresented, inadvertently or not. And the fourth one is that this information was nowhere reported in any of the Lee Elders and Wendelle Stevens more than half a dozen books, but was only reported in Elders 1983 book 4 years after Vogel’s analysis.

And finally one may also point out the following excerpt from the article – Botschaften von den Plejaden: Prophet oder Scharlatan? – published by Michael Hesemann in his own ‘Magazin 2000’ (based in Düsseldorf), No. 100, June 1994. Also reproduced in Meier’s Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 91/1, Jahrgang 20 in the same month of that same year. Later this article was again republished on pgs. 345-364 of Meier’s 1997 book ‘Aus den Tiefen des Weltenraums … Kontakte mit den Plejadiern/Plejaren’.⁷⁰ The following excerpt from pg. 357 is taken from the Hesemann’s article published in Meier’s 1997 book, where Meier supposedly relayed the following information (second paragraph) to Stevens while handing over the metal specimens on April 5, 1978, :

But the most amazing piece of proof for the authenticity of his contacts were four small pieces of metal, which Meier had given to Stevens shortly before his departure on April 5, 1978.

“They represent three of the seven metal-conditions the beamships consist of,” the contactee explained, “the metal is not unusual, as the same basic elements can be found in the entire universe. If you have it analyzed, tell the scientists they should pay attention to the type of process, to the technical characteristics.”

It is not clear whether Hesemann got this information from Stevens or from Meier directly. But in either case, there is no evidence that such information was relayed by Meier to Stevens before Vogel’s analysis.

So, to answer the question ‘Did Meier or Plejaren ever claim the metal alloy as unique or unusual?,’ all the evidence so far presented indicates that Meier/Plejaren apparently never did at least before the analysis of Marcel Vogel in 1979, but strangely the claims that they did only appeared after Vogel made those extraordinary claims, which of course were adequately deconstructed by Ivan Alvarado and even have been apparently doubted regarding its accuracy by Vogel himself. And the likely mundane explanation for the disappearance of the alleged unusual metal specimen was likewise seemingly given an “extraterrestrial” twist by Meier, likely very recently.

Residue from a self-destructed ET device

The chemical residue that remained after the alleged extraterrestrial selective-warning device was allowed to partially self-destruct as a part of a security-demonstration by Semjase during the 62nd contact (Aug 12, 1976) was granted by her to let Meier collect it and submit to examination. Then Semjase, to the Meier’s question on whether scientists would find anything important during their analysis, responded by saying that this ‘possibility is very small, because this sort of synthetic material which now no longer reveals the original composition, is probably common in a similar form on the Earth as well.’ On this synthetic residue, which was handed over (date unknown) to Wendelle Stevens by Meier, Stevens writes:⁷¹

The material looked like a form of melted bakelite or similar material that had run together in a viscous flow and then hardened. It was of a yellowish-greenish-brown color and seemed brittle. The piece I examined had unscorched grass stems and a small twig imbedded in it. A piece was turned over to Mr. Marcel Vogel to examine and make recommendations on how to proceed with an analysis on this material. The specimen later disappeared in Vogel’s possession and has not been recovered.

Here, we have an another incident of a purported extraterrestrial material, once again getting lost in the possession of Vogel. Meier proponents would like to have us believe that the Plejaren ETs might have done it again what they have done earlier with the “unusual” metal specimen in Vogel’s possession. But again, why would they do it when Vogel apparently didn’t make any tests nor state any extraordinary claims? This loss of another purported extraterrestrial specimen in the possession of Vogel, strongly supports Korff’s theory on Vogel’s mishandling as the likely cause behind the disappearance of the “unique” beamship metal alloy specimen.

New beamship metal alloy specimens

In Contact Report 141 (January 3, 1981), Meier claimed that Semjase was given permission to give more beamship metal samples, samples that have an approximate resemblance to the earlier samples provided to Lee Elders-Stevens team for examination. Alluding to the unusual claims made by Dr. Walker and Vogel earlier, Semjase states that these new metal samples will also give ‘new surprises for the analysts once again.’ Did Meier receive these samples and were they tested? Who tested them and what were the results? Where are the analysis reports? Intriguingly nothing was reported either by Meier nor by Lee Elders-Stevens team.

However during the 246th contact on June 19, 1993, Meier was given several copper-nickel-silver alloy specimens and also pure-silver (see images above) allegedly by Ptaah taken from our sister/parallel DAL Universe. These specimens have also been shown in the 1998 Spanish documentary – La Historia Continua (@1 hr:14 min: 40 min) – by Jaime Maussan, where regarding the pure-silver specimens, Meier claimed that the purity of these ET specimens is not possible on Earth. In this documentary, Meier also claimed that a few samples of the copper-silver-nickle alloy from the DAL Universe have been handed over to a person who would have them analyzed but for reasons unstated (by Meier), nothing happened for months, and later this person has passed them on to others without ever reporting back the results of the analysis. When the interviewer Jaime Maussan asked Meier that he should send them to the Federal Institute for Material Testing and Research in Berlin for analysis, Meier citing the Swiss EMPA results, tacitly stated that it would be useless. And when asked whether he is interested to test them again, Meier unequivocally stated ‘No,’ while the FIGU core group member Brunhilde Koye sitting beside him stated that Meier is ‘not interested’ to subject those purported extraterrestrial specimens for any kind of analysis.⁷²

CONCLUSION

The purported extraterrestrial specimens – metal alloys from three different states/stages (stages 3, 4 and 5) of a total 7-stage process in the production of metal for beamships – provided by Meier in 1978 to the investigators have been analyzed in 5 different labs, both in Switzerland and US. Except Marcel Vogel, the rest – EMPA, graduate from the University of California, Dr. Walter W. Walker (Metallurgist from University of Arizona) and Dr. Robert Ogilvie (Metallurgist from MIT) – have concluded that the examined specimens can easily be produced on Earth and exhibit no extraterrestrial properties. Even though Vogel considered that specimens from two stages (stage 3 and 4) can easily be made from a jeweler, however made some extraordinary claims on one specimen from stage 5. But later he expressed his disappointment that his preliminary tentative findings of his analysis on stage 5 specimen were published by Wendelle and Lee prematurely, before him being able to review them himself for accuracy and also before subjecting them to peer-review. Furthermore, Vogel’s extraordinary claims have been logically and methodically dissected by Ivan Alvarado-Rodriguez (PhD in Electrical Engineering, UCLA) in 2011 and concluded that all the tentative “extraordinary” results supposedly obtained by Vogel can easily be reproduced by using equivalent equipment and techniques (to those used by Vogel in 1979) on common samples. Rest of the claims, Ivan notes, either don’t have supporting data or are just pure anecdotes. Even though Vogel as a brilliant chemist and inventor has impressive credentials (which many naive people often cite as the basis for their belief in his “extraordinary” claims), a simple glance at his self-proclaimed paranormal abilities, not to mention his ability to channel and communicate with the Plejaren ET woman Semjase and also the supposed discovery of 4 previously unknown new elements in the periodic table, would most certainly challenge the credulity of even the hard-core Meier case proponents and severely cast doubt on his claims made so far on the “unique” specimen.

And most importantly, information in the ORIGINAL and UNALTERED contact reports strongly indicate that the alleged Plejaren have never pointed out or attributed any extraterrestrial properties or features to the beamship metal specimens provided to Meier for examination. However in what may seem to be very deceptive, only after Vogel made those unsubstantiated “extraordinary” claims (which have been immediately, uncritically and credulously embraced and widely touted by Meier, FIGU and their proponents as strong evidence of Meier’s contacts with ETs), suddenly claims (with no evidence) have emerged that Meier and Plejaren have all along, even prior to the analysis, supposedly indicated to the investigators and scientists that those metal specimens are special and exhibit unearthly properties. And accordingly the concerned contact report seems to have been, deliberately or not, evidently altered to fit the apparent new narrative.

Meier, even today, claims that he still is in possession of several extraterrestrial metal samples that are used in the process of manufacturing beamships for Plejaren and also for Timars from the parallel DAL universe. He also claims to have the same “unique” metal samples⁷³ that Vogel apparently implied to have been made using the hypothetical cold fusion process.

Would Meier be willing to submit his purported extraterrestrial metal samples for new analysis that would settle all the controversies so far discussed once and for all? If Meier is worried that our scientists would gain dangerous insights from a complete examination of the extraterrestrial beamship metal specimens, they could always provide a naturally occurring substance that is either physically impossible to exist or fabricate on Earth so that its extraterrestriality can finally be unambiguously and conclusively proved.

In the 1998 documentary, in response to a question by Jaime Maussan on whether Meier would be interested to test the beamship metal specimens from DAL universe, Meier responded with ‘NO’!⁷⁴ Six years later in 2004, apparently Michael Horn has publicly stated that Meier still had some metal samples and that he would ask him for one of them so that the Independent Investigation Group (IIG) could send them to an independent testing firm for analysis. Even today, the IIG, and the rest of the scientific community, are still waiting for any metal samples to be provided for proper scientific testing.⁷⁵

Footnotes

 8,734 total views,  1 views today