INTRODUCTION

According to Contact Report 104, on March 18, 1978, Meier was taken on a time travel trip into the future to witness and photograph the aftereffects of the inevitable mega-earthquake event that will occur in San Francisco at an unspecified time in the future. During this trip, Meier allegedly recorded the destruction of San Francisco on his camera loaded with a negative film. He also photographed the fissures of the San Andreas fault located around 300 kms away from the city. After the trip Meier was allegedly brought back 30 minutes earlier than the time he got up from his bed for the contact.

It was reported by Wendelle Stevens that on one evening during their visit to Switzerland in 1978, Meier showed the 11 color photos from his time travel trip to about 9-10 people who were sitting around the kitchen table, including Wendelle Stevens himself and his co-investigators Lee and Brit Elders, Meier’s ex-wife Kalliope and others from the group around Meier. However, according to Contact Report 106 from April 10, 1978, these 11 color photos along with their original negatives were taken away from Meier by the Plejaren ETs and were never returned again.

Timeline of future San Francisco earthquake pictures

INVESTIGATION & ANALYSIS

These 11 color photos have never been published in any FIGU publications, nor were they published in Wendelle Steven’s or other investigator’s books/videos. Even if copies of these pictures would still exist, it would be very difficult to find the people who posses them and would also be willing to share these photos for our research. So for our investigation into these time travel pictures, we are limited to examining the information that has been published so far in the FIGU literature (contact reports etc.) and by several Meier-case investigators.

Criticism

Ex-FIGU member Kurt Stadlin

Apparently a few days after Meier’s future San Francisco earthquake photos (allegedly captured on March 18, 1978) had been received from the photo laboratory, Kurt Stadlin, the then member of the FIGU group (shortly before leaving it) found something suspicious. Meier’s color photographs were very similar to parts of a painting depicting the destruction of San Francisco caused by a mega-earthquake in the future, published several months prior in the September 1977 issue of GEO magazine:

This was also conveyed by Meier to the ET Quetzal in Contact Report 106 (April 10, 1978), 22 days after Meier traveled into the future (CR 104, March 18, 1978). Meier then explained to Quetzal about the assertion made by people around Meier and also by skeptics that all of the 11 photographs which he allegedly took during his time travel trip corresponded “very accurately” to parts of the painting. An explanation for these resemblances is given by Quetzal, but we will get into that later.

The respective GEO magazine article titled ‘Countdown für San Francisco’ (pg. 36-56) contains a total of 16 pictures/illustrations made by many different photographers/artists. There is one painting spread over two pages (pg. 36-37) showing the destruction of San Francisco:

The others are photographs of various different scenes captured by different photographers and a few others are illustrations depicting the movement of tectonic plates. See the list below of all photos and illustrations from the article and the photographers/artists who made them:

1. Pages 36/37 – Painting of the future destruction of San Francisco (photo by Max Scheler and painted by Ludek Pesek)
2. Pages 38/39 – San Andreas fault as seen in Carrizo plain about 200 kms North-East of Los Angeles (aerial photograph captured by George Hall)
3. Page 40 – Interstate 210/Interstate 5 overpass collapsed onto San Fernando Road in Sylmar, the northern San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (aerial photograph captured by J.R. Eyerman)
4. Page 41 – Interior-view of a supermarket in Los Angeles, after the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (photograph captured by Gene Daniels)
5. Pages 42/43 (top) – Offshore from Daly city, California (aerial photograph captured by George Hall)
6. Page 42 (bottom) – Herbert Collins from Daly city measuring his backyard (photograph captured by Lawrence Schiller)
7. Pages 44-45 – ‘Isle of California’ mural made in 1972, by L.A. Fine Arts Squad (photograph)
8. Page 46 (top) – Three engineers working with an instrument on the roof of an office building in San Francisco
9. Page 46 (bottom) – Transamerica Pyramid building (photograph captured by Charles Moore)
10. Pages 48/49 – San Andreas Lake, California (Aerial photograph, Georg Gerster)
11. Page 50 – California Memorial Stadium, Berkley, California (Aerial photograph, Georg Gerster)
12. Page 51 – Fissures in the structure of the California Memorial Stadium (photograph, Georg Gerster)
13. Page 52 – A graphic illustration of San Andreas fault shifting mountains and streams (Georg Gerster)
14. Pages 52/53 – Wallace Creek and San Andreas fault, Carrizo Plain (Aerial photograph, Georg Gerster)
15. Page 54 – Two graphic illustrations; one represents a global of map of tectonic plates and the other represents just the American and the Pacific plates (Georg Gerster)
16. Page 56 – A memorial (plastic tail) of a cow named Matilda (photograph, Georg Gerster)

Gary Kinder

Author Gary Kinder researched the Meier case between 1983 and 1987 and wrote about his findings in his book ‘Light Years: An Investigation into the Extraterrestrial experiences of Eduard Meier‘. On pages 217-218 he wrote about the now ex-FIGU member Herbert Runkel, who became “disenchanted” because of Meier’s San Francisco earthquake photos when a friend (Kurt Stadlin) of his found the illustrations in the GEO Magazine and “Meier’s pictures obviously had been taken of this lifelike painting.” According to Gary Kinder these photographs confused Herbert since he had experienced and seen so many remarkable things with the Meier case he could not explain.

According to Meier, all of his photos and negatives were taken away by Quetzal after coming to know about the GEO magazine painting, in order to protect him from “further attacks” by skeptics (see ‘Billy Meier’ below). The same explanation was also given by FIGU Core Group member Guido Moosbrugger in his book Und sie fliegen doch! (1991).

However in an open letter to the UFO community published in MUFON UFO Journal No. 228, April 1987 Gary Kinder wrote the following:

“On the other side, I know that Meier’s photos of the alleged future destruction of San Francisco, for instance, came right out of the September 1977 issue of GEO Magazine. After one of the witnesses reported this to me, I found the magazine myself and compared the photographs. They were identical.”

Since Kinder researched the case between 1983 and 1987 this would suggest that there were still copies of Meier’s original photographs available at that time in order to compare and determine their authenticity. On March 11, 2015, we have written to Gary Kinder asking him how and from whom was he able to obtain Meier’s photographs. So far we haven’t got any response from him.

After commenting on these photos, Gary Kinder in 1987 further stated that Meier might have felt compelled to fake some evidence in order to meet the visitor’s and the inquisitive peoples demand for more information. According to Kinder, this naturally casts doubt on Meier’s other claims but doesn’t prove them to be false.

Billy Meier, FIGU and their Supporters respond

Billy Meier

In CR 106, Meier reports to Quetzal about the assertion that apparently all of the 11 photographs which he allegedly took during his time travel trip correspond “very accurately” (German: sehr genau) to parts of a painting rendered by an artist for an article in the European GEO magazine.

According to Quetzal the similarity between Meier’s photos and the artist’s painting can be explained. An ET group known as the Baavi Intelligences, who closely work together with the Plejaren, are tasked with the mission to telepathically transmit images to sensitive Earth human beings like artists, scientists, science-fiction authors, etc. (who are completely unaware of these transmissions) to prepare the Earth people for future events, inventions, developments etc. Regarding the impending San Francisco mega-earthquake, they were supposed to “transmit” the image (which “coincidentally” would be very similar to Meier’s photographs) of the devastation only in the autumn of 1978, but they mistakenly transmitted the image at least a year too early, so the painting made according to these transmissions got published in the September 1977 issue of GEO magazine, months before Meier made his photographs on March 18, 1978.

After Quetzal came to know about the painting in GEO magazine he took away all of Meier’s photographs and negatives to protect Meier from “further attacks” by skeptics and critics (both within and outside his group) who were already calling Meier a liar and a hoaxer. But apparently some of Meier’s pictures were still available at least between 1983-1987 for the investigator Gary Kinder to compare them with the image(s?) from the GEO magazine.

Let’s evaluate what supposedly happened here: Meier requests an unexpected time travel into the future to the impending San Francisco mega-earthquake (CR 106). When arrived, he specifically asks to see the Transamerica building and takes a few pictures. Only later, it turns out, that Meier’s pictures (closely) match the image(s?) published in the GEO Magazine several months prior to Meier’s trip into the future. The reason given was that the artist was inspired with telepathic-image transmissions from the Baavi Intelligences (allies of the Plejaren) who mistakenly transmitted this image at least a year too early (CR 106).

The contact reports clearly suggests that both Meier and Quetzal were not aware of this before and during the trip into the future. The initiative for the time travel came from Meier, who could have requested a trip to any other location and time, or could not have requested a trip at all. He could have made pictures from any location (altitude, direction and angle) under any lighting conditions (time of the day). Yet his pictures closely match the illustrations transmitted to an artist by the Baavi Intelligences, who “coincidentally” also made the mistake of transmitting them before Meier made his trip, instead of after.

And how could Meier’s pictures possibly match image(s?) transmitted by the Baavi Intelligences? Did they travel to the future to see what Meier’s pictures would look like and then transmitted these images to the artist?

Considering the many factors involved that could have been different this situation can hardly be explained by coincidence, yet, there seems to be no apparent reason or deliberation by anyone involved to ‘match up’ all these factors so perfectly in order to create this peculiar situation.

Bernadette Brand

In CR 106 Meier says the following:

Billy:
(…) Kurt had gone to a restaurant in Zurich, where someone was just reading through this magazine, and then he saw the picture, because it was shown in this. Now of course he went and explained to someone behind my back, that I likely would have photographed parts of this picture.

FIGU Core Group member Bernadette Brand wrote her testimony on these pictures which was first published in Stimme der Wassermannzeit Nr. 63 (June 1987) and Nr. 64 (September, 1987) under the title ‘Hinterschmidrüti’. It was again published in 2001 in Zeugenbuch (witnesses book). From Brand’s testimony it becomes apparent the “someone” Kurt talked to behind Meier’s back was her.

The most important points Brand makes in her testimony are:

1. Meier took photographs of the San Andreas fault, the destroyed city, roads, highways and bridges
2. The camera angle of Meier’s pictures is “completely different” compared to the viewing angle of the painting
3. The center-mark of the magazine would be visible, if a double-sided printed painting would have been photographed
4. Meier was attacked and his credibility was questioned because the controversial pictures were taken away by Quetzal

In CR 104 Meier also mentions that he took photographs of the San Andreas fault, specifically at a location 300 kms away from San Francisco. Curiously, there are two photographs of the San Andreas fault on pages 38/39 and 52/53 that are “coincidentally” from the same nearby region. Brand also mentions that Meier also had shot a picture or pictures showing collapsed bridges and damaged roads. “Coincidentally” there is also a picture showing collapsed bridges and damaged roads in the same magazine article on page 40. Gary Kinder’s conclusion that all of Meier’s photographs “came right out of the September 1977 issue of GEO Magazine” might suggest that these Meier’s photographs of the San Andreas fault and the damaged bridges and roads resemble the real aerial photographs made by different photographers.

Yet, according to Brand, “it was apparent at first glance, the image details were the same in both cases, but the camera angle of the photographed pictures and the viewing angle of the painted pictures were completely different.” and “the center-mark of the magazine would be visible, if a double-sided printed painting would have been photographed.”

In a response to a question in the FIGU forum Q/A section on September 30, 2014, Meier also stated that Bernadette Brand came to the conclusion that Meier did not take the photographs from the magazine picture, after she compared Billy’s photos with the picture in GEO magazine. Additionally Meier case investigator Wendelle Stevens (see below) implied on multiple occasions there were differences between Meier pictures and the GEO magazine illustrations, whereas Gary Kinder and apparently also Herbert Runkel concluded that they were identical and came from the magazine.

Apparently to prevent further attacks on Meier, they were allegedly taken away from Meier and destroyed by the Plejaren. So we cannot verify whether Meier’s pictures were exactly identical to the illustrations or not. But if there really were significant differences that would exclude the hoax hypothesis, wouldn’t it have been logical for Meier/FIGU (and the Plejaren) to publish his 11 color photos so that people could have verified for themselves and confirm whether Meier’s claims are credible or not? Is it so hard to imagine the removal and destruction of the pictures could be interpreted as confession of guilt and would lead to further criticism?

When similar questions on the destruction of the photos were asked by a member of our BMUFOR team, Meier and FIGU Core Group member Christian Frehner (CF) responded as follows:

Just as it is the case with the human beings of Earth, Plejaren can also get angry and do things which are not „entirely“ logical.
(Note by CF: Since Plejaren human beings are human beings, they are not perfect and, therefore, may act illogically sometimes.)

Guido Moosbrugger

In 1991 the late Guido Moosbrugger, co-founder and Core Group member of FIGU, published a response on these San Francisco pictures in his book ‘Und sie fliegen doch!’. Following are a few excerpts:

“Unfortunately, the same pictures of this catastrophe had already been published in the September issue of Geo Magazine in 1977. (…) Quetzal reacted quite angrily by confiscating all photos connected with this matter, so that it was and still is no longer possible to make any comparisons with the pictures of the Geo Magazine (…) how did the artist come up with the disaster pictures of the Geo magazine? (…) As expected, the Baavi Intelligences transmitted via inner inspiration the disaster pictures of San Francisco in full detail to the highly sensitive artist of Geo Magazine. (…) As far as the details of the pictures are concerned, several members of the core group discovered a few minimal differences between Billy’s original photographs and the inspired illustrations by the Baavi Intelligences to the artist for Geo Magazine. Further details about this are superfluous. Billy’s originals are no longer available for comparison.”

These excerpts suggest that all of the disaster images that resemble Meier’s photographs have been transmitted to a single highly sensitive artist who then rendered these as illustrations or paintings for the September 1977 issue of the GEO magazines. This cannot be right since the 16 photos/illustrations in the GEO magazine article were made by different artists (see list under ‘Ex-FIGU member Kurt Stadlin‘). Even the painting spread over pages 36-37, showing the destruction of San Francisco, was a collaborative effort as it is a photograph by Max Scheler that has been re-designed and painted over by Ludek Pesek.

Whereas Bernadette Brand implied there were significant differences, Guido claims that several members of the core group established that there were only a “few minimal differences” between Meier’s 11 color photographs and the illustrations from the GEO magazine. The other points Guido discussed are similar to those of Bernadette Brand, which already have been addressed above.

Wendelle Stevens

In 1978, Wendelle Stevens and his co-investigators Lee and Brit Elders where at the Meier farm in Switzerland. On one evening Meier’s time travel into the future to the San Francisco earthquake were discussed and eventually they were shown the 11 color photos Meier allegedly made of this future event. Only in 1995 did Wendelle Stevens publish about these experiences regarding Meier’s controversial San Francisco earthquake photos in his book Messages from the Pleiades, 1st ed. Vol. 4, pg. 372-375, in which he addresses the following issues (among others already discussed):

1. Futuristic cars in Meier’s pictures
2. The reason for the photographs being taken away by the Plejaren
3. Only 1 of Meier’s 11 color photographs is “remarkably similar” or has a “close similarity” to the painting from GEO magazine
4. Meier’s photos looked very real

Futuristic cars on Meier’s pictures

On that evening the team was shown the San Francisco earthquake pictures. Wendelle claims to have carefully studied each picture trying to recognize familiar landmarks, buildings, any prominent new structures and cars in order to estimate the time in the future when this mega-earthquake would hit the city of San Francisco. Wendelle didn’t say anything about new city architecture but wrote the following regarding the cars:

“I looked carefully at cars shown in the streets below for style and any configurations not familiar at the time. I did see smaller cars with smoothly rounded corners and no external projections, and some of these had half-glass and others full-glass cabin tops, making them look more like bugs than boxy cars.”

Following is a transcript (from the 2:48 mark) of a video of Wendelle talking during the 2006 International UFO Congress about the cars in Meier’s photos :

“We were looking for cars in the streets to try to gauge some time for this to happen. And… the cars that we couldn’t recognize on the street, and there weren’t too many on the street by the way (…) But we were looking for a time somehow and so… there were a number of cars shown in the pictures. And the car that we had never seen was the car that looked more like a Volkswagen than anything else. It was a smooth contoured car, it has tiny fins beginning to be drawn up on the rear fenders. And it had glass, the windshield got glass came clear back to the back of the front door. So that the door, the front door of the car opened in a glass frame. And we haven’t seen anything like that yet. But we do see the skylights getting bigger and bigger and going further back. So its not going to happen tomorrow. But it may happen in the next 10 or 15 years.”

Wendelle Stevens described a specific car model – “that looked more like a Volkswagen” – which had some specific features not seen in the cars of that time. However these features aren’t visible on any cars in the GEO magazine painting, although there is a car that is similar to a Volkswagen Beetle from the 1970s. The other ‘boxy’ cars resemble contemporary models from the 1970s (see the painting with all the cars marked red here) Below is a close-up of the Volkswagen Beetle type car and the “boxy” cars (ex: Cadillac series).

Wendelle never had the chance to make a side by side comparison between the painting and Meier’s pictures, because allegedly these were already taken away by Plejaren, so he made a comparison from memory. In his open letter to the UFO community Gary Kinder writes he did make a side to side comparison and concluded Meier’s pictures were identical to the painting. Would that indeed be the case it might be possible Wendelle didn’t remember the details of Meier’s pictures correctly and misinterpreted a ‘normal’ Volkswagen Beetle as a futuristic car, perhaps due to poor quality of Meier’s pictures which is the case with all of Meier’s other space- and time travel pictures. Since we don’t have Meier’s pictures available with us, we are unable to verify who is right.

Another interesting note here is that other than Wendelle – who was among nearly a dozen other people who saw these pictures – nobody has reported seeing futuristic cars or for that matter any futuristic elements in the Meier’s 11 color pictures at all. We have written to Lee Elders on March 28, 2015 on whether he agree with Wendelle Stevens version of the incident. We yet have to receive a response from him.

The reason for the photographs being taken away by the Plejaren

According to Stevens the reason why the negatives and color prints of Meier’s San Francisco earthquake photographs were taken away by Quetzal is that Meier showed them to Wendelle and his team without their approval. However this is a completely different reason from the one that was given by Meier. As already mentioned, according to CR 106 Quetzal took the pictures away in order to save Meier from “further attacks” from skeptics and critics because of the similarities between Meier’s pictures and the GEO magazine illustrations. In CR 104 Meier even asks Quetzal if he is allowed to publish his San Francisco earthquake pictures, to which Quetzal has no objections, as this would save many human lives (verses 89-90).

Both contact reports were published in Wendelle’s own publication, Message from the Pleiades Vol. 4, so it is strange that in the same book Wendelle gives an entirely different and contradictory explanation than the one given in the Contact Report 106.

Only 1 of Meier’s 11 color photographs is “remarkably similar” or has a “close similarity” to a painting from GEO magazine

Wendelle Stevens writes in 1995:

“I later obtained copies of the GEO magazine and then remembered that the article there only one painting of the destruction bled over two pages whereas I had seen eleven pictures in Meier’s house. Now, where did he get the other ten if, as his accusers say, “He copied the pictures from the GEO magazine article”.

Wendelle suggests that since there is only one painting in the magazine showing the destruction of the city, only one of Meier’s pictures could have matched the painting.

However, in CR 106 Meier informs Quetzal about the surprising discovery made by Kurt Stadlin (a member of FIGU at that time) that apparently all of his photographs correspond “very accurately” to parts of the painting in GEO magazine, the same painting which Wendelle referred to. This has also been acknowledged and published by Guido. Also from IUFOC 2006 video, Wendelle seems to have flip-flopped on his earlier claim which was published in the Message from the Pleiades Vol. 4, 1995. The following statement was made by Wendelle in IUFOC event held in 2006:

“And… those other 11 pictures were… they were quite graphic, they showed some scenes that overlapped so we could see that as we looked at the pictures they were all related…”

This might suggest that all of Meier’s pictures were similar to parts of the GEO magazine painting, which is consistent with the information in the Meier’s CRs.

Meier’s photos looked very real

Wendelle claims that these 11 color pictures looked like real photographs and not like photographs of paintings. This doesn’t necessarily exclude the possibility they came from the GEO magazine article (also taking in consideration Gary Kinder’s conclusion they were identical) since the article contained a number of real pictures and the painting is actually quite realistic. There are some real aerial photographs of the San Andreas fault taken at the same nearby region which “coincidentally” Meier also happened to have visited and photographed according to CR 104 . Another real aerial photograph of Interstate 210/Interstate 5 overpass collapsed onto San Fernando Road in Sylmar, the northern San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, was also published on page 40 in the article. Did Wendelle perhaps saw these real aerial shots in Meier’s pictures that gave him the impression of real photographs?

Wendelle Steven’s other inaccurate statements

In the 2006 IUFOC video Wendelle makes some other statements that are inconsistent with the FIGU information. A minor and inconsequential error is that at the 0:20 mark he talks about Semjase taking Meier on a time travel trip, but according CR 104 it was Quetzal. At the 4:24 mark, Wendelle states how the San Francisco earthquake could be or could have been averted:

“It was very impressive to see, it looked like a lot of destruction but they told Billy at the same time that this could be avoided by mass mind concentration. People that gave up harmful ideas and wars and things like that that add energy, negative energy to the situation could… enough of that could have sold this all off. It didn’t have to happen.”

It’s not entirely clear whether Wendelle means the disaster could still be avoided or could have been avoided. Either way, he seems to suggest that according to the Plejaren the cause of the earthquake is our negative thoughts and energy, instead of a release of energy in the Earth’s crust due to plate tectonics. This is nowhere suggested in the FIGU books, contact reports etc. When Meier asks in CR 104 if he is allowed to publish his pictures Quetzal replies with: “Surely there would be nothing to object against this, for thereby very many people would then leave San Francisco and settle elsewhere before the catastrophe arises. This would save very many human lives.” This suggests there is no way to avoid the Earthquake itself and it is just a natural occurrence, people could only save their lives by leaving San Francisco.

Moreover, as the earthquake has been observed in the future with the aid of physical time travel, it comes under prediction and will happen with 100% certainty. According to the Plejaren/Meier, there is no such thing as changing the past/future, alternative timelines etc. as depicted in science fiction movies. Also see the following Q/A from the FIGU forum where Meier answered questions on this topic:

Posted October 2009:

Billy, if you were to time travel to the future again, to the San Francisco earthquake for the second time with Quetzal then would you see buildings collapsing in the exact same manner, the same number of casualties and so forth? In other words, would you see the exact same scenario as you did the first time or would it be different?

Answer:
Since it was a real travel into the future, everything would happen exactly the same way. Logically!

Posted November 2009:

Billy, regarding your trip into the future to the San Francisco earthquake; is this future event as you saw it, a done deal, a 100% certainty or can this event be avoided or the extent of damage, lessened by the course of our actions?

Answer:
Of course this future event cannot be avoided or lessened in any way. It will happen exactly as Billy saw it during his trip into the future. In other words: It is 100% certain that San Francisco will experience a severe catastrophe!

Even in the light of so many inconsistencies and contradictions, Wendelle’s claims regarding the futuristic cars in Meier’s pictures are being used by Michael Horn in several of his articles pointing to the signs of the upcoming mega-earthquake whenever a new concept car that matched Wendelle’s description gets introduced:

Future San Francisco Earthquake? – 2006
The Future San Francisco Earthquake – March 2011
The Coming Big California Earthquake – April 2011
The News…or as the News Catches up the Meier Material – September 2011
More about the COMING San Francisco Earthquake – January 2014
Elon Musk and the Coming San Francisco Earthquake – August 2014

CONCLUSION

We have analyzed the claims surrounding 11 pictures of a future San Francisco earthquake Meier allegedly made during a time travel into the future, which reportedly turned out to be at least very similar or even identical to illustration(s) in a GEO magazine issue from September 1977, published six months before Meier’s trip into the future allegedly took place. There are both claims that Meier’s pictures were identical to the GEO magazine illustration and that there were a “few minimal differences” or even significant differences. Since the pictures were allegedly taken away by the Plejaren, we cannot draw draw any conclusions about their authenticity, and whether or not there were any significant differences between Meier’s pictures and the illustration(s) of the GEO magazine article that would rule out the hoax hypothesis.

Yet we are given an extraordinary explanation regarding the similarity between Meier’s pictures and the GEO magazine illustration(s). According to the contact reports this is caused by telepathic transmissions of images send to the artist by the Baavi Intelligences, extraterrestrial allies of the Plejaren, who mistakenly allowed the image(s) to be published in the article before Meier made his pictures during a time travel into the future, instead of later. Given the notion that Meier (who presumably knew nothing of these transmissions) requested to, out of all possible times and places, requested to be taken to the scene of the future San Francisco earthquake and made pictures that at least to a certain extend matched the perspective (altitude, direction and angle), lighting conditions etc. of illustrations based on images transmitted a couple of months earlier, this seems to be an extremely far fetched and unlikely explanation.

 13,651 total views,  2 views today