Harsh attacks and weak evidence - Revision history

Earth Human Being: Text replacement - "time travel" to "time-travel"

2023-08-25T06:18:15Z

Text replacement - "time travel" to "time-travel"

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:18, 25 August 2023
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Absolutely no evidence whatsoever supports this claim.		Absolutely no evidence whatsoever supports this claim.

	<blockquote>''One photo from the "time travel to San Francisco's destruction" purportedly was photographed from the newspaper Blick and supposedly depicts a fictitious scenario.''</blockquote>		<blockquote>''One photo from the "time-travel to San Francisco's destruction" purportedly was photographed from the newspaper Blick and supposedly depicts a fictitious scenario.''</blockquote>

	In contrast to these claims are the 36 photographs Meier brought back with him from his alleged time travel, of which only one picture remotely resembles the Blick drawing. And even this is somewhat understandable, considering the photograph depicts the same city. Ignore not the fact, however, that the Meier series of photographs was deliberately "contaminated" by external sources. More about this later.		In contrast to these claims are the 36 photographs Meier brought back with him from his alleged time-travel, of which only one picture remotely resembles the Blick drawing. And even this is somewhat understandable, considering the photograph depicts the same city. Ignore not the fact, however, that the Meier series of photographs was deliberately "contaminated" by external sources. More about this later.

Jamesm at 23:43, 21 April 2011

2011-04-21T23:43:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:43, 21 April 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Category:Articles by others]]		[[Category:Articles by others]]
			[[Category:Evidence]]
	Not even in the midst of the divorce proceedings did Mrs. Meier hesitate to arm herself for a tremendous campaign of vengeance against her husband. She found her battle companion in a young Swiss UFO journalist who was inexpert about the Meier case. Under a headline worthy of tabloid journalism—Kalliope Meier Breaks Her Silence—Mrs. Meier hypocritically claimed: "I have absolutely nothing against the person Billy Meier. I am not stating that he is a bad human being . . . I don't want to destroy him." But a few lines later she declares in a fierce attack against him, "His contact experiences are lies and deceit from start to finish."		Not even in the midst of the divorce proceedings did Mrs. Meier hesitate to arm herself for a tremendous campaign of vengeance against her husband. She found her battle companion in a young Swiss UFO journalist who was inexpert about the Meier case. Under a headline worthy of tabloid journalism—Kalliope Meier Breaks Her Silence—Mrs. Meier hypocritically claimed: "I have absolutely nothing against the person Billy Meier. I am not stating that he is a bad human being . . . I don't want to destroy him." But a few lines later she declares in a fierce attack against him, "His contact experiences are lies and deceit from start to finish."

Jamesm: /* Source */

2011-04-21T23:42:44Z

Source

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:42, 21 April 2011
Line 50:		Line 50:
	==Source==		==Source==

			* [[The Meier Case: UFO Contactee Revealed?, Hesemann, Michael, Magazin 2000plus, Vol. 10, pp. 64-71, October 1998]]
	* http://replay.web.archive.org/20020330122555/http://michaelhesemann.com/		* http://replay.web.archive.org/20020330122555/http://michaelhesemann.com/

Jamesm at 23:12, 21 April 2011

2011-04-21T23:12:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:12, 21 April 2011
Line 45:		Line 45:
	''June 2000''		''June 2000''

			==Michael presenting the Meier Case at the International UFO Congress 1999==
	<mediaplayer>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qRnuXbfA0&playnext=1&list=PL83CF0305FF0957E2</mediaplayer>		<mediaplayer>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qRnuXbfA0&playnext=1&list=PL83CF0305FF0957E2</mediaplayer>

Jamesm at 23:10, 21 April 2011

2011-04-21T23:10:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:10, 21 April 2011
Line 44:		Line 44:

	''June 2000''		''June 2000''

			<mediaplayer>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qRnuXbfA0&playnext=1&list=PL83CF0305FF0957E2</mediaplayer>

	==Source==		==Source==

	* http://replay.web.archive.org/20020330122555/http://michaelhesemann.com/		* http://replay.web.archive.org/20020330122555/http://michaelhesemann.com/

Jamesm at 22:59, 21 April 2011

2011-04-21T22:59:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:59, 21 April 2011
Line 41:		Line 41:
	MAGAZIN 2000plus provides the following exclusive interview with "Billy" Eduard Albert Meier, who comments here also for the first time about the recent attacks directed at him. Furthermore, since Meier, due to a sense of decorum, did not wish to discuss his wife's personal attacks against him, we also offer an interview with their son, Methusalem Meier, and 16 of Billy's eyewitness reports.		MAGAZIN 2000plus provides the following exclusive interview with "Billy" Eduard Albert Meier, who comments here also for the first time about the recent attacks directed at him. Furthermore, since Meier, due to a sense of decorum, did not wish to discuss his wife's personal attacks against him, we also offer an interview with their son, Methusalem Meier, and 16 of Billy's eyewitness reports.

			''Michael Hesemann''

			''June 2000''
	==Source==		==Source==

	* http://replay.web.archive.org/20020330122555/http://michaelhesemann.com/		* http://replay.web.archive.org/20020330122555/http://michaelhesemann.com/

Jamesm at 22:56, 21 April 2011

2011-04-21T22:56:54Z

Jamesm at 22:55, 21 April 2011

2011-04-21T22:55:23Z

Show changes

Jamesm: Created page with "Category:Articles by others Not even in the midst of the divorce proceedings did Mrs. Meier hesitate to arm herself for a tremendous campaign of vengeance against her hu..."

2011-04-21T22:51:48Z

Created page with "Category:Articles by others Not even in the midst of the divorce proceedings did Mrs. Meier hesitate to arm herself for a tremendous campaign of vengeance against her hu..."

New page

[[Category:Articles by others]]

Not even in the midst of the divorce proceedings did Mrs. Meier hesitate to arm herself for a tremendous campaign of vengeance against her husband. She found her battle companion in a young Swiss UFO journalist who was inexpert about the Meier case. Under a headline worthy of tabloid journalism—Kalliope Meier Breaks Her Silence—Mrs. Meier hypocritically claimed: "I have absolutely nothing against the person Billy Meier. I am not stating that he is a bad human being . . . I don't want to destroy him." But a few lines later she declares in a fierce attack against him, "His contact experiences are lies and deceit from start to finish."

Her proof is proportionately weaker

<blockquote>She alleges having "rescued photo negatives from the fire on which, beyond any doubt, (UFO) models are depicted."</blockquote>

No one denies this fact. However, the photographs were taken under the direction of UFO researcher Lt. Col. W.C. Stevens, to serve as comparisons that would determine whether or not Meier's photos could be successfully duplicated with the aid of a model UFO.

She is puzzled that "Billy's contact experiences usually took place at night, at least those when eyewitnesses were present, and during the contact he was never with the rest of us."

Well, would it not be rather impossible for Meier to be with his wife while he was having a contact at the same time?

<blockquote>The lid of a barrel from the Community's paraphernalia allegedly has "a startlingly close resemblance to several of the saucers Billy has photographed."</blockquote>

This (actually quite remote) resemblance is said to exist between the lid and the "wedding cake ship," which was photographed in 1981. A coincidence? Meier and his witnesses swear that the lid of the barrel was not available to the marketplace until several years later. And it is conceivable that its designer was, consciously or unconsciously, himself inspired by the Meier photographs published in the Swiss press. However: We have previously discussed the possibility that the Meier case was "contaminated" (Geheimsache UFO, Neuwied 1995). But in no way does this alter the authenticity of the contact experiences from 1975 and 1976.

<blockquote>"Several of the motherships Billy photographed are obviously pictures of the lantern on our house taken with the lens wide open."</blockquote>

With "motherships" Mrs. Meier obviously refers to the "energy ships" photographed in 1979 whose diameter was approximately 3-4 meters/yards. Mrs. Meier was not the originator of the "house-lantern-hypothesis," but Rolf-Dieter Klein was, a dubious computer freak from Munich, Germany, whose alleged retrocalculation applies only to a single photo, just one of the entire series of pictures—thus making this accusation completely worthless.

<blockquote>The "extraterrestrial female" photographed by Meier in 1977 is allegedly an acquaintance of Meier, wrapped in tanning foil.</blockquote>

Absolutely no evidence whatsoever supports this claim.

<blockquote>One photo from the "time travel to San Francisco's destruction" purportedly was photographed from the newspaper Blick and supposedly depicts a fictitious scenario.</blockquote>

In contrast to these claims are the 36 photographs Meier brought back with him from his alleged time travel, of which only one picture remotely resembles the Blick drawing. And even this is somewhat understandable, considering the photograph depicts the same city. Ignore not the fact, however, that the Meier series of photographs was deliberately "contaminated" by external sources. More about this later.

This is it. Pretty meager for the mind of a neutral observer. Not a single piece of evidence from the years 1975/76 was questioned, nor was even one conclusion discredited from the investigation held in 1978-80, under the direction of Lt. Col. W.C. Stevens. Keep in mind that only one of Mrs. Meier's listed points represents genuine "insider knowledge." It seems that she read the remainder of her contentions in the written material of the Meier foes.

"Much ado about nothing," one is tempted to conclude, or in Latin: Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus [The mountain labors and a ridiculous mouse is born]. Does this mean that the Meier case has been disproven, unmasked, revealed? Certainly not. Instead, Mrs. Meier's "revelations" raise questions about the integrity of those lurid authors who puff up her banal "disclosures" and hypocritical protestations into a grand "revelation," in an obvious attempt to apologize for never having found it necessary to examine the case on location and with a completely unbiased perspective. It is true that evidence in the Meier case was contaminated. Photographs were indeed falsified and pictures were manipulated—but not by Meier. Additionally: 40 eyewitnesses can attest to Meier's encounters. Nobody has ever been able to question their experiences...

We, however, are forced to reopen the case once again. If Meier were a fraud he would not have one genuine photograph, not one genuine experience, and his witnesses would be victims of manipulations and sleight-of-hand-trickery. Even if he had only had one genuine contact it would make him the instrument of extraterrestrial intelligences, regardless of their modus operandi. How easy it always is to generalize—and how superficial. MAGAZIN 2000plus is resolved to having a "hearing of the evidence." In issue No. 100 we previously reported about the analyses of the photos, metal samples, landing tracks, and the whirring sound recordings. You may also read about the case in Hesemann's reference book Geheimsache UFO, where we deal with the testimony of the eyewitnesses, the "defendant's" confrontation with the accusations of his foes, and an examination of the "prosecution's" arguments. Furthermore, we must now investigate the possible motives behind the anti-Meier-campaign. The verdict in the Meier case is still out...

MAGAZIN 2000plus, which has repeatedly reported on the Meier case, decided to again get to the bottom of the "Meier Case" because the UFO press was massively belaboring the renewed controversy in the past few months. Together with Jaime Maussan from Televisa, a Mexican Broadcasting station, the 2000plus editor-in-chief Michael Hesemann has repeatedly visited the controversial contactee in February and again in March 1998 and has spent several days taping an interview with 16 of Meier's over 40 eyewitnesses in front of a running camera. This alone signified a small sensation since Meier, who lives an extremely withdrawn lifestyle, has not given a TV interview for the past 15 years. At this time Meier also agreed to permit Hesemann access to evidence never before shown in public. Among the items was Meier's sensational 1980 video film of a "beamship," which he published in the series UFOs: The Movie Footage, and which, according to the opinion of an entire string of international experts, definitively shows a large object.

MAGAZIN 2000plus provides the following exclusive interview with "Billy" Eduard Albert Meier, who comments here also for the first time about the recent attacks directed at him. Furthermore, since Meier, due to a sense of decorum, did not wish to discuss his wife's personal attacks against him, we also offer an interview with their son, Methusalem Meier, and 16 of Billy's eyewitness reports.

==Source==

* http://replay.web.archive.org/20020330122555/http://michaelhesemann.com/

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:56, 21 April 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Category:Articles by others]]		[[Category:Articles by others]]

	Not even in the midst of the divorce proceedings did Mrs. Meier hesitate to arm herself for a tremendous campaign of vengeance against her husband. She found her battle companion in a young Swiss UFO journalist who was inexpert about the Meier case. Under a headline worthy of tabloid journalism—Kalliope Meier Breaks Her Silence—Mrs. Meier hypocritically claimed: "I have absolutely nothing against the person Billy Meier. I am not stating that he is a bad human being . . . I don't want to destroy him." But a few lines later she declares in a fierce attack against him, "His contact experiences are lies and deceit from start to finish."		Not even in the midst of the divorce proceedings did Mrs. Meier hesitate to arm herself for a tremendous campaign of vengeance against her husband. She found her battle companion in a young Swiss UFO journalist who was inexpert about the Meier case. Under a headline worthy of tabloid journalism—Kalliope Meier Breaks Her Silence—Mrs. Meier hypocritically claimed: "I have absolutely nothing against the person Billy Meier. I am not stating that he is a bad human being . . . I don't want to destroy him." But a few lines later she declares in a fierce attack against him, "His contact experiences are lies and deceit from start to finish."

	Her proof is proportionately weaker:		Her proof is proportionately weaker:
Line 9:		Line 9:
	No one denies this fact. However, the photographs were taken under the direction of UFO researcher Lt. Col. W.C. Stevens, to serve as comparisons that would determine whether or not Meier's photos could be successfully duplicated with the aid of a model UFO.		No one denies this fact. However, the photographs were taken under the direction of UFO researcher Lt. Col. W.C. Stevens, to serve as comparisons that would determine whether or not Meier's photos could be successfully duplicated with the aid of a model UFO.

	She is puzzled that "Billy's contact experiences usually took place at night, at least those when eyewitnesses were present, and during the contact he was never with the rest of us."		<blockquote>''She is puzzled that "Billy's contact experiences usually took place at night, at least those when eyewitnesses were present, and during the contact he was never with the rest of us."''</blockquote>

	Well, would it not be rather impossible for Meier to be with his wife while he was having a contact at the same time?		Well, would it not be rather impossible for Meier to be with his wife while he was having a contact at the same time?

	<blockquote>The lid of a barrel from the Community's paraphernalia allegedly has "a startlingly close resemblance to several of the saucers Billy has photographed."</blockquote>		<blockquote>''The lid of a barrel from the Community's paraphernalia allegedly has "a startlingly close resemblance to several of the saucers Billy has photographed."''</blockquote>

	This (actually quite remote) resemblance is said to exist between the lid and the "wedding cake ship," which was photographed in 1981. A coincidence? Meier and his witnesses swear that the lid of the barrel was not available to the marketplace until several years later. And it is conceivable that its designer was, consciously or unconsciously, himself inspired by the Meier photographs published in the Swiss press. However: We have previously discussed the possibility that the Meier case was "contaminated" (Geheimsache UFO, Neuwied 1995). But in no way does this alter the authenticity of the contact experiences from 1975 and 1976.		This (actually quite remote) resemblance is said to exist between the lid and the "wedding cake ship," which was photographed in 1981. A coincidence? Meier and his witnesses swear that the lid of the barrel was not available to the marketplace until several years later. And it is conceivable that its designer was, consciously or unconsciously, himself inspired by the Meier photographs published in the Swiss press. However: We have previously discussed the possibility that the Meier case was "contaminated" (Geheimsache UFO, Neuwied 1995). But in no way does this alter the authenticity of the contact experiences from 1975 and 1976.

	<blockquote>"Several of the motherships Billy photographed are obviously pictures of the lantern on our house taken with the lens wide open."</blockquote>		<blockquote>''"Several of the motherships Billy photographed are obviously pictures of the lantern on our house taken with the lens wide open."''</blockquote>

	With "motherships" Mrs. Meier obviously refers to the "energy ships" photographed in 1979 whose diameter was approximately 3-4 meters/yards. Mrs. Meier was not the originator of the "house-lantern-hypothesis," but Rolf-Dieter Klein was, a dubious computer freak from Munich, Germany, whose alleged retrocalculation applies only to a single photo, just one of the entire series of pictures—thus making this accusation completely worthless.		With "motherships" Mrs. Meier obviously refers to the "energy ships" photographed in 1979 whose diameter was approximately 3-4 meters/yards. Mrs. Meier was not the originator of the "house-lantern-hypothesis," but Rolf-Dieter Klein was, a dubious computer freak from Munich, Germany, whose alleged retrocalculation applies only to a single photo, just one of the entire series of pictures—thus making this accusation completely worthless.

	<blockquote>The "extraterrestrial female" photographed by Meier in 1977 is allegedly an acquaintance of Meier, wrapped in tanning foil.</blockquote>		<blockquote>''The "extraterrestrial female" photographed by Meier in 1977 is allegedly an acquaintance of Meier, wrapped in tanning foil.''</blockquote>

	Absolutely no evidence whatsoever supports this claim.		Absolutely no evidence whatsoever supports this claim.

	<blockquote>One photo from the "time travel to San Francisco's destruction" purportedly was photographed from the newspaper Blick and supposedly depicts a fictitious scenario.</blockquote>		<blockquote>''One photo from the "time travel to San Francisco's destruction" purportedly was photographed from the newspaper Blick and supposedly depicts a fictitious scenario.''</blockquote>

	In contrast to these claims are the 36 photographs Meier brought back with him from his alleged time travel, of which only one picture remotely resembles the Blick drawing. And even this is somewhat understandable, considering the photograph depicts the same city. Ignore not the fact, however, that the Meier series of photographs was deliberately "contaminated" by external sources. More about this later.		In contrast to these claims are the 36 photographs Meier brought back with him from his alleged time travel, of which only one picture remotely resembles the Blick drawing. And even this is somewhat understandable, considering the photograph depicts the same city. Ignore not the fact, however, that the Meier series of photographs was deliberately "contaminated" by external sources. More about this later.