• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Michael Horn Debates David Biedny on The Paracast


Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
Get ready for a return visit from Michael Horn, the Authorized American Media Representative for The Billy Meier Contacts. This time, Horn will debate David Biedny over the issues raised during the original interview. At the same time, David, a noted expert on digital media, will reveal the results of his extensive analysis of at least one of the Meier photos. Much of this evidence will be posted in our forums shortly.

To hear the show, just pay a visit to our home page at www.theparacast.com. Or you can subscribe to our episodes via iTunes or your favorite Podcast directory.
 
This should be entitled Michael Horn Gets Knocked Out by David Biedny on The Paracast. POW! Great job David on bringing some new (no pun) light to this. Too bad Horn couldn't directly address your findings and has gone to calling himself a lay-man. I think this is his attempt to gain sympathy and yet another ploy in the limited bag of tricks Horn has.

Again, great job on having a show that actually wants to get to the heart of things and isn't afraid to ask hard questions. Thanks for going against the stream and exposing bullcrap.
 
Steinberg really laid on thick the so called expert opinion of his self procalimed photoshop knowledge . I am familiar with the tone and delivery that he used , and it was identical to every time some mechanic attempted to defraud me with an auto repair . Also 'photoshop' is not' photo' . So Meier took the photos before photshop was invented ( yawn) . It's been said before . The gullible types that hang on the every word of these pair of casts , don't have the mantal acuity to know the difference .

I am an expert in detecting fast talking car salesman types , and like Mr. Steinberg , I have no notarized documentation to prove that I can detect such charla-talk . So I am waiting for your notarized documentation of your expertise . As for me , Steinberg , you know what it is your'e pulling over .

By the way , Michael Horn is not finished with them , sonny . SMASH . BAM . BOOM .
 
Mark Campbell said:
Steinberg really laid on thick the so called expert opinion of his self procalimed photoshop knowledge.

Factual error, Mark: David Biedny is the Photoshop expert, and he is not self-proclaimed. Do a Google search of him, and you'll see he has industry recognition too.

I also notice that you haven't brought up the real issue, which is the facts David posted. Clearly you have no response, other than to make personal attacks.
 
Listen , you guys and your
opinions are important to the fans of your show , but
without showing examples of the "obvious fakery"
, that is , really showing them visually , his debunking
rhetoric are only empty words . It means something
to some people , that after some of the photographs
were tampered with , having strings and things added ,
USING PHOTOSHOP ,and distibuted , that any of us
would still try to represent this case .

And I am not even the slightest
bit interested in your opinion , David .
The fact that this is in public view makes you
culpable of obstructing the truth .

And before you accuse someone of personal attacks ,
you should be free of making them yourself ; such as
calling Billy Meier a "liar" , and then dancing around the
terminology to make it look like you didn't , or David didn't .
What are you guys , lawyers ? I mean besides being
cowardly , such deviousness gives your game away .
In other words , you would prosecute ANYTHING
because that's what you do , If the game was to defend
something , you would do that. Whatever serves your agenda .

Bringing up the " facts " ? You call them facts ? I would laugh ,
but you gentlemen will find yourselves using your own snares
against yourselves eventually. You will get what you deserve .
 
Mark, you're delusional. I have posted a clear image analysis for all to see, it's not opinion, it's scientific FACT.

Mr. Horn will not address it AT ALL. Neither will you.

Am I surprised? Nope. You're in denial.

Images tampered with after the fact? Strings added? Oh, for chrissakes. Get a grip. I suppose God put dinosaurs in the ground in order to test your faith about Creationism too, right? Have a problem with that whole Evolution "theory"?

I'm obstructing YOUR truth, which is a LIE.

"mantal acuity" indeed. Your words.

Oh, man, this is painful. People can be really, truly nuts about absolute crap.

As far as Hr. Horn and his abilities, check out the other thread, it's sad to see someone lose their mind in front of a crowd.

dB
 
"Mantal" . Hmmm , I see , yes , that in itself , being a typo
( spelling mistake)
proves that whatever you say is the better argument .
I'm no typist , and I have to correct almost every word I type ...
I'm terrible at it !
I let one slip , oh , Master of Bicker .

As for your images , I wasn't impressed at all with
your case for it , although those who are already against Meier
might consider it to be just groovy .

As for ther images tampered after the fact , I have a grip ,
( check), and I have seen plenty of the A/B examples , which I ( conveniently) won't look up for you .
And here's why:
Your game is to discredit Meier .
When it served you to interrupt Michael mid-sentence
( oh , was it an automatic station break? Convenient! )
it was obvious to me , when he made a good point .

Really , this could go on and on , but your stripes
define you , and I have no problem with that .


That's funny , I don't feel nutty .

But you seem to be losing your cool .
 
David, I'm with you man. First of all I had never seen those pictures of Billy Meier or how ever you spell his last name.

I just saw them, and it is so obvious that they are fake! If, there was a chance
in hell that flying saucer (wedding cake) was real, the aliens inside it would be about 2 inches tall. It's clearly a closeup of a model that was added to a totally different environment and background all together. The shadows are wrong, the texture is wrong, the lighting is wrong, the reflections from the so called UFO are wrong. With the fact that they are charging money for ANY of their stuff, it automatically turns it all into a scam! They remind me of evangelists like Robert Tilton who take advantage of idiots who believe them.

David, you said that Michael should be ashamed and took it back. I still stand with your first comment about M.H. He SHOULD be ashamed of accepting $ or allowing people to even pay for CRAP. I mean, it's really the idiotic people that pay who are at fault, but it's shameful to be involved in such a scheme.

M.H. is a smart guy, he's been doing all this for a while... fighting off skeptisism towards all the Billy Meier material. He's a pro by now. Unfortunately, he's believing all the lies himself. Where are the new pictures? Where is the new video? Why only produce old images which YOU GOTTA understand LOOK (and are) Fake!?

I have also seen strange things in the sky, I do believe in other life, but COME ON!

Don't even get me started on the pictures of the black background with the toy car and miniature tree! HAHAHAHAAHAAAAAAAAA What a F'ing JOKE!


Just wanted to give my 2 cents.

NOW I'M FRUSTRATED! ;D

lol
 
I will write what I think is a well-deserved encomium to you two at a later date -
when I am not at work. In the meantime, I want to say I have truly enjoyed listening
to your podcasts, and really appreciate the integrity and incisiveness you bring to
a difficult subject matter.

As for Mr. Meier, I'll always remember the sudden anger I felt as a younger man some twenty-odd years ago, on seeing one of his videos for the first time that an adult friend of the family had purchased. It was so obviously faked, and my friend so gallingly credulous, that I felt like I'd been sucker punched by a clown. Like you David, I have seen a UFO (in my case a classic flying saucer), at close distance and in full view. Like you, I believe that the one tool necessary to further our understanding of this phenomena beyond the speculative is through the full attention of science and rational inquiry. And, like you, I am angered and disappointed by the toxic effluent of delusion, official dissemblage, scientific indifference, and good old-fashioned hucksterism.

In the spirit of that last item, thanks for exposing Mr. Meier for what he is; the hardest working one-armed Swiss farmer in show business.
 
Pete,

Thanks so much for your kind words, it's nice to know I'm not alone in thinking that this situation is ridiculous! And please listen to the archived episodes of the show, I think you'll find them interesting.

Regards,

dB
 
solelyj,

Thanks for the supportive words, Michael Horn took that initial email and really spun it out into a fiery sword, but it didn't take much water to put the flames out.

Look at the main thread for this stuff, and check out how Mr. Horn has had a complete and total meltdown. It ain't pretty!

Cheers,

dB
 
While I haven't had a chance to read through the email exchange yet, it was a pleasure to listen to the podcast today.
Congratulations once again to Mr. Biedny and Mr. Steinberg for their podcast. They are two great examples of what is sorely needed in the area of paranormal studies: open-minded individuals with a healthy amount of skepticism and a desire to seek real evidence to uncover mysterious events and phenomena.
I too have seen a UFO (black triangles) and have had a lifelong interest in the paranormal. I want to know more about what's out there, not to be distracted by contactees with little to no merit like Billy Meier. While I think that he may have seen UFOs and may have some psychic ability, the rest of it is fantasy, and bad fantasy in my opinion.
It was refreshing to hear the well justified criticism that Mr. Biedny brought up during the debate. As a daily user of Photoshop, I found the photograpahic analysis very interesting.
Thanks again to the hosts.
-Todd
 
I like the way everybody here is giving high fives. I've said it ten times but with out an original negitive. You have proved nothing. Your all wrong!!!
 
David , when you call me ignorant , you've just picked a real fight .

You can pretend that you're a big deal with your little internet radio show . It's internet , not real radio , and the computer screen is not a T.V.
The "big time for little people" .
As a host , you take the stance of attacker , which in any format is a conflict of interest ; putting your own opinions in before anyone else's . Your listeners are the ones who should be doing the judging , with you as the neutral reporter moderating the information . Who do you think you are , Howard Stern ?

Amateurs like yourself , who can't control your own prejudices and emotions find themselves kicking their own guests , with the herd that follows them shouting for more .

Oh, and by the way , " Michael Horn is guily by association" is what you wrote in another post here on this forum ; so maybe you would be so kind as to explain what the hell "guily" means . Since you picked on my own typo before , explain away , genius .
Desperation for leverage , is your motive for that one .

When you make the personal choice of ridiculing me , a guest of your forum , you commit yourself to being the willing recipient of resourcefullness , time , opportunity , and irony .

So , congratulations for helping the Meier case along ; it is of the utmost importance that the great mass of people don't get convinced about this case too soon , and the intended "soft spots ' in the evidence target those people who prefer to pass on the positive evidence and take the low road as you all are doing here .

The rest of the people who find it still untriguing will detect it by their own intelligence , despite your own shortsightedness . So look further , people , than this public stoning .


Too right !
 
Mark,

Mr. Horn threatened me & Mr. Steinberg via email, as is posted on the forums, so I'm really not willing to get into the matter with you at this time. He has been banned. Threats issued via email are a Federal offense as per the FCC. Please take note. Any perceived direct threats will result in a permanent ban, and possible further action.

dB
 
Mark Campbell said:
David , when you call me ignorant , you've just picked a real fight .

You can pretend that you're a big deal with your little internet radio show . It's internet , not real radio , and the computer screen is not a T.V.
The "big time for little people" .
As a host , you take the stance of attacker , which in any format is a conflict of interest ; putting your own opinions in before anyone else's . Your listeners are the ones who should be doing the judging , with you as the neutral reporter moderating the information . Who do you think you are , Howard Stern ?

Amateurs like yourself , who can't control your own prejudices and emotions find themselves kicking their own guests , with the herd that follows them shouting for more .

Oh, and by the way , " Michael Horn is guily by association" is what you wrote in another post here on this forum ; so maybe you would be so kind as to explain what the hell "guily" means . Since you picked on my own typo before , explain away , genius .
Desperation for leverage , is your motive for that one .

When you make the personal choice of ridiculing me , a guest of your forum , you commit yourself to being the willing recipient of resourcefullness , time , opportunity , and irony .

So , congratulations for helping the Meier case along ; it is of the utmost importance that the great mass of people don't get convinced about this case too soon , and the intended "soft spots ' in the evidence target those people who prefer to pass on the positive evidence and take the low road as you all are doing here .

The rest of the people who find it still untriguing will detect it by their own intelligence , despite your own shortsightedness . So look further , people , than this public stoning .


Too right !
Lest we forget. A lot of this started with a very simple thing. David analyzed a photo, posted the results here and talked about it on the radio show. We gave Horn many, many opportunities to respond to David's analysis. Beyond some murky stuff about multiple exposures, which has nothing to do with this particular photo, he never responded to a single thing David said. Not a single thing! He, like you, changed the subject and engaged in personal attacks.

As far as I'm concerned, David and I are through with the Meier affair. We've tried our best to elicit evidence, and what we've found is fake photos, fake claims, and lots and lots of ill-mannered behavior on the part of Meier's supporters. That's what upsets me the most.

There are lots of other things going on in the UFO field. Some of it may lead us to some real answers, but this isn't one of those things.
 
To Gene

This is where you are so wrong.

Commercial interests may be the highest priority on your list, therefore dismissing Billy Meier is in your best interest isn't it. Just to conjure the image of the would be listeners to your program being put off by the material I suspect would be weighing very heavily on your minds which isn't exactly doing you and David any favours.

So many a mortals of such like minds as yourself and David have sold their own souls for the $ sign, being the bitch maker this society produces, lest I lament the fall of another into the scrapheap of wasted spirits for the almighty $

Keep up the only work you people know how to do it's the only thing you people know how to do.
 
hmmm..... Maybe this Forum should be renamed The Meier/Horne Bashing Forum. I find it funny that people have made a point of Mr Horne being supposedly nasty in his exchanges almost as if he has some kind of split personality.
Considering the time and effort Mr Horne has put into researching Meiers claims, I too would be alot less than happy after the the absolute conclusions and the personality attacking that has gone on here.
As far as Mr horne avoiding debate about the 'analyzed' photo, what exactly would you expect him to debate being that he is not a photoshop expert? Your entire argument is about exploiting that fact.

Oh and if this case went to a court of law, photoshop analysis of a low resolution JPEG file would not hold any water so please stop claiming to have conclusive proof about anything until you have the original 35mm negative in your hand.
The irony of this forum is that it seems quite obvious that David and Gene arent really interested in finding out any 'truth' due to their outright refusal to investigate anything further for themselves. I mean, 'experts' know everything...right?
Indeed why does Mr Horne have to provide anyone with notarized documents about anything? If anyone else were truly curious they would go looking for them or at the very least ask how to go about getting them.
It seems to me that Mr Horne does not have a problem with David having a problem with the photos, but he does have a problem with David now proclaiming Meier to be a fraud when David hasnt even done a fraction of Horne's research. This Would be like Horne telling David how to use photoshop.

The one thing that is very clear is that you guys had your minds made up along time before Mr Horne came along.

I personally dont know for an absolute fact if the Meier case is factual or not but its a fair bet that after 20 or so years of indepth research Mr Horne would have a much better idea than me or David Biedny.
But If I want to know anything about photoshop I'll be sure to ask David.
 
Crouching_Sniper said:
hmmm..... Maybe this Forum should be renamed The Meier/Horne Bashing Forum. I find it funny that people have made a point of Mr Horne being supposedly nasty in his exchanges almost as if he has some kind of split personality.

Considering the time and effort Mr Horne has put into researching Meiers claims, I too would be alot less than happy after the the absolute conclusions and the personality attacking that has gone on here.
As far as Mr horne avoiding debate about the 'analyzed' photo, what exactly would you expect him to debate being that he is not a photoshop expert? Your entire argument is about exploiting that fact.

If he has really researched the Meier case, surely he would know that the Wedding Cake photos show a model built atop a garbage can.

In any case, David made it very clear with illustrations on this message board exactly why he came to his conclusions. As to Horn, he and other Meier supporters were given every opportunity to respond to the specifics of David's analysis, that it was a composite created by superimposing negatives. David explained why and how, and you don't have to be a Photoshop expert to understand. David's entire argument is that the photo he analyzed is a fake, a bad fake.

I notice, also, that you have no response to his points either.
 
Back
Top