• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast 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! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Michael Horn & The Billy Meier Contacts

Do you believe the Billy Meier Contacts and Evidence Are Real?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not Sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
Status
Not open for further replies.

Aspie

Skilled Investigator
Thanks for another great show. I loved your summing up and I am glad you don't believe this guy.

Last week I had the pleasure, or should I say displeasure of an email argument with Mr. Horn. In his radio interviews he comes across as Mr. Nice Guy, but when you ask questions of him privately he shows his true colours. I have no real interest in the Meier case as I have always thought it to be a fraud, but I have never publicy stated so. I don't want to investigate the photographs as I am not a photo analyst.

So when Michael Horn contacted me asking for an apology I replied and refused to give one as I felt I had done nothing wrong. I didn't want to get into his so called past predictions as it's anyones guess when they were really written. I asked Michael to provide me with predictions for the coming year so that they could be independently recorded. He skipped and turned and tried all kinds of tactics to avoid sending me any. He obviously had something to hide and in the end he just resorted to insults.

I have his emails to me and my replies all documented over at my website Michael Horn Goes on the Attack
 

SR2

Skilled Investigator
I also thought this was a really good show. You guys didn't back down and the discussion was very intense. Having read the Gary Kinder book a long time ago, I initially bought into the whole story. I've since changed my mind. The next time you have Michael back on, ask him about the dinosaur photos Meier supposedly took. Or the photos of Semjasza that are actually of some european actress.

Keep up the good work.
 

David Biedny

Paranormal Adept
I'm glad you folks approve of the way that Gene & I dealt with Mr. Horn, I've always had problems with the Meier case and feel that their motivations seem somewhat shady.

Here's the text of my own emails with Mr. Horn:

----------------------------------

Michael,

I'm sorry we didn't get a chance to speak directly on
the Paracast. While you sound like a decent,
intelligent person, I have to say, you've chosen to
get involved with some strange folks who are proving
to be delusional at best, unscrupulous at worst.

Now, putting aside all the other stuff (which is hard
to do - I looked at and listened to everything I could
find on the Meier case, it's all as weak as can be),
the latest entry in the TheyFly site, your statements
about the "wedding cale" photos, make me cringe.

The claimed "night time" photos by Mr. Meier are so
absolutely, obviously faked models (I mean, you're
actually saying that the tiny car, tree and ships are
anything but miniatures, give me a break!), it's
painful.

Michael, seriously, these photos are so completely
faked, it's sad to read your words trying to establish
that they're real. I'll definitely have to be one of
those "inept, illogical skeptics". Offering these
pictures as a supposed "smoking gun", completely
destroys your credibility and position.

Taking ALL the "evidence" into account makes it so
clear to easily and quickly make the case that the
Meier story is a contrived, planned case of
disinformation and outright lies. As someone who is
trying to understand the actual reality of UFOs and
the many reports over the years, I'm offended to hear
your claims of Billy Meier's "legitimacy". This sort
of nonsense really hurts the legitimate field of
research, and makes it easier for the mainstream to
completely disavow the entire field, to the detriment
of the research of credible UFO sightings and
encounters.

Meier, and his minions, have fabricated an entire
belief system, complete with surrogates for
"conventional" religious, political and spiritual
frameworks. Mr. Meier is positioned as a prophet, seer
and wise being, and while he is cunning, the weakness
of the photos, videos, sound (a blatant use of vintage
analog synthesizers, any true audio expert recognizes
analog oscillators, filters and delays, it just so
happens that I'm an _experienced_ synth guy) is
damning. I have to commend you guys on the intricacy
of the written web of deceipt, but in the end, snake
oil is slippery and less than filling. And citing
Daniel Fry as another supposed legitimate contactee
case is simply laughable.

In short, Meier is lying, and you're a guilty
accomplice.

You should be ashamed.

Sincerely,

David Biedny

--------------------------------------------------

His response, with my quoted email:

---------------------------------------------------

David,

Unfortunately, and probably since you've committed yourself publicly,
you fall into the category of the pathetic skeptics who fail to offer
any credible substantiation for their claims against the case and its
evidence. And you offer completely wild statements that are already
known to be false, such as the ones you make about the sound recordings
(I'll come back to that and your claims about the photographic
evidence).

I'll insert my specific comments below.

> Michael,
>
> I'm sorry we didn't get a chance to speak directly on
> the Paracast. While you sound like a decent,
> intelligent person, I have to say, you've chosen to
> get involved with some strange folks who are proving
> to be delusional at best, unscrupulous at worst.

MH: I'm not sure that you are sorry that we didn't speak directly. Do
you know any of these "strange folks", have you met Meier, do you have
any evidence for what are rather harsh personal attacks, even
slanderous/libelous? And why didn't you put them in evidence if you
have it? More importantly, how dare you sling such stuff if you don't?

>
> Now, putting aside all the other stuff (which is hard
> to do - I looked at and listened to everything I could
> find on the Meier case, it's all as weak as can be),
> the latest entry in the TheyFly site, your statements
> about the "wedding cale" photos, make me cringe.

MH: My, my, a two-hour DVD, plus a rather large number of specific
articles, documents and expert authentication...yet you make no
specific reference, just mudslinging. I'm afraid that your credibility
is what is suspect here.
>
> The claimed "night time" photos by Mr. Meier are so
> absolutely, obviously faked models (I mean, you're
> actually saying that the tiny car, tree and ships are
> anything but miniatures, give me a break!), it's
> painful.

MH: David, in the real, grown-up world people offer evidence and
substantiation for their claims such as "faked models, etc." And, hard
as it may be for someone who is a rather self-impressed, self-defined
"expert" to understand, "give me a break!" doesn't qualify. Did you
have "anotehr pressing engagement" the day of our interview, Dave, or a
case of cold feet?

>
> Michael, seriously, these photos are so completely
> faked, it's sad to read your words trying to establish
> that they're real. I'll definitely have to be one of
> those "inept, illogical skeptics". Offering these
> pictures as a supposed "smoking gun", completely
> destroys your credibility and position.

MH: Dave, did I miss something here? I mean you took all this time and
effort to yell "fake!" and yet - where's the beef? Pardon me if I have
to keep repeating it but impotent "arguments" such as yours are simply
boring.
>
> Taking ALL the "evidence" into account makes it so
> clear to easily and quickly make the case that the
> Meier story is a contrived, planned case of
> disinformation and outright lies.

MH: Wow, you sure are a quick study. ALL the evidence? You've seen and
read EVERYTHING - including the 24,000 pages still only in German? By
the way, for whatever reason you're doing this (apart from the damage
to your huge ego that the reality of the case inflicts) the "contrived,
planned case of disinformation and outright lies" is demonstrably
coming from you. Let's again emphasize a concept that any further
correspondence from you absolutely requires...specific substantiation.
That means, Dave, prove it. Back up your generalized, non-specific
claims. Each and every one of them if you don't simply want this
whining, accusatory bilge of yours to end up as another entry from yet
another airhead skeptic. Yes, we already have one rather large section
for this kind of stuff at gaiaguys.net - This website is for sale! - gaiaguys Resources and Information..

> As someone who is
> trying to understand the actual reality of UFOs and
> the many reports over the years, I'm offended to hear
> your claims of Billy Meier's "legitimacy". This sort
> of nonsense really hurts the legitimate field of
> research, and makes it easier for the mainstream to
> completely disavow the entire field, to the detriment
> of the research of credible UFO sightings and
> encounters.

MH: Aren't you embarrassed to have penned this b.s., really?
>
> Meier, and his minions, have fabricated an entire
> belief system, complete with surrogates for
> "conventional" religious, political and spiritual
> frameworks. Mr. Meier is positioned as a prophet, seer
> and wise being, and while he is cunning,

MH: Well, you sure do have an ax to grind and it's obviously far more
telling about you than Meier. Is it really asking too much for you to
have included...specifics? Did you have some lingering condition that
kept you from participating in the interview and only alloted you
enough energy to issue a testament to your own ineptitude? I do wish
you a speedy recovery. And I certainly wish you a quick acquisition of
the requisite skills necessary to present yourself as a worthy opponent
of the case...should you really wish to engage in such a battle.

> the weakness
> of the photos, videos, sound (a blatant use of vintage
> analog synthesizers, any true audio expert recognizes
> analog oscillators, filters and delays, it just so
> happens that I'm an _experienced_ synth guy) is
> damning.

MH: Second things first. Now that you've really stuck both feet in your
mouth, you get a BIG chance to back up your idiotic claims. You will
please be so kind as to duplicate the sounds, which, as you must know,
means reproduce them as they occur in the recording so that they create
the same patterns in both the audible and inaudible range as Meier's
did. (We do have an abundance of information on that, as I'm sure you
know, having read the sound analysis.) Use the best equipment available
to Meier at the time, do it outside in an open field with no
electricity or equipment visible and get about 15 witnesses present to
observe the whole thing. Oh yeah, make sure the sounds are audible up
to 1.5 miles away.

And before you're even tempted to offer a dismissive, "I don't have the
time, etc." please know that you have, in this feeble rant of yours,
obligated yourself to back up YOUR claims. I am putting together an
article on bozo skeptics who make unsubstantiated claims (you're not
alone, truly) and you've already qualified for coverage at
gaiaguys.net - This website is for sale! - gaiaguys Resources and Information. as you already know. And yes,
after you fail to reproduce the sounds as specified above, you will be
allowed to try to duplicate them with the equipment of your choice, in
a sound studio if you like.

Now, a couple of items. If you'd done your due diligence you'd have
seen the rather impressive list of scientific experts who authenticated
Meier's physical evidence. You need to credibly refute ALL of them and
their conclusions (including Marcel Vogel, David Froning, etc.). You
need to answer the ALL 12 questions I raised in my article on the WCUFO
and substantiate those answers with facts. You need to especially
duplicate the "model" of the WCUFO, the photos and, of course - the
video.

You also need to know what an embarrassment you are to make such claims
when not only Wally Gentleman, who was a special effects director on
"2001" but also Uncharted Territory, the special effects company that
won the Academy Award for "Independence Day", both clearly stated that
no models or special effects were used by Meier.

I personally showed Meier's evidence to Uncharted Territory, they
literally laughed out loud at the claim of models and special
effects...like I'm already laughing at you, not only for this moronic
"challenge" of yours but for the tap dancing that - I GUARANTEE - is
coming from you in lieu of substantiation and duplication of evidence.
Since you told me that "it just so happens that I'm an _experienced_
synth guy" you're on the hook for the sounds, as well as duplication of
"models", photos, videos and that damn irreproducible video of the
WCUFO. Again, I mean on the hook. And, again, I GUARANTEE a tap dance
from you, either the "I don't have time", "this isn't that important",
"I don't have to prove the obvious", or some other, perhaps, as yet not
encountered, excuse as to why you, grand "expert" that you are, just
won't be backing up his attack with anything more than frothing
flatulence.

And I do mean on the hook, Dave; you'll back up your claims or you'll
be issuing a big public apology. Trust me, you're either gonna supply
the proof or you're the next idiot poster boy for all the failed
skeptics. I mean, I'm getting tired of kicking CFI-West/IIG and James
Randi around, even if he did retract his claim that the case was a hoax
after CFI-West/IIG failed to live up to their claim that they could
duplicate Meier's "easily duplicated hoax".


> I have to commend you guys on the intricacy
> of the written web of deceipt, but in the end, snake
> oil is slippery and less than filling. And citing
> Daniel Fry as another supposed legitimate contactee
> case is simply laughable.
>
> In short, Meier is lying, and you're a guilty
> accomplice.
>
> You should be ashamed.

MH: Let's take off the gloves here, Davey boy. The reason you didn't
co-interview me on the show is because you're a coward and a blow hard.
You prefer to launch a basically slanderous tirade without one fact,
one ounce of substantiation than have to face me down on the air. Your
tactic here is typical of the wimps and sissies who want to hit and run
from the relative safety of their, aptly named, yahoo accounts.

So now it's put up or shut up. And, as I repeatedly said above, knowing
the kind of spineless character that you've already displayed your self
to be, I GUARANTEE either excuses or silence from you.

Since you already know that I don't make excuses, please also know that
silence is not what you can expect from me on this matter. As they say,
no answer is also a clear answer.

Have a nice day...and get to work there, boy, time's a-wasting!

Michael Horn
Authorized American Media Representative
The Billy Meier Contacts
www.theyfly.com


----------------------------------

As you can see, Mr. Horn seems extremely defensive and abusive in tone. Here's my response to his tirade:

-----------------------------------

Michael,

I could not be part of the interview last week, given
that I was not near a computer or phone last Friday
while the interview was happening. Life happens,
that's the breaks. Get over it.

I would be more than happy to spend an entire episode
going over your claims and evidence, if you wish. I
have no reason to fear people such as yourself, you're
a bully and your defensiveness ignores my questions
and doubts. So you feel the "wedding cake" pictures
are real? Daniel Dry was a legitimate contactee?
Nonsense. The photos of the "ship" on top of the "car"
and "tree" are as obviously faked as anything I've
ever seen. I absolutely stand by this statement.

Demanding I produce exact sounds and photos is silly,
it's like telling me that if I want to believe in God,
I have to provide evidence that there is such a thing
as God. Beliefs are funny that way, people will
believe in the most ridiculous stuff for any and all
reasons. You have a vested interest in believing in
the Meier yarn, as you have officially tied your name
- and credibility - to his, and anyone questioning his
stories is by definition questioning your own
credibility. MY agenda is to seek truth, not to defend
some set of evidence against skeptics, or to prove
that I can fake evidence as well as Billy Meier can.
The weight of responsibility is upon you to
substantiate your claims. I am not going to play into
your spin on the "Intelligent Design" game. Your
evidence is weak, and your intensely defensive
attitude is demonstrative of your own doubts about the
Meier claims. When Gene asked you about the supposed
"published" documents of prophecies, you mentioned
that you had problems with this "evidence", and
quickly changed the subject. As far as I can tell, you
are selling Meier-branded products, so you are making
money from this nonsense. I make not one dime from my
own interest in the topic or The Paracast. Who has an
agenda here?

I have seen UFOs and personally witnessed other,
rather severe paranormal episodes, some with other
witnesses (if you listen to episode 5 of the Paracast,
you'll hear about a major sighting I was part of in
the 1974 in Caracas, Venezuela). You would have me
believe that the massive cigar-shaped ship I saw along
with thousands of other people was secret government
technology? Bullshit. It was not current human
technology. Was it alien, interdimensional or from our
future? I honestly don't know. And neither do you.

As to the your claimed statements by Mr. Gentleman, I
would point out that the last movie he worked in is
over 25 years old, he's not even in the credits of
2001. You want to show the world a signed, notarized
letter from Volker Engel, to the effect that he says
your footage is not faked? I'd love to see it.

You want to prove to the world that Meier is telling
the truth? Show us some clear, current (or even old)
footage of the claimed ETs GETTING OFF A SHIP AFTER IT
LANDS. No cuts, no multiple cameras, just a long shot
of the ship landing, and someone getting out of it.
That's all.

Show me this and I'll apologize. I promise.

Otherwise, I stand by my statements. I would be PROUD
to be included in a list of people who calls you on
this nonsense. Really. You've positioned Meier as a
prophet, as a seer, as the only holder of the truth of
the human condition. I call you on this horseshit, and
would be happy to say this to you on our show, or any
other venue.

One thing I must tell you is that I am not the kind of
person who responds to orders or derogatory language,
so calling me "Davey boy" will get you nowhere. I am
NOT your monkey.

And I'd love, just LOVE, to see you call me a
spineless? coward and wimp to my face. Man, would that
be a hoot. That you've instantly turned to this
childish, immature name calling is truly insightful,
and sad.

Sincerely,

dB

--------------------------------------------

Like so many of the "players" in the paranormal world, Horn gets downright abusive and harsh in his communications, demanding that the skeptic come up with hard proof that they are creating faked "evidence". It doesn't take any kind of photographic expert to see the problems with the photos these guys put forward as hard proof, and the fact that they cite Daniel Fry as a legitimate contactee case is simply ridiculous. Claiming that Meier had "published" his prophecies along a certain timeline requires hard proof, with copyrights and notarized statements, none of which are offered. The simple fact that Meier is positioned as a "prophet" is really all I need to know. I have no use for fake prophets, seers, soothsayers, or anyone else claiming to be the exclusive owner of human truth. Meier is a sham, and Michael Horn is guily by association.

Thanks again for listening to our show.

David Biedny
 

Rramjet

Skilled Investigator
Umm...excuse me guys. I hate to get in the way of a good ol' stoush. But on this issue you BOTH are doing a disservice to serious scientific research into the area of UFOs and the paranormal. I think ALL parties should take a deep breath, swallow their pride and rediscover their powers of critical thinking. Calling each other names in a public forum does no service to any of us. David, this has obviously touched a hot button somewhere in you and unfortunately it seems to have taken your eye off the main game somewhat.

Now... I know nothing of Billy Meier, never heard of him. But I HAVE been studying UFOs and the Paranormal for some time and Michael Horn does raise one or two legitimate points. That is not to say he is correct in his primary assertions, but in my humble opinion you do have a responsibility to speak to the evidence. YOU may be convinced of the? facts in the matter, but please, never forget that you have an audience out there who needs you to tackle the evidence for them. While interesting and somewhat amusing, in a demeaning kind of way, a slanging match is no way to go about it.

David, I love the paracast and I heartliy congratulate you for its production. I truly am a supporter of your good self and of Gene. Please keep up the good work. Roll on 400!
 

David Biedny

Paranormal Adept
If you look at the email exchange, it's indeed true to say that I'm frustrated by the position that Horn takes with regards to anyone being critical of their evidence and claims.

Mr. Horn, like anyone else, is entitled to their opinions, as I am entitled to mine. After all, The Paracast is a personal project that belongs to Gene & myself. I am genuinely interested in understanding the UFO phenomenon, and do not claim to hold absolute answers to any of the mysteries. I am not promoting any agenda or viewpoint outside of curiousity and the desire to come to an understanding of paranormal phenomenon.

Michael Horn makes the argument that Billy Meier is the only, ONLY person who has produced significant compelling "evidence" of UFO encounters. He stated on the show that the majority of other UFO sightings are secret government/military projects, which I STRONGY disagree with. Meier is positioned as a prophet, which I think is highly questionable and problematic. The evidence offered by Meier is weak, and I'll be damned if I have to prove the "wedding cake" photos are anything but fakes. Folks, the sky is blue, gravity sucks, the sun burns in the sky and gives us light, tomorrow will be another day, and the photos are bogus. As I stated in my emails to Mr. Horn, show me one, ONE video of a ship landing, and a being coming OUT of the ship, and I'll publicly apologize for my opinions. Remember, opinions are neither right nor wrong, they are statements about my own conclusions and thoughts.

While I would agree that perhaps I ended my original email to Mr. Horn with the statement that he be ashamed of himself, it certainly does not merit the harsh vitriol and name calling he immediately deployed - ad hominem attacks on me are not what I consider reasonable discourse. And it's also important to point out that Mr. Horn is taking my critiques and opinions about the Billy Meier evidence and turning it into personal attacks against _him_, which is childish - but if you look at the polarization of discourse in all levels of the American society these days, this is becoming an acceptable method of debate, a sad state of affairs.

dB
 
M

michael

Guest
I have to admit that when I found out that Michael Horn was going to be on the show, I got pretty excited. I really wanted someone to hit this guy with some hard questions and I think Gene managed to do that. I'm not a photographer. I take pretty horrible pictures no matter what kind of camera I have. That being said, I have to say the Meier photographs just look fake to me. I would like Gene and David to try and get in touch with some of the experts who analyzed the photos and claim that they're authentic. I'd also like to see some investigation to the claim that nobody has ever been able to duplicate those photos. I'm skeptical of that claim.

Anyway, great show and I hope Michael will come on again to answer some more questions in the future.
 

Aspie

Skilled Investigator
Horn makes me laugh. The guy is a complete fake.

After my email argument with him I blocked his email address. He wouldn't let it lie and he had to have the last say. So he emailed me again from his YAHOO address. Notice in his rant to David he says this:

Your tactic here is typical of the wimps and sissies who want to hit and run from the relative safety of their, aptly named, yahoo accounts

Here's what he had to say to me from HIS sissy Yahoo address, which is [email protected] :

Simon Aspinall,

You were one of a number of skeptics and debunkers of
the Billy Meier case who were deliberately engaged in
online dialogue for the purpose of extracting their
best arguments and evidence, if any, against the case.
The purpose of these exchanges was to gather enough
interesting and challenging information for an article
to be posted on my site. It remains to be seen if
sufficiently qualifying material exists for such an
article in the abundance of correspondence but don't
worry, should there be, and should you really want
such exposure, you'll get your 5 minutes of fame.

And you are not alone in being unable to provide a
thoughtful, intelligent argument/response, if that is
of any comfort to you.

You were also provided with a quick form response once
I had all I wanted or needed from you, actually far
more than I wanted as you were quite redundant. You
kept responding to my request that you cease, or at
least answer my latest article, by continuing to write
and avoiding making any new contribution of any
significance, let alone not addressing the article.
That was very, very annoying and made me take the time
to keep sending the notice for you to stop...everyone
else was able to take the first clue - but not you!

You are, however, in "good" company only in so far as
that none of the other skeptics can utter one clear
word of credible rebuttal to the new article either.

You are only unique in so far as you appear to be a
younger person masquerading as an adult, yet
convincingly displaying no logical thinking abilities,
in the face of the overwhelming evidence that any
adult-level thinker would need to possess in order to
understand, let alone intelligently criticize, it.

Now, since you are blocking my regular address, please
add this one too, although you'll receive no more
correspondence from me and I, of course, have blocked
your address on both of these accounts. You'll just
have to continue to monitor my site to watch for the
article, which I know will be irresistibly unavoidable
for you.

As a final suggestion, should you still be in school
somewhere (I do hope that you're not a drop out with
too much time on your hands!), do take a course or two
in logic. It would serve you well to learn how to
think, and do credible research, should you wish to
pursue a career in a related field, once (if) you
graduate.

MH


I feel the same way as David. Horn can name me in any article he wants. I am proud to be an opponent of the sad Michael Horn
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
lancemoody said:
Just listened to this podcast (and have now subscribed).

Gene is one of my heros on the Mac side of things and he may recall a phone conversation we had on the paranormal side (about Otis T. Carr).

As a hardcore skeptic, I know we aren't always gonna agree about everything but you guys are right on the money when it comes to the Meier case.

By the way, I should mention that (as a long time film editor and special effects designer) I don't think all of Billy's photos look fake. Some of them are breathtaking in their beauty and not obviously faked (even though I am virtually certain that they are). Others are laughable. Funny that the fast talking (and now, as revealed, very nasty) Mr. Horn is trying to vindicate some of the worst of the lot (those silly wedding cake ones).

Anyway I look forward to the shows.

Thanks,

Lance
Lance, you raise an interesting possibility here. I definitely agree with David that there are a number of clearly faked photos in Meier's inventory. At the same time, you and another film person have said the same thing, that some of his photos appear to be genuine.

That raises a larger issue, which is that some of the contactees will, either themselves or through their supporters, do things to enhance their claims in ways that aren't always truthful. The problem with that is that a genuine experience that may be at the core of the whole thing is lost in the controversy. And, as they say on "Law & Order," when someone lies about one thing, you have reason to suspect that they are lying about other things as well.
 

robin

Paranormal Novice
OK, listened to paracast and read topics and now joined. And feel compelled to make a few observations - don't we all!

I honestly have to side here with Rramjet

Rramjet said:
Umm...excuse me guys. I hate to get in the way of a good ol' stoush. But on this issue you BOTH are doing a disservice to serious scientific research into the area of UFOs and the paranormal. I think ALL parties should take a deep breath, swallow their pride and rediscover their powers of critical thinking. Calling each other names in a public forum does no service to any of us. David, this has obviously touched a hot button somewhere in you and unfortunately it seems to have taken your eye off the main game somewhat.

Now... I know nothing of Billy Meier, never heard of him. But I HAVE been studying UFOs and the Paranormal for some time and Michael Horn does raise one or two legitimate points. That is not to say he is correct in his primary assertions, but in my humble opinion you do have a responsibility to speak to the evidence. YOU may be convinced of the? facts in the matter, but please, never forget that you have an audience out there who needs you to tackle the evidence for them. While interesting and somewhat amusing, in a demeaning kind of way, a slanging match is no way to go about it.
Gene you said that the paracast is not a National Enquirer for these phenomenon, but then I think (if you're aiming to not just be soap boxing) that you probably should not be so obviously dismissive and, I have to say, quite rude about Mr. Horn. Then it's up to you both to say something like 'well many would not believe this' etc etc. I think if you want to make strong accusations about the validity of what Mr. Horn is writing about, then actually you probably do need to be a bit more National Enquirer about it.

That brings me to David Biedny's remarks both on air and in this forum. I would have to say David, that you did set yourself up for the 'bilge' that came raining down on you from Mr. Horn. Thanks for being honest enough to reproduce the email exchange. That being said, it does come across to my mind as if you were the one being aggressive and dismissive and that Mr. Horn's subsequent rants are kind of predictable - neither of you nor Mr. Horn comes out smelling of roses. Yes, life is short, yes you can't try to disprove every claim - but surely this is 'big' enough to 'go after' both Mr. Horn and Mr. Meier if nothing else than to show how delusional personalities can get caught up in their projection of the truth (both for overt and for unconscious reasons). Why not take on board the 'best' evidence and get it whole heartedly dismissed? In fairness that was what Mr. Horn has repeatedly asked for. If you 'dismiss' it simply as 'obvious' and 'I have experience in these matters' then it comes across as avoidance.

Here's what I got out of the programme (fwiw).

David don't get so het up about the word 'prophet'. It doesn't mean that you have to aspire to worship that person, or believe in the 'gods'. 'Prophet' can just as easily mean simply someone who sees or predicts the future. You came across very strongly as Mr. Meier is out to get a cult following. It would be great if you could have provided some evidence as to how this is happening to counter Mr. Horn's statements that this as definitely NOT happening - if Mr. Meier does indeed continue to work on his family farm.

Gene, Mr. Horn presented a number of statements which neither you nor David seemed willing to engage in. I found that the claims made by Mr. Horn quite interesting (if true) such as the recordings of the UFO. David if you're quite adept at synthesisers (I envy you) get on an old Moog and reproduce the sound - OR explain the technical reasons why the sound cannot be reproduced exactly (because of the analog nature of the machine) but generate your own sounds that cannot be reproduced by the same labs that Mr. Horn said analysed the 'UFO recordings'. When you say something to the effect of 'oh common, I can do this so easily on a Moog' but don't actually do it, it comes across as avoidance.

Yes, maybe it's hard to assert that predictions were made 'before' an event occurred, but you never asked Mr. Horn for evidence that the chronological order of 'prediction - event' was as it was claimed to be. On top of that, I gather from your programme, that there are many predictions that are outstanding. Why not pick a few and at least keep an eye out for them. You could have tried to get Mr. Horn to work with you guys as to what would be a mutually agreed joint statement as to what would constitute an outstanding prediction coming true. The claim that Paris will fall (unless things change) seems to be an interesting one!

I of course went to Mr. Horn's site and I do find that many of the photos clearly 'look' like they are fake - but just because they look fake doesn't mean that I can categorically state that they ARE fake unless I am or can employ an expert to show that they are. I agree with David's letter saying that the golden nighttime pictures including what looks like blurry 'Hot Wheels' car seem almost laughable - but please can we get some hard evidence that they ARE fake - and this is how it could be done - and here are some samples showing similar effects? The 'obvious' fakes should surely be easy for a photoshop whizz like David to knock up. Even better would be to replicate the kind of shots that are the 'best' evidence AND submit it to the same labs, and/or groups that Mr. Horn did and let them document that the previous photos supplied by Mr. Meier were NOT fakes (or there's no evidence for it) and [ii] the same could be said for the ones submitted by yourselves.

If you're not interested in dealing with 'personalities' and you're interested in 'getting to the truth' then I fear to do the latter, you have to deal also do the former. Show concrete evidence that 'their' concrete evidence is clearly bogus. Not every time of course but take on some of the biggies such as Mr. Meier, and surely this one's a doozie no?

Why didn't you guys drill down with Mr. Horn on which aspects he found less than convincing? After all he did make statements to that effect that his intent is to remain objective and he did himself have 'problems' with some of the evidence.

For the moment you guys, imho, have come out as narrow minded skeptics which is ironic given your stated beliefs in the possibilities of the paranormal. You come across as using the same kind of tactics that people like?many (but not all) in CSICOP use (CSI), including the 'amazing' Randi (a CSICOP founder). I'm pretty sure that's not your intent.

It's an interesting topic that you covered, either as a genuine UFO story, or as a huge hoax and the personalities that make them. I think you guys were handed a gift ball, but it seems you muffed it. Maybe you can make it up in a hinted at programme devoted to exposing the Meier evidence as you were repeatedly invited to do so by Mr. Horn.

Enjoyed your other shows though and am sure to enjoy more.

Best

Robin
 

David Biedny

Paranormal Adept
Robin,

Profuse thanks for your comments!

I'm typing this from the beginning of a week-long vacation, so this'll be short, but the week after next, Mr. Horn will indeed get to make more of a case for his evidence, and I will discuss a specific picture I analyzed and objectively found to be a fabrication. The results of my analysis will be posted here in the next couple of weeks, and I will ask our listeners for their thoughts and feedback with regards to the claims and my deeper look at the problems with the image.

If you do a little digging on the web about this case, it becomes quite clear that there are enough serious issues to reasonably warrant many of my feelings about their claims. As I've stated on the show, I am interested in coming to a deeper understanding of the facts of UFOs, and I am upset at the extreme claims of the Meier people, in terms of their stance this suggests that the bulk of OTHER UFO sightings are not valid, and aspects of the underlying political agenda of this group that give me reason for concern.

I will also be posting much more of the email exchange between myself and Mr. Horn, and our listeners will also have the opportunity to have a much deeper insight into the mounting vitriolic tone, distractionary content and flawed logic presented my Mr. Horn, and my responses. Stay tuned! And thanks again for the feedback, it's very appreciated. Glad you find the show interesting!

dB
 

dawn

Paranormal Novice
Hey, I am new here,(to the forum) not new to the Paracast, as I have heard them all and have enjoyed them very much, especially in the beginning and have recommended it to several friends... however, now I'm thinking its growing into the "skepticast". I couldnt agree more with Robin who said it best.. just making comment in hopes that my vote for a little more respect and open mindedeness to the guests might happen. Some compelling evidence to back David's skepticism would go a long way towards dispelling the growing suspicion that the paracast is simply another disinformation outlet...
thanks for letting me vent..
Dawn
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
dawn said:
Hey, I am new here,(to the forum) not new to the Paracast, as I have heard them all and have enjoyed them very much, especially in the beginning and have recommended it to several friends... however, now I'm thinking its growing into the "skepticast". I couldnt agree more with Robin who said it best.. just making comment in hopes that my vote for a little more respect and open mindedeness to the guests might happen. Some compelling evidence to back David's skepticism would go a long way towards dispelling the growing suspicion that the paracast is simply another disinformation outlet...
thanks for letting me vent..
Dawn
No, we are happy to show respect to guests and give them their opportunity to express their viewpoints. In the case of the Billy Meier contacts, our research shows lots of reasons to suspect the photos and other claims, and we're not going to hold back our criticisms.

On the other hand, we're willing to give lots of other guests and viewpoints their say.
 

dawn

Paranormal Novice
Thanks Gene , for the reply..
Perhaps we could look forward to extended programs that you could include your/David's research too, so it seems a bit more balanced?
To take your word for the granted fact seems just as silly as doing so with any other proclaimed expert.
If I hadnt enoyed your previous shows so much, I would just move on.. hope you take my words in the spirit intented..
thanks,
Dawn
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
dawn said:
Thanks Gene , for the reply..
Perhaps we could look forward to extended programs that you could include your/David's research too, so it seems a bit more balanced?
To take your word for the granted fact seems just as silly as doing so with any other proclaimed expert.
If I hadnt enoyed your previous shows so much, I would just move on.. hope you take my words in the spirit intented..
thanks,
Dawn
I don't expect you to take anyone's word for it. During the upcoming debate with Michael Horn, David will provide all the information on his analysis of a Meier photo, and it will also be posted here, so everyone can examine it.

One more thing, listeners: In order to make it easier to find the latest messages, I've reversed the order to put newest messages first.

I rather suspect this thread is getting mighty long.
 
T

TerraX

Guest
Hello List,

I happend to hear the interview with Michael Horn, the authorised US Billy Meier representative, and hosts Gene Steinberg and David Biedny. As this list already discovered there's a difference between Mr. Horn's media appearances and (private) email correspondence. I've had similar experiences with the gentleman in question and this seems to be a 'normal procedure'.
David Biedny made some comments at the end of the interview and in this thread. To a large extent I agree with David that many items in the Meier case are questionable such as the religious claims and the systematic dismissal of other ufological material or persons. I already mailed David Biedny but later on read in this thread that he's on vacation. I would like to bring the following site to the lists attention where some study is done on a type of craft Billy Meier allegedly photographed on several ocassions. Perhaps it's also useful to research the site with the upcoming interview in mind.

The Meier case: more conclusive 'smoking gun' proof of deception - The Biggest Secret Forum

Regards,
TerraX
 
M

michael

Guest
Thanks for the link! I have to admit that the only photos I'd previously seen of Meier's were the "wedding cake" photos, which looked pretty fake to me. However, I have been doing a lot of searching and reading on the web about Billy, and have seen quite a few of his pictures that, on the surface, look to be authentic. (Or at least don't look nearly as hoaxed as the wedding cake pics).

I can't wait until Michael Horn comes back on the show to answer the questions about the obvious fake photos.
 
T

TerraX

Guest
I forgot to address the Dan Fry topic in the interview. While Michael Horn stated that Dan Fry is listed as a genuine contactee within the Meier information this is not entirely accurate. Horn forgot to mention that while Meier claims Fry was a genuine contactee, at the same time Meier makes additional comments and states that Fry's information got distorted and his photographs today are non-existent. So if you ask the question if the Dan Fry case is accepted in full by Meier, no, that's not the case. It's quite clever really.
http://www.figu.org/us/ufology/contact_notes/249.htm

"Billy: What is behind this: Quetzal and Semjase explained to me once that Dan Fry, an American, actually did have contact with extraterrestrials. He is said to have taken photos as well, but he later destroyed them; somebody made forgeries of them and attributed them to Fry. This is supposed to be the reason why none of Dan Fry's real photos of alien flying objects exist any longer. Even the story about the origin of the extraterrestrials and their accounts was apparently thoroughly distorted. This is what Quetzal told me, but it never appeared in any contact report.

Ptaah: That is exactly what happened."

As David Biedny already mentioned, other contactees who sought the publicity are consistently debunked within the Meier case. Personally I think this is deliberately done to make Meier the only genuine source on matters relating to extraterrestrials. He (Meier) wants to be the authority and sadly there are a number of individuals who will gladly help him. The comments above by Meier and his alleged alien contact clearly show that in the end Fry's material is 'untrustworthy', to put it diplomaticly. Was Michael Horn being genuine?
 
M

Michael812

Guest
Hi Paracast Forum members,

Allow me to introduce myself directly to you since you'll be hearing another radio show with me on the 11th, as well as contributions from committed, diehard skeptics and debunkers of the case (and me) such as TerraX. Hopefully, in a relatively short amount of time, I can present to you enough information that you can review, research and THINK through yourselves, to determine for yourselves, the truth about the Meier case.

I intend to answer any questions raised as best I can and sometimes that answer is provided in the form of a link to an article, or a site, that already contains those answers.

First, here's a note about my apparent Jekyll and Hyde personality. My first contact from David was in the form of an email, of which most of you are aware, that basically called me a shameless liar who associates with, and represents, unscrupulous people. Thanks, and nice to meet you too. And, I should add, that the hatchet job done on the case, and me, by David at the end of my first interview was added?after the fact. I was neither told about this in advance nor after the show aired; a friend ? in China ? told me about it after I sent the link out to her.

This approach is blatantly out of integrity and one that I've never encountered before in all the years that I've been doing interviews, a number of which were less than friendly in their approach, which is something that in itself doesn't bother me. It does bother me, however, to be attacked behind my back and then to be greeted with yet another attack in an introductory email. I will let you know, if you haven't discovered it already, that there is plenty of evidence on the internet that I respond rather vigorously to such approaches. When someone sets the tone and context of the conversation in attack mode, and/or when they vigorously criticize the case and my findings and remain completely non-responsive to an abundance of countering information ? as David and Gene did and continue to do ? I speak to them in the language that they have chosen. Perhaps the difference to me is that it's not personal, colorful maybe, but not personal. And that means that it's their thinking, researching, logic, etc. (or usually lack thereof) that is the actual target of my barbs, not their person. However, being only human, I admit that it has sometimes gotten into that kind of expression from me too.

Frankly, I'd prefer not to do it but there is another motivation behind my words that seems to escape notice, i.e. I figure that if I insult people enough (who attack me) with the FACTS, then, out of the deep desire to prove me wrong, to shred Meier's credibility, to prove their own theories correct and emerge ?victorious? ? they will actually do the deep due diligence REQUIRED to do so.

BTW, this is the response from David to my simple request to join this form:

From: [email protected]
Subject: The Paracast forums
Date: July 5, 2006 11:20:31 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]

Horn,

You can indeed register and post on the Paracast
forums, but Gene & I reserve the right to delete
abusive posts and ban destructive posters. You behave,
and your freedom of expression is granted. You get
crazy and vitriolic, you get booted. Comprende?

dB

Well, isn't that friendly?and just a tad prejudicial, hmmmm?

Now, I have a new article on my site at:

They Fly.com - The Billy Meier 'Hoax' Exposed ? - The Wedding Cake UFO Controversy

This article deals with one piece of evidence that has been attacked by both the author of the referred to site (TerraX) and David, i.e. the so-called Wedding Cake UFO (WCUFO) photos and video. David has confidently and conclusively stated that these (there were several sizes of this craft) were ?models? and ?miniatures?, though he has firmly declined to duplicate one (or explain the failure of a professional model maker/photographer ? and major opponent of the Meier case ? to duplicate one successfully either).

Additional information refuting claims that there were models involved can be found here:

The Wedding Cake UFOs

I also mentioned that there was a video of this craft, which you can view here:


In the video, the craft is actually, at its farthest, some 300?-500? from the camera. Now, David stated, unequivocally in the latest interview, that this is a ?two-dimensional cut-out?. So we have to BELIEVE that the one-armed Meier was not only a fantastically accomplished model maker, some 20+ years ago, but also could make such a remarkable 14? cut-out (as to look three-dimensional) and suspend it, without any visible means of support, so as to render it virtually motionless (on a windy Swiss hillside), and also nonchalantly go about videotaping it?all without being observed by anyone.

I suggest that the Meier case is either the biggest, most impenetrable hoax or the most important story in all of human history. So, in concluding this lengthy introduction, allow me to direct you to one of many articles on my site that will introduce you to some of the scientific experts who analyzed, and authenticated, Meier's evidence:

TheyFly.com - The Billy Meier UFO Contacts (see: Scientific Experts' Comments On Meier's Evidence)

You might also read the Analysis of Meier's UFO Photographs and Report On UFO Sound Recordings.

Michael Horn
Authorized American Media Representative
The Billy Meier Contacts
www.theyfly.com
 

David Biedny

Paranormal Adept
I did indeed send that email to Michael Horn, after seeing that he's been banned from a number of other discussion groups on the web due to his tone, personal attacks and vitriolic behavior. He's been given fair warning, in the "the language he understands". Others who have posted here can verify the specifics of Michael Horn's online communication style.

As I've stated, I'm on vacation this week, so I'll get back into this in depth next week, including my photographic analysis which clearly shows how one of the faked images was created. I would advise our listeners to do their own due diligence on the web, TerraX has posted an excellent link that is well worth reading.

dB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Top