The below is correspondence generated by FIGU US Rep Michael Horn's article published at
It makes interesting reading.
Due to the nature and number of replies, it is no longer in strict chronological order, but you get the idea.
Since I was among the intended email recipients*, I (Dyson) eventually added my 2 cents (at the end of this page).
*"Michael" <Michael@theyfly.com> VictorGM@webtv.net (Victor Martinez)
"Elaine Douglass" <EDouglass@preciscom.net>, CRLang@mm.com, BobReidFL@aol.com, ChristenW27@cybertrails.com, "Jolene Harrington" <JRae@earthlink.net>, "Jim Deardorff" <DeardorJ@proaxis.com>, WTGood40@inorbit.com, "Project Camelot" <Support@projectcamelot.org>, JerryPippin@sbcglobal.net, "Larry Dicken" <DickenL@comcast.net>, "Kerry Cassidy" <Jagbodhi@mac.com>, "Dirk Vander Ploeg" <email@example.com>, "gaiaguys.net" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Christian Frehner" <email@example.com>, "Robert Morningstar" <Robert.Morningstar@gmail.com>, BreL@ihug.co.nz, Plejarens_are_real_2005@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff" <Jeff1557@cox.net>, "Abductions" <Abductions@comcast.net>, "Freedom Fighter" <PlanetaryFreedomFighter@hotmail.com>, "Richard Martin" <RPJMartin1971@yahoo.co.uk>, "Steve Hammons" <Ohio52@navyseals.com>, NYCStone17@gmail.com
I will insert some responses to the two opinions below.
> ELAINE DOUGLASS, Editor of "Journal of Abduction Research":
> I've received a LOT of feedback on today's piece written by Michael
> on the alien abduction issue.
> The attached contains two (2) opinions which run contrary to Horn's
> viewpoint and are more in line with your own.
> SUGGESTION: Since you/your editors didn't make a rebuttal to Horn's
> piece, why don't you PUBLISH Michael Horn's piece as he originally
> it to you AND then publish Craig Lang's and Jolene Rae Harrington's
> piece in the NEXT issue of JAR?
> It's sort of "2 against 1" but what's more important here is that ALL
> SIDES of an issue be publicly aired and debated in order to achieve a
> FAIR and BALANCED perspective in your online magazine rather than
> presenting a 1-sided point of view which takes away from the
> of your magazine.
> I look forward to seeing all THREE (3) pieces in your next issue! –
> From: Jolene <jrae@...>
> Date: September 27, 2007 2:39:34 PM PDT
> To: crlang@..., Victor Martinez <VictorGM@...>
> Subject: Re: Alien "Abductions" Questioned / Mexican UFO Footage /
> RV Archives Open
> Good points, Craig.
> I like Michael personally, but I think he is off base on this issue.
MH: And let me say that I not only also like me personally too but
> These are the same arguments we hear from debunkers all the time,
> and they are simply irrelevant. They make assumptions about the
> alien races that are not logical. There is, for example, no reason
> to suppose that advanced technology automatically results in
> spritual superiority. Montezuma II made the same mistake about
> Cortez and look where that got the Aztecs!
MH: Nowhere in my article do I ever state that "advanced technology
automatically results in spiritual superiority". As a matter of fact,
richly explored in the Meier material is an abundance of evidence to
the contrary, regarding not only very ancient ET races but even the
ones who were here, long ago, representing themselves as the various
"gods" of our religions. This applies also to the gods of South and
Central America, as well as to the god(s) of the Old testament,
> The argument against hypnosis as a valid research tool is also
> faulty. Hypnosis, when properly applied and interpreted, can be a
> useful adjunct to research; however, it is far from the only source
> of alien contact accounts. There is plenty that is remembered
> without the use of hypnosis, and accompanied by physical evidence.
> These are the types of cases my colleague Derrel Sims focuses on,
> only using hypnosis as either a therapeutic tool or corroborating
MH: The operative words here are "when properly applied and
interpreted, can be a useful adjunct". Unfortunately, this is still a
rather loose statement for which no real proof is offered. Likewise,
in the rest of the statement, nothing of substance is offered to
credibly support the very assumption that I criticize in my article,
i.e. that this constitutes proof of an extraterrestrial origin for
the phenomenon. And where is the word "alleged" as i should appear in
front of "alien contact accounts"?
> I agree that some aspects of the contact scenario are non-physical,
> with the alien demonstrating an ability to manipulate our
> perception of reality. Therefore, we must always be on guard to
> what we perceive to be happening and what can be demonstrated, as
> Derrel often points out in his lectures on "Memory vs. Recall."
> However, contrary to what Michael and others are aware of, there
> are plenty of physical indications that actual contact is in fact
MH: Whoa and hold on there! We haven't yet had an iota of proof for
any "aliens" in these scenarios so, again, how's about..."alleged"?
These statements have to be dissected at least as carefully as any so-
called "alien implant", etc.! No one, including I, said that some
kind of "contact", i.e. phenomenon, isn't occurring, just that there
is no empirical evidence that it comes from an off-world source.
> As to the supposed "agenda," time will tell. The fact that they
> operate covertly and produce trauma--physical, emotional and
> psychological--must be considered before one concludes that the
> goal is "benevolent."
MH: I'd be the last one to say that the phenomenon, when it is an
actual physical experience and not an hallucination, bad dream, etc.,
isn't trauma producing. I am simply stating the obvious - there is no
proof yet in existence, nor offered so far in these responses, to
establish that there is an extraterrestrial source to it.
> My history professors always cautioned against making moral
> judgments, as it can cloud our interpretation of the facts. I
> suggest the same approach with regards to analyzing the alien.
> Review the facts and results, and proceed with caution.
MH: well, we all make moral and other kinds of judgments all the
time, as are necessary to survive, not get robbed, conned, misled, go
down the wrong road, etc. More importantly to this argument, let me
point out that the obvious error again made in the last paragraph is
an assumption for which no proof is offered. I could ask just what
"alien" is being referred to here but I would hope that my point is
MH: And now, contestant number two:
> Craig R. Lang wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I was fascinated to read Michael Horne's comments on Alien
>> Abduction in
>> his article "Regarding so-called 'Alien Abductions'".
>> In the article, Mr. Horne addresses several points in the abduction
>> phenomenon, which he says indicates that abduction is not of E.T.
>> Since I work with close encounter experiencers allot, I have a few
>> about his article (a lot of them, actually, but I will only
>> mention a few,
MH: Ooooops, the buzzer just went off! While Craig may work "with
close encounter experiencers allot", apparently he either doesn't
work with good reading glasses or doesn't think that a little thing
like starting off, and intermittently continuing, to misspell my last
name matters much. May I suggest that before anyone gets lost in
dealing with presumed members of other worlds that they try to pay
attention to the nagging little details of this one?
>> Early in the article, he states the following:
>> "The race would have to have a significantly longer life span than we
>> currently enjoy because even the early stages of space travel,
>> which we
>> have not yet truly entered, i.e. distant interplanetary (let alone
>> interstellar) travel, require a lot of time."
>> This quote would imply that an alien race does not have technology
>> allowing it to somehow transcend the time-dependent, distance-
>> issues inherent in interstellar travel. This echoes the classic
>> star-faring visitors (e.g. the myriad of articles by Carl Sagan, Seth
>> Shostak, etc.). Most of the UFO/ET-visitor skeptics state that star
>> travel would take a prohibitive amount of time and energy, and
>> thus be
>> impractical (or at least cost-ineffective).
MH: Hold on there, I don't think you either understood, or thought
through, what I was really saying. Allow me to clarify. It's
enormously doubtful that any race goes from throwing tin cans into
the atmosphere with a few people in them to traversing time-space at
unimaginable speeds. Based on how life and evolution work, there are
steps involved. One of these steps would be close planet travel, then
farther travel, etc. Hyper-space travel would be a later development,
more than likely.
And of course, if Craig had read any of the Meier material, he would
certainly know that not only do they claim to be able to traverse
vast distances, and times, but they report on space traveling races
having done so - for countless millions of years.
>> Can we really assume that our alien visitors (if indeed they
>> really are
>> nuts and bolts star-farers) would not have technology beyond
>> this? Carl
>> Sagan, himself, made the comment that "one thing we can say about
>> is that they would be alien." In short, we can say very little
>> about what
>> their technology would be. I believe that it is overly simplistic to
>> ascribe our own engineering restrictions to them.
MH: As stated above, I don't ascribe any such limitations, I simply
made the point as it related to a number of things, including longer
life spans and, ultimately, how any "breeding" with a species with
such short life spans, and other liabilities as we possess, isn't
logical for the time and effort seemingly involved, nor for the
problems that would result from such hybridization.
>> Horne then takes on the question of motivation.
MH: "Horne" may be a state of mind-body, Horn is the state of my last
>> He posits that any
>> advanced star-faring race would necessarily have unified to the
>> point that
>> they would no longer be warlike.
MH: No, I said that any such presumed race would have likely resolved
its internecine differences, i.e., "...may also be expected to have
resolved the divisions among themselves on their own world and view
themselves as one people." I suggest that he also read the rest of
the paragraph again, carefully.
>> They would be (presumably) spiritually as
>> well as technologically advanced. Thus, he asks what they would
>> want from
MH: Let me answer that with something that isn't in my article by
suggesting that Craig, and anyone else interested, read http://
www.theyfly.com/PDF/IntroToSpiritual%20Teachings.pdf and the rest of
the freely available articles, newsletters, prophecies, predictions,
archives, scientific analysis, etc. at www.theyfly.com.
>> He argues that they would not need to "surreptitiously pick up
>> individual citizens here and there, for decades, and tinker around
>> them in a way that would effectively warn the population of their
>> He also argues (a very common argument) that since their
>> technology, and
>> thus weaponry, is obviously far in advance of ours, if their
>> intent were
>> hostile, they would have done away with us long ago. At least they
>> do so well before our own technology could advance enough to possibly
>> oppose them.
MH: And the points here are...?
>> In his advanced-military-technology argument, Horne does make some
>> interesting points. They could, indeed, overwelm us militarily if
>> they so
>> chose. However, this assumes that they operate under the same
>> paradigm that we do. This is roughly like assuming that a human
>> remove an ant infestation from his/her house by conquering the ant
>> with other ants - i.e. ascribing our own life and political
>> paradigms to
>> those of the visitors. I suggest that the "aliens are alien" -
>> that their
>> views of life and the universe are far different from ours. Thus,
>> agenda(s) would probably be something very different from anything
>> in the
>> human sphere of motivations.
MH: Unfortunately, this is an example of the kind of fantasy thinking
that has enveloped the UFO/alien researchers crowd. By that I mean
theories and illogical statements that clearly indicate that the
writer is unfamiliar with the only ET case that I know of that
actually has any proof, six categories of still irreproducible
physical evidence, 24,000+ pages of information, including volumes of
specific, prophetically accurate information, over 100 witnesses and
five other photographers. So pardon me if I'm unimpressed with
conjecture about what an "alien" would do, say and think when we have
the best evidence in the history of humanity of what they actually
do, say and think.
>> Horne then goes on to challenge the validity of hypnosis, stating
>> that the
>> resulting abduction accounts are largely anecdotal. Much of the
>> argument could be applied to the entire UFO phenomenon which is
MH: Okay, this is getting me Horne, however, let's continue. I agree
with Craig here, it can be applied to the entire phenomenon...as it
applies to the alien component. What aliens? Who, where, why, etc.?!
>> To quote (paraphrase) Dr. J. ALlen Hynek, we have only UFO
>> reports, not the actual UFOs themself. However, both alien
>> abduction and
>> UFO sightings in general do have SOME evidence to support them.
>> Just ask
>> Ted Phillips - the database of UFO trace cases is HUGE!
MH: Again, where is that cute little word..."alleged", as in "alleged
alien abduction"? This is the second writer who has jumped to
unsubstantiated conclusions...and there are many, many more. Sorry to
rain on your parade but as someone who's ben researching one
particular case for 28+ years that actually gives proof for "alien"
contact, there's no way I'm going to let this kind of stuff float by
as if it's based on fact and not supposition. And the "aliens" in the
Meier case are...human beings just like you and me.
>> IMHO, however, one fascinating part of the mystery is, itself, the
>> of physical evidence. Still, absence of evidence is not evidence of
>> absence and thus, one can not use it to argue that the phenomenon
>> is not
MH: You want evidence, start at www.theyfly.com.
>> Ultimately, Horne builds an argument that the negative E.T.
>> a.k.a. abduction, is not a valid scenario. While I am not
>> particularly a
>> believer in the "evil alien" paradgim, I do not believe in the
>> alien" view, either. Whatever the visitors are up to, it is complex.
MH: What visitors, for crying out loud? Will somebody please come to
the rescue of these good folks who talk about unproven things and
beings as if they were an established fact? Read the article I link
to regarding the actual history and origin of UFOs, heck, read and
think through the tons of information in the Meier case that is
designed - not to "abduct" you or try to convince you that you're the
proud parent of some interplanetary "star child" - to wake you up to
what's happening right here, on OUR world that is leading us to
cataclysmic results if we don't stop giving our power away to false
leaders, religions, beliefs, governments...and fantasies like "alien
>> the experiences of the experiencers I have worked with as a
>> hypnotherapist, I have found that the human-visitor interaction
>> seems to
>> transcend the good-evil polarity. The relationship is many things, a
>> mixed bag that is very difficult to characterize.
MH: What "interaction", what "relationship" with what "visitors"?
Snap out of it!
>> What is the "Alien Agenda?" Why are the visitors here? I
>> certainly don't
MH: For heaven's sake, that last statement is the most accurate thing
>> However, I believe we can offer some informed speculation, based
>> upon abduction accounts. Several abductees have described that
>> they appear
>> to be here (among the myriad other reasons) to teach. Many have
>> zen-like lessons in human free-will, spiritual transcendence,
>> etc. These
>> often occur in the mid-life years of an abductee's life.
MH: Gag me, for this New Age mumbo-jumbo we need "alien abductions"?
>> That they appear to have a genetic agenda of some sort, appears to be
>> obvious. However, I don't believe that we can clearly state what
>> agenda is. Are they "trying to survive" by interbreeding with us? I
>> believe that is too simplistic. Yet hybrids are a common
>> description. Thus, there DOES appear to be some kind of genetic
>> tampering going on.
MH: Help, I'm trapped in a time warp! One illogical, unsubstantiated,
goofy assumption upon another! (Pardon me but he did get my name
wrong, my revenge is a little feigned outrage that masks real
>> Michael Horne is obviously a strong believer in the Billy Meier
MH: No, I don't believe a darn thing! I simply have done enough work
to know that the Meier case is authentic. I don't know and can't
prove that everything in it's true.
>> Yet it is interesting that he says nothing about the writings of
>> Billy Meier fan, Dr. James Deardorff. Dr. Deardorff wrote an
>> article entitled, "A Proposed Extraterrestrial Strategy for Earth." I
>> believe that this addresses most of the questions that Mr. Horne
>> and builds a solid theoretical case for visitor-human interactions.
MH: When and where did I ever say that I didn't accept the premise
that human ETs have never interacted with us. From what I have
learned but still can't prove, it's been going on for millions of
years. It's just that they're not "little grays", "reptoids", etc.
and they ain't floating anybody through walls in the middle of the
night. Let me qualify that and say that if any ETs have done those
things, they're certainly in the absolute minority and would only
account for the most miniscule number of reports...throughout
history. Any proof to the contrary?
>> In my book, "The Cosmic Bridge, Close Encounters and Human
>> Destiny," I
>> extensively cite Dr. Deardorff's work and combine it with other
>> aspects of
>> abduction, to offer the hypothesis that the visitors are conducting a
>> "human improvement project." I suggest that the reason for this
>> is that
>> we are behind the game, spiritually - and perhaps somewhat ahead
>> technologically. Thus, I propose that "the neighbors" are
>> concerned that
>> we "barbarians" may soon be spilling out into the cosmos. Since our
>> primary endeavor on this planet is war, I believe that those
>> already there
>> MUST be concerned about this.
MH: Geez, read the Meier stuff already, please, like http://
www.gaiaguys.net/meier.contact251.htm for a history that goes back
more than 22 million years.
>> So, ultimately, I hypothesise that the alien agenda, such as it
>> is, is at
>> once both benevolent and selfish.
>> I believe that we don't know what abduction really is. I have
>> cases in my case files that suggest it is a physical phenomenon -
>> at least
>> in part. Other cases suggest that it is, at least in part,
>> or (para)psychological in nature. I believe it is both at the
>> same time,
>> an overlay of realities that challenges our very understanding of the
>> nature of "reality."
>> Well, enough said... :-)
>> I've written far more here than I had intended. I do tackle this
>> topic in my book. If you are so inclined, please feel free to read
>> it and
>> let me know what you think.
MH: Okay, so still not an ounce of proof for "alien abductions" but
everyone's an expert on them, etc.
No disrespect meant but considering the kind of stuff that gets
hurled my way just for representing the Meier case, I subscribe to
the very valid notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
And I welcome such from anyone so inclined, and qualified, to provide
>> Thanks for e-listening.
>> -Craig Lang
Re: ELAINE: Alien "Abductions" Questioned by Michael Horn of Meier fameCraig,
Well, now that it's been liberated, you could consider becoming one
of the Lange's, who would be glad to welcome you into their vast
family of the more traditionally spelled version.
> If it makes you feel better, you can drop the 'e' at the end of
> your name. I give you permission to spell your name correctly
> again. Feel better now?... :-)
> In your rebuttal, you primarily decry the lack of proof of "alien
> abduction." Yet there is plenty of physical evidence for the close
> encounter phenomenon.
MH: Again, this is one of those "this equals that" arguments. You
make a statement that leads one to think that you're actually going
to substantiate it in the next sentence, yet you don't.
And exactly what physical evidence proves "alien" contact? It's not a
> While evidence not plentiful, it is certainly not "none." There
> are quite a few multiwitness cases in the MUFON database involving
> abductions. Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs, especially, have a
> significant number of cases which include both multiwitness
> corroboration and physical evidence. I also have several such
> cases in my own case files.
MH: You start off here asserting that there is evidence and in the
next sentence bring up anecdotal evidence regarding witnesses
"involving abductions". Yet, once again, you provide nothing to
substantiate these claims. Where is the proof of "alien" abductions?
> In addition, you also insist on the term "alleged" in terms of
> alien abduction. Yet I would turn the tables around and ask you
> about the alleged Billy Meier contacts. There is alot of material
> to indicate that the Billy Meier contacts are not exactly an
> evidential gold standard. Nuff Sed on that.
MH: "A lot of material" means exactly what? And a dismissive "Nuff
sed" isn't 'nuff if you want to make a point to me about the evidence
in the Meier case, with which I am quite familiar.
> And yes, I have read about the Billy Meier case. I find it
> I work with both contactees and abductees. I have interviewed
> several people who have described Pleiadean contacts. They have
> certainly encountered something - with very positive interactions.
> From what they say, I certainly hope they are correct.
MH: Here we go again! Where is the much needed "alleged" in Pleiadian
contacts"? According to Meier and the alleged Plejaren, there are NO
Pleidians and no contacts between the Plejaren and anyone else.
Question. These so-called contactees with the "Pleiadians", what
makes them more qualified for these "contacts" than Meier's family
members, or the several dozen people who've worked side by side with
Meier for 20-30 years?
> Another point - whenever I think I am developing a picture of some
> aspect of the phenomenon, I find that "God has a sense of humor,"
> and I get thrown a new case that pretty much deep-sixes whatever I
> might have concluded. Contacts such as Billy Meier describes are
> one example of those. My mind has to remain open on them, though I
> remain very discerning about them. Again, the phenomenon(a) still
> has many surprises in store for us...
> To reiterate, I do not clain to know what close encounters are. In
> addition, I do not claim that the phenomenon is necessarily
> entirely physical.
MH: It wouldn't be if some of them are hallucinations, mass hypnosis,
> "Extraterrestrial" does not necessarily mean "nuts and bolts." As
> I described earlier, many experiencers have had both physical
> (including residual physical evidence) and metaphysical experiences
> during their lives. And I don't even think we can make the claim
> that the phenomenon is necessarilly extraterrestrial, though the
> "fast walker" sightings, and other similar distant encounters
> suggest that it is.
MH: Not necessarily at all. The fact that secret military craft and
various psy-ops are behind most of these must be taken into account.
And any proof that the experiences involve "aliens" need be
substantiated. I know I've never said that before but I figured now
was as good a time as any.
> Furthermore, several multiparticipant encounters contain details
> that strongly suggest an extraterrestrial aspect to them. Again,
> the phenomenon has many more aspects to it - far more complexities,
> of which we have only begin to understand (yes, you can call that
> 'fuzzy' if you wish...).
MH: Not only fuzzy but, to proceed from your own term, perhaps
indicative of suggestibility.
> Thanks again for your interesting reply. And when I get done with
> my reading glasses, I will mail them to you, so that you can use
> them, too... :-)
MH: Thanks but so far, at 64, I haven't had use for them. If you can
show me where I've misread anything I might accept your offer.
> Take care,
> - Craig
> Craig R. Lang, MS CHt
> Dear co-workers,
> Like our friend Jim, I'm grateful to have been included in this
> interesting correspondence, but my intention is to publicize it, not
> debate it.
> I'm one of the two people behind one of the four URLs
> ( www.gaiaguys.net/meiersb34.htm ) Michael has included at the end of his
> article (
> ) published on the website which emphatically exclaims, "Seeking Truth and
> Understanding!" I've also read all Meier's very very voluminous published
> material, only a couple of percent of which has now been translated out of
> May I please point out that the most cogent and well-documented factor in
> the "abduction" equation has been neglected/avoided? This pivotal piece of
> the puzzle is one click away from our linked translation of (part of)
> Billy's February 3rd, 2007 contact, and can be found immediately under our
> translation to which Michael tried to draw your attention. (Please see
> To make your search even easier, I'll reproduce a couple of the URLs again
> here, and specifically urge a logical examination of the Disclosure
> Project documentation (presented to the U.S. Congress in 2001), which we
> have published for free and in full. It contains corroborative
> whistleblower evidence from (Earth) humans who participated in aspects of
> the high tech "black shelf" technology (telenotics, implants,
> electrogravitics, fake cloned "ETs", etc. etc. etc.) associated with
> hoaxed "alien" abductions, as well as a lot of other quite independent
> logical corroboration of the German-language Plejaren (NOT "Pleiadian")
> material, and is well worth learning if you are interested in your
> respective futures when the truth finally fully and ineluctably emerges
> from the deep toxic dung of sophistry and deliberate disinformation under
> which it is being buried.
> If the 500 page Disclosure Project Briefing Document
> www.gaiaguys.net/DPBriefingDocument.zip is too detailed, you might
> consider the 100 page Executive Summary.
> www.gaiaguys.net/DPSummaryNoDocs.zip The other links on that translation
> of ours referred to by Michael should also prove to be instructive, albeit
> iconoclastic to the point of being offensive.
> In closing, it's worth noting that both the Disclosure Project and the
> Plejaren Federation (two profoundly different and standalone organization
> who manifestly want nothing to do with each other) independently assert
> that there are "above top secret" corporate, defense-related
> Unacknowledged Secret Access Projects (USAPs) which bring into being the
> cloned entities being passed off as extraterrestrial abductors, etc. And
> the DP Director claims that the reptile-like ones are UK-based. He also
> says, "The truth WILL set you free, but first it will REALLY piss you
> Happy seeking!
> Dyson (Devine)
Back to www.gaiaguys.net/meier.htm
Back to www.gaiaguys.net/nokodemion.htm
Back to Homepage