"Who will not comprehend the truth with his understanding, but only with his belief, cannot harvest the fruit from it."
Wer die Wahrtheit nicht mit seinem Verstande, sondern mit Glauben erfassen will, der kann die Früchte aus ihr nicht ernten. - OM 53:26
(See this threatening email Kal K Korff sent to Michael Horn)
The following is a tiny selection of
Michael Horn's 2006 Emails
From the late 70s, the Plejaren extraterrestrials provided Billy Meier with extensive photographic and
other evidence of their existence in order, as they explained, to cause the controversy required to
bring about the necessary awareness in Earth humans in regard to the truth of existence of
extraterrestrials. As predicted that controversy rages today and as Michael Horn's emails reveal,
there is no shortage of individuals who are determined, in books, on radio programs and on the
internet, to savagely, and often underhandedly, brand Billy Meier a hoaxer and fraud as they delight in focussing, for instance, on the film clip where the craft hovers as if suspended by a string, the one
where the ship is seemingly stuck to a tree, the craft whose under-surface resembles a garbage can
lid - the one which has been called "the wedding cake". However, as Michael also reveals on his website, ( www.theyfly.com ) in regard to this evidence, these "experts" always eventually succeed in demonstrating their own lack of thoroughness and profound disrespect for the truth.
The below emails to and sometimes from the Authorized American media representative of the Meier Contacts, were generated by Michael's uniquely valuable, sometimes amusing, tireless, casting of pearls before swine. Some of the rude words may have been sanitized a bit. I, Dyson, disguised or removed identities to protect people's privacy. For the sake of simplicity, headings have been removed. Most of the spelling is as it was written, and the formatting is still rough, but understandable.
Please visit our Michael Horn Page
And our previous Horn emails page
Date:Wednesday, 20 December 2006 4:50 AM
Mis-Kalculated Koncession from KKK
As you may know, the skeptical challenge to the Meier case suffered a well-deserved defeat when Jeff Ritzmann not only failed to duplicate the Meier UFO photos (and film/video as he also claimed he could) but also revealed that he was a cultivator of exactly the kinds of miniature trees that he accused Meier of using along with model UFOs. The glaringly humiliating fact that Ritzmann couldn't duplicate one photo of his model UFO next to one of his own miniature trees to prove his point forced him to surrender and effectively withdraw his claims of hoax, much the same way James Randi has.
Ritzmann's defeat came on the heels of David Biedney and Gene Steinberg's not only failing to prove that Meier had deliberately hoaxed a "light ship" photograph but also Biedney's being caught in an online overt, published lie. Both Biedney and Steinberg also withdrew, using email threats as their final means of running from the fight they started, exactly as Ritzmann also did.
Now, the latest submission (literally) under the heading of "a mind is a terrible thing to waste", we have the following lunatic rant - and another withdrawal - by the previously most vocal critic of the Meier case, Kal Korff. Kaptain Korff apparently managed to kommandeer a keyboard to sneak this out before his diaper was changed and suitably strong meds were administered. I should note that the last member of this cowardly cabal, Royce Meyers from ufowatchdog.com, remains a faceless, parasitic lone voice championing the now thoroughly self-ridiculed and defeated skeptics. But at least he drives some traffic to the Meier websites.
I guess we could say goodbye and Czech-mate as we present, for your amusement, Kooky Kal's last gasp:
I am afraid you just don't "get" it. But then again, I am not surprised.
YOU, of all people, are NOT in a "position" to "negotiate" anything.
You are a FRAUD, Mikey, and I don't "negotiate" with either terrorists or
con artists. If anything, as you will find out in my upcoming three book
series on terrorism coming out in 2007, I eliminate terrorists, and also
prosecute criminal and consumer fraud scammers just like you.
I do not care if I debate you ever again. Nothing will change. You WILL be
exposed and ARE being exposed. You remain clueless, naturally, as to who
the parties are that are behind this, and what now lays in store for you.
And just so you know, neither the "Pleiadians" nor Meier can or will try
to "save you"... you will be hung out to dry just like prior FIGU
You CAN'T stop the 24 VOLUME series that's coming out exposing Meier, the
Kalendars, and everything else I won't disclose now. Billy will be "uber
alles" shortly, but not in the way he or you expects.
Lastly, as a Captain in the Special Secret Services, of which you know
nothing about, I do NOT talk nor "negotiate" with those I am actively
involved in prosecuting for consumer fraud.
That would be YOU, Michael.
And I WILL announce, and there WILL be a broadcast posted far and wide,
announcing that a formal CRIMINAL investigation has now been launched
against you, and several LAWSUITS ARE being filed against you.
You are certainly welcome to come here to Poland and try to sue me. You
may file the papers in Praga, which many people confuse with Prague, in
the Czech Republic. The district of Praga, in Warsaw, has legal
I "owe" you NOTHING, Mikey, and you, of all people, are in a position to
"negotiate" nothing. You are a FRAUD, you have NO CREDIBILITY, and you
will NOT be given any by anyone who stands for truth and what is right.
This is my LAST email to you. For the last and final time, ALL our
interactions will be PUBLIC, or NONE at all.
I have nothing to hide, but you certainly do. All people who commit fraud
have things to hide.
You CAN'T fight the S3 Mikey, and in the new TV series Secret Wars, which
will broadcast in January, not only are YOU FEATURED IN THIS NEW TV SHOW,
(we DON'T "need" your permission!) but the WORLD will get to see the
meetings that were held discussing your "fate" and how an OpsPlan was put
together to nail you.
I "picked no fight"... YOU did by lying and deceiving consumers.
By LYING to consumers, it was only a matter of time before truth and
justice caught up with you.
I, and others, are busy helping it get there faster. :-)
Do NOT contact me again, and if you do, yet another charge will be added
to prosecute you. I will take it straight to the Feds, Mikey.
I close by reminding you that you CANNOT defeat the Special Secret
Services. You remain not only clueless, you have NO LEGITIMACY.
Our lawyers are now contacting EVERY show and station listed in your
resume, where you try to "impress" people with volume instead of
substance, and Mikey, I just hope that they let me PERSONALLY slap the
handcuffs on you when your time comes.
I don't think they'll let me. But I will certainly, at least be there to
see it in person. Then I will go happily visit my relatives in california.
You will be served in either California, my old stomping grounds, or
Nevada, where a Major who is under my command has already taken up
residence there and lays in wait for you.
I look forward to seeing you in court, Michael, and I am NOT bluffing. So
if you do bother to show yourself this week on the XZone, I would be
Here's something you may already know... "...Anything you say, can and
will be used against you....."
I think you know the rest of this famous set of words named after someone
Goodbye, I do not wish you "good luck" and I look forward to working with
everyone to nail you criminally, legally, in the media, and everywhere
that it genuinely matters and counts.
Next time YOU "pick a fight" you might want to stick to TRUTH. I know it
is a concept that might be "alien" to you.
If anyone asks you about this letter, or WHY I REFUSE to "deal" with you,
except in public, here is my official position. You can quote me, and if
you do NOT tell people my position when they ask you, you will be guilty
of LYING yet again. Here it is:
"I (Kal Korff) refuse to have any communications with Michael Horn because
he is a FRAUD. If and when Horn ever decides to admit the truth, that the
Billy Meier case is a hoax, there is nothing to 'discuss.' I don't talk to
people who lie to the public, and I don't 'negotiate' with them. Instead,
I expose them and help prosecute them where possible. I look forward to
working to bring Michael Horn to justice."
This is MY OFFICIAL POSITION, MICHAEL...IF YOU DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE IT,
AND YOU CLAIM ANYTHING ELSE, YOU'RE GUILTY OF LIBEL AND SLANDER.
YOU BEEN WARNED, THE "LEGAL HOOK" HAS BEEN SET, it is only now a matter of
time and the degree to which you WILL be nailed.
It remains to be seen whether misrepresenting, deliberately, (which makes
it libel and slander) my position as stated above, is yet another charge
that will be added to the growing list that is being built up against you,
and WILL be acted on.
See you in court, and in the court of public opinion and in the court of
the worldwide media.
Captain, Special Secret Services
On Sun, December 17, 2006 6:48 pm, Michael wrote:
I'm afraid that your non-responsive email does not, as per the
absolutely non-negotiable stipulation in my email to you, qualify,
i.e. provide the PROOF required, to warrant dignifying another
disinformation-laden interaction with you.
That is not to say that I am not willing to debate again this coming
week, only that you first be a good boy, do as you were told, and
provide the PROOF for the claims that YOU have already made, both on
air and in your press release, etc.
BTW, if I'd only known in advance (http://www.ufowatchdog.com/meier_debate.html ) that I was supposed to roll over,
take a dive, hit the canvas and go down for the count - I could have
informed you that it's simply not my style...as a few other hapless
poseurs like you have also discovered.
Now I have to assume that you have SOME proof (or at least a good
story) to back up the claims that you made. As far as the Art Bell
issue, maybe you've got that...maybe. It would be fine with me but it
WASN'T among the numbered points that you are REQUIRED to provide
proof for (please pay attention).
Apparently you're not used to having the curtain pulled back on, and
the rug pulled out from under, you, since whatever air time you've
had in the past has been mostly unchallenged, especially by anyone
who actually enjoys taking on cowardly bullies like you.
Perhaps you didn't notice what happened to the little loud-mouthed
tree cultivator, Jeff Ritzmann, who made a feeble attempt to back up
his own (still) unsubstantiated claims (I direct you to http://
www.theyfly.com/newsflash5/rev_debt.htm and http://www.theyfly.com/
And you were obviously unaware of the fact that David Biedney was
also caught in blatant LIES, such as having said that he PROVED that
Meier's photo was "a deliberate...out of camera hoax...double
exposure...using a light and dark curtain, etc." He even, quite
comically, later DENIED saying it was a double exposure, which was
shown to be a lie, using his OWN published words, of course.
I apologize if I, too, failed to direct your attention to this
information before the show, as it might have prevented your making
at least some of those embarrassingly ridiculous claims. Then again,
based on what I've seen of your, er, honesty, integrity and
truthfulness so far...maybe not.
But back to the point. You had your squandered opportunity to do it
your way the first time and now you've been given MY terms for the
next engagement. So, if you want the pleasure of my company again,
and an opportunity to make your case before the many people who
follow my appearances representing the Meier case (see:
www.theyfly.com), you'll (quickly!) meet them.
Contrary to what may appear the case with you, I do have other things
to do than entertain wannabe gunslingers, especially those who come
with their guns unloaded. Please remember that when making your
threats, of any kind, against me. On all accounts - put up or shut up.
By the way, when you wrote "ask anyone who REALLY knows me", would
you be referring to the Kal Korff, the "me", who lies about his
identity, wears a disguise, slithers around in the dark, falsely
describes both the FIGU center, Meier, the people there, the
evidence, the experts, etc. - or is there yet another Kal Korff being
referred to? Help me out here, would ya?
Well, you think on that for a while but please do so AFTER you've
submitted PROOF of the following claims made by you (I've left the
"he" in just in case whoever debated me on the air and has written to
me under the name "Kal Korff" isn't really "you"):
1. The ownership of copyrights of Meier's photographs and permission
to sell them
2. The photographs, films and video that he claims to have DUPLICATED
of Meier's evidence
3. The legitimacy of the mathematical formulation that he claims
prove that the UFOs are small models next to full-sized trees
(despite the opinions of six forestry experts)
4. That he actually was given metal samples by Marcel Vogel, when
it's already established that the date he gives for such is well
AFTER such samples were no longer in Vogel's possession
5. That the analysis of Meier's photos done by Design Technology was
6. That the analysis of Meier's sound recordings, by three
professional sound studios that authenticated them, was incorrect
7. That numerous prophetically accurate statements, published in
copyrighted books by Meier BEFORE the events occurred, actually
didn't occur as foretold (see: www.theyfly.com)
8. Meier having ever said that he is the reincarnation of, or has
ever met, Jesus Christ
9. That the bronze colored object on the rim of the WCUFO has "fallen
off" the object and proves that it's a model
10. The WCUFO video being of a model (prove by duplication of both
the WCUFO and the video)
11. That, as someone with almost 28 years investigating and
researching the Meier case,t I am a "newbie, a literal Johnny-come-
12. That "millions of dollars" have been earned by Meier, the
investigators or anyone else directly associated with the case,
including me (a VOLUNTARY representative of the case)
13. That the people he has in mind are indeed "con artists"
14. That there is a "Billy Meier cult in Switzerland" and that we are
"actively engaged in spreading" it
15. That the case was "proven to be a fraud last century"
16. That this is true: "these con artists continue to lie to the
public and steal their hard earned money by illegally telling and
falsely assuring consumers that the 'UFO' photos Meier has taken show
real 'alien' spacecraft" (HINT: Please provide proof of lying,
illegal actions and theft)
Now, in the event that you need more time - and I don't know WHY you
would since these are YOUR claims so you MUST have PROOF of them - I
will graciously agree to have the second debate with you following
your providing them. I would prefer that you do so within this decade
however, which I think is more than fair and reasonable...don't you?
Oh yeah, PLEASE don't offer the "I've been called away to defend
national security" excuse. You picked the fight with me and now
you've got it.
Now hurry along there and, as we say in the states, put your money
where your mouth is and...don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Authorized American Media Representative
The Billy Meier Contacts
THE MEIER CONTACTS - THE KEY TO OUR FUTURE SURVIVAL
If you wish to have your emails answered, please send them to the
email address. This is always a good thing to do. You are
perhaps unfortunate, that your other emails were at least forwarded
by some mutual parties.
Please be aware that we WILL answer your emails but only PUBLICLY.
Therefore, if you wish any OFFICIAL responses, please post them on
KalKorff.com. That's one of the many reasons it doth exist.
Regarding Art Bell and all the other false claims you make, prepare
only be exposed on the XZone, but I will be happy to especially
about Art Bell. But I don't think Jim Dilettoso will "appreciate" you
mentioning it since BOTH Art Bell and Jim ADMITTED that what he did
FRAUD. Art's words were: "That's fraud, Jim."
And Jim said "Yeah."
You brought it up, I will put and end to it. :-)
Itis too bad that you cannot quiote what REALLY happened, but then
am not surprised. You were NOT there, I was.
And regarding non existent "copyright" violations, you never sued
Prometheus Books and these images are from my old Meier expose
is NO copyright violation, but you are free to sue Prometheus in court
should you disagree.
You are welcome to reply formally, openly and PUBLICLY at
Otherwise, ALL of your emails will be either ignored or bounce back
WE have NOTHING to hide, and you are deluding yourself if you think
is any sort of "conspiracy" to "get" either you or Billy Meier.
No, Michael, THERE IS ONLY TRUTH.
It's a concept and principle you neither understand, nor tell the
about. You are GUILTY of CONSUMER FRAUD, Michael. And I will do my
see that you are LEGALLY prosecuted.
Michael, ask anyone who REALLY knows me, I am NOT "bluffing".
I will remind you of the ancient Pleidaian saying: "Vulcans never
And the Pleiadians found this out after the Vulcans used basic
expose them, and they were so ashamed and jealous of everyone else who
started claiming to also talk to "Pleidaians" that Meier was
to change their imaginary names to "Plejarans."
Michael <Michael@theyfly.com> Date:Thursday, 14 December 2006 10:06 AM
To: Victor Martinez <email@example.com>
Dear Victor & List Members,
The first thing I'd like to do is to NOT apologize for the very lengthy rebuttal below. I have to assume that you, as a member of this list, are interested in finding out the truth about UFOs, ETs, the cover-up, etc. In the process of doing so, and I say this at the risk of offending all of you, you have been fed mostly disinformation, sometimes not deliberately, other times quite deliberately.
If you really desire to get to the bottom of the matter, I suggest that you forgo time-wasting, unreal and unsubstantiated fabrications, long dead UFO cases and all other matters of diversion in favor of doing some real and hard research. I have, as the Authorized American Media Representative for the Billy Meier contacts attempted to support your efforts, should you be so inclined to exert them.
In the course of doing so, and in attempting to direct people to the real core information and value of the Meier case for our future survival, I do a lot of media interviews and I encounter a LOT of skeptical resistance, which is absolutely fine, it comes with the territory. Sometimes, however, some very despicable things occur, not just to me but to anyone seeking the truth...and that just may include YOU too.
So, if you're not interested in the truth, simply delete this email now as the rest of it requires not only patience but critical thinking.
I am happy to answer each of the points raised below by Biedney, however, first I will address the real scam that has gone on here, perpetrated by Jeff Ritzmann and Biedney, Steinberg and Myers. This has been perpetrated not only against the Meier case and me but also against YOU, the readers of this list and all other people who ostensibly are concerned about knowing the truth about UFOs, ETs and the most controversial UFO case of all time, the Billy Meier contacts (now entering their 65th year).
Jeff Ritzmann (JR) has long claimed (like many others) that he could duplicate Meier's UFO photos, films and video and PROVE that Meier hoaxed his evidence using model UFOs and model trees. This point about the model trees is enormously important, as it is central to how all of us, supporters and critics of the Meier case alike, were - almost - duped and defrauded by this man and his cohorts.
Ironically, as you shall soon see, JR focused a lot of attention on several of Meier's photos of the UFO(s) close to and circling trees. He also picked out the Wedding Cake UFO (WCUFO) for special criticism. But first, the most important and revealing matter, i.e. that when JR finally submitted his photos of a small model UFO, close to the camera, suspiciously absent were any photos comparable to the much criticized UFO-in-tree series. JR did everything possible to divert attention from this glaring inconsistency, instead focusing on trying to make a case for having "duplicated" Meier's UFO photos.
This claim has been soundly disposed of in these articles:
And this review from a (non-Meier supporter) listener to the radio debate between JR and me:
In post-debate email exchanges with the Plejarens Are Real (PAR) forum, JR - apparently accidentally in a boastful moment - revealed the most telling aspect of his own deceit and incompetent failure, the fact that HE actually cultivates the VERY KINDS OF MINIATURE TREES that he has, for over a year, accused Meier of using to "hoax" his photos!
Note: Here is an excerpt from that email where I am first quoted by JR and then he responds (all emails on file):
"Further, he tells us that we're looking at Bonsai trees. Well, it
also appears that he knows nothing about Bonsai trees but, hey, when
you're boat's sinking you'll reach for anything."
Actually, I've been raising them for 14 years. Pine needles arent an
issue, as I have one in particular that does have miniatured needles
due to significant root ball pruning. The tree in the wedding cake
shot, as I said looks to be around 3ft give or take. The grass is the
dead giveaway to it's size, and there's no argument for that. The
trunk of that tree appears very smooth and rather artificial, but with
what poor quality we have there's really no telling such details.
If you read nothing else of my rebuttal to these frauds and phonies, PLEASE read and grasp the importance of this to the ENTIRE premise of these failed skeptical debunkers. The man is a model maker, photographer AND miniature tree cultivator who REFUSED to even attempt to duplicate the very photos that he said he could and that would have perhaps proved his claims! He had everything he needed to do so, and the self-proclaimed skill to show us, once and for all how Meier "hoaxed" his photos...and he COULDN'T do it. Again, he COULDN'T do it!
Now, if you bear with me through my rebuttal, I will ultimately explain to you WHY these people have perpetrated an ongoing vicious, vile and defamatory attack against Meier, the case, me, as well as anyone else who dares to attempt to bring the truth to light.
But before we finish with the very finished JR, let me point out a couple of more things. One, JR had also claimed that he could duplicate the Meier UFO films, as well as the photos and video of the WCUFO (and even the sound recordings!). Those claims are likewise easily dismissed by his lack of ever submitting such (in well over a year) and in this article:
And by this - STILL IRREPRODUCIBLE - video:
Now, the final point about the honesty and credibility of Jeff Ritzmann. In another exchange on the PAR forum (December 12, 2006), JR responded to a board member's identifying him in regards to another matter pertaining to crossbows:
-- In Plejarens_are_real_2005@yahoogroups.com, "darthjefftk423"
> <darthjefftk423@> wrote:
> > Sorry, dont think it's me, I dont make crossbows.
Then, when pressed by the other party thusly:
"think"??? hmmm... not so "sure" on this, eh? :)
I'm not so sure... the "423" thing, both in your posting name and in
the forum posts, not to mention the sockpuppet wording stuff is far
too coincidental... right?
Darth Vader from the "dark side" and so on...
AND... using YOUR own logic, all this coincidental stuff, applied
YOUR way, would be another story, it now doesn't matter what you
claim, you NOW need to put up, or shut up, right?
The profile that's emerging from the websearches fits, the same as
the stupid logic you're using on the meier stuff.
Selective reasoning, and so on.
I'd further say MH has been rather kind so far, in the way he's
worded stuff toward you, right?
Either way, YOU Jeff, using the same logic you've used, are lacking
in credibility at this point.
YOU need to cough up ALL the stuff you claim, including pictures of
those miniature trees you CLAIM you know so much about.
Even then... there will be questions...
JR admits to the LIE:
Crossbow...lol...youre talkin bowcaster. Man...thats been a long time
ago...youre right tho. 6 years maybe. Yeah I had a cross bow that we
believed was used as the basegun, turned out not to be.
JR has long complained about my calling him a liar. I think that now it should be clear to any impartial, logical person that this man IS a liar, slanderer,defamer and a complete fraud. These words are used as factual, descriptive terms for someone who has conducted himself in this manner. The truth is harsh, and it is especially harsh on those who deliberately lie, deceive and try to harm the truth...and the ability of others to learn it. Mr. Jeff RItzmann is, indeed, finished.
Now, I will insert the rest of my comments below:
In the wake of the Ritzmann/Horn encounter last week,and the subsequent emails regarding feedback from yourlist members, would you please forward the followingemail to your list members. I would really appreciateit.
DB: Last Friday, Jeff Ritmann and Michael Horn appeared ona radio show to "debate" the validity of the BillyMeier's claims regarding photos of what he says areactual spaceships. Jeff agreed to do this show afterHorn had been naming Jeff on a previous appearance ofsaid show, when Ritzmann called in to clarify theissues surrounding his recreations of photos that hadoriginally been done in response to a challenge byHorn.
Horn challenged me to analyze and prove that aspecific photo of a Meier "UFO" was either fake orgenuine. Based on my analysis, it was clear that thephoto in question was absolutely fabricated. NOQUESTION. Numerous problems with the lighting, theartifacts of cloth from the light element plate, lackof reflections and other clear indications of acomposite image, purposefully faked. It's not likethis surprised me - the vast majority of the Meierimages look fake to me, and unlike Horn, I am indeedprofessionally qualified to make this statement.
MH: DB was "invited" to back his claims of DELIBERATE fabrication, one that every photographic expert that I spoke with said COULD NOT be concluded by viewing the photo in question (one out of hundreds of Meier's UFO photos!). He has repeatedly refused to do so, though he continues to make this unfounded assertion.
DB: Horn was given ample opportunity to address myfindings, on our show and message forums, and true tohis (apparently well-documented) style, proceeded toevade, ignore, distort and do everything BUT answersome simple questions about my findings. He thenproceeded to engage in a deeply disturbing and extremedisplay of deceipt, fabrication of people and events,abusive behaviour and downright psychotic craziness,which forced us to bar him from our forums, aftermultiple warnings.
MH: A reading of the Paracast forums (which I am prevented from participating on by these courageous folks) should reveal a number of things. I'm sure I went ballistic there and I'll let any readers decide for themselves just how appropriate or inappropriate my communication was. I also suggest that they see just how many pages AFTER I was no longer allowed to respond to the attacks there, that those attacks on me continued.
DB: Horn has since been served with a formal cease anddesist notice, to stop harrassing me with unwelcomeemails, as well as receiving similar demands from GeneSteinberg, Jeff Ritzmann and Royce Meyers. Hecontinued his emails to the point where we wererecently forced to take formal action with his ISP -his website was shut down for a few days in response.
MH: The facts are, again, quite different. I was NEVER served with anything of the sort. The fact of the matter is that all emails I sent to the above mentioned people - and any I may continue to send - are RESPONSES to the cowardly, parasitic and unsubstantiated attacks that are, to this day, continuing at their respective sites.
Here's a copy of the one of the actual emails from the ISP that tells a different story (and I still have the voicemail apology from them that I saved as well):
From: "A... P... of GKG.NET" <firstname.lastname@example.org>Date: November 13, 2006 9:10:54 AM PSTSubject: [GKG #494137] (Domain Support) Spam Complaint Theyfly.comReply-To: "A... P... of GKG.NET" <email@example.com>
P... M... asked that I review this account. It seems that the responsesthat you sent were sent as new emails and not replies, so they created newrequests. This allowed them to be overlooked.
I have reviewed the issue with our investigative staff to ensure that thisdoes not happen again.
I apologize for this issue and the fact that your domain was placed onlock/hold. I would like to offer a free renewal to your domain to show thatwe are serious in our concern. Please let me know if you approve this freerenewal before it is added to your domain.
DB: He continues to send emails to us, regardless of ourrequests for him to stop. Here's a recent from him:
GS, DB, UFOW, JR,
Hey there knuckleheads, how the heck are ya!?!?
I just wanted to thank y'all for the tireless workthat you've doneto help me record the 4,000,000th visitor towww.theyfly.com. WhileI'm sure I could've done it without ya, every littlebit of helpcertainly - helps!
It's truly heartwarming to see how the envious effortsof a couple ofdolts have kept my name alive on their little internetforum and howthe cowardly sniping and defaming by anI-dare-not-show-my-faceparasite has driven over a good number of inquisitivetypes, some ofwhom have become (look out for the dreaded "C" word) -customers!
And let's not forget the whining and griping from ourresident cakepan model maker, without whose efforts the genuine,authentic, andincomparably clear reality of Meier's photos, filmsand video wouldnot have been so immediately perceptible to soooooooomany people.
So, Season's Greetings, be of good cheer and - keep ondefaming,griping and whining (kinda sounds like a law firm,doesn't it?) -it's what you do best!
From me, lovable little ol',
MH: Wow, that's pretty rough stuff I said, isn't it? I mean, ol' lady Biedney is crying about one of my sarcastic but benign "attacks" as if, well as if it was actually as vile as the stuff put out by them, online and on the air.
DB: According to Horn, Meier fans are "customers".
MH: Nope, read it again, and in context:
"...and how the cowardly sniping and defaming...has driven over a good number of inquisitive types, some of whom have become (look out for the dreaded "C" word) - customers!"
That happens to be true, as well as chiding. SOME of the people who came to my site as a result of the defamatory attacks against me decided to check it out for themselves and, heaven forbid, bought a DVD or book, etc. Does anybody have a problem with that? I call it poetic justice. Heck, if you want me to fail, don't advertise for me!
MH: He complained to the host of the radio show last weekthat he was not allowed to express himself on theParacast message forums. He declined to mention why hewas banned, or any of the specifics of his experiencewith our show. He is now claiming that the four of usengaged in a bashing session on The Paracast thisweek, without allowing him to present his "arguments"or "point of view".
MH: Er, yeah, you engaged in just such a bash-a-thon and you don't deny it...just note that I complained about it! Please note again, he DOESN'T DENY that they did it and excluded me, so his point is what, that one SHOULDN'T complain about, let alone respond to, such crap?
DB: In my own experiences with Horn, his has shown anabsolute willingness to invent discussions,selectively quote and flagrantly misquote people inorder to cloak and distort the truth. In a thread onThe Paracast discussion forums, he was caughtred-handed in the process of a libelous, slanderousscheme to harm me on a personal and professionallevel. In response to my sharing the story of a majorUFO encounter in Caracas, Venezuela in the summer of1974 (the topic of the fifth episode of The Paracast),Horn publicly claimed that I fabricated this encounterin order to start a UFO cult (a clear projection ofhis own internal awareness of the reality of the Meiercase).
MH: As I recall, since I'm banned from the site, I was giving the rather self-important and humorless DBa dose of his own medicine, i.e. by tongue in cheek suggesting the very thing that he viciously and inaccurately accuses Meier of, trying to create a cult! But these guys are such thin-skinned, precious little girlie boys that they can't take the heat in their own kitchen. A further example of just how dense and self-absorbed these "knuckleheads" are is that DB actually complained that I had threatened them when I said that there's only one of me but that I've got them all surrounded. Really, he read that as a threat. On second thought, based on the looney stuff coming from DB, maybe it IS possible for one little guy "surround" all these blowhards...with the plain, inescapable truth.
DB: He has questioned my professional credentialsas a leading Photoshop and imaging expert, facts amplydocumented and easily verified. He has stated that myfindings about the the image I analyzed (which I foundto me a multiple-exposure composite) were flawed -
MH: Well, excuuuuuuuuse me, Mr. Photoshop Expert! But to the best of my knowledge, "a multiple-exposure composite" means a deliberate hoax perhaps accomplished with some form of equipment (such as the enlarger suggested by GS) and/or actual proven skill at doing so (which Meier absolutely doesn't have). DB has provided ZERO actual proof of this, by any standard. The multiple exposure was freely admitted to and said by Meier to be accidental. DB, in his bloated over confidence, claimed that Meier used a light fixture, a black back drop, etc. to accomplish this one supposed hoax. In addition to DB not claiming that a companion photo of the same object is also such a hoax, he has, as stated ad nauseum, refused to even attempt to duplicate it - bid EXPERT that he claims to be.
Wow, all these "experts" and they can't actually duplicate ONE photo taken by our one-armed Swiss farmer decades ago!
DB: specifically, he misquoted me saying that the pictureis a _double exposure_, and says that a friend of his- who he won't name, but who has "50 years ofexperience" in the special effects world - says thatI'm wrong, that it's a "triple exposure". Or course,regardless of the method of multiple exposure,
MH: Not so fast, pal! NOT "regardless of the method of multiple exposure"! Aren't YOU the expert, aren't you the one claiming hoax? Well, DUPLICATE the damn thing and show us just what that method of exposure really was.
Folks he can't do it, they can't do it, you can't do it, I can't do it.
Meier CAN because the photos (film, video, sound recordings, metals alloys, etc. are authentic).
DB: or factthat Horn has NEVER addressed ANY of the other MANYproblems I discovered in the picture, he has neverresponded to my finding that the picture is FAKED.
MH: If you're wondering if you're missing something here, yeah, it's an ounce of PROOF to back up DB's flatulent claims. A duplication would go a long way, don't you agree?
DB: I have followed up with select folks he often mentionsin his rants, who have told me directly that they wantnothing to do with him, that he is misrepresentingtheir statements or even lying about knowing them orever speaking with them.
MH: I freely admit to not being in this for popularity or profit, despite his simply making unsubstantiated accusations here.
DB: In the latest exchangeregarding Ritzmann, Horn is now quoting "forestryexperts" in regards to what he claims are scientificstatements about the size of the trees photographedwith the hoaxed disc models. Without providingwritten, notarized documents from these people, he hasno proof that they made any statements regarding thisissue.
MH: This is the same vile and despicable, innuendo laced attack that this same slanderer attempted to use on 32 patent-holding, genius, IBM scientist Marcel Vogel! And, after attacking Vogel's reputation and endless demands for the "notarized documents" proving Vogel's stellar level of accomplishments, credibility and qualifications to have analyzed and AUTHENTICATED Meier's metal alloy samples, DB fell into uncharacteristic silence when we casually directed him to:
Now we get the same bottom feeder attack re the forestry experts...who are clearly named in the Deardorff article, partially reproduced by me in my Look Out For That tree! article.
If the rather pathetic "expert" wants to further embarrass himself, let him contact each of these people and tell them that they're looking at miniature trees. This should be a classic!
DB: Worthy of particular mention is that 50-year FXveteran, who Horn refused to name, but apparently hasan entry at IMDB.com. Horn posted his credits on theParacast forums, without mentioning his name. It tookminimal effort to verify the identity of that person,a one Ken Solomon. After pointing this fact out in ourforums, Hoprn demanded that we remove the reference tohis name, that Mr. Solomon had called him andcomplained about the mention of his name, within thesame day of the post (who knew the Paracast enjoyedsuch a wide reach?). I emailed Horn and informed himthat we'd have to hear directly from Mr. Solomonbefore removing the reference. Within moments, wereceived this email:
From: "Melanie ." <ch.....firstname.lastname@example.org>Subject: Notice!Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:36:45 -0400
You wanted a direct response? This is it.
Kindly remove my name immediately from your website orany otherrecorded orrebroadcastable media under you or your associatescontrol. Yourcooperationwill be greatly appreciated.Thank you.
The fact that a formal request was supposedly sentfrom a highly suspect email source address aside,subsequent attempts to verify that Mr. Solomon was theactual source of this email have produced nothing.
MH: To again publicize the name of a man who he was asked to not use, shows the despicable lack of integrity that is now the identifying feature of these ethics-less people. Since it took, according to DB, "minimal effort" to identify Mr. Solomon, why would I risk fabricating the information? If neither the comments by Mr. Solomon, nor the email were genuine, I wouldn't have submitted them, obviously. But this is a very slimy tactic that is used by Biedney only to attempt to harm Mr. Solomon, and my friendship with him. Does anyone have any respect for a person who would use such underhanded tactics? Would you trust the word of a such a person...about anything? Would you trust this person?
(Note from MH: Since the slime bag Biedney is attempting to incite unwanted email - and possible harm - to Mr. Solomon by having published not only his name but also email address, which I removed above, DESPITE Mr. Solomon's specific, written request, I suggest that no one take the bait. This is a veiled but overt form of harrassment...the real kind that DB was warned against.)
DB: The critical piece of information here is that Hornhas shown his true nature on the Paracast forums (aswell as an infamous thread on the influential ATSsite), in that he will lie without hesitation, inorder to further his agenda and keep the Meier case inthe eyes of what he referred to in a private email as"customers".
MH: To the best of my knowledge, DB has not presented ONE example of my so-called "lies". He, and the thoroughly equally discredited JR, have shown by their own words here that they lie freely and do so to mislead not just me but also YOU.
DB: Without written, notarized statementsfrom his "witnesses", he has nothing. There has beenno recent, independent review of ANY physical"evidence", be it metal samples, original film, policereports or anything else that would conclusivelysupport ANY of Meier's paranormal claims. Ritzmann hasoffered to have his original film negatives analyzedwith an original negative of Meier's, and can youimagine, nada from Meier or Horn. Shocking.
MH: By now you should be able to recognize the previous statement (and the rest of those by them) as completely unsubstantiated. If you can find ANY substantiation for their claims of hoax, lies, fraud, etc. against the Meier case and/or me here, or on any forum, please, unhesitatingly post it.
DB: Jeff Ritzmann responded to Horn's tired - and grosslyillogical - demands to recreate a photograph withdated technology. Jeff's images are comparable to theMeier pictures, which besides proving nothing, metHorn's challenge directly. In response, Hornimmediately began a campaign of slander, accusationsand general nastiness, the kind of abusive poison heseems to vent at everyone expressing serious doubts ofthe Meier case (which would be anyone taking thistopic seriously). That Jeff didn't take the time toexactly match the specific surface details - down tothe same pegs, including the one that fell off and issitting on "The Cake" - has been brought up by Hornrepeatedly, and is divorced from any actual relevanceto the fact that Meier had plenty of time - andpotential help - to make this stuff.
MH: ANY substantiation or proof here? Or just more inflated, blustering, bloviating, I'm-the-expert claims?
DB: It's not like themodels are particularly good - I've seen better stuffby creative kids - and the nightime shots of the cakeyand tree and car are ridiculous.
MH: Really? DUPLICATE them, windbag.
DB: My trained eyes knowthis, but so do my girlfriend's kids, without ahesitation. That anyone buys those pictures is justsad. You would think that in today's world, visualsophistication should be more evolved, but apparentlythe gap between spirit and technology is alive andwell.
MH: Yes, of course, "trained eyes".So, now you can see how the unsubstantiated disinfo against the Meier case works; where's the meat? Attacks, innuendoes, snide assertions...because YOU'RE not supposed to take it seriously. Ask yourselves why. Perhaps you'd best first read the various prophetic information in the case - especially if you live in America or Israel and value your life and your family's lives.
DB: Horn claims to be a worker of the light. He actuallyseems to take perverse pleasure in negative exchanges,like the upcoming punch-up (at a wedding) with KalKorff. If you take the time to read the main Hornthread on the Paracast forums, it's really quiteenlightening and rather disturbing. Horn is sellingBilly Meier's truth, and most of us ain't buying. JeffRitzmann sells gorgeous customized guitars, cool axesthat any Iron Maiden fan would worship. You can't buyany UFO products from Jeff, but he'll tell you somereally amazing stories of stuff that happened to him.Free.
MH: And let's not forget the he's-only-in-it-for-the-money attack! Fact, I VOLUNTARILY (as in for free, without compensation, gratis, etc.) represent the Meier case and all time (6-10 hours per day) and expenses are paid by me. Yes, if someone buys either my self-produced, self-financed DVD (or any other product I sell) I make money on it.
Does anyone except these parasites really have a problem with that? Hey, read my site for FREE and DON'T buy anything, I could care less.
DB: On The Paracast. We're not selling anything either -for now. If we decide to sell something at some pointin the future, it will contain some integrity, whichis a whole lot more than the stories Horn will sellyou now, or ever.
MH: Decide for yourselves.
DB: You can believe anything you want. If knowledge andunderstanding are important to you, this junk is awaste of time. I choose to spend time on importantcases that might get us even one step closer tounderstanding this thing which we NEED to know.
David BiednyThe Paracast
MH: Did I miss it - again - or did DB fail to mention those other "important cases"? This is why I said, at the very beginning of this lengthy reply, that there is mostly disinformation out there...and these guys are masters of promoting it.
A final word on the notably cowardly defamer Royce Myers of www.ufowatchdog.com fame. A man who will not, literally, show his face, he slanders Meier and me on his site (which is remarkably absent of dissenting opinion). I do suggest that you see both his and the Paracast folks site (how's there forum doing without me to kick around, or have they started that again?). Just put yourself in either Meier's or my shoes for one moment and see how YOU would respond to parasitic, vile, unscrupulous attacks against YOUR character and truthfulness.
Would you have considered this too long in your own behalf?
Michael HornAuthorized American Media RepresentativeThe Billy Meier Contactswww.theyfly.com
P.S. I will be lecturing at the IUFOC in 2007 and will include a public exposure of the JR,DB,GS and RM hoax and disinformation campaign. Plenty of notice let's see if these guys show up.
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
I'll insert my specific comments below.
> 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
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
> 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 http://www.gaiaguys.net/emailshorn.htm.
> 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
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
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
http://www.gaiaguys.net/emailshorn.htm 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
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
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
> 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!
Authorized American Media Representative
The Billy Meier Contacts
> David Biedny
More of the same. Starts from the bottom.
Key words: "clearly fakes", "laughable", etc. ... (GREAT science, Dave!)
In the 15th century, Mr. Biedney would have been scoffing, "The assertion that the world is round is LAUGHABLE!
It is CLEARLY flat!"
Laugh while you still can because when you laugh, the world laughs with you. Or at you.
"David Biedney, the man who claims that his expertise in PhotoShop has
led him to conclude that Billy Meier's photographic/film/video
evidence, all that is seen and as yet unseen by Biedney included, was
absolutely faked by Meier with obvious and simple means that Biedney
claims were provably available to Meier from 1964-1980, has, despite
reasonable and repeated, documented, written and orally transmitted
requests, failed to provide proof of his accusations. In willing
defiance of, or simply because of the lack of his ability to conform
to, the scientific method necessary to elevate his claims to a status
of credibility, Biedney is on record as firmly refusing to provide such
required duplicated photographic/film/video evidence, also including
models, miniatures, lights, two-dimensional cut-outs, etc. The burden
of proof is on the accuser and the accuser has failed, by his own
admission, to meet that standard and burden of proof."
Authorized American Media Representative
The Billy Meier Contacts
> You left out the mention that I have used accepted
> image processing techniques to clearly and objectively
> discredit one of your claimed "authentic" photographs.
> You simply REFUSE to address this fact. You also
> REFUSE to respond to the fact that the Patent office
> database shows NO patents granted to Marcel Vogel, who
> you cite as a key witness, and who you claim holds 32
> patents. Anything cited by any book is irrelevant if
> the PATENT DATABASE SHOWS NO CORRESPONDING RECORDS.
> In my expert opinion, ALL of the "wedding cake" photos
> are fabrications. The reflections of the camera lens,
> which was VERY CLOSE to the MINIATURE model, are a
> DEAD GIVEAWAY of the faking of scale - not to mention
> the obvious differental in the contrast values of the
> miniature and the house/background. The claimed
> "night" photos of the "wedding cake", car and tree and
> CLEARLY FAKES. I absolutely stand by these statement,
> and I challenge you to provide a NOTARIZED statement
> from a credible image expert that they think these
> images are anything but crude fabrications. The video
> evidence you cite is laughable and obviously
> Do I think that Billy Meier is a talented writer and
> that some of the philosophical statements he puts
> forth are interesting? Sure, I'll agree to that. Do
> you want me to accept that Billy might "believe" he is
> in touch with ETs? Sure, I'll concede that. Do you
> want me to state that any one single image that he has
> presented might be a UFO, as in the actual literal
> definition of that acronym? Sure, some of these images
> remained UNIDENTIFIED.
> Do I feel that you have presented a weak argument,
> very little credible evidence, no notarized proof of
> witness testimony, no credible timeline evidence for
> prophecies, and a deeply disturbing, condescending
> attitude towards ANY skeptism about these claims?
> I'm off to a week of hard earned vacation, so ciao for
> --- Michael <michael@...> wrote:
>> Please refer to the scientific method, you are
>> required to do no less
>> than any other "expert" who is making such claims -
>> especially in light
>> of the abundance of genuine expert opinion against
>> The claim regarding Vogel's patents is made in the
>> book, seek out their
>> source for it. You are very big on notarizing things
>> (most of all
>> historical events and discoveries were not
>> notarized) and official
>> authentication, which is fine, so if you think that
>> Atlantic Monthly
>> allowed fallacious claims to be printed on the
>> inside cover, and inside
>> of, the book, by all means go get 'em tiger!
>> You know, what's absolutely missing from your
>> communications to and
>> with me is any sense of plain and simple humility,
>> the lack of the
>> "well, maybe","I'm not sure how", the "it sure is
>> interesting", etc.
>> sense of even minor awe...that most of the really
>> honest, intelligent,
>> even skeptical people I've encountered have shown in
>> light of the
>> monumentality of the case.
>> You've set yourself up, and I do mean set yourself
>> up, with what is
>> more than mild arrogance, in a position where a less
>> than graceful
>> reality check is going to bruise your rather
>> well-defended and, pardon
>> me, equally well-inflated ego. Everybody but you is
>> wrong, a hoaxer,
>> not credible! Do you not see how childish you are?
>> By the way, no, the weight is not upon me, it's upon
>> you. The published
>> evidence exists in abundance, Stevens' 542-page book
>> has even more than
>> is on my website. You probably don't realize how
>> nonsensical it is for you to try to make a case -
>> the only case,
>> actually - with mountains of physical and prophetic
>> evidence comparable
>> to a case with - no evidence! Laughable!
>> You may well be a top Photo Shop expert, for what
>> it's worth in the
>> overall scheme of these things, but you're
>> absolutely, definitely and
>> positively no researcher. Nobody spoon fed me the
>> information, I had to
>> go get it myself! Just like you do. Fortunately for
>> you, it's all over
>> the place now, I've given you links to evidence
>> that's right in your
>> presumed area of expertise...and you don't even
>> refer to it, show any
>> interest or indicate that you'll actually obtain it
>> for examination.
>> Some expert!
>> Do you have any idea how predictable, and absolutely
>> identical to each
>> and every one of the other skeptics in the case who
>> made a lot of noise
>> - and then failed to be able to prove their claims -
>> you are?
>> You have reaffirmed that you said, and firmly
>> believe, that Meier is a
>> hoaxer but you refuse to prove it. Supposedly, in
>> this country, a man
>> is innocent until proven guilty. You accuse but you
>> won't prove, wow!
>> You're transparent because you can't prove it...even
>> in your own
>> so-called field of expertise where you make your
>> biggest, loudest
>> claims, which should be so simple to prove, you
>> won't even try.
>> So let me consider your letter below to be your
>> version of surrender.
>> Absent the required duplicated evidence - not more
>> circuitous words -
>> the only reasonable, obvious conclusion is this:
>> "David Biedney, the man who claims that his
>> expertise in PhotoShop has
>> led him to conclude that Billy Meier's
>> evidence, all that is seen and as yet unseen by
>> Biedney included, was
>> absolutely faked by Meier with obvious and simple
>> means that Biedney
>> claims were provably available to Meier from
>> 1964-1980, has, despite
>> reasonable and repeated, documented, written and
>> orally transmitted
>> requests, failed to provide proof of his theories.
>> In willing defiance
>> of, or simply because of the lack of his ability to
>> conform to, the
>> scientific method necessary to elevate his claims to
>> a status of
>> credibility, Biedney is on record as firmly refusing
>> to provide such
>> required duplicated photographic/film/video
>> evidence, also including
>> models, miniatures, lights, two-dimensional
>> cut-outs, etc. The burden
>> of proof is on the accuser and the accuser has
>> failed, by his own
>> admission, to meet that standard and burden of
>> Have a nice day,
>>> I look forward to hearing from Meier's people that
>>> are indeed their authorized US media rep.
>>> A search through the US Government's patent
>>> showed no record of any patents held by Marcel
>>> It's a publicly accessable database. Please show
>>> his patents, you claim they exist, while their
>>> database suggests that they do not.
>>> I have already objectively proven that one of the
>>> photos represented as evidence is an obvious fake.
>>> no time during our interview yesterday did you
>>> my findings, nor address them in any substantial,
>>> methodical fashion. I will not respond to your
>>> to create faked images which match yours, that
>>> has already been accomplished quite nicely by
>>> third parties.
>>> If you want to cite evidence from witnesses, the
>>> weight is upon you to deliver notarized
>> statements. I
>>> have seen no such documentation. If you are
>> telling me
>>> that people who work with Billy Meier are to be
>>> considered credible witnesses, I would suggest
>>> their objectivity is questionable. You cite
>>> that are not easily accessible publicly, the
>> burden of
>>> evidence rests in your camp.
>>> And as I pointed out on the show yesterday, I am
>>> offended at your insistence of putting words in my
>>> mouth, such as the word flourescent (to describe
>>> object in the picture), or the word "cunning", a
>>> I never used. Your tactics are juvenile, your
>>> condescending and vitriolic.
>>> It is my opinion that this whole scenario the
>>> camp represents, the sightings, evidence,
>>> prophecies and belief system that is being put
>>> forward, is fabricated and less than logical. You
>>> quote me directly on this statement.
>>> Feel free to mention my name and our show as much
>>> you like, freedom of speech and expression is a
>>> --- Michael <michael@...> wrote:
>>>> A quick answer, while I don't find it necessary
>>>> send copies of my
>>>> contract with FIGU to you, I have no objection to
>>>> your ascertaining
>>>> that I have represented myself truthfully. I am
>>>> copying this to
>>>> Christian Frehner of FIGU who can verify that for
>>>> you. You might also
>>>> note that the FIGU site is their official site
>>>> not billymeier.com.
>>>> You will find both my DVD and a link to a radio
>>>> interview prominently
>>>> featured on FIGU's site.
>>>> I am, of course, curious as to why you would
>>>> question my truthfulness
>>>> in this matter. It does seem to bring us back to
>>>> that little faux pas
>>>> of yours, accusing me (as you also have Meier
>>>> without substantiation)
>>>> of being a "shameful liar", for which I thought
>>>> apologized. Am I
>>>> Since you do raise the point, however, it does
>>>> me the opportunity
>>>> to remind you that, during the closing minutes of
>>>> our show yesterday,
>>>> you said that you wanted to see a video of the
>>>> flying, then
>>>> touching the ground and Billy Meier stepping out.
>>>> You also recall that
>>>> I told you that we already had such a video, with
>>>> the exception of
>>>> Billy's appearance in it. (I forgot to tell you
>>>> one of the film
>>>> clips on the video does have a UFO hovering above
>>>> Billy's head. That's
>>>> a video, not a still photo.)
>>>> It is now incumbent upon you to obtain that video
>>>> and examine it and,
>>>> if you think that it was somehow hoaxed, in
>>>> to floating your
>>>> theory about how it may have been done, you will
>>>> need to duplicate it
>>>> to demonstrate that your theory is, in fact,
>>>> correct. you can find the
>>>> video at:
>>>> Let me elaborate. In your next email to me you
>>>> requested information on
>>>> Marcel Vogel's patents. I personally don't have
>>>> information, it
>>>> was gleaned from the book Light Years, by Gary
>>>> Kinder, published in
>>>> 1987. What is known is that prior to publication
>>>> Kinder sent the
>>>> comments regarding Meier's evidence to each of
>>>> experts quoted (see:
>>>> of whom disagreed,
>>>> of course, with your theoretical assessment
>>>> regarding the evidence in
>>>> the case. It is only fair that I reiterate that
>>>> Robert Post also had a
>>>> disagreement with some aspects of the case, which
>>>> didn't negate his
>>>> positive comments.
>>>> Returning to the above, the reason Kinder sent
>>>> comments back to
>>>> each of the experts was to protect himself
>>>> in case any of them
>>>> wanted to retract their positive statements,
>>>> were actually quite
>>>> courageous for scientists at the time to make
>>>> regarding such a "fringe"
>>>> matter as UFOs. None of these experts did retract
>>>> their comments, they
>>>> were printed as accurate, including Vogel's,
>>>> information may be available through the
>>>> (Atlantic Monthly)
>>>> since they quote it on the inside cover of the
>>>> paperback book.
>>>> They also have two other quotes on the inside
>>>> one, that I don't
>>>> think that I included in the above referred to
>>>> internet document,
>>>> reads, "Out of all the scientists I've talked to,
>>>> I'd say the majority
>>>> think it's very credible." - H. David Froning,
>>>> engineer (25 years at McDonnell Douglas
>>>> As I'm sure I
>>>> mentioned, Froning said virtually the same thing
>>>> the 450 corporate
>>>> clients of the Biltmore Hotel who comprised the
>>>> audience for my
>>>> presentation there a number of years ago, one
>>>> was sponsored by the
>>>> hotel itself.
>>>> The other quote is one by Vogel himself that,
>>>> coincidentally, spells
>>>> out your own obligation regarding the evidence
>>>> you dispute,
>>>> particularly the photographic evidence that you
>>>> is your area of
>>>> expertise. Vogel said, "I cannot explain the
>>>> sample. By any known
>>>> combination of materials I could not put it
>>>> myself, as a
>>>> scientist. With any technology that I know of, we
>>>> could not achieve
>>>> this on this planet." Marcel Vogel, research
>>>> (22 years at IBM,
>>>> holder of 32 patents, inventor of the magnetic
>>>> disk-coding memory
>>>> system still used in IBM systems throughout the
>>>> world) You may wish to
>>>> see Vogel's entire analysis, available at:
>>>> As you can see, I have emphasized Vogel's
>>>> regarding his
>>>> ability to duplicate the evidence. As a top-level
>>>> scientist, Vogel was
>>>> familiar with the scientific method, as I assume
>>>> that you are,
>>>> especially since you are an expert, correct? It
>>>> naturally to him
>>>> to acknowledge this aspect, this requirement of
>>>> process. He knew
>>>> that making fancy claims, floating theories as
>>>> facts, was inadequate,
>>>> unsound and, frankly, without credibility. You'll
>>>> notice that he made
>>>> reference to the fact that, with all the
>>>> technological resources known
>>>> and available to him as a scientist (he did work
>>>> IBM), the metal
>>>> alloy samples presented to him by Billy Meier
>>>> Fortunately, your task is far simpler than trying
>>>> put together a
>>>> complex metal alloy (that you still probably
>>>> was made by Meier
>>>> with the help of a bunch of anonymous elves in
>>>> kitchen stove). All
>>>> that you need to do, in the same professional
>>>> spirit as Vogel, and in
>>>> conformance with the scientific method, is to
>>>> duplicate those "faked"
>>>> photos, film or video that you are now on record
>>>> claiming to be the
>>>> work of a "cunning fabricator" (liar).
>>>> You made another interesting statement yesterday,
>>>> you're on record as
>>>> categorically stating that the Wedding Cake UFO
>>>> the video is a
>>>> two-dimensional object. Meaning also that,
>>>> to you, Meier not
>>>> only made silver and gold "miniatures" but a 14'
>>>> cut-out that he, also miraculously, hauled around
>>>> the Swiss countryside
>>>> - with one arm, while riding his moped - mounted
>>>> on a tree in an
>>>> open, windy field and proceeded to film and
>>>> photograph it just as
>>>> casually as can be! Now, rather than make a very
>>>> tempting sarcastic
>>>> remark (you know me well enough by now to know
>>>> tempting that is -
>>>> and how restrained I am trying to be!~) I again
>>>> to remind you
>>>> that, if you wish to be taken seriously, which
>>>> elevate you to a
>>>> status above the other already defeated skeptics
>>>> the case, you'll
>>>> have to duplicate that video.
>>>> Based on your own claims, that shouldn't be very
>>>> hard to do at all.
>>>> All you have to do - with one hand - is make the
>>>> cut-out, mount if on a
>>>> similar tree on a hilltop, across an open meadow,
>>>> set up your video
>>>> camera and zoom in on it from 300'-500' away.
>>>> (Forget the moped, you
>>>> can drive it there in your car.) You can mount
>>>> thing the same way
>>>> that you presume - and can prove - that Meier did
>>>> that it will
>>>> remain perfectly stable and virtually motionless
>>>> the entire
>>>> process. Allow me to point out that, while you
>>>> critical of the
>>>> motionlessness of the object, that condition
>>>> as I think you can
>>>> now imagine, pose a significant problem for the
>>>> stability of your
>>>> cut-out...as well as your overall, now thoroughly
>>>> committed to, theory.
>>>> Returning to the very beginning of this issue,
>>>> prompted by your email
>>>> below, you wanted to see evidence that what I
>>>> about myself and my
>>>> relationship to FIGU and Billy Meier is true. I
>>>> no objection to
>>>> that. Now it's time for me to see your evidence
>>>> the above, I'm not
>>>> taking your word for your theories anymore than
>>>> wish to take mine;
>>>> what's fair is fair, no?
>>>> BTW, since I think you worked for ILM, do you
>>>> or know of, any
>>>> clear, daytime footage from any film that is even
>>>> close in realism to
>>>> Meier's films/video, or to the films in the other
>>>> video (which I
>>>> understand that you may not have seen yet?)
>>>> and Mark couldn't
>>>> think of any, maybe you can. It would be helpful
>>>> refer to films made
>>>> up to 1980 but any thereafter would be fine too.
>>>> Please know that, while I intend to keep things
>> in a
>>>> very good spirit,
>>>> I will be requiring that you provide your
>>>> evidence, as
>>>> mentioned above, or retract your claims of hoax.
>>>> old "put up or
>>>> shut up" (sorry for the indelicacy of that old
>>>> adage) is the rule here.
>>>> A few brave others have, to their credit,
>>>> to back up their
>>>> claims, even though they weren't as vocal about
>>>> their level of
>>>> expertise, which should make it rather easy for
>>>> to do, far easier
>>>> than for them. It should have gone without saying
>>>> that all of them
>>>> failed...but you know me.
>>>> I noticed that you have a nice little forum going
>>>> there and I do
>>>> want to assure you that I will be not only
>>>> presenting information to my
>>>> rather extensive mailing list and site visitors
>>>> about the availability
>>>> of the radio shows, but also will report on the
>>>> success, or lack
>>>> thereof, of your efforts or, should it
>>>> be the case, your
>>>> refusal to back up your claims in conformance
>>>> the scientific
>>>> method...as Marcel Vogel would have done.
>>>> In other words, I'm going to do my part to make
>>>> very famous in this
>>>> field, what you will be famous for is now
>>>> up to you.
>>>>> A quick question:
>>>>> I've looked over the official Billy Meier web
>>>>> and see absolutely no mention of your name
>>>> anywhere on
>>>>> the site. I've also noticed that you have link
>>>>> theyfly.com site to Figu, but no link to
>>>>> I would like to formally request that you
>>>>> proof that you are the authorized US media
>>>>> Billy Meier. A written, notarized statement
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> --- Michael <michael@...> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Gene and David,
>>>>>> Thanks for the vigorous debate on the Meier UFO
>>>>>> contact case. Now that
>>>>>> we have entered into a debate on the merits of
>>>>>> case, we can leave
>>>>>> the more fiery, though colorful, rhetoric
>>>>>> At the end of the latest show, David requested
>>>>>> film of the UFO
>>>>>> flying, in broad daylight, touching the earth
>>>>>> having Meier pop out
>>>>>> of it. Well, as I mentioned, remarkably, we
>>>>>> almost all of that
>>>>>> already (with the exception of Meier popping
>>>>>> the UFO). I'm
>>>>>> actually surprised that our friends were
>>>>>> the existence of
>>>>>> this footage, nonetheless, I'm glad to notify
>>>>>> of its existence.)
>>>>>> Filmed by Meier in 1976, this is just one of
>>>>>> or nine segments
>>>>>> filmed by him, using an 8mm movie camera (see:
>>>>>> One of the film segments actually has three of
>>>>>> UFOs hovering in the
>>>>>> sky, with a tree branch between Meier and the
>>>>>> when suddenly two
>>>>>> of them disappear, leaving the larger craft
>>>>>> hovering and moving
>>>>>> ever so slightly up and down, as if riding on a
>>>>>> magnetic field. Another
>>>>>> segment has the famous "thing-on-a-string" UFO
>>>>>> rotates around a
>>>>>> tree in front of a farm house. And the
>>>>>> clear close-up of the
>>>>>> UFO, with the two lights alternately flashing
>>>>>> two different
>>>>>> locations on the craft - in broad daylight - is
>>>>>> segment that
>>>>>> prompted the two owners of Uncharted Territory,
>>>>>> Award-winning company (for "Independence Day")
>>>>>> state that there were
>>>>>> no models used by Meier.
>>>>>> As you also know, I challenged David to
>>>>>> Meier's so-called
>>>>>> "hoaxed" photo, as well as the video of the
>>>>>> Cake UFO (and the
>>>>>> presumed "model" magically manufactured to
>>>>>> in the photos and
>>>>>> video). I can virtually guarantee that neither
>>>>>> two friends here,
>>>>>> nor any other skeptic, will accept that
>>>>>> When Meier zooms
>>>>>> 330'-500' feet across an open field in on the
>>>>>> Wedding Cake UFO
>>>>>> hovering motionlessly in front of the tree
>>>>>> feat in the open,
>>>>>> windy Swiss countryside) you will understand
>>>>>> attempts will be
>>>>>> While many of you may just be getting
>>>>>> the Meier contacts,
>>>>>> ongoing for the past 64 years in Switzerland,
>>>>>> will only be through
>>>>>> thorough examination of the evidence in the
>>>>>> that you will be able
>>>>>> to discern the truth. However, it is incumbent
>>>>>> people who claim
>>>>>> that the case is a hoax, and have speculative
>>>>>> theories about it, to do
>>>>>> what David Biedny himself declared was
>>>>>> regarding claimed UFO
>>>>>> evidence, and that is...to duplicate it using
>>>>>> same equipment that
>>>>>> Meier had.
>>>>>> For, essentially, the opponents of the case,
>>>>>> have yet to duplicate
>>>>>> as much as one of Meier's photos, would really
>>>>>> us believe that
>>>>>> Meier has above-genius level abilities as a:
>>>>>> photographer, model maker,
>>>>>> special effects expert, lighting expert,
>>>>>> expert, sound
>>>>>> engineer, metallurgist, video maker, film
>>>>>> mass hypnotist, and
>>>>>> one-armed juggler!
>>>>>> All of such claims of Meier's miraculous
>>>>>> (that oppose the
>>>>>> logical, honest reality that he's a genuine
>>>>>> contactee) require
>>>>>> duplication of evidence, not arguable theories.
>>>>>> As you will hear on the latest debate, I have
>>>>>> least five absolutely
>>>>>> top level experts who disagree with David and
>>>>>> have found the
>>>>>> photographic evidence to be authentic. So, with
>>>>>> disagreement, and
>>>>>> the odds in favor of Meier, I would think that
>>>>>> would jump at the
>>>>>> opportunity to show us how easy it is to
>>>>>> his evidence.
>>>>>> It is the actual specialty of skeptics such as
>>>>>> Randi (who has
>>>>>> retracted his claim that the Meier case is a
>>>>>> to actually show,
>>>>>> not just theorize, but demonstrate
>>>>>> just how a hoax was
>>>>>> And since, for reasons that escape my
>>>>>> David and Gene
>>>>>> seem reluctant to examine, let alone accept,
>>>>>> deep, extensive
>>>>>> documentation (which includes notarized
>>>>>> and copyrighted,
>>>>>> published documents) of the six-year
>>>>>> into the case...it
>>>>>> is up to you to also seek it out and examine it
>>>>>> your search for the
>>>>>> If you wish to view the UFO films they are on
>>>>>> and the video of the Wedding Cake UFO, and tons
>>>>>> other evidence, is
>>>>>> and in here:
>>>>>> Michael Horn
>>>>>> Authorized American Media Representative
>>>>>> The Billy Meier Contacts
>>>>>> THE MEIER CONTACTS - THE KEY TO OUR FUTURE
THIS one has been going on for MONTHS and the selection here represents only the most recent developments, if you can call them that. This is the one I (Dyson) got involved in briefly, until both Jean Louis and I sadly concluded that the other was hopelessly insane/deluded. People are funny.
Re: Answers 1, 3, 4, (5), (8)
Man, you get wilder and wilder but...where's your model to prove it?
I guess I shouldn't warn you...but I will. We now have established,
conclusively, that the garbage can lid and the hull of the UFO are of -
ready - not only different materials but different...dimensions!
Oh yeah, we'll also have the photos of ball bearings (at various
differences from the camera) that show the absolute absurdity of your
claims. Now I hope that this won't put any damper on the depth of the
hole of self-ridicule that you are preparing for yourself, and which I
shall assist you in descending into. of course, you have not answered
(provided the proof to) the questions you claimed to have, or the other
ones, but do continue.
> Thanks for drawing my attention to another solid indication of fakery
> by Meier. See, you guys can only fool the ignorant and uninformed. But
> then, it could be that it is simply YOU who are ignorant, since it's
> commonly known by photographers, filmmakers and theater producer
> that one can give almost any color to any object, just by using the
> appropriate lighting.
> To make a silverish surface look like gold, no pot of gold paint is
> needed. A good light projector with the right yellow/orange filter
> will do just fine...
> In the same way, the model could be made to look red, blue, green,
> pink, you name it...
> And I'll make you notice that contrary to the spheres that are made of
> genuine metal (probably aluminium), the lower part of the WC model can
> hardly be called "reflective". It has a metallic silverish quality,
> typical for silver paint dampened by the dark surface it was applied
> Now, talking about digging "deeper and deeper into a hole of denial",
> tell me what your calculation is for the odds of the shape and
> details of the bottom of a genuine ET craft matching the garbage can
> lids found at Meier's farm...
> Take another good look at those measurements and details at
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Michael
>> To: Starglider
>> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 11:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: Answers 1, 3, 4, (5), (8)
>> Talk about a sense of humor. I have yet to see any metallic paint
>> spray that can create the reflective qualities of the metals on the
>> WCUFO. Of course, even on the silver WCUFO there are dissimilar
>> metals on the globes, plus the nighttime WCUFO is...gold! Please send
>> me the link to that can of paint too.
>> I do enjoy though that you continue to dig yourself deeper and deeper
>> into your particular hole of denial. You must be going absolutely
>> nuts over this...!
>>> Your sense of humour is getting better and better, by the day. I
>>> knew you'd like that update :)
>>> Ever heard of stuff like
>>> That stuff REALLY sticks on plastic, trust me.
>>> And yes, the lid and WC bottom, and the handle found on both, show
>>> an EXACT match. LOL. See my measurements, and don't get confused by
>>> the width of the upper rim of the lid.
>>> By the way, the lid itself was not "machined"... Read my analysis
>>> for what was really done with it.
>>>> From: Michael
>>>> To: Starglider
>>>> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 6:29 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Answers 1, 3, 4, (5), (8)
>>>> Hey, I'm glad you're having fun with that. BTW, did you ever try to
>>>> machine a plastic garbage can lid and try to make it metallic?
>>>> Here's a clue...it "don't" work. Here's some info from one of the
>>>> guys on attempting such things:
>>>> Regarding that "garbage can" photograph, which is sort of
>>>> similar to the wedding cake ship bottom??
>>>> Even so, Although a bit similar, it is NOT exact.
>>>> I can find stuff in my kitchen or workshop, which are
>>>> somehow similar also?? :)
>>>> Doesn't prove anything whatsoever, is my point.
>>>> Even so, for a moment, Modification would have been
>>>> necessary, as these are NOT EXACTLY the same, AND a highly
>>>> reflective coating would be necessary to boot...
>>>> (This the same situation with the photographs of that
>>>> flying dinosaur, which although is "similar" is NOT
>>>> exactly the same. Modification would have been
>>>> necessary... and THUS the "problem" !! :)
>>>> However, again, back to the intended issue:
>>>> The "garbage can lid" seems made of plastic, and i really
>>>> wonder how one could have "machined' it to look EXACTLY
>>>> like the bottom of that wedding cake ship???
>>>> Ever try grinding, cutting through or filing through
>>>> plastic?? :)
>>>> Can't grind the stuff... tends to melt & make a "mess".
>>>> Any type of rework i'm aware of, would be very difficult
>>>> to make smooth after the fact, except by heat treating??
>>>> Could also "cut" it using razor knives, but one would need
>>>> a lathe or equivalent to do this???
>>>> Again, How could the resulting model have been made so
>>>> smooth?? I'd REALLY love to know how anybody could hoax
>>>> this, as they claim ??
>>>> Now THIS interest is purely from an engineering or
>>>> "materials manipulation" standpoint, at this point!!
>>>> Perhaps possible, but would take specialized knowledge to
>>>> do so. Then... even so, how would one produce that highly
>>>> reflective coating??
>>>> It would show up every single imperfection from any type
>>>> of machining process ???
>>>> Any way one cuts this, ANYBODY who could do this type of
>>>> "work" could have a very well paying engineering job with
>>>> LOTS of different types of outfits. Could write
>>>> engineering texts on the techniques, which "Jeff the model
>>>> maker" would pay LOTS of money for !! :) LOL, eh? :)
>>>> But do carry on. Unlike you and your theories as well as the
>>>> already debunked Korff and his theories (the objects he said were
>>>> used are out of scale with the actual WCUFO, BTW), we have a guy
>>>> who's actually acquired metal ball bearings and has begun
>>>> photographing them for comparison with the craft photos. So far,
>>>> well, let's just say you have a HUGE surprise coming your way,
>>>> convoluted theories and all.
>>>> As soon as his work is all done, might be a couple of weeks, we'll
>>>> post it...and you can continue to eat out of the garbage can of
>>>>> A latest update of my recent article on the WC model answers your
>>>>> 1, 3, 4, (5), (8).
>>>>> Enjoy it.
>>>>> I have to recognize I was off with my initial calculations for the
>>>>> of the model. It must be +/- 60 cm of course... But I wasn't
>>>>> really that far
>>>>> off, compared to Deardorff's 7 meters, lol.
>>>>> By the way, still no answers from you... Oh well, I won't fake any
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Michael
>>>>> To: Starglider
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 8:13 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: This should answer your questions
>>>>> You will FIRST answer all of the following, since YOU are the one
>>>>> making the
>>>>> slanderous assertions:
>>>>> 1. Where was the model made and concealed?
>>>>> 2. Who in Meier's area possesses the specialized skills required
>>>>> for this
>>>>> precision level of manufacture, at any size?
>>>>> 3. What is it made of?
>>>>> 4. Where were the materials obtained?
>>>>> 5. What was the cost of these materials?
>>>>> 6. Who paid for it?
>>>>> 7. How long did it take to make? (Remember, a two-armed model
>>>>> maker took
>>>>> four months to assemble his inferior model.)
>>>>> 8. What does it weigh, assuming even a 5' diameter metallic
>>>>> object, as
>>>>> suggested by one debunker?
>>>>> 9. How was it suspended at 30' by a one-armed man? (Setting up
>>>>> just one
>>>>> special effects shot with a 5' (let alone 14') object requires
>>>>> people and lots of time. Meier took over 60 photos of the WCUFO,
>>>>> plus the
>>>>> 10. Where is the model now, what happened to it, would something
>>>>> of this
>>>>> complexity - and value - just disappear?
>>>>> 11. With all of the photos, both day and nighttime, how could
>>>>> Meier have
>>>>> accomplished all of this unobserved and without accomplices?
>>>>> 12. Why hasn't ANYONE come forward to show that they made and/or
>>>>> now have
>>>>> ...please provide proof for your answers. Then we'll get to your
Back to our VERY popular "Funny emails" page.
Be brave. Learn the truth for a change.
Jump into the very DEEP end. Check out our huge ufology sections.
Heaps of free downloads of hard-to-find documents.
And if you're the type of person who really enjoys reading long dialogs with people in denial, don't miss this!
Back to Homepage