Talk:Scientific Experts' Comments on Meier's Evidence

From Future Of Mankind
Revision as of 15:38, 17 January 2012 by Gerswin2002 (talk | contribs) (Comment provided by Gerswin2002 - via ArticleComments extension)

Comments on Scientific Experts' Comments on Meier's Evidence <comments />

Sweet6b9 said ...

All other opinions asside, I have seen the proof that these contacts are real as the US Government has extensive records related to the fact that these contacts are real. I do not have these records but I am attesting to this fact for all to see. They have and are having contact with the Baffath and are working with them as evidenced by the Black Triangle ships that are being seen world wide. For Video Evidence search Triangle UFO or TR-3B online or on YouTube. Peace & Wisdom

--Sweet6b9 23:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...

That metal is Aluminum and not Thulium. The EDS spectrum that Vogel shows corresponds to Aluminum with traces of Silver (see reference below). Thulium has a strong band at 1.462 KeV. This is very close to the Aluminum strong band at 1.486 KeV and without the "secondary bands" as Vogel himself noted.

I have experience with EDS X-Ray in Scanning Electron Microscopy; it is easy to confuse elements and, since there are no secondary bands, the metal is the very common element Aluminum and not the rare Thulium.

I'm surprise that in almost 30 years nobody noticed the mistake Vogel made in his analysis.

Reference: The "Thulium" Spectrum is shown at time mark 8:44 of the video . Again, that is Aluminum with traces of Silver and not Thulium.

--Gerswin2002 19:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheila said ...

Well Gerswin2002, I guess that's your opinion. Vogel did note the secondary band (which was there) but somehow you claim it wasn't? Any nut job can come on here and make all sorts of claims. Come on, tell us your real name and qualifications. Sorry but having "experience" does not make you an expert. I think I'll go with the guy who had numerous patents based on information gleaned from investigation. How many patents do you have?

--Sheila 15:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheila said ...

Sweet6b9, those black triangle craft are none other than your very own terrestrial black ops. They have been around for at least 30 years - no aliens involved. A former military person informed me he had seen ufo craft in a hangar as far back as the '50s. They were sworn to secrecy. He also said that it was common that U.S. military personelle were brainwashed after coming out of the bush to make sure they kept their mouths shut.

--Sheila 16:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...

Sweet: Aluminum and Thulium do have very close strong band (1.486 and 1.462 KeV respectively), you can verify that in the links below:

Vogel himself says the following (9:16 time mark of the video ):

"Now, the remarkable thing that we noticed was that, yes we got this band here [points to the 1.462KeV] this is the only one that matched in the spectral analysis in the computer, but the secondary bands that are connected with it [points to the bands at 7.17 KeV and 6.34 KeV] were not present" And his spectrum reflects exactly what he says.

You can check what an EDS spectrum for Thulium looks like in scroll down to find it. It looks nothing to what he shows.

The metal he shows is clearly Aluminum and not Thulium. The EDS computers, even today, get the element id wrong many times. Human intervention is required all the time for proper EDS element identification.

--Gerswin2002 01:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...

"You can check what an EDS spectrum for Thulium looks like in scroll down to find it. It looks nothing to what he shows."

Except for one band at presumably at 1.462KeV which I say is 1.486KeV.

Only solid, clear, and unambiguous evidence matters and not the person's credentials. Vogel DOES NOT have such evidence for Thulium.

By the way, if you have more EDS spectra presented by Vogel, I'd love to review them. Please post the links to them.

--Gerswin2002 01:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...


As a matter of fact, please direct me to any posted EDS X-Ray Spectrum data collected by Vogel either in print or in video. I'm extremely interested in checking his data. I have been looking on the internet for the spectra he captured and I cannot find it.

I'm more interested in his data than in his opinions.



--Gerswin2002 01:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheila said ...

Well Gerswin, the specimen contained "very pure silver and very pure aluminum, potassium, calcium, copper, argon, bromine, chlorine, iron, sulfer and silicon" and "an astonishing mixture of almost all of the elements in the periodic table". So based on that information I'm sure you'll find them all. I don't have a link. So what is your purpose in all of this? And how much experience do you have with cold fusion?

--Sheila 05:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawaiian said ...

Aloha Sheila,

I was going to spend some time doing research on Thulium, but decided you probably have a better answer to Gerswin2002 inquires which has just been demonstrated in the vast complexity of discrete elements that represents almost the entire periodic table including evidence micro-machining and indentations.

Even though if Gerswin2002 can prove that Thulium was actually Aluminum, does that ONE discrepancy invalidate the other elements that obviously are discrete in their unique characteristics bonded together Not but any heating processing (which would have destroyed their discreteness), BUT bonded by cold fusion, which is still NOT POSSIBLE by Earthly scientists!

Instead of waiting 30 plus years trying to discredit Vogel’s findings on this ONE element called Thulium, why hasn’t Gerswin2002 look into the other materials as well? Sometimes people are so obsessed on one belief or disbelief they forget to notice other things in life that keeps on evolving while they remain stagnated on this one issue in the vain hope of achieving the perfect solution. Nothing is perfect, otherwise there is no reason for creation to evolve further and that also applies to beliefs or dis beliefs.

So if Gerswin2002 wants to continue on his endeavors to prove Vogel’s findings on Thulium wrong and ignore the other more important materials that Billy and the Plejarens have brought forth, that is his prerogative and we wish him well in his efforts. I wouldn’t waste my time on something that is definitely not my problem since I’ve got better and more interesting things to do.

One thing that intrigues me about this metal specimen is what reason or reasons why it represents the entire periodic table of elements and being the hull of their spaceships which is metal, yet at the same time crystal, it must have much deeper meaning and/or purpose other than just being the outside material for their spaceships?

--Hawaiian 06:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...

Hawaiian and Sheila,

As a matter of fact, I also analysed the other EDS X-Ray spectrum where he claims that the sample contains many elements. This spectrum is found in at the time mark of 7:12.

Here he Vogel identifies the elements Silicon (1.740KeV), Sulfur (2.307KeV) , Iron (0.706 KeV, 6.403 KeV) and then he goes on to say that the there are many other very small elements bands and that he did not attempt to identify them. Si, S, and Fe may very well be there, but the rest of the spectrum are not element bands, but what in EDS Spectroscopy is known as Continuum Bremsstrahlung Emission. This radiation, though part of the EDS X-Ray Emission, does not contain useful information about the elements in the sample. See the references below for more info:

So, in the mentioned EDS Spectrum, Vogel really only identifies three elements and he incorrectly interprets the continuum Bremsstrahlung emission with a whole bunch of element bands together.

This is the only EDS Spectrum produced by Vogel that I'm aware of where he tries to prove that there are many elements in the sample. If you have more evidence in the form of EDS Spectra (where he shows all the elements Sheila mentioned), I would love to see it.

--Gerswin2002 15:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheila said ...

I agree with your comments Hawaiian and had much the same feelings as you. Gerswin is not the first and will not be the last. He refuses to state his full name and position and whether he has any patents or whether he has any experience in cold fusion (LOL, I was looking forward to his reply on that but again he never answered that question). Gerswin, why don't you try this. Get a hold of the American government and find out if you can test the metal of the craft which crashed at Roswell. Then you could test it out first hand. Let us know your results.

--Sheila 17:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...

OK, I hereby retract all my arguments on the grounds that I do not have as many patents as Marcel Vogel nor do I have his credentials. I did not find a remove option in my account, how can I delete them?

Now, I assume we all agree that it is OK for anyone to look at the evidence. I really need more references either in print or video where Vogel's data is presented. I already have the videos Contact and The Beamship. Are there more videos of Marcel Vogel showing his EDS X-Ray spectra?

How about Vogel's notebook, the one he shows in the video? does anyobody know where this notebook is? are there digital scans of it somewhere? The Metal Alloy section of this webpage seems to concentrate more on listing Vogel's patents than on the actual evidence he presented on the subject. By the way, none of the links to his IBM patents work.

--Gerswin2002 21:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheila said ...

Again Gerswin - for what purpose? Are you just another debunker looking for his 15 minutes of fame? Well good luck with that.

--Sheila 01:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...

Sheila. Thanks anyway, I think I got all the information that I need. I'm writing an article for The Skeptical Inquirer. When it is published, you can finally see my credentials.

For now, feel free to check my complete analysis on our website:

By the way, if you Google "Billy Meier Metal Samples" or "Marcel Vogel Metal Samples", our website shows first.


--Gerswin2002 04:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheila said ...

Well that settles it then, you really are a nobody. Oh well, hope you enjoyed your 15 minutes and have a nice life.

--Sheila 05:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...

whatever you say Sheila. But I'm first on google search.

--Gerswin2002 05:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...

...and you are a nobody too.

--Gerswin2002 05:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheila said ...

Gerswin, I never claimed to be "someone" like you did. And quite frankly no one really cares about your damn ego. Funny on that stupid post of yours you claim that there are metal samples on earth that have all the elements, but you fail to provide any proof of their existence. LOL

--Sheila 16:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheila said ...

Here's a little background on what's going on here:

--Sheila 16:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...

Thanks for letting me know about this communication from Jack Sarlo. I will get that straighten out immediately.

--Gerswin2002 21:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...

I totally forgot to email Jack Sarlo back letting him know about the update.

--Gerswin2002 22:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...

"you claim that there are metal samples on earth that have all the elements"

That's not what I said, this is exactly what I say: "It is quite common to find samples in the natural world that contain a wide variety of elements in them." and I present proof of it with an EDS Scan I took myself of a plain uninteresting rock. I detected Si, Al, Fe, O, Mg, Ca, and C. If I bleach the rock, I add Cl to it; if I rub toothpaste on it, I add Flourine and Nitrogen. All those will show in the EDS Scan and I can make the sample look as though all those elements are "bonded together while preserving their own identity".

In the BEAMSHIP, Vogel shows evidence of Fe, S, Si, Ag, and Al. There is no Tm, as he claims. He incorrectly misinterpreted the Bremsstrahlung emission and I show exactly why. So far, my earthly rock has more elements than Vogel's samples.

If there is an EDS X-Ray scan taken by him where he shows all the elements of the periodic table, it is NOT in The Beamship or in Contact. I will keep looking.

--Gerswin2002 04:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...

From your own turf:

This is one of your own documents people. There is it: "Thulium, remarkably, showed only the primary band spike for that element--[in bold] no secondary bands existed".

That element was Aluminum, which has no secondary bands, and NOT Thulium. Thank you Michael Horn, I was worried that I wasn't listening right to the audio in the video.

--Gerswin2002 04:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheila said ...

Well that's a sure sign of schizophrenia, arguing with yourself. I think you should get yourself checked out Gerswin. You have again failed to prove the existence any metal sample which contain ALL the elements. Sorry but your rock only has 7 elements or perhaps 9, if you fudge it (which you seem to be real good at). But nice try though.

--Sheila 02:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...

Well, I'm done with the analysis and reproduced Vogel's results in full with earthly samples. Now, to write my article for the Skeptical Inquirer.

It was never my intention to convince anyone here to how much you all were fooled by Meier and Vogel. Quite the contrary, the more people believe them today, the more likely my article is to be published on SI.

So, please, don't stop believing.

--Gerswin2002 20:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawaiian said ...


In your own quote “Well, I'm done with the analysis and reproduced Vogel's results in full with earthly samples.”

So are you excluding the fact that Vogel has video evidence of rectangular micro machining with 90-degree angles (which never occurs in nature) surrounded by semi-circle indentations to indicate that some man-made apparatus was induced on this metal specimen?

It is obvious that you are not a scientist nor subject your “discipline” to rigid standards by discarding evidence to “suit” your own personal agenda. If Skeptical Inquirer does print your article, then it only shows how unreliable their reputations are.

At least we can say that Charles Darwin was a bonafide scientists, although he did “massage” his theory of evolution of man coming from the apes by filing down some bone fragments to make it appear there was a corresponding link between them, at least he did not throw away or exclude any other evidence as in your case.

And lastly, I’m sure you are doing this for nothing, so how much and who is paying your salary or what compensation will Skeptical Inquirer or they cohorts give you in return for your “scientific investigation”?

Vogel got and asked for nothing in doing this investigation strictly out of scientific curiosity, I’m sure he knew of the consequences of making his findings public but went ahead as any scientist would in making discoveries.

--Hawaiian 00:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...

Hi Hawaiian,

" Vogel has video evidence of rectangular micro machining with 90-degree angles"

Here is the SEM micrograph shown by Vogel in The Beamship: image042.jpg

This is at 7:59 of the video

Is this the one you are talking about? this is the only picture taken with the scanning electron microscope that he shows (all others were taken with an optical microscope), or is it? I hope you are familiar with The Beamship.

If this is not the SEM pic you talk about, please point to me on this or any other video that shows the SEM picture where what you say is shown.

BTW, I would be lucky if any of the SI editors even looks at my article.

--Gerswin2002 03:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...


If there is more evidence that I'm not including, absolutely let me know. I'd definitively love to see more SEM pictures and EDS X-Ray spectra from this sample taken by Vogel or anyone else.

Ivan A

--Gerswin2002 03:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...

You can now see my credentials.

--Gerswin2002 22:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sheila said ...

Hey Gerswin, I think you're confusing us with people who actually give a crap about who you are or who you think you are. I am so unimpressed I didn't even check your link.

--Sheila 00:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

RemR said ...

Hello Mr. Alvarado, aka Gerswin,

I checked your link to the article you posted on OpenMinds. Your argument is decent, when viewed topically and pseudo-critically. That being said, it also mimics the style of Meier's 'photo deconstruction' by fellow IIG member Derek Bartholomaus. When something looks similar to something else, that doesn't automatically mean that one has license to say that they are the same thing.

Also, even if the viewpoint about those metal samples is correct, which you have attempted to demonstrate many times here, that is only one aspect of the evidence in the case, and doesn't have any momentum when faced with the reality that there is so much more verifiable evidence, ALL things considered.

...It's like getting a big, bad, brand new Ford F-650 SuperTruck and driving it out onto some train tracks to prove that you can stop a slow-moving train with your impressive truck. It's just not going to happen, especially when you can't see/don't want to acknowledge the rest of the train, which curves around a bend and procedes to go back 10 miles further, and all of the train cars are full of either lead or coal. The truck is impressive, sure, but it's not going to stop the train, even if it's only going 2 mph. It might take 800 years to get to the train station, but it will get there, F-650 SuperTruck or not.

--RemR 20:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Gerswin2002 said ...

Hi RemR,

Thanks for reading my article. Unfortunately, the pictures that I used are direct screen shots from Beamship:The Metal. Do you know where I can get better quality pictures of Vogel's spectra and SEMs pictures? I have been looking all over the web for them and they are not in Wendelle Steven's Preliminary Report.

Thanks again for reading the article.

--Gerswin2002 15:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)